Sitting of 5 June 2003

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

    Inward Investment
    Helen Jones: What progress is being made with promoting inward investment in the north-west; and if she will make a statement. [116504]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): The United Kingdom attracts the lion's share of inward investment to the European Union, and we are keen to support the contribution that is made by my hon. Friend's area, the north-west. Last year, the Government and their agencies supported the attraction or retention of more than 50 firms, which secured or created almost 10,000 jobs, and we intend to continue that record.
    Helen Jones: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware that the Omega site in my constituency is vital to the development of well-paid, highly skilled jobs in the area. Will he therefore take a personal interest in the development of the site and liaise with other Departments to ensure that we have a procedure not only for the proper development of the site but to give people the right skills and to create the right public transport links to enable people from around the area to take full advantage of the jobs that will be created?
    Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend, together with the local council, local businesses and Government agencies—the regional development agency and the Small Business Service—has championed the cause of inward investment in her constituency and the surrounding area. Yesterday, I had the opportunity, on behalf of my hon. Friend, to discuss with the Minister for Transport the transport infrastructure requirements and the investment that has already been made. I have also discussed with the Minister with responsibility for skills the vital need to ensure that there continues to be a skilled work force with the appropriate skills. All in all,
    290
    it is a good news story. We want to reinforce the work that is being done locally and to promote those bold new initiatives to secure jobs for the present and the future.
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Is not inward investment a relative term, because the fact that other European economies have been doing so poorly does not mean that we have been doing particularly well? Is not the real problem that taxes and regulations mean that foreign non-European companies no longer wish to invest to the same extent?
    Nigel Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman is the only Member—I suspect that he is—who does not believe that there has been a world slowdown, especially in Europe, I shall enlighten him. The strength of our economy has allowed us to attract the lion's share of inward investment and, according to the latest figures, to increase the share of inward investment into Europe at a time when countries such as Germany have experienced a declining share. I hope that he and his Front-Bench colleagues will welcome the positive action that the Department of Trade and Industry has taken to ensure that we have as secure a base as possible for manufacturing and for the other sectors of the economy that have enabled us to ride the global downturn better than almost any other advanced country.
    Andy Burnham: May I bring the Minister's attention to my part of the north-west, where in the past two years we have experienced seven major manufacturing redundancies and lost 1,000 manufacturing jobs in my constituency? Last week, Peter Miles Engineering closed overnight, leaving 160 people out of a job—without even the courtesy of a text message, which seems to be the trend these days—and owed five weeks' wages. As well as looking urgently at the need to bring new investment to the Leigh economy, may I urge the Minister to do all that he can to speed up redundancy payments for local families who have been left in such a terrible financial crisis?
    Nigel Griffiths: I heard of that report; I understand that the company makes parts for JCB-type diggers. I have had the opportunity to apprise the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) of it, and he will liaise with my hon. Friend to ensure that payments are made quickly. Obviously, I deeply regret the loss of those jobs. I understand that some restructuring might be possible, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend kept me advised of progress on that.

    Post Office Closures
    Tom Brake: What recent discussions she has had with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters on post office closures. [116505]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): Department of Trade and Industry Ministers and officials are in regular discussions with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters about a wide range of post office network issues, including closures.
    Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for his response. Has he had a meeting with the federation since Colin Baker, its general secretary, described the switch from benefit and pension books to direct payments as confusion and shambles, and referred to the possibility of civil disobedience? Does he agree that that shambles, combined with the restrictions that are placed on the distribution of literature about Post Office card accounts, threatens the future of many thousands of sub-post offices around the country?
    Mr. Timms: I do not agree with those remarks. The important thing for everyone concerned about the Post Office—in the House, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and elsewhere—is to focus on securing a commercially successful future for the network. Thanks to the £500 million investment that we have made in universal banking, the fact that there are now 11 million current account holders who can go to any post office in the country and obtain cash free over the counter with their ATM card, and the fact that the £150 million a year funding support for the rural network was recently approved by the European Commission, the prospects for that commercially successful future are now very good, as long as we work together to ensure that we realise it.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend accept the concerns of sub-postmasters that if the footfall in our post offices falls, many of them will have to decide whether their businesses are viable? Why has Post Office Ltd been prevented from promoting the Post Office card account as a product in its own right?
    Mr. Timms: I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of footfall. That is why it is so important that we now have 11 million current account holders, many of whom will, for the first time, have a compelling reason to go into their local post office to obtain cash with their ATM card. The Post Office wants to increase that number, and a successful banking business is the key to a successful post office network. I have seen a variety of quite bright and attractive literature from the Post Office about direct payment, in which the Post Office card account features clearly. The important thing is that everybody has access to clear, accurate information, and I believe that that information is now being provided.
    Mr. David Ruffley: Will the Minister tell us what the average rural post office will lose in revenue in this coming year as a result of the ill-thought-out changeover to automated credit transfer?
    Mr. Timms: What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that there has been a very sharp reduction in rural post office closures—115 in the last financial year, which is the lowest for eight years. That is the result of our commitment to prevent avoidable closures—which is now backed up by the £150 million this year, next year and the year after—to safeguard the rural network and
    292
    the incomes of rural postmasters, and to ensure that there continues to be wide access to post office services throughout the rural parts of the country.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is my hon. Friend aware that, following a vigorous campaign by Labour councillors in Arbury ward in Cambridge, the Post Office has decided to delay the closure of Victoria road post office? Will he ensure that the Post Office remains sensitive to the needs of its customers and listens carefully to their views?
    Mr. Timms: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the campaign for Victoria road, in which she has been very active. I am aware of the progress that has been made in that case. We have provided specific funding to enable Postwatch to scrutinise each of the urban closure proposals, and it has put very thorough procedures in place. I am very pleased with the evidence that those procedures are working.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: The Minister will be aware that many small village retail outlets are viable only because they have income from the Post Office. He has told us this morning how many million accounts have now been opened. Will he tell us how many people still have neither a bank account nor a Post Office card account? What further encouragement will be given during the transition, and will people—especially the very elderly—still be able to hold on to their pension books?
    Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman asks an important question, and I can give him the figure. There are 3.5 million people across the whole country who do not have a bank account or a Post Office card account—the latter, of course, is very new. Our view has always been that it is important to give those people the opportunity to open a bank account because there are many benefits available to them if they do so. The Department for Work and Pensions has made it clear that, at the end of the two-year transition to direct payment, there will be what it describes as an exceptions service available for those few people who have difficulties with the arrangements that will be in place by that time. Their interests will certainly be safeguarded. This is an important commercial opportunity for rural post offices, and an opportunity to promote financial inclusion by extending bank accounts to many more people who, in the past, have just not been able to get them.
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: Is the Minister aware that more than three quarters of the people who claim benefits in the Jarrow constituency use their local post office? What is the logic in the Post Office's decision to close branches in Hedgley road and Bede Burn road in Jarrow? Will he use his offices to ensure that Post Office Ltd., which is on a different planet from Members of the House according to what we have heard today, resists any closures in areas of high dependency?
    Mr. Timms: I am not familiar with the cases in my hon. Friend's constituency, although I will certainly have a look at them. If he has not already done so, I would encourage him to raise his concerns with

    293
    Postwatch. Of course, all those people who use the post office to obtain benefits will continue to be able to do so under the new arrangements, through either a bank account or the Post Office card account.
    In addition, people who do not use the post office, but who have ordinary current accounts, will be able to go to their local post office to obtain cash. The post office will receive a payment for that, and there will be the benefits of extra footfall as people use it to buy additional items. It is widely agreed that the number of urban post offices needs to be reduced because the network is very dense, but, beyond that, the prospects are very good.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Why did the Minister duck the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley)? Is it because the Government are against small post offices and do not care how hard they make it for vulnerable old people to continue to collect their pensions in cash? Will the Minister confirm that Post Office management are rewarded if they speed up post office closures? That policy, coupled with the obstacles that he is constantly putting in the way of people who want to open Post Office card accounts, is leading directly to more post office closures and more problems for vulnerable old people.
    Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that the number of rural post office closures has declined so sharply. The number last year was significantly fewer than that when the Government he supported left office. We are making a great deal of progress. We have made the commitment to ensure that there should be no avoidable rural post office closures and we have provided the funding to make a reality of that commitment. That is widely welcomed in rural areas, and he should congratulate the Government on the progress that we have made compared with the failure of the Government he supported. His points about incentives for Post Office managers are simply not correct.

    Exchange Rates
    Mr. Win Griffiths: If she will visit Bridgend to assess the impact of exchange rates on future employment. [116506]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Although I have no current plans to visit Bridgend, I am well aware of the difficulties that the weakness of the euro, until very recently, has caused for British industry, particularly manufacturing.
    Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend would be warmly welcomed in Bridgend, where there is an important manufacturing sector; Sony and Ford are the two major contributors. Although I would not expect her to say anything about the euro, about which we will hear something on Monday, does she agree that something
    294
    close to the current exchange rate would be one that British industry could welcome in terms of any entry to the euro in the fairly near future?
    Ms Hewitt: I agree that the recent strengthening of the euro has significantly improved matters for Sony and Ford as well as for many other manufacturing companies that export to the eurozone. The views of those two companies and many others on the exchange rate and the single currency are very well known, as are mine, but the fuller answer that my hon. Friend would like will have to wait for the Chancellor's statement on Monday.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Will not future employment be affected not only by the exchange rate, but by the collapse in business investment and the slowdown in productivity growth? Will not it be affected by the worsening strike record and the deteriorating trade deficit? Does the Secretary of State accept responsibility for those failures or does she blame them on rogue elements in the Department of Trade and Industry? Is she aware that business people are today hoping that she may indeed be promoted in the forthcoming reshuffle? They are praying that that will be one case of rewards for failure that she does not attempt to block.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That did not have much to do with Bridgend.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. John MacDougall: What steps her Department is taking to increase the UK's manufacturing industry productivity; and if she will make a statement. [116507]
    The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): The Government's manufacturing strategy, published last year, identified seven key areas of activity for Government and industry that are vital for manufacturing success. We are taking action in all those areas to help British manufacturers improve productivity in very difficult global conditions.
    Mr. MacDougall: How much importance do the Government ascribe to research and development and diversification as ways of sustaining our manufacturing base in the face of increasing global competition?
    Alan Johnson: The manufacturing strategy puts great emphasis on research and development, which is key to the driving up of innovation. We have put £300 million from the comprehensive spending review into scientific research and technological development, and invested a further £100 million to improve the flow of skilled scientists and engineers. That is crucial if we are to succeed. We will not succeed on the basis of low pay and low skills, nor should we want to. The only way in which we can compete in a fiercely competitive global manufacturing world is by innovating and adding value.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the Minister aware of the latest figures in the House of Commons Library, which show that although there has indeed

    295
    been a superficially impressive growth in manufacturing productivity over the last five years—13.5 per cent.—it is derived from two negatives, a decline in output of 3.5 per cent. and a collapse in manufacturing employment amounting to 17 per cent.? Do the Government distinguish between manufacturing productivity improvements achieved through contraction and mass sackings, and improvements achieved through growth and investment? When do they expect to complete the transition from the former to the latter?
    Alan Johnson: We have never crowed about improvements in manufacturing, or in manufacturing productivity. Manufacturing is still going through a terrible time. It is going through a terrible time in Germany, it is going through a terrible time in Japan, and it is going through a terrible time in America. There are no easy solutions. However, the manufacturing strategy, which is about hard slog rather than quick fix, has involved the industry and trade unions and has established measures that should have been introduced many years ago. It will take a long time for the measures to bear fruit, but as manufacturing is worth a fifth of our gross domestic product, 4 million jobs and 60 per cent. of our exports, it is worth making the effort to help manufacturers.
    I was not aware of the statistics in the Library. I shall hurry away to have a look at them after Question Time.
    Ms Joan Walley: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the anger that is felt in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire generally about Waterford Wedgwood's shock announcement that it is to cut 1,085 jobs? We urgently need new, real jobs. No matter how productive factories such as the two that are to be closed may be, we cannot compete with labour costs abroad. Will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State to request the Cabinet to take a personal interest in what is happening in Stoke-on-Trent, and try to find quick ways of securing new jobs, retraining and other help for those who are to lose their present jobs?
    Alan Johnson: I sympathise with my hon. Friend and her colleagues in Stoke-on-Trent. It was dreadful to hear that more than 1,000 jobs are to be lost. I believe that the HR1 notices have already been issued.
    As my hon. Friend will know, I went to Stoke-on-Trent a few months ago and spoke to the council and people in the ceramics industry. They are having a very difficult time. Waterford Wedgwood says that it is moving to China, where labour rates are 70 per cent. lower than those in the United Kingdom. As I have said, we cannot compete on that basis. Protectionism is not the answer; the answer is to introduce measures such as those we have introduced through the Ceramics Industry Forum with the aim of increasing innovation and driving up research and development.
    The Department has contributed to an investment of £20 million in the Chatterley Valley project, which is expected to bring 4,000 jobs to Stoke-on-Trent. I hope
    296
    that that will, to some extent, mitigate the problems experienced by my hon. Friend's constituents following the recent announcement.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Minister's own departmental statistics show that manufacturing productivity has halved since 1997 and that over the same period 650,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost. Yesterday, we heard that jobs will be lost at Wedgwood and that 1,500 jobs will be lost at Cable and Wireless. The hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) mentioned the number of jobs that have been lost in his constituency. Are we not suffering the consequences of the Government piling more and more burdens on businesses and removing our opt-out from the social chapter? Does he have a manufacturing policy to reverse those trends, or is he just going to sit back and do nothing?
    Alan Johnson: Pick the nuts out of that one. According to the party that wants to be the official Opposition, we have increased manufacturing productivity. Now we are told that it is in a worse position. The two Opposition parties need to tell us what their pouch of fairydust is for solving the problems in manufacturing. If they have one, let us know about it.
    The hon. Gentleman said that one of the reasons why manufacturing is suffering is that we signed up to the social chapter. I am really pleased that he has emphasised the fact that his party still opposes basic workers' rights. I have not heard one manufacturer mention the issue of the social chapter. The Conservative party was not just an embarrassment to this country—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.

    Broadband
    Richard Ottaway: If she will make a statement on the level of competition in the broadband market. [116508]
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): The Government target is for the UK to have the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. The latest assessment indicated that at the end of March we had the third most competitive market—we are ahead now of the USA—based on measures of choice, price and regulatory framework.
    Richard Ottaway: I am afraid that the reality is not matching the Minister's rhetoric. He must be aware that in suburbs of London and in the home counties there are areas where broadband is not available. What is needed is more competition. BT runs an arcane system of registration before it will introduce broadband to an area. Will he explain why his party defeated a Conservative party amendment to the Communications Bill that promoted more competition in broadband?
    Mr. Timms: The reality is well ahead of my rhetoric. We passed the 2 million mark on broadband last month, only eight months after we reached 1 million. In April alone, another 163,000 broadband connections were

    297
    added. That is probably the highest monthly figure ever. The two million connections are evenly divided between ADSL—asymmetric digital subscriber line—and cable. There is fierce competition going on—exactly the competition that the hon. Gentleman calls for. In the ADSL market, there are more than 100 competing resellers of the BT wholesale product. Indeed, I received an e-mail last week from a company offering broadband at less than £19 a month, so the competition is working. We need a competitive market. That is what we are getting and we are seeing the benefits of it.
    Mr. David Borrow: What is the Department doing to ensure that public sector investment in broadband, particularly in education and health, can be piggybacked by communities that do not have access to broadband? In many areas, there is no competition because there is no broadband. If the public sector is investing in broadband, surely that investment should enable local communities in those areas to get access.
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is an important part of the answer in rural areas in particular. I am chairing a ministerial steering group addressing exactly the issues that he raises. The public sector as a customer will make a key contribution. We will spend £1 billion across the public services on broadband over the next three years. That will lead to investment in telecommunications infrastructure for the public sector, which will then be available to other users such as small businesses and residential customers. Our task is to ensure that we manage that process to maximise the benefits in areas such as his. We are firmly committed to that, as are my colleagues in education, health and the other public services. I believe that we can be very optimistic about the outcome.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: What representations she has received from the Wood Panel Industries Federation on the Government's renewable energy policies. [116509]
    The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): Representations from the Wood Panel Industries Federation have been received on the impact of the renewables obligation on the industry and, in particular, on the encouragement given under the obligation for the use of UK forestry material by co-firing power stations.
    Mr. Atkinson: I thank the Minister for that reply, but he has not addressed the seriousness of the situation. Some 15,000 jobs in this important industry are threatened because these so-called green power stations will be able to outbid woodchip mills for the basic raw material that they need—woodchip, much of which comes from freshly felled trees. Surely the purpose of these power stations was to burn biomass produced by farmers on surplus acres, rather than to consume
    298
    sustainable material that has a future in the furniture and kitchen manufacturing industries, and in the building trade.
    Mr. Wilson: A review of the renewables obligation is under way, and account will be taken of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, there is a further question, about an existing—perhaps I should say almost existing—biomass plant in Yorkshire, which I shall deal with a little later. By and large, the current problem is not an excessive number of biomass plants consuming all the United Kingdom's timber—on the contrary. However, it is clearly important that we get the balance right, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is offering grants for the growing of trees for specific use in biomass plants. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that full account will be taken of the points that he makes on the industry's behalf.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does my hon. Friend accept that the rather relaxed tone that he adopts towards the DEFRA review is not in keeping with the time scale with which the timber processing industry is confronted? For example, 50 per cent. of the available timber in Scotland has been bought by a single power station on the back of substantial subsidies for renewable generation. There is every possibility that in the ensuing 12 months there will be insufficient timber to enable Scottish processing plants to continue. Will my hon. Friend therefore accede to the request, made to him by a number of colleagues on both sides of the House, to meet him to discuss this urgent matter as soon as possible? I wrote to him two weeks ago and I await a reply; I am anxious that I get one as soon as possible.
    Mr. Wilson: The request for a meeting has yet to reach me, but I shall of course agree to one. I have never refused my hon. Friend—or, I think, any other Member of this House—a meeting, and I should be delighted to discuss this issue.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: We support the aspiration in the energy White Paper to increase the percentage of electricity generated from renewable power sources, as, of course, does the Renewable Power Association. Sadly, the RPA estimates that the Government will fail to meet their 2010 target of 10 per cent. generation from renewable sources—only some 7 per cent. will be so generated—and their 2020 target of 20 per cent. generation from renewable sources, with only some 12 per cent. being so generated. How do the Government answer this absolutely fundamental criticism of a central plank of their energy policy from those whom they expect to implement it?
    Mr. Wilson: The Government will fail to meet these targets only if a number of conditions have not been met. One reason why they would not be met is if we remained almost exclusively dependent for our renewables targets on hydro and onshore wind—the only technologies that are contributing significantly at the moment. That is why we are backing biomass, photovoltaics and wave and tidal. We have to extend the range of technologies that can contribute. If we start from a defeatist point of view and say that we will not

    299
    meet the targets, they will indeed not be met. They can and will be met only if we do a great deal to give substance to the words that we have committed ourselves to, and it is my job to make sure that that happens.

    World Trade
    David Taylor: What recent discussions she has had with the World Trade Organisation on the impact of international trade liberalisation on the relief of global poverty; and if she will make a statement. [116510]
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What action she is taking to promote the interests of developing countries in the world trade round. [116511]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I welcome the reaffirmation by G8 leaders earlier this week of their commitment to a successful conclusion of the Doha development round, which would bring significant benefits in trade to developing countries. That is why we are working so hard to make progress in the WTO talks. In addition to the visits that I have recently made to South Africa, India and Thailand, I have today accepted an invitation from Christian Aid to meet producers and farmers in central America, on our way to the WTO meeting in Cancun in September.
    David Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) said that current free trade orthodoxy is wrong in forcing poor countries to open up their markets to competition, and in reducing their Governments' protection of vulnerable industries. Does the Secretary of State agree with her predecessor that the World Trade Organisation rules of international trade are indeed stacked against poorer countries, in favour of fat-cat multinationals? Would not managed trade with a focus on poverty reduction be a better alternative? Why can the scales on ministerial eyes be removed only with a P45?
    Ms Hewitt: Since I became Secretary of State I have said that it is essential that market opening in developing countries is phased to take account of their state of development, and that the liberalisation of markets is accompanied by effective regulation. We saw the effects of the lack of such regulation in the financial disasters in some developing countries a few years ago. However, I do not agree that subsidies and long-term protectionism are the way forward for developing countries. It is important that we in the developed world listen to the increasingly urgent pleas of developing country Governments themselves—and their producers—who want access to trade, and in particular to trade on free and fair terms with the developed countries. The developing countries would also benefit from reducing the tariff barriers that they put up against one another.
    Mr. Chapman: The WTO is a rules-based organisation, and one of the key ways of helping developing countries is to provide capacity building to empower them to play by those rules. The most
    300
    significant current issue is the EU agricultural meeting later this month. The fact is that the best thing that the EU could do is to reform the common agricultural policy, in particular by removing export subsidies that effectively prevent developing country farmers from accessing overseas markets. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that she will do all in her power to press the EU on that point?
    Ms Hewitt: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I have been working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to that end. Our Government are the leaders in pressing for radical reform of the common agricultural policy across the European Union. Not only does the CAP cost the average European family of four an extra £475 a year on our food bills, but as my hon. Friend rightly says, it condemns farmers in the poorest countries of the world to absolute poverty. Commissioner Fischler's proposals on CAP reform provide an excellent opportunity to move that agenda forward, above all for the sake of producers in developing countries. I hope that the Agriculture Council will seize the opportunity and agree those proposals next week.
    Mr. Robert Key: Will the Secretary of State tell us where she will be on Saturday 28 June? Will she be in her constituency, as I will, supporting trade justice day and her constituents who are making a real effort to draw to the Government's attention the failures of the world's developed community in that respect?
    Ms Hewitt: Yes.
    Adam Price: Does the Secretary of State not accept that the liberalisation of agriculture is, as we have heard, a potentially double-edged sword for developing countries? The Government of the Philippines, for example, have argued that opening up markets to the large agribusiness conglomerates of the western world could undermine local food production systems in the developing countries.
    Ms Hewitt: When I last met the Trade Minister for the Philippines, his main concern was to ensure access to European markets for their canned tuna exports. That was a major issue, as the hon. Gentleman may recall, at the discussions in Doha. The main issue is to ensure that the European Union and the United States stop preaching free trade abroad while practising protectionism at home. The WTO rules already permit "special and differential treatment", to use the jargon, so that developing countries can open their markets in an appropriate fashion. That is the way to proceed and, with the majority of WTO members being developing countries, that is how we can proceed, providing that we in the European Union and the United States face up to our own responsibilities
    Huw Irranca-Davies: My right hon. Friend will know that protectionism is regarded nowadays by the international community not as a 13-letter word but as a four-letter word. How can we ensure that the same fate that befell Zambia, Haiti, Mali, Nepal and Peru

    301
    does not befall other developing nations? What measures will the Government propose to avoid unfettered liberalisation happening too rapidly in those markets?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Government have led the way in supporting investment in developing countries for trade-related capacity building, so that they can engage more effectively in the negotiations within the WTO, and also so that they can ensure that they put in place the necessary regulation to help them with a phased opening of their markets.
    Of course, it is possible for developing countries to take advantage of greater trade and economic reform only if they also put in place the necessary reforms to their own systems of governance. That is an issue to which we direct much support and attention through our aid and development work.
    Mr. John Bercow: I could not possibly be as unkind to the Secretary of State as the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) was. Given that protection and export subsidies in the agricultural sector of up to £1 billion a day now represent five times the level of international development assistance and are doing grave damage to the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world, does she agree that it is now time—consistent with what she has said—for the developed world to stop being so selfish and to start to recognise that genuine free trade, subject to the normal checks and balances, is the greatest wealth-creating mechanism known to mankind and the best source of help for the most vulnerable people the world over?
    Ms Hewitt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Our experience in the European Union is a good example of how countries—six of them, initially—came out of the devastation at the end of the second world war, through a process of free and fair trade among them, to the prosperity that we enjoy today. It is simply not acceptable that we in the European Union subsidise our dairy farmers to the tune of $2 a day for every head of cattle in Europe, when more than 1 billion people in the developing world live on less than that amount. Nor is it acceptable that the United States continues to subsidise its cotton farmers by a total sum significantly greater than the economy of several poor African countries. That argument is being made with increasing force in both the developed and the developing world. The issue for the Agriculture Council next week, and for the US Administration, is whether we will produce significant measures that will meet the commitment that we made at Doha to reduce, with the aim of phasing out completely, the trade-distorting subsidies that we put on our agriculture exports.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. John Grogan: If she will make a statement on the prospects for renewable energy plants fuelled by willow coppice. [116512]
    The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): The Government are committed to the development of all forms of bioenergy, including renewable energy plants fuelled by wood coppice. We provide support, ranging from research and development to the creation of a market for energy generation from energy crops, including wood coppice, through the renewables obligation and the bioenergy capital grants scheme.
    Mr. Grogan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the future of the Arbre plant near Selby, which is fuelled by willow coppice, has implications not only for the 50 growers who supply willow coppice to the plant, but for confidence in the entire energy crops sector? Will he ensure that a meeting takes place urgently between his officials, the new American owners of the plant, representatives of the European Commission, which has invested £10 million in the plant, and the Non-Fossil Fuels Purchasing Agency, which has a contract with the plant, to see if there is a viable way forward?
    Mr. Wilson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and contact has been made with the company already. The decision to sell to that company was made by the liquidator. It is very much in everyone's interests that there should be the sort of contact that my hon. Friend seeks, and that we do everything possible to encourage the new owners to take Arbre forward as an ongoing and, I hope, viable proposition. I should make it absolutely clear that we have never turned down any request for support for Arbre. It is, of course, open to the new owners to talk to us about that as well.
    Mr. Richard Page: What percentage of our energy will be provided by willow coppicing, and how does that compare with the possible percentage that could be produced through encouraging the burning of waste paper and packaging?
    Mr. Wilson: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman those figures, for the very good reason that we do not have prescriptive targets for each particular technology. There is a great deal of potential in the biomass sector, and willow coppice is only one of the sources. So far, however, very little of that potential has been fulfilled. I agree with the implication of the question, which is that waste technologies contribute more in the short term 'when they are counted as renewables, and they have the potential to contribute much more. I have visited a number of such plants, and I have been impressed with some of the technologies involved. We should not rule out any of the technologies, but it is extremely important that we test, sooner rather than later, some of the assumptions about whether the technologies will contribute anything of significance to the targets. We are putting a lot of money into biomass, and we want to see some return on it soon.
    Mr. Tony Clarke: My hon. Friend will be aware that most of the product burned in the renewable energy plants is not willow coppice but waste wood products. What is the economic or environmental sense of a subsidy that allows wood products to be purchased at £40 a tonne, when the wood panel industry can buy it at £20 a tonne? That industry

    303
    keeps 15,000 people in jobs. Instead of burning wood products and producing carbon, it recycles the material and ensures that the carbon is locked in. Surely there is a need for an urgent review, as was suggested earlier? We need to protect those 15,000 jobs and end carbon emissions to the atmosphere by recycling and locking that carbon in.
    Mr. Wilson: As I said in response to the earlier question, this is an important matter. A review of the renewables obligation and of any anomalies that it might throw up is under way. I should be very pleased to meet industry representatives and any hon. Members who might have a proper interest in this matter.

    Community Pharmacies
    Mr. Peter Viggers: What representations she has received on the future of community pharmacies. [116513]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): A very substantial number and range of stakeholders have been feeding in their views on the Office of Fair Trading's report, both through the appropriate Health Departments and directly to the Department of Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Viggers: Does the Minister agree that the present structure of community pharmacies provides a high level of access to patients, including vulnerable patients such as those who are elderly, in rural areas and on lower incomes? Does she agree that when the Government consider the OFT report it is very important that health policy should not lose out to competition policy?
    Miss Johnson: I agree that we need to achieve a balanced package in this area, and proposals for such a package will be offered for consultation before the summer recess. We have made it clear that we favour change to open up the market and to improve quality and access. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that access is very important, but we do not want to diminish pharmacies' crucial role in local and rural communities, and in respect of people who do not have easy access to transport.
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: I am concerned that my hon. Friend's comments make this issue sound predominantly a rural matter. However, inner-city areas such as my constituency have a disproportionately high number of elderly people who use community pharmacy facilities. Given the low level of car ownership among those people, is not it essential that the existing community pharmacy network is maintained?
    Miss Johnson: I can only agree strongly with my hon. Friend that community pharmacies are as important to inner-city areas as they are to rural and poorer areas. We have been well aware of that in our work to produce a balanced package. The Department of Health, which
    304
    leads on the health policy aspects of the package, has had considerable input, and it is very conscious of these matters.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: While I fully endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on health access, does the Minister understand that in rural areas, where there may be only one independent pharmacy in a small rural town, it will be difficult for that pharmacy to compete with large out-of-town supermarkets? Does she understand that such a pharmacy provides not only health advice but a range of social services advice, and that, when combined with the loss of many other rural facilities—for example, post offices, magistrates courts and police stations—it will be a heavy blow if the only independent pharmacy is forced to close because of full competition?
    Miss Johnson: It is for just that reason that we are balancing health and competition and that we have put the emphasis on continuing, and indeed broadening access. That issue obviously needs special consideration in respect of rural and more isolated pharmacies. Indeed, the Department of Health already has support systems for essential small pharmacies in any event. The hon. Gentleman may like to know that in March 1992 there were 9,765 pharmacies, as against 9,756 in 2002, so pharmacy distribution and the number of pharmacies has been maintained at much the same level over the past decade or so.

  MINISTER FOR WOMEN
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Iraq
    Miss Anne Begg: What action she is taking to ensure that women play a full part in a new Iraqi Government. [116564]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): As well as meeting a representative group of Iraqi women exiles, we arranged last week for a meeting of about 40 Iraqi women in Baghdad with Ambassador Bremer and John Sawers, the UK special representative in Iraq. That meeting was also attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who is now the Prime Minister's special representative on human rights in Iraq. In due course, I, too, shall be going to Baghdad to help to support Iraqi women's participation in the political and reconstruction process.
    Miss Begg: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. It is heartening that there are moves to get women involved, as I am sure that, like me and many of my constituents, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the many images from Iraq showing that all the people

    305
    involved in shaping the new Government are male. I fear that that does not augur well for the involvement of women in Iraq's Government. Is she as concerned as me that, if the Baghdad conference does not take place, women will be further excluded from any interim authority that is set up?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. She and I were both concerned that so few women attended the last conference held in Baghdad, and indeed in Nasiriyah. After the women's meeting last week, a steering group of seven women was set up. They are focusing on ensuring that women come forward and become part of the Iraqi interim administration. I agree that that is especially important if, as now seems likely, security considerations and the state of political debate make it impossible for the Baghdad conference to go ahead as initially planned.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Certainly, we believe that women should play a full and active role in governing Iraq, but the priority right now is that they are not safe and that they cannot live normal lives. There are daily abductions of women and girls throughout the country. For example, on 13 May, 13 girls were abducted at gunpoint from a school in central Baghdad, perhaps to be sold into prostitution or for human trafficking—who knows? Given that the coalition forces are legally obliged to maintain the rule of law, can the Minister tell us what is being done to prevent such crimes and to bring those responsible for them to justice?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Lady is right. The women at last week's meeting made it clear that of course security is a top priority for them, just as it is for the coalition administration. We are working closely with the American Administration and the coalition provisional authority in Baghdad, as well as in Basra—where the security situation, although not perfect, is considerably better—to put in place much more effective policing-type security to protect the citizens of Iraq and, of course, to continue protecting coalition troops.
    However, let me stress that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, who is still in Baghdad and with whom I was in touch only yesterday, was heartened by the signs of normal life returning to Baghdad, including large numbers of women collecting their children from school on the school run. It is not all bad news from Baghdad, and several of the Iraqi women with whom I am in touch in Britain are already planning their return to Iraq. Indeed, they are being encouraged by their families to do so.
    Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the superb job that she is doing in promoting the interests of Iraqi women. Will she particularly look at the fact that the US-led administration have appointed only male lawyers and male judges to the group that is working up a new legal code for Iraq? She will appreciate, as I do, the critical nature of the legal code when it comes to ensuring women's rights in Iraq in the future.
    Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not only for her comments but for the very active role that she has been playing in this whole process. She makes an important point, and I will bring it urgently to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and of John Sawers. In my discussions with Iraqi women and with a broader group of women from Muslim communities in Britain, it has become clear that we need to ensure that women Muslim scholars are fully engaged in the development of the new legal code in Iraq.

    Gender Equality
    Judy Mallaber: What steps she is taking to ensure that Government Departments promote gender equality. [116566]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Later this month, I will be publishing "Delivering on Gender Equality", which will set out policies and targets across Government for delivering improvements in this area.
    Judy Mallaber: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of that review, as Departments should be seen to be taking a lead on equality. On the specific issue of tackling pay inequality, now that the deadline for undertaking equal pay reviews across Departments and agencies has now passed, what progress is being made in implementing the results of those reviews?
    Ms Hewitt: The report that I will be publishing shortly refers to how we will deliver on the gender equality public service agreement target that we have already published. As far as the equal pay reviews and audits are concerned, I am glad to say that 67 Departments and agencies, representing nine out of 10 civil servants, have now completed their pay reviews and have submitted action plans. Those are now being pulled together in the Cabinet Office, and we will publish a summary report of the findings by the end of July.
    Sandra Gidley: The report is welcome, but the Minister may recall that a previous Minister for Women, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), first announced that the Government would produce an annual report in 1998. Clearly, the report is five years too late, so is it not yet another example of a part-time effort from a part-time Ministry?
    Ms Hewitt: I am very sorry to hear the hon. Lady falling into the trap of suggesting that part-time jobs are not worth while. It reminds me of some of the comments that we used to hear in the 1980s from the not then reconstructed brethren in the trade union movement, who used to say when the employment figures were published, "Well, those are only part-time jobs, so they don't count." I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Lady will want to withdraw that remark.
    The Government have published annual reports on how we are delivering on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. As we agreed for the first time last year the gender equality public service

    307
    agreement, it is not surprising that this will be the first report on how we will deliver progress towards that goal. We are making a great deal of progress and we will continue to do so, with or without the hon. Lady's support.

    Scientific Careers
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: What steps she is taking to encourage women to take up careers as (a) scientists, (b) technologists and (c) engineers. [116567]
    The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt): On 28 April, I launched a new strategy to improve the participation of women in science, engineering and technology careers. Central to that new strategy is the establishment of a resource centre that will move that agenda forward and encourage more women to take up and to stay and to succeed in science, engineering and technology careers.
    Dr. Naysmith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will she ensure that sufficient resources are made available for the implementation of that strategy, much of which is based on Susan Greenfield's excellent
    308
    recent report? Will she ensure that sufficient resources are made available to allow many of its recommendations to be implemented?
    Ms Hewitt: Yes, I will. We have already secured additional funding worth nearly £1 million a year to cover all the activities of the new resource centre. That centre will also put together a plan for additional investment to ensure that women with science and technology qualifications who are not in employment are helped to return to employment, which should amount to an additional £500,000.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: May I remind my right hon. Friend that many women scientists work at the National Institute for Medical Research? Their careers are somewhat uncertain because of the proposal to relocate the institute. Will she do what she can to secure an early decision on that, because it is causing significant recruitment and retention problems at the NIMR, especially for women scientists?
    Ms Hewitt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in shifting that question. As he implies, no decision has been made on the future of the centre. That is a matter for the Medical Research Council, which is consulting closely on the centre's future with staff and other stakeholders.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Can I ask the Leader of the House if he would like, please, to give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Dr. John Reid): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for asking a staggered question to allow me to get to the Dispatch Box.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 JUNE—Second Reading of the Courts Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 10 JUNE—Motions to provide for the carry-over of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill.
Motion to approve a money resolution on the Sustainable Energy Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
WEDNESDAY 11 JUNE—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be confirmed.
THURSDAY 12 JUNE—Debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 13 JUNE—Private Members Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 16 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Licensing Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 17 JUNE—Opposition Day [9th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 18 JUNE—Debate on "European Affairs" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 19 JUNE—Estimates [3rd Allotted Day]. Subject to be confirmed by the Liaison Committee.
FRIDAY 20 JUNE—Private Members Bills.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful, as ever, to the Leader of the House for letting us have the business.
The Leader of the House will know that he was quoted in yesterday's Times—accurately, I think—as saying:
"There have been uncorroborated briefings by a potentially rogue element — or indeed rogue elements — in the intelligence services".
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
"of course there was somebody from within the intelligence community who spoke to the media."—[Official Report, 4 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 147.]
Both the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister are making serious allegations about the intelligence services or rogue elements within them. In that context, will the Leader of the House reassure us that the Intelligence and Security Committee on which the Prime Minister placed such reliance yesterday will include that in its terms of reference and investigation?
310
In what I can describe only as the notorious interview with John Humphrys on Radio 4 yesterday morning, the Leader of the House—I shall quote from the transcript; I know how much he likes transcripts—said:
"Well it, you know the way we do things in this country is through Select Committees and I no more dictate what the Select Committees will choose to investigate than, than the Prime Minister dictates what the intelligence services will choose to discover, analyse and produce as information."
That was a touching endorsement of how he sees the role of Committees.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Intelligence and Security Committee is appointed by the Prime Minister, reports to the Prime Minister and, indeed, that the Act that set up the Committee gives the Prime Minister the right to edit or censor its reports? In that context, why do we have to place such reliance, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, on a Committee that is the Prime Minister's own creature? Why can we not have, as the Opposition propose, an independent and impartial tribunal set up by statute and chaired by a senior judge? Why are the Government so afraid of that, as they appear to be?
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday at column 195 the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said that "we simply were wrong." He meant the Government and was talking about weapons of mass destruction. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) said:
"the Prime Minister misled us".—[Official Report, 4 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 207.]
That is what those former Cabinet Ministers said. In the context of that, can we be reassured that both the Intelligence and Security Committee and, indeed, the Foreign Affairs Committee will consider those serious accusations by former Cabinet Ministers about the conduct of the Prime Minister and the Government in the run-up to the hostilities in Iraq? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman confirms that.
On a different matter—[Interruption.] Well, I can do more if hon. Members want.
Hon. Members: More!
Mr. SpeakerOrder. The right hon. Gentleman can do more only if it is about next week's business.
Mr. Forth: Mr. Speaker, next week can we finally have the debate on pensions—[Interruption.] It was promised on 20 January by the then Pensions Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). He promised a debate in Government time on the Green Paper on pensions that was issued in January. Yet in yesterday's debate the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), said that we would have a White Paper on pensions by the recess. We are now in the bizarre position of having had a Green Paper since the beginning of the year and moving straight to a White Paper before the recess without a proper debate in the interim in Government time led by a Pensions Minister because there still is not a Pensions Minister. Will there be a reshuffle to appoint a Pensions Minister next week and will we have a debate then? That is the question.

311
I should also like to know whether next week we could have a debate arising from yesterday's Audit Commission report. Does the Leader of the House think that there were perhaps rogue elements in the Audit Commission who said:
"The majority of trusts"—
NHS trusts—
"were finding it difficult to balance their books—some used new money, intended to boost services, to meet underlying financial problems. The majority of trusts were finding it hard to recruit enough extra doctors and nurses"?
The report went on to say:
"it is highly likely that growth monies will have been invested in funding the deficit."
It goes on further to say:
"The Annual Development Plan assumed that growth monies would be used to fund deficits by delaying project starts until the year end."
Those are very serious matters and they have been highlighted by the Audit Commission. I hope that we will have an urgent debate on them because they appear completely to undermine the Government's repeated claims that the NHS is in good health. Can we please have an immediate debate?
Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman was obviously so intoxicated with my performance yesterday that he missed the fact that we had a pensions debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "In Government time."] It is funny how quickly Conservatives get worked up. They should take a lesson from Mr. Humphrys who remains calm throughout. Secondly, we have pensions questions next week. We will also probably have a statement next week on pensions. I shall have firmer details on that later specifically to please the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the NHS audit. I always welcome opportunities to debate the NHS in all its aspects, including Audit Commission reports, not least because we are putting in twice as much of an increase than any other Government in the history of the service. We have put in tens of thousands of extra nurses and we have a new hospital building programme. A debate that highlighted the disastrous effects of the 20 per cent. cuts that the Opposition would impose on the health service would be worth having.
On the more important subject that the right hon. Gentleman raised—it is an important subject, and I want to make sure that, whether unwittingly or through mischief, no one misinterprets what I said yesterday, because there are mischievous elements around, some of them malevolent—let me repeat what I said on the "Today" programme. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has also read those comments in the transcript, but he did not share them with the House. I said:
"I have the greatest respect for our intelligence services."
I also said that I know from working with them in Northern Ireland and as Minister for the Armed Forces that they are courageous, loyal, professional, self-sacrificing, committed and dedicated people. Indeed, my life and hundreds—perhaps thousands—of other lives depend on those services.
312
The people whom I was attacking, whom I am asked to name, I cannot name because they are anonymous. The right hon. Gentleman might ask Mr. Gilligan, the reporter who has been producing reports based on their information, who they are. I do not know them, I do not know their status, but I do know that they have been undermining or attempting to undermine the integrity of our intelligence services, up to and including the Joint Intelligence Committee and its chairman. Anyone who attempts to do that is an enemy of mine, and I believe should be an enemy of those on the Opposition Benches.
I turn to the other question that was asked about the inquiry. The Intelligence and Security Committee, which has been dismissed for its deficiency by the right hon. Gentleman, was set up by the previous Conservative Government, and its terms of reference were established by the previous intelli—I almost said intelligent Conservative Government, which of course would have been a contradiction in terms. The terms of reference were established by the previous Conservative Government. I believe that that Committee consists of people whose seniority, wisdom and integrity should be unquestioned throughout the House, and I certainly do not question it.
It is not true that the Committee's opinions, publications or intended publications can he dismissed at will by the Prime Minister. What the right hon. Gentleman did not say is that—I quote from section 10(7) of the Intelligences Services Act 1994 which established the Committee—
"If it appears to the Prime Minister,"—
and the words that the right hon. Gentleman missed out were
"after consultation with the Committee, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of either of the Services"—
that is, our intelligence services, which the Government are determined to protect—
"or, as the case may be, GCHQ, the Prime Minister may exclude that matter from the copy of the report"—
in other words, after consultation with the Committee itself. I believe that we should have confidence in that Committee to discharge its functions.
Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Mr. Speaker."] I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Members get upset. I am one of those, unlike some Opposition Members, who have taken great pleasure in your rise through the House from the time that we were very young men. I have some good news for the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and some bad news. As he will have noticed from the photographs this morning, when the Prime Minister comes to the House with a tabbed book, he does not have a tab on it marked "IDS", which says a lot, does it not? The good news, as I suppose it is testimony to the stature of the right hon. Gentleman, is that I do have a tab marked "Eric Forth".
The bad news is that I am able to read transcripts as well. I have read the transcript of the right hon. Gentleman's defence of the Leader of the Opposition

313
this morning on "Today". Perhaps we can debate this next week. He was asked by Mr. Naughtie, whom I know well
"Why didn't your leader knock Mr. Blair to pulp at the dispatch box yesterday?"
The right hon. Gentleman said:
"Well"—
The transcript then says "(pause)". He added:
"that's a fascinating parliamentary question, and as I come up to celebrating my twentieth anniversary in the House—a great privilege and honour—I can reflect on that."
I will allow right hon. and hon. Members to decide how high in the league table of robust defences of our leaders that answer comes.[Laughter.]
Mr. Paul Tyler: The Leader of the House has referred to a transcript from the "Today" show—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Show?"] It is often referred to as the John and Jim show. As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the exchanges with the rogue element or perhaps rogue elephant on the Conservative Front Bench, may I draw his attention to the fact that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made no mention during his exchanges on "Today" that the Prime Minister got his war because Conservative Members voted for it? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise, as Leader of the House, that it is not only the credibility of the Prime Minister that is at stake now, but the credibility of the whole House?
Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I would ever accuse the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst of being gullible, but it is extremely important that the information that was given to all Members, including the Conservative Members who voted for the war, was accurate. Therefore I ask the Leader of the House whether he is prepared to arrange for a statement next week, or a debate, on the particular information that was given to the House—I will come to a specific issue in a moment—and the way in which the House will now deal with it.
Has the Leader of the House noticed, for example, that the United States Senate has set up a joint inquiry into these issues? Why cannot we in this place have a joint inquiry involving the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, to ensure that the whole issue is properly covered and that there is proper co-ordination between the two Committees? What arrangements does the Leader of the House intend to make to ensure that the reports of the two Committees are properly co-ordinated and brought to the Floor of the House?
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is the credibility of the way in which the House does its business and scrutinises Government that is on the line, as well as, specifically, the credibility of the Prime Minister. It may be that the Prime Minister and the Government will look shifty and slippery if the outcome is that we were led into war under false pretences but, not only that, quite frankly, the House will look silly for taking the decision that we did on false information.
I ask the Leader of the House specifically to consider the issue raised yesterday by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the former Foreign Secretary, with the Prime Minister. He asked specifically about the
314
issue of the purchase by Iraq of uranium for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. The Prime Minister said that he was
"not in a position to say whether"—[Official Report, 4 June 2003; Vol. 102, c. 154.]
that information, on which the advice was given to the House, was correct.
On 24 September, the Prime Minister said:
"we know that Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa."—[Official Report, 24 September 2002; Vol. 390, c. 4.]
That was repeated in the so-called dodgy dossier, which said:
"We judge Iraq has sought … "
uranium.
On 28 January, President Bush said:
"The British Government has learnt that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Obviously he was taking his advice from the British Government. However, on 7 March, at the United Nations Security Council, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency said that the reports were not authentic. Hans Blix called them a falsification. On 2 June, Colin Powell said that he did not believe that there was "solid enough" authentication.
When will we get an answer to the question of the previous Foreign Secretary? Can we have it next week?
Dr. Reid: First, the hon. Gentleman asked whether we could debate various matters relating to Iraq. I think that even the worst enemy of this Government would concede that we have made probably more time available to debate Iraq, the run-up to what happened there and its various aspects than any other Government have done previously in such circumstances. Of course, we will try to allow even more time, but we have to balance the priorities of the House.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman raised the question of the security services. I do not know how to make this any plainer to him. The nature of the collection of the intelligence means that thousands and perhaps millions of pieces of disparate information are brought together. Some of them are corroborated, some are not, some are human intelligence, some are technical, some are from above the sky, some are from beneath the waves, some are photographs and some are gossip. All of them are partial and fragmentary, so the job of making a judgment on that basis is a very difficult one, and it is one that I believe our security services discharge with fantastic capability and professionalism.
It is possible for human beings to make mistakes—of course it is—but let me make the distinction that the hon. Gentleman crossed over again in using the term "false pretences". For the past week, the allegation has been that information that the Government and the chiefs of our intelligence services knew to be wrong was put into the public domain. That is not an accusation that we might have made a mistake, but an accusation of dishonesty against the Government and the intelligence services.
Mr. Tyler indicated dissent.
Dr. Reid: "False pretences" repeats that accusation. That is completely and utterly untrue and it is a manifest

315
slur not only on the politicians, but on the chairman and everyone involved in the Joint Intelligence Committee, and we reject it. I make that absolutely plain as far as the Liberal party is concerned.
On the Intelligence and Security Committee, of course, on Niger and everywhere else, it will be able to look at the issue in the round and consider the specific piece of information that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in the context of anything else that may be there. That is up to the Committee. He also suggested that it is not adequate. Since he mentioned the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), let me use his words about that Committee:
"The Committee's work necessarily is not in the open. It would sharply inhibit the candour with which its questions were answered if it met in open session. Some hon. Members may imagine that, because the Committee meets and takes evidence in private, it provides an easy life for its witnesses."
That is what the hon. Gentleman implied. The former Foreign Secretary continued:
"I should disabuse the House of that idea. As one of those who has given evidence to the Committee, I can assure the House that the fact that the meeting takes place in private does not in any way diminish the acuteness of the questioning, which is just as testing as any in front of the press."—[Official Report, 2 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 578.]
All I would say is that I cannot think of a better way of validating the competence, ability and integrity of that Committee. Having asked for an inquiry, we should let it get on with it.
Kali Mountford: Can the house have an early opportunity to consider the findings of Cancer Research UK, which has found that fewer women are now dying from cancer? In my constituency, women have written to me about how highly they value local services, including not only clinical services, but aftercare. Should we not share those experiences across the House, so that where there is good practice, it can be shared in all constituencies so that even fewer women die from cancer and women get the counselling that they deserve and need?
Dr. Reid: Absolutely. I hope that those sentiments will be accepted throughout the House. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has highlighted this matter and that the Cancer Research UK report states that deaths from breast cancer are down significantly and that five-year survival rates for breast cancer are improving all the while. According to reports published last year by Cancer Research UK and the European Institute of Oncology, Britain has had the world's biggest decrease in deaths from breast cancer in the past decade. Since 1960, Britain has had the largest decline in breast cancer deaths in the European Union. I therefore hope very much that we will find sufficient time to debate that issue, as well as many other aspects of women's health.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: May I reinforce the request for a debate on the security services next week, which would allow the high opinion that the Leader of the House has expressed to be shared and agreed across the House? Such a debate would also
316
provide him with an opportunity to remind the House just how many weeks the Wilson Government lasted after the then Prime Minister announced that he was being undermined by elements of the security services.
Dr. Reid: I always try to find time for the hon. Gentleman, but he need not wait, because he could start to contribute by using his time not to attack those of us who were defending the security services, but to attack those who are spreading misinformation suggesting that the leadership and the security services are lacking in competence or integrity.
Mr. Kevin Barron: Can my right hon. Friend find time next week or the week after for a debate on the responsibilities of the media and its regulation in particular? He will know that, on 31 May this year, The Guardian ran on its front page an article about an alleged meeting between the Foreign Secretary and his US counterpart in the Waldorf hotel in New York. Today, on page 25, there is a 2-in column retraction of that claim and an apology for it. It is about time that we got some balance in media reporting in this country.
Dr. Reid: My right hon. Friend will not be surprised at all to know that I agree with every word that he has said.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: Will the Leader of the House confirm that, next week, he will be contacting the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the previous Government Chief Whip, to volunteer information about rogue elements in the security services and to give evidence following up the very serious allegations that he made in The Times yesterday?
Dr. Reid: If anyone wishes to find who is spreading the misinformation, they should speak to people who are claiming that information as the source of the stories. Those allegations were made to undermine the Government and the security forces. I made allegations about people who are unknown and anonymous, and whose position is not known, but on whose word the integrity of our security services and Joint Intelligence Committee is being impugned. I cannot stand by and allow that to happen. Given that the right hon. Gentleman previously held a position in connection with Northern Ireland, I would have hoped that he would be attacking those who are spreading misinformation about our security services, rather than defending those who are maligning them.
David Cairns: Ninety per cent. of the heroin on the streets of Hamilton. North and Bellshill, as well as Inverclyde, originates in Afghanistan. Given that, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the recent United Nations report predicting that this year's poppy harvest in Afghanistan will be the largest ever? We must take steps now to ensure that the poppy that will be harvested in the autumn does not become the raw opium that becomes heroin on sale in his constituency and mine. Does he agree that cheap heroin on the streets of Britain is not a price that we have to pay for the war on terrorism?
Dr. Reid: Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary.
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Will the Leader of the House find time next week to debate the appalling mismanagement of the European Union's aid budget, particularly with regard to Ethiopia, following the comments of Sir Bob Geldof, who described it as appalling and pathetic?
Dr. Reid: I am always prepared to try to find time for discussions on overseas aid, not least because this Government have a proud record on reversing the cuts that had been so disgracefully imposed by the previous Government. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman makes a point about criticism of how the European aid budget is disbursed in some cases and I know that the Government have had their reservations about that. Even if we cannot have a debate in the Chamber, I am sure that there will be an opportunity either in Adjournment debates or Westminster Hall, but I shall certainly seek to ensure that we pay some attention to that matter.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on the role of the oldest political party in Iraq, which was founded in 1934 and includes Sunni, Shi'a, Kurds, Turkomans, Assyrians, Christians and Jews, and works with middle-of-the-road parties in trying to establish pluralism and democracy? Should not the role of the Iraqi Communist party be a matter that is considered in the building of a new Iraq, and should not new Labour at least understand the nature of new communism?
Dr. Reid: I am not sure that I am qualified to answer that question.
David Burnside: Would the Leader of the House find time to debate next week the continuation of locally based and recruited security support for the civil power in Northern Ireland? He will know from his experience that there has been no time since 1920 when we have not had locally-based and recruited mobile armed back-up to the civil power: first the A, B and C special constabulary; then, in the 1970s and for the next 30 years the Ulster Defence Regiment; then, from the mid-1990s, the home-based battalions—now three—of the Royal Irish Regiment. For the first time ever, the security of the people of Northern Ireland is being put at risk by this Government. Will he find time to have that debate so that we can get a commitment from the Government to continue home-based, locally recruited back-up for the police in Northern Ireland—that is, the home battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment?
Dr. Reid: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be noted by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as well as by the Secretary of State for Defence, and I have no doubt that he will find opportunities, in Adjournment debates or in other ways, to raise the matter again.
Linda Gilroy: I welcome and agree with my right hon. Friend's confidence in debating
318
our health policies. May I urge him to have a debate on the Floor of the House on the Audit Commission report on the NHS plan, which would give us an opportunity to examine the way in which the investment to which he referred is improving capacity and bringing progress? It would also give us an opportunity to contrast that with the cuts proposed by Conservative Members and with what many of us believe to be a Trojan horse—namely, the proposal to have passports in the NHS.
Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. As I said to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I am pleased to try to find time to debate the NHS at any time, and that applies to the Audit Commission report. That report was based on a snapshot of the situation halfway through the last financial year. The NHS has moved on since then, and we are pleased that performance at the end of the year is even better. The resources and reforms are beginning to bite. Contrary to what the report implies, we expect that the majority of NHS trusts, and the NHS as a whole, will end the year in financial balance. I suspect that the demand from Conservative Members that we debate the report will quickly diminish once the year-end figures start to come out.
Mrs. Patsy Calton: Will the Leader of the House say what steps are being taken to ensure fair scientific scrutiny of the evidence for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I understand from a note that I have obtained from the Library that only one of the Committees concerned has a member with any scientific qualifications.
Dr. Reid: The hon. Lady asks about scrutiny of evidence. I have already made some comments about the difficult task that faces people in assessing and analysing the evidence. I have every confidence in the first step of that, which is the operational intelligence assessment that is being carried out by our intelligence services. I think, however, that she is referring to the second step, which is the work of the Committees and their potential capability for securing expertise to make judgments of a technical nature. I am sure that the Committees will be able to make arrangements to supply themselves with such capabilities, and that the House would want them to be able to do so.
Mr. Eric Martlew: May I ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a debate in the near future on the need to streamline the police disciplinary procedures? Yesterday in Cumbria, an internal inquiry that cost £2 million and took three years to complete collapsed owing to lack of evidence. It concerned a minor complaint about the misuse of police vehicles. It not only cost a fortune, but robbed the people of Cumbria of the dedicated services of nine police officers for three years. We need not only a debate, but new legislation to streamline the shambolic system that we have inherited from 50 or 60 years ago.
Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that matter to the attention of the House. It is certainly disconcerting in a number of ways. I cannot promise him a full debate on that particular issue, the details of which I do not know, but I promise to bring it to the

319
attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will find opportunities to raise the matter again.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Can we have a debate next week on the middle classes? I am sure that the Leader of the House will have noted that in Liberal Democrat News of 30 May, Jonathan Calder, who is a member of the party's federal policy committee, wrote an article about the Conservative policy of scrapping tuition fees. He says that it
?has a lot to he said for it",
but goes on to say:
"If the Conservatives do not speak for the stupid middle classes, who do they speak for?"
We should like to debate that rather old-fashioned concept with them.
Dr. Reid: That was obviously written for a member of the working class, since we have come to expect the Liberals to say to the working class that the middle class is stupid and to the middle class that the working class is stupid. That is in the nature of Liberal politics. I shall do what I can, however, because I think that we should always try to make opportunities to bring class analysis into these matters.
Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the sharply rising costs of living and working in London, not only from the private sector point of view in terms of business rates and commuter fares going up, but in relation to the London weighting that is given to public servants, which is quite out of line with private sector costs and is leading to a migration of public servants out of the capital?
Dr. Reid: As my hon. Friend will probably concede, we have done a considerable amount to assist people working in London through housing and various other mechanisms. I should have thought, given the nature of the subject, that Westminster Hall might be an appropriate venue to discuss it, because he is speaking not only about financial issues, but a range of measures that would enable people to recruit, to work and to live in London more easily than at present.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: May I express my sadness that so much of the time at business questions is taken up by Front Benchers, given that it is a time for Back Benchers to raise issues of concern? May I therefore raise with the Leader of the House a matter that is of concern to me—namely, that he has announced for next week a carry-over motion for the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill? Does he accept that that has proved necessary because the Government failed to provide adequate time to debate that Bill on the Floor of the House and elsewhere? Will he give me an assurance that he will, as a matter of urgency, review the whole programming policy to ensure that this House has adequate time to debate important Bills?
Dr. Reid: If I have in any way contributed towards elongating Front-Bench contributions, I apologise,
320
although I noticed that the hon. Gentleman's eyes were drifting in a different direction when he made his comments. However, I would not want to stir up difficulties on the Opposition Benches.
On the planning Bill, no, it is not that we have just discovered that we did not allow enough time for scrutiny. As I explained to the Front-Bench spokesman for the Liberal Democrats and to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, we intend to change some of he details of Crown immunity. There will be further time for scrutiny, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, rather than complain about it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to glance at the helpful reply by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) in last night's debate on the detention of Tariq Aziz? Whatever differences we may have about Iraq, are we not united in thinking that we have to ask the Americans whether such people are to be put on trial? That cannot be left for ever. We have to be careful about victor's justice and to show that the west has higher standards than other people who do not have trials.
Dr. Reid: We have always believed that the Iraqi leaders most responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes should be brought to justice, and that that should be done as soon as possible. There are strong arguments for allowing the Iraqis themselves to bring to justice those who have committed crimes against them. We shall therefore need to explore what kind of investigative and trial processes they can adopt. United Nations Security Council resolution 1483, which was adopted on 26 May—unanimously, I might say—affirms the need for accountability for crimes and atrocities committed by the previous Iraqi regime. It also appeals to member states to deny safe haven to those members of the previous regime who are alleged to be responsible for crimes and atrocities, and to support actions to bring them to justice. I hope that that answer brings some solace to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate next week in which we might receive an explanation from a Minister as to why there has been such a substantial change in Government attitudes to inquiries? In the first few years of the Labour Government, a number of inquiries—public and judicial—were set up to look into the activities of the previous Conservative Government. Since then, there have been no public or judicial inquiries at all into any of the actions of this Government. Why was the Prime Minister so happy to authorise inquiries into the previous Government, when he is not so happy to have inquiries into his own?
Dr. Reid: It may speak to the comparison between our conduct and theirs.
Mr. Brian Jenkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) launched sure start month earlier this week.

321
[HON. MEMBERS: "What?] He will also be aware that sure start, which is run by dedicated staff, works in some of the poorest areas in the country and with some of the poorest and most deprived people. [Interruption.] May I ask my right hon. Friend whether we can find time for a debate on this important programme, which will bring into relief not only the transfer of best practice and value for money but a recognition of the work that the staff do in those areas?
Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend will have noticed the mockery and scorn that greeted his references to sure start, a programme that has brought opportunities for well over a million children, some in the most deprived areas. I can assure him that, at least on this side of the House, we are committed to improving access to good quality education, affordable child care, early learning, family support and so on. We were the first Government to introduce a national child care strategy in England. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall look for every opportunity to implement—and to debate and discuss—measures that will build on that early success.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the responses that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on the issue of rogue elements, in view of the historic precedents and the propensity of senior Labour Government figures to allege that there are rogue element activities in the security services in order to get themselves out of a tight spot? In this regard, does he recall the interview on rogue elements given by his predecessor, the late Lord Wilson, which is recorded in Philip Ziegler's biography? Lord Wilson said:
"I might tell you to go to Charing Cross Road and kick a blind man standing in the corner. That blind man may tell you something, lead you somewhere."
He also said:
"I see myself as a big fat spider in the corner of the room. Sometimes I speak when I am asleep. You should listen."
Dr. Reid: If I ever find myself afflicted by insomnia, I will get the hon. Gentleman to read me bedtime stories; he seems amply qualified to do so. I cannot be any plainer: I just do not understand why those on the other side of the House who supposedly support our security services do not want to attack those who are undermining them. I make no apology for attacking and criticising those who have been impugning the integrity of our intelligence services as well as of the Government. Finally, while I am always willing to be flattered by compliments, I am afraid that Prime Minister Wilson was not my predecessor; I do not think that he ever managed to reach the dizzy heights of the position of Leader of the House.
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: I wonder whether, in any spare time that he might have had this week, my right hon. Friend has noticed early-day motion 1274.
[That this House calls on Ordnance Survey to review their decision to remove national park boundaries from the OS Explorer maps; notes that every national park authority is opposed to the proposal and that the
322
replacement illustrations of national park boundaries on the map cover will be useless in precisely describing park borders; affirms the role of the national park authorities as a point of information for visitors and local residents; regrets that under these proposals this valuable point of information will be made less accessible; and calls on Ordnance Survey to liaise with the Association for National Parks to ensure that national park boundaries continue to feature in OS Explorer maps.]
The motion raises the fact that Ordnance Survey intends to remove national park boundaries from its Explorer maps. If there proves to be no time to debate this matter next week, will my right hon. Friend at least ask Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to take it up with Ordnance Survey, because the representatives of all the national parks of England and Wales believe that removing those boundaries from the maps will deter them from carrying out their duties?
Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I do not normally start my response with the words, "It says here", but I am going to do so now. It says here that national park boundaries will continue to be shown on each appropriate map cover, but not on the map itself, as extensive research and consultation has indicated that the depiction caused confusion with access land boundaries. National park boundaries will, however, continue to be shown on other Ordnance Survey products, including the 1:50,000 scale OS Landranger map series, the OS Travel Map Tour series and appropriate digital map data. I hope that that gives some consolation to my hon. Friend.
Mrs. Lawrence indicated dissent.
Dr. Reid: If not, I will try to find other opportunities to debate the matter.
John Barrett: May I tell the Leader of the House of the real shock that many of my constituents felt last week, when the closure was announced of Ethicon, a world-leading manufacturing company? Will he find time to debate in the House what can be done to help our manufacturing industry, particularly in the face of jobs going abroad? Some of these manufacturers are considering short-term moves abroad rather than the long-term loyalty of the work force and communities that have made them world leaders.
Dr. Reid: I am sure that hon. Members will understand the shock that was felt by the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Few things are more difficult for a constituency MP than their constituents being afflicted by unemployment and huge job losses. I understand that myself, coming from an area that went through the decline of the coal industry and then the steel industry. I do not know the details of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I hope that he will agree that, in general, we have tried to compensate where there have been job losses, through taskforces and other mechanisms, and to create the right economic environment. I will certainly bring his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Hugh Bayley: Today, Lieutenant-Colonel Stuart McCrostie, the commanding officer of 2 Signal Regiment, returns from Iraq to the regimental barracks in York with his soldiers. On the eve of the regiment's going into battle, he wrote to me to say that it was his ambition to bring all his soldiers back alive. Mercifully, that is what has happened. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the regiment, and to wish 219 Squadron well, while it remains in Iraq? Will he consider whether there is some way for the House to put on record its appreciation of the bravery and professionalism of our soldiers in Iraq, and to allow us to thank them for the freedoms and human rights that they have brought to the people of Iraq?
Dr. Reid: I wholeheartedly support every single word of my hon. Friend's contribution. I am sure that we send collectively from the House our congratulations to the commanding officer and to 2 Signal Regiment, particularly as they are returning to York, which has been a garrison town for 2,000 years, as my hon. Friend is always ready to remind us, and because they represent success. Whatever differences we have in the House over Iraq, the one view on which we should have none is that, once again, our armed forces have shown that, pound for pound, they are as good as, and probably better than, any in the world. We should be immensely proud of every single one of them.
Angela Watkinson: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for an urgent debate on the right to demonstrate? I ask this for two reasons. First, there was a Greenpeace demonstration yesterday at a building site in Marsham street, at which one demonstrator took charge of a high crane. About 50 police officers were on duty around the circumference of the block. This morning there were six police vans full of police officers on stand-by. I would be interested to know whether any of them had been deployed from the London borough of Havering, where the sighting of a police officer is a cause for great rejoicing. The second reason is the demonstrations that have been tolerated in Parliament square, which I understood to be in contravention of United Kingdom law.
Dr. Reid: I am not aware of the first case, but I will bring it to the attention of the Home Secretary. On the second, I know that Members on both sides have expressed concern, but we in the House stand by and, indeed, represent the development of democracy as well as people's right to make their point of view known and to demonstrate. However, that always has to be balanced against the convenience and safety of all others in our democracy. That includes the House of Commons, so I will look into the hon. Lady's second point.
John Cryer: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 1126, which concerns community pharmacies and the barmy Office of Fair Trading plans to deregulate pharmaceutical prescribing?
[That this House congratulates colleagues in the Welsh and Scottish assemblies on their firm rejection of proposals to allow unlimited opening of pharmacies by large national retailers; recognises the role of the
324
independent community pharmacist in serving vulnerable urban and rural populations; notes that a 'balanced package of measures' may not necessarily be the best way to serve the health needs of the whole community; and calls upon the Government to follow the lead taken by the Welsh and Scottish assemblies and end the uncertainty about the future which is affecting community pharmacists across the country.]
This matter was referred to earlier at Trade and Industry questions, albeit briefly. If the OFT proposals go through, there could be a serious threat to community pharmacies and the big supermarkets will move into pharmaceutical prescribing. Can we have a debate on the issue or, if not a debate, perhaps a statement from a Health Minister?
Dr. Reid: We are aware of the concerns held not only by my hon. Friend, but by people who have expressed similar views. Although I am not acquainted with that early-day motion, I will have a look at it. I understand that it refers to what is in effect, at this stage, something with the status of a proposal on which we are consulting. Therefore, I am sure that he will find many opportunities to make his views known in that consultation.
Gregory Barker: The Leader of the House continues to stand by his allegations that there have been leaks from rogue elements in the security services. Regardless of whatever investigations are undertaken by Select Committees of the House, will he at least tell us whether the Secret Intelligence Service takes his allegations seriously and whether any internal inquiry has been set up to look for those rogue elements? If they truly exist, that would be very serious indeed. When does he expect that internal mole hunt to report? Will he allow the publication of the conclusions reached by that report? Is SIS taking his allegations seriously at all?
Dr. Reid: Let me ask two simple questions that might help the hon. Gentleman. Does he believe the BBC reporter who says— [Interruption.] No, he does not—fine. In that case, he does not have to believe that there is anybody in any way connected with intelligence who has briefed the BBC reporter. If, on the other hand, he believes the BBC reporter, by definition he must believe that someone has said something who is connected—[Interruption.] I do not know who that person is, as he is anonymous. We do not know where such people come from and we do not know what credit to place on this matter, but I wish that the hon. Gentleman would spend 1 per cent. of the effort that he is spending on trying to make rather trite cheap party political points in condemning anyone who is misinforming the public about the security services.
Gregory Barker: Is there an internal mole hunt?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Barker, you have asked a question and the Leader of the House is answering. It may not be of the desired quality, but none the less it is an answer. The hon. Gentleman has to be calm and quiet. That is the way it goes.
Dr. Reid rose —
Mr. Speaker: I think that the Leader of the House has managed to give a decent enough answer on that one.
Jim Sheridan: Can consideration be given to holding a debate in the House on the question of Government support for indigenous industries? Although many of us welcomed the decision on the construction of the aircraft carriers and the boost that it gave to shipbuilding and to sustained, long-term security for those who work in the major shipyards, a number of small, independent commercial shipyards at e struggling to survive. Will my right hon. Friend put pressure on the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence, for those shipyards do not have the luxury of waiting for those orders to come through? If we lose these skills, the community will suffer and we may not get them back. Therefore, we may not be able to complete the aircraft carrier contracts.
Dr. Reid: Without diminishing in any way what my hon. Friend says, he will accept, first, that the shipbuilding order placed by the MOD is bigger than any such order placed by any previous Government. Secondly, the DTI has been particularly active under this Government, which contrasts with the days when the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor as a. man with an empty in-tray, an empty out-tray and a full ashtray. In those days, of course, the Conservative Government believed that there should be no intervention at all to help industry. I accept that challenges remain, but the Government have not only made time available, but made great efforts to assist our industry.
Pete Wishart: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the voting system for Scottish local government is a matter exclusively for the Scottish Parliament? Will he join me in condemning the campaign started by several of his colleagues from Scotland to try to reverse the Scottish Executive's decision to legislate for fair votes, including threatening to review in this House the voting system for the Scottish Parliament? Would not it be better for the whole matter of the voting system to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament to keep it away from the petty feuding and bickering that go on in the Scottish Labour party?
Dr. Reid: Of course, what the hon. Gentleman refers to as bickering is political discussion. We have that in the Scottish Labour party, but I do not know whether they have it in the Scottish National party. If they have had it, it has not been very productive. I suspect that his deep interest in a change in the voting system results from the fact that under the current one there has been a huge decline in the SNP presence in the Scottish Parliament. However, I shall certainly bring his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
David Winnick: Can my right hon. Friend tell me what is new in out-of-control elements in the security services undermining a Labour Government? Has not that been the case since the first Labour Government came to office in the 1920s?
Dr. Reid: All I can say to my hon. Friend is that I have complete confidence in our security services, because
326
from top to bottom the vast majority of people in them are committed, professional, loyal and dedicated. That is why I get so angry when there appear to be one or two people who are prepared to put information out that questions the integrity of our intelligence services. I get even slightly angrier, although nothing normally surprises me about the Conservatives, when they jump on a bandwagon apparently supporting those elements who are undermining our security services.
Mr. Paul Goodman: The Leader of the House has twice been asked whether he will approach the Intelligence and Security Committee to give evidence on the serious allegations that he has made. Will he now take the opportunity to say whether he is willing to do so? If he is not, will he perhaps give the House an opportunity to debate the matter further?
Dr. Reid: You said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that I may not have been giving an answer of the necessary quality. [Interruption.] We are very open-minded in the House. There is another suggestion, of course, and an alternative—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should say that that was the opinion of an hon. Gentleman. I am quite happy with the quality so far.
Dr. Reid: Thank you. In which case, I say that there is an alternative solution: the intellectual capacity of those on the other side of the House in grasping even the most simple proposition is somewhat lacking. I do not intend to repeat the answer that I have already given four times, which the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) might understand if he reads it from the transcript with the aid of some of his fellow storytellers.
Joan Ruddock: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the situation in Burma? We know that the leader of the National League for Democracy, Aung San Suu Kyi, has been not only detained, but injured. We also know that the Red Cross has been allowed no access to her and that her deputy, U Tin Oo, was last seen being beaten up and has now disappeared completely. Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate in the House so that we can see what we and the international community can do to try to tackle the brutal regime in Burma?
Dr. Reid: Yes indeed. I hope that the whole House shares my concern and that of my hon. Friend. We are deeply concerned about the latest developments in Burma, and we have firmly called on the Burmese to release Suu and her National League colleagues immediately and to reopen the NLD offices and the universities in Burma. We are in discussions with our European Union and international partners on what further steps we will take if the regime does not provide immediate satisfactory responses on those matters.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Does the Leader of the House agree that the quality of parliamentary business could be greatly improved if we did not have to endure half an hour of questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland once a month? When he next speaks to the Prime Minister, might he perhaps

327
suggest that the rumoured forthcoming reshuffle would present an excellent opportunity to get rid of a Department that has clearly outlived its usefulness and to replace it with a Department that would deal with all the Administrations in the devolved regions?
Dr. Reid: Even while wearing my hat as a member of the United Kingdom Government with United Kingdom-wide responsibilities, I am staggered by the hon. Gentleman's attempt to diminish the importance of Scotland. I would have expected him to welcome the opportunity, for just 30 minutes each month, to discuss the responsibilities of this House, which have an immediate and important impact on Scotland. I am thinking of trade policy, macro-economic policy, telecommunications, the oil industry, social security and benefits—quite apart from foreign affairs and defence, which are of huge interest to the people of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman should think again before talking down Scotland.
John Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the restrictive practices that are being applied by NTL and Telewest in relation to the new directory inquiries system? They are not permitting any of their 5 million customers to contact the other 82 companies that are allowed to provide services and have paid a lot of money to obtain their numbers. Will my right hon. Friend try to arrange a debate, or get in touch with the Department of Trade and Industry and in particular Oftel, which has refused to do anything on the ground that five million people is too small a number to be bothered with? Perhaps one of the Opposition parties would consider requesting a debate next week.
Dr. Reid: I was not aware of that, and I thank my hon. Friend for telling me about it. If what he says is accurate, it is extremely disturbing, and at the very least it is something that I should bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I will do that.

Orders of the Day

  European Union (Accessions) Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  European Union (Accessions) Bill
    Clause 1

      ACCESSION TREATY
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      1. 33 pm
      The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): Clause 1 is central to the Bill. In crude terms, it will enable us to implement the accession treaty in United Kingdom law, paving the way for UK ratification later in the year. It should be recognisable to all who are familiar with past accession Bills. I have just had a very enjoyable lunchtime meeting with the Foreign Minister c f the Czech Republic, who hopes very much that he will be able to go home tonight with news that the House of Commons has sent the people of his country a positive message by adopting clause 1—and, indeed, the Bill as a whole.
      Subsection 1 amends the definitions of "the Treaties" and "the Community Treaties" in the European Communities Act 1972. In broad terms that grants automatic effect to directly applicable treaty provisions, and allows designated Ministers to make regulations amending existing UK legislation to the extent that that may be necessary for the implementation of the treaty.
      It is difficult to speak about this part of the Bill without rehearsing some of the principles discussed on Second Reading. I shall be brief, because I believe that there is a broad consensus on the principles of accession. We have separately placed the key facts in the public domain in the form of the explanatory memorandum on the treaty, and the explanatory notes and regulatory impact assessment relating to the Bill.
      The enlargement for which the Bill provides means that the cold war will finally be laid to rest. After decades of suspicion, disunity and enmity, the continent of Europe will be united, locking in peace, security and prosperity. Just over a decade ago, six of the 10 states that will join us in the EU next year did not exist, and one of the 10 was at war. Now all the accession states, bar Cyprus and Malta, are or are due to become NATO members. Security and stability have increased markedly within and between the accession states, and across Europe as a whole.
      Since the start of the association process 10 years ago, the gross domestic product of candidates from the former communist bloc has grown by 40 per cent. The standard of living in central Europe has improved dramatically. For example, the average salary in Slovenia has increased by 62 per cent. in the last 10 years. Central European economies have rapidly integrated with western European and world markets. When I visited Poland last week, I noted the remarkable change that is taking place almost year on year, with new wealth, new housing, new cars, new industry and new business surging forward.

      329
      The EU is the accession countries' main trading partner. As a bloc, the 10 new member states constitute the EU's largest trading partner after the United States.
      The final package for the new member states is generous and fair, but it is also below the overall budget ceilings for enlargement set by the European Council in Berlin in 1999. Although some Members have complained that the deal is not generous enough, it is in line with the new member states' capacity to absorb funds.
      Accession has helped and is helping the new members to address issues ranging from the protection of minority rights to the safety of nuclear power stations and to hygiene in dairies. They have had to reform and significantly strengthen their Administrations and their court and legal systems. All that benefits the citizens of those countries, and anyone who travels or works in them.
      Mr. John Bercow: Given that the provision for regulations—the need for which is not of itself in dispute—comprises the vast bulk of clause 2 of a three-clause Bill, can the Minister enlighten us on whether the Government are prepared to consider subjecting such regulations to the affirmative procedure? That would afford the opportunity of a full debate on the content thereof on the Floor of the House.
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question relates to clause 2; we are debating clause 1.
      Mr. MacShane: Profound changes in the business environment have also taken place—for example, the creation of food standards agencies, telecoms regulators, labour inspectorates and insurance market supervisors. Enlargement is improving environmental standards across the continent as well as health and safety standards. That applies to food safety and the quality of food exports to the United Kingdom, consumer protection and employment practice. Enlargement has also improved human rights. The new member states have had to align their human rights law and practices with EU standards, and they are required to have taken on board by the point of accession the Community's acquis prohibiting racial and other forms of discrimination.
      Bob Spink: The Minister mentioned trade and exports. How will the accession of the whole island of Cyprus affect exports from the north of the island, and what changes will there be to visa requirements?
      Mr. MacShane: The status of the northern part will remain the same. We are optimistic that before accession on 1 May next year a united Cyprus, along the lines of the Kofi Annan plan, will enter the EU. I take great heart, as I believe do all Members, from the remarkable sight of the people of Cyprus voting with their feet against some of the most reactionary political advice that they have received in recent years.
      The prospect of enlargement is helping us to boost cooperation between present and future member states in tackling organised crime, drug trafficking and people smuggling. Acceding countries are bringing their police forces up to EU standards, and will participate in EU anti-crime institutions.
      330
      There is certainly more for the new member states to do. The Commission continues to monitor their implementation of their negotiating commitments. We welcome that monitoring, which serves as both an encouragement to the new members to continue their efforts and an assurance to the existing member states.
      The Commission will issue a comprehensive report in November this year. If necessary, that will advise on the potential use of the safeguards in the treaty for issues such as the functioning of the single market and mutual recognition of civil and criminal law. However, neither monitoring nor safeguards will affect accession itself. Subject to ratification by the 25 states, the treaty will enter into effect for all 25 states on 1 May next year. The signs so far are promising. Referendums have been won in Malta, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania and Slovakia. We have high hopes for Poland this weekend, for the Czech Republic a little later and for Latvia and Estonia in September. The message is clear and loud: saying yes to Europe is popular among those who know the value of freedom and who liberated themselves from communism.
      Subsection (2) approves, for the purpose of section 12 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, the provisions of the accession treaty in so far as they relate to the powers of the European Parliament. As in previous accession Bills, the inclusion of that provision is a precautionary measure to put beyond doubt Parliament's approval of those parts of the treaty that deal with the powers of the European Parliament.
      The accession treaty does not create new powers for the Parliament, but it increases the field of application of the existing powers of the Parliament. Article 11 of the Act of Accession provides for an allocation of MEPs to all 25 member states for the electoral term beginning in June 2004. The figures allocated to each member state were foreshadowed in the relevant protocol and declaration of the Nice treaty, but have been adjusted to take into account the fact that neither Bulgaria nor Romania will accede next year. Minor adjustments were also made to reflect more accurately the sizes of the Hungarian and Czech populations.
      Like other existing member states, the UK will see a reduction in the number of its MEPs in the new Parliament; it will decrease from 87 to 78. That is a fair price to pay for an efficient enlargement. Those changes will be implemented in the UK through the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003, which has recently become law.
      Mr. Richard Spring: I thank the Minister for setting out what is in clause 1. Of course, we endorse both the sentiments behind it and what is in the clause, but I remind the Committee of the Copenhagen criteria that were set 10 years ago for the accession process. The criteria demanded that, before a state could be considered for membership of the EU, it must possess the following attributes. An applicant must have stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the protection of minorities. An applicant must have a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competitive pressures in the single market of the EU. An applicant must be able to take on the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union. Lastly, the applicant must create the

      331
      conditions for its integration through the adjustment of its administrative structures, so that European Community legislation transposed into national legislation can be implemented effectively through appropriate administrative and judicial structures.
      I agree with the Minister. He said that the moves have had in many instances a salutary effect on internal reforms in the accession countries. Equally, it has been a very heavy load for some of those countries, with the 85,000 pages of the acquis communautaire. I pay tribute to the officials in the accession countries for their hard work and dedication to bringing this historic moment about.
      Sir Alan, I hope that you will allow me the indulgence of saying a few words about each of the accession countries, because this is an extremely important moment. Each of the accession countries has something special to offer our European partners. In Britain, perhaps too little is known about them but I hope that, as a result of what we are doing today and the accession process, many millions of Britons will take the opportunity to experience the beauties of central and eastern Europe and to get to know about the political systems there.
      1.45 pm
      Malta is well known to us. It is a cherished and valuable member of the Commonwealth. We remember it for its bravery in the second world war and it is a considerable economic success story. The Baltic states have their own rich heritage. Estonia is famous for its beauty. What has characterised Estonia above all is its clear commitment to liberal economics. It has reduced taxation and is having to reimpose tariffs and subsidies—[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) finds this so amusing. I am trying to record for the purposes of the Committee how pleased we are, and to pay tribute to what those countries have done.
      Mr. Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Spring: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was being extremely discourteous.
      The result has been excellent economic growth. Latvia has one of the great cities, Riga. It celebrated its 800th anniversary last year. I hope that it will celebrate its 801st in the EU. Lithuania has a rich history and we welcome it into the EU. It has long fought for independence. It has a unique culture and it will act as a gateway and bridge to Russia, as will all the Baltic states.
      Perhaps more than any other country, Poland suffered grievously in the previous century. It is now free from communist subjugation. The fall of the Berlin wall opened up the whole process; in effect, it began to crumble in Gdansk. I was lucky enough to visit Poland last year. Again, Poland will play an important part in the European Union and help us to open links with countries such as Belarus and Ukraine.
      The Czech Republic lies at the heart of Europe. Prague is perhaps the most famous European city between Vienna and St. Petersburg. Again, it has a rich
      332
      history. The country stood up for freedom strongly during the communist era. Similarly, the British people will, I am sure, be more aware of Slovakia. We pay tribute to what has happened there and to the harmonious relationships that have been built between the Slovakian majority and Hungarian minority.
      Hungary's national spirit was fiercest in the resistance against communist tyranny. It now has a sturdy democracy and a growing economy. Budapest is recognised now as one of the great cities of Europe.
      Slovenia is an exemplar in a troubled part of the world. Alone of the former Yugoslav republics, it has avoided the horrors of civil strife. [Interruption.]
      The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I do not want sedentary discussion going on and disturbing the debate. Nothing is out of order. If anything occurs that is out of order, I will rule it so. The clause deals with the accession of certain countries to the European Union. It seems therefore perfectly in order that some discussion should take place about those countries. However, I expressed the hope to some hon. Members before the debate that it should not be a slavish repetition of the Second Reading debate.
      Mr. Spring: Thank you, Sir Alan.
      On Cyprus, the whole Committee will recognise that this is something of a bittersweet moment because the special representative of the United Kingdom, Lord Hannay, has just been withdrawn, according to this morning's newspapers. I salute his efforts and those of Kofi Annan, but Cyprus is not joining as a united country. We regret the collapse of the negotiations process and what happened at the end of March. Our position has always been clear: we support a bi-zonal, bi -communal federal structure for a united island. I hope that, despite that terrific setback—as the Minister said, we saw a great outpouring and a total lack of rancour between the two groups on the island when they were allowed to meet in a limited way—it will be possible for the process to move on. The Republic of Cyprus has prospered, but that has not been true of Turkish north Cyprus. It is important that some arrangement be entered into that will result in prosperity for all parts of the island.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: In paying tribute to the emerging countries, does the hon. Gentleman agree that they prize their independence, and that it is important that, as we go forward, we do not become an embattled Europe but bear in mind the whole world when talking about free trade?
      Mr. Spring: I very much agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. Free trade and flexibility must be key elements in making the European Union enduring and successful in the years to come.
      I greatly applaud the measures taken by the Republic of Cyprus in respect of Turkish north Cyprus. It made several suggestions on 30 April, including greater freedom of movement of goods for citizens living in the Turkish part of the island, and of persons and vehicles. It also made suggestions concerning employment rights,

      333
      medical care and participation in international events. I hope that, despite the setback, there can be a coming together.
      Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman referred to Lord Hannay's withdrawal, but his mandate has simply come to its natural end. He is a superb servant of the Foreign Office and the Crown. He is well into his retirement and has given immense energy and time to trying to bring the people of Cyprus together. I simply want to place on the record, in front of the Committee of the whole House, all our thanks for the magnificent work that he has done. I hope that the spirit of Hannay will allow a united Cyprus to join the EU before next May.
      Mr. Spring: I am very grateful to the Minister for those comments—obviously, what I read in one of this morning's newspapers was not entirely accurate. However, the fact is that Lord Hannay's tenure is coming to an end, and I am very happy to endorse the Minister's comments. Indeed, I did say that Lord Hannay has played an important part—[Interruption.] Perhaps the newspaper report originated from a rogue element—I do not know. I salute Lord Hannay and all those who have tried to bring about reconciliation. Cyprus is an island with which we have strong historical links, and there are Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities here in the United Kingdom that enrich our own national life. It seems tragic that at this moment in history, as the 10 accession countries are joining, one of them should not be united.
      I am grateful to you, Sir Alan, for allowing me to make those comments about the accession countries, which have different histories, cultures and traditions. We very much welcome their joining the European Union, and that applies in the context of clause 1 of the Bill.
      Keith Vaz: I shall speak very briefly, and I do not of course wish to repeat everything that was said on Second Reading. I want to begin by congratulating the Minister for Europe on all the work that he and his Department have done in respect of enlargement. He has been assiduous in visiting all the enlargement countries. Indeed, he has just come back from Poland, and his visit perhaps overshadowed even that of our own Prime Minister and President Bush, so well did the Polish receive him. We have reunited the continent of Europe, and reunited the Minister for Europe with members of his own family in Poland.
      I am very pleased that the Minister has launched a campaign in this country—I understand that it is supported by the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats—to inform people about the enlargement process. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) is absolutely right: people do not know enough about the enlargement process, and the work that the Minister is doing in taking the message to the people of this country will help us enormously.
      It is always interesting to listen to the hon. Member for West Suffolk. I am grateful to him for repeating the names of all the applicant countries. Of course, the Conservatives' position has changed. At the time of the Nice treaty, they were in favour—as was the hon. Gentleman—of a referendum on Nice, thereby seeking to block the enlargement process. I was therefore
      334
      delighted that, when the Conservative party called for a Division when this matter was debated on Second Reading, they voted in favour of enlargement; indeed, nobody voted against it. That unanimity is a bit late in coming, but we welcome such support.
      All that we did not hear from the hon. Gentleman was an analysis of the voting during the Eurovision song contest, but perhaps that will come when he discusses clause 2. However, it is important that we pay tribute to these countries, which have worked extremely hard. The timetable set by our Prime Minister and others is being realised—perhaps sooner than many of us anticipated.
      I want to raise one final point with the Minister, relating to his letter to me of 4 June. Page 2, paragraph 3 of that letter deals with early-warning letters sent by the Commission to the applicant countries—an issue that he mentioned in his speech. In considering this part of the Bill on Second Reading, I raised with the Minister the issue of countries such as Poland, which have received early-warning letters. I sought an assurance from him that their receiving such letters did not bar them from acceding to the European Union in May 2004, and he wrote to me giving that assurance. However, I am worried about paragraph 3 of that letter, in which he says that if the early-warning letters and the report that will be published in November show that some countries have not reached the necessary standard, those countries, if no safeguards are already agreed in the negotiations, will face the prospect of infraction proceedings as soon as they join.
      That would be a terrible end to a very long process. Many of these countries have worked hard for a number of years in order to join the European Union. To say to those countries that, once they join, infraction proceedings may be started against them if there are no safeguards, is surely the wrong message to send. At this stage, we should be making sure that they meet the established criteria. I want the Government to do as much as they possibly can to help the applicant countries to achieve the benchmarks set by the Commission. We should not leave that task to the Commission. As the Minister has said, we have good relations with many of these countries. Why do we not give them whatever support they need to make sure that they resolve the problems described in the early-warning letters?
      The prospect of infraction proceedings against those countries is awful, and I hope that we can ensure that we meet the criteria in a proper and effective way. If that means giving them more resources, we should do so. I know that the Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others have launched various action plans with the applicant countries, but if they need more support perhaps we should arrange the secondment of some of our civil servants. Indeed, we should help them in any way that we can, because there are still several months to go before they sign the treaty and accede.
      I support the Bill and I hope that the clause will go through unamended.
      Lembit Öpik: I want to speak briefly about the importance of clause 1 to the Baltic states and specifically to Estonia, for obvious reasons. During the collapse of the Soviet Union, The Irish Times ran a cartoon depicting Estonia as a greenhouse filled

      335
      with burly Russians chucking the local population around. The caption said simply, "People who live in glasnost shouldn't throw Estonians." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Thank you very much. Estonia has come a long way since then. It had much to fear from the USSR, but I would suggest that the United Kingdom has nothing to fear from the implications of clause 1 and the benefits that it will bring to Estonia and the other Baltic states.
      The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) correctly highlighted the importance of the four Copenhagen criteria, and I am glad to say that Estonia is certainly equipped to achieve the requirements of those criteria. Indeed, it has a great deal of common ground with the existing full members of the European Union, and particularly with the United Kingdom. Common points include a concern about the harmonisation of tax policy, an eagerness for reform of the common agricultural policy, a concern about over-centralisation of decision making and a healthy support for the tenets of competitive markets. Indeed, Estonia sees itself as a worthy competitor in a positive way, and clause 2 will have some very important benefits with regard to the movement of workers.
      Estonia very much supports the belief that NATO must continue. In terms of many other policy areas, clause 1 simply enables countries that already have a great deal of cultural and spiritual commonality with existing members of the European Union to play their full part. I am grateful for the fact that the UK showed such generosity to my parents by allowing them to come here as refugees during the second world war. I hope that the implementation of clause 1 will give Estonia the opportunity to repay the gratitude that it feels for the help given to so many refugees.
      Keith Vaz: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the most famous person of Estonian origin in the country lives in my constituency and happens to be his mother. What more does he think that we can do to encourage the communities that are settled here permanently to get involved in the enlargement process?
      2 pm
      Lembit Öpik: I shall not go too far into that, because we risk rerunning Second Reading. However, I agree that there may not be sufficient awareness of what clause 1 and the Bill as a whole will achieve. If clause 1 is agreed, and I suspect that it will be, we will have the opportunity to inform members of communities from the 10 countries of the potential benefits. That could also prove beneficial in respect of whatever referendum the Government decide to introduce.
      Dr. Alan Whitehead: In recording the importance to the Baltic states of the accession arrangements—and, indeed, the future role of the Baltic states in Europe—what does the hon. Gentleman think about the important discussions that have taken place, particularly in Lithuania, about Kaliningrad? What will be the implications for good working and trading relationships, particularly through Lithuania and Poland, with Russia? The Baltic states have done good work on behalf of the whole EU in
      336
      making such arrangements possible, thus avoiding what could have been a flashpoint and point of contention in future years.
      Lembit Öpik: I did not intend to cover the point, but it is true, as the hon. Member for West Suffolk said, that clause 1 is beneficial not just to the Baltic states, but, in providing an active and direct economic and cultural interface with Russia to the European Union. That will allow for greater political stability and confidence, and a reduction of the danger of military problems breaking out in that area. I shall leave it at that for now.
      To conclude, as the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said, my mother lives in his constituency. As a Liberal Democrat, I sometimes feel that she is too keen a supporter of his constituency work. I hope that the clause will be passed, and I remind hon. Members that the Baltic states have a long memory and that they are truly grateful for the support of the UK in the past. As I said, clause 1 will provide an opportunity to repay that gratitude, and I hope that the country will shift from being good neighbour of the European Union to a full member of the team.
      Mr. David Wilshire: Because I want to raise some issues that might prompt Government Members to wonder where I am coming from, I should like to clear the decks before I go on to the detail, and make a couple of points absolutely clear. First, I support enlargement. I have no problem with it, and I never have had a problem with it. I also support the Bill in principle and have no difficulty with it; as Labour Members can imagine, there are a few buts to follow in a moment.
      In the past, Conservative Members might have said that there should be a referendum on enlargement. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said that he was glad that we had moved on from that, because it meant that we were against enlargement. However, what he needs to understand is that championing the idea of consulting the people of this country does not necessarily mean that we are against something. It simply means that we want to invite the people to have their say. I make no apologies for wanting referendums and I do not accept the view that any party that supports a referendum is committing itself to campaigning for a yes or a no, or even to campaign at all. It means that an issue is so important that the people's views matter. If the hon. Member for Leicester, East does not want to bother to listen to his constituents, some of us will ensure that they understand that he could not care less about them, but does what he believes is in his and his party's best interest. I feel sorry for him if that is what he thinks.
      Secondly, I want to make it clear from the outset that I am not in favour of leaving the European Union. If people think otherwise, they have got it wrong; I am still in favour of belonging to what I voted yes to in the referendum held in the past. I have no wish to leave it, only to change what we have now, which is a wholly different issue and way beyond the scope of clause 1. I make that point clear because the Minister for Europe made the usual assumption that it is a matter for rejoicing when people vote in favour of the European Union in referendums. He rejoiced in the fact that people in the applicant countries voted yes to Europe. I wish the Minister would stop claiming that the

      337
      European Union equals Europe. The atlas on my bookshelf at home does not have a hole torn out where Switzerland is and does not end on the western boundaries of Sweden. Europe is not the European Union and the claim that anything that happens in favour of the enlargement of the EU has something to do with Europe is simply misleading.
      In his opening remarks, the Minister also rejoiced—
      Mr. MaeShane: If it would help the hon. Gentleman, I am happy to say that I rejoiced in the fact that the countries voted yes to Europe, minus Switzerland and Norway.
      Mr. Wilshire: It is not as simple as that, but we will not go down that road, because I suspect that you would rule me out of order, Sir Alan.
      The Minister said that huge numbers of people were enthusiastic about joining the European Union. It is tempting to point out the size of the majorities in favour in the referendums, and it is even more telling—and helps to put the debate into perspective—to examine the turnout. If we then deduct from the turnout the numbers who voted no, things do not look so rosy for the Minister. In Malta 53 per cent. of the electorate voted, in Slovenia 60 per cent.—perhaps a good showing. In Lithuania 63 per cent. voted—even better. In Slovakia only 52 per cent. managed to vote—only 2 per cent. more than was required to make it a valid referendum—and in Hungary only 45 per cent. voted. We should therefore temper any claims about the great enthusiasm for joining the European Union. I am glad that the people voted and I am pleased about the referendum results, but we should not get carried away about what it all means.
      Mr. Bercow: The only danger in my hon. Friend's observations so far is that he seriously understates his case. I share his enthusiasm for public consultation, but does he agree that clause 1 should be the catalyst for the development of an outward-looking, dynamic association of self-governing nation states, which should provide an alternative to what has all too often in recent times seemed to the people of this country a narrow, inward-looking protectionist club?
      Mr. Wilshire: If you would allow me, Sir Alan, to have a debate of that sort this afternoon, I would be only too pleased to respond to my hon. Friend, but I suspect that you would not. I hope that it is in order to repeat what I said at the outset—that I support enlargement. I do so for exactly the same reasons as my hon. Friend. I have high hopes that enlargement will turn the EU outward and result in a more relaxed grouping of sovereign states, rather than what it is now.
      Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend has fallen into the tender trap once more, by expressing a view that we heard many times on Second Reading. He gave voice to what is on his wish list, so let me tell him that what he espouses is not on offer. If he believes otherwise, can he tell me in which treaty it is mentioned?
      Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend is right, but that does not undermine my point. It is why I suggested that any further comments would be out of order, but the issues
      338
      must be addressed. She is right, however, to say that the clause and the Bill do not include the options that I referred to. I have already tried your patience long enough, Sir Alan, so I will move on.
      I ask the Minister to comment on several issues arising from clause 1. Clause 1(1) will alter the European Communities Act 1972, and that is what we are being asked to approve. That must raise the question of whether the change is sufficiently important for a referendum to be held on it. The Minister did not say whether the Government consider it a substantial change. We have been told that other matters are merely a question of tidying up. Is this change mere tidying up? I would have thought that the addition of 10 more states is stretching the meaning of the phrase somewhat. If this is a substantial change, as the whole Committee seems to agree, perhaps the Minister could tell us whether he gave any thought to consulting the British people. If so, what conclusions did he reach?
      The changes go beyond tidying up, and the questions that arise, many of which are addressed by the Convention, flow directly from enlargement. If enlargement is not tidying up, the issues that arise from it cannot be tidying up. Therefore, the argument against a referendum, on this or anything else, must collapse, according to the Minister's own argument. I would be grateful for his views on the holding of a referendum, because we will have to return to the issue in due course.
      Mr. Bercow: Ministers are always ready and able to shift the goalposts. Just as they can argue against a referendum on the so-called tidying-up grounds deployed by the Secretary of State for Wales, they are also capable of believing that issues are too important to subject to a referendum, for fear that the public might deliver the "wrong" verdict.
      The Chairman: Order. This is a debate not about a referendum, but about clause 1 stand part.
      Mr. Wilshire: I thought that you might intervene shortly, Sir Alan, and I accept what you say. I have made my point, and my hon. Friend underlined it.
      Clause 1(1) will alter the treaty to take account of the joining of the countries that it mentions. Can the Minister tell us what the effect on the Bill would be if one of the 10 countries had a referendum that said no, and therefore did not join? We would have an Act of Parliament that altered a treaty to allow the accession of a country that would not in fact join. Would that make the entire procedure null and void? I note that clause 2(4)—I shall not debate the point now, Sir Alan—makes provision for what happens if one of the countries does not join. Why will we be told in that later debate that it is necessary to take precautions against a no vote in somebody else's referendum? If that is necessary in clause 2, why is it not necessary to have some sort of get-out provision in clause 1?
      If the Minister thinks that an amendment could usefully be tabled in the other place to reflect that point, he might like to consider the European Communities Act section 1(3), which contains reference to the accession of Norway and makes arrangements for that country to become a member of the European Union. I know that he has a precedent to say that such provision

      339
      is not necessary, but it appears to be necessary in clause 2. Can the Minister clear the muddle up, and what will he do about the Norwegian reference?
      Bob Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware of tension about these matters in some countries such as the Czech Republic? Some politicians and people in that country are deeply fearful about the impact of the common agricultural policy on them, and we may well see a negative vote.
      2.15 pm
      Mr. Wilshire: That is another avenue that I would like to explore, but I fear that I would be out of order. My hon. Friend gives an example of a country that may provoke the very problem about which I am attempting to probe the Minister.
      Keith Vaz: I am a little confused, because the hon. Gentleman began by saying that he was in favour of enlargement. He has raised several important points, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer them, but is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should delay the enlargement process until all those points have been addressed and all the referendums in the application countries are completed?
      Mr. Wilshire: Absolutely not. The hon. Gentleman clearly has not been listening. I am tempted to repeat it all in case he could manage to grasp it the second time round. For his benefit, I shall try to make it as simple as possible. All I want is an assurance from the Minister that the wording is not defective, because I do not want enlargement to be held up. I want to be assured that if we leave clause 1 as it is, it will not wreck the whole process. That is the exact opposite of what the hon. Gentleman suggests. If he claims to see some ulterior motive in the points that I am making, he is wrong. I am in favour of enlargement and I am happy to vote for the Bill, but I would like an assurance on that point.
      Mr. MacShane: In the event that one or more of the acceding states fails to ratify on time, the Council is required to decide on immediate indispensable adjustments to key provisions of the treaty. There is an exhaustive list of those provisions that would need to be adjusted. I could give the Committee more detail, but the issue is covered. The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point, but the Bill is in line with previous accession treaties.
      Mr. Wilshire: I thought that that was what the Minister would say. If such provision is not necessary in clause 1, I hope that he will have a convincing argument as to why it is necessary to make reference in clause 2—when we reach it—to what will happen if one or more countries do fail to join. This is confusing, because he has now told us that part of clause 2 is not necessary. Perhaps he will wish to table an amendment to that effect.
      The Minister rightly points out that there are provisions to cover what needs to be renegotiated in the event of the failure of a country to accede, but he has not
      340
      clarified the standing of the Bill—or the subsequent Act—in such a case. We have had the answer about the effect that it would have on clause 1, but what would happen if a country that said no then entered into further negotiations on the specific points that had upset its voters, and arrived at a different solution that meant that it would join on different terms? Would the Government have to come back with another Bill, or is the wording of the Bill sufficient to allow entry following renegotiation of the terms? That is a serious point, because we should have the chance to consider any new conditions negotiated with an entrant state. Or are we saying that all 10 applicant countries can join on whatever terms are negotiated?
      I am sorry that the Minister finds this tedious. He sighs, but we must clarify these matters. I am not a great believer in tramping through Lobbies to suit him, or anyone else, just because that would be expedient or because, at 2.19 pm, the Minister wants to get home. We are here to scrutinise legislation.
      Mr. MacShane: The Bill uses language identical to that in the three preceding accession Acts. Clause 2(4) states:
      "Regulations under this section do not have effect so as to apply an enactment in relation to a national of a relevant acceding State which has not ratified the treaty mentioned".
      The hon. Gentleman is making a series of hypothetical points, as he is entitled to. If a nation decided not to join the EU on the terms that have been agreed, it would have to make new proposals and see whether they were acceptable, then negotiate its position and have another referendum. In due course, a separate Bill for that country would have to be brought before the House. That is what the Bill provides for if, between now and next May, one of the 10 countries decides not to join the EU. The language used covers such a refusal.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. We now know where we stand with regard to renegotiation by applicant states.
      The Republic of Cyprus has been touched on already, and two issues arise from that, about which the Committee must be clear. The first is the situation in northern Cyprus, which is covered by protocol 10. When I looked at the paperwork relating to the Bill, I assumed that I would find details about travel across the green line, and indeed, those details appear in protocol 10.
      Unfortunately, the protocol says merely that the matter will be left to the Commission to sort out once Cyprus's accession has been agreed. Is that sensible, given the history of the green line? We all hope that Cyprus will be united by May next year, but I worry that the protocol could increase tension rather than decrease it, because no one knows what it means.
      Mr. MacShane: For the benefit of the Committee, I can report that the Commission has presented today, in the form of a communication to the Council, its proposals for dealing with some of the matters arising if there is no settlement in Cyprus before May next year. The communication includes proposals on trade and aid, for example. On trade, the Turkish Chamber of Commerce would become a customs authority under

      341
      the authority of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, so that trade with the north could recommence On aid, the proposal is that €13 million—the technical term for "million euro" is now, I understand, the ghastly "meuro"—of unspent budget will be spent in the form of 9 meuros on economic development and infrastructure, and 3 meuros on an information campaign covering EU issues. We fully support the proposals.
      The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) asked about access and visas. Clearly, all holders of a Cypriot passport can travel to the EU and will be full citizens of the EU after 1 May, with normal visa-free access. People with Turkish passports will have to apply for visas, where appropriate, in the normal way. An increasing number of Cypriots from all communities are seeking the full Cypriot passport precisely so that they can get the travel rights that allow them to move freely about Europe.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful for that helpful intervention, to which I shall make a couple of responses. First, I thought for a moment that the Minister was saying that the euro was ghastly. I would have agreed with him about that. I half hope that Hansard will have heard it the same way, but I think that he meant that the word "meuro" was ghastly.
      Mr. Bercow: I am not clear about the unit of denomination being used. It would be helpful to know about it, for the purposes of clarifying the clause.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am prepared to guess that I heard the word "meuro", which means millions of those ghastly awful things that I hope are never inflicted on this country. If the Minister wanted to join me in that sentiment, I should be delighted to give way to him.
      The Minister referred to a document that he received today. I do not accuse him of discourtesy, as I might have been able to find the document in the Vote Office or the Library. However, we are being asked to legislate in respect of protocol 10 and I at least would be grateful to have a sight of that document. I hope that it may be possible for the Minister to arrange for someone to use a photocopier, as it would be helpful for members of the Committee to see exactly what is being proposed as an alternative to sorting out the green line problem after Cyprus has joined the EU. I am glad that the Minister has been able to tell us that such proposals now exist. All I want is to be able to decide whether they are adequate. It would be a huge help if he could make them available before the end of the debate—but I mean no criticism of him for not doing so beforehand.
      Bob Spink: People in the north of Cyprus who do not have a full Cypriot passport, or who choose not to apply for one, will not enjoy the right of free movement in Europe without visas that others enjoy. Will my hon. Friend reflect on the anomaly thus caused, and perhaps encourage the Government to seek a solution?
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which I shall not pursue beyond hoping that the Minister will say something about visas when he responds to the debate. My hon. Friend has raised the matter before in an intervention, and clarification from the Minister would be helpful.
      342
      I hope, too, that the Minister will say whether he or Home Office Ministers have had any discussions with the Greek authorities on the matter. In the past, those authorities have had a nasty habit of denying British people access to Greece if they find a northern Cyprus stamp in their passports. Bearing it in mind that Greece is now an EU member, that seems a bit high-handed and unreasonable. I hope that the Minister will assure the Committee that that will stop when Cyprus joins the EU.
      Another problem with the Republic of Cyprus that I hope that the Minister will clarify has to do with protocol 13, which deals with the sovereign base areas. It strikes me as weird that sovereign base areas should be situated outside the EU. Why do the Government think that that is a good idea? The only reason that I can find for that is that the Government consider that the arguments that applied when Britain negotiated EU entry still apply—that is, that when we joined, the sovereign bases did not join with us.
      That may be a very good reason, but I hope that the Minister will say why the Committee is being asked to agree to clause 1, which in effect provides that the sovereign base areas of Cyprus remain outside the EU. However, I have discovered—surprise, surprise—that the benefits of the common agricultural policy will still apply to those areas, even though they are not in the EU. That is an example of having one's cake and eating it too. The sovereign base areas will have all the benefits of not being in the EU—if there are any, perhaps the Minister will tell us—but they will still get the money. That sounds weird—but perhaps I am being too suspicious and the Minister will be able to set my mind at rest.
      2.30 pm
      May I turn to subsection (2)? My understanding of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 is that it requires any increase in the powers of the European Parliament to be referred to the House for approval, so I assumed that, for the purposes of section 12 of the 2002 Act, the House was being asked to increase the powers of the European Parliament. Perhaps I have not read the Bill or its explanatory notes correctly, or perhaps I have not correctly understood the Library briefings, but search as I may, I can find no increase in the powers of the European Parliament. Either the subsection is unnecessary or there is some increase in those powers that has not been explained, so will the Minister tell us which it is? If there are to be no increases, I hope that he will remove that subsection. If there are to be increases, we need to know about them so that we can decide whether we are prepared to give the European Parliament more powers.
      I think that I shall receive the answer that the provision merely alters the number of member states, but that does not seem to alter the power of an individual member or of all the members collectively. That is not an increase in power, but merely an administrative change, which is an entirely different matter. Could the Minister help us out on that point?
      The Minister needs to comment on several institutional issues to which the clause gives rise. Article 2 of the treaty refers to an increase in the size of the European Parliament, and we have considered separate

      343
      legislation to deal with that. Article 58 makes provision for nine more languages, so we shall have 20 languages. If we vote for the measure and add another nine languages, how much extra will the British taxpayer have to pay for that tower of Babel? The permutation of 20 languages each being translated into 19 others beggars belief. If we support the measure, what are we going to do about that?
      Article 45 refers to the Commission increasing from 10 members to 25 members. We are being asked to agree to that, but the Government are already locked into discussions on another treaty that would alter that membership of 25. We shall be agreeing to something that the Government do not really want to happen. Article 12 refers to qualified majority voting—in respect of numbers, not the area over which it will be applied—yet the Government are already locked into discussions on extending the scope of qualified majority voting.
      If the Government are asking us to agree to that parcel of changes, which are certainly not tidying up but substantial, yet they are already locked into negotiations to try to sort out some of the absurdities to which I have referred, will the Minister indicate that he will give the British public an opportunity to express their view about—
      The Chairman: Order. I have already ruled on the referendum point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not abuse my ruling.
      Mr. Wilshire: I apologise, Sir Alan. I shall move on to article 3, which is about the Schengen agreement. I am seriously worried—as, I suspect, are many of my colleagues—about the implications for immigration and asylum seeking of moving the external border of the European Union eastwards. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance, as I notice that when the applicant states join they will have some latitude in applying the Schengen acquis. I want to vote with the Minister on the clause, but to persuade me to do so, he must reassure us that we will not be opening a loophole—a weakness in the external borders of the EU—by agreeing to only partial implementation of the acquis in the early stages.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend refers to his anxieties about Schengen. I ordinarily keep a beady eye on the matters that the Committee is being invited to scrutinise, so can he tell us whether, if we vote for clause 1, we should be conscious that subsection (2) thereof provides for a calculated, as opposed to an inadvertent, increase in claims on public expenditure? I had understood no such thing and should be disturbed to discover that it was so, but I need to know.
      Mr. Wilshire rose—
      The Chairman: Order. Any further explanation of that point will take us well over the line as to whether the remarks of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) are relevant to clause stand part.
      Mr. Wilshire: I note that you prevented me from saying that I agreed with my hon. Friend, Sir Alan, so I shall not do so.
      The last point that I want to raise relates to land access between Kaliningrad and Russia. In a previous incarnation as a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, I was closely involved with that issue when discussing it with regard to Poland and the Baltic states.
      Mr. Bercow: At length.
      Mr. Wilshire: Not on that occasion.
      Will the Minister tell us whether the protocol will be able to cope with the dangers and risks involved in that land access? It would be the only place where two parts of a sovereign state are divided by part of the EU. It would be sensible to allow Kaliningrad land access to the rest of the country to which it belongs. However, when we take the trouble to find out about the state of affairs in Kaliningrad—the poverty, the shambles of the economy and whether it can manage to produce any income for its citizens—we have every reason to worry furiously about crime, smuggling and many other things about which we should be extremely wary.
      Discussions about Euro-policing are not for this Bill, but if we allow the protocol to pass, under the provisions of clause 1, we must be reassured that we are not opening the door to yet more crime from Russia, which would cause us huge difficulties. It is right for the people of Kaliningrad to be given access to the rest of Russia, but how is that to be policed? Are they halfway down the road to being able to go where they like and do what they like? That worries me enormously.
      I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to raise what I believe are genuine anxieties—although the Minister may not agree. I end as I started: I am an enthusiastic supporter of enlargement, but, as with everything else, when we enter into something—even if we are in favour of it—we should do so with our eyes open. We need to know exactly what we are signing up to. The Minister's helpful interventions have put my mind at rest on some matters. I am sure that he has made a note of the remainder, and I hope that he will be able to respond to my queries so that I can enthusiastically vote with him and deliver the enlargement that he wants, and that we want.
      Mr. MacShane: I shall try to respond as briefly as possible. I do not want to go over Second Reading matters, nor do I want to engage in a general European debate on whether we should hold referendums and so on. Suffice it to note that, when the three previous enlargement treaties came before the House to be put into British law, there was no question of a referendum, and that people in other countries who called for a referendum on enlargement did so explicitly to shut out the 10 countries and deny them the chance to join the EU—a message that I am sure that the Committee does not want to send today.
      I dealt with the point about Cypriot passports raised by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). I welcome the intervention about Estonia from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). I paid an

      345
      enjoyable visit to Tallinn, which is recovering its glory as a great Hanseatic trading port. The city and its hinterland are quite remarkable.
      The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) talked about Kaliningrad, which is of the most acute interest to Lithuania. A sensible system of facilitated transit visas has been put in place. It means that Russians will be able to go from Kaliningrad to the rest of Russia with a specific visa for the purpose of that journey. There will not be the free access to the EU about which the hon. Gentleman expressed concern.
      Britain is, of course, not part of the Schengen agreement and the accession countries will come bit by into Schengen, as the treaty makes clear. We will have the right of regard on that, but I do not think that we will have specific new problems to worry about that arise out of Schengen.
      On sovereign bases, it is true that the sovereign base areas were kept out of the European Union when we joined in 1973. The very simple reason is that they are military bases from which important military operations take place. The common agricultural policy will apply simply because—again, I think very sensibly—large parts of the sovereign base area are agricultural land on which Greek Cypriot farmers go about their normal farming business. It is quite right that they should have the same rights as farmers in other parts of the European Union.
      I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) for the energy that he has put into supporting the cause of Europe and, in particular, that of enlargement. He referred to infraction proceedings. To put it simply, all member states—new and old—are subject to Community law. The Commission is the guardian of the treaties and it alone is responsible for infraction decisions. Rather than the suggestion that the 10 new member states will have different and less rigorous rights and duties on entering the European Union, 1 think that they want to keep moving their game to the highest European levels. It is right that they know from 1 May next year they will have to operate according to the same standards as the rest of their fellow European member states.
      My hon. Friend was right to say that we need to help, and we are helping through twinning and by sending civil servants and other technical experts to work on Ministries' specific action plans. In addition, there has been generous pre-accession funding and programmes to support that.
      The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire referred to the need to sell enlargement. I apologise to the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) that a letter that I sent out muddled his first name with that of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). However, with their support, I have sent an enlargement poster to every hon. Member and I invite those present to take this poster, which is designed for secondary schools, to the secondary schools. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Suffolk suggests that there is not much demand for the poster. On the contrary, in co-operation with the Department for Education and Skills, we have already sent it out to every single school and we are receiving many requests
      346
      for more posters. That just goes to show that, when the hon. Gentleman and I do something together, the country listens.
      Mr. Spring: What I said was that—surprisingly enough—there was not much demand for the poster in the House.
      Mr. MacShane: The photograph on the poster did every credit to the hon. Gentleman's handsome visage, but perhaps did not show me at my youngest and best. It is a serious matter, and I shall be visiting Birmingham on Wednesday with other Ministers and colleagues and the Polish Minister of European Affairs. With the help of the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, I shall also visit 100 UK towns and cities to talk about enlargement and to have discussions on the wider issues relating to our membership of the EU. The current external borders will remain in place with the new member states until they have undergone due process by the existing member states.
      I was asked about the European parliamentary elections and procedures. The language in the Bill is identical to that in all previous Bills that have been enacted by the House. As I said in my opening remarks, the number of seats is being altered to allow the 25 members to have an appropriate and proportionate number of seats. If Romania, Bulgaria and other countries join, we will have to look at the matter again.
      I noted the animadversions of the hon. Member for Spelthorne on the fact that only 60 per cent. of the people of Slovenia voted to say yes to the EU. I notice that 27 per cent. of the electorate in his constituency voted for him. I am sure that they made a sound choice, but only 27 per cent. said yes to him.
      2.45 pm
      Mention was made of the Commission proposals that have been put to the Council in the form of a communication on how some matters relating to Cyprus will be handled if Cyprus does not become reunited before 1 May. I am happy to put a copy of that document in the Library so that it is available to hon. Members.
      If there are any points that I have not covered, I will be happy, on request, to write to hon. Members with any detailed information that they may desire.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS
      Mr. Spring: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 5, at end insert
      ';but no such regulations shall be made within two years of the passing of this Act'.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2 in page 2, line 5, at end insert
      ';but no such regulations shall be made within seven years of the passing of this Act'.

      347
      No. 4, in page 2, line 5, at end insert
      '; but no such regulations shall be made until the Home Office, the Department for Education and Skills, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and the Treasury shall have laid before Parliament reports on the expected effects of those regulations'.
      No. 5, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—
      '() If the Secretary of State makes regulations under this section he shall lay before Parliament a report on their effect for the duration of the seven-year period during which a derogation from the implementation of European Union rights on free movement of workers is permitted to the relevant acceding States.'.
      Mr. Spring: We have tabled these amendments because we are not fully satisfied that the Government have given due thought to all the consequences of allowing free movement of workers from 1 May.
      I should like to make it clear from the outset that we have no animus against the people of the accession countries and believe that those countries' accession will enrich themselves and the EU overall. We have said that on many occasions over the years. On the contrary, I can only repeat that, when in government, our party was one of the first advocates of enlargement to embrace central and eastern Europe, as this Government acknowledged in their written statement of 10 December. It said that
      "the UK has been a champion of enlargement from the start."
      We warmly welcome the participation of these countries in the European Union, and, of course, that implies freedom of movement of the peoples of the member states.
      It should not be doubted that, in due course, the full enjoyment of the rights of free movement of workers by all 25 EU member states' citizens will be beneficial to everyone through leading people to richer and broader lives and to businesses being able to attract the best employees within the EU, both in the accession countries and in the United Kingdom. Free movement of workers with all other countries that have joined the EU has ultimately proved advantageous to all parties. There is no reason to suppose that over time this should prove any different. However, that does not mean that it is wise to refuse a derogation on free movement of workers from the actual date of accession. I am concerned that the Government have simply failed to argue their case adequately or convincingly. I hope that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration will take the opportunity to make their case this afternoon.
      The Government have published a written statement of fewer than 500 words, which was long on assertions but short on facts. Those assertions may be right, but we simply have little way of knowing. Thus our amendments bring a greater logic and consistency to this issue, and should be seen in this light.
      The Government have not published a full and up-to-date report into the likely effect of not taking advantage of the options for national measures until apparently this morning. Is it not unwise of them to fail to take that option? The last study on this matter that the Government published was a study for the Department for Education and Employment, as it then was, which was issued as far back as July 1999. Last year's written
      348
      statement announced that the Home Office had commissioned research on the matter. I hope that the Minister will respond to these points later.
      However, that research was not published in time for the House of Commons Library to make use of it in its paper on the Bill, and that can be regarded as a great pity by everyone interested in this matter. It was not published in time for Members to consider the research and apply the facts available for the Second Reading debate. Nor was it published in time for Members to use the research when tabling amendments to the Bill. Instead, I am informed that it has been published today. Now, that surely cannot be right. Why today of all days? I had hoped and thought that the Government had recently learned some lessons.
      It is not right that the Government should publish documents that are highly relevant to the Bill too late for hon. Members who vote on it to consider them properly. Can the Minister say with his hand on his heart that the Government show a real commitment to parliamentary accountability when we are in such a situation?
      I am depressed still more by the unnecessary nature of the situation. The Bill need not have warranted amendment. The whole House could have united behind every detail of it lock, stock and barrel. Why have the Government kept back relevant information until it is too late for it to be of real use to Parliament during consideration of the Bill? That happens all too frequently. I hope that the Minister will give a full explanation of the regrettable timing and that he will commit the Front Bench to undertake more open and accountable discussions of information in the future when the failure to impart information in good time is so obvious. I hope that you do not mind me saying that, Sir Alan, because it is an important point about parliamentary consideration, especially in relation to the Bill.
      In that context, we tabled amendment No. 4. The Government have taken a serious decision. Such a decision should be taken with as much information as possible, and such information should be easily available not only to Ministers, but to Parliament. The potentially large movement of workers into this country would have important consequences for several Government Departments. We know that the national health service has been burdened by numerous so-called health visitors. It is only right that all Government Departments should consider the consequences of such a movement properly and that hon. Members should be able to inform themselves of the impact of regulations across the board before making a decision on any statutory instrument that might ensue. The Government have nothing to lose and everything to gain by accepting the underlying point behind the amendment. As I said, they have not provided Parliament with a proper or thorough advance study of why they believe that allowing full freedom of workers' movements from 1 May is in Britain's best interests. That should, and could, be spelled out. Indeed, it is extraordinary that the Government have not undertaken and published such a study. Such open government would have been commendable. At the price of only a little work by Parliament and the Government, the Government's duty to the public would have been performed somewhat better.

      349
      We tabled amendment No. 5 because we want full and proper accountability to Parliament on any regulations Regulations and statutory instruments that become law should be made with due consideration. Nine existing member states will impose national measures—some for two years and some for seven years—and six member states will not. We and the Government will be able to judge the effect of each decision in the forthcoming years. I accept that the Government have provided for safeguards but if the deployment of such safeguards becomes necessary, it should be explicitly clear why that course was taken.
      There is no harm in the Government reflecting on the logic of the amendment. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is right for regulations to be subjected to proper parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment would allow us to do exactly that. In any case, I am sure that the Secretary of State will keep the effect of his regulations under close review. The amendment would ensure proper accountability. Such scrutiny should not be feared but welcomed, and if the Government accept the logic behind the amendment, it would show that they are taking their decisions with proper consideration.
      The Government will be aware that there will be exceptional disparities of wealth in the European Union when the accession countries join formally. For example, Latvia, which is the poorest of the accession countries, has a gross domestic product per capita of only €7,700 while our GDP is €23,300 per capita—about the EU mean. Only one accession country, Cyprus, has a relatively higher GDP per capita.
      Likewise, many accession countries have regrettably high rates of unemployment. Poland has a rate of 18.5 per cent., whereas our rate is a much more respectable 5 per cent. Let me dwell on Poland for a moment, especially in terms of size and importance, because it is perhaps the linchpin of the accession process. Poland will not benefit immediately from accession. In fact, it will be a net contributor and will be a net beneficiary of structural funding only in subsequent years. There will be a transitional phase of at least two to three years but we hope that that will not deter the Poles, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said, from voting in adequate numbers to approve accession this weekend.
      The Government fall back on a series of reports commissioned by the employment and social affairs directorate-general of the European Commission. The headline figures show that 350,000 immigrants will leave their homes in central and eastern European countries to move to their more prosperous neighbours. A professor of social policy at the London school of economics labelled that figure as a serious underestimate and suggested that the real figure could be in the order of millions. That divergence of views is due to the methodology adopted by the Commission-sponsored reports. The reports are largely based on an analysis of migration between the more impoverished East Germany and West Germany before the fall of the Berlin wall and the reunification of Germany. The analysis fails to take proper account of levels of fiscal transfer between the west and east in the period following reunification. Reunification cost £400 billion between 1990 and 2000, and that money went to an area
      350
      with a population of only 17 million people. Yet, unemployment and wage levels will remain significantly lower than those in the former West Germany.
      Compare that money with the amount offered to Poland, which has a population of nearly 40 million people. Depending on common agricultural policy reform and the next budget round, Poland might be offered about €15.5 billion from the EU over a similar period of 12 years. I ask the House to consider what happened in Germany relative to the challenge facing Poland. The accession countries will not receive a fraction of the Government investment that East Germany received and given their economic weakness, it is difficult not to worry about the prospect of considerably greater immigration to the United Kingdom.
      If one examines opinion poll evidence from the candidate countries rather than using the Commission's reports uncritically, there is an indication that the extent of immigration to the United Kingdom is likely to be far greater than that suggested. Reports using opinion poll data in the accession countries suggest that several million people plan to move to the west. Research carried out by the International Organisation for Migration suggests that it is likely that the United Kingdom would be the third most popular choice for people intending to leave central and eastern European accession states. That is hardly comforting because even though this country is the third choice, some 24 per cent. of the population of the Czech Republic have expressed a desire, in principle at least, to come to the United Kingdom.
      Research suggesting that the UK is placed after Germany and Austria as a favoured country for immigration is based on polling that has not been updated since 1998. It is thus probable that the UK would be even more popular than the research suggests for two reasons: the prevalence of the English language among younger and more footloose professionals, and the relative economic performance of the UK versus Austria and Germany over the past five years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Of course, the performance is so good because despite opposition from Labour Members, structural reforms made in the 1980s enabled that to occur. I think that some of us entered politics because of the utter shambles and chaos in the country in the late 1970s.
      Eurobarometer polls rank English as the language regarded as most useful by 86 per cent. of respondents in the candidate countries.
      Dr. Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman complete the picture by giving the House polling data on the number of people who have indicated an interest in leaving the UK to settle elsewhere in the EU, and the number of people who have expressed an interest in leaving their abodes in cities to move to the countryside in the UK?
      3 pm
      Mr. Spring: I cannot offer that evidence to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure we could try to secure an answer for him, but perhaps his question might be more usefully addressed to some of the more affluent members of the Government Front Bench. It is not unreasonable to predict substantial labour flows should the freedom of

      351
      movement of workers be allowed from 1 May. If there is the possibility of emigration from the United Kingdom, I do not think that it in any way compares with the possibility of more substantial immigration. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not disagree with me on that.
      It is difficult to make a judgment. It is not simply that there might be some small detriment to our economy should that movement take place. One of the great hopes for enlargement is that it will allow the accession countries to build themselves up so that they are in a more viable position, something that we certainly wish to see. We want the effect of enlargement to be like the effect of the accession on Spain, which has been a considerable success story in many respects. We would not want it to have the same effect as the reunification of East Germany, which has experienced a tragic drain of brain power and youth from east to west.
      It would not be desirable for the same thing to occur now. We certainly want to avoid any damage to the new members' economies, many of which were held back during the communist era. So some caution on the immediate granting of free movement of workers from 1 May 2004 would not be misplaced. We expect some adjustments for about two years and hope that things settle down when all EU members begin to enjoy the solid benefits of enlargement, which every hon. Member accepts in the longer run. None the less, it would be wise to have safeguards with a clear time period. Should fears of dislocation to our economies and employment systems prove groundless, national measures could always be lifted. In practice, the matter cuts both ways.
      The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I am listening carefully because it is important that we base our decision on the discretion on the best possible evidence and case. I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he arguing for transitional arrangements on the free movement of workers primarily because that element will increase significantly the migration that might take place anyway as result of free movement rights more generally, or is he concerned about the impact on the UK economy? Is it, perhaps, that he is concerned about the potential negative impact of people moving out of the accession countries? Can he clarify which of those arguments he is using and on what evidence he bases his view?
      Mr. Spring: With respect, I am astonished. That is exactly what I have been explaining for the past 10 or 15 minutes—[Interruption.] Well, I have cited those as possible problems and, because of that, advocate a period of caution, which other countries have favoured. Why does the Minister think that so many other EU members have secured those derogations? We do not know the effect of such movement, but I am sure she will agree that the very last thing we want to do is to create the situation, which I have cited as possible, that arose in East Germany where there was a considerable brain drain to the west, which was damaging. Equally, we want to ensure that a period of stability applies within those countries, especially in Poland where there is high unemployment, during the transitional phase while they are net contributors to the EU.
      352
      We do not know exactly what the effect will be. I am happy to concede that. Hopefully the Minister will provide the figures that her Department has so far been unable to produce, despite commissioning the report. I hope that when she responds she will apologise to the House for the way in which her Department has dealt with the matter. It is all very well for her to ask me such questions, but the House is interested in why the figures have not been produced because it is appalling.
      Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman was at pains to point out that he had spent 10 or 15 minutes explaining in detail the circumstances of migration, yet he appears to be using, among other things, examples that relate to internal movement within a sovereign country, in particular Germany. Does he accept that there was internal movement within Germany before reunification, from north to south? Indeed, there has been internal movement within EU countries over a number of years. The example of the East Germans moving to West Germany, from one sovereign state to another, is not germane to the issue. It is, in fact, germane to a study of population movements within the EU as a whole. Perhaps he has some thoughts on that.
      Mr. Spring: I was simply citing what happened in Germany and highlighting what happens when there is a juxtaposition between countries with far higher and far lower GDPs per capita. Of course there were cultural reasons for that movement, such as the German language, but had the hon. Gentleman listened he would know that I also cited reports, including opinion poll data, which suggest a considerable desire of people in many parts of the accession country states potentially to move. A number of our fellow EU countries sought derogations, but this country did not and the Government offered no reason for that. Perhaps that will be explained this afternoon. We certainly have not received any evidence thus far from the Government to explain why they took that decision. Whatever one thinks about the matter, the hon. Gentleman must agree that it has been a dereliction of duty on the part of the Government not to supply the evidence so that a proper consideration can be made.
      Mr. Bercow: I am sorry that I missed the opening part of my hon. Friend's speech because it is only now that I am able to enjoy listening to his mellifluous tones. In the light of the evident apprehension of the Minister, does my hon. Friend agree that in responding to amendment No. 1 and in setting out the Government's position, it would help if Ministers would explain whether they are agreeable to the principle of a full debate under the affirmative procedure on the regulations when introduced and, if not, why not?
      Mr. Spring: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I hope that Ministers have taken it on board.
      I emphasise that we are in the fortunate position that some of our EU partners are not taking advantage of the option for national measures. Others are taking advantage of the option of two years and others of seven. We have the opportunity to see all the possible effects play out in those partners' economies and employment. We could then take whatever action we

      353
      thought best. I believe that the Government's policy announcement was well meaning but premature. It would be wise of them to reconsider and wait a bit, as many of our European partners have done. Then they could take an informed decision, which would work best for us and for the accession countries' citizens. Hence the amendments.
      I cannot forbear from mentioning that a claim was made in the statement on 10 December that the Government have a "managed immigration agenda". If only. That is what we need. Does the Minister agree that free movement of workers from the accession states cannot simply be taken piecemeal but must form part of a broader review of how this country manages immigration? The sorry fact of the matter is that people in this country no longer believe the Government on so many of their announcements, not least on immigration. In the absence of that confidence, we do not want to see the rise of extremism on the fringes of British politics, something that we all detest. We badly need a joined-up approach, from health care to payment of benefits. If the people of Britain felt confident that the Government had proper control, community relations would be strengthened.
      As it is, because of the incoherence of the Government's policy on immigration over the past two years, there has been a great rise in confusion and anxiety. We value the tolerant and liberal society that we enjoy and cherish in this country. It is one of our chief sources of pride in being British, but I know that some in Britain are concerned about the effect of enlargement in that respect. I repeat that a period of adjustment would allay those fears or show them to be groundless.
      We must also consider the employment effects on the enlarged EU's new neighbours. As I am sure the Minister is aware, there are fears in Ukraine about enlargement's effects on seasonal labour—for instance, on Ukrainian citizens working in Poland. We will need a strategy to deal with the EU's relations with nations east of the Vistula.
      Before finishing, I shall return briefly to a point that we touched on on Second Reading. It is likely that an intergovernmental conference will be launched this autumn. Again, there is some lack of clarity about the exact dates. I am aware that the Copenhagen conclusions state that the accession countries should participate fully in the IGC. That is indeed a worthy aspiration, yet in practice anyone who has spoken to officials in the Commission about accession Governments will be aware that until 1 May 2004 the accession countries will experience a grey zone or period of limbo in their standing in the EU. It is difficult to see how, during that period, their opinions will have equal weight with those of existing member states in the treaty negotiations.
      Mr. MacShane: I understand that the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend met the Czech Foreign Minister recently. The Czechs are looking forward to participating. The hon. Gentleman must stop misleading the House continually by insisting that our partners in the new Europe whose citizens he wishes to exclude from participating, if they so wish, in our labour market will not have the full right to participate in the
      354
      intergovernmental conference on the same basis as the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman must stop that line.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not accuse any other hon. Member of misleading the House. I should be grateful if he would withdraw that remark.
      Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman must stop inadvertently continually, repeatedly saying that which no one else—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That will do.
      Mr. Spring: I am grateful, Sir Michael. The great characteristic of the Minister for Europe—and may he reign supreme on the Front Bench after next week—is his ability to get in a hole and keep digging. He made the point admirably and I shall leave it at that, as I do not want to cause him any further embarrassment.
      I do not understand why there is a rush to sign a new treaty. Most intergovernmental conferences take a year to conclude, but the timetable seems more like six months.
      Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Sir Michael. The instructions of the IGC are not relevant to the clause.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may leave such matters to the Chair.
      Mr. Spring: It is always a joy to hear from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). Every single thing that he forecast up to, including and beyond Nice was totally inaccurate. That will be his secure place in history.
      My party, as I said earlier, and as my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and all my hon. Friends have indicated, supports the broad thrust of the Bill. That has been a consistent theme of our time both in government and in opposition. The Bill ratifying the accession treaty of course allows enlargement to take place, but I remind the House that although the Prime Minister said that the Convention was necessary to make enlargement work, that was incorrect.
      I ask the Government to consider the amendments. I do not believe that they have thought out fully the consequences of their policy commitment. It would be difficult for them to do so as they were not able to publish the evidence until this morning. When the Minister responds, I hope that she will make it clear what employment restrictions the Foreign Secretary had in mind and what their implications would be if he reintroduced them, as he indicated in his written ministerial statement of 10 December 2002. I hope that we will have a considered response from the Minister this afternoon. The issue is the subject of lively debate throughout the European Union. Although there have been the reports that I mentioned, including that of the European Commission and the polling data, the British Government have failed the House by not providing the information necessary for debate on this important subject.
      3.15 pm
      Denzil Davies: I shall deal briefly with a concern that has been expressed to me by my constituents in respect of the freedom of movement of workers that will take effect from 1 May next year. I certainly do not support the amendments moved by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). My purpose is to highlight to those on my Front Bench some concerns about a sensitive aspect of the movement of people in the new enlarged European Union. I refer to a possible influx of what is described as the Roma people from, I believe, the old Czechoslovakia, where most Roma people seem to be resident.
      Constituents have raised the matter with me following a documentary programme on the BBC or one of the other channels. It was a serious programme that did not attempt to exaggerate the problem. There are certain constituencies and areas in the country, as hon. Members know, which have had difficulties in the past with what I may describe as travellers. When constituents who have experienced such problems see a programme of that kind, they begin to worry that there may be an influx of travellers into areas such as west Wales where, as in other areas, we have had the problem for a long time. I express that concern to my hon. Friends in the hope that the matter can be examined quietly, without exaggerating the difficulties.
      There are problems with regard to terminology, but they are not academic problems. We were told in the programme that it dealt with the Roma people who, I understand, are identical to the Romany people whose ancestors, apparently, came from the Punjab a long time ago. Some of them came to Britain in the 16th century. The Brits thought they were Egyptians and called them gypsies.
      The more comprehensive term is "travellers". In west Wales most travellers are described as Irish tinkers, although in Northern Ireland, I believe, there is a statutory recognition whereby they are called the Irish travelling community. Those may be mere words, but they are important. Travellers apparently are not considered by the courts as a distinctive racial group, and therefore do not have the protection of the Race Relations Act 1976.
      I understand, although I am not an expert on this branch of the law, that there is some authority from the courts whereby gypsies are considered a distinctive racial group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act. I do not think there are any recent cases in Britain relating to the status of Roma or Romany people, but if there were an influx into this country, I should think that, by analogy with the case law on gypsies, Roma or Romany would also be considered a distinctive racial group. The Race Relations Act, with all its difficulty and sensitivity, would then apply.
      There is other legislation as well. There is, I am told, although I have not been able to find it, European Union legislation generated by what the Germans under Hitler did to the Roma people. That EU legislation seeks to protect gypsies, travellers and the Roma. Domestic legislation has been passed with regard in particular to caravan sites, which in the main are the responsibility of local authorities.
      In my constituency and west Wales, local authorities have administered those rules with considerable sensitivity: they have bent over backwards to ensure that
      356
      travellers or gypsies who live on the sites have their rights, are treated properly, and are dealt with in a sensitive manner. However, the local authorities' responsible attitude has not always been reciprocated, and sometimes my local authority has found itself in the courts. County council officials, who usually lose the cases, feel that they can never win against the gypsies in the courts, because the law is loaded against the county council. I do not know whether that is true—anyone who loses in the courts thinks the law is an ass—but overall I think that there is some sense, some justification, for local government officials' conclusion that in this respect the law has gone too far, to the extent that it does not enable the county council to protect the whole area as it should be able to.
      Next, there is the wider question of law enforcement—the enforcement of criminal law and, increasingly in relation to some of the sites, of environmental law. Although it may be trite to say that everyone should be equal before the law, and in particular that minorities should be equal before the law, there is sometimes a real problem with the enforcement of criminal law against groups of what we may call travellers who do not always observe the laws of the area in which they are living. In a multicultural society, it is extremely important that minorities are protected, and we do protect them through specific legislation; similarly, equality before the law is also important. However, there is a suspicion that sometimes the criminal law and environmental law are not always enforced with rigour against groups such as travellers, although they are enforced against the rest of the community, minority or majority.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am listening carefully and hoping to hear more about the European dimension in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.
      Denzil Davies: The European dimension is that if there is a large influx of Roma people into this country, the existing problems will be magnified. I ask Ministers, especially Home Office Ministers, quietly and without making too much of a fuss to examine the present set-up and existing legislation to see whether they can withstand an influx of travellers, Roma or gypsy people who may come as a result of the Bill being passed. I do not support the transitional arrangements proposed by the hon. Member for West Suffolk, but I ask my hon. Friends to consider the issue so that the problem can be dealt with if it ever arises. I do not know whether it will arise, although I suspect that it will not, and the programme that highlighted the issue did not imply that it would. However, there is a possibility that certain areas of the country that act as magnets for travellers will experience an influx and my concern is to ensure not only that our law and our enforcement of our law are fair, but that tensions are not created, that the law is enforced and that we have the proper framework to deal with that possible influx. It is better to examine the arrangements and work out our response now than to experience problems later that we cannot deal with.
      I do not expect an answer during this debate, but I hope that the Home Office or some other Department—with devolution, I am not sure how things work—will examine the matter, just in case. There is a problem at the moment and it might be magnified and made far

      357
      worse if there is an influx of Romany or Roma people or travellers from eastern Europe as a result of the Bill being passed.
      Mr. Michael Moore: As the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) would expect, I listened carefully to him moving the amendments and the manner in which he did so. l agree with some of his remarks, for example, on the need for proper and adequate information and on the need for Government accountability to be at the forefront of all that we do in this House. However, we Liberal Democrats support the principle of the Bill, which is that all citizens of the accession countries should have full rights in the EU from day one. They will have the freedom to travel and to stay in this country and we believe that their having the right to work here makes good sense. In practical terms, that must remove any suspicions from those who seek to enter this country under their freedom to travel rights, and police and others will no longer need to spend a lot of time questioning the motives and activities of people from new member states who have come to this country.
      Let me say up front that I do not suggest that the hon. Gentleman wishes to pander to the arguments of some on the far right who attack immigration and immigrants. In his speech, he referred to the dangers of such views and dissociated himself from them. However, we in this country are sometimes in danger of forgetting our proud heritage of welcoming immigrants, sometimes as refugees, who go on to make huge and valid contributions to our economy. We need to face facts: this country has many skills shortages which enlargement may help us to tackle. It is entirely appropriate to welcome all citizens of such countries as soon as they have formally become part of the EU.
      Safeguards are included in the accession treaty, and it is entirely appropriate that the Government monitor the situation, as I am sure they propose to do. I do not quite understand why the two-year and seven-year restrictions in the amendments have been chosen, or why they would achieve something that would not be achieved by ongoing monitoring.
      Mr. Spring: The answer is simply that those are the derogations that have been secured by existing EU member countries.
      Mr. Moore: I accept that other countries have achieved them. I was simply waiting to hear why the hon. Gentleman thought they were appropriate.
      At the end of this debate, a judgment has to be made on the appropriate way forward. It appears to us that the Bill as drafted and the safeguards outlined will be sufficient to achieve the objectives. We believe that legal immigration and the associated economic benefits are preferable to illegal immigration and the associated costs. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendments.
      Dr. Whitehead: I support the Government view on the arrangements for free movement of workers, and I suggest that the amendments are inappropriate. I draw the Committee's attention to some spectacularly poor pieces of empirical evidence brought to bear by the hon.
      358
      Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) in moving the amendments. I intervened on him to discover whether he was aware of the number of people in the UK who respond to opinion polls by saying either that they would wish to move from whether they currently live, predominantly in cities, to the country, or that they might wish to move out of the country entirely.
      Regrettably, he was unable to provide me with the information contained in those polls. However, I recall that the figures set out in a number of them revealed that about 70 per cent. of those who responded to the polls suggested that they might like to move from the city to the country, and 25 per cent. said that they might like to move out of the country to live and work somewhere else.
      3.30 pm
      We all know that that does not happen. Seventy per cent. of people are not about to move to the country, and nor are 25 per cent. of the work force about to leave the UK to live and work somewhere else. Yet the hon. Member for West Suffolk appears to suggest, with authority, that similar polls conducted in applicant countries are likely to be absolutely right. The fact is that they are not. They are no more likely to be right than the polls that have been conducted in the UK, as we can see from the evidence.
      Of course, some people will respond to polls in the new accession countries by saying that they might consider moving and working abroad.
      Mr. Mark Simmonds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in agricultural communities such as mine in Lincolnshire there are a significant number of migrant workers, some legal and some illegal, who have come from what will be the accession countries? That is causing a great deal of unrest in places such as Boston. The problem will be exacerbated after the proposed legislation is put in place.
      Dr. Whitehead: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that. I shall come later to the question of so-called illegal migrant workers. I thought that he might ask me whether I was aware that many people in urban communities are moving into rural communities. That is the situation in some instances. I was making the point that the opinion polls that we are discussing cannot be relied upon in any country as accurate measures of likely future movements.
      Mr. Bryant: There are about 500,000 Brits living in Spain who have effectively revivified large parts of the economy of southern Spain. Is it not true that sometimes immigration is downright positive, instead of the negative version that we hear sometimes from Opposition Members?
      Dr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. To assume that any movement will be bad news is to paint an unnecessarily negative picture of what happens in reality.
      The other piece of empirical evidence that the hon. Member for West Suffolk brings as a centrepiece to his arguments is what has happened in Germany. That is curious. I attempted to remind him in an intervention

      359
      that after Germany was unified it became one state. Social movement, movement between families and movement to obtain work temporarily then applied as they apply internally in any other state. I made the point that over many years there have been instances within EU states where movement within those states has been detrimental to some parts of the economies of those countries and helpful to other parts of those economies. Indeed, the EU already has arrangements in place for regional assistance and aid within its structural funds.
      Mr. Spring: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is slightly missing the point of my remarks. I gave a range of opinions, including that of the Commission. I hope that he will agree with me, and say so, when I say that given that it was well known that the Bill would come up for consideration in Parliament, it is appalling that the Government's view, and their commitment to providing a view on these issues, was released only today. We would not need to have this discussion if the Government had provided the information in an appropriate way.
      Dr. Whitehead: I agree that information should be before hon. Members in the best available form—and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to guide and enlighten the Committee on that point. As I was not, and am not, party to how the figures were released, I can shed no further light on the matter.
      The hon. Member for West Suffolk is making a series of hypothetical points. That is important in terms of the evidence on which he relies. Entirely different circumstances apply in Germany, for example. The rather nebulous wishes that may be expressed by some people in applicant states have little bearing on the reality of what will happen or is likely to happen.
      Ann Winterton: I find it difficult to follow the case that the hon. Gentleman is advancing. I have half-German cousins, and I suggest to him that following reunification it was found that people from the east, who were in low-wage jobs, tried to move to the west, where there were better wage rates. At the same time, investment in industry went from the west to the east. It seems to me that that is a pretty good example of what might happen if there is a wave of immigration to the higher wage earning countries from the poorer countries in the east, and investment will probably go in the opposite direction.
      Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Lady claims that she has listened carefully to my train of argument, but she appears not to have listened at all. I was not talking about the movement of people from one state to another. To combine my two points, the circumstances in which people express the wish to move from their sovereign state to another state often do not come to pass in reality. People who respond to opinion polls in this country do not do what they say they will do when confronted by somebody with a clipboard in the street. As the hon. Lady says, matters may be different in terms of internal arrangements within sovereign states in some circumstances.
      360
      As the hon. Lady will know from her direct experience, the circumstances of the reunification of Germany, including the population movements and the economic movements, and the social and cultural problems, are—this is my view—specific to the German circumstances, and are fairly complex.
      The hon. Member for West Suffolk is seeking to suggest that it is likely that millions of people will come from the applicant states to the UK to live and work after the EU has expanded. That case is made on extremely flimsy grounds—that is the argument that I was attempting to put forward.
      Ann Winterton: In rubbishing the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), the hon. Gentleman might reflect on what has happened so far. Why are so many economic migrants coming to the UK? They come for various reasons.
      Mr. Michael Ancram: The climate?
      Ann Winterton: No, not the climate.
      These people are coming because we have a high-wage economy. We have a national health service and a social security system that are second to none in the entire EU. There are other reasons why they are coming, too. Let us throw away all those polls, as I agree with the hon. Gentleman that they are not worth the paper that they are written on. None the less, from experience, does he not accept that there is a case for suggesting that people may come to the west from the applicant nations for the reasons that I have given? That is a real issue, and the people of this country are concerned about it.
      Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Lady has now shifted the ground on which she is speaking. I am delighted that she has agreed that the case made about polls by her hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk appears to have little substance. I agree that some economic migrants are coming to this country, and that some are doing so illegally. That is the other important point that we should think about in relation to the Bill. As the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) said, the accession treaty allows free movement of people in the EU, but if the provisions were not agreed to, it would not allow movement to work. That is what we are talking about—not immigration, but movement to work.
      It is true that some people in this country, including some in my city, and in the towns and cities represented by other hon. Members, are working illegally. The point about combining free movement in the EU after accession and the right to work is that circumstances will come together whereby people can work legally and be regulated and checked up on. They can also be covered by the minimum wage, for example, so they will not have any dealings with the white vans that we sometimes see at 5 o'clock in the morning picking up people who are often in very difficult circumstances so that they can work illegally, often for tiny wages.
      The practical outcome of the provisions is that a number of those circumstances will be ameliorated. The fact that people will be able to have a national insurance number, and their wages and conditions of employment will be able to be regulated, is good news for all of us in

      361
      this country, including the constituents whose views the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) brings to the Chamber in raising worries about what is likely to happen after accession.
      That is good news for all of us, over and above the idea—an idea that I shall simply leave on the table—that we are not in a position to do without anybody else in our labour force in years to come. We should not underestimate the importance of the contribution provided by free movement of labour in the EU to this country's ability to work economically in years to come.
      Mr. Wayne David: I am somewhat disappointed by the amendments. We have to be careful about how we conduct this debate, and extremely careful about the language that we employ.
      I am pleased that the Bill includes the clause under discussion and that the Government indicated in December last year that, in respect of the eight applicant states that seek the right of freedom to work in the current European Union, the UK would introduce measures from the date of accession that would make that right available. That is to be welcomed, and it has been extremely well received by the applicant countries.
      Opposition Members have expressed concerns about the Bill, but I cast my mind back to just a few years ago, when we discussed the applications of other states to join the European Union. I well remember the debate about Portugal, Greece and Spain, in which many people said, "Oh, this will be terrible; we'll have thousands upon thousands of Portuguese, Greeks and Spaniards flocking to our shores, taking British jobs and making British people unemployed." Has it happened? No. Will it happen in the future? No. In fact, as has been mentioned, the opposite has been the trend and more and more British people have been moving to work and retire in countries such as Portugal, Greece and Spain.
      Particular reference has been made to one central European country—Poland, where the current unemployment rate is 18.5 per cent. However, it would be profoundly wrong for us to imagine for one moment that because the clause will apply to Poland, just as to the other seven countries, millions of unemployed Polish workers will come to this country trying to find work.
      The reason why that will not happen is that family, cultural and distance restraints will inevitably apply. People will want to have the opportunity to leave, but the practical impediments are such that we will not experience a mass migration of labour. History, and all the economic and social analyses, tell us that.
      3.45 pm
      The scaremongering that we hear from some quarters will inevitably be short-lived. That is because although unemployment is high in parts of Poland, for example, the economies of the countries of central Europe will strengthen remarkably in a relatively short space of time. The accession process involves the employment of structural funds and the liberalisation of markets, so those countries will have an opportunity that they have not had in a generation, which will be a tremendous boost leading to higher levels of indigenous employment. If what I am saying is wrong, safeguards are in place, and there is nothing to prevent the
      362
      Government from reintroducing regulations if they so wish, but nobody who has considered the matter in any great detail and depth can believe that such a scenario is likely.
      My next remarks may not be at all popular with Conservative Members. This country, particularly south-east England, needs more workers coming in who have the skills to help us to build our economy and create a strong, productive economic base. We have a strong economy, which I hope will get stronger, and we need people from outside to work with us to create the economic prosperity that we all seek. That is not a common perception—I appreciate that—and many Conservative Members will be almost pathologically opposed to such a concept, but it is the truth. In my area of south Wales, the whole industrial experience is about workers from different parts of Europe coming in and helping to create the prosperity that our region once enjoyed and, I hope, will enjoy again.
      In approaching this issue we must be honest, but broad-minded as well. If we are immediately to create the right kind of atmosphere in this new enlarged Europe, we must have a proper and enlightened attitude to such matters. I therefore sincerely hope that Conservative Members will have second thoughts about the amendments, so that we do not send out a negative and unintended message to the countries who wish to join, and, what is more, that they will not try to pursue an agenda that is against our economic best interests.
      Beverley Hughes: Let me say at the outset that I hope that in addressing the points raised by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), as well as other Members who contributed constructively to the debate, I can convince him to withdraw the amendment. I shall deal later with his criticisms about the time at which the report has been produced.
      I hope that Conservative Members can join us in supporting the whole Bill, not only because the Government included clause 2 for sound reasons, but because it is important that we send as positive a signal as possible—not just as a Government, but as a whole Parliament—to all the acceding countries. There is a danger that somebody reflecting on today's proceedings could be concerned about what the amendments imply about Conservative Members' attitude towards some of the new member states. They say that they support enlargement, but their amendments suggest that, although there is no need for it from a UK point of view, they want nationals from new member states to be treated, at least in the first phase, as second-class citizens.
      Mr. Spring: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Beverley Hughes: I will just finish this point, then I will be happy to give way.
      It is our position that the Government should extend to these countries the hand of friendship, offer them full acceptance at the earliest opportunity—provided that there is no economic or other reason relating to UK interests not to do so—and not close the door in the first few years.
      Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Of course we shall listen very carefully to what she

      363
      has to say and to the explanations that she gives. We shall obviously consider our amendments in that light. Let me make it absolutely plain, however, that I will not accept for a moment any inference on her part that our seeking this derogation through the amendments somehow implies something negative towards the accession countries. I will simply say that Finland, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium and Austria have all sought such derogations. I hope that the hon. Lady is not casting aspersions on those countries.
      Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has made that point before. From my information, he is quite incorrect about the position of other countries on this matter so far. According to my information, at least six, and possibly seven, countries including the UK—have already decided not to seek the derogation.
      Mr. Spring: There are 15 member states, by the way.
      Beverley Hughes: Yes. A further three have yet to make any decision at all, including some of those the hon. Gentleman named, such as Italy and Luxembourg. They might well follow the lead that has been given by the UK and the other five or six countries that have already declared that they will not impose such regulations or seek the derogation. Almost half the countries have already decided not to impose transitional arrangements—some have yet to announce a decision—and so far, only four have said that they probably will, and they have not firmly committed themselves to a time scale. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has conveyed his information from a position of not being fully informed, as opposed to anything else, but he is actually quite wrong.
      Mr. Bryant: Will my hon. Friend furthermore not accept the line given by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) that the whole of the Conservative party is unanimous in its support of enlargement? The truth is that Conservative Members of the European Parliament lobbied against yes votes in several of the new member states that we hope will be joining next year.
      Beverley Hughes: I understand entirely the point that my hon. Friend is making. On the wider issue of the Opposition's position on this question and the amendments that they have tabled today, the Governments and the peoples of the new member states will form their own judgment as to who their supporters in the UK are. By withdrawing the amendments, however, Conservative Members have an opportunity to make their position absolutely unequivocal on the extent to which they wish to welcome the acceding countries at the earliest opportunity and in the fullest way into membership of the European Union.
      I should like to set out for hon. Members particularly Conservative Members—the reasons, which we announced last December, why we wanted to give workers from the new member states the same rights to work in the UK as are enjoyed by existing EU nationals from the date of accession. That decision was
      364
      made for very sound reasons, and was the product of serious consideration across all Departments which concluded in that governmental decision. In terms of overall migration, clause 2 deals with only a very small part of the free movement of workers. In fact, that free movement will have only a marginal impact, in terms of the overall migration as a result of enlargement per se.
      As the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) and others have acknowledged, the accession treaty provides that all citizens of the new member states will be able to enter the UK and other member states without restriction on 1 May 2004 and reside here freely. Preventing the relatively small number who want to come to work from doing so for any period makes little sense in the context of the UK, and it would have only marginal, if any, additional impact on migration as a whole.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) rightly referred to the lessons from history and the previous enlargement. I accept that there are important differences between that enlargement and this one, but there are considerable similarities none the less. The lessons from that enlargement are, first, that the fears expressed then about its impact on total migration proved to be completely unfounded and, secondly, as he rightly pointed out, that one of the factors behind that was the impact on the economies of the acceding countries.
      Despite what people may say in surveys of their aspirations to move, such as those pointed to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), when they have the opportunity to work in their own country, family ties, culture and identification with country of origin prove to be far more powerful in determining what people do than the pull factors—the attractions of another country.
      Mr. Spring: I take the Minister's point on the net impact of countries such as Greece, Spain and Portugal. Any concerns were not realised. However, I simply make the point that transitional arrangements were put in place when those countries acceded to the EU.
      Beverley Hughes: They were, but they were also rescinded early. In the UK, they were not enforced beyond, as I recall, about two years, even though they were lifted after six. [Interruption.] Exactly, but that proves the point that they were not necessary. They were thought to be necessary then, but they proved not to be so. They were not enforced.
      May I get to the substance of the decision that we have reached on immediate free movement of workers? That decision was not taken lightly, and we looked carefully at a number of factors beforehand. First, we considered the experience of previous enlargement. when the fears of mass migration from those three countries proved to be unfounded despite apocalyptic fears being expressed at the time. Secondly, we examined the body of research on the possible impact on migration post-accession following this enlargement, including by the former Department for Education and Employment and by the European Commission. Both predict that the number of people migrating across the Union will not be significant as a result of this enlargement.
      We have also commissioned further independent research from University college London, which has been published today, to ensure that all the facts on

      365
      which we based our decision are before us. That research looks at literature surveys and the previous studies, which I have referred to, as well as making its own econometric analysis and prediction of the impact on migration as a whole.
      The hon. Member for West Suffolk has criticised us for the date of publication. I understand his point. We had interim findings from the research group earlier—in December—to enable us to take that principled decision, but the completion of the draft by the people from whom it was commissioned was finalised only this week and we were unable to publish the final report before today. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I am pretty sure that we said that the report was coming. We announced that to the media today, and his colleague the shadow Home Secretary appeared to know that it was being published today, because he phoned my private office and was given access to it. It has been published on the website, which was announced, and I am happy to ensure that there is a copy in the Library.
      4 pm
      I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. If we had been able to publish the report earlier we would have done so; but we made clear that it was on its way—and indeed some Conservative Front. Benchers appeared to know that, and took the earliest possible opportunity of looking at it today.
      Mr. Spring: As the Minister knows, we had an important discussion about this on Second Reading. It is a key element of what the accession process is all about. Irrespective of whether the report was published this morning and whether someone had sight of it yesterday or knew it was coming, the fact is that the timing is quite impossible. The Minister must accept that producing a report on a matter that is so hugely important on the first day of the Bill's Committee stage is absolutely disgraceful.
      Beverley Hughes: I acknowledge that that has placed the Opposition in a more difficult situation than I would care to contemplate, but this is independent research, and when it came to exactly when it was to be published we were in the hands of its authors.
      When all Members have had a chance to read the report, as well as research by the former Department for Education and Employment and the European Commission, they will observe that the predictions in the three documents about numbers and the overall impact of migration are very similar. It is predicted by all three that there will be only a small increase in the total number of those migrating from eastern to western Europe—whether to visit, to study or to reside—and that the number coming here to seek employment will be minimal. The research done for the Commission, for instance, suggests that within 30 years just 1.1 per cent. of the population of the current EU Fifteen will consist of nationals from the new member states. The current percentage is 0.2.
      Let me now refer to the overall conclusions of a study combining the research by the Department and the Commission's research. It envisages a number of scenarios. The worst-case scenario involves some of the
      366
      differences between this enlargement and the previous one, referred to by the hon. Member for West Suffolk—in particular, differences in income and GDP. The study concludes that even if we assume that the countries involved are high-emigration countries, and also that convergence in GDP is slow, migration to the UK as a result of eastward enlargement is unlikely to be too great. The evidence that we have collated from existing—not new—sources suggests that net migration from the 10 accession countries to the UK will be in line with current migration.
      I repeat that that conclusion refers to total migration, most of which will result from the freedom of movement that is embedded in the treaty. The additional freedom of movement granted to workers from the date of accession will be minimal.
      Having considered history and the research evidence, we considered our own domestic situation. As a number of Members have pointed out, many UK employers are experiencing shortages in sectors such as hospitality, construction, food processing and transport. The new member states will provide the range of skills and the supply of workers that many UK employers need. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. Those workers will also be able to contribute to our economy, and it will all be legal and above board. I think that is why both the CBI and the TUC support our decision.
      Given those factors and given the wider benefits that the UK will reap from a positive message to the new member states, the only sensible option is to liberalise our labour markets from the point of accession. But, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly we have tempered that gesture with safeguards. We do not expect it to happen but, if there were an unexpected negative impact specifically from the movement of workers, we would be able to suspend or to amend the regulations under the Bill in order to reintroduce restrictions, so our decision, based on a sound analysis of history, of research and study and of the needs of our labour market, poses no risk and is copper-bottomed by a safeguard in the legislation. It will bring us many benefits, which the amendments would cancel out.
      Amendment No. 2 is contrary to the accession treaty, so it would be ultra vires. The accession treaty only allows existing member states to impose restrictions on workers for seven years if they can show the existence of a particular threat after five years have passed. At this stage, the restrictions can be only for a maximum of five years. The further two are only possible if, at that five-year stage, a particular threat can be shown.
      Obviously, we cannot know what the position in May 2009 will be. That is why we have decided to maintain the right to reimpose restrictions on workers if the evidence shows an influx of workers at any time after accession. If after five years there is such a threat, we can still restrict workers for up to seven years from accession, as allowed by the treaty.
      Amendment No. 4 would make the granting of free movement rights to workers from the eight relevant new member states dependent on reports being completed by Government Departments, listed in the amendment, on the expected effects of the regulations under the Bill. As I have made clear, the Government would not have made the decision they did in December 2002 on free

      367
      movement of workers if all those Government Departments had not considered fully the impact of such a decision on their work. They all concluded that the regulations would have a positive impact on the United Kingdom.
      The effect of amendment No. 5 would be to make my Department lay, apparently, regular reports before Parliament on the effect of the regulations under the Bill from May 2004 to 2011. The Department for Work and Pensions already closely monitors the labour market and will continue to do so. From next year, it will look specifically at the effect on the labour market of opening it to the eight relevant new member states from accession. It will use a range of data and information to see whether there is any disturbance to the UK labour market sufficient to justify reintroducing restrictions on workers in line with the safeguards in the legislation. The Department will also closely monitor other sources of information. The CBI, the TUC and other stakeholders, the sector representatives that we are in close dialogue with for other reasons, are already talking to us about how we can do that systematically. Therefore, amendment No. 5 is not necessary. I hope that the Opposition will not press that amendment, or the others.
      There is one outstanding point: that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies). As I have made clear, all Departments considered the impact of clause 2, including the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I understand his point about Roma people but we do not expect enlargement to result in a flow of Roma people. As I have made clear, it will reduce the push factors that encourage people to leave their countries. We do not expect—he acknowledged that it might not happen—enlargement to lead to a large influx of Roma people.
      If the Opposition press the amendments, I will ask the Committee to resist them but my hope is that they will not press them. I hope that they will join the Government and support the Committee on this important Bill, and that we send the most positive signal we can as a Parliament to the accession countries that we not only welcome enlargement but feel able positively to give them full rights as acceding countries from the date of accession. I hope that the Opposition will support clause 2.
      Mr. Spring: I thank the Minister for her comments, which were made with great courtesy; indeed, we all listened with considerable interest to what she had to say. She came to the conclusion that access to the United Kingdom for workers from 1 May would have a marginal impact, and cited three studies, including one published today and one by the former Department for Education and Employment. I am grateful for her somewhat oblique apology for the study that was published only today; at least she acknowledged that fact. She slightly gave the game away when she conceded that there had indeed been a transitional period of two years in respect of previous accessions. That is what we were seeking to achieve through these amendments.
      We of course endorse the Minister's point about key workers. It has always been the policy of all United Kingdom Governments to make it easy for people to
      368
      come to this country, wherever they come from, and we would always wish to be in favour of that. However, the various studies by Government Departments that she talked about were not mentioned at all on Second Reading. It is absolutely extraordinary that the Foreign Secretary made no reference to this wonderful variant of joined-up government. We certainly did not see it, and had we done so it might have persuaded us to think again. As with the study that is so important in reaching a conclusion on the impact of immigration, the Foreign Secretary was unable to reveal the information on Second Reading. I am sorry about that, because it tells my colleagues and I that the functional aspect of the Government is sometimes extremely weak. However, we do not want to dwell on that.
      Beverley Hughes: Everyone who was present on Second Reading will remember that we had a wide-ranging debate on a variety of issues that were not particularly relevant to the Bill. In fact, the Opposition spokesperson himself simply passed over clause 2, saying that they wanted to deal with it in Committee.
      Mr. Spring: One key aspect of accession is entry into the United Kingdom and other existing member states, and I fail to understand why the Minister does not see the importance of that. We will not dwell on the matter, but the fact is that it could have been cleared up on Second Reading. It was not, and that was unfortunate. We have now had two instances of the Government's behaving in a way that is very unhelpful in furthering understanding of the Bill.
      The Minister has said that safeguards are in place and she has spelled them out. I accept them and I am grateful to her for that; however, we will want to monitor them carefully. Having said that, I endorse entirely her point that we want to send out a positive message to the accession countries. We were entitled to ask for clarification, but the overriding importance of the Bill was shown on Second Reading, when something historically extraordinary happened in this Chamber: unanimous acceptance of the Bill. In that context, we will not seek to divide the Committee. The spirit of our support across the party political divide for the accession countries is so powerful and so rooted in the thinking of successive Governments that we do not propose to take these amendments any further. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      Bill reported, without amendment.

      Order for Third Reading read.

      4.15 pm
      Mr. MacShane: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We have had a good afternoon's debate, with generous comments on how much the whole House welcomes the accession of 10 new member states. It is an historic moment for the House of Commons, bringing closure not only to 50 years of the cold war, but to a much longer period during which Europe was divided by different passions, different politics and different

      369
      ideologies. I hope that it signals the beginning of a new century of peace and prosperity, progress and democracy for our common continent and the Euro-Atlantic community of nations to which we and all other members of the European Union belong.
      I am grateful, as are all Government Members, for the way in which Opposition Members have taken the Bill through its Committee stage, making important and cogent points. I do not deny the fact that some fears have been voiced. We heard about the BBC programme on the Roma, which reflected fears that we have to deal with, but we should never lose sight of the fact that our nation has always been at its best when it has opened its doors and been generous to our fellow Europeans and immigrants from all over the world. It was Daniel Defoe's great poem, "The True-Born Englishman", written some 300 years ago, that referred to the English people as "this mongrel race".
      I greatly welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who spoke about the welcome that his parents from Estonia received in this country. I think of my own father who, as a Polish army officer, was wounded in the first campaign against the Wehrmacht of 1939. He escaped and ended up in Scotland, where he married my mother.
      When I was in Poland last week, I took the opportunity to visit some of my great-cousins and I met my father's sister. I discovered that they will be voting yes in the referendum this weekend. I wonder if this could be a turning-point in the history of the House of Commons, when at long last the poisonous venom of anti-Europeanism begins to be drained out of the political system of the United Kingdom, and we can start to speak more as one on the great question of Europe. I hope that never again will my second and third cousins, nieces and nephews in Poland have to contemplate a future other than in their own country, unless they wish to live in another part of Europe. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) pointed out, many of our fellow citizens live and work in other parts of Europe. Many citizens from the European Union work here in London and elsewhere in the UK. I state as firmly as possible from the Dispatch Box that each and every one of them adds value to our nation.
      I am proud of the fact that the Government, with the support of the House, will not apply the more rigorous transition periods that other nations have. I do not criticise them, but I do not understand the need for seven more years of illiberal red tape and bureaucracy before granting people the possibility of coming here to work.
      We had a good Second Reading debate, although it was clogged up with the detritus of isolationism from the Daily Mail and the usual anti-European drivel that we get from those who want this country to withdraw from the EU. I am glad that this afternoon we have moved into the calmer waters of a serious, mature debate on how to make the enlargement of the European Union work.
      I will convey, as I did at the Catholic university of Lublin last Wednesday, the fact that the House of Commons is united in supporting the enlargement of the European Union. It really is an enormous privilege—and strengthens my arm, in as much as I have the honour to represent Her Majesty as the Minister for Europe—to be able to pray in aid the House of
      370
      Commons united on this matter. I hope that on the future great questions of the euro and the constitutional treaty, I will be in a similar position.
      The Third Reading of the Bill is a quiet and satisfying moment in our country's history. Our Prime Minister and his predecessors have taken the lead in holding their feet to the fire, as some of our European partners—who perhaps were not as keen on enlargement—failed to do. Today, the House completes an important piece of legislation and we can say, from the Baltic sea to the east Mediterranean coast, to the two new Commonwealth country members of Malta and Cyprus and to our friends in Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, welcome to this our common European Union, and welcome to the possibility of working with the United Kingdom to make a stronger European Union fit for all of its citizens.
      4.21 pm
      Mr. Ancram: I am glad to support the Third Reading of this historic Bill which paves the way for the Europe of 15 to become the Europe of 25. The Conservative party was one of the earliest advocates of enlargement. Europe could never be whole when so many of its member nations were living behind an ideological as well as a physical iron curtain. The end of the cold war and the collapse of communism opened the doors to the historical reconstituting of Europe. We warmly welcome that, and with this Bill we welcome to our European family the 10 successful applicant countries. From Poland to Malta and from Estonia to Cyprus—and all the other countries that will join us—they will bring both energy and variety.
      I was pleased, along with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. That is more, I may say, than the Prime Minister did, which was a strange omission from someone who has accused us of being anti-enlargement while proclaiming his own deep support for it. Another example of him being all mouth and no delivery.
      We congratulate the accession countries on the courage and determination with which they have pursued their applications to join. The negotiations have not been easy, and uncomfortable concessions and sacrifices have had to be made, as those who have been involved in the negotiations can bear witness. We look forward to working with our new partners in the building of a more prosperous, more stable Europe that looks forward rather than back. That is why one of the ironies of this Bill is that, while it provides for the accession of the 10 new members, it is still not able to indicate what the shape of that which they are joining will be. The Europe that they have negotiated to join is the European Union of the existing treaties. Subject to the coming IGC, and its reaction to the recommendations currently emanating from the Convention, there is a danger that the Europe they join could be very different.
      The current European Union is still, if only just, a Europe of nations where power flows from the national Parliaments and Governments upwards, although that shape has been gravely eroded over recent years. The

      371
      Europe that they may be heading into could be a different animal—a politically united Europe where power flows from the top downwards. The Government will once again dismiss that suggestion. They will tell us that the new Europe will merely be a tidied-up Europe. They have to tell us that, because they know that the British people would not accept the creation of a European political entity. But the accession countries to which the Bill refers are owed better than the sleight of hand to which they are being treated. Those countries need to look beyond the details to the totality of what all the details put together will create.
      If the Convention proposals were adopted, the accession countries would find themselves in an EU that had a number of elements. Those elements would include a separate legal persona; a full-blown constitution, including enforceable fundamental rights; a president with a five-year term; a foreign secretary; supremacy of its laws over the laws of its component parts; its own currency and central bank; a public prosecutor; control over vital areas of home policy; and, increasingly, its own foreign and security policy.
      That would be the totality. What it provides is no longer, in any shape or form, a Europe of nations but a political entity in its own right. That is the reality of what the accession countries would be joining, and not the deceptive spin that we so often receive.
      Hon. Members do not have to take that from me. These accession countries can listen to the words of the former Italian Prime Minister and Convention member Lamberto Dini. Speaking in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph last weekend, he said:
      "Anyone who claims that the constitution will not change things is trying to sweeten the pill for those who do not want to see a bigger role for Europe … The constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people's lives … Eventually the Union will be able to make legislation of its own. It will become an institution and organisation in its own right."
      That is the view from the inside. It is certainly more credible than the "tidying up" nonsense that we get from the Government.
      That view raises interesting questions in relation to the position of the accession countries. The Prime Minister last week in Poland seemed to think that, although the Poles are to have a referendum on accession, they would not have one on the proposed constitution. We later learned that that was not certain and had not yet been decided. The question is this: if a new treaty can be prevented by the failure of any current member of the EU to ratify it—Giscard d'Estaing said on "Breakfast with Frost" two weeks ago that there would be no treaty if that happened—could a new treaty with a constitution be stopped in its tracks by one of the accession countries failing to ratify it following a referendum that required it so to do? That is to say, could an accession country, as its first act of membership, prevent Europe going down the constitution road by refusing to ratify it? That question remains unanswered.
      Another relevant question arose during the recess. I hope that the Minister can clear it up. We learn from the Bill that all members of the EU, including the 10 accession countries, will hold elections to the European Parliament next June. In the absence of referendums, do
      372
      the Government share the view of the Welsh Secretary that these elections provide a sort of surrogate referendum in which the people can—and will—decide? Does that view refer only to this country or will it be applied as well to the equivalent elections in other countries, where there will not be referendums? Would not it be far simpler, more democratic and more honest to hold a referendum here, and let the people decide?
      This Bill is about enlargement. It clears the way for the 10 countries to join the EU. However, the work does not end here. Making enlargement a success will not be easy. Disparities of wealth within the EU will be larger. Certainly, the accession countries will badly need better infrastructure, and support in deploying their natural talents and resources to best effect.
      I believe that the peoples in the 10 accession countries rightly hope that EU membership will bring wealth and jobs. If the economic promise of membership is to become a reality for its new members, then existing members will have to make changes to the way the EU presently works. After all, have we not asked all the applicant states to prepare for membership by closing all the chapters? It is not now a case of what we have done to prepare for their entry, but more a case of what we have not done.
      First, the common agricultural policy must change. There is widespread agreement that it is in need of radical reform. Its history goes back to the beginnings of the Common Market. What it was able to do for six members, it will no longer be able to do for 25.
      Secondly, structural funds cannot continue to be used as they have been. Many countries have benefited greatly from them, and some have prospered so much that they no longer need them to the same extent. Now these funds will be needed elsewhere. Countries such as Poland are crying out for investment in their infrastructure, and wise use of structural funds could be crucial in helping their economies to prosper. I hope that that will also be pursued.
      Thirdly, we must continue to make the single market work. A stable Europe is one built on prosperity. Deep economic reform should be the key priority for the EU at this time. We need flexible economies, freed from the burden of red tape. This week, as we look at the demographic challenges that face so many parts of Europe, we have seen strikes in several European countries, as Governments seek to deal with this emerging problem.
      We will need courage, boldness and vision if over-regulation and archaic and inflexible working practices, coupled with an ageing and shrinking work force are not to make Europe a relative economic backwater.
      Enlargement does not stop next year, however. We hope that Romania and Bulgaria will join in 2007. We hope that, when the political criteria are satisfied, negotiations will begin with Turkey that will lead to its membership. Furthermore, we need to look at the EU's relationship with Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine and Russia. That question is becoming acute. It would be a tragedy if the result of enlargement were to weaken the ties that those countries enjoy with the rest of Europe. It is becoming increasingly clear that the EU will have to develop more flexible structures if we are to develop our relationships with those countries to their full potential. I hope that we shall all take up that challenge for the future.

      373
      Enlargement will create new opportunities for people and businesses in all 25 member states of the new EU. New wealth and jobs will be created. I hope that we shall now seek to build an enlarged Europe that revels in its diversity, not a Europe that seeks to turn itself into a grand political entity, trying to rival the United States, superseding our continent's nation states yet failing to tackle its weak points. We look forward to working with the accession countries to build an EU that looks to its peoples' aspirations, not simply to the aspirations of its elite. I am delighted to support Third Reading.
      4.31 pm
      Mr. Moore: Who would have believed it? We have held a major debate on a significant development in Europe and we have cross-party consensus. Indeed, there was a spectacular result on Second Reading, when 1 he House supported the Bill by 491 votes to nil.
      In that debate, there was much talk of remarkable political transformations, which referred mostly to the spectacular progress made by the accession states, whose membership we endorse today. However, we should not let this moment of cross-party unanimity on this subject pass without reflecting on the positive pro-European signal that our votes sent out on that occasion. Alas, as the speech of the shadow Foreign Secretary has just indicated, and as we may find when we have the announcement—or non-announcement—about the euro on Monday, the moment will prove to have been brief. Let us enjoy it while we can. Liberal Democrat Members wholeheartedly endorse the Bill and support its Third Reading.
      Within a year, we must hope that the existing 15 member states will be joined by 10 new members. Given the extremely positive results of the referendums so far, that seems highly likely. As the Minister for Europe pointed out in Committee earlier, referendums in Malta, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania and Slovakia have given strong endorsement for accession to the European Union. The indications in countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic, which are due to hold referendums shortly, are that they, too, will endorse accession.
      Those results are important and, hopefully, in September will be further enhanced by the addition of Estonia and Latvia to the accession process. They represent a symbolic break with a past that, for so many, was characterised by conflict, invasion and totalitarian rule. The shackles are completely broken. The promised brighter future is taking a new and tangible form.
      Each of those former communist countries has made decisive strides away from its past during the last decade. It would be insulting and naive to suggest that only the lure of EU membership created that change. Each has fast been developing its own democracy and modern market economy, and their desire to join the EU and part of our enthusiasm in welcoming them is based on the entrenchment of their new democratic principles, creating more prosperity and bolstering their security.
      In recent months, opinion polls in the accession states have highlighted what the people of the new members see as the benefits of membership. Greater economic stability, improved competitiveness, human rights protection, rights for workers, environmental protection and common action on drugs and other forms of trafficking are just a few examples and positive
      374
      reasons why they wish to join the EU. We in this country will benefit as well, with access to an increased market with up to 500 million people, which is about twice the size of the United States of America. We, too, will enjoy the benefits of enhanced security, finally, we hope, putting behind us centuries of conflict in Europe.
      Not all will be plain sailing, and it would be remiss of us to ignore some of the problems that still face us. Indeed, in today's proceedings, right hon. and hon. Members have talked about the problems in Cyprus and we share their disappointment that it is not yet possible for the island to join in a united form. However, as has been said today and in previous debates on the subject, the fact that the people of Cyprus are voting with their feet and crossing between the north and the south is a positive development. I hope that the politicians will reflect on that and that a settlement will be reached.
      Similarly, we must not ignore the problems of the need for reform within the EU. We, too, agree that the common agricultural policy, among other policy areas, needs to be examined seriously and overhauled from its present form. As the shadow Foreign Secretary highlighted, we can also look ahead to the outcome of the Convention and the intergovernmental conference and to a whole new way of operating in the EU. We will return to that debate on another occasion. No doubt, the arguments will be vigorous.
      For now, we should continue to recognise the scale of the historical achievement that the Bill marks and that accession represents. Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly endorse the process and support the Bill.
      4.37 pm
      Ann Winterton: I rise briefly to support the Bill's Third Reading, not least because its brings into focus once again the importance to Parliament of the European Communities Act 1972, which has to be amended each time European legislation is introduced in this country. It is important that Members and people outside appreciate the importance of that Act. To date, it has been a one-way journey, in that we have amended the Act to introduce European legislation, but it can be amended the other way—for example, to bring back national control over British fisheries policy. That could be done if this Parliament had the political will so to do.
      I welcome the countries that are joining the EU, but the Second Reading debate was amazing because of the themes that ran through it. I have flicked through Hansard and I wish to quote a couple of remarks made in that debate. The first is by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who said:
      "Enlargement requires decentralisation and flexibility".—[Official Report, 21 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 1040.]
      Everyone would agree with that.
      Later in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) said:
      "The EU is in drastic need of reform. A large proportion of hon. Members agree broadly on the agenda to deal with it. We want a looser EU with the supranational element stripped out. We want the application of subsidiarity, or whatever one wants to call it. We want much greater scrutiny of EU activity by national Parliaments."—[Official Report, 21 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 1108.]
      However, the accession of the 10 states after May next year and an EU of 25 states will make change and reform much more difficult to achieve. Any meaningful

      375
      change or reform has to be agreed by unanimity. It has been difficult enough to get unanimity among 10 and 15 member states, and another 10 will make that even more difficult.
      With that word of caution, I join hon. Members on both sides in welcoming the Bill and supporting its Third Reading.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  PETITION

    Post Offices
    4.40 pm
    Ann McKechin: It is a great honour to present to the House a petition from the west of Scotland seniors forum. Its headquarters is based in my constituency but, as its name suggests, it campaigns on behalf of the elderly over a wide area of Scotland.
    Tremendous concern has been reflected throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom about the effect of the current post office closure programme on our local communities and, especially, the elderly. Many older people, including a significant percentage of older people in my constituency, rely entirely on their local post office to obtain their pensions and pay their bills. Many elderly people rely solely on public transport and many suffer from mobility problems. In addition, many live a considerable distance from alternative banking facilities. Such closures are likely to hit our elderly the hardest.
    The west of Scotland seniors forum has collected a magnificent 9,076 signatures from post office users in many parts of Scotland. It calls for the current closure plan to be stopped and hopes that its appeal will be taken seriously.
    The petition states:
    To the House of Commons
    The petition of the West of Scotland Seniors Forum
    Declares that Consignia/Post Office Ltd is wrong to consider closing 3,000 local post offices as this will lead to poorer services for older people who rely on their local post office for many transactions. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to intervene and stop the closures.
    And the petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

Sub-Plot Land Sales
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Caplin.]
4.42 pm
Sir John Stanley: My debate has been triggered by a horrendous chain of events at a location in the green belt in my constituency called Deer's Leap. I shall return to that but the House and the Minister should be in no doubt that the events that I shall describe have a significance that goes far wider than only my constituency. They have relevance to the south-east region and beyond, because they call into question the integrity, credibility and enforceability of the entire development control system.
Deer's Leap is—or rather was—an area of lush, open meadow in the beautiful parish of Hever, near the town of Edenbridge in my constituency. It is in an area that is designated as both green belt and of local landscape importance. Those who bought homes in the vicinity of Deer's Leap did so on the basis of local authority searches, some of which I have seen, that assured them that the surrounding land was designated as green belt The prices that they paid for the homes reflected that designation. Sadly, the name Deer's Leap today carries a somewhat bitter irony. It is the name of an area in which no self-respecting deer would venture to tread; and no deer, or indeed anyone who saw what is there today, would leap for joy.
It was on 2 September last year that the officers of Sevenoaks district council, who should be commended for their alertness, first became aware that a land speculation company called Parker Fields Ltd., which had acquired Deer's Leap, was offering it for resale in a series of sub-plots. On the following day, 3 September, the council immediately fired a warning shot across the bows of Parker Fields. They told the company that the council would strongly resist any attempt to develop Deer's Leap for non-agricultural purposes and that it would monitor the site closely and consider taking any enforcement action that became necessary. Regrettably, the warning shot proved to have no deterrent value whatsoever for that land speculation company.
With all the danger signs flashing over Deer's Leap, the officers of the council as quickly as possible sought and obtained from the members of the council authority to apply to the Deputy Prime Minister for article 4 directions. As the House knows, article 4 directions are the strongest forms of protection that can be obtained for a site such as Deer's Leap under existing planning law. The council applied for not just one article 4 direction, but three, supposedly to protect the site against the incursion of caravans, the arrival of hardcore for hard-standings or roadways, and the erection of fencing.
The council applied to the Deputy Prime Minister's Department on 13 November last year. It took the Department a total of four months to process those straightforward applications, which was far too long. Finally, on 12 March the three directions, signed in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister, reached Sevenoaks district council. Ironically, the letters and approval of the three article 4 directions arrived on the day on which the invasion of Deer's Leap began.

377
The invasion of Deer's Leap was no ordinary minor infringement of development control. It was a carefully planned, determinedly executed military-style operation. Caravans started to arrive on 12 March. Hard on their heels came lorry after lorry loaded with hardcore to create hard-standings and roadways. That in turn was followed by the removal of the topsoil and the erection of huge lengths of fencing to fence off the sub-plots. In a very short space of time, the lush open meadow of Deer's Leap in the green belt had become an environmental eyesore of a caravan encampment with all the trappings of permanence. In the process, the article 4 directions of the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had, frankly, been torn up in shreds in his face.
Equally well organised in that carefully planned attempt to smash the development control system was the planning application. Lo and behold, it arrived in the offices of Sevenoaks district council on 13 March, just 24 hours after the invasion of Deer's Leap began. The planning application was for a retrospective change of use of Deer's Leap to be used as a site for the permanent positioning of 12 caravans and mobile homes, together with hard-standing and fencing. In other words, it was an application to get planning consent on a permanent basis for a change of use that had already been brought about by force and by occupation.
In such circumstances the local authority has only one place to go—to the High Court for an injunction—and to the High Court Sevenoaks district council went. Unhappily, though, the legal system is no better able than the planning system to protect areas such as Deer's Leap from gross breaches of development control. The practice of the High Court is not to issue an injunction saying that the land is to be restored to what it was before the gross breach of development control took place, but merely to issue an injunction to stop the breach getting any worse than it has become by the time the injunction is issued. That means that the legal system gives every possible incentive to those carrying out a gross breach of development control to make the maximum possible breach in the shortest possible time, before the injunction takes effect. That is precisely what happened at Deer's Leap.
Despite the serious limitations of the legal process, Sevenoaks district council had no alternative but to go down the High Court injunction route. An ex parte injunction was obtained on 3 April, three weeks after the invasion started, followed by an inter partes injunction confirming the ex parte injunction on 11 April. By the time the ex parte injunction was issued on 3 April requiring the maintenance of the status quo as at that date, there were a total of 12 caravans on the site. However, following the injunctions of 3 and 11 April, additional caravans continued to arrive on the site, additional hardcore was laid out and additional fencing continued to go up. As a result, Sevenoaks district council has had to go to the extreme lengths of making a further application to the High Court for a committal order to prison for contempt of court. That is set down for hearing on 27 June.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I took advice from the Clerk of the House this morning on the application of the sub judice rule. In accordance with the advice that I received, I shall make no comment on the
378
merits or otherwise of Sevenoaks district council's application for a committal order set down for hearing on 27 June.
In the meantime, the planning application lodged on 13 March has been determined. It was determined last week, on 30 May. Sevenoaks district council refused planning consent and the council members gave authority for the taking of enforcement action to try to restore Deer's Leap in its entirety to an unfenced grazing area. However, that is not the end of the planning story. Planning refusals can be appealed. Enforcement notices can be appealed. If there are appeals, months will elapse while an inquiry is set up, a public inquiry is heard, the inspector goes away to consider the inquiry's evidence and produce his report, and final determination of the appeals takes place. It could be a year or more from the start of the invasion before the planning outcome is determined.
I earnestly hope that the outcome, which will appear in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister, will ensure that the gross breach of development control is reversed in its entirety. All that can be said at this stage—this is a grim situation for my constituents—is that the final outcome is unknown.
What can be done about situations such as that at Deer's Leap? Prior to this debate, I put the case in writing directly to the Deputy Prime Minister, on 28 March and again on 14 April. When I wrote, I illustrated the situation with photographs taken before the invasion and after it, which were kindly supplied by one of my constituents. I found the reply dated 7 May that I received from the Minister of State in another place, Lord Rooker, totally inadequate. It contained the, to my mind, hopelessly over-optimistic sentence:
"I should point out that controls already exist to tackle unlawful development in the countryside."
Tell that to those of my constituents who live in the vicinity of Deer's Leap. Controls may exist in theory, but in practice, as I hope I have illustrated, they are totally and utterly ineffectual against those who are out to smash the development control system. In his reply, the Minister of State showed no regard for the seriousness of what has happened at Deer's Leap. He showed no appreciation of how urgently Government legislation is now required, and no understanding of the fact that if new legislation is not forthcoming, the implications for the entire development control system will be very serious.
In exploring what should be done, I start with what I thought was a very pertinent observation put to me by the planning director of Sevenoaks district council, Mrs. Jean Morgan, in a letter to me dated 30 May. She says:
"It is difficult not to conclude that planning only works when people follow the rules: the current system is based on consent and compliance. Although it works successfully to protect the environment and the interests of the wider community in the large majority of cases, when it does not work it can fail spectacularly."
At Deer's Leap it has failed not only spectacularly, but disastrously. The key question is what is to be done about the small minority of people, whether companies, partnerships or individuals, who are out simply to bust the development control system. I shall start with the land speculation companies, because I believe that without them the problem would not arise. If there were no Parker Fields Ltd., I would not have had to raise this debate.

379
I want to take this opportunity to put the record straight on one point relating to Parker Fields Ltd. I have examined the company's website very closely. Parker Fields Ltd. operates out of suite 113 of the Park Royal business centre in London N W10. On the first page of the website is a quotation in which the company is described as the
"Robin Hood of the Land Industry".
Below that is the statement that the company's sole director
"robs the Rich and gives to the Middle Classes".
Well, Robin Hood, I have been examining your company's transactions in the context of Deer's Leap, and I want to put on the record the justification or otherwise for the nauseatingly self-righteous claim that you make on the front page of your website.
In doing so, I am most grateful for the assistance that I have received from the chief registrar of the Tunbridge Wells district Land Registry office for the following information. He has assured me that in all cases it can be put into the public domain. These are the transactions in relation to Deer's Leap conducted by Parker Fields Ltd.
On 19 April 2002, the company bought the area for £60,000. It got its money back in five months flat by reselling part of the site to Susan Armitage for £60,000. From then on it was profit all the way for Robin Hood, and the profit came in three separate tranches. There were two sales to Mr. William Kennedy in September 2002 and February 2003 for £19,000 and £10,000 respectively. Finally, there was a sale to four members of the Doran family in sub-plots for £22,500 in February 2003. So as a result of the land speculation of Parker Fields Ltd., for the initial outlay of £60,000 it got back £111,500, effectively nearly doubling its money in 10 months flat. The one person who has clearly become significantly richer is Mr. Robin Hood.
Let us consider the other side of the financial equation. The local home owners in the vicinity of Deer's Leap have found that hundreds of thousands of pounds have been wiped off the value of their homes. Indeed, one or two of the local residents have told me that their homes are now, to all intents and purpose, unsaleable.
In addition, the luckless council tax payers of Sevenoaks district council are picking up an ever increasing bill. I have seen the costs for the district council so far. In terms of legal fees and the cost of officers' time, the bill for the district council's council tax payers already runs into tens of thousands of pounds. I suspect that that is only the start of the overall bill for council tax payers. There will be further legal costs and High Court appearances. There is no doubt that further costs will be incurred—officers' time and legal costs—as a result of a public inquiry if the enforcement notice and planning refusal are appealed.
Perhaps most significantly of all, at the end of the process, if the Deputy Prime Minister ensures that the site is returned to its original state, as I trust he will, there will be the cost of removing all the hardcore, some of which may be contaminated, putting back the topsoil and restoring the site to what it was. Ultimately, the bill could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds, which might become a liability of the council tax payers of Sevenoaks district council.
380
On the basis of this illustration, which I am glad I have had the opportunity to recount to the House in detail, it is evident that although only a small minority of people are determined to bust the development control system, the present civil basis of planning law and enforcement law is ineffectual. It clearly provides a wholly insufficient deterrent for those who are effectively seeking to take development rights into their own hands.
I believe that the Government have to consider introducing wholly new legislation in respect of such people, who create major breaches of development control. In speaking of major breaches, I am not referring to homeowners who push their luck with extensions that are rather larger than is appropriate under the general development order or even to travellers who pitch camp at the roadside and who intend to move on, but do so only when they are required to—irritating, vexing and costly though the associated processes are. I am referring to those who breach development control in a major way and then seek to establish permanent development rights on the basis of their breach.
I want to put a particular proposal to the Minister. I believe that there is now an unanswerable case, given the weakness of the civil law, to make a small but necessary extension of the criminal law into this area. The proposition that I put to her is that where companies, partnerships or individuals knowingly connive in, are associated with or give effect to major breaches of development control, they should be brought within the ambit of the criminal law. Happily, the Government have in the House at the present time a legislative vehicle that would make that possible—the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, on which I understand a carry-over motion is being debated next week. I ask the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to consider most carefully the proposal that I have made, as I believe that it is absolutely essential, on the basis of what has happened at Deer's Leap and elsewhere, to make a significant change in the development control system and to introduce the criminal law into this area.
Finally, I stress to the Minister the fact that the problem is growing. If she is in any doubt about that, I suggest to her and her officials that they scrutinise the website of Parker Fields Ltd., as well as those of other companies that may be involved in the speculative sub-plot land sale process. That website should be studied not only by the Government, but by local authorities and solicitors firms advising clients as to whether they should buy a house in a particular location. Indeed, a large number of existing house owners may wish to satisfy themselves as to whether Parker Fields Ltd. is active in the vicinity of their homes. If that is the case, all that I can point out is that the activities of that company have had a disastrous impact on house prices in the immediate vicinity of Deer's Leap.
It may assist the Minister and the House if I indicate the locations where Parker Fields Ltd. has land up for sale, as featured today on its website. There are two sites in south Buckinghamshire, at Denham and Beaconsfield. A site is up for sale in the Chiltern district of Buckinghamshire, and another site in the Three Rivers district of Hertfordshire. There is also a site near Maidstone in Kent, which I am sure will dismay my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for

381
Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), and a site in the Mole Valley area of Surrey. Only today, a site appeared on the website that is described thus: "Surrey. Coming soon—nine and a half acres south of Dorking.' That will please people who live just south of Dorking. Lastly, there is a site in east Sussex in the Wealden district.
I make these points to the Minister so that the Government are in no doubt that the significance of the problem goes much wider than my constituency. The Government must act. They must produce further legislation, and they must do so fast.
5.10 pm
The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Let me say at the beginning that I fully understand why the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) has brought the subject of the debate before the House. I congratulate him on securing the debate. I entirely share his view that this is an important issue for his constituency with wider ramifications throughout the south-east. He may be aware of the previous debate that was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) in April. It is a matter of cross-party concern to the whole House, and I am pleased that we are discussing it. There is great concern about the practice of sub-dividing farmland to sell off at higher prices than might be achieved through the sale of the land as one large plot, which has given rise to some of the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman outlines. I shall shortly go into those in a little more detail.
First, I want to reassure the House that the Government do not intend to change the basis of green belt policy as set out in national planning policy guidance. The fundamental aim of green belt policy remains unchanged: it is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The purposes of including land in green belts are: to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration. The guidance makes it clear that there is a general presumption against inappropriate development in green belts. Save for a few specific exceptions—for example, agricultural buildings—the construction of new buildings inside a green belt is inappropriate development. The right hon. Gentleman, as a distinguished former Minister in the Department of the Environment, as it then was, will be familiar with policy and procedure in this area. In his announcement on sustainable communities on 5 February this year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the protection and enhancement of the green belt and the valued countryside around our towns and cities.
If the House will bear with me, I shall clearly set out the legal position. I agree that the sub-division of agricultural land, especially in areas of outstanding natural beauty, can have an adverse affect on the scenic nature of the environment. The sub-division itself can be unsightly, but it may lead to even more harmful longer term affects. If a developer buys a plot of land and discovers that planning permission is not granted for the use that he or she has in mind, there is a real danger that
382
the plot could fall into neglect and disrepair. Subdivision of fields is, of course, perfectly legal and can be undertaken without the need for planning permission. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 grants permitted development rights for
"the erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure",
provided that it is 2 m or less in height above ground level.
Unless a planning condition or other legal obstacle affects the situation, development permitted by the general permitted development order cannot be prevented except by a local authority using its powers under article 4 of the order to withdraw permitted development rights in a particular circumstance. The right hon. Gentleman has already given us a graphic example of that this afternoon. Article 4 directions may also require the agreement of the Deputy Prime Minister in his role as First Secretary of State.
I should also explain that permitted development rights granted by Parliament are removed only in exceptional circumstances, and only when a real and specific threat to the interest of the proper planning of an area has been demonstrated. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that to do otherwise would undermine the rights granted to the public to undertake minor works, and involving certain temporary uses, without the need for planning permission. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not speaking of cases such as these; he is speaking about the specific examples—in a very cogent fashion, if I may say so that he has given to the House this afternoon. Having said that, when it is shown that such a threat exists, we appreciate that prompt action is required by both local and central Government—I understand what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the time gap; I will undertake to look into that—to ensure that, in appropriate instances, permitted development rights are removed before uncontrolled and potentially harmful development takes place.
I should point out that the effect of the directions is not to prevent development outright. As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the developer would still be able to seek planning permission, but that must be done firmly within the bounds of the planning and development control framework. Such directions enable the council to have control over the situation, and to decide any application in the light of the development plan and any other material considerations, such as relevant planning policy guidance. The process also allows local residents to make representations on any application for planning permission that may subsequently be made.
In respect of the particular case at Deer's Leap that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, I base my remarks on information that has been provided to me by the local government office. I understand that Sevenoaks district council had previously contacted the selling agent of Parker Fields Ltd. Indeed, that has been confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman today. The council told the agent that it would strongly resist any form of inappropriate development, as the site was designated green belt, an area of local landscape importance, and an area for the special control of

383
adverts. It is also included in the Environment Agency's indicative flood plain, so there are several important reasons why the local authority acted in the way that it did.
The selling agent was also advised that the site would be closely monitored and that consideration would be given to enforcement action against any development for use of the site for non-agricultural purposes. Following this contact with the selling agent, the council contacted the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, requesting confirmation of three article 4 directions on the site. It felt that if development took place under permitted development rights, it could seriously affect the character, amenity and attractiveness of the countryside. On 12 March this year, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Government office for the south-east confirmed these three article 4 directions on land at Deer's Leap field.
Sevenoaks has subsequently refused planning permission for the siting of four mobile homes on the site, as has been stated, and is currently considering an application for a stable block on the site. However, I understand that there are currently 21 caravans on the site, complete with large areas of hard standing, including block paving, that do not relate to the sketches shown to the council as part of the planning application process. Indeed, this has been graphically described by the right hon. Gentleman.
I further understand—this is my information as of last night—that an enforcement notice is being prepared by the council to remove the caravans and hard standing and return the use of land to its natural agricultural state. I understand also that it will be served very soon.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of enforcement powers and how breaches of planning control could be dealt with. He will be aware that we recently undertook a comprehensive review of planning enforcement. The resulting consultation paper, which considers the principles and the range of powers available, was issued towards the end of last year. We expect to announce the results later this year.
The right hon. Gentleman has made strong representations. Even though the consultation period has closed, I give him my undertaking that we will look very seriously at the proposals that he has put to us this afternoon. I hope that that is helpful to him.
Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that her Department will look closely at the proposals I have made. Can she say that the Government have an open mind as to whether there may be circumstances in which it would be right to bring major breaches of development control within the ambit of the criminal law system? I am not asking her to sign up to that proposition across the Floor of the House today, but I hope that she can confirm that, on this key issue, the Government have an open mind.
Mrs. Roche: I want to choose my words carefully here. We will look very openly at all the representations that are made to us. The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of serious issues, which deserve thorough examination. We will certainly look at them. I
384
hope that he will forgive me for being unable to give any firmer commitment, because, of course, a number of representations have already been received.
It might interest the House to know that the Deputy Prime Minister has also confirmed other article 4 directions in respect of sites in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. For example, the Deputy Prime Minister recently confirmed eight directions on Common road, Burham. The site comprises about 17 hectares of land fronting on to the north-east side of Common road adjacent to Burham Hill farm.
Sir John Stanley: That area is in the adjacent constituency, which is represented by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw). He and I have been discussing the issue, and I know that he will be glad to hear what the Minister has said.
Mrs. Roche: I am grateful for that information. I will write to my hon. Friend to ensure that he is apprised of these matters. I am sure that he is, as there will have been discussions between him and the right hon. Gentleman.
The land is a site of nature conservation interest. It is also an area of outstanding natural beauty and a special landscape area. The Deputy Prime Minister has also recently confirmed an article 4 direction on a site at Raywood farm, near Ashford. A company named Property Spy was advertising the site as being available for sale in plots. The local authority believes that, without the direction, the subdivision of land could seriously damage the amenity of the area, which is designated as a special landscape area.
To bring us right up to date, I understand that the Government office for the south-east is considering requests for confirmation of article 4 directions from Tonbridge and Mailing borough council on the following sites: Beechin wood farm, Platt; Shrublands, Platt; and Kits Coty farm in Aylesford. We will ensure that the consideration is completed as soon as possible. understand that investigations have been carried out on two sites, and that a third is to be conducted soon.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is not just an issue for his constituency; it has wide ramifications. He has done the House a service by raising it.
The Government are conducting a review of permitted development rights to determine whether existing rights are still appropriate, and to consider how the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 could be made more comprehensible. The first stage of the review—a research study—is nearing completion, and the report is likely to be published this summer. I cannot comment on its findings until we have seen its recommendations, but I can confirm that the issue of subdivision of land has been raised with the researchers.
Once the report has been completed, we will consider its conclusions and recommendations before deciding whether any changes are desirable. Any such changes will be subject to full public consultation, and I am sure that the subdivision issue will be raised during that consultation.
Sir John Stanley: Can the Minister confirm that, if the House approves the carry-over order for the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill next week, that will

385
provide a legislative vehicle allowing changes in the development control system to be introduced if the Government so decide?
Mrs. Roche: I do not want to raise the right hon. Gentleman's hopes. I am not sure whether that is allowed by the timetable for the review. However, other matters relating to planning are still under consideration, so there may be other opportunities in the future.
386
We want to act to support local planning authorities when a real and specific threat has been shown to exist, even if it is posed by permitted development. I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman brought this case to our attention. We must protect the countryside, for the benefit of those who want to enjoy the countryside not just today but tomorrow.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Five o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. EDWARD O'HARA in the Chair]

Human Rights
[Relevant documents: Human Rights Annual Report 2002—Fourth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 257, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 5820.]
Motion made and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.— [Joan Ryan.]
2.30 pm
Donald Anderson: Mr. Deputy Speaker,
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood"
and reason. So begins the universal declaration of human rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948. I stress the world "universal", which cannot be qualified by degrees of longitude or latitude. At this time, that grand aspiration seems far from being realised, with images of conflict and horrific human rights abuses filling our television screens every day, and some have tried to develop a theory of contextual or cultural relativity. I am therefore most grateful for the opportunity to debate this important report on human rights by the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I am delighted to see so many of my colleagues from the Committee in the Chamber.
From the start, the Committee understands that the application of the general principle must take account of the test of effectiveness; that is, we must consider which approach will have the most likely positive effect on a particular country and its circumstances. Equally, the Committee recognises that the test of effectiveness might be used as a cover, and that there is the danger of falling prey to the temptation of being tough on smaller, insignificant countries and soft on the big ones with a strategic or commercial interest. Although the application may differ, in my judgment, the underlying principles do not change.
What is the background to our inquiry? I have had the honour of chairing the Foreign Affairs Committee since 1997. Since that time, it has kept human rights high on its agenda. In April 1998, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office published its first annual report on its work to promote human rights overseas. Since then, a positive dialogue has developed between the Committee and the FCO. As a result of the recommendations that we have made each year in response to the annual report, we have seen big improvements in its content and format. We are pleased to continue the tradition of scrutiny, which well illustrates the nature of Select Committees' influence on the Departments that it is their job to scrutinise.
In the 2002 report, we covered the form and content of the FCO report. We raised some of the human rights issues associated with the war against international terrorism. We expressed our concerns about the human
140WH
rights situation in several countries and the way in which the Foreign Office had covered them in its report. We also examined the work and role of the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. We thank all who assisted us in the course of our inquiry. The Minister had an early baptism before the Committee, but however we tried to test him on the remotest of countries, he knew all or most of the answers. We also thank the representatives from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
The Government reply to our report was published shortly before the winter recess; it was positive, full and thorough; it engaged with the substance of our report and accepted many of our recommendations and conclusions. Indeed, I commend that reply as an exemplar to the rest of the Foreign Office and other Departments.
The Committee broadly welcomed the Government report, which was well set out and informative. We were pleased to note that there had been many changes to the report, many of which we recommended, such as the re-inclusion of the universal charter of human rights at the beginning. Some differences remain, such as those on the presentation of country information. I anticipate a dialogue on that model between the Committee and the FCO.
The report raises concerns about UN human rights policy in various parts of the world, although I cannot do a Cook's tour and mention all the countries.
Mr. Eric Illsley: Oh, go on.
Donald Anderson: I am sure that my colleagues, including my good and hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), will take up those countries that I omit.
I turn now to a few of the key countries, especially Burma, or Myanmar, which is particularly relevant today because of the renewed oppression there. Aung San Suu Kyi has been taken into "protective custody"; I know that the Minister called in the Burmese ambassador earlier this week to call for her release. Our report highlights the continuing human rights abuses committed by the military dictatorship in Burma, especially against the ethnic minorities, many of which are on the border with Thailand.
Those people have long been the victims of continued repression, forced labour, summary executions, torture, rape and forced relocation. It is estimated that there are some 650,000 internally displaced persons from those minority groups in Burma. We recommended that the next annual report include more detailed information on the plight of the minority groups and that the Government maintain the strongest possible
"pressure on the Burmese regime to respect the human rights of all its citizens".
We were pleased to note that the Government's reply accepted that minorities suffer disproportionately in Burma, and they promised to include further details in the next annual report. The reply also reaffirmed the Government's commitment to maintaining pressure on the regime, both bilaterally and with our European partners.
Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are very much in the news today. Carla del Ponte, the prosecutor for international criminal tribunals for

141WH
Rwanda and Yugoslavia, warned on 13 May that ethnic conflict in the north-east of the DRC could constitute genocide. The precedent, which must worry us all, is Rwanda, where between March and June 1994 more than 800,000 people were killed while the international community looked on. I recall that an assimilation exercise carried out by West Point suggested that had some 5,000 international peacekeepers been there the greater part of that genocide could have been avoided.
I am pleased to note that there was an agreement in February between the Presidents of Uganda and the DRC on the withdrawal of Ugandan troops, but since then the situation has deteriorated. I am pleased to note also that the United Nations Security Council recently endorsed a French-led— peacekeeping force, which the EU approved earlier this week. It is vital that human rights in that area be guaranteed as soon as possible.
Perhaps the Minister could bring us up to date with the role that the UK is taking and say a little more about the decision at the G8 meeting in Evian relating to peacekeeping in Africa as a whole. In the early 1990s, the then British Foreign Secretary, now Lord Hurd, made an excellent speech to the UN General Assembly in which he recommended that there be a peacekeeping force trained by Europeans. However, very little has happened since then, although Evian may now point the way forward.
Clearly, the Zimbabwe regime is one of the major human rights abusers in the world at present. Only by adopting the toughest possible stance against it can we hope to improve the human rights situation of its people. The Select Committee has carried out much work on the subject. Immediately before the recess, we published a full report on developments there, which I commend to colleagues.
In our report on the FCO annual report, we deplored President Chirac's decision to invite President Mugabe to the recent Franco-African summit and his willingness to jeopardise the EU sanctions regime. We urged the Government to
"do everything within its power to ensure that the EU sanctions regime against the Mugabe regime is maintained and, if possible, extended".
In its reply, the FCO said that it shared our concern about the invitation, but intimated that France practically blackmailed the rest of Europe into accepting Mugabe's presence in Paris by threatening to veto an extension of the sanctions regime.
We said in our report that it
"would have been better to have called the bluff of the French and challenged them to incur international criticism by preventing the renewal of the sanctions regime."
I was pleased to note the condemnation of Mugabe's human rights abuses at the G8 summit. Although it was relatively milk and water, at least it was the first reference to Zimbabwe by the G8. We look forward to an opportunity to explore such issues further, perhaps in a full debate on the Select Committee's Zimbabwe report.
Clearly, one of the greatest weaknesses in the 2002 report is the coverage of Saudi Arabia. Despite widely reported human rights abuses there, the FCO report dealt with the situation in a mere three paragraphs. One
142WH
of our witnesses described the section as "woefully inadequate". We are inclined to agree. The report barely mentioned the slow progress that the kingdom is making on the issue of torture. Much of the progress to which the 2002 report referred was also noted in the 2001 report. The three inadequate paragraphs compare poorly with the 17 pages in the US State Department's equivalent publication.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Saudi Arabia's strategic importance to the war on terrorism led to a considerable understatement of the UK's criticism of the country's human rights record. Our report recommended that the next FCO annual report
"set out a more detailed and candid assessment of its concerns about the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia, and of the effect British policies to tackle human rights abuses there".
We were pleased to note from the Government's response that they accepted the breadth of human rights concerns in Saudi Arabia, including the use of torture, and gave a fuller assessment of the situation than appears in the annual report. I urge the Minister to continue such candour in future annual reports. For the Government to be respected on the subject, they must speak out frankly about what has, and has not, worked and continue to press for change in the kingdom.
I turn now to human rights and the war on terrorism. We are pleased to note that the 2002 annual report starts with a section devoted to the fight against international terrorism, something that we recommended last year. Our report stressed again the importance of a concern for human rights being at the centre of the UK response to the outrage in the World Trade Centre on 11 September and stated:
"The fight against such terrorism cannot be an excuse for human rights abuses anywhere."
In particular, vital geopolitical or strategic needs of the fight against terrorism should not stop us speaking out against allies as well as opponents.
We highlighted the example of Uzbekistan as a country that has used the war against terrorism as an excuse to clamp down on the freedom of its citizens. We expressed particular concern about the decision of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to hold a prestigious meeting in Tashkent. However, I am glad to note some evidence of progress. I understand that the International Development Minister made a statement and that the President has now agreed to the return of the UN special rapporteur for that country. It is obviously imperative that the Foreign Office continues to stress to its coalition partners its principles of respect for human rights.
Turning to Guantanamo bay, human rights issues extend beyond our concerns about the middle east and central Asian states. Our US Government partner's decision to hold prisoners at Guantanamo bay in Cuba without trial or due legal process is a source of some concern. We note the result of the Abbasi case in this country and the judgment in November 2002, when the Court of Appeal concluded that he was
"arbitrarily detained in a 'legal black-hole', in what was a 'clear breach' of his 'fundamental human rights'."
However, the Court of Appeal felt unable to do more than ask the Foreign Secretary to consider Mr. Abbasi's representations for assistance. We are concerned about the continued detention without trial of those prisoners,

143WH
which risks undermining our ability and that of our US partners to speak out on other human rights issues. I hope that the Government will continue to press the US Government on that matter, and I would welcome any further information that the Minister could give us.
A final issue relating to the war on terrorism is the publication in November 2002 of the dossier on human rights abuses in Iraq. The dossier is being much discussed at present, as are dossiers in general. The Committee supported the decision last November to publish. It was right to bring to the public's attention what was happening in Iraq as a result of the Saddam Hussein regime. However, the Government's apparent unwillingness to produce further dossiers on human rights abusers may undermine their good intentions in respect of the Iraqi dossier. It could be seen as singling out just one country—Iraq—simply to justify the conflict that began in March. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to publishing further dossiers on human rights situations in other countries. Periodically, we have made representations in respect of countries such as Zimbabwe. Such dossiers could be extremely useful in highlighting and shaming the worst offenders.
Turning to the UNCHR, I want to mention our disquiet that the international community continues to devalue its stance on human rights by actions such as the Buggin's turn principle in the United Nations and the fact that the Government did not seriously challenge Libya's chairing of the Commission on Human Rights—we abstained on that point. How can we take seriously an organisation concerned with human rights that has a serious human rights violator in the chair? Surely the question answers itself.
We note in passing that Iraq was due to become chair of the UN Conference on Disarmament in March 2003, since when, as we say in Parliament, an amendment has been moved. In fact, the situation was avoided only because Iraq withdrew from that responsibility. Surely, such total incongruities in the UN play into the hands of unilateralists in the United States and devalue the UN's work in this important field. The Select Committee said that there is surely a case for some membership criteria, but we recognise the practical political problems that would be involved.
It is very easy to criticise and naturally we do so. The report concentrates on areas that need improvement. However, it is important to stress that the FCO's annual human rights report as a whole is an important and well constructed document. It is difficult to find a publication of similar quality which provides the same quantity of information elsewhere in the world. I should like the Minister to pass on our thanks and praise to the officials involved.
Mr. David Drew: I know that it is difficult to mention everything, but I was a little surprised that my right hon. Friend did not mention North Korea in his catalogue of woes. In the lexicon of awful states, North Korea must now be virtually the first entry. As a fellow Christian, I know that my right hon. Friend would be concerned about the evidence given by Christian Solidarity Worldwide. One of the worst aspects of the situation is that when people escape from North Korea—they tend to go to China—they now get repatriated. Is it not worth paying special attention to
144WH
that? Maybe, in addition to its report, the Select Committee can take the matter up directly with the Government.
Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend makes a very important point with which I totally agree. The problem is what to omit. I could, for example, have covered the problems of the Christian minorities in Pakistan and other Muslim states. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central said earlier that he would be ready to fill any gaps if I inadvertently failed to mention something.
The Government's record on promoting human rights in the wider context is solid. That is evidenced by the fact that, by the end of the financial year 2003–04, the human rights projects fund, which was created in 1998, will have given support worth over £26 million to more than 600 human rights projects in more than 90 countries. Of course, many of those are micro-projects, but they are none the less valuable for that. In my judgment—I believe I speak on behalf of the Committee on this—the Government have made a positive contribution, but we should not become complacent. Much more needs to be done. We look forward to continuing our constructive and positive dialogue with the Government, from our perspective of scrutinizing what they do and fail to do—sins of commission and omission, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) might say—in the years to come.
2.52 pm
Mr. John Maples:I apologise in advance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to you and to the Chamber, for the fact that I cannot stay until the end of the debate.
I should like to pick up on what our Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), said about Saudi Arabia, which I want to use to show why human rights are important not only in themselves but for the countries concerned and the stability of the regions in which they exist. We were pretty critical in our report of what the Government had said about Saudi Arabia, and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we contrasted that with a similar report from the US, which was much more elaborate.
Interestingly, in their response to our report, the Government said rather more about Saudi Arabia than they had in their original report about that country. We all noticed that, as did Amnesty International. The Government went into quite a lot of detail about the problems of the judicial system—the lack of transparency and impartiality, torture and prolonged incommunicado in pre-trial detentions—and about the lack of women's rights to participation, quite apart from the lack of democracy. Amnesty International picked up on those points as well.
To all of us who value human rights, they are important for their own sake. I am sure that the citizens of Saudi Arabia would have far better, more fulfilling and secure lives if they enjoyed progressively the human rights that we in the west have come to take for granted. I am not suggesting that countries such as Saudi Arabia can move from where they are now to fully fledged Jeffersonian democracy in a couple of years, but there does not seem to be much progress down that path and we need to make a start on that.

145WH
Although human rights are important to the citizens of the countries concerned, they are also important because—I use Saudi Arabia as an example—they are so pivotal to what happens in the region. That region impinges on our security through oil supplies and prices. We were able to deal with that because Saudi Arabia, as our major ally, maintained peace and stability in the region, but 11 September brought home to us the price that we have paid for that.
Much of Islamic terrorism seems to find the wellspring of its ideology in Saudi Arabia, in its education system and a perversion of its religion. I am not suggesting that every Wahabi is a terrorist, as he is clearly not, any more than every Muslim is, but the group seems to be the wellspring of terrorism. There is an unholy deal in the foundation of Saudi Arabia between the ruling family and the religious establishment, as the latter gets control of education and a chunk of the oil wealth while the ruling family is allowed to get on with ruling the country. We could accept that deal for some time, but we can do so no longer because, as economists would say, the externalities are becoming far too expensive.
Saudi Arabia is not unique. It is difficult to find a functioning democracy among any of the 22 countries and 200 million people of the Arab world. Very few of those countries respect human rights or have an impartial judiciary as we understand those terms, although encouragingly we are seeing progress in some countries. When my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) speaks for the Conservatives in this debate, he will undoubtedly highlight some of the countries that are making progress, as he knows more about them than I do, but I would single out Morocco, Bahrain and Jordan. They are far from western democracies, and other countries are not making any progress, but some are moving forward. Since 11 September, both we and the United States have set out why that is all important.
We should consider what is happening in the Arab world in the context of the great wave of economic liberalisation and democratisation that overtook the world after the collapse of the Berlin wall. We saw that wave in south-east Asia, Africa and Latin America, but not in the Arab world, which is extraordinary. Is there something unique about Arabs that means that they are not fit to run their own affairs or enjoy the human rights and impartial judiciaries that the rest of us enjoy? The answer is no.
Their problem is that most Arab countries are, in European terms, feudal, pre-Reformation states, and we must encourage them to make the leap forward. To understand Saudi Arabia, one could compare it to Tudor England; we are asking it to make a 500-year leap in history in, I hope, a shorter time than that. There is a serious problem, and we must acknowledge it.
Those who deny or are unaware of such a problem should read last year's United Nations Arab human development report, as many Members will have done. It was written by Arabs, not some neo-con think-tank in Washington or New York, and it is a pretty damning indictment. I shall quote a few important points from it:
"There is a substantial lag between Arab countries and other regions in terms of participatory governance."
146WH
That is a more elegant way of saying what I have been trying to say about the lack of participation in any form of democracy. The report continues:
"The utilization of Arab women's capabilities through political, economic and other participation remains the lowest in the world."
Many of the statistics are lower even than those for countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Arab countries have a long history of education, of culture and of playing a role in the world, and it is extraordinary that they should lag behind sub-Saharan Africa in so many respects.
The report continues:
"The mismatch between aspirations and their fulfilment has in some cases led to alienation and its offspring—apathy and discontent."
That is the heart of my argument. The fact that unemployment is such a huge problem and that economic growth is not engendered leads to the marginalisation of an often well educated and young group of the population. They cannot find a job or an outlet for their aspirations or interest in playing a role in governing their country. Their discontent can be focused legitimately only into the mosque, and some Islamic clerics undoubtedly feed on and foster that discontent. Many of the terrorists and much of the terrorism that we saw on 11 September 2001, and have seen since, come from there. That is why I believe that change in the Arab world is so important.
Mr. Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend focuses on one of the most important areas of debate in shaping future government in the world, and he puts his finger on the problem of the lack of human rights in countries with a feudal structure. How does he think that, in practical terms, we should approach those countries to ensure that when they try to make the quantum leap from feudal government to the democracy and freedom that we would like to see, they do not regress into theocracy, which is a great risk?
Mr. Maples: That is clearly a huge danger, so the problem must be approached with care, subtlety and sophistication. However, I believe that we should approach those countries as friends. Most, although not all, Governments of Arab countries are friendly to the west. In many of those countries, even Saudi Arabia, there is a younger generation of ruling families or political elites who understand the problems that we are discussing and the need to address them. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right: if those countries tried to leap tomorrow into elections, they would run the risk, particularly in Saudi Arabia, of the worst sort of people taking over, and it would probably be their last election for another 500 years or so. I am not suggesting such a dramatic leap, but those countries could start to take steps down that road.
Saudi Arabia, for example, could start by relaxing restrictions on what the media and newspapers can report, and it could begin to reform the education system, so that it is not so heavily under the control of an extreme religious group, which, I believe, is misusing it. The country could set up an independent judiciary and establish the rule of law, which would not only be good for the Saudis, but would encourage foreign investment.

147WH
One thing that international businesses want to see before they invest in a country is a Government who are not corrupt, or at least not staggeringly corrupt, as many of those Governments are, and a rule of law, so that, if there are disputes, there is an objective, transparent tribunal to which they can take their case. In much of the Arab world, if not all of it, none of those criteria exists. I say to my hon. Friend that it will be a long, difficult journey to achieve that, and one does not start by saying, "Let's move straight to the western model of democracy tomorrow." Why should we impose our model on them? However, I believe that we have a sufficient stake and interest in the matter to want to evolve towards that situation.
Mr. Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, as a consequence of what he argues, that there is no particular problem with, for example, the system of Sharia; the problem lies in the way in which it is interpreted by regimes? Sharia is interpreted politically by regimes in places such as Sudan, Nigeria and Indonesia as a means of ethnic cleansing of other religious groups or ethnic minorities. That is why we must ask those countries to adopt a rule of law that encompasses all their people and not just the religious minorities that support it.
Mr. Maples: Of course I agree. That must be part of the reform programme that we seek to foster and promote.
I have followed the affairs of the Arab and Islamic world much more closely in the past two or three years than I had previously, and it seems to me that the problems of the region have grown enormously over the past 20 years. Before then those countries may have abused the human rights of their subjects and they did not allow democracy, but, on the whole, they did not export their problems and were not as intolerant as many of them are now. Pakistan is an example of a country that has always had its difficulties, but never to the current extent. The wellspring of that change is an extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism which fosters terrorism and intolerance on a massive scale: that is the heart of what must be dealt with.
Returning to some of the economic considerations, a crude statistic that was given to us in evidence, which goes to the heart of the matter, is that the GDP per head in Saudi Arabia has halved in the past 20 years. A country with a growing population cannot be stable if its GDP per head has halved, because it cannot provide the jobs and rising living standards that its people expect. Economic development is a crucial ingredient in the political climate change that we want to see, and the rule of law is an important part of that.
I shall pick up another couple of points from the Arab development report. It contrasts the fact that the total GDP of all 22 Arab countries was less than that of Spain. That means that 220 million Arabs are producing less than 45 million Spaniards. Why? One does not have to go back too far to find a time when Arab countries were in advance of Spain in many respects. It must be moral or political freedom, the rule of law or free market economics that produces that sort of prosperity; none of that has been allowed to take hold in so much of the Arab world.
148WH
The report says:
"Most (Arab) countries suffer from double-digit unemployment."
It is not only Saudi Arabia that has serious unemployment problems. Let us remember that this is a United Nations report written by Arabs. It continues:
"It is no longer possible to delay the establishment of the pluralistic, democratic state in our Arab world."
The United States has a programme for establishing such states, and so do we. I believe that we should work with these countries as friends. We should not lecture them publicly and criticise them too much. People like me can do so, but I quite understand why Ministers do not want to do that.
We should be clear about our goal: the gradual transformation of these countries into far more modern states where there is a rule of law and a gradual move towards democracy and a free media, where the Government are more representative and not corrupt, and where there is a clear distinction between the ruling family and the country, as is the case in every post-feudal state in the rest of the world. Those are important ingredients. If they are coupled with economic reform, we stand a chance of seeing the developments that we want.
Finally, I believe that the human rights reports by the Select Committee and the Foreign Office relate to the stability of our world. One of the greatest threats that we face is international terrorism. Most of that is fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, most of which is fostered by Saudi wealth and the Saudi education system. We are doing Saudi Arabia and ourselves a favour if we try to help to build, in that country's political class, a new generation of rulers to reform it from within.
I do not believe that the alternative is the maintenance of the status quo. It is much more likely that there will be a fundamentalist Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia in much the same way as there was in Iran, and we must then wait for a generation in the hope that the country comes out of that situation. My alternative is much more attractive, and I hope that the Government will aggressively and constructively pursue reform in the Arab world.
3.7 pm
Mr. Greg Pope: First, I welcome the Foreign Office annual report on human rights, which is well written and fairly comprehensive. We should sometimes say thank you to the officials who have worked on it. Much hard work has gone into that useful document, and it shows the importance that the Government place on human rights. That is to be welcomed. That said, I have some criticisms to make of it, some of which will be familiar to the Minister.
There is some strength in taking a thematic approach to the layout of the report, but it is difficult for readers coming to the report for the first time. For example, Turkey—a country in which I have an interest—is covered on 12 separate pages scattered throughout the report. It is covered in "Challenges and progress", "Human rights, economy and society", "Women's and child rights" and so on, so it is difficult to get a grip on what is happening in a particular country and what the Government's approach is. It would be worth the

149WH
Minister reflecting again on the layout of the report. He said that he would, but I do not think that he has reflected a great deal because he has repeated what we have already heard, which is that it would be too expensive to produce a country-by-country report and that it would duplicate work done elsewhere. I do not accept that, nor do I think do most members of the Select Committee. I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, he will say that he will reflect further on the layout for next year's report.
Hon. Members have widely criticised the Iraq dossier on human rights. Many saw it as a cynical document produced simply to justify the war. I do not share that criticism. I thought that it was a useful contribution to the debate. It was important to outline the abuses taking place in Saddam's regime, and I am glad that the Government did that. However, the Government undermine their own case by not being prepared to produce some of the documents relating to other countries. In their response to the report, the Government said that they had "no current plans" to produce dossiers on other countries. It seems extraordinary that we can produce a dossier on only one country. The Government are undermining their own case.
I suggest that other countries are a cause for concern. It would be helpful if the Government were to produce a document on human rights abuses in countries that pretend to be friends of ours. Both Members who have spoken mentioned Saudi Arabia. That country tortures not only its own people but ours. British citizens were tortured there only last year. Five British citizens and one Canadian were subject to sleep deprivation, were shackled and then hung upside down and beaten. Frankly, it is astonishing that the Government cannot produce a dossier on human rights abuses in what the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) would probably call our "no good, crummy allies".
I want to consider a couple of other countries. I have already mentioned Turkey, and I am pleased that its human rights record is improving. Part of that is due to the pressure of being an applicant member of the European Union, but it is due also to British foreign policy. Some of the things done there by the Foreign Office are to be commended. The police training being undertaken jointly by the Foreign Office and the Home Office is a good and important initiative. I am pleased not only that the torture reporting handbook has been translated into Turkish, but that 2,000 copies have been distributed there. However, we should accept that there is a long way to go. In 2001, the European Court of Human Rights made 160 judgments against Turkey, and I am still concerned about the widespread use of torture in prisons and police cells. I urge the Minister to keep up the pressure on Turkey, because it is having some effect.
The other country in which British foreign policy is making a real difference is Iran. Our policy of constructive engagement with the regime in Tehran is having an effect. Some credit ought to go to the Foreign Secretary, who has taken a personal interest in Iran and has visited it two or three times. Also to be welcomed is the new EU-Iranian dialogue on human rights. We hear people say that, in our foreign policy, Britain is merely
150WH
a poodle of America. The lie to that is given by our approach to Iran, which is completely different to that of the Bush Administration. President Bush says that Iran is part of the axis of evil. I think that he is wrong; more important, however, the Government seem to think that he is wrong. We are making a difference with our policy of constructive engagement.
Constructive engagement may be making a difference and paying dividends in some countries, as it is in Iran, but I am at a loss as to why we persist in such activities in countries where they make no difference. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), the Committee Chairman, mentioned Uzbekistan. I have a long-standing interest in that country, but I cannot understand why a country with a human rights record as bad as Uzbekistan's should have been rewarded by being asked to host meetings of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development only last month.
We should bear it in mind not only that Britain attended those meetings, but that British Ministers chaired them. It is a disgrace that we should have done so in a country that has such a poor human rights record. I note that one of those who chaired the meetings was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), who was a Minister at the time. She is good at parading her conscience before Parliament and, given that country's human rights record, I find it amazing that she felt able to go to Tashkent. The Foreign Office admits in the report that there has been no improvement in Uzbekistan's worrying human rights record. I wonder what on earth we were doing there.
I shall briefly turn to Zimbabwe. I deeply deplore the fact that President Mugabe was invited to and went to Paris in mid-February. In deeply deploring that action I am doing a lot more than the British Government managed. The Government's silence on the issue was worrying. Perhaps, it had something to do with timing—Mugabe was in Paris on 16 and 17 of February, and the EU sanctions regime was due for renewal on 18 February. Perhaps I am being naïve and there was a quid pro quo: we soft-pedalled our criticism of President Chirac's invitation in return for Chirac not vetoing the renewal of EU sanctions against Zimbabwe. If that is the case, I find that pretty grubby.
I would have been much happier if the Government had stood up and said loudly and clearly what they really believed, which is that it is a disgrace that Mugabe was invited to Paris. We were treated to the spectacle of Mrs. Mugabe shopping on the boulevard St. Germain and the Champs Elysées while millions of Zimbabweans starve. The Government should have said that that was a disgrace.
I reach the same conclusion that the Select Committee reached in its report on the FCO report:
"it is vital that the United Kingdom sets the highest possible standards of respect for human rights … if its work in promoting such rights overseas is to reach its full potential".
We cannot possibly press for human rights improvements in other countries if we cannot be proud of our own record.
Our record—to put it mildly—is undermined by our acquiescence in what is taking place in Guantanamo bay, which has been going on for too long. Most

151WH
reasonable people could accept that suspects might be detained in Guantanamo bay in the immediate aftermath of the war against the Taliban. I thought it was reasonable, as I am sure did many other hon. Members. It is now many months later and we should he in a position to press our American allies to either release people or bring them to trial. In the United States, it has been possible to bring other people to trial for terrorist offences committed elsewhere; the same should be possible for those being held in Guantanamo bay. While we acquiesce in what is going on there, our case for promoting human rights worldwide is undermined.
Nevertheless, I give a warm welcome to the report, which is an important contribution.
3.17 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: While I lead in this debate for my party, I also speak as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and I find no difficulty in that. I am happy to endorse the conclusion that the human rights annual report of 2002 is a significant contribution to the promotion of the greater understanding of the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the field of human rights. Nevertheless, issues have arisen that require further debate and I am glad that that is happening today, particularly as events have moved on since our report and the Government's response were first published.
In the time available, I will attempt to highlight the situation in only a few of the countries that have been examined in the report. I have already noted an amazing degree of unanimity between my Foreign Affairs Committee colleagues on the issues that they have raised. However, it will do no harm to re-emphasise some of those points with a slightly different inflection.
As the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) pointed out, the report pays particular attention to the human rights abuses in Iraq under Saddam's Hussein's regime. The post-war evidence has confirmed the extent and scale of the appalling abuses that have been perpetrated under that regime. It is important to mention that in a debate on human rights. However, it is inevitable that suspicion is aroused by the concentration on Iraq in the FCO report. To a degree, that is fuelled by a wider political agenda, not least justifying military action against the regime. As was mentioned, that suspicion can only be strengthened by the apparent unwillingness of the FCO to produce similar dossiers of equal weight on other well known human rights abusers. There is a feeling that the report tends to cherry-pick certain countries for special attention as part of a wider agenda, whether political or otherwise.
I shall give specific examples later, but as a general point, as the Chairman of the Committee said, much can be learned from the manner in which the US Congress tackles reporting on international human rights abuses. The US Department of State is obliged to report to the Senate with a comprehensive analysis of human rights abuses country by country. To take just one example, which other hon. Members have highlighted, the State Department's report on Saudi Arabia contains a comprehensive list of case-by-case examples of human rights abuses covering 17 pages, while the Foreign and Commonwealth Office report contains merely a paragraph or two or three.
152WH
A more comprehensive structure is needed for reporting on human rights abuse and the countries that are the worst perpetrators. The FCO would do well to consider adopting some form of recognised standards for evaluating the level of human rights abuse that occurs. I do not suggest at this stage that we should make it incumbent on the FCO to produce a lexicon or encyclopaedia country by country around the world, no matter what its size or influence or the scale of the abuse. That might well be an unreasonable request. Nevertheless, there is a need for a system to standardise evaluation of our concerns.
The Minister might want to consider, as a good example, adopting the Copenhagen criteria, which are applied to every applicant country that wants to join the European Union. That set of standards is already accepted, certainly within our continent, and could well be applied as a litmus test in considering the level of abuse that occurs in other countries.
Let me return to the detail of the FAC report. In particular, I should like to pick up again on the continuing ambiguous status of the detainees in Guantanamo bay, to which the hon. Member for Hyndburn referred The FAC has reiterated its concern that the Government should press the US on the conditions in which those detainees are held and on the need to charge them and bring them to trial or release them. Time is passing, as we have heard, but given the comments made by the Prime Minister yesterday—4 June—at column 164 of Hansard, little if any progress appears to have been made.
I find the situation unbelievable. In one sense, we are talking about our closest ally, with which we stand shoulder to shoulder, as we are told, in resolving issues of great international import. Clearly, with that relationship, we had a strong guiding influence on the way the conflict in Iraq was prosecuted. However, it appears that we have no influence to resolve an issue of clear human rights abuse of British citizens, which demeans and denigrates the standing of both America and ourselves when it comes to consideration of these issues on the world stage.
It is extremely difficult to accept the US position of holding detainees outwith its own legal system. The US criminal justice system is respected throughout the world as just and efficient. It had a record of successful prosecution of terrorists, not only bringing people to trial, but concluding those trials and convicting those who were guilty of atrocities, so why can it not use that system now? It is a tried and tested method of dealing with such offences.
My concerns were heightened by reading reports from Amnesty International this week of possible plans for the American Government to construct an execution chamber at Guantanamo bay. It is almost beyond imagination that any people should be detained without charge and without trial, yet execution chambers are now being considered. That flies in the face of natural justice by any stretch of the imagination. What would be the situation if the position were reversed and US citizens were being detained without charge or legal representation in the United Kingdom? I cannot believe for one minute that in that situation nothing would happen and there would be no progress for month after mo nth after month.

153WH
On the UNCHR, the Foreign Affairs Committee is concerned about the different approach that the FCO has adopted in tabling motions on human rights abuses in, for example, Zimbabwe and China. We need to report the fact that the UNCHR sessions can be notable for their fractions and their highly politicised nature. That is a fact of life about the way in which, sadly, the United Nations works on occasions. However, the UNCHR is the primary forum for the scrutiny of human rights around the world. Country resolutions must be maintained because if they are not, that will only be a victory for the countries, people and organisations that want to reduce the effectiveness and status of the UNCHR on the global stage.
Following on from the previous contribution by the hon. Member for Hyndburn, I should like to make some observations about Turkey. I welcome both the attention that the Government are giving to Turkey and the progress that they are making in helping reforms to be introduced that meet the Copenhagen criteria. However, there is a great deal still to be achieved.
The Committee has had the ad vantage of visiting Turkey in recent times for an in-depth analysis of the conditions there, so we can say that a great deal still needs to be done. One should not underestimate the size of Turkey and its population and the problems inherent in that. Reforms to the criminal justice system are absolutely vital, but resources and aid to help them go through are vital also. Modern and humane criminal detection techniques must be introduced—by saying "humane", I refer to the inhumane system that exists. In particular, we need to put as much effort as possible into training police officers in modern policing methods, modern methods of evidence collection and the modern examination of suspects. The traditional methods seem, to be polite, to consist of coercing confessions out of detainees.
A key strategy is to work with our EU partners to make a real difference in institutional strengthening, in particular in education. When we were in Turkey it was a great surprise to me to discover that compulsory state education was raised above the age of 11 only in recent years. At the other end of the scale, the Chevening scholarships that the FCO awards in Turkey are hugely popular and successful. The diversion of funding from Turkey to states of the former USSR can be seen only as a retrograde step in our efforts to assist Turkey's development into a modern state of the 21st century.
There has been only brief mention of Iran—I think that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) mentioned the country in his general analysis of the situation in the middle east and in the Arab world, which was a helpful contribution. The start of the EU-Iran dialogue must, of course, be welcomed. However, there is a danger that steps to support a real change in Iran's human rights practices will be sidelined by a focus on concerns that we and our brothers in arms, the United States, have over Iran's nuclear programme. That would be a retrograde step.
The Government must not lose sight of the positive political and civic society developments that are now evolving in Iran. There are strong signs of a desire among the younger population to move away from the
154WH
constraints of fundamentalism to a more democratic society and a criminal justice system that embraces human rights. Demonising Iran as a member of the axis of evil—I quickly add that the Government have not done that, although it is being done elsewhere—only polarises Iran's relations with the west. That can only undermine the brave efforts being made in Iran to bring about the reform that we want to encourage.
We have rightly heard a lot about Saudi Arabia this afternoon. It is clearly a classic case over which this country could be accused of applying double standards. The Foreign Affairs Committee report highlighted the weaknesses in the FCO report, which failed fully to reflect Saudi Arabia's poor human rights record, particularly as regards torture. I have drawn attention to the disparity between the detail with which the US Senate scrutinised Saudi Arabia's human rights record—the US is the Saudis' closest ally, by the way—and the cursory treatment of the issue in the FCO report.
I am pleased that the Government's response to the Committee's report provides a more detailed analysis and that a commitment has been made to including a more detailed assessment in the FCO's 2003 report. That is to be welcomed, but I expect the 2003 report also to include evidence of positive outcomes from the FCO's discussions with the Saudi authorities about human rights in the current 12 month-period.
I turn now to Zimbabwe. In their response, the Government confirm that, at their lead, the EU sanctions were rolled over for a further 12 months. That is to be welcomed, but it is clear from events in Zimbabwe that human rights abuses are escalating and that people's basic democratic rights under the rule of law are being ignored. Clearly, the renewed sanctions alone are having little effect on restraining the excesses of President Mugabe's regime of terror. Perhaps the Minister can help us by telling us what progress the Government are making in the region on securing a return to democracy and the restoration of human rights in Zimbabwe. How effective have their interventions with neighbouring leaders been in securing an African initiative to achieve those goals? When did Ministers last hold discussions with, for example, the President of South Africa and other African leaders in the New Partnership for Africa's Development? What were the outcomes? When are further meetings planned to find a regional solution to the chaos and disaster in Zimbabwe?
Finally, I support wholeheartedly the conclusion in the Committee's report that it is vital for the UK to set the highest standards of respect for human rights in all areas of public life if its work in promoting such rights overseas is to reach its full potential. I therefore welcome the Government's recognition of that responsibility and their readiness to strive for improvement.
3.32 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: I want to say a very few words about the Committee's report. I do not intend to succumb to the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) to list all the countries that he did not cover in his speech. For the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), however, I should say

155WH
that North Korea was mentioned during the Committee's deliberations. Indeed, the Minister was questioned about it and the Committee made recommendations.
I quickly want to make three or four points about the report, most of which have been mentioned already. I want to make them again, however, because I attach particular importance to them. First, however, I commend the speeches of my Committee colleagues, all of whom have made significant contributions.
First, I want to reinforce the points that have been made about Guantanamo bay and particularly that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope). He said that this country was acquiescing in human rights abuses by standing by and allowing the issue to remain unchallenged. It is time that the detainees were given some form of status. They must be within or outside the Geneva convention, they must be given legal representation, they must be brought to trial and some conclusion must be brought about as regards their status. I sincerely hope that that is not the conclusion mentioned by my Committee colleague the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), who referred to Amnesty's shocking revelations that an execution chamber could be in the process of being built in Guantanamo bay. That would be diabolical. I hope that the Minister can reassure us about that.
To emphasise the contributions of my colleagues, I want to raise the matter of Zimbabwe and press the Government to do all they can about it. The situation in Zimbabwe was brought home to me graphically recently when I interviewed a refugee who fled to this country after being brutalised and sexually assaulted after her husband was murdered in front of her. That poor lady had to escape to this country, where she has been granted leave to remain, but she had to leave behind her young daughter. The difficulties and trauma that that family have gone through are absolutely inconceivable in today's society. The international community must deal with the problems in Zimbabwe. Once again, I press my hon. Friend the Minister to do all he can to try to redress the situation.
I turn now to the International Criminal Court, the failure of the United States to ratify that and, indeed, the suggestion that it has attempted to get around the ICC question by signing bilateral impunity agreements with various countries. It appears that not only do the Americans not want to ratify the treaty, they want to avoid it at all costs. That was brought home to all of us recently when, sadly, some of our own soldiers participating in the military action in Iraq were accused of some forms of atrocity. That reinforces the need for an international criminal court for even the most civilised of nations. Again, I press my hon. Friend the Minister to do all he can to persuade the Americans to change their attitude to that institution.
I welcome the Government's report and I commend the Foreign Affairs Committee's response to it. I look forward to the Minister's response to the genuine and informative contributions made this afternoon.
3.37
Mr. Alan Duncan: May I, too, apologise for perhaps having to leave before the winding-up speeches? A problem with this annexe
156WH
Chamber is that we so often have a clash of commitments. Perhaps, if there are no other speakers, I might be able to hear the Minister in full—I hope I can.
The Opposition welcome the debate, the annual report, the Foreign Affairs Committee report and the Government's response to it. I pay tribute to the hard work of the members of the Select Committee and to the hard work of the officials who compiled the annual report.
The annual reports are important because they are a tangible demonstration of the importance that human rights have assumed in the policy-making process in today's British Government. I do not propose to go through the report in great detail, but I shall concentrate on some of the wider issues and on a few countries of particular concern. I was struck especially by the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) on his perception of developments in Arab countries, which are so much the focus of everybody's attention at the moment—and rightly so.
Human rights today are more important and more talked about than ever before, as are the ideas of representation and democracy that go with them. All those are important and they are part of a broader idea—that of freedom, which embraces democracy, political and religious freedom, women's rights, the rights of minority groups and human rights in their broadest sense. That idea has always been at the heart of my party's philosophy, and the economic freedom that we have always championed goes hand in hand with those principles.
In many ways, the idea of universal human rights as a legitimate policy consideration dates back to the last century, so it is a fairly new idea. Since the emergence of the modern state system following the peace of Westphalia in the 17th century, international law, such as it was, had focused on relations between states and subsuming the rights of individuals into those of the state. Internal matters were viewed as just that—internal—and not as legitimate reasons for external intervention.
Today, the situation is different, changed by the increasingly interdependent and globalised world in which we live. A consequence of globalisation is that the focus in international affairs is more on the individual than the state. Although there are caveats, and the state still has a unique role as the basic unit in international relations, the distinction between the state and individual has become blurred. Human rights are viewed as a legitimate and important factor in the formulation of foreign policy, and the 1946 United Nations convention on human rights and the 1948 universal declaration on human rights marked the beginning of their emergence as a significant factor in their own right.
Human rights as a concept is here to stay, which I welcome. I also pay tribute to the work of such organisations as Amnesty International in advancing the cause of human rights. Naturally, there are differences about where it is thought the emphasis should be placed, and cultural and historical patterns of development must be borne in mind. The key point to remember is that we must understand other cultures, not

157WH
simply lecture them, and recognise that many are making significant, if gradual, progress to improve their human rights records.
It is right that we speak out against blatant abuses that are an affront to our beliefs and principles, and we will all continue to do so. However, we should not necessarily expect an overnight change. As was touched on earlier, simply shifting from one extreme to another in any country can have attendant practical difficulties. Democracy and representative government are important aspects of the wider concept of freedom, and they often go hand in hand with a better human rights record. Once again, we must avoid hectoring and lecturing while spelling out the fact that we believe a stable state in which people can influence Governments and hold them to account in the context of the rule of law is best.
We support the right of individuals to enjoy life's freedoms without fear of persecution or the violation of basic human rights. We can never condone the oppression of individuals on the grounds of political or religious belief, gender or orientation. Many individuals today have fewer rights than others simply because they are women; that is unacceptable.
I will now turn to a few country-specific examples, although I will be brief as time is short and the report is long. The Committee suggested investigating using a country-by-country approach in the annual report, and although we agree with the Government that the thematic approach is a successful way of arranging the material, the country-specific sections, which already exist when there are clear causes for concern in a particular case, are useful.
In Iraq, we have seen the toppling of Saddam Hussein's brutal and criminal regime. It paid no heed to human rights or the rule of law, and although the reason for military intervention may have been to enforce the disarmament of Saddam, the toppling of his regime is clearly a consequential benefit to the Iraqi people. It is regrettable that the peace does not appear to have been as well planned as the war, although Iraq has the opportunity to rebuild itself on the firm foundations of democracy, the rule of law and the good human rights that we are championing today. However, the lawlessness that we have witnessed threatens to undermine the human rights of many ordinary Iraqis, depriving them of security, the means to earn a living and even the right to live free from intimidation and violence. I hope that the Minister will explain the steps currently being taken to remedy that situation.
Zimbabwe is one of the most obvious examples of a country in which human rights, democracy, the rule of law and basic freedom are denied to all people, both black and white. Each person lives in fear of being turned on by a malevolent regime. Contempt for democracy and human rights often go hand in hand, and they represent a challenge to basic ideas of freedom.
A main difference between the parties today—perhaps even the only one—is on Zimbabwe. The British Government have shamefully failed to do enough, despite the helpful suggestions made in the past year and a half by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary,
158WH
and before that by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), both of whom have said that we should take more steps to relieve Zimbabwe of its wretched dictatorial regime.
Pages 40 to 42 of the annual report and paragraphs 67 to 72 of the Select Committee report give due prominence to Zimbabwe. I am sorry to say that the two paragraphs regarding Zimbabwe in the Government's response seemed rather thin and vague to me—and, I am sure, to many Zimbabweans, too. I suppose that that is hardly surprising, because the Government's policy on the issue is threadbare to say the least.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo is now on the brink of bloody genocide. In the past two weeks, 50,000 people have fled the fighting between rival ethnic militias. Many more than the reported 300 people are likely to have died. The United Nations report into violence in the eastern Ituri province between October and December last year confirmed widespread rape, torture, executions and even cannibalism. Although we welcome the recently announced involvement of the United Nations Security Council, how can it be right that the Prime Minister yesterday had to concede that UN plans to alleviate the suffering were not yet
"in a sufficient state of readiness"?—[Official Report, 4 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 162.]
In Burma, which pages 31 and 32 of the annual report cover, we have recently witnessed one of the most disgraceful affronts to democracy and human rights in the arrest, once again, of Aung San Suu Kyi, and the treatment of her and her supporters. I note that, in paragraph 29 of its report, the Select Committee welcomes the progress that seems to have been made in Burma recently, but regrettably the arrests are an enormously retrograde step, and I think that Members on both sides of the Chamber will deplore them.
As the report—and many organisations such as the Jubilee Campaign—has highlighted, the military junta ruling Burma has one of the most abysmal human rights records of any country on the globe. It continues to persecute anyone it thinks is threatening its stranglehold on power in any way. The junta has shown itself to be utterly unwilling to pursue reform, whether gradual or otherwise. My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has pressed the Government to push for a truly international approach, including targeted sanctions, travel bans and assets seizures of leaders and supporters of the junta. He also wants the Government to co-operate more actively with countries in the Association of South East Asian Nations to bring pressure to bear.
I am truly saddened that the Government have failed to take a tougher line, just as they have failed over Zimbabwe. The situation must end, and I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to explain what further steps he might take.
I could talk about any number of other areas of the world, from Guantanamo bay, which the Chairman of the Select Committee has mentioned, to Israel and the Palestinian territories, Afghanistan, Iran, China and even the Cayman islands and beyond, where there are human rights issues to which many might wish to draw attention. However, that would take too long for this afternoon's debate, and I know that there will be cross-party agreement on wanting to pursue those issues.

159WH
To address the deep-seated problems in some countries—I am thinking specifically of some African countries—we must do more than simply throw money at them. Of course, money and good governance are important if we are to ensure that that money is well spent. We recognise that an individual's rights are always limited by the society in which they live, and that to some extent it is not for us to presume to lecture others on how they should or should not behave. However, so long as the basic human rights of individuals are respected, and they have the means to express their views and signify a degree of consent to what is done in their name, some of the prerequisites for stability can be said to exist, and the country can be more at ease with itself and move to address the interests of all its citizens.
A balance is required between the rights and the responsibilities that individuals and the community have to one another. In the west, we are on the side of individual rights; in other parts of the world, the onus is more on the responsibilities of individuals to the community as a whole. There is a vibrant debate on where that balance should rest. However, there are some countries where that balance simply does not exist, where neither the group nor the individual has any rights, people cannot speak up for themselves, civic society barely exists, torture is commonplace and there is no progress on any of the items on today's agenda. There are many deeply vulnerable people in the world, and we must speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. We must seek a fair deal for everyone. That means the active promotion of human rights, which I hope the whole House will support.
3.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): Being a Minister is sometimes a strange existence. In six years as an MP, I have never got to my feet and had a full hour and 40 minutes ahead of me to speak. I immediately reassure everyone in the Chamber that I have no intention of taking that length of time.
I thank the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs for initiating the debate. I understand that we have had evidence sessions in the past in which the Foreign Office Minister responsible went to the Foreign Affairs Committee, but that has never been followed up with a debate such as this. This is a positive and significant development. I place on record my strong view, which the Foreign Secretary shares, that the process helps us to improve and sharpen up our act when it comes to the human rights report. That is not simply words. This is a very difficult process and all of us, in whatever we do, need to be challenged, questioned and scrutinised. The process can only help us.
What emerges from these debates is a strong, shared conviction that the promotion of human rights is fundamental and should be at the centre of attention. I have been committed to it for an awfully long time. I am very pleased to have the responsibility, as the Foreign Office Minister, of piloting the process.
We have had a wide-ranging and well informed debate. The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), stressed in his
160WH
introduction that when we talk of human rights we are talking about universal values, which I very much welcome. A criticism is sometimes made that the debate about human rights is the west trying to impose its values and norms on the rest of the world. I strongly reject that criticism. The United Nations universal declaration of human rights was drafted by people from all faiths and all regions throughout the world. Whatever the culture, religion or geographical part of the world, people who are oppressed call in aid the universal declaration of human rights, so I do not take the view that we are on some western, messianic mission. The promotion of human rights applies everywhere.
I also took to heart what the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee said when he talked about the danger of the perception, if not the reality, that we are tough on weak nations and less tough on the mighty and those with whom we are friends. I reject that implication. That is not the touchstone or the guide for our actions, but it is a danger and we should constantly be aware of it. We have several responsibilities and priorities as we deal with our foreign affairs and we need to check ourselves constantly and question our actions. The process can only help.
I also very much welcomed the comment made by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee that this is a significant and good report. That has been echoed throughout the debate. It is not only MPs who say that: Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, in evidence sessions to the Committee, made it clear how much they welcomed the report. They also welcomed the way in which it has improved and developed. The Committee Chairman also rightly drew attention to the fact that over the years since the inception of the report, we have far more often than not responded to the points, criticisms and suggested changes that the Committee has made.
The Committee Chairman also raised the need for ongoing capacity for conflict prevention within Africa. That has been looked at within the G8. The recent Evian summit underlined that there is a gap in backing up peace agreements and ceasefires with credible peace support operations. The joint G8 African plan for building African capacity to deploy peace support operations, which was further elaborated at Evian, sets out key elements such as equipping and training by 2010 multinational standby military capabilities for peacekeeping. That is a long way off. We clearly need to build up to that sooner rather than later. It would be a significant step forward.
Donald Anderson: This is not a new idea. I recall Lord Hurd making a similar proposal to the UN General Assembly 10 years or more ago before the awful outrages in Rwanda. I hope that the Minister will carefully monitor the action plan, road map, or whatever it is called, until 2010 and beyond.
Mr. Rammell: That point is well made. When we look at some of the difficult conflicts in Africa such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo I am very conscious of the need for greater capacity. The idea has been around for a long time, but it is now a key part of the action plan. We have to drive that forward and make it a reality.

161WH
The Chairman of the FAC also referred to the situation in Burma, as did the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). It is deeply worrying. There has been some progress: 400 prisoners have been released since 2001, but that is by no means enough. More than 1,200 people are still in detention. Burmese ethnic minority groups suffer disproportionately. The detention last week of Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters has been deeply concerning.
In the absence of my hon. Friend the Minister who has direct responsibility for Burma, I called in the Burmese ambassador earlier this week and made our concern abundantly clear. Indeed, I followed that up with a telephone call this morning. I also made it clear that we expect Mr. Razali, the UN's representative who arrives in Burma tomorrow, to be given access to Aung San Suu Kyi to reassure himself about her safety and well-being. If that is not possible, we will regard it as a significant and serious rebuff to the international community, for which there will be consequences.
That leads me to the criticism that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton made that we have no further game plan on how to increase pressure upon Burma. That is certainly not the case. Unless we see significant improvements, we are considering extending measures such as the assets freeze and the ban on links that have been placed on members of the Government, their business associates and their families. That could help in that situation.
Mr. Duncan: I am pleased to hear that, but given what has happened to Aung San Suu Kyi what are the Minister's arguments for delaying those actions any further?
Mr. Rammell: We want to achieve a result. We want the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi. In any situation such as this, where we are trying to exert legitimate pressure, we have to judge our actions and their consequences. Our immediate priority is her release. It is under active consideration. We have taken the opportunity to talk to the Burmese ambassador to make it abundantly clear how concerned we are.
Several hon. Members commented on the situation in the DRC. The statistics are staggering and appalling. More than 3 million people have been killed in that country in the past five years, but that gets nowhere near the degree of international media and political attention that it should. The peace process was moving in a positive direction. There was the agreement between the Ugandans and the DRC under the auspices of the UN that the Ugandan troops would withdraw. That has nevertheless created a power vacuum and there is now a serious conflict in which many more people have been killed. I confirm that we have been asked to contribute towards the French-led interim emergency multinational force. We have agreed to do so and are in discussions about the most appropriate and effective contribution that the UK can make to that force.
Mr. Chidgey: I wonder if the Minister could throw some light on recent reports that there have been
162WH
complaints from French quarters about the insufficient scale of the British Government's contribution to those forces in the DRC?
Mr. Rammell: That underlines the truism that one should never believe what one reads in the newspapers. I was surprised and shocked when I read that story at the weekend, because that is not my understanding of the situation. We have received no criticisms directly from the French Government that we are not pulling our weight or intending to pull our weight. To put it bluntly, that story was wrong, although, of course, I would never accuse a journalist of fabricating a story.
Several hon. Members referred to the situation in Zimbabwe, which is of enormous concern. If we undertake a benchmarking exercise, by comparing the human rights report with that of the previous year, and try to assess which countries have deteriorated most, Zimbabwe is one of the prime candidates.
I believe that we have taken a strong line on the situation in Zimbabwe. The most recent European Union statement with which we were associated, and to which we had significant input, made it clear that the protests that are taking place this week in Zimbabwe should be an opportunity for peaceful demonstration, and we strongly urged the Government of Zimbabwe to respect the rights of their citizens to demonstrate and to express their views peacefully. However, I put on record that the early signs are not good. In some areas the Zimbabwean police and military have forcefully dispersed peaceful demonstrators—at least one person was shot and more than 100 were arrested, including six Opposition MPs. That is worrying evidence that the Government of Zimbabwe are not willing to extend to their people the basic right to peaceful protest.
We put some belief in inter-party dialogue and have been urging neighbouring African states to take the lead in exerting pressure on the issue. President Mbeki's statement to the G8 leaders at the Evian summit that he was hopeful that there would be movement on the issue is of some reassurance.
Mr. Chidgey: On that point, the Minister will recall my earlier remarks. He will be aware, as I am, that the serious commentators who operate in the commercial sector and elsewhere in Zimbabwe now forecast that, unless the situation that exists in Zimbabwe and which is still deteriorating is reversed, Zimbabwe will "fall over the edge" into the situation of a failed state, from which it will be almost impossible for it to recover in a reasonable amount of time. Can the Minister tell me whether it has been possible to get that message across to the leaders of Zimbabwe's neighbouring countries with sufficient clarity for them to understand the implications that that would have for the region as a whole?
Mr. Rammell: That is a serious concern. There has been about a 99 per cent. decrease in foreign investment in Zimbabwe as a direct result of what is happening, and so there is a real danger that Zimbabwe will go from the precarious situation in which it is today to that of being an absolutely failed state. We are consistently trying to get that message across.

163WH
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned when and how we are discussing the issue with other African leaders. I reassure him that, two weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed the matter and that the Prime Minister did likewise at the G8 summit. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is constantly reviewing how to exert the maximum pressure on Zimbabwe. The G8 summit statement from Evian for the first time singled out Zimbabwe. In no way, shape or form shall we relax on that issue.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton voiced a criticism, but if it was valid it is difficult to understand why President Mugabe and the Zimbabwean state-sponsored press made such criticisms of our role. However, care needs to be taken in such a situation. If we want neighbouring African states genuinely to exert pressure, we must realise that our conduct is sometimes perceived, I believe wrongly, by them as a hangover from the colonial past. That subject is repeatedly raised by Opposition Members at Foreign Office questions, but that factor is not always taken into account.
We are also criticised for not initiating a debate at the United Nations Security Council to get a resolution on the issue. We should remember what happened at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva a few weeks ago. A resolution was put forward by the European Union criticising Zimbabwe's human rights record, but a no-action motion was put forward that was supported by six members of the Security Council. If we cannot get the UNCHR to agree to such a criticism, what chance do we have of getting anything stronger at the UN Security Council? The real danger of going down that path would be to put forward a resolution that was later defeated: that would simply reinforce President Mugabe's position. It is easy to criticise, but I have not heard a genuine substantive argument as to how we can take those issues forward.
Another issue raised by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and other Members was the situation in Saudi Arabia. I made it clear when I appeared before the Committee—the Department followed it up in its response to the Committee's report—that we have genuine concerns about a wide range of human rights issues in that country. They include aspects of the judicial system, capital and corporal punishment, torture, discrimination against women and non-Muslims, and restrictions on freedom of movement, expression, assembly and worship. Both today and when I appeared before the Committee, hon. Members said loudly and clearly that they believe that we do not give sufficient emphasis to the problems. We shall consider that further.
The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee also mentioned the potential conflict between combating terrorism and the need to consider human rights. It is not an either/or choice; we need to reinforce human rights to help us deal with the battle against terrorism.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the situation in Uzbekistan and I heard clearly what my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) said on the
164WH
subject. We have a strong record in raising our significant concerns about human rights in that country. Last October, our ambassador made a critical speech at the opening of Freedom house, which was reported in our media. That speech was widely welcomed by human rights campaigners. I listened also to what my hon. Friend said about the banking meeting attended by the then Secretary of State for International Development. All I would say is that when I appeared before the Committee, I argued that it could bring international attention to what was happening in Uzbekistan and that proved to be the case. The critical speeches made by the then Secretary of State were broadcast on Uzbek television, and it is one of the first times that the President has been publicly criticised through the media. Difficult judgments have to be made, but in that instance we had a result.
Another issue that has come through strongly this afternoon—every Member who spoke referred to it—is the situation in Guantanamo bay. We have at all times sought to reassure ourselves about UK citizens who are detained there, and FCO officials have undertaken a number of visits. However, I must also refer hon. Members to what the Prime Minister said recently about the fact that we are in an unusual and difficult situation, in that we are still receiving valuable information from people who are there. We recognise that the situation is irregular and we should certainly like to bring it to an end as swiftly as possible—it cannot continue for ever. The strength of feeling and conviction that I have heard from hon. Members this afternoon has firmly registered with me and I shall take that back to our discussions in the Foreign Office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn also spoke about the dossier on Iraq. I am not in any sense going to apologise for that dossier—my hon. Friend did not call on me to do so—because I think that it properly identified one of the regimes with the worst human rights record of the last 10 to 15 years. That dossier graphically brought home to people some of the appalling human rights abuses that were taking place in Iraq. However, we shall actively consider the question that my hon. Friend asked about whether we shall make similar reports available in future. We cannot do so all the time, but where there are significant instances of human rights abuse, such a vehicle can be considered.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the position of Libya on the commission and asked whether there should be membership criteria. Ideally, we should consider that, although one must get agreement and, to be blunt—I know that this is not parliamentary language—turkeys tend not to vote for early Christmas. There is a fundamental difficulty in getting consensus and agreement on what kind of membership criteria we need to agree on and how we can get other countries' support. Nevertheless, that is being actively considered and we should consider it further in the Foreign Office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is no longer here, mentioned human rights in North Korea, which are of enormous and deep concern to us. At the UNCHR we managed to get a successful

165WH
resolution, which was agreed by 27 votes to 10, on the appalling human rights situation in that country. In the context of the commission, that vote is as near as damn it to overwhelming support.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) made some interesting arguments about the situation in the Arab world and how we can promote participation and democracy, in support of which he called in aid the United Nations Development Programme Arab human development report. I would endorse that—it is an excellent analysis of the situation. One of the arguments that he put for ward in response is to engage with the Islamic world, which is one of the main planks of the global opportunities fund, under which we hope to promote civil society and democratic participation, in particular by women. I am happy to respond positively on that.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the format of the annual report. That issue has been raised on a number of successive occasions and I said that I would give it serious consideration when I came before the FAC. I have done that, but am not in a position to give a positive response, which, to be blunt, is due more than anything else—all the other arguments can perhaps be addressed—to resources. The American State Department employs 18 full-time staff for its report and a further 30 staff who work full-time for five months of the year in compiling it. I echo the words of praise for our officials in the Foreign Office on drawing up the report. We have three staff who work full-time on the report. If we acceded and went down the road requested by issuing a country-by-country report, we would have to consider seriously where the resources could come from.
Mr. Chidgey: I take the Minister's point, and I would not want the employment of more staff to increase the burden on his office or the taxpayer. Nevertheless, is it not possible for dialogue to take place between officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and their counterparts in the American Administration, so that we can benefit from the information that has already been gathered? Does the information have to be verified by our own Department? Can we not take advantage of what is already on the record?
Mr. Rammell: I would hesitate before agreeing to endorse reports from other sources. If the hon. Gentleman thought that through, he would understand the concerns about doing that. However, I cannot say any more than I think that it is a resource issue.
The situation in Turkey was mentioned and the movement towards its accession to the European Union has brought positive results. We have seen improvements including the abolition of the death penalty in peacetime and the possibility of radio and television broadcasting in Kurdish. Our contribution in relation to police training and the torture handbook has been significant.
166WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn asked about Iran. We have continuing and serious concerns about the human rights situation, but we have grasped the opportunity, after a proposal from the Iranians, to engage in a formal dialogue. That is beginning to bear some fruit, but we must keep the situation under constant review.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), apparently on behalf of Amnesty International, mentioned the allegation about an execution chamber in Guantanamo bay. Neither my officials nor I have heard of that allegation before, so I will say only that our position on the death penalty is clear: we oppose it wherever it occurs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) made a powerful contribution on Zimbabwe, underlining the human misery that is taking place at the hands of that country's Government. That brings into sharp relief the need to work for further progress. He also spoke about the International Criminal Court and I emphasise the Government's strong support for it. We have campaigned and argued for it from the beginning and I am pleased that 90 states have ratified the ICC statute.
My hon. Friend asked about the US Government's concerns about the court and their bilateral agreements. We have made it clear to our American colleagues and friends that we will sign such an agreement only if it conforms to article 98.2 of the statute and does not otherwise conflict with our obligations to the court. The European Union has agreed guiding principles to that end, which provide the basis for discussion. There is a lot of talk in the press about our relationship with the United States. It is strong and works to our benefit, but we disagree on some issues. This is one of them, as we do not share the US Government's concerns about how the ICC will work.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton mentioned lawlessness in Iraq. Despite the difficulties, the prevailing situation is much more positive than what existed under Saddam Hussein. The situation is improving, but the coalition takes its responsibilities to secure and improve law and order seriously. The Iraqi interim authority will play a key role in that, too.
The hon. Gentleman also said that we need to support reform and development in Africa and do more than throw money at it. I agree with him in one sense, as we must ensure that money is being spent properly and efficiently. However, we cannot get anywhere without money, and I am particularly proud of the Government's record on the international aid budget. Hon. Members should remember that we are increasing it in the coming three years from £681 million to more than £1 billion.
We have had a good debate. I reiterate our firm conviction that human rights are at the heart of our foreign policy. We have both an ethical concern for human rights, as we want them to be pursued throughout the world to the benefit of all peoples, and a strong argument in our self-interest. States and Governments that practice good human rights also tend to be stable countries with which we can work and do business. That also improves the security situation throughout the world.

167WH
We will never he able to have a one-size-fits-all policy and we must judge each country and situation on its merits. Furthermore, the argument has come through time and again that we should not regard each country as a monolithic structure, as forces of both progress and reaction will be at work at any one time. We must make balanced and continuing judgments about their progress and whether we can engage with the country in question.
The annual report has been welcomed widely this afternoon and it is a positive contribution to the Government's work on human rights. We should
168WH
welcome the involvement of and criticism from non-governmental organisations, campaigners and MPs. The work of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is important and I end with thanks for the Committee's work and by underlining what hon. Members have said this afternoon: the report shows improvements, but further improvements can always be made. I hope that when we have this debate next year, we will have seen even more improvements.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Four o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  York Minster
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the Church Commissioners have for York Minster Library; and if he will make a statement. [116917]

  Mr. Bell
  This Library does not belong to the Church Commissioners but I am sure the Chapter are aware that the sale, loan or other disposal of any item of architectural, archaeological, artistic or historic interest vested in them requires approval under the Care of Cathedrals Measure.

  As this is a statutory procedure, I would not wish to prejudge whatever decision might be made either by the Fabric Advisory Committee or by the Cathedrals Fabric Commission on any such application.

DEFENCE

  Cluster Munitions
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cluster munitions have been used in Iraq by the(a) United States and (b) United Kingdom armed forces. [116815]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 28 May 2003, British forces have used in the region of 66 air delivered cluster bombs and in the region of 2,000 extended range bomblet shells in Iraq. We do not comment on the number of munitions used by other nations.

  Manning Control Points
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to(a) suspend and (b) terminate the use of manning control points; and if he will make a statement; [116147]

  (2) how many soldiers (a) returning from Iraq and (b) currently serving in Iraq will face manning control points in the next 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [116146]

  Dr. Moonie
  A wide-ranging review of soldiers' career structures and terms of service is presently under way. This will include consideration of the continued utility of manning control point reviews as a structural control mechanism. In the meantime, against the background of current Army manning shortfalls, there are no plans to conduct any manning control point reviews in the next 12 months.

  Military Deployments
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel have been employed in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [115072]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of Armed Forces personnel (Army, Navy and RAF), under the command of the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland (GOC NI), deployed in Northern Ireland for the last five years is set out in the table below:

  As at April

  Number of Armed Forces Personnel

  1999

  14,850

  2000

  13,852

  2001

  13,856

  2002

  13,288

  2003

  13,188

  The GOC NI also has under his command troops that are rear-based in Great Britain that can be called forward to the Province as and when required. In addition other troops can be made available to the GOC NI from Land Command if required, for example during the marching season.

  Reserve Forces
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 21 May 2003,Official Report, column 785W, on reserve forces, what is being done to remedy the shortfall of reservists; what assessment he has made of the reasons for the difference in the level of shortfall in the three services; and if he will break down the shortfall by (a) rank and (b) branch. [116487]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Volunteer Reserve Forces run vigorous recruiting campaigns to meet their requirements for manpower each year. The approaches they adopt reflect their differing requirements. The Territorial Army recruits continuously throughout the year, with a surge effort in the spring. Local radio, press and regional events are used, as well as campaigns combined with the Regulars. The Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Auxiliary Air Force recruit on a unit basis, with budgets specifically allocated for this purpose. The Royal Auxiliary Air Force recruits on an ad-hoc basis as and when vacancies arise.

  The level of shortfall in each of the Volunteer Reserve Forces varies. Each has different requirements and looks for different skills, which affects their recruitment. The Royal Naval Reserve, Royal Marine Reserve and Royal Auxiliary Air Force are smaller, and recruit for a specialised reserve. They therefore have limited opportunities that arise in specific parts of the country where units are based. As a larger organisation, the

  509W
  Territorial Army has a nationwide footprint and uses general, as well as specialist, skills. We will be examining whether we can use the experience of Operation TELIC to see if there are lessons to be identified that may aid recruiting across the reserves.

  Establishment

  Strength

  Arm/Service

  Officer

  Soldier

  Officer

  Soldier

  FTRS and Mobilised

  Percentage manned

  Royal Armoured Corps

  155

  1,161

  126

  1,007

  186

  100

  Royal Artillery

  248

  2,823

  244

  2,612

  110

  96

  Royal Engineers

  347

  2,908

  249

  2,135

  484

  88

  Royal Signals

  499

  4,727

  389

  3,692

  267

  81

  Infantry

  519

  7,442

  475

  6,953

  547

  100

  Army Air Corps

  32

  125

  44

  72

  1

  74

  Royal Army Chaplains Department

  87

  0

  67

  0

  10

  88

  Royal Logistic Corps

  625

  6,638

  409

  3,899

  1,294

  77

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  3,533

  2,968

  1,452

  2,415

  905

  73

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  122

  1,530

  98

  1,148

  246

  98

  Adjutant General Corps

  73

  359

  51

  264

  79

  91

  Royal Army Veterinary Corps

  14

  0

  8

  0

  0

  57

  Intelligence Corps

  113

  437

  61

  323

  121

  92

  Others

  619

  141

  534

  156

  66

  100

  Information for the Royal Naval Reserve, Royal Marine Reserve and Royal Auxiliary Air Force is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will halt the disbandment of the three home battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment over the next three years; and if he will keep each battalion fully operational after April 2005. [116963]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is no timetable for disbandment of the Home Service Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, as the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland made clear in a statement on 28 May to all the personnel under his command.

  Territorial Army
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which campaigns Territorial Army units have served since 1990; and what proportion of reservists(a) is committed and (b) was committed in (i) 1990 and (ii) 1997. [116665]

  Dr. Moonie
  Territorial Army units have served in the following operational theatres since 1990:

  Theatre

  Date

  Gulf

  1990–91

  Bosnia

  1998–2003

  Afghanistan

  2001–present

  Balkans

  2003–present

  Iraq

  2003–present

  The proportion of reservists committed to operations is as follows (as at 1 May 2003):

  Percentage

  Royal Naval Reserve

  10

  Royal Marine Reserve

  13

  Territorial Army

  10

  Reserve Air Forces

  48

  510W
  I am unable to provide the figures requested for shortfall by rank and branch for any of the Reserve Forces. Information is available for the TA on shortages by specialism. This is given in the following table (as at 1 April 2003):

  Figures for previous years are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Unexploded Ordnance
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what resources his Department has allocated for the clearance of unexploded ordnance in Iraq. [116816]

  Mr. Ingram
  Currently there are some 200 United Kingdom personnel involved in the clearance of unexploded ordnance in Iraq, and many more are engaged in the process of marking and securing sites for clearance.

  War Widows
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what practices have been in place in the last 10 years to inform war widows of their right to backdate their war widows pension. [116064]

  Dr. Moonie
  A war widows pension may be awarded where death is due to service in the armed forces. There are no time limits for claiming a pension but as a result the onus is normally on the war widow to claim. The commencement date of any resulting award depends on the individual circumstances of the claim. There is no right for a war widows pension to be backdated, for instance, where she has failed to claim from an earlier date.

  The normal rules provide that where death is in service or a claim is made within three months of death a war widows pension may be paid from the day after death; otherwise, a pension will be paid from the date of the claim or application for review as the case may be. Similar provision applies to the restoration of a war widows pension on the death of a second or subsequent husband.

  In certain specified circumstances a pension may be paid from a date earlier than that provided for by the normal rules where, for instance, a widow has been prevented from claiming a pension because of ill health.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 14 May 2003,Official Report, column 265W, on civil servants, what the criteria are for recognition within the Special Bonus Scheme; what the performance indicators are that are assessed when considering staff for one-off bonuses; and whether the reduction of financial payments to farmers is a performance indicator for the purposes of the scheme. [114993]

  Alun Michael
  The Special Bonus Scheme is designed to recognise special achievement and contribution additional to the normal demands of the job. The criteria for an award include:Work on a specific project or contribution during an acute staff shortage
  Achievement on a valued piece of work, such as a report or short-term project that helped the team, branch, or division to meet a difficult or challenging target
  Leading or contributing to work of an exceptional standard to a tight timetable.

  The reduction of financial payments to farmers is not a performance indicator for the purposes of the scheme.

  Deer
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance she has issued to the State Veterinary Service on whether a deer missing a hind foot should be classified as exhibiting signs of ill treatment or suffering. [115253]

  Mr. Morley
  No guidance has been issued to the State Veterinary Service. A veterinary inspector would be expected to use his experience and clinical judgment to assess such injuries and the degree to which an animal may be suffering or exhibiting signs of ill treatment.

  GM Crops
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions her Department has had with(a) biotechnology companies and (b) health and environmental campaign and voluntary groups regarding the future licensing of GM crops. [114024]

  Mr. Meacher
  Ministers and officials have regular face-to-face, telephone and written communications with relevant stakeholders on GM crop issues. No central record is kept of these communications.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessments have been made of applications for marketing consents to the EU of GM crops by(a) her Department and (b) other member states; and what evidence was used in the assessments. [114027]

  Mr. Meacher
  To date, 19 applications have been made under EU Directive 2001/18 for consent to place GMOs on the European single market. 10 of these are for GM crops intended for cultivation in the EU, and the other nine are for "import only"—i.e. of GM grain grown outside the EU intended for import into the EU 512W
  for processing into products. In all 19 cases, the process of assessment is ongoing and no collective EU decisions have yet been made.

  EU Directive 2001/18 requires that applications to place GMOs on the market consist of a substantial dossier of information about the particular GMO and scientific evidence concerned with potential risks associated with the intended use. Summaries of these dossiers are published on a European Commission website at http://gmoinfo.jrc.it/default.asp.

  Each application must first be made to the authorities in one of the 15 EU member states, which must make an initial assessment of compliance with the safety standards required by the Directive. If the assessment is positive the application is referred to the European Commission, which then disseminates the assessment and its supporting evidence to other member states for EU-wide scrutiny and public consultation, leading to a collective decision by the European Commission and all 15 member states on whether or not a consent should be granted.

  Two of the 19 applications have been made in the UK. They both concern GMOs intended for "import only", and in both cases the UK authority is awaiting further information requested from the applicants before it makes its initial assessment.

  Of the remaining 17 applications made in other member states, three have received positive initial assessments and are being scrutinised at EU-level. The UK has forwarded opinions on two of these dossiers (published at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/euconsent.htm), and will deliver its opinion on the other in due course. In both opinions, the UK asked the lead member state for further information to be required from the applicant before a final assessment can be made. The other 14 applications made in other member states have not yet received initial assessments.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) of 1 May 2003,Official Report, column 465W, on GM crop trials, what plans she has for public consultation on the future licensing of GM crops after the results of all of the Government's current GM farm-scale evaluations are published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. [114161]

  Mr. Meacher
  Currently we have no plans for a specific consultation exercise on the future licensing of GM crops after the publication of the results of the farm scale evaluations. Once published, the results of the crop trials will be in the public domain and people will be able to comment on them then.

  In addition, as each individual crop in the farm scale evaluations comes forward for licensing, the public has the opportunity to comment on every application during the two consultation periods specified in Directive 2001/18/EC, before decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis at EU level.

  Poultry Regulations
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department has received about planned restrictions on travelling hours for chickens; whether these will apply to free-range birds; and if she will make a statement. [117142]

  Mr. Morley
  Unless suitable food and liquid is available, the maximum permitted journey time for all poultry and domestic birds is 12 hours, disregarding loading and unloading times. This Department has received representations proposing that loading and unloading times should be included within the maximum journey time and the views of industry representatives have been sought. These limits are set down in European Union Directive 91/628, as amended, on the welfare of animals during transport. The European Commission is expected to publish proposals to update and improve this directive later this year.

  Water Extraction
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many licences have been granted by the Environment Agency to extract water from rivers in 2003; what average length of time it has taken to grant a licence to extract water from a river; what the average length of time a licence for which is issued; and how many such licences have been granted covering the River Aire in the Elmet constituency in 2003. [115677]

  Mr. Morley [holding answer 3 June 2003]
  The information is as follows:

  Number of Licences to abstract water from rivers granted so far in 2003

  Between 1 January and 22 May 2003 the Environment Agency granted 86 licences for abstraction from surface waters, including canals, minor watercourses and rivers.

  Length of time to grant a licence to abstract water

  During the period April 2002-March 2003 the Environment Agency granted 984 abstraction licences for surface and groundwater, of which 97 per cent. were granted within the statutory three months, or such longer period as had been agreed with the applicant. The agency does not collect information on the average length of time it takes to determine applications.

  Length of time licences issued for

  With the introduction of Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies (CAMS), new licences are initially granted to a "Common End Date" according to the CAMS area in which they lie. There is a presumption of renewal. Following the initial term of the licence the Environment Agency will normally renew the licence for a period of 12 years, again with a presumption of renewal.

  Abstraction Licences on the River Aire granted in 2003

  No licences have been granted for abstraction from the River Aire in the Elmet constituency during 2003.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Chad-Cameroon Pipeline Project
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development when the World Bank will publish its periodical report for the Chad-Cameroon Pipeline Project. [116775]

  Hilary Benn
  Regular reports are published by the External Compliance Monitoring Group (ECMG) and the International Advisory Group (IAG), which were established by the World Bank, monitor the project implementation. The IAG has just made a visit to the project and we expect the report to be issued on 17 June. The last report from the ECMG was published in February 2003. We do not yet have a date for publication of its next report. The reports are available on the World Bank website www.worldbank.org/afr/ccproi

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment the Department has made of the latest report by the Global HIV Prevention Working Group; and if he will make a statement. [116194]

  Hilary Benn
  We welcome the report by the Global Working Group, Access to HIV prevention: Closing The Gap. It is the first attempt to assess the gap between HIV prevention needs and existing provision.

  While the report emphasises the increased need for prevention, it also recognises that prevention works best where care and treatments are also available. DFID has been working towards a combined approach of prevention and care for several years and will continue to support Governments in improving their overall provision of services in the future.

  The recommendations made in the report echo DFID"s existing HIV/AIDS priorities, in support of which we have invested over £250 million in 2002–03. DFID has also committed £14 million to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI),£16 million to the Medical Research Council's Microbicides Development Programme, and £3 million annually to UNAIDS. In addition, we have committed over £1.5 billion since 1997 to support the development of health systems in poorer countries. Strengthening such systems is vital if drugs are to be safely and sustainably supplied to the poor. DFID as the second largest contributor to the Global Fund has also just increased its contribution by $80 million to a total of $280million in recognition of the need to accelerate efforts to reduce infections globally.

  Malawi
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what discussions he has had with the Government of Malawi concerning alternative care for AIDS patients outside acute general hospitals. [116406]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID officials are in close and regular contact with the Malawi National AIDS Commission, the Ministry of Health and Population and other donors on care required for AIDS patients. The UK has
  515W
  contributed $280 million to the Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria. The fund has agreed to allocate Malawi $198 million over five years. Intended uses for these resources include antiretroviral treatments, and prevention of mother to child transmission.

TREASURY

  EU Information Campaigns
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the monitoring by his Department of the application of European Community guidelines on impartiality in EU funding of information campaigns. [114468]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Commission's proposed Information and Communication Strategy for the EU, adopted on 2 July 2002, highlights the importance of neutral, factual information. The Copenhagen European Council has also stressed that information provided for the public on EU activities should be objective.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office keeps itself fully aware of the nature of the European Commission's communications activities via regular contact with the European Commission's Representation to the UK.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what formal mechanisms there are for maintaining contact between HM Customs and Excise and the DTI on the issue of export controls. [117019]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise have regular contact with the DTI's Export Control Organisation on a range of export control matters, including the interdepartmental Restricted Enforcement Unit, which meets fortnightly. This includes a Memorandum of Understanding to provide advice on whether or not a licence is required in cases where goods have been detained by Customs.

  Contribution of hotels, catering etc and recreational services to the UK economy, 1995–2000

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  GVA of hotels, catering etc and recreational services (£ million)

  32,158

  35,632

  40,039

  44,195

  47,810

  51,659

  Percentage of total GVA

  5.0

  5.2

  5.6

  5.8

  6.0

  6.2

  GVA total (£ million)

  639,908

  679,620

  720,692

  762,363

  796,273

  838,065

  Pay
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average weekly earnings(a) including and (b) excluding overtime are for full-time workers in (i) Scotland, (ii) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (iii) Great Britain for (A) all manual, (B) all non-manual, (C) all workers, (D) male manual, (E) male non-manual, (F) all male workers, (G) female manual, (H) female non-manual and (I) all female workers. [116060]

  John Healey
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Heroin (Afghanistan)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many HM Customs and Excise personnel are(a) employed to provide advice and assistance to the Afghan Transitional Administration and (b) employed to gather intelligence and assist in the interdiction of heroin along transit routes from Afghanistan to the UK. [116420]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise currently employs five staff who work exclusively on providing advice and assistance to the Afghan Transitional Administration, and a further 14 for whom this work forms part of their duties.

  It would not be appropriate to disclose how many personnel are deployed gathering intelligence and assisting in the interdiction of heroin along transit routes from Afghanistan and the UK. Exemptions 4 (Law enforcement and legal proceedings) and 7 (Effective management and operations of the public service) apply.

  Leisure/Hospitality Sector
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution the leisure and hospitality sector has made to the UK economy in each of the last five years. [117001]

  John Healey
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Gardiner, dated 5 June 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the contribution made by the leisure and hospitality sector to the UK economy in each of the last five years. (117001)

  The Office for National Statistics does not define the "leisure and hospitality sector". However, the table below shows the requested figures for the nearest equivalent industrial sector. The contribution to the economy has been measured as a proportion of Gross Value Added. These estimates are consistent with the latest published United Kingdom National Accounts: The Blue Book (2002 edition).

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Moore, dated 5 June 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the average weekly earnings for workers in Great Britain, Scotland and the unitary authorities in Scotland. (116060)

  I have arranged for the data requested to be placed in the House of Commons Library. The information provided shows average weekly earnings including and excluding overtime based on the 2002 New Earnings Survey (NES), the latest survey for which data are available.

  The release of NES data is restricted to figures that are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees to produce an

  517W
  acceptable level of accuracy. I have provided the available data for Great Britain, Scotland and the unitary authorities in Scotland only for those areas where the samples are large enough.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of full-time workers in(a) Scotland, (b) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (c) Great Britain earn (i) including and (ii) excluding overtime less than (A) £280.00 per week, (B) £210.00 per week and (C) £158.76 per week in the categories (1) male manual, (2) male non-manual, (3) all male workers, (4) female manual, (5) female non-manual, (6) all female workers, (7) all manual, (8) all non-manual and (9) all workers. [116061]

  John Healey
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Moore, dated 5 June 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the distribution of average weekly earnings for workers in Great Britain, Scotland and the unitary authorities in Scotland. (116061)

  I am placing in the House of Commons Library tables showing the proportion of people earning below the different thresholds you listed, including and excluding overtime based on the 2002 New Earnings Survey (NES), the latest survey for which data are available.

  The release of NES data is restricted to figures that are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees, to produce an acceptable level of accuracy. I have provided the available data for Great Britain, Scotland and the unitary authorities in Scotland only for those areas where the samples are large enough.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the Bridgwater constituency have experienced delays in receiving tax credits. [115613]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 161W.

  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will compensate applicants for child tax credit and working tax credit who have incurred additional costs as a result of delays by Inland Revenue in the payment of these credits. [116639]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 12 May 2003,Official Report, column 23W.

  Net yield data 1999–2000 to 2003–04 for London

  £ million

  Local Authority

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  12002–03

  12003–04

  Havering

  44.9

  45.8

  47.5

  47.7

  50.4

  City of London

  338.9

  390.1

  481.6

  531.3

  578.3

  Inner London Borough Camden

  144.5

  176.4

  199.5

  211.0

  228.8

  Greenwich

  33.4

  40.7

  39.2

  44.9

  42.8

  Hackney

  43.1

  37.5

  45.2

  47.0

  48.1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  66.1

  67.0

  83.6

  96.8

  102.4

  518W
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been spent since last autumn on advertising and publicity for(a) working tax credit and (b) child tax credit in (i) English, (ii) Welsh and (iii) other languages. [116824]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on 18 March 2003,Official Report, column 681W.

  We have fulfilled our legal obligation for provision of material in Welsh and this, along with community language material, has been treated as part of the overall cost of the campaign and could be isolated only at disproportionate cost.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advertising and publicity in Welsh there has been since last autumn to alert people to their entitlement to(a) working tax credit and (b) child tax credit, and to encourage them to claim. [116825]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The publicity campaign to encourage people to claim their entitlement to child tax credit and working tax credit has been running since mid September 2002. The campaign has included advertising on television, radio, press and online, direct mailings to existing claimants and the distribution of leaflets and posters through Inland Revenue offices and via third party organisations.

  Welsh language publicity has been part of the campaign since its launch and includes subtitled television advertising, translated press work, small posters and leaflets.

  Uniform Business Rate
  John Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much in revenue collected from uniform business rates was distributed to the London borough of Havering within the Revenue Support Grant in 2002–03. [116575]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The London Borough of Havering received £68,393,858 through redistributed business rates in the 2002/03 Local Government Finance Settlement. It also received a further £74,582,975 in Revenue Support Grant.

  John Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised from uniform business rates in(a) the London Borough of Havering and (b) each London borough in each of the last five years. [116576]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The figures requested are in the table.
  519W

  Net yield data 1999–2000 to 2003–04 for London

  £ million

  Local Authority

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  12002–03

  12003–04

  Islington

  80.7

  86.0

  101.5

  107.5

  111.6

  Kensington and Chelsea

  100.2

  112.2

  128.2

  140.4

  147.3

  Lambeth

  46.5

  52.0

  63.3

  67.9

  65.9

  Lewisham

  33.8

  36.0

  36.1

  36.3

  34.7

  Southwark

  65.6

  82.8

  86.1

  90.1

  86.1

  Tower Hamlets

  93.5

  108.0

  136.2

  138.1

  152.7

  Wandsworth

  52.9

  58.3

  61.8

  62.2

  62.3

  Westminster

  535.0

  677.8

  805.4

  875.0

  889.7

  Total Inner London borough

  1,295.4

  1,534.6

  1,786.2

  1,917.3

  1,972.6

  Outer London Borough

  Barking and Dagenham

  38.2

  34.9

  40.9

  41.7

  40.9

  Barnet

  63.9

  65.3

  73.5

  74.3

  72.9

  Bexley

  42.3

  36.3

  49.2

  47.9

  49.6

  Brent

  61.0

  60.3

  65.0

  67.2

  66.3

  Bromley

  55.8

  57.9

  64.5

  65.9

  65.7

  Croydon

  72.7

  80.9

  90.6

  89.7

  89.8

  Ealing

  82.7

  85.4

  90.1

  89.7

  89.9

  Enfield

  58.3

  54.8

  64.3

  65.6

  66.9

  Haringey

  42.7

  40.9

  43.0

  43.7

  43.3

  Harrow

  38.7

  37.1

  43.6

  43.7

  43.5

  Havering

  44.9

  45.8

  47.5

  47.7

  50.4

  Hillingdon

  202.5

  212.4

  242.5

  246.0

  243.2

  Hounslow

  92.8

  89.5

  110.6

  108.2

  115.9

  Kingston upon Thames

  46.5

  50.5

  56.8

  56.8

  56.6

  Merton

  43.8

  46.2

  51.1

  50.2

  50.7

  Newham

  45.3

  46.1

  51.7

  54.4

  52.6

  Redbridge

  34.5

  37.1

  39.3

  39.1

  38.6

  Richmond upon Thames

  41.9

  46.2

  51.1

  50.5

  50.9

  Sutton

  35.2

  30.4

  36.8

  37.0

  36.1

  Waltham Forest

  31.6

  34.4

  34.6

  36.2

  31.7

  Total Outer London borough

  1,175.6

  1,192.4

  1,346.6

  1,355.5

  1,355.5

  Total London borough

  2,470.9

  2,727.0

  3,132.8

  3,272.8

  3,328.0

  1 Provisional

  Data source:

  1999–2000 to 2001–02 Audited National Non Domestic Rate Return Form (NNDR) 3, 2002/03 to 2003/04 NNDR1 provisional.

  Local Government Finance Statistics (LGF3f)

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Gender Mainstreaming
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Minister for Women when she will publish her next annual report on gender mainstreaming. [116568]

  Ms Hewitt
  I do not publish an annual report on gender mainstreaming. However we have set a gender equality objective in the comprehensive spending review and our action plan on "Delivering Gender Equality" will be published this month.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Minister for Women what action she intends to take about the gender pay gap within the public sector. [116571]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have made a commitment for civil service departments and agencies to undertake pay reviews and prepare action plans. Action plans representing 91 per cent. of the civil service have now been received by the Cabinet Office.

  Equal Pay
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Equal Pay Act 1970. [116569]
  520W
  Ms Hewitt
  The Equal Pay Act 1970 has made real headway for many women and since 1975 when it came into effect the full-time pay gap has narrowed from 30 per cent. to 19 per cent. in 2002. However the "pay gap" is not just about unequal pay (covered by the Act) it is also about employment opportunities, work experience, culture and attitudes. Legislation has enabled us to make good progress, but the Government are determined to do more and are working to reduce the gender pay gap through a variety of measures which help strengthen and maintain women's attachment to the labour market, including the equal pay questionnaire, working with the EOC to promote equal pay reviews, providing trade unions with additional funding for training representatives in equal pay issues and by requiring the civil service to undertake pay reviews.

  Women's Pensions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister for Women, what recent consultations she has had with the Treasury regarding women's pensions. [116570]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has been in close contact with both HM Treasury and the Department of Works and Pensions regarding women's pensions.

  Women in Iraq
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Minister for Women what action she is taking to promote the role of women in the governance of Iraq. [116565]

  Ms Hewitt
  I am working with other colleagues to support Iraqi women in playing a full role in rebuilding the governing of their country. I am hosting meetings with a representative group of Iraqi women exiles, and last week 40 Iraqi women had a meeting in Baghdad with Ambassador Bremer and John Sawer, the UK Special Representative for Iraq.

  The meeting was also attended b y my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) who is now of course my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's special representative on Human Rights in Iraq.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the cost was of the publication of the 2001 Departmental Report. [112812]

  The Solicitor-General [holding answer 14 May 2003]
  The cost of publishing the 2001 Law Officers' Department's Departmental Report was £6,849.

  Departmental Invoices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor General if she will list the occasions on which her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period within financial year 2001–02. [104314]

  The Solicitor-General[holding answer 14 May 2003]
  Crown Prosecution Service

  During financial year 2001–02 the Crown Prosecution Service failed to pay 13,490 out of a total of 233,126 valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period, which represents 5.8 per cent. of the invoices processed.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The information and detail is not available in the format requested without disproportionate cost.

  However, the Serious Fraud Office paid 93.4 per cent. of all invoices within terms or 30 clays, if no terms were specified, for the financial year 2001–02.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The prompt payment performance of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate is published each year in line with other Government Departments. For the 2001–02 financial year 97 per cent. of invoices received were paid within the 30 day period.

  The total number of invoices received was 10,518 of which 10,150 were paid within 30 days. The remaining 368 (3 per cent.) were paid outside of the 30 day period. Listing each invoice individually would require
  522W
  extraction of details at disproportionate cost but the breakdown of these invoices by calendar month is as follows:

  Date

  Number of invoices

  April 2001

  74

  May 2001

  18

  June 2001

  26

  July 2001

  67

  August 2001

  27

  September 2001

  24

  October 2001

  22

  November 2001

  16

  December 2001

  18

  January 2002

  39

  February 2002

  29

  March 2002

  8

  Total

  368

  Employment Relations Act
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many staff in the Law Officers' Departments have taken time off from work in order to attend to domestic incidents as provided for by the Employment Relations Act 1999. [108337]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 April 2003]: In relation to my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, working patterns have at all times been sufficiently flexible to enable staff to deal with domestic incidents. No requests for flexibility have specifically related to the 1999 Act.

  Crown Prosecution Service:

  The information you request is not collated centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Serious Fraud Office:

  This information is not available without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department:

  160 staff in the Treasury Solicitor's Department have taken time off in order to attend to domestic incidents since this part of the Act came into force.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what her estimate is of the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for her Department in 2002. [101847]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: On the cost of ministerial cars I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 20 May 2003, Official Report, column 663W.

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service does not separately record expenditure on taxis and it would incur disproportionate cost to identify this information. The costs of taxis are included with other miscellaneous travel expenditure and the aggregate cost of such expenditure in 2002 was £189,000.
  523W
  Serious Fraud Office

  The total incurred by the Serious Fraud Office for taxis during the financial year 2002 is £15,893.27.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The information available in relation to taxis is not held in the form required. Where authorised small claims for travel expenses are met from petty cash, the method of travel is not distinguished. The total expenditure from petty cash for all travel purposes so far in 2002–03 has been £5,523. Where claims are paid otherwise taxi fares are separately identifiable. In 2002–03 these amount to £2,800 for the Treasury Solicitor's Department of which £1,173 is attributable to the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers and £25 to Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution. Service Inspectorate. Information is not held by calendar year.

  Property Portfolio
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the estimated value is of the property portfolio held by the Law Officers' Department. [108360]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 Apri12003]: Crown Prosecution Service: The National Asset Register, published in July 2001 (Cm 5221), lists those assets owned by the Crown Prosecution Service. The Crown Prosecution Service has freehold ownership of buildings in four locations—Carmarthen, Haverfordwest, Portsmouth and Sheffield. The total estimated market value of the land and buildings for these four locations at 31 March 2000 was £3,845,000.

  Serious Fraud Office:

  The Serious Fraud Office has a single headquarters building which is subject to a full commercial repairing lease with a remaining life of some 10 years and is not owned by the Serious Fraud Office. The Serious Fraud Office does not own any other land or property.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department:

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department occupies a largely Crown freehold property, incorporating a small area on a 999 year lease to the Crown, whose total value was estimated at a little over £28,000,000 on 31 March 2002.

  The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate both occupy premises rented on modern leases at commercial rates.

  In addition, the Treasury Solicitor's Department manages a modern leasehold property formerly, occupied by Government Property Lawyers and now hosting a number of public bodies who pay occupation charges ("rent") under interdepartmental Memoranda of Terms of Occupations. The lease expires in 2016.

  Staff Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many staff in the Law Officers' Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in 2002. [106731]
  524W
  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 7 April 2003]: In relation to my own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, staff are on secondment from other Departments and are covered by their parent Department's arrangements.

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Facility time allocation in the Crown Prosecution Service is in the form of a block allowance—of 2,674 days—to the two recognised trade unions. For the financial year 2001–02 the number of staff receiving paid leave to undertake union duties was 136 and the cost to public funds was £280,042.75.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office does not have any staff who receive paid leave to undertake union duties.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

  The size of Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate means that we have no formal arrangements for facility time. However, both the FDA and the PCS have branches within Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and a Whitley Council which meets quarterly. Preparation and attendance is absorbed within normal working arrangements and I would not regard this as "paid leave". In addition, permission is given for occasional meetings. The total time involved is presently so small as not to warrant separate recording and costing.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Seven members of staff in the Treasury Solicitor's Department are eligible to receive paid leave to undertake union duties; the total allocation is 40 days per year. The actual cost to public funds in 2002 was £715.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the statutory instruments issued by the Law Officers' Department since 17 April 2002. [106756]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 7 April 2003]: None of the Departments for which the Attorney-General holds ministerial responsibility have issued statutory instruments in the period in question.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Advocate General (1) how many of her staff have taken sick leave due to mental health problems in the last year; [111992]

  (2) how many sick days were lost in the last year by her Department through staff mental health problems; [112006]

  (3) how many of her staff retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year; [111970]

  (4) what arrangements are made in her Department to allow staff to access counselling services. [111940]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Member to the Answers given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff have been employed in the Ministerial Correspondence Unit of the Department in each of the last two years. [115872]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is in the following table.

  Full-time Permanent members of staff

  Full-time casual members of staff

  Other

  April 2001

  5

  2

  —

  April 2002

  6

  —

  —

  April 2003

  4

  2

  1 part-time permanent member of staff

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of state-educated pupils in(a) Leeds, West constituency and (b) Leeds Metropolitan district receive free school meals. [116189]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Maintained schools: School meal arrangements

  January 2003 (Provisional)

  Number on roll

  Day pupils1 Number known to be eligible for free school meals

  Percentage known to be eligible for free school meals

  Leeds, West parliamentary constituency

  Primary2

  7,702

  2,009

  26.1

  Secondary2

  4,141

  1,028

  24.8

  Special3

  186

  67

  36.0

  Pupil Referral Units

  26

  13

  50.0

  Leeds local education authority

  Primary2

  65,400

  12,224

  18.7

  Secondary2

  47,806

  8,085

  16.9

  Special3

  955

  346

  36.2

  Pupil Referral Units

  223

  80

  35.9

  1 Excludes boarding pupils.

  2 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  3 Excludes non-maintained special schools.

  Source:

  The Annual Schools Census

  School Funding (Croydon)
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will meet the hon. Member for Croydon, South to discuss funding for(a) Woodcote High School, Croydon and (b) education funding in Croydon. [111686]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I would be happy to meet the hon. Member. My Private Office will be in contact shortly.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which United Kingdom commitments arising from the World Summit on 526W
  Sustainable Development (a) have been incorporated into the Department's existing delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements and (b) will be incorporated in its delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements in advance of the 2004 Spending Review. [113885]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The interdepartmentally cleared Annex to the Memorandum submitted to the Environmental Audit Committee, in response to their inquiry on WSSD follow up, showed no outcomes for which this Department has responsibility,

  Therefore, we see no need to change our existing delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements now, or in the future, in advance of the 2004 Spending Review.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in what circumstances defendants are entitled to legal aid before being charged; and what plans he has to amend the legal aid regulations in the light of Section 23 and Schedule 2 of the Criminal Justice Bill. [102070]

  Yvette Cooper
  Criminal Defence Service funding, in the form of advice and assistance, is available to anyone who is the subject of an investigation which may lead to criminal proceedings. Advice and assistance from a duty solicitor is free where an individual is arrested and held at a police station. In other circumstances, a defendant will be eligible for help where his weekly disposable income does not exceed £89 and his disposable capital does not exceed £1,000. There is no need to change the regulations in light of the Criminal Justice Bill, as advice and assistance is already available to cover any of the circumstances that may arise under Schedule 2.

  Transsexuals
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on progress towards achieving equal rights for transsexuals. [116293]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government's policy on transsexual people remains unchanged from that set out in the Written Ministerial Statement I made on 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 36WS. We are committed to legislating as soon as possible to give transsexual people their Convention rights. Our aim is to publish a draft Bill later this session with substantive legislation following when Parliamentary time allows.

SCOTLAND

  Counselling Services
  Mr. Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are made in her Department to allow staff to access counselling services. [111951]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Staff in my Department have access to an in-house counselling and welfare service as well as to an external employee assistance programme. These
  527W
  arrangements reflect my commitment to helping staff deal with concerns both inside and outside the workplace.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of her staff retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year. [111956]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No staff from the Scotland Office retired on medical grounds in 2002.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of her staff have taken sick leave due to mental health problems in the last year. [111978]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In 2002, a small number of staff in my department had sickness absence relating to mental health problems. Further details of cases are covered by Exemption 12 (Privacy of an Individual) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sick days were lost over the last year by her Department through staff mental health problems. [112067]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In 2002, 180 working days were lost due to staff illness involving mental health problems.

  Ministerial Meetings
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to her answer of 9 April 2003,Official Report, column 278W, on ministerial meetings, if she will give the date of her last meeting with (a) the Minister of State for Trade and Investment and (b) the Scottish Minister responsible for Scottish Trade International. [114964]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I met the Minister of State for Trade and Investment on 6 February this year. My last engagement with the Scottish Minister responsible for Scottish Trade International was on 3 March. I also have frequent telephone conversations with each.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times she has met the Chairman of Scottish Enterprise in each of the last five years; and when her last meeting was. [114965]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Scottish Enterprise is formally responsible to Scottish Ministers for the conduct of its business. Therefore, while my predecessor and I have had continuing informal contacts with the Chairman and past Chairman of Scottish Enterprise over the past four years in a variety of different contexts, there has been no reason to keep detailed records of such contacts since devolution.

  Tax Credit
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many employees in Scotland are (a) entitled to and (b) in receipt of working tax credit; [115815]

  (2) how many families in Scotland are (a) entitled to and (b) in receipt of child tax credit. [115814]
  528W
  Mrs. McGuire
  430,000 families in Scotland are expected to receive the Child Tax Credit and 90,000 families in Scotland a re expected to receive the Working Tax Credit, including some who are expected to receive the Child Tax Credit. Statistics on awards of these tax credits will be published in August.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Institute for Medical Research
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of the National Institute for Medical Research in Mill Hill. [116515]

  Ms Hewitt
  No decision has been taken regarding the future of the National Institute for Medical Research.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received concerning competitiveness from representatives of the manufacturing sector. [116516]

  Alan Johnson
  I and my colleagues frequently receive representations from industry on a range of issues, including competitiveness. We value and encourage such exchanges.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Indus try if she will make a statement on the change in the number of manufacturing jobs since 1997 in Shrewsbury and Atcham. [116517]

  Alan Johnson
  Since December 1998, the earliest base year available, it is estimated that manufacturing jobs in Shrewsbury have fallen by around 550, a decrease of 12 per cent. In the same period, overall employment in Shrewsbury increases by 8.7 per cent.

  Bilateral Trade
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on current levels of bilateral trade with the United States of America. [116518]

  Ms Hewitt
  Initial figures for 2002 value UK exports of goods to the US at £28.38 billion and UK imports at £26.06 billion so there is a healthy balance in the UK's favour.

  Small Businesses
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Department of Health on the effect of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill on insurance costs for small businesses. [116519]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I know that businesses and business organisations are concerned about the possible impact on insurance costs of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill's provisions on NHS cost recovery. I have represented these concerns to the Department of Health, and as a result the
  529W
  Government decided that the provisions in the Bill will not be commenced before the outcome of further work on the Employers' Liability Insurance system is known.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with Corus and the unions on redundancies in the steel industry announced last month; and if she will make a statement. [116520]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has held a number of discussions with Corus senior management and the steel Trade Unions about restructuring at Corus. It is always terrible when job losses and closures are announced, particularly in a long-established industry which is important to the UK economy, but the decision to restructure or relocate is a commercial one for the company to make.

  We welcome the announcement of new investment at Port Talbot, Scunthorpe and Rotherham, which is essential if the company is to re-establish its competitive position.

  Post Office
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress of the Post Office's urban reinvention programme. [116521]

  Ms Hewitt
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that good progress is being made on urban reinvention. As at the end of April 2003, the company had entered into public consultation for compensated closures for a total of 417 offices and that 205 offices had closed under the terms of the programme as at that date. In addition, at the same date, Post Office Ltd. had received 149 applications for investment grants under the urban reinvention programme from offices remaining with the network, of which 36 had been approved.

  I am also informed by Post Office Ltd. that, to date, five post office closure proposals have been withdrawn for further evaluation in the light of representations made during the public consultation process. In addition 18 closure proposals had been withdrawn, and a further 24 modified, prior to public consultation after discussion with Postwatch.

  National Minimum Wage
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans her Department has to extend the National Minimum Wage to 16 and 17-year-olds. [116523]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government agreed in March that the Low Pay Commission should look at the possible advantages and disadvantages of a minimum wage rate for 16 to 17-year-olds. We will publish terms of reference for the Commission shortly. The Commission will report to the Government by the end of February 2004 and we will consider the position then.

  British Business Assistance
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 16 May 2003,Official Report, column 460W, on British Business Assistance, in what format she holds the information; what she estimates the cost would be to provide the information in the formats as requested; and if she will make a statement. [115783]

  Ms Hewitt
  A list of DTI supported schemes is available from http://www.businesslink.org/support. Individual scheme managers hold more detailed information on each scheme in a format suitable for the running of that scheme.

  The information is therefore not held on a central database and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Broadband
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which areas within the Chorley constituency(a) have been and (b) have not been connected to broadband. [116398]

  Mr. Timms
  This data is not available within Government.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with BT(a) in relation to the roll-out of broadband and (b) on ensuring that all areas receive broadband as soon as possible. [116399]

  Mr. Timms
  My colleagues and I maintain regular contact with BT across a wide range of issues as we do with other broadband providers. The Government's target is for the UK to have the most competitive and extensive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. Around 70 per cent. of UK homes and businesses already have access to broadband. Oftel have reported that the UK has over 2 million broadband connections and this is rising by well over 30,000 per week.

  Cambridge-MIT Institute
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when funding from her Department was first made available to the Cambridge-MIT Institute; how much funding her Department gave to the institute in each year since funding began; what restrictions apply to the funding; what assessment she has made of the management of grants made to the institute; what guidance she has given to the institute on its management; and what the status is of the Department's relationship with the institute. [116681]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: On 17 July 2000, DTI formally offered CMI a grant of up to £65.1 million for expenditure incurred up to 31 July 2005. Under the detailed terms and conditions of the offer, the grant is paid in arrears against invoices for expenditure properly incurred, and is conditional on CMI achieving its deliverables. The grant drawn down by CMI each year is published in the DTI Consolidated Resource Accounts.
  531W
  CMI is a limited company. Its Board of Directors are responsible for the operation of CMI and are accountable to DTI for proper expenditure of the grant. DTI and HMT have seats as observers on the CMI board, and there is regular contact with staff at all levels at CMI and both universities. I instigated an independent review of CMI in May 2001, and the CMI board accepted and acted upon all the recommendations. The most recent independent audit, in February 2003, found CMI's internal systems and controls and corporate governance practices to be satisfactory and made no recommendations for further action.

  Coastal Wind Farms
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on(a) the development and (b) the benefits of coastal wind farms on the north-west coastline. [116611]

  Mr. Wilson
  Under the first round of offshore wind farm site leasing in 2001, the Crown Estate granted leases for a number of sites off the north-west coast—Barrow, Shell Flat (three sites), Southport and Burbo Bank. The development at Barrow has been given consent and consent applications for the sites at Shell Flat and Burbo Bank have been submitted to the DTI.

  The Crown Estate will shortly invite applications for sites under a second round of leasing which will focus on the three strategic areas proposed in the Department's "Future Offshore" consultation paper (November 2002)—the Thames Estuary, the Greater Wash and the North West.

  The second round will be informed by a strategic environmental assessment of development in the strategic areas. A report has been prepared which considers possible negative impacts as well as benefits and is available on the Department's website at: http://www.og.dti.gov.uk/ offshore-wind-sea/process/envreport.htm coastal wind farms will make an important contribution to meeting the Government's 10 per cent. renewables target. They will also contribute to the security of national energy supply and provide employment opportunities both locally and nationally.

  Credit Card Industry
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what recent representations she has received from consumer bodies about credit card cheque books; [116002]

  (2) what discussions she has had with the credit card industry about differential charging and fee structures for the use of credit card cheque books issued to customers. [116717]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Both Citizens Advice and the Office of Fair Trading—representing consumer bodies—raised concerns about the use of credit card cheques in the discussions of the Task Force on Tackling Overindebtedness. The Task Force also included the British Banking Association, the Finance and Leasing Association and the Consumer Credit Association representing the credit industry.
  532W
  Among the topics addressed, differential charging and fee structures were dealt with as a part of the work carried out on the transparency of information that should be provided to consumers.

  The results of all of these discussions can be found in their second report to me, published 30 January 2003, which is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Energy Crops
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to increase the amount of energy crops being grown for use by electricity generators. [116265]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are committed to the development of all forms of bio-energy, including energy crops. While no targets have been set for either the planting of energy crops or for the contribution of individual renewable energy sources, such as energy crops, the Government hope to increase the amount of energy crops grown For electricity generation through a number of schemes designed to create sustainable markets for energy crops.

  My Department provides support ranging from research and development to the creation of a market for energy generation from energy crops through the Renewables Obligation and the Bio-energy Capital Grants Scheme.

  DEFRA's Energy Crops Scheme helps farmers and foresters to establish energy crops and a further £3.5million is being made available by DEFRA to develop supply chains.

  Energy Sources
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government assistance is available for the development of market-based production of energy using renewable sources. [116251]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government has introduced a number of market-based initiatives to assist renewable energy sources:The Renewables Obligation, which places an obligation on licensed electricity suppliers to source a percentage of supplies from renewable sources, to reach 10 per cent. by 2010;
  Exemption, for businesses and organisations, from the Climate Change Levy for electricity generated by new renewable technologies;
  £348 million of capital grants and support for research, development and demonstration programmes to enable emerging technologies gain a foothold in the marketplace.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 16 May 2003,Official Report, column 462W, on environmental impact assessments, if she will list (a) the support schemes and (b) the criteria to which she referred for assessing the environmental impact of businesses to whom grants are awarded. [116261]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI is involved in 14 schemes which deal with energy efficiency and the environment. Three of these schemes include a grant element and are
  533W
  designed specifically to have a positive effect on the environment by assisting individual businesses. The schemes are:

  1. Biowise. Link to assessment criteria: www.biowise.org.uk

  2. New and Renewable Energy programme. Link to assessment criteria: www.dti.gov.uk/energy/renewables/support/research

  3. Solar Power Grants. Link to assessment criteria: www.est.co.uk/solar

  Environmental Research and Development
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was given in grants by the Department for research and development relating to(a) the environment and (b) waste in the years 1998 to 2002; and what the projected allocation is for (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2005. [115773]

  Mr. Wilson
  My Department has provided the following funding for research and development relating to waste and the environment (it is not possible to distinguish between the two classifications):

  £

  1998–99

  490,000

  1999–2000

  547,000

  2000–01

  738,000

  2001–02

  1,158,000

  2002–03

  2,356,000

  2003–04

  (projected) 3,186,000

  It is not possible to provide the likely final outturn beyond this. However we have already committed £1,792,000 for 2004–05, but this figure may increase.

  These figures do not include funding for environmental research and development which the Office of Science and Technology provides through the Research Councils. NERC (Natural Environment Research Council) is the primary fund provider and has supplied the following figures for the funding of research and development.

  £ million

  1998–99

  160

  1999–2000

  159

  2000–01

  169

  2001–02

  166

  2002–03

  195

  2003–04

  (forecast) 287

  2004–05

  (forecast) 303

  In addition DTI is also providing £10.65 million funding between 2001–2004 to WRAP, the Waste and Resources Action Programme, a not for profit company funded by Government. £8.45 million was allocated for open call research and development programmes between 2001–2003 and a further £1.66 million spent on other research and market studies during the same period. Future WRAP research and development expenditure has not yet been agreed.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 12 May 2003,Official Report, column 16W, on the renewable energy initiative of the ECGD, when she expects a decision to be reached on the three applications outstanding. [117085]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: For all three of the applications ECGD is waiting for the exporters to resolve contractual or financial issues with the respective buyers. These issues are outside ECGD's control and it is not currently possible to say when or indeed if any guarantees will eventually be issued.

  General Agreement on Trade in Services
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the latest(a) discussions held and (b) agreements reached concerning the General Agreement on Trade in Services. [115538]

  Ms Hewitt
  The current negotiations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services—part of the World Trade Organisation's Doha Development Agenda of multilateral trade negotiations—are due to be concluded by 1 January 2005. Negotiations have recently begun to focus on requests and offers. Around 25 offers have so far been tabled by WTO Members. The offer by the European Community and Member States was tabled on 29 April.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on the import of products that would be illegal if they had been produced in the United Kingdom; what records are kept of such products; and what assessment she has made of the risk to consumers from such products. [116714]

  Ms Hewitt
  Consumer protection legislation, which is enforced by local authority trading standards officers, makes it an offence to supply unsafe consumer products to the UK market. The legislation applies equally to products manufactured in the UK and imported products. Enforcement statistics do not distinguish action taken against imported products. Under European Council Regulation 339/93—relating to goods imported from non-Community countries—customs officers have powers to detain goods for up to three working days to permit checks by trading standards officers when there is reason to believe that goods may be unsafe. More generally in formulating policy towards imports of goods the United Kingdom must have due regard to its European Community and international trade obligations.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's(a) total managed expenditure, (b) total spending on Information Technology and (c) spending on Information Technology as a proportion of its total managed expenditure was in each financial year since 1997–98. [107186]
  535W
  Ms Hewitt
  The contribution by Department of Trade and Industry to Total Managed Expenditure can be measured by the total of spending under resource and capital budgets, less non-cash items in AME. Data for 1998–99 to 2001–02 were published in the 2003 Departmental Report (Cm 5916).

  Due to the devolved nature of the Department's budgets, complete information of total spending for all budgets on Information Technology (IT) is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, spending by the Department of Trade and Industry from its centrally gross controlled Administration Costs Budgets on IT was £12.1 million in 1998–99, £10.4 million in 1999–2000, £14.9 million in 2000–01, £18 million in 2001–02 and £21.2 million in 2002—03.

  Iraq
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on recent discussions she has held with(a) the UN, (b) the EU and (c) the United States Government on the reconstruction of Iraq. [116269]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: I have had no recent discussions with either the UN or the EU on the reconstruction of Iraq.

  As I informed the hon. Member on 1 April 2003, Official Report, column 624W I have discussed post-conflict issues with Andrew Natsios of US AID.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many requests for assistance with tendering for business in Iraq her Department has received from UK companies. [116270]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: British Trade International has received hundreds of requests for advice from UK companies on how they might pursue contract opportunities in Iraq. We have almost 1,000 companies registered on our Iraq database.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of her Department's contribution to assisting UK businesses who have registered interest in contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq. [116272]

  Ms Hewitt
  A key objective of the Department has been to help position UK companies to ensure that their expertise and knowledge of the Middle East region is put to the fullest possible use in the redevelopment of Iraq.

  The hon. Member is aware of the main activities we have undertaken to assist companies, including our discussions with the US authorities. At my request, British Trade International set up an Industry Working Group, which will act as a channel of communication to industry in our work to help companies access opportunities. We have a database of nearly 1,000 UK companies interested in working in Iraq and to whom we send mailshot updates. We also held a joint seminar with the US authorities in London on 23 May 2003, which presented an excellent opportunity for UK companies to meet key US departments and contractors. Feedback received from members of the Industry Working Group and other has so far been
  536W
  positive. The redevelopment of Iraq will be a long process and it is too early to make an assessment of our efforts to help companies.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which companies her Department has assisted in winning contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq. [116273]

  Ms Hewitt
  We expect UK companies to play a significant role in the redevelopment of post-conflict Iraq. In the short-term, US funded contracts are likely to be the main source of opportunities for UK companies on a sub-contract basis. While we expect UK companies to bid for and win contracts, companies are not obliged to inform us if and when they have done so.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with(a) the Secretary of State for International Development, (b) the Chancellor of the Exchequer and (c) the Prime Minister about the reconstruction of Iraq. [116271]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: The Cabinet and Ad Hoc Ministerial Group on Iraq has regular discussions on all aspects of our policy towards Iraq, including reconstruction.

  Miners' Compensation
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the setting up of the medical review panel on miners' compensation; and when the panel will begin its work. [116880]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Review Panel is a feature of a revised version of the medical disputes procedure proposed by the claimants" solicitors and currently under discussion between the parties. A good measure of progress has been made on this issue and it is hoped that agreement can be reached in the near future.

  In the meantime, the original version of the medical disputes procedure continues to operate in draft, as agreed by the parties. There is no bar to a claimant bringing a dispute under this version of the medical disputes procedure until the revised version is finalised.

  Near Earth Object Task Force
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on the recommendations contained in the Government's Near Earth Object Taskforce Report; how much money has been spent since January 2001 on implementing the recommendations contained in the Government's Near Earth Object Taskforce Report; and if she will make a statement. [116732]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government issued its response to the Taskforce Report in February 2001 and an update to the response was issued in January 2002. A key objective for the Government in supporting the thrust of the Task Force's Report was to raise international awareness of this issue and thus to achieve international cooperation in getting to grips with the issues. I believe that this has been achieved. For example, in January 2003 the Global Science Forum of the Organisation for Economic
  537W
  Cooperation and Development held a workshop dedicated to the subject, and a report of this workshop will be considered at a July 2003 meeting of the group.

  DTI has committed a sum of around £460,000 to the area of Near Earth Objects between January 2001 and March 2004. An update on progress will be provided in the autumn.

  Trade (Africa)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to tackle trade barriers(a) between African countries and the United Kingdom and (b) between African countries; and if she will make a statement. [116626]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK is working through the EU for a fairer international trading system for all WTO members, with a particular emphasis on developing countries. To maximise the benefits of trade to all African countries the Government are working for the elimination of trade barriers both between themselves and with the EU. This needs to be done in a carefully sequenced manner, together with appropriate complementary policies so that the benefits of freer trade are maximised. The Government are working in partnership with developing countries, the EU and multilateral agencies such as the World Bank, to help developing countries capture new trading opportunities and thus trade their way out of poverty.

  In addition, in terms of tackling trade barriers between Africa and the EU, there are several complementary agreements between the EU and Africa. With South Africa there is the EU-South Africa Trade, Development and Co-operation Agreement, which provisionally came into force in 2000 and which aims to create a free trade area between the EU and South Africa over 12 years. In the North there is the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership which aims to establish a Euro-Mediterranean free trade area with 12 Mediterranean Partner Countries, four of which are in North Africa, by 2010.

  For Sub-Saharan Africa under the "Everything But Arms" initiative all products from the 32 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) already have duty and quota-free access to the EU, with phase in periods for bananas, sugar and rice.

  Finally, the UK hopes that the recently launched negotiations under the Cotonou Agreement for Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with the 77 African, Caribbean and Pacific. (ACP) countries, including all African countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa), will play a significant role in reducing trade barriers between African countries themselves and with the EU. As a result of the negotiations the UK would like to see an outcome which gave all ACP countries duty and quota-free access to the EU.

  UK Liability Insurance Market
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Office of Fair Trading fact-finding study into the UK liability insurance market will be published. [116661]
  538W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Office of Fair Trading fact-finding study into the UK liability insurance market was published on 3 June 2003.

  Veterinary Medicines
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the Competition Commission inquiry into the supply of prescription-only veterinary medicines; and if she will make a statement. [116730]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Competition Commission's recommendations and proposed remedies are intended to lead to greater choice and price transparency for animal owners, to increase competition in the market for veterinary medicines while ensuring that we continue to protect both human and animal health.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked the Office of Fair Trading to consult with relevant parties on the appropriate terms of orders to implement the Commission's remedies under the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  The regulatory controls relating to the supply of veterinary medicines in the UK are the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently considering the Competition Commission's recommendations relating to the veterinary medicines regulatory system. The Government will publish its response by 10 July 2003.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with which bodies she has had discussions on the recommendations contained in the Competition Commission Report, Veterinary Medicines: A Report on the Supply Within the United Kingdom of Prescription-only Veterinary Medicines. [116106]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked the Office of Fair Trading to consult with relevant parties on the appropriate terms of orders to implement the Commission's remedies under the Fair Trading Act 1973. These include the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association, and the British Small Animal Veterinary Association. After the OFT have reported back, my right hon. Friend will then consult publicly on the terms of the orders.

  Wood Residue
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which industries her Department has identified as the major users of wood residue in the United Kingdom. [116266]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department has not undertaken any specific analysis of the major users of wood residue in the UK. However, it is understood that a significant proportion of wood residue is used in the manufacture of wood composite board for the construction and furniture manufacturing industries.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Chamber Orchestras
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards the funding of chamber orchestras. [115517]

  Dr. Howells
  Through their recently announced spending allocations for 2004–05 to 2005–06 Arts Council England is to support a portfolio of seven chamber orchestras to serve those areas of the country which currently have little or no access to orchestral provision, and to ensure a rich mix of provision in other areas. As a result of these allocations, funding for the chamber orchestra sector will increase from £1.34 million this financial year to £1.97 million in 2005–06 or 47.2 per cent.

  Main beneficiaries of this increase include:
  leading contemporary music ensembles—London Sinfonietta, Birmingham Contemporary Music Group and the Britten Sinfonia
  the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment—one of the country's busiest and most versatile period-instrument orchestras
  mainstream chamber orchestras with an already established regional presence—City of London Sinfonia, London Mozart Players, Manchester Camerata.

  In addition, the Arts Council invests around £350,000 a year through project funding to support chamber orchestras to tour nationally.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff have been employed in the Ministerial Correspondence Unit of the Department in each of the last two years. [115885]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is in the following table. Please note these figures are for the correspondence section only. They do not include Ministerial Private Staff or staff in the Parliamentary Unit.

  Year

  Staff Employed in the Correspondence Unit

  April

  2001–02

  8

  2002–03

  10

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the target is for efficiency savings in 2003–04 expressed(a) in money terms and (b) as a percentage of the Department's expenditure limit. [114126]

  Dr. Howells
  Following the 2000 Spending Review the Department conducted a benchmarking study of value for money in bodies funded by the Department. This resulted in the 2002 Spending Review PSA target to improve significantly the value for money of the 540W
  Department's sponsored (Museums and Galleries and Lottery Distributing) bodies, measured by a matrix of NDPB indicators.

  Licensing Bill
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what provisions of the Licensing Bill will apply to individual musicians performing in pubs; and if she will make a statement. [115928]

  Dr. Howells
  The Licensing Bill provides in clause 1 that the provision of regulated entertainment is a licensable activity. Schedule 1 to the Bill defines the provision of regulated entertainment and provides that the descriptions of entertainment include a performance of live music. Accordingly, subject to the conditions and exemptions in the Bill, live musical performances in pubs would require the authorisation of a premises licence, a club premises certificate or a temporary event notice. Under clause 134 of the Bill an offence is committed if a person carries on, attempts to carry on, or knowingly allows to take place, unauthorised licensable activities. However, entertainers such as musicians performing in pubs, who perform at unlicensed venues and do nothing else in relation to the provision of regulated entertainment would not be committing this offence.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many charities in the Birmingham, Erdington constituency have(a) applied for and (b) claimed awards from the Heritage Lottery Fund in each year since the National Lottery began. [112991]

  Dr. Howells
  Applications have been received from, and grants made to, two organisations: St. Barnabas Church, Erdington in Financial Year 1998–99 and Erin Go Bragh GAA & Camogie Club in Financial Year 2002—03.

  Poetry
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what(a) measures she has taken and (b) resources she has committed to promote the (i) writing, (ii) reading and (iii) archiving of poetry in each of the last five years. [116021]

  Dr. Howells
  This is essentially a matter for Arts Council England, which funds a range of organisations concerned with the development of poetry, with a particular emphasis on readers and writers. The following table supplied by the Arts Council contains the information requested by my hon. Friend. These figures refer only to funding from the national office and do not include any regional funding or lottery spend.

  £

  1997–98

  Total literature spend (grant in aid)

  1,426,906

  Total poetry spend1

  785,350

  1998–99

  Total literature spend (grant in aid)

  1,551,016

  Total poetry spend

  1,102,266

  541W

  £

  1999–2000

  Total literature spend (grant in aid)

  1,706,889

  Total poetry spend

  998,790

  2000–01

  Total literature spend (grant in aid)

  1,498,034

  Total poetry spend

  1,008,900

  2001–02

  Total literature spend (grant in aid)

  1,468,645

  Total poetry spend

  1,068,790

  1 These figures are for organisations that focus entirely on poetry and also for organisations that have an element of poetry. They do not include monies spent by the old Regional Arts Boards.

  The Arts Council is not itself responsible for archiving, which remains the responsibility of individual organisations. However, the Arts Council has funded the Poetry Library at the South Bank Centre for £90,000 to digitise its poetry magazine collection. The Arts Council is also supporting a programme of work by the Poetry Archive that will see contemporary poets recording their own work, which will then be made available on CD and via a specially designed website. The DIES is providing £280,000 of funding for this project in 2003–04, and the Arts Council will invest £60,000 in 2004–05, rising to £100,000 in 2005–06.

  As a result of the 2002 Comprehensive Spending Round, funding for literature will increase by 50 per cent. in 2004–05 and 2005–06. This builds on an increase of 77 per cent. in literature funding in the 2000 CSR. Approximately 80 per cent. of the total literature budget is spent directly or indirectly on poetry.

  Radio Stations
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much public money has been given in each of the last five years for which figures are available to support local temporary radio stations operating under a short-term licence; and how much of that funding was channelled through the Countryside Agency. [115592]

  Dr. Howells
  This department does not hold a central fund offering financial assistance to local temporary radio stations. Information on how these stations are funded is not held centrally.

  The Countryside Agency does not offer any grant schemes which target radio stations.

  Television Subtitles
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment her Department has made of(a) current and (b) projected use of voice recognition in the production of closed caption television subtitles; and if she will make a statement. [116247]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: None. However, the Independent Television Commission (ITC) monitors developments in subtitling technology which includes systems currently available for using voice recognition.
  542W
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment has been made by her Department of the(a) literacy and (b) other benefits of the provision of closed caption television subtitles for viewers for whom English is their second language; and if she will make a statement. [116248]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: None. The primary purpose of subtitles is for people who are deaf and hard of hearing, rather than people whose first language is not English. All ITC research to date looks at comprehension by people with hearing impairments.

  The ITC Guidance on Standards for Subtitling does give guidance on enhancing the comprehension of subtitles. This guidance focuses on two areas—the first is aimed at reducing the number of words on the screen by re-phrasing to reduce the complexity of a sentence while maintaining the original meaning; the second area is aimed at the reading comprehension of children.

  Olympic Games (London)
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment VisitBritain has made of the impact of holding the Olympic Games in London on(a) visitor numbers in London, (b) visitor displacement from London and (c) visitor numbers in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [115519]

  Dr. Howells
  The British Tourist Authority and the English Tourism Council each submitted their assessments to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport on 14 January 2003. Their assessments were published on 21 January 2003 in the Select Committee report, "A London Olympic Bid for 2012".

  The Select Committee's report can be found at: http:// www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmcumeds/268/26802.htm

  Copies of the report are available in the Vote Office.

  World Tourism Organisation
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether she plans to review the Government's decision not to rejoin the World Tourism Organisation. [116129]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government has reconsidered the question of UK membership of the World Tourism Organisation and, on balance, concluded that there would not be value for money in joining.

  Youth Orchestras
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards funding youth orchestras in Sefton. [116282]

  Dr. Howells
  This is a matter for Arts Council England.

  Arts Council England funds the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra (RLPO) and the Halle Orchestra, both of which run very successful and active youth orchestras. Both youth orchestras work in Sefton and more widely in the north-west.
  543W
  In addition to this, Arts Council England also fund the National Foundation for Youth Music (Youth Music), which provides music making opportunities for young people throughout England. Youth Music has 20 Youth Music Action Zones around the country, including one which works in Sefton and the rest of Merseyside. The Action Zone works with local authorities, training institutions, community organisations, regeneration organisations, local radio, disability forums, youth services, EAZs, schools and music organisations throughout Merseyside.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Adult Education
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people entered Work-Based Learning for Adults in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [114478]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is in the table. Figures provided are for England only, as responsibility for Government-funded training in Wales and Scotland is devolved to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament respectively.

  Work-Based Learning for Adults (WBLA)—Delivered by Training and Enterprise Councils

  Starts to WBLA

  1997–98

  183,600

  1998–99

  98,100

  1999–2000

  102,700

  2000–01

  108,300

  Source:

  DfEE WBLA Trainee Database

  Work Based Learning for Adults (WBLA)—Delivered by Jobcentre Plus

  Starts to WBLA

  2001–02

  67,700

  April 2002 to December 02

  53,200

  Source:

  DWP WBLA Evaluation Database

  Several factors have contributed to the reduction in the numbers of people starting Work-Based Learning for Adults (WBLA) since 1997. These include: the fall in unemployment since 1997; the restriction of WBLA provision to people aged 25 and over (excluding exempt groups) following the introduction of New Deal for Young People; and the introduction of New Deal 25 plus in April 2001. This resulted in JSA recipients unemployed for over 18 months becoming ineligible for Work Based Learning for Adults.

  Child Poverty
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made in meeting his Department's targets on eliminating child poverty. [116383]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Poverty is a complex and multidimensional problem. We published 'Opportunity for all—Fourth Annual Report' (Cm 5598) in September 2002, which sets out the Government's strategy for 544W
  tackling poverty arid social exclusion and presents information on the indicators used to measure progress against this strategy.

  In April 2002 we published 'Measuring child poverty: a consultation document' to gather views on an appropriate measure of child poverty for the long term. We published the preliminary conclusions of our consultation on 14 May 2003.

  Progress has been made on the Public Service Agreement (PSA) target, shared by the Department for Work and Pensions and HM Treasury, to reduce the number of children in low-income households by at least a quarter by 2004. Data for this are published in `Households Below Average Income 1994/95 to 2001/ 02'. On this measure the number of children in low income fell by around half a million between 1996–97 and 2001/02. The baseline for the PSA target is 1998–99. We are making steady progress towards the target.

  The Public Service Agreement target technical note, available on the internet and in the library, contains full details of how the target will be monitored.

  Disability (Administration Costs)
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will break down by category of expenditure the total net administration costs for disability for 2003 set out in Table Five of the Annual Report of the Department, Command Paper 5921; and if he will make a statement. [116870]

  Maria Eagle
  Information is not currently available at the level of detail requested. In accordance with the requirements of Resource Accounting and Budgeting the Department now accounts for its administration and benefit expenditure by Strategic Objective, as set out in its Public Service Agreements (PSA), and by individual Requests for Resources (RfRs), as set out in the Departmental Estimates and Accounts and as reproduced in Table 5 of the Department's Annual Report, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Means-tested Savings
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what plans he has to reform the capital rules on means-tested savings. [112095]

  Maria Eagle
  When the Pension Credit is introduced in October this year, the rules excluding pensioners with £12,000 or more in savings from any help will be abolished. Savings of £6,000 or less (£10,000 or less for those in care homes) will be disregarded in full.

  The rate at which we assume income from capital in excess of the £6,000 (£10,000 where appropriate) will be set at £1 in £500, which is half the rate currently assumed for the minimum income guarantee. In addition any assumed income will count towards the savings credit. Overall this means that savings will be treated five times more generously than under minimum income guarantee.

  We have no plans to make any further changes to the capital rules.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he has taken on pensions to ensure that all those potentially eligible for the pension credit are individually advised of their right to claim. [115401]

  Maria Eagle
  The Pension Service has begun to write to pensioner households to explain pension credit and to invite applications. Around £1.8 million people who currently receive the minimum income guarantee have been told that they will be transferred automatically to pension credit, ready for payments to be made from October 2003. In addition, by June 2004, around £6.8 million pensioner households will have been issued with a direct mail pack. This systematic approach will be supported by regional and national advertising.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pension credit direct mailing packs have been distributed; and of those, how many pension credit applications have been received via(a) the pension credit hotline and (b) other methods. [116723]

  Maria Eagle
  As at 25 May 2003, around 64,000 pension credit direct mail packs have been issued to pensioners. Of these, around 15,000 applications have been taken by the pension credit application line and a small number of applications have been completed through the Pension Service local service teams.

  The advance application period has been running for only seven weeks. Since there is a time lag between the issue of the mail pack and the subsequent completion

  Employers

  Employers

  Providers

  4th Contact Ltd.

  Meridian

  Countrywide Assd Caspil

  Aberdeen city council

  Merseyside Pension Fund

  Countrywide Assd Vax

  Aircraft Research Ass Ltd.

  MISYS

  Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society

  Albany International Ltd.

  Molins

  Prudential

  Alusuisse Holdings

  Nationwide Pension Fund

  Aspen Plc

  NEC Staff Pension Scheme

  Bacon & Woodrow

  NORTEL Networks UK Pension Trust Ltd.

  Barnet CC

  Northern Lighthouse Board

  Cable & Wireless

  Oxford Instruments

  Capita Hartshead

  Partridge Muir & Warren

  Caterpillar UK Ltd.

  Nationwide Pension Fund

  DWP PCSPS

  Reliance Mutual

  DWP Cheshire

  Rexam PLC

  Durham county council

  Ready Mix Concrete

  EMAP

  Shilling Communications

  Field Group Plc

  Stock Exchange Centralised Pension Fund

  FMC Chemicals Pension Plan

  Thames Water

  The BOC Group

  FMC Corp (UK) Pension Plan

  Vencel Resil Ltd.

  J Sainsbury Plc

  Woodgate Fulfilment Ltd.

  Kent county council

  London—Scottish Fund

  Menzies Distribution Ltd.

  Pensions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the threshold for payment of compensation for delays in processing retirement pensions was set at eight months. [115507]

  Maria Eagle
  Under the terms of the department's discretionary financial redress scheme compensation may be considered where payments are unreasonably and exceptionally delayed due to official error. An
  546W
  and return of the application, direct comparison of figures is difficult at this stage.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether pensioners who do not make a pension credit application using the pension credit hotline will be able to request an application form; and if he will make a statement. [116724]

  Maria Eagle
  Pensioners who do not want to use the freephone service available to take their pension credit application and wish instead to complete a paper application form will have their contact details taken by the Pension Service and a paper application form will be sent to them around October 2003. From October 2003, paper application forms will be issued as and when they are requested.

  Pension Statements
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the(a) employers and (b) pension providers issuing combined pension statements to their employees and policy holders. [116721]

  Maria Eagle
  The information in the table lists employers and pension providers who are issuing combined pension forecasts to their employees and policy holders. There are 42 employers listed and four providers. An additional 19 companies are registered and a further 454 companies have expressed an interest in taking advantage of the combined pension forecasting service and are at varying stages of the recruitment process.

  objective indicator, specific to each benefit or pension, is employed to assess whether excessive delay has occurred. Available records indicate that a period of eight months has been used since 1 April 1995 for the purpose of calculating delay in payment of retirement pension.

  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to increase pension provision in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [117322]
  547W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Green Paper 'Simplicity, Security and Choice: working and saving for retirement' Cm 5677 set out proposals designed to give people more options to save more or work for longer in order to meet their expectations in retirement.

  I hope to be able to make an announcement next week on the action we intend to take following the Green Paper consultation process.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of(a) boys and (b) girls are receiving education in Afghanistan. [116400]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are very limited statistics available on the child population of Afghanistan. From available figures, we estimate that there are 5 million children in Afghanistan, of whom approximately 42 per cent. of boys and 18 per cent. of girls between the ages of 6 and 18 are currently receiving education.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the proposed EU constitutional structure in the draft constitution is federal. [116157]

  Mr. MacShane
  No.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the United Kingdom negotiating objectives are when discussing the draft European constitution. [116158]

  Mr. MacShane
  Discussions on a constitutional treaty for the EU have been taking place in the Convention on the Future of Europe. The Government's objective is to build a European Union of nation states, which is more democratically accountable, better understood, and works effectively with 25 or more Member States, to deliver on the issues that matter. The Government wishes to see the enlargement of the European Union work successfully and this requires a new constitutional treaty which would be ratified by Parliament.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to make reform to the fishing settlement a condition for accepting a new EU constitution. [116161]

  Mr. MacShane
  No.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom Parliament would need EU approval before legislating in areas of EU competence under the present draft constitution for the EU. [116163]

  Mr. MacShane
  The draft constitution divides Union competence into three broad types.

  In those areas where the Member States have conferred upon the Union exclusive competence, only the Union may legislate. The Member States may legislate when empowered to do so by the Union or in
  548W
  order to implement Union acts. Where the nature of the competence conferred upon the Union is shared, both the Union and the Member States may legislate. The Member States may legislate to the extent that the Union has not or has ceased to exercise its competence. The draft constitutional treaty includes a provision for national parliaments to examine whether EU legislative proposals comply with the principle of subsidiarity.

  The third type is where the Union action is limited to areas supporting, coordinating or complementing Member States' action.

  The forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) will make final proposals in this area and these will be ratified by Parliament once the IGC is over.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the retention of the phrase, "ever closer Union", in the draft EU constitution. [116167]

  Mr. MacShane
  The phrase "ever closer Union" has always been in the preamble of the Treaty on Economic Community (TEC), EEC, EC and EU Treaties. The phrase has been approved by Parliament and the Government would not object to its retention.

  General Affairs and External Relations Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs and External Relations Council held on 19 to 20 May; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [115529]

  Mr. MacShane
  The information is as follows:

  Outcome of the 19–20 May General Affairs and External Relations Council

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the UK at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels on 19 May. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for International Development represented the UK at Council discussions on development issues on 19 and 20 May. Following the signature of the Accession Treaty on 16 April, this was the first General Affairs and External Relations Council at which the 10 EU Accession States participated (as active observers).

  Conclusions on the European Security and Defence Policy, Western Balkans, the Middle East Peace Process and Indonesia were agreed by consensus. No formal votes were taken during the External Relations session. At the General Affairs Session, the Presidency's compromise package on Reform of Staff Regulations was agreed by Qualified Majority Vote.

  General Affairs Session

  I represented the UK.

  Preparation of the Thessaloniki European Council (20–21 June)

  The Presidency noted that discussion at Thessaloniki would centre on the Convention on the Future of Europe, with Parts I and II of the draft Constitution being formally presented there. Ministers agreed that the Accession Countries should participate fully in the

  549W
  Inter-Governmental Conference later in the year. The new EU Treaty would be signed only after Accession was completed on 1 May 2004.

  Reform of Staff Regulations

  The Council agreed a compromise package by QMV on reform of staff regulations. The package's measures included promotions on merit rather than seniority and significant changes to the pension scheme, including for existing staff. Officials are finalising the remaining technical details before the final package is submitted to Ministers for approval at the 16–17 June GAERC.

  Progress of Work in other Council Configurations

  The Presidency gave a standard progress report on work in other Councils. There was no discussion.

  The Role of Gender in External Relations

  The Presidency presented a paper on integrating gender considerations across the full range of the EU's external relations policies ("gender mainstreaming").

  External Relations Session

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary represented the UK.

  Iraq

  The Council discussed Iraq within the context of negotiations in New York on draft UNSC Resolution 1483. The UK, France, Spain and Germany briefed Partners on the state of play and looked forward to the possibility of early agreement. Commissioner Patten said the Commission was in contact with the UN and World bank about a needs assessment in Iraq. The EU was already providing significant humanitarian assistance and was looking at how to provide assistance for reconstruction. The Council decided not to agree conclusions on Iraq, given that events were moving forward quickly both in Iraq and in the Security Council.

  Middle East

  The Council agreed that early implementation of the Road Map was essential. The Secretary of State said that a peaceful resolution of the Arab/Israel conflict would contribute to curbing terrorism, but that it was clear the terrorists did not want progress on the Road Map, or for Abu Mazen to succeed. Ministers agreed that UN Security Council endorsement of the Road Map would be helpful.

  ESDP

  Foreign and Defence Ministers agreed conclusions on the development of military and civilian capabilities for crisis management within the framework of the European Security and Defence Policy. Ministers also endorsed the annexed report on capability development.

  Operation Concordia

  EU Operation Commander Admiral Feist reported on the first seven weeks of operation CONCORDIA, stressing the coherence of EU-NATO activity. He reported that a mid-term review would be carried out in June to examine options for mission termination or continuation beyond 30 September.

  Commission Communication on the Defence Industry

  Commissioner Patten set out Commission thinking on the European defence equipment market and how this could better support ESDP. In making his presentation, Commissioner Patten acknowledged the essential interests of member states in the military field.
  550W
  The High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana said the European defence industry had already largely been restructured, but that the EU could contribute to its consolidation as the Commission had suggested. Certain Community instruments, provided that they respected the special status of the defence sector, could help strengthen the European defence market.

  Western Balkans

  The Presidency invited Partners' views on how the EU could increase assistance to the Western Balkans. The Commission said that it would publish its proposals for the Thessaloniki European Council on 21 May. These would include looking at ways to enrich the Stabilisation and Association Process in the Western Balkans.

  The Council adopted conclusions that included welcoming the recent the conduct of Presidential elections in Serbia and Montenegro; urging the transfer of all remaining ICTY indictees to the Hague; stressing the need for all parties in Kosovo to avoid any unilateral act that would jeopardise stability in the region; and encouraging all political parties in Macedonia to honour their commitment to fully respect the Ohrid Framework Agreement and its principles.

  EU/Russia Summit Preparation

  The Presidency updated the Council on negotiations with Russia on a joint statement for the 31 May Summit. A joint statement has since been agreed.

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  Over lunch, Javier Solana reported that UN Secretary General Annan had asked whether the EU could play a part in helping to stabilise the situation in Bunia, Ituri region, North Eastern DRC. Ministers agreed that officials should begin work on a possible mandate and identify countries willing to become contributing nations.

  Indonesia/Aceh

  Council Conclusions expressing concern about the breakdown of negotiations and the outbreak of violence in Aceh were agreed without discussion.

  Terrorist Attacks in Saudi Arabia

  The Council agreed that the Presidency's statement condemning the attacks in Saudi Arabia should be reissued as formal Council Conclusions.

  Terrorist Attacks in Casablanca

  Ministers agreed a Presidency Declaration on the terrorist attacks in Casablanca on 17 May.

  ECOWAS/Cote D 'Ivoire

  The Netherlands highlighted the need for further funding for the ECOWAS peace monitoring force in Cote D'Ivoire.

  Development Issues Session

  My noble Friend the Secretary of State for International Development represented the UK.

  No formal votes were taken. Conclusions on migration and development, the role of non-state actors in development, the follow-up to the Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development, untying of aid and the establishment of an EU Water Fund were agreed by consensus.
  551W
  Iraq

  The Commission outlined its plans for humanitarian assistance in Iraq. Baroness Amos briefed partners on developments at the UN. All were agreed on the UN taking the leading role on humanitarian assistance, with the EU and bilateral donors working through or alongside the UN agencies. The Presidency concluded that the financial implications for the 2004 budget should be considered.

  EU Water Fund

  The Council agreed Conclusions taking note of the Commission's proposal for an EU Water Fund as a part of the implementation of the EU's pledges at the World Summit for Sustainable Development. The Conclusions invited the Commission to bring forward specific proposals for further discussion by the Council. The EU Water Fund will be designed to increase resources for the water sector in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

  Reproductive Health and Poverty Diseases Regulations

  Two regulations on aid for policies and actions on reproductive and sexual health rights and on aid to combat poverty diseases (HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis) in developing countries were agreed. The regulations will be adopted as an A point at the GAERC on 17–18 June.

  Follow up to Monterrey

  The Council agreed Conclusions on the Commission's progress report on the EU's Monterrey commitments. Ministers welcomed the good progress towards meeting the EU's commitments and most, including Baroness Amos, stressed the need for further progress on harmonisation of donors' approaches and coherence among the EU's external policies. A number of Ministers from the Accession Countries highlighted their commitment to the process but noted that they would need time to achieve the Monterrey targets.

  Untying of Aid

  The Commission welcomed the Council's consensus on the untying of Community aid, a Monterrey priority. Discussion of the Conclusions on the Commission Communication on untying of development assistance focused on whether to include a reference to untying bilateral assistance of member states. Although most member states, including the UK, favoured this, the Council was unable to reach consensus.

  Commission Programme of Action/Reform of the Management of External Action

  The Council welcomed the Commission's 2003 Programme of Action and its efforts to reform the management of external actions, including development assistance. The Council agreed that poverty reduction must remain the main objective of EC development assistance, both in low and middle-income countries but recognised that certain new initiatives following from international conferences or from new internal EU concerns would need to be taken into account.

  The Commission noted that the main problem in reforming the management of external action remained the spending backlog, mainly for the European Development Fund, and for Asia and Latin America. The Council encouraged the Commission to continue its reform efforts. While recognising that progress had been made to reduce delays in decision-making and
  552W
  implementation, the Council considered that the level of outstanding unpaid commitments could be further reduced. Baroness Amos looked forward to a first response to the UK's reform proposals before the July Budget Council, and a further discussion by Development Ministers in the autumn.

  International Criminal Court
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in negotiating a bilateral treaty for impunity from the International Criminal Court for American nationals, he has sought assurances from the United States that an American suspected of war crimes would be prosecuted in the United States for the full range of war crimes specified in the Rome Statute; and if he will make a statement. [116908]

  Mr. Rammell
  There have been no negotiations on a bilateral non-surrender (to the ICC) Agreement with the US since officials met for preliminary discussion on 17 October 2002. In the course of those discussions, it was explained that before entering into any such agreement, the UK would need assurances that inter alia US courts have jurisdiction over all crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC as defined in the Statute.

  Iraq
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many scientists and other personnel linked to Saddam Hussein's regime have been identified by the Coalition as key figures in the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; how many of these have been interviewed; and how many have refused to be interviewed. [115512]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All scientists and others associated with Saddam Hussein's regime and who were involved in Iraq's weapons programmes could potentially provide key information to assist the search for weapons of mass destruction.

  A concerted effort is being made to encourage all such people to come forward. However, in the current climate in Iraq, some are still fearful of providing information to the coalition.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether his Department has been given access to Iraqi documents seized by supporters of the Iraqi National Congress; [116602]

  (2) what reports he has received of the seizure of documents from the offices within coalition-occupied territory of (a) the Mukhabarat, (b) the Special Security Organisation and (c) the Ba'ath Party by supporters of the Iraqi National Congress; and if he will make a statement; [116601]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the Coalition's arrangements to seize Iraqi Government documents; [116598]

  (4) on what date documents from the Iraqi Foreign Ministry were first seized by Coalition forces; [116604]
  553W
  (5) whether his Department has taken steps to secure copies of Iraqi Government documents seized by (a) British and (b) foreign journalists after the fall of Baghdad; [116600]

  (6) whether Iraqi Government documents seized in Iraq have been removed (a) to the United Kingdom and (b) to the United States; and what arrangements are in place for Coalition members to share their contents. [116596]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Instructions were issued to both UK and US Coalition forces to attempt where possible to secure documents that might provide evidence for possible prosecutions. The Coalition partners in Iraq have secured a large number of official Iraqi documents. We are working on the analysis of these documents and such information is routinely shared between the US and UK Governments as partners in the Coalition. We are also actively seeking to establish whether the claims made by some newspapers about the import of other unseen documents are genuine. We would welcome the sight of any documents discovered by journalists or private individuals so that experts can analyse those too. It will take some time to analyse all the secured documents and make judgments on them, and there is no guarantee that it will be possible to publicise the results of such analysis. If it transpires that the Government can make public any new insights, they will do so. We are withholding some of the detailed information sought by the hon. Member both under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, and since it relates to information obtained from the security and intelligence agencies, which are not within the scope of the code (Part I, paragraph 6).

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he held with his US counterparts(a) before and (b) during the Gulf conflict on the desirability of seizing Iraqi government documents; and on what dates he held such discussions. [116606]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am withholding this information under Exemption 1.C) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, as it concerns confidential exchanges with a foreign government, the disclosure of which would harm the conduct of international relations.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2003,Official Report, column 853W, on Iraq, if he will name those invited to the Nassiriya Conference on 15 April; what the rationale was for each of their invitations; and if he will make a statement. [114864]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The meeting in Nassiriya took place on 15 April, while the military campaign was still under way. Invitations were issued to individuals and the aim was to attract a broad range of Iraqi opinion, including opposition and exile groups and those newly liberated. While the UK was invited to suggest names, the final decision on invitees rested with the US organisers of the event. I am withholding the names 554W
  of those invited under Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information "Privacy of an Individual".

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK citizens have been killed in road accidents in(a) Italy and (b) Germany in each of the last five years. [116871]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of UK citizens killed in road accidents in Italy and Germany from 1998–2002, of which consular staff were notified, is as follows:

  Number

  Germany

  1998

  5

  1999

  3

  2000

  2

  2001

  6

  2002

  2

  Italy

  1998

  8

  1999

  8

  2000

  5

  2001

  8

  2002

  8

  UN Security Council Resolution 1422
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what implications Resolution 1422 of the Security Council has for compliance with other international agreements, with particular reference to the Convention against Torture and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. [116912]

  Mr. Rammell
  The obligations in respect of compliance for states which have ratified or acceded to these Conventions are unaffected by Resolution 1422. That resolution serves only to defer for 12 months the possibility of an investigation or prosecution by the ICC of any individual engaged on a Security Council operation and who is not a citizen of a state party to the ICC. In the unlikely event of such a person being suspected of a crime over which the ICC otherwise has jurisdiction, and the domestic authorities of the state of the individual's citizenship being unwilling or unable to investigate where appropriate, then the Security Council may allow the ICC to proceed to take action, as provided for in OPI of the Resolution.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Khat
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he plans to classify khat as a Class A drug; and if he will make a statement; [115296]

  (2) what research his Department has carried out into the impact on the health of individuals of khat; and if he will make a statement. [115297]
  555W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no plans at present to control khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, but the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which advises on these matters, keeps its legal status under review.

  There has in the past been only limited research on khat, carried out by either the Home Office or the Department of Health. However, the Home Office's Drugs and Alcohol Research Unit is shortly to embark on a detailed study to assess the level of harm caused by khat. It is expected that a final report will be completed in autumn 2004, with interim findings being available in spring 2004. The report will inform future decisions on whether khat should be controlled within the 1971 Act.

  Agency Workers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many agency workers have been employed by the Department in each of the last two years; and at what cost to public funds. [115193]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Home Office does not maintain a central record of agency workers. Agency workers are appointed by agreement with individual units within the Department and the recruitment agencies supplying agency workers.

  The information required could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

  Anti-social Behaviour
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 28 April, Official Report, column 207W, on the anti-social behaviour White Paper, if he will list the formal consultation processes which the White Paper drew on. [112144]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The provisions on Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) in social housing were consulted on in the document "Tackling Anti-Social Tenants", and other measures were consulted on as part of the assessment of regulatory impact. However, the White Paper is primarily a response to the concerns about antisocial behaviour raised with Government by local authorities and agencies and by members of the public including through their representatives in this House.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial assistance is available from his Department for initiatives to divert young people from anti-social behaviour; and if he will make a statement about how such schemes have affected the Middlesbrough South and Cleveland East, constituency. [115547]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 29 April 2003, to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff),Official Report, column 32W.

  In addition the Youth Justice Board funds 70 Youth Inclusion Programmes (YIPs) across England and Wales. They focus on a core group of 13 to 16-year-olds at risk of offending in deprived neighbourhoods and
  556W
  seek to reduce neighbourhood crime and arrest rates, truancy and exclusions among the target group. Their work includes tackling anti-social behaviour.

  The YIP in West Middlesbrough is highly regarded and has achieved much since it began in 2000. Recent data shows a 53 per cent. reduction in arrest rates among the target group. To provide further diversionary activities for a younger group (9 to 12-year-olds) a new 'Junior YIP' has recently been established in Whanney Bank. This has been funded by West Middlesbrough New Deals Community. The YIPs are strongly supported by the local Youth Offending Team.

  Positive Futures has a project called 'Hoop Dreams' in Teeside (running at Eston Sports Academy). Its funding for 2002–03 was £63,000, of which £19,000 came from the Home Office.

  In addition in the Middlesbrough/South Tees area four Splash schemes have taken place (holiday activities aimed at reducing youth crime). The four schemes were Central Middlesbrough, East Middlesbrough:
  two schemes in the Redcar and Cleveland area;
  one on the Eston and Teesville estates, and;
  one on the Kirkleatham and Dormanstown estates.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with the Deputy Prime Minister on the effect of the provisions of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill upon the duties of landlords under Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the demotion of tenancies and exclusion from premises. [115274]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Anti-social Behaviour Bill is a cross-departmental Bill. Officials and Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Office have liaised closely over the policy contained in the Bill.

  Asylum Claims
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a summary of the discussion he has had with his counterparts in(a) Albania and (b) elsewhere on deciding asylum claims offshore. [115215]

  Beverley Hughes
  UK officials have regular, ongoing dialogue with a number of European countries on improving the management of asylum and migration flows into the EU Our new ideas around zones of protection have been part of this dialogue. But these are sensitive, exploratory discussions and it would be inappropriate to comment further at this early stage. Our goal continues to be the strengthening of the international protection regime by tackling the problems of abusive asylum claims.

  Community Support Officers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many community support officers are(a) operating and (b) centrally funded in each (i) Government office region and (ii) police force area; and how the number of centrally-funded officers was determined. [115548]
  557W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The figures requested are given in annex 1. There have been two rounds of central funding for Community Support Officers (CSOs). The first round, which took place in August last year, funded 1,222 CSOs. The second round, which was announced on 2 May, will fund 1,233 CSOs. Continuation funding from both rounds will last until the end of financial year 2005–06.

  The second funding round was heavily oversubscribed. Bids were received from 36 forces. To determine the allocation of the available funding among the bids, I took account of the need to support forces bidding for the first time. I looked closely at the need for CSOs, which was based primarily on the numbers of CSOs already funded and the size of the force making the application. I also considered value for money, which meant looking at the role the CSOs would perform and the impact they were likely to have on crime, fear of crime and anti-social behaviour. Other factors were innovative deployment of CSOs and the security of the excellent local partnership funding arranged by many forces and authorities.

  Unfortunately, it has been necessary to fund many forces for only a proportion of their bid, but all of them have been successful in obtaining a share of the funding.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter dated 7 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Tahir Ahmed. [114673]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 12 May 2003.

  Policing
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrestees in(a) Haltemprice and Howden, (b) the East Riding of Yorkshire and (c) the Humberside police authority area tested positive for category A and B drugs in each of the last two quarters for which figures are available. [116773]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  There are currently no powers to test arrestees for class A or B drugs. Drug testing of persons in police detention (after charge) is planned to start in Kingston-upon-Hull in the Humberside police force area in the summer of 2003 as part of the initiative to introduce drug testing across the 30 Basic Command Unit (BCD) areas with the highest levels of acquisitive crime. Data analysis will be available thereafter. The police will test under powers introduced by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, for the presence of specified Class A drugs only i.e. heroin and crack/ cocaine, those most closely associated with acquisitive crime.

  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers per head of population were in post in Merseyside in each year since 1995. [116475]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The table sets out the ratio of police officers to the population.558W

  Year

  1 Number of population to one police officer

  March 1995

  306

  March 1996

  322

  March 1997

  337

  March 1998

  337

  March 1999

  336

  March 2000

  345

  March 2001

  344

  March 2002

  340

  September 2002

  331

  1 Calculations are based on Office for National Statistics (ONS) population statistics

  Merseyside police has one of the lowest ratios of population to police officers. In September 2002 only the Metropolitan police and West Midlands police had lower ratios. The average ratio of population per police officer for England and Wales in 1995 was 413 and in September 2002 it was 402.

  Shona Mclsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers and civilian support staff additional to the complement on I May 1997 have been appointed to Humberside police in each year since that date. [116594]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The information is set out in the table. Police strength details are not collected in May.

  Year (at 31 March)

  Police strength

  Increase in strength

  Civilian Support staff strength

  Increase in Civilian strength

  1997

  2,045

  718

  —

  1998

  2,021

  -24

  789

  +71

  1999

  1,974

  -47

  840

  +51

  2000

  1,932

  -42

  840

  —

  2001

  1,917

  -15

  808

  -32

  2002

  2,058

  +141

  816

  +8

  2002 (30 September)

  2,114

  +56

  Not available

  —

  Humberside police has a record number of police officers. The net increase in force strength since March 1997 is 69 officers, or 3.4 per cent. which is in line with the average increase for England and Wales over the same period.

  Domestic Violence
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the group dealing with domestic violence perpetrators within the police force has met; and if he will make a statement. [110661]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The group dealing with domestic violence perpetrators within the police force will meet for the first time on 25 June 2003. The Association of Chief Police Officers hope to publish guidance relating to police perpetrators later in the summer.

  I welcome the work being led by the ACPO in relation to domestic violence perpetrators in the police force and other domestic violence matters. There has been a real and positive shift in police responses to domestic violence incidents over the past few years and making further improvements in the police handling on domestic violence cases will be an important element in

  559W
  our strategy to reduce domestic violence and protect victims. We will publish a consultation paper on that strategy shortly.

  Euro
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the Treasury documents relating to the five economic tests and the 18 background studies; what discussions he has held with ministerial colleagues on the tests since receipt of the documents; when he expects to complete his analysis of the documents; and what representations(a) he and (b) departmental officials will make to other Departments before a decision is reached on the economic tests. [115387]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Treasury's 18 supporting studies on economic and monetary union (EMU) were sent to Cabinet Ministers on 16 May. My rt hon Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are holding meetings with Cabinet Members. There was an initial discussion at Cabinet on 22 May that will be followed by a special Cabinet meeting on 5 June. The Chancellor will make a statement to the House of Commons on 9 June.

  Illegal Street Traders
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on(a) the police resources which have been made available and (b) the strategy being implemented for reducing the number of illegal street traders. [94562]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 30 January 2003]: No resources have been made specifically available to reduce the number of unlicensed street traders. Most central grant to police authorities is provided to support their policing plans overall.

  Any strategy for reducing the number of unlicensed street traders locally is a matter for individual police authorities and forces.

  KPMG Contracts
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts his Department has awarded to KPMG since 1997. [113686]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The number of contracts awarded to KPMG since 1997 is as follows:

  Financial Year

  Number of contracts with KPMB

  1997–98

  2

  1998–99

  3

  1999–2000

  1

  2000–01

  0

  2001–02

  1

  2002–03

  2

  2003–041

  0

  1 To date

  Nadhmi Auchi
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 12 May 2003,Official Report, column 645W, on Nadhmi Auchi,
  560W
  for what reasons he did not issue his authority to proceed in the extradition case of Mr. Auchi until 18 March. [116236]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: As indicated in the earlier reply on 19 May 2003, Official Report, column 645W, to which the hon. Member refers, receipt of the request for Mr. Auchi's extradition was followed by various exchanges with French authorities. An authority to proceed was issued as soon as papers supporting the French request were judged to be in satisfactory order for that purpose.

  Police
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those police forces which operate anti-gun crime initiatives similar to Operation Trident in the Metropolitan police; and what funding is available in each case. [109599]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Anti-gun crime initiatives similar to Operation Trident in the Metropolitan police are being run by the following police forces:

  Avon and Somerset

  Greater Manchester Police

  Nottinghamshire

  South Wales

  South Yorkshire

  Sussex

  West Midlands

  West Yorkshire

  General grants for policing are available to be used at the police authority's discretion. Forces deciding to run operations similar to Trident will fund them from resources available to them.

  Prisons
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the star system for measuring the performance of prisons was introduced; what criteria it employs; and if he will make a statement. [109521]

  Paul Goggins
  The Director General of the Prison Service announced the introduction of a performance rating system for establishments in England and Wales on 8 April 2003.

  All establishments will be assessed on a performance scale of 1 to 4, with level 4 for a prison delivering exceptionally high performance and level 1 indicating a poor performer. The ratings will be published on the Prison Service website for the first time at the end of June 2003.

  Performance Level

  Criteria

  4

  Exceptionally high performing, consistently meeting or exceedings targets, no significant operating problems, achieving significantly more than similar establishments with similar resources.

  3

  Meeting the: majority of targets, experiencing no significant problems in doing so, delivering a reasonable and decent regime.

  561W

  Performance Level

  Criteria

  2

  Basically stable, secure and providing a limited but decent regime; experiencing significant problems in meeting targets and/or experiencing major operational problems.

  1

  Failing to provide secure, ordered, or decent regimes and/ or has significant shortfalls against the majority of key targets.

  The Director General will make the assessment for public sector establishments, in consultation with Directors and Area Managers.

  The Commissioner for Correctional Services will make the assessment for contracted prisons. Assessment will be reviewed quarterly and are based upon a range of factors:

  1. Finance and performance information using the Prison Service Weighted Scorecard to assess relative performance against key targets.

  2. Compliance with Prison Service Standards.

  3. Findings from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons and Boards of Visitors.

  4. The views of Prison Service Area Managers and the Prison Service Management Board, allowing for assessment of more subjective factors such as decency and the prison's commitment to delivering change.

  The rating system supports a new Benchmarking programme, which introduces new ways to recognise and reward the best prisons and arrangements to improve performance in all others.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Department has taken to publicise its Public Service Agreement targets; and at what cost to public funds. [114448]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Department's Public Service Agreement targets were first publicised in the Treasury White Paper "2002 Spending Review: Public Service Agreement Targets 2003–2006" (Cm5571). Since then, the new targets have appeared in a range of Home Office publications (for example, the 'Targets Delivery Report', Cm5754) and on the Department's website. Publicising the Department's targets was not the principal purpose of any of these publications; it had no measurable impact on cost.

  Radiocommunications
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the Terrestrial Trunk Radio (TETRA) base stations required to provide full national radio coverage(a) have not yet found a site acceptable to landowners, (b) have yet to be subject to a planning application, (c) have been refused planning permission, (d) are proposed to be located in an area with a landscape planning dispensation, (e) are subject to a planning appeal and (f) have been subject to the upholding of a refusal to grant planning approval following an appeal; [114598]

  (2) how many Terrestrial Trunk Radio (TETRA) base stations are required across the country to provide the police with the required national digital radio communications service. [114597]
  562W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  About 3,000 TETRA base stations will be required to provide the police with an effective radio communications service across the Country. However, the total number of sites required to support the Airwave service has not yet been finalised and it is anticipated that many base stations will use existing facilities and not require new masts.

  Acquisition of suitable site facilities is a matter for mm02, the main Airwave service provider. They have indicated to us that they do not maintain statistics on sites not yet found acceptable to landowners. In addition they have yet to start planning procedures for around 1,200 base stations. Owing to uncertainties in the network planning, particularly for Scotland where the roll-out is not due to take place before the last quarter of 2004 figures on the number of sites which have been refused planning permission or that will be located in an area with landscape planning dispensation are not available.

  The mm02 have also advised us that the number of pending appeals is currently of the order of 10 and the number of lost appeals in the order of five. These figures compare very favourably with those for mobile phone networks, where the number of controversial sites is expected to be around five per cent of the total.

  Stranraer and Cairnryan
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to which locations individuals making asylum applications at Stranraer and Cairnryan ports have been removed, and in what numbers, in each year since 1 January 2000. [115829]

  Beverley Hughes
  From 1 January 2000 to 30 November 2002–179 asylum applications have been made at the Port of Stranraer and Cairnryan. Of these applications three have been granted exceptional leave to remain and 63 have so far been removed.

  The remaining cases are outstanding. Of those removed not all have been removed to their country of origin. Some have been removed to the country where they had a previous opportunity to seek asylum.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which United Kingom commitments arising from the World Summit on Sustainable Development(a) have been incorporated into the Department's existing delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements and (b) will be incorporated in its delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreement in advance of the 2004 Spending Review. [113876]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Home Office does not have a lead or a contributory responsibility for any of the main United Kingdom commitments arising from the World Summit on Sustainable Development. We will continue to monitor developments and be prepared to contribute should it become appropriate to do so.

  The Department does contribute towards sustainable development through the objectives and targets set by the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate. The Framework covers issues such as the implementation of environmental management

  563W
  systems, transport emission reductions, water consumption, energy management, waste minimisation, sustainable procurement, biodiversity and estate management.

  In common with the Department's other support activities, these are not incorporated in the Service Delivery Agreement (Cm 5754) which addresses activities to deliver the Department's Public Service Agreement targets, which were published in July 2002.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicle Licences
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate how many vehicle owners do not have a licence for their vehicle; what his estimate is of the loss of revenue for the last financial year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [116317]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The National Roadside Survey of vehicle excise duty (VED) evasion held in June 2002 showed that there were approximately 1.75 million vehicles evading VED. There are currently over 30 million licensed vehicles.

  The survey indicated the level of evasion as 4.5 per cent. of revenue due which equates to £193 million in 2002–03. This was offset by £110 million in fines, penalties and relicensing revenue recovered through enforcement activities, which brought 819,000 offenders to book.

  A range of measures were announced on 22 May to modernise the vehicle registration system. These are designed to improve the accuracy of the vehicle register, help local authorities tackle abandoned vehicles, and reduce vehicle crime as well and reduce VED evasion.

  We intend to bring forward secondary legislation to implement powers taken in the 2002 Finance Act to ensure that from 1 January 2004 the registered keeper of a vehicle will be liable for licensing the vehicle until it is notified as sold, scrapped, stolen or exported, or unless a current Statutory Off-Road Notification has been declared to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).

  Under the same powers we will bring forward secondary legislation to provide for a new automatic fixed penalty for those who fail to re-license (tax) on time.

  The new measures aim to provide greater protection to honest motorists.

  Starting in January 2004:
  Motorists will be legally responsible at all times for re-licensing (taxing) their vehicle.
  Those who fail to re-license on time will be liable for a standard penalty of £80. Determined offenders could face a severe fine if taken to court. If the vehicle remains unlicensed, then following the provisions of the Finance Act 2002, DVLA may prosecute and a court may fine the registered keeper of an unlicensed
  564W
  vehicle a minimum of £1,000 and a maximum of up to 10 times the annual rate of duty. For an HGV this could be up to £25,850.
  Offenders will be penalised automatically when their tax-disc expires or Statutory Off-Road Notification lapses.
  The level of the standard penalty will be subject to public consultation later this year.

  To support these measures:
  The DVLA will increase and re-focus its enforcement activities. It will give particular attention to enforcement from the record and increased co-operation with the police.
  Already, from 1 February 2003, vehicles can only be licensed (taxed) with a valid V 5 vehicle registration document (logbook) or VII reminder, to ensure that every vehicle has a traceable keeper.
  The DVLA will be issuing new-format vehicle registration documents (logbooks) to all law-abiding and, by definition, traceable vehicle keepers from January 2004. All previous vehicle registration documents will be invalid from 31 March 2005.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Key Workers
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) nurses, (b) teachers and (c) social workers have benefited from the key worker initiative for affordable accommodation in West Sussex. [116460]

  Mr. McNulty
  As at the end of April 2003, 34 key workers in West Sussex have been helped to purchase homes under the Starter Home Initiative. The following table breaks down the figure by local authority and by key worker group.

  Number of key workers assisted

  Local authority

  Nurses/ health workers

  Teachers

  Others

  Chichester

  7

  1

  1

  Crawley

  4

  4

  0

  Horsham

  0

  6

  0

  Mid Sussex

  7

  4

  0

  Total

  18

  15

  1

  Note:

  Other key workers being helped under the Starter Home Initiative are social workers, care workers, fire fighters, transport workers and occupational therapists.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost to his Department was for accountancy services in 2002–03. [109490]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) was created on 29 May 2002. Between that date and end March 2003 the amount spent on accountancy services was £359,000.

  Freedom of Information Act
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the electronic document and electronic record management systems which have been procured by the public authorities listed in Parts I to V of Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for which he is responsible. [116391]
  565W
  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not keep central records of systems bought by the authorities listed in Parts I to V of Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister currently uses Diagonal Solutions Ltd. IMPReS product for records management, and has recently selected Valid Information Systems R/KYV product for electronic document and record management. This product will be tested to see if it meets our requirements for an integrated electronic document and records management solution to meet the 2004 Modernising Government target for electronic record keeping.

  Housing
  David Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of local housing units constructed in each region between 1997–98 and 2002–03 were built to Lifetime Homes Standards. [114140]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not hold information on the proportion of housing units that are built to Lifetime Homes Standards. However, information on many aspects of housing including accessibility is available from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at: http://www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/statistics/publicat/summaries/index.htm

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of proposed new homes in the South East will be built on(a) brownfield sites and (b) green belt. [116222]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government have set a national target of 60 per cent. of new development to be on previously developed land. Regional Planning Guidance for the South East also expects at least 60 per cent. of new development to be on previously developed land.

  The proportion of development to be built on previously developed land will vary at more local levels as planning guidance asks each local authority to produce a local land recycling target, in light of their own circumstances.

  Current Regional Planning Guidance states that there is no regional case for reviewing Green Belt boundaries. The recently produced Sustainable Communities Plan also contains a commitment to maintain or increase the current area of land designated as Green Belt in local plans.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new dwellings per hectare are proposed for the South East. [116223]

  Mr. McNulty
  Government policy states that new housing developments should be built at a density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare. Higher densities are also expected, particularly in areas with good transport links and in town centres. Planning policy also stresses the role of good design in achieving higher density.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps his Department is planning to take to ensure that 566W
  the proposed Regional Housing Board housing allocations include environmental, social and financial provisions to deliver the transport, education and health infrastructure to serve the increased population that will result from these proposals. [115935]

  Mr. McNulty
  In order to deliver the step change in progress in tackling shortages of housing and problems of abandonment and low demand, stronger links between related regional strategies and investment plans are needed, particularly on planning and economic development. One of the key roles of the Regional Housing Boards, that have been established to advise Ministers on the allocation of housing capital resources, and the bodies responsible for overseeing activity in the four identified growth areas, will be to ensure that related strategies and plans are properly integrated. Where housing development is planned the potential will depend on the provision of infrastructure and a sustainable approach to growth, tested through regional plans and implemented through local development plans and local partnership. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working with other Government Departments and local partners on the infrastructure required.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many sick days were lost in the last year by his Department through staff mental health problems; [112002]

  (2) how many of his staff have taken sick leave due to mental health problems in the last year. [111988]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. Since that date 52 staff (an equivalent to slightly over 2,000 days) in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, excluding the Government Offices and its four Executive Agencies, have taken sick leave for causes which may be considered of this nature.

  Information for the Government Offices and the Office's Agencies is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recognises its legal obligation to provide a safe working environment for employees and has a commitment to meeting targets for reducing the number of working days lost due to work related injuries and illness arising from the Government's "Revitalising Health and Safety" initiative.

  Sporting Infrastructure
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the way PPG17 contributes to the development of sporting infrastructure in England and Wales. [117067]

  Mr. McNulty
  PPG 17 indicates that local authorities should undertake robust assessments of the existing and future needs of their communities for open space, sports and recreational facilities. Local authorities should then plan to meet those identified needs. PPG 17 also provides strong protection for existing open space, sport and
  567W
  recreational land and building and provides guidance on the location of new facilities. In Wales this is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  Sprinkler Systems
  Mr. Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what building regulations concerning sprinkler systems are(a) in place and (b) planned for (i) houses of multiple occupation, (ii) care homes, (iii) hospitals, (iv) council offices, (v) listed buildings and (vi) domestic properties. [116850]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Building Regulations 2000 (as amended) make no specific requirements regarding the provision of sprinklers. Guidance on measures that will meet the fire safety requirements of the Building Regulations is given in Approved Document B (Fire safety). Approved Document B is intended to provide guidance for some of the more common building situations. This guidance is not mandatory and there may well be alternative ways of achieving compliance with the requirements.

  The current Approved Document does not suggest that sprinklers should be provided in houses of multiple occupation, care homes, listed buildings or domestic properties. For guidance on the design of hospitals, the Approved Document refers to the NHS "Firecode" series of documents, which suggest that sprinklers should be installed in certain parts of a hospital and in specific circumstances. In respect of the construction of new office buildings generally, the Approved Document suggests the provision of sprinklers for those buildings of a height greater than 30 metres. The Building Regulations only apply to most building work undertaken in England and Wales. Therefore they would not be applicable to existing listed buildings unless building work was being undertaken.

  A major review of Approved Document B is due to commence next year. As part of this review it is our intention to consider the potential of extending the provisions for sprinkler protection to new residential premises including houses, flats and maisonettes, houses in multiple occupation, old person's rest homes, children's homes and homes for disabled people. The issue of fire safety generally in hospitals and offices will also be considered as part of the review.

  Standards Board
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the costs incurred by the Standards Board for England were during its first year of operation. [111772]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Standards Board was established on 22 March 2001. In 2001/02 it incurred costs of £2,553,000 and in 2002/03 of £6,916,000.

  Travel Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost was of travel by train by staff in his Department in 2002. [106338]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) came into existence following the Machinery of Government changes on 29 May 2002.
  568W
  Staff in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are encouraged to use the most efficient and economic means of travel commensurate with meeting the operational needs of the Office. The estimated cost, subject to final audit, of travel by train by staff in the Office for the period 1 June 2002 to 31 March 2003 was £405,000.

  Travellers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans his Department has to provide accommodation for traveller communities whilst ensuring that settled communities are not deprived of essential services. [115934]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local authorities have the responsibility to ensure that adequate accommodation is available to meet the needs of the local community including Gypsies and Travellers. Both communities have the same right to access these services, and their needs should be assessed accordingly.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what policy on(a) core hours and (b) flexible working hours is operated by his Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which his Department is responsible. [107656]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is committed to accommodating staff who request to work flexibly subject to overriding operational requirements. Most organisations within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister operate a flexible working hours system. Flexible working start times and finish times and core hours vary to reflect the operational requirements of the areas of work.

HEALTH

  Accidental Injuries
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information the public health observatories are collecting on consumer product involvement in accidental injuries; [116029]

  (2) if he will make a statement on how injury surveillance is to be continued following the closure of the home accident surveillance system. [116031]

  Ms Blears
  The report of the accidental injury task force identified a need to strengthen the surveillance of accidental injury at regional and local levels. The Home Accident Surveillance System data was not sufficiently complete to serve as the main tool for local National Health Service surveillance because it was based on a sample of 18 hospitals across the United Kingdom, and did not include injuries on the roads. We are taking forward local surveillance in discussions on the future roles of directors of public health and public health observatories. It is too soon to say whether public health observatories will collect data on product involvement in accidental injuries.
  569W
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he plans to monitor the progress on accidental injury reduction targets in "Our Healthier Nation" after the closure of the home accident surveillance system. [116030]

  Ms Blears
  Progress on the "Our Healthier Nation" target to reduce the death rate from accidents is monitored using data on registered deaths collected by the Office for National Statistics, and population estimates based on the 2001 Census. Progress on the target to reduce serious injury from accidents is monitored using hospital in-patient data collected by the Department of Health, and population estimates. The home accident surveillance system does not provide the information required for monitoring progress on the accidental injury targets and is not used for this purpose.

  Ad Hoc Posts
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary,of State for Health if he will list the people appointed to ad hoc posts within his Department bearing the titles of advocate, tsar, adviser, champion and comparable titles since May 1997; what their job title is or was; what their role is or was; whether they were or are being paid; what the total cost of each such person was in each financial year, including expenses and benefits; what the expected cost of each such person is in 2003–04; to whom they are accountable; and if he will make a statement. [112465]

  Mr. Lammy
  There have been nine national clinical directors, formerly known as tsars, and one champion appointed to the Department of Health. All are seconded to the Department, most on a part-time basis, and their salaries are reimbursed to their employer. The national clinical directors are as follows:

  Professor Ian Philp is the national director for older people's services and is responsible for leading the implementation of the national service framework (NSF) for older people which sets the Government standards for the health and social care for older people in England. Costs in 2000–01 were –46,347.00, in 2001–02 were £53,742.00, in 2002–03 were £54,472.00. Estimate for the year 2003–04 is £46,838.00

  Professor Mike Richards is responsible for spearheading the development and implementation of cancer policy for the Department of Health and the national health service. Professor Richards is accountable to the task force manager for cancer and coronary heart disease. Costs in 2001–02 were £127,608 and in 2002–03 were £143,779. For the year 2000–01 his costs included that of his secretary and are therefore not shown.

  Dr. Roger Boyle is the national director for heart disease and is responsible for implementing the NSF for coronary heart disease (CHD). Dr. Boyle is accountable to the task force manager for cancer and CHD. Cost in 2000–01 were £64,886, in 2001–02 were £77,235 and in 2002–03 were £82,005.

  Dr. David Colin-Thome is the national director for primary care. Dr. Colin-Thome's key role is to aid the development of primary care within the Department and in the NHS and to contribute to implementing the
  570W
  primary care elements of the NHS Plan. Dr ColinThome is accountable to the branch head of primary care. Costs in 2001–02 were, £40.533

  Professor Al Aynsley-Green is the national clinical director for children. Professor Aynsley-Green is leading the work of the children's taskforce and the development of the children's NSF. Professor Aynsley-Green is accountable to the head of the children's taskforce. Professor Aynsley-Green's costs are not available.

  Professor Aidan Halligan had a dual role as national director of clinical governance for the NHS and director of the NHS clinical governance support team, now part of the Modernisation Agency. Professor Halligan was accountable to the Chief Medical Officer. Costs: None.

  Professor Louis Appleby is the national clinical director for mental health. Since 1996, he has been director of the national confidential inquiry into suicide and homicide by people with mental illness, whose recommendations formed the basis of Standard 7 of the NSF on mental health—this standard is about suicide prevention. Professor Appleby is accountable to the Chief Nursing Officer. Costs in 2000–01 were £78,000, in 2001–02 were £77,000, in 2002–03 were £79,000. Estimated costs in 2003–04 are £80,000.

  Dr. Sue Roberts is the national clinical director for diabetes and will be leading the programme for change outlined in the diabetes NSF. Dr. Roberts is accountable to the Deputy Chief Medical Officer. Estimated costs for 2002–03 are £8,000.

  Tony Russell is the NSF mental health product champion. Mr. Russell is accountable to the head of primary care. Costs in 2002–03 were £25,000. Estimated costs in 2003–04 are £25,000.

  Harry Cayton is the director for patient experience and public involvement, to spearhead a major change programme across the Department of Health and NHS to put patients first and involve the public in deciding how services are delivered nationally and locally. Mr. Cayton is accountable to the Chief Nursing Officer. Costs in 2002–03 were £40.971.

  Professor Sir George Alberti is the national clinical director for emergency access. Sir George Alberti is accountable to the director of access and choice. Costs in 2002–03 were £48,626 and an estimated costs in 2003–04 are £120,000. These do not include expenses.

  Agency Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each hospital trust in England spent on agency recruitment in(a) nurses and (b) doctors in (i) the last 12 months and (ii) each of the previous five years. [114754]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on National Health Service trust expenditure on non-NHS medical, nursing, midwifery and health-visiting staff between 1996–97 and 2001–02 has been placed in the Library.

  Information for 2002–03 is not yet available.

  Care Standards
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will(a) list and (b) publish the directions he has issued to the National Care Standards Commission since its inception. [114748]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Secretary of State for Health has not issued any directions to the National Care Standards Commission since its inception.

  Protective Suits
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much additional central funding has been allocated this year to the health and ambulance authorities in Nottinghamshire to provide improved personal protective equipment, including respirators and mobile decontamination units to be used in response to nuclear, biological or chemical terrorist attack; and how many staff have been given specialist training in(a) the use of such equipment and (b) the response to such attacks. [116481]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: The Department allocated £5 million in 2002–03 nationally for the provision of additional and updated personal protective equipment for health service personnel. That equipment has been delivered to hospital accident and emergency departments and to ambulance services, and relevant training programmes have been implemented. Some £130,000 was allocated to health service providers who serve Nottinghamshire. This bought equipment for the East Midlands Ambulance service (EMAS) (which also serves Derbyshire and Leicestershire), Queens Medical Centre (QMC), Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust. The health community is actively undertaking training for staff. EMAS has, for example, trained 30 staff across its area of operation and has plans to train a further 30, and 60 staff at the QMC have been trained in the use of the personal protection equipment.
  572W
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulance service staff in the East Midland Region have been issued with the newly designed protective suit for use in response to nuclear, biological or chemical attack by terrorists; and how many of these staff have so far received specialist training in the response to such incidents. [116482]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: There are three ambulance trusts that serve the East Midlands and the information requested for each of those trusts is shown in the table.

  Ambulance Trust

  Number of suits available

  Number of staff trained

  East Midlands Ambulance Service

  150

  30

  Lincolnshire Ambulance

  100

  116

  Two Shires Ambulance

  100

  40

CABINET OFFICE

  Agency Workers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many agency workers have been employed by the Department in each of the last two years; and at what cost to public funds. [115203]

  Mr. Alexander
  Information on the number of agency workers that have been employed by the Cabinet Office in each of the last two years is not held centrally and is therefore available only at disproportionate cost.

  Estimated expenditure on agency workers in the Cabinet Office is as follows:

  Year

  £000

  2001–02

  1,587

  2002–03

  2,221

  Figures for 2002–03 are subject to end of year adjustment and external audit.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council was published on Thursday 29 May 2003 and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  In its response to the Housing Green Paper of November 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The Performance Standards for housing benefits' allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are standards the Department for Work and Pensions aspires to and expects local authorities to achieve in time.

  The BFI inspected Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council against the Performance Standards. The report finds that the council is not at Standard for any of the 7 functional areas of the Performance Standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments.

  Historically the benefit service has had a low profile within the council. As a result performance in terms of administering benefits, identifying and recovering overpayments and countering fraud has been weak over recent years with no prosecutions undertaken, poor claims performance and a lack of overpayment activity and management information.

  The report finds that from the autumn of 2002, the benefit service has been regarded as a priority area by senior management and Members.

  Modernisation of the council has led to greater scrutiny of council business by Members, and a new senior management team has been put in place and has introduced improved systems of reporting.

  The council has put in place a Vision, underpinned by strategic objectives that link performance, and it has introduced the Verification Framework and management checking, both of which have had a big impact on securing the benefits system.

  The report also finds that the council has put in place a new counter-fraud policy and strategy which clearly informs the action to be taken against fraudsters.

  In 2001–02, Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council administered approximately £55.1 million in housing benefits, approximately 15 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.
  26WS
  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to further improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Pathways to Work
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  The Department for Work and Pensions laid before the house on 18 November 2002 a consultation document entitled: "Pathways to Work—Helping People into Employment". This sets out the next steps in the Government's welfare to work strategy for people with health problems and disabilities. It recommends piloting a number of innovative measures to help people to return to work where they have the capability and expectation of doing so. I will be announcing the detailed outcome of the consultation exercise shortly.

  My Department, together with the Department of Health and appropriate Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly officials, have been preparing for the implementation of the pilots.

  On 26 March I announced the locations of the first three Jobcentre Plus pilot districts which will start on 27 October—Bridgend, Derby and Renfrewshire.

  Today, I am pleased to announce that the further four pilots will be in the Jobcentre Plus districts of East Lancashire, Essex, Gateshead & South Tyneside, and Somerset, starting in April 2004.

  Objective criteria were used to select the seven pilot areas. The number of pilot areas was increased from the six mentioned in the consultation document to seven in order to reflect the full range of these criteria so we fully understand the potential national impact. The areas represent a mix of geographical and labour market areas and will have fully integrated Jobcentre Plus offices.

  The pilots will test and evaluate the impact of the extra support we will provide for those sick and disabled people who want to go back to work.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Records Bureau
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)
  On 27 February the Home Office issued a consultation paper on the Reform of the Disclosure Process to seek the views of registered bodies and others on how best to take forward a number of the recommendations of the Independent Review Team,Official Report, col. 33–36WS. The consultation period closed on 25 April. Five hundred and seventy responses were received. I have today placed in the Library of the House an analysis of those responses. We will consider carefully the views expressed in response to the consultation before deciding how best to proceed.

  Animal Experiments
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth)
  Each year, to comply with a requirement in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the Government present to Parliament statistics relating to scientific procedures using animals in Great Britain. The statistics, based on data collected from those conducting licensed programmes of work under the Act, are published as a Command Paper and placed in the Library.

  For some while suggestions have been made, from different quarters and in various contexts, as to how the statistics might be improved, both as regards the information provided and the way is presented. More recently the statistics have been the subject of recommendations by the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, in their report published last July.

  In the Government response to that Select Committee we stated we would have the statistics reviewed to see how their content and presentation might be improved. This is to inform the House that I have today written to the Chairman of the Animal Procedures Committee—the independent advisory body set up under the 1986 Act—asking for that Committee to carry out a thorough review.

  The review is to take into account all the views and recommendations already put forward on the statistics, and to involve widespread consultation with stakeholders, other interested parties and the wider public. The expected cost of any recommended changes, especially in terms of any additional burden on the scientific community, would have to be fully justified by the likely benefits.

  I have asked the Animal Procedures Committee to report back to me by the end of 2004. Their recommendations will then be carefully considered.

  Criminal Records Bureau Corporate Plan
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the Criminal Records Bureau's Corporate and Business Plan for 2003–04. After a difficult first seven months of operations, the Business Plan builds on the steady improvements in performance since last autumn. The average number of Disclosures issued each week since October stands at 40,000 compared with 24,500 a week last August. Turnaround times have reduced from over eight weeks to under five and the number of aged applications over six weeks old (and not awaiting further information from the applicant) has been reduced from a peak of 76,000 to under 10,000.

  For 2003–04 I have set the CRB challenging but realistic service standards which take into account the experience of the first year of operating. The CRB will now seek to process 90 per cent. of applications for a Standard Disclosure within two weeks and 90 per cent. of applications for an Enhanced Disclosure within four weeks.
  28WS
  As a result of the service improvements in recent months the CRB is able to increase its capacity to 60,000 Disclosures a week and consequently it can now commence criminal record checks on care workers postponed last November, 4 November 2002, Official Report, columns 102–04W.

  Subject to consultation, the programme for introducing checks will be as follows:
  EXISTING CARE HOME STAFF (care home staff who were in post just before 1 April 2002)
  The deadline for checks for this group will be brought forward from 31 October 2004 to 30 June 2004. In order to make sure the CRB check has been completed by the new deadline, applications will need to be submitted to the CRB between 1 October and 30 November 2003. In order to make best use of the CRB's increased capacity these checks will be carried out at the level of a Standard Disclosure.
  DOMICILIARY CARE AGENCY AND NURSES AGENCY STAFF
  In order to ensure a smooth introduction of these checks, we propose making a distinction between new and existing domiciliary care agency and nurses agency staff. We are consulting on the definitions of new and existing staff in order to ensure that they are clear both to agencies and their customers. All domiciliary care and nurses agency staff will be required to obtain Enhanced Disclosures.

  From 1 October 2003, a CRB check will be required before a new agency domiciliary care worker or agency nurse can take up their placement.

  Existing domiciliary care agency staff will be asked to submit applications for checks to the CRB between 1 October and 30 November 2003. The CRB will complete these checks by 30 June 2004.

  Checks on existing nursing agency staff will commence in spring 2004 once those on existing domiciliary agency staff have been completed.

  The Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) list will be introduced as soon as possible.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has today issued a consultation paper on the necessary amendments to the Domiciliary Care Agencies Regulations 2002, Nurses Agencies Regulations 2002 and the Care Homes Regulations 2001.

  The lower volume of throughput, as a result of the slower introduction of checks on the key groups mentioned above and the deferment of Basic Disclosures, together with other factors have resulted in higher unit costs. The costs for 2002–03 have been met by the three key departments, namely the Home Office, Department of Health and Department for Education and Skills. The Business Plan develops a costing regime retaining free checks for volunteers and a new full cost recovery plan with full effect from 2005.

  The Government made it clear when the current £12 fee was announced, 2 April 2001, Official Report, column 69W, that it was our intention that the Bureau would be self-financing in the medium term. That remains our objective. However, in the short term, the costs of the CRB will continue to be met by a combination of fee receipts and contributions from the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills. As we move towards full cost recovery it is necessary to increase the Disclosure fees. From 1 July the fee for a Standard

  29WS
  Disclosure will be £24 and that for an Enhanced Disclosure will be £29. Volunteers will continue to receive free Disclosures. The necessary amendment to the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002 has been laid before Parliament today.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Review of Area Based Initiatives
  The Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women (Mrs. Barbara Roche)
  I am today announcing the publication of the Review of Area Based Initiatives progress report. Significant progress has been made in giving local people more freedom to deliver, following on from the launch of the Review of Area Based Initiatives some six months ago. A number of changes have been made following the Regional Coordination Unit's recommendations, which have resulted in a marked reduction in the bureaucracy associated with area based initiatives.

  Copies of the progress report are available in the House Library.

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  The Leader of the House will announce today at Business Questions our intention to recommit the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill to Standing Committee.

  We have taken this decision to enable us to bring forward provisions which will end the Crown's immunity from planning control, subject to certain safeguards. Given the substantive nature of the proposed amendments I think it is important that the House of Commons is given the opportunity to debate these new provisions fully before the Bill resumes its remaining stages.

  We will also be seeking to introduce further provisions which will help to implement the Sustainable Communities agenda.

  Clearly this will mean that the Bill will not be able to complete its remaining stages in this session. Motions have therefore also been tabled today to allow the Bill to be carried over into the next Parliamentary session. We will be seeking to ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book as soon as possible in the next session to lessen the impact of this slight delay.

  We propose that the provisions relating to crown development extend beyond England and Wales, which would involve the Scottish Executive pursuing a Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament. We are, of course, discussing this with the Scottish Executive, which has been kept informed of our proposals.

  The intention to carry over the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill into the next session does not signify any lessening in our commitment to reforming the planning system.
  30WS
  Copies of a short progress report covering the large number of workstreams being taken forward as part of this commitment are available in the Libraries of the Deputy Prime Ministers website http://www.odpm.gov.uk/.

LORD CHANCELLOR

  Legal Aid
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette. Cooper)
  My right honourable and noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, has today announced a package of measures, which will help achieve better value for money in the legal aid system while ensuring that help continues to go to those who need it most.

  A consultation paper has been published today on the Criminal Defence Service (CDS). "Delivering Value for Money in the Criminal Defence Service" sets out a range of proposals to ensure that CDS expenditure is targeted on those areas where legal aid can best advance and protect a client's interests. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  A further consultation paper on asylum legal aid "Proposed Changes to Publicly Funded Immigration and Asylum Work" has also been published today. This sets out proposals to ensure that we obtain more effective controls of costs and quality in legal advice given to asylum seekers. Copies of this consultation paper have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  He announced that we are setting up a project to consider the likely supply of and demand for lawyers over the coming years and to establish what remuneration rates may be necessary. This will provide an evidential basis for decisions to ensure a sufficient supply of lawyers of the right quality prepared to undertake legal aid work in the coming years.

  Finally he announced that we are fully implementing the scheme for contracting very high cost criminal cases. These are cases which last (or are estimated to last) over 25 days at trial, or cost more than £150,000. This scheme will ensure better value for money, help the aims of better and earlier case preparation and give the professions greater certainty about payment for work.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gas Quality
  The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson)
  The recent Energy White Paper noted that, as we move towards greater dependence on imported gas, there may be implications for gas quality. The Government undertook to keep developments closely under review (Cm 5761, para. 6.21).
  31WS
  The DTI, working with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem), has now appointed consultants to advise on whether there is in fact likely to be a significant gas quality issue, particularly (but not exclusively) in relation to Wobbe Index. The Wobbe Number represents a measure of the heat release when a gas is burned at constant gas supply pressure.

  The upper and lower limits for the specification of gas in respect of Wobbe Index are set out in the HSE's Gas Safety Management Regulations (SI 1996/550). There is anecdotal evidence that some of the potential sources of gas imports for the UK market may have a Wobbe Index that exceeds the current upper limit. High Wobbe gas requires more oxygen to burn completely; and there is a risk that some of the older gas appliances may not be able to draw in sufficient oxygen to work safely.

  There may be further issues affecting the specification of imported gas concerning other effects, and other parameters.

  Against this background I am today launching a 3-phase strategy, as follows:

  Phase one is a scoping study to look, in particular but not exclusively, at the Wobbe Index of future imported gas. It will explore the UK's capability of importing gas of the expected specification, taking into consideration existing gas terminal facilities as well as known future import projects. This phase should be completed by the end of August. ILEX Energy Consulting Ltd have been appointed to take this work forward.

  During this phase my Department will hold a workshop, to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to register their interest, and to brief them.

  Phase two will depend on phase one establishing that there is a gas quality issue to be addressed. It would be a tripartite (DTI, HSE, Ofgem) consultation on the appropriate policy response. One option would be to increase the current Wobbe limit with an advantage in terms of lower gas import costs but requiring the identification and removal of non-compliant gas appliances. The alternative option would be to retain the current Wobbe limit—avoiding the need to identify/ remove certain gas appliances, but with a penalty in terms of gas import costs, and ease and reliability of access to an increasingly global and liquid international gas market. I should hope to conclude that consultation by spring 2004.

  The Government would propose to review the next steps at that time. I would expect that review to take into account the outcome of the consultation process, and also the state of play of the European Commission's work on interoperability of gas grids, which includes work on gas quality. The EU dimension is potentially very helpful in providing a broader context of regulatory stability. But it is important that any policy conclusions reached next spring should be robust against changes at the EU level. That may require delaying decisions here, until the EU aspect clarifies.

  Phase three would be the implementation of the policy. There are unavoidable uncertainties about the timing of phase three. However, I would hope that phase three could be initiated during the first half of 2004. If
  32WS
  the policy decision is to increase the upper Wobbe limit, that would require amendment to the HSE's GSMR, and a major exercise to identify and remove non-compliant gas appliances. Consequently the new Wobbe limit would be unlikely to take effect before the end of 2005.

  I shall report to the House in due course on the outcome of phase one, and on the timetable for the remainder of the exercise as it firms up.

  This exercise has been developed by the DTI as a member of the Sustainable Energy Policy Network (SEPN) which is working to deliver the Energy White Paper "Our Energy Future—creating a low carbon economy".

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Rural Delivery Arrangements
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life (Alun Michael)
  Lord Haskins' Rural Delivery Review will help improve the way rural policies are delivered and make a real difference to local people.

  The seven guiding principles of the review—the first outcome of Lord Haskins' work—were published today. They are:
  Better accountability: policy development should be managed separately from policy delivery, whilst ensuring that proper communication exists at all stages between the two functions. Accountability for success or failure cannot be determined if there is confusion between the two.
  Readiness for policy change: the Government must prepare for the delivery of a major new agri-environmental agenda in the coming years.
  Devolution: delivery of economic and social policy must be devolved in accordance with the principles of public service reform.
  Customer focus: the services available to rural businesses and rural communities, and visitors to the countryside, need to be more accessible and transparent.
  Simplicity: the complex range of agencies currently engaged in delivering the government's rural policies should be simplified.
  Co-ordination: the environmental, social and economic elements of rural delivery should be better co-ordinated at a regional level.
  Value for money: the taxpayer must get better value for money as a result of changes to the current arrangements.

  Ministers are very grateful for all the work Lord Haskins has done so far, meeting hundreds of individuals and organisations throughout England, as well as visiting Scotland, Wales, France, Germany and Belgium. The principles he has developed are a very useful first indication of his thinking and are consistent with existing work across Government bringing services closer to local people, for example through devolution and decentralisation.

  Ministers want to see real improvements in service delivery to rural people and we expect the Rural Delivery Review to build on these principles to produce imaginative and effective proposals. We now look forward to receiving Lord Haskins' final conclusions in the autumn.

TREASURY

  Financial Services
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  I can now announce that legislation to bring mortgages and the selling of general insurance within the scope of Financial Services Authority (FSA) regulation will be laid before Parliament today. This follows extensive consultation with interested parties including consumer groups and the industry.

  Regulation will provide major benefits to UK consumers in two large and important markets. Each year UK consumers pay £26.4bn of general insurance premiums and take £219bn of mortgage loans. Consumer protection in these markets will be increased, with regulation providing safeguards for consumers and introducing minimum standards of advice. Intermediaries selling a range of financial services products will have to deal with one regulator, the FSA rather than the current complex mix of statutory and self regulatory arrangements.

  The Government consulted on their proposals to implement mortgage regulation in February 2002, publishing the responses in August 2002. This legislation incorporates the outcome of this consultation.

  This legislation also incorporates the outcomes of the consultation "Regulating Insurance Mediation" the publication of which was reported to Parliament on 21 October 2002 (Official Report, columns 83–84W). The consultation set out the Government's proposals to regulate various activities relating to the sale and administration of general insurance. This will implement the Insurance Mediation Directive (the Directive). I am grateful to the 400 or so respondents who took the trouble to reply to the consultation. A summary of the consultation responses and the Government's decisions have today been placed in the Library.

  The Directive requires the regulation of insurance mediation activities in relation to all contracts of insurance. However, it provides for certain exemptions for insurance sold as part of a package, including travel insurance sold with a holiday and some extended warranties that are contracts of insurance.

  Following extensive consultation the Government have decided not to regulate travel insurance sold with a holiday. The consultation provided insufficient evidence of consumer detriment to warrant the extra costs of regulation, particularly for small independent travel agents.

  However I recognise that there are concerns about this market. The Treasury will therefore hold a review of this decision two years after implementation of general insurance regulation in early 2007.

  I can confirm that the Government will await the outcome of the Competition Commission enquiry into extended warranties on domestic electrical appliances before taking a decision as to whether extended warranties that are contracts of insurance should be regulated.
  34WS
  The appointed representatives regime will apply to insurance mediation. This will allow representatives of FSA authorised persons to carry out regulated activities without themselves being authorised provided the authorised person has accepted responsibility for their conduct. Following representations during consultation this regime will be extended in relation to general insurance contracts. As well as being able to arrange and advise on contracts of general insurance, appointed representatives will also be able to conclude contracts of general insurance as agent. They will also be able to assist in the administration and performance of contracts of general insurance. These changes reflect market practice and should make it easier for firms and individuals to become appointed representatives if they and their principals wish.

  The Treasury received representations regarding transitioning of complaints. Some respondents wanted the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) to be given powers to deal with consumer complaints which arise after FSA regulation starts but which relate to products bought before FSA regulation commences from firms regulated by Mortgage Code Compliance Board (MCCB) or the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC). Transitioning these complaints would benefit consumers. However this has to be weighed up against the possibility of additional costs for firms, and any differences in approach and scope between the FOS and the current self-regulatory schemes. The Government will therefore hold an open consultation later this summer to give all interested parties a chance to respond on these issues.

  I can also announce that the Government will be holding an open public consultation this Autumn on whether to bring home reversion plans into the scope of regulation by the Financial Services Authority.

  There are two main types of equity release plans, mortgage backed equity release plans and home reversion equity release plans. Under mortgage backed equity release plans a homeowner takes out a loan secured against a property. The loan is used to provide a regular income or provide a lump sum payment. Ownership remains with the homeowner. The loan is repaid when the property is sold either upon death of the owner or if the borrower moves house. Mortgage backed equity release schemes will fall within the scope of FSA regulation when the FSA takes on responsibility for regulating mortgages in October 2004.

  Under home reversion equity release plans homeowners agree to sell all or part of their home in return for a lump sum payment and the right to remain in the house rent free until they die or move home. At such a time the home reversion provider is free to sell the property. A key part of the transaction is therefore the underlying agreed house valuation. A home reversion plan is not in itself a financial services product. Any potential decision to regulate home reversions would go beyond the FSA's scope as defined in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and would therefore require primary legislation.

  The Pensions Green Paper "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement"—published by the Department for Work and Pensions on 17 December 2002—said that the Government would be

  35WS
  looking at options to create a level playing field for the regulation of equity release and home reversion plans to protect consumers and make the market work better.

  The Government have had discussions with a number of stakeholders. These stakeholders have provided no evidence of consumer detriment at present in the home reversion equity release plan market. However there are concerns about the potential for consumer detriment as the market grows and as the FSA takes on responsibility for regulating mortgage backed equity release schemes from 31 October 2004. Therefore I have decided that there is a need for a more in depth analysis of the costs and benefits of regulating home reversion plans and we will hold an open consultation in the autumn.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown)
  In considering the precise release arrangements for the documents supporting the decision on the single currency, the Government have been guided by two key principles: first, the legitimate right of Members of Parliament to have as much of the relevant background material as possible ahead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement to the House of Commons on Monday 9 June, as recognised by the recommendation of the Treasury Committee that the eighteen supporting studies be published ahead of the assessment; and second, the need to take into account market sensitive information. The Government have sought to strike a balance between these two potentially conflicting objectives. In doing so, the Government have decided on the following arrangements for releasing the EMU documentation which accompanies the Chancellor's statement to the House on 9 June.

  The Treasury assessment of the five economic tests and third outline national changeover plan will be available from the Vote Office immediately after the Chancellor has completed his statement. The eighteen EMU studies which accompany the assessment will be available from the Vote Office at 9.00 am on 9 June.

  All the material will be accessible on the Treasury website www.hm-treasury.gov.uk at the same time as it is released to the House. The Treasury will notify media organisations of the precise arrangements for them for the collection of the documents.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Algerian Earthquake
  The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  An earthquake measuring 6.7 on the Richter Scale hit the northern coast of Algeria at 19:44 local time (18:44 GMT) on 21 May 2003. There were a number of aftershocks. The most powerful (on 27 May) caused further building collapse and some deaths and injuries. According to the latest reports from the Algerian Interior Ministry, 2,268 people have died as a result of the earthquake, while those injured number 36WS
  over 10,100. Preliminary estimates are that up to 200,000 people have been rendered homeless by the earthquake.

  Telecommunications were widely disrupted. However, to date, some 80 per cent. of the damage has been repaired. The undersea telephone cables between Algeria and Europe were also damaged. Damage to public buildings is still being assessed; of those so far examined, only some 10 per cent. are beyond repair, and 75 per cent. have been declared safe. The United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination Team (UNDAC) has advised that purification of water is now adequately covered, but distribution of potable water remains a problem. Sanitation systems and electrical generation and distribution systems are under repair by the authorities.

  With the initial search and rescue phase over, people whose houses have been destroyed or become unsafe to live in require short-term relief assistance, including shelter, food and water, emergency relief items like blankets, kitchen sets, hygiene kits, and water jerry cans. Some specific needs will arise as a consequence of regrouping homeless people in temporary tented camps that will have to be equipped with adequate sanitary facilities. In the medium to long-term, significant rehabilitation work will have to be carried out to repair infrastructure damage, re-establish the water supply system and provide permanent housing for those made homeless by the earthquake. On 30 May, the Algerian government approved plans to build new homes for 80,000 people left homeless.

  Following news of the earthquake UK Search and Rescue (SAR) Teams were placed on standby. 95 SAR personnel and 7 search dogs, supported by two DFID Operations Team staff were despatched by DFID funded chartered aircraft the same day. Within the group were teams from the UK Fire Services Search and Rescue Team and the NGOs CANIS Specialist Search Dogs, International Rescue Corps, British International Rescue Dogs and Rescue and Preparedness in Disasters. DFID also supported the UNDAC Team by providing two British members. The flight departed at 23:30 on 22 May, arriving in Algiers at 03:30 the next morning, 23 May 2003. The SAR teams conducted rescue operations in the worst affected towns, in structures in which search dogs or equipment indicated possible survivors. They were also asked to use their sophisticated search equipment and dogs to verify that some previously searched buildings were indeed empty of survivors. During this operation, they found nobody alive.

  Following the calling-off of the SAR operation by the Government of Algeria, the teams returned to the UK on Monday 26 May 2003. The UNDAC Team continued to support the Government of Algeria in assessing humanitarian needs for a further two days. The full cost of the deployment will be over £100,000.

  In total, International Search and Rescue Teams eventually numbered over 1,000 personnel and some 75 dogs most have now left Algeria. More than 100 relief

  37WS
  flights arrived carrying tents, blankets and plastic sheeting, water purification and distribution equipment, medicines and two field hospitals. These are expected to be largely sufficient to meet immediate and medium term needs. The challenge is to ensure that the aid that has already arrived is distributed efficiently.

  Support has been provided by a range of donors and non-governmental organisations, a number of United Nations agencies including the United Nations Development Programme and the World Food Programme, and also by the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement. The European Community Humanitarian Office is planning a response for a period of up to six months to support health and sanitation interventions.

  DFID made a further emergency contribution of £95,000 on 29 May to the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies which is supporting the Algerian Red Crescent Society in providing shelter items, water and sanitation to those who have been displaced.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  OSCE Arms Embargo
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  HMG remain committed to the OSCE arms embargo against both Azerbaijan and Armenia, which we interpret as covering all goods and technology controlled under entries in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (commonly known as the military list).

  In December 2002, the Government approved an export licence application for demining equipment for the HALO Trust for demining operations in Armenia and Azerbaijan.

  The decision was made in accordance with our practice occasionally to make an exemption to our interpretation of the embargo by approving exports of non-lethal military goods to humanitarian, media or peacekeeping organisations where it is clear that the embargo was not intended to prevent those exports and there is a strong humanitarian case for them.

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

Communications Bill
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 Cornmittee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Puttnammoved Amendment No. 280A:
Before Clause 340, insert the following new clause—
"MEDIA PLURALITY PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATION
(1) Section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40) (specified considerations) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2C) The public interest in—

(a) the maintenance of a range of media owners and voices sufficient to satisfy a variety of tastes and interests;

(b) the promotion and maintenance of a plurality of broadcast media owners, each of whom demonstrates a commitment to the impartial presentation of news and factual broadcast programming; and

(c) the promotion and maintenance, in all media including newspapers, of a balanced and accurate presentation of news, the free expression of opinion and a clear differentiation between the two;

is specified in this section."
(3) In subsection (3), after the words "any consideration", there shall be inserted "(other than the consideration specified in subsection (2C))"."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 280A, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 281, 282 and 283. The Government wish to deregulate ownership of the broadcasting industry. This reflects the way in which the technology has developed, with digital broadcasting making many more channels possible within the spectrum previously used for analogue broadcasting, and satellite and cable offering additional ways of getting channels and stations to audiences. The old system, in which a scarcity of spectrum meant controls were needed to determine who could run a limited number of channels, is no longer relevant. The case has also been made that deregulation reduces the constraints on business and allows the consumer to take the prime position in shaping and influencing the way choices and services are developed.
1432
So far, so good. I think we can all agree on where we do not want deregulation to take us. In fact, in Committee in another place, Dr Howells summed it up quite neatly:
"Our key aim is to ensure that there is a range of competing voices readily available to citizens so that they are free to form their own opinions… If we allow the largest newspaper companies, which are already influential, to buy up Channel 3—the only commercial public service broadcaster that currently—
I stress "currently"—
"has universal access to a mass audience—we risk a significant reduction in the number of voices in play in the media, and there would be a risk that one voice could become much louder than the others. That would represent an unacceptable concentration of the influence in the current circumstances".
The Minister went on to say:
"I believe that such a concentration in one voice would also be harmful to politics, because it could create a media owner so powerful that they could exercise direct influence over political decisions".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 30/1/03; col. 860.]
We might not yet agree on the means to avoid this outcome, but we need no reminding that it is a situation we all wish to avoid. Here is the problem—it is the word "currently". The Bill, as the Government have repeatedly stressed, needs to be future-proof.
In a period of rapid economic, technological and ownership change, the one thing we cannot do is even begin to guess at who might or might not attempt to control this or that element of the media. What we can do, however, is refuse to contemplate any broadly unacceptable level of media concentration where each of the component parts is of significant size and reach in its own right.
What we need, therefore, is the ability to identify these concentrations as and when they occur, examine them in an analytical, fact-based way and ask whether they fit our definition of "unacceptable". The drawback of relying on cross-media ownership rules is that they can all too easily be overtaken by changes in market circumstances, as Dr Howells acknowledged in response to a question from Andrew Lansley, the MP for South Cambridgeshire, during the Committee stage. We must also dispel the current fantasy that should unacceptable levels of ownership emerge, regulators can move swiftly to put the genie back in the bottle.
There are two ways of accomplishing what we propose, and we need both of them. One looks from the viewpoint of the consumer; the other from the viewpoint of the citizen. For the consumer, we have competition policy, and that is already built into the Bill. For the citizen, we have the public interest plurality test. Together, they represent a formidable duo, and they are both flexible and future-proof.
Batting for the consumer, we have the Competition Act and the Enterprise Act, and the Bill allows Ofcom to apply both to the broadcasting market. The Competition Act identifies dominant players in markets and looks for abuse of that dominance. The Enterprise Act comes at the issue from a slightly different perspective and aims to prevent unacceptable concentrations of ownership. It is brand-new

1433
legislation that introduces a new approach to mergers and takeovers. What is attractive is that expert independent bodies will take decisions in a nonpolitical, transparent and predictable manner.
Under both the Competition Act and the Enterprise Act, once the case is proven the remedies available are significant. So you might argue that those powers are all we need to address unacceptable concentrations of media power. But they are designed to look at competition from a purely economic standpoint by asking, for example, whether consumer choice is reduced or too much economic power is given to one supplier. They cannot take account of the very special role the media plays in an informed society. Ofcom might see a problem and wish to address it but competition law simply does not provide the tools to allow it to do so.
So the tools are a part of the solution but not the whole solution. We also need a powerful player on behalf of the citizen, a powerful player already available to us in the Bill—the public interest test. In the case of this amendment, we see a clear public interest in "media plurality", which is defined in three ways: the maintenance of a range of media owners and voices sufficient to satisfy a variety of tastes and interests—that is, many speaking to many; the promotion and maintenance of a plurality of broadcast media owners, each of whom demonstrates a commitment to the impartial presentation of news and factual programming—that is, many broadcasters all abiding by the important impartiality requirements that this Bill and its predecessors set out; and the promotion and maintenance in all media, including newspapers, of a balanced and accurate presentation of the news, the free expression of opinion and a clear differentiation between the two.
There are several things going for this public interest test. The first is that it allows Ofcom and the OFT to carry out a proper analysis of the likely impact of any cross-media merger or take-over, an evidence-based approach that examines the sort of problems that could arise rather than simply asserting that there will not be any. The second is that it already exists in the Bill, as it forms part of the newspaper merger regime, updated from the Fair Trading Act 1973 in order to sit within the new Enterprise Act.
The third aspect, which is very important, is that it could be used to address the knotty issue of religious ownership. Rather than banning all religious bodies from owning licences and then giving them exceptional leave to do so when there is no longer any evidence of spectrum scarcity, each case could be examined on its merits. We might ask the fundamental question, "Would this prejudice the accurate and impartial presentation of news and factual programming or the free expression of opinion?"
1434
For those competition policy aficionados in the Chamber, adding a media plurality public interest test would align our legislation with the European merger regime, which recognises that individual member states have a special and legitimate interest in mergers that affect public security, prudential rules or the plurality of the media.
The other appealing thing about the media plurality public interest test is that, once included in the Bill and combined with Ofcom's review of the media ownership rules, it could be used as a safety net for a staged withdrawal from those ownership rules that have over time become unnecessary, either because the market has moved on, or because they relate to any channel or service which has become much bigger or smaller, or because Ofcom has carried out the necessary risk analysis to show that it is no longer applicable. I am quite deliberately trailing an impact analysis of Channel 5's cross-media ownership change.
In addition, if there are specific problems associated with any concentration of media ownership—perhaps cross-promotion or editorial influence—especially from the unregulated world of newspapers into the licensed world of broadcasting, this regime would enable the Secretary of State to attach very specific conditions to her approval. Those conditions would otherwise be difficult to apply to unlicensed bodies and certainly could not be applied in advance of agreeing a merger or takeover.
In another place, the Government have argued that this would place a greater degree of uncertainty, or new and unnecessary hurdles, in the face of broadcast media owners. That argument was made in Standing Committee E, on Thursday 6th February (at col. 1004 of the Official Report). If that is the case, it will be so only for that very small number of potential purchasers of newspapers, television channels or radio stations which are already major players in this market. So, not only is it flexible, but it is also targeted at what is clearly the point of greatest need.
I refer Members of the Committee to the entirely unanimous recommendation of the Joint Select Committee and its reasoning, as set out in paragraphs 218 to 224, on pages 59 and 60 of our report. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I must begin by apologising for the absence of my noble friend Lord McNally. One consequence of our newfangled family-friendly arrangements in the House is that those Members who have families to be friendly about, by sustaining them through work outside the House, sometimes find that difficult to combine with duties here. Sadly, I must take the place of my noble friend this morning.
I was not a member of the pre-scrutiny committee that did such great work, but I read with great interest the rather Socratic dialogue between the committee and the Government on the important issues of which the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has given us such an impressive analysis. The committee reports clearly and

1435
admirably the Government's starting point on these very big issues. Paragraph 218 of the Joint Committee report states that,
"competition law alone is not sufficient. It can address issues of concentration, efficiency and choice, but it cannot guarantee that a significant number of different media voices will continue to be heard, and it cannot address concerns over editorial freedom or community voice".
The Government repeated their commitment to the principle of plurality in their reply to the committee, and assured us that they considered carefully the committee's recommendation, which is now reflected in the series of amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has moved. As he said, the Government emphasised the unanimous view from business interests, particularly, that they wish the kind of certainty and precision that goes with normal competition law arrangements.
Well, businesses would say that, would they not— and they are right to say that, in their own interests. However, the difficulty that we face with the Bill is that the business of the media is a special kind of business and requires special legislative treatment. Purely mechanistic judgments of market share are not enough. They may he appropriate for baked beans or motor cars or the business, departmentally, of the DTI, but they are not enough for a business so closely associated with an influence on the quality of civil life. That is the business of the DCMS.
We believe and support the amendments on the basis that Ofcom should have a statutory right to intervention on a qualitative basis in terms of merger proposals. The Government have gone some way, I think, to recognising the special case of the media in their commentary on page 26 of their response. However, in our view they should now have second thoughts and should be ready to accept the spirit of this group of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam.
Lord Crickhowell: In supporting the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, I want to make only two points. When we met in the Joint Committee, the guru on competition policy was Mr Andrew Lansley. He was our acknowledged expert. Indeed, he seems to have an almost encyclopaedic knowledge of the subject. With that knowledge he has a great faith in the effectiveness of competition policy. He believes that with the new legislation now in place most of the anxieties voiced in this Committee about possible takeovers and mergers can be covered by competition policy. However, I remain to be completely convinced that it is all going to work out quite like that. I think that we need to see how it works.
I think it worth noting that Mr Lansley, speaking on 30th January in Standing Committee E, actually acknowledged:
"Some of us are in the awkward position of not yet being able to say what the final outcome on how competition policy will be exercised".
1436
He said that he therefore perfectly understood if there were those who argued that we should leave the current constraints in place and,
"let Ofcom take its first review of media ownership rules, look at the changing scene and bring forward recommendations if it wishes to".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 30/1/03; col. 871.]
But he then said:
"My strong personal preference is not to put in ex ante rules, but to have a proper competition test, properly buttressed".
by the kind of proposals that are being put to the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam.
In an earlier Standing Committee sitting on the subject, Mr Lansley had said:
"Essentially the Government have said that we do not need a plurality test because we have clear rules. However, in terms of future-proofing, flexibility and requiring businesses to justify themselves within the marketplace and, in the event of mergers, in a fashion that is responsive to whatever circumstances might arrive in years to come, and to respond to a public interest test, it is quite obvious that it would be far better to shift towards the exceptional public interest test and competition policy and, by extension, not keep specific rules".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 30/1/03; col. 858.]
So those of us in the Joint Committee who differed on the issue of the total effectiveness of competition policy were absolutely at one on this particular issue.
The other point is simply this. During our discussion, when the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, sought the views of the committee, I said that I was not an expert in any way about the newspaper business and that I would like to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hussey of North Bradley, who I know cannot be with us in Committee today but supports this amendment. He, after all, knows more about the newspaper business than most of us put together. He came out very strongly in favour of the particular recommendation of the Joint Committee. I took his advice and followed. Afterwards, he told me that he believed that this was one of the most important single recommendations made by the Joint Committee in the whole of its report. So this is an issue that I think unites very different points of view. I therefore warmly support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam.
Lord Borrie: We have heard a most powerful and eloquent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and two further eloquent speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Thomson of Monifieth and Lord Crickhowell. They are all sponsors—the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, by way of being a delegate of the noble Lord, Lord McNally—of the amendment. I do not know how they feel about this, but I feel in a way that it is rather unfortunate that we are debating this matter somewhat prior to debating provisions that come just a little further on in the Bill—we shall get to them later today—dealing with newspaper mergers.
In those provisions dealing with mergers between newspapers, the Bill continues the very longstanding public interest concern in relation to newspaper mergers that have found expression in the law since the 1960s. Concentration of the press into too few hands was of course, before the more significant days of

1437
television and radio, the important issue for public interest connected with democracy, because concentration of the press into too few hands can of course stifle expression of opinion and argument and distort the presentation of news. It was the Royal Commission on the Press, in 1963, that put it in that way. Since the 1960s newspaper mergers have been subject to a stricter form of control than other mergers and takeovers in this country, with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, now called the Competition Commission, required to take account not just of economic considerations but of whether a merger would bring about a serious public interest concern relating to the presentation of news and the adequate free expression of opinion.
I believe that the same sort of consideration which influenced people concerned with democracy in the 1960s in relation to the press now justifies a stricter control over cross-media mergers than is applicable to other goods and services. Amendment No. 280A proposes a reporting role by the Office of Fair Trading. It proposes that by amending the Enterprise Act, the Competition Commission, when faced with a reference concerning cross-media ownership, would be concerned not just with economic matters but with the much wider concern for plurality and diversity in the media.
The Government claim, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, pointed out a few moments ago, that a Competition Commission involvement in such cross-media mergers would lead to uncertainty. Indeed it would. One cannot deny that during a period of a reference there must be uncertainty as to the outcome—otherwise what is the point of the reference? However, I would suggest that that is a small price to pay for ensuring a free and diverse media. Once ownership is changed, it is exceedingly difficult to revert to square one; the damage may have been done.
I have recently received a letter from News International; others may have received the same letter. The letter wanted to contradict what it called a number of "myths" that were gaining currency about News International. One "myth" the letter mentions is that if foreign and cross-media ownership rules are removed, Rupert Murdoch would be allowed to buy Channel 5. The answer given by News International to that so-called myth is that the competition authorities will still have to examine the issues, and an illustration of this is the ongoing investigation by the Competition Commission into the Carlton/Granada merger and the ownership of ITV. However, as we all know, and certainly News International knows, that investigation is limited to competition or economic matters—that is, will the merger substantially lessen competition? As I understand it, the particular emphasis in the inquiry is being put on the matter of whether it will unduly reduce competition in the advertising market if that merger goes ahead.
There is no power in the Competition Commission or indeed in any other body at present to deal with the matter of whether diversity and plurality in the media will be adversely affected by Granada and Carlton
1438
coming together, or indeed to consider the matter with which the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and the other proposers of the amendment are concerned—a balanced presentation of news and the free expression of opinion.
Further on in its letter to me, News International said that there is a myth that it dominates the newspaper market. Anyone interested in competition policy knows that definitions of market are absolutely vital. It is perfectly true, as News International pointed out, that Trinity Mirror is the biggest newspaper publisher in the UK. As I expect most of us know, that is because Trinity Mirror has a large share in the regional and local newspaper field. In the letter, News International admits that 33 per cent of the national newspaper market is in its hands. To my mind, and in any economic and common-sense judgment, the national newspaper market is the most significant market when it comes to free expression of opinion, accurate presentation of news and the ongoing running of democracy in this country.
I think that everybody agrees that News International has a significant position in the national newspaper market. If it is possible for a merger to take place across the media, whereby that newspaper interest is able to achieve or seek a position of dominance, that should surely be examined from a much broader point of view than purely that of whether it significantly reduces competition. There should be an examination of the wide and accurate presentation of news and the diversity and free expression of opinion. I support the amendment.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Fowler: I agreed with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said—right until the end when he asserted the greater importance of the national press over the regional press. As the former chairman of the Birmingham Post group of newspapers and the Yorkshire Post group of newspapers, I strongly deny that. If the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, with his usual analytical method, refers to public opinion surveys, he will find that the regional press—this does not come as much of a surprise—is much more trusted by the public than is the national press. I say that in passing, because I agreed with so much else of what he said.
Lord Borrie: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord. The exceptional examples he mentioned may deal with matters of national and political importance in a way that the great run of local newspapers virtually never does, except presumably at election time.
Lord Fowler: We must not pursue the matter, but I profoundly disagree with that point as well. The noble Lord will find that many millions of people in this country regard local and regional news as being of the greatest importance to their lives and place the greatest importance on accurate reporting. The great distinction of the regional and local press is that they live and go back to their public, whereas the national

1439
press—I too speak as an ex-national press man—comes in, goes out and is not seen again. Perhaps we might have that debate on another occasion.
I strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. The essential question is whether the media are different from other industries and therefore deserving of any kind of extra provision over and above competition law.
Some people say that the media industry is just like any other industry. That is probably the position of my honourable friend Mr Whittingdale in another place, but it is not one with which I agree. I agree strongly with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that newspapers and the media in general raise special issues.
Any additional restriction should be scrutinised very carefully. But the fact that a free-market country such as the United States retains a prohibition on some forms of foreign control of the media—we will shortly come to that issue—at least indicates that there is a case to consider.
The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is right in his assessment. That does not mean that media industries are more important than other industries. It certainly does not mean that they are better or worse managed than other industries. News International was mentioned. Mr Murdoch deserves a great deal of credit for what he did to reform the newspaper industry and for taking on some very reactionary forces within it. Without that intervention, I fear that we would not have quite the strength and breadth of newspapers we have today.
Media industries have an impact on the democratic debate that other industries, however important they may be, simply do not have. Most people believe that it would he wrong for any one organisation to have an over-powerful voice in the democratic debate by virtue of owning a disproportionate part of the newspaper industry. or television and radio, or a combination of them. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, that one needs an extra provision to preserve media plurality in some way. I agree with him that the trouble with the current situation is that we rely on existing powers that are designed to look at competition from a purely economic standpoint.
Perhaps I may give an analogy, which is not totally exact but which illustrates my point. I am the chairman of a pharmacy group. We have 1,500 community pharmacies across the country. Some months ago, the Office of Fair Trading published a report on deregulation. I was invited to the meeting just before publication. I asked what consideration had been given not just to the competition issue, but to health policy, given that it is the Government's policy, which I strongly support, that pharmacy and health policy are fully integrated. The reply, in précis, was that no consideration was given to that issue at all because that was not the remit. One needs therefore to spell out exactly what one wants of the competition authorities, and I would suggest that media plurality is part of that.
1440
The amendment enables us to spell out plainly that when the public interest is being assessed, the question of media plurality should not merely be addressed: there should be a requirement that it must be addressed. If that is the input of the amendment, I am strongly in support of it and I think that the public would be strongly in support of it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I, too, support the amendment. The whole Committee will be grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Borrie, who got to the nub of the issue. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for his forensic analysis of the letter from News International, which I, too, received. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, put his finger on the point that our discussion about competition law and the media is about a special industrial matter, which is not subject to the same kind of regulation that others may be.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Puttnam for drawing attention to the need for an evidence base in looking at the issue. I would add one other requirement to the list of those he defined as being necessary to achieve public interest and media plurality. If I could, I would add that to Amendment No. 280A. I would also add a requirement for broadcast and investment quotas for domestic original production to the public interest consideration. That investment obligation is imposed statutorily in other OECD countries. That has been widely shown by very authoritative studies. I quoted from one review of public broadcast legislation published by the Social Market Foundation when we were last in Committee. I shall not do so again in order to speed proceedings, which I think is in the interests of Members of the Committee today. But I just tell the Committee that after a wide review of the strict regulation of public interest through broadcast investment quotas, this report and others conclude that Britain should be inspired by the examples of other legislatures.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I rise to strike a somewhat discordant note. It is not often that I take issue with the conclusions of the committee of my noble friend Lord Puttnam. However, since I have already done so in print on this issue, he will riot be surprised that I do so now. I am slightly concerned that we are making plurality a litmus test of the public interest. I am worried that noble Lords are quoting plurality and diversity as though they go hand in hand. In my view they are frequently in direct opposition to each other.
I confine my remarks solely to the field of broadcasting, not because I do not think that the issue is important in the press, but because in broadcasting we are dealing with organisations which are already bound by rules of impartiality. Therefore, the issue of plurality is not important in ensuring impartiality. That is done by regulation. I fully concede that that is not true in the press and so a different argument applies.
The reason we have Ofcom and are bringing all these different fields together is precisely because regulation of programme content, technical means of delivering

1441
programmes, finance and sources of funding and ownership converge and intertwine. I sometimes feel that there has almost been a naïve assumption in some of our earlier debates about regulation that, provided we put it in an Act of Parliament that is great; it will happen.
I take a reductio ab absurdum: if one halves the BBC licence fee, it will not produce such good programmes. That might be accepted. Let us transfer that to the commercial sector: if one wants a Granada company that can produce "Jewel in the Crown" and "Brideshead Revisited", frankly, one will not do it with this kind of legislation because market forces dictate that resources are less available for the making of programmes than they were previously. Some of that is due to a decline in advertising. No one can do anything about that matter; hopefully it will return. Furthermore, I do not say that there should be no competition. That would be a backward step, which is not to be welcomed.
However, I do say that if we place Ofcom in a situation where a television or radio owner wishes to introduce a new service and a new entrant also wants to introduce a service, there should not be an automaticity of decision-making in favour of the new entrant. This will become a box-ticking exercise, rather like the Higgs committee report on non-executive directors. There is a very real danger here. I realise that if one has the same owner one will undoubtedly have more diversity because it is in his own self-interests to produce diversity. Not only that, but he will save the overheads of administration, sales and so on and therefore have more money for programming. He will also not be spending money marketing against his opposition.
I do not go in for marketing a great deal, but the amount of money that has been spent marketing rival radio services in London could have gone into programming. It is having to be spent fighting competition for the same territory. I do not say that there should be no competition but that one should not always assume that competition is a good thing. So I wholeheartedly agree with speakers such as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who say that media are different. I also agree that we need an extra provision other than simply competition law, but I argue that that extra provision may lead us away from plurality if the public interest looks for diversity. That is a more important consideration than ownership from the viewer's point of view.
11.45 a.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I intervene very briefly. I apologise for having missed the first 50 seconds of the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I wholeheartedly support these amendments. However, even if they are agreed there will still be difficulties.
The noble Lord, Lord Gordon, with whom I do not entirely agree, has raised an important point. Interpretation of public interest has always been one of
1442
the most difficult aspects of competition policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, the Competition Commission at present would not have those powers in judging the kind of case that the amendment addresses. But it is very important to consider the question of quality, which is the point that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, was making: that the public interest test in cases in particular with broadcasting are very much more difficult to make than in any other sector. I do not know to what extent quality would even enter into them. However, the fact remains that I believe these amendments are extremely necessary.
I should just like to tweak the nose of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, who is in his place. A number of years ago he and I appeared on one of these "Any Question?" programmes at South Hampstead High School where his children were, I believe, educated, as were my grandchildren. The question was put as to whether it would be fair to allow newspapers to produce magazines in competition with the Radio Times. He was greatly alarmed at that thought. He said that it could not possibly be anything other than most dangerous to allow the Radio Times to be undermined in that way; that it would not be able to plan its programming in competition with other magazines; and that all the aspects of it would be extremely dangerous.
So we have moved on. We have made progress. Evolution has taken place. I hope that with the passage of these amendments it will go even further.
Lord Bragg: Perhaps I may rise to say that with the greatest of respect the noble Baroness has the wrong man. I am very sorry indeed, but I am afraid she will have to produce better evidence than that. There is no way in which I could possibly have said anything like that on any occasion. However, that is life. We get quoted and sometimes we get misquoted. I am quite happy to take both.
I shall be brief. I support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Puttnam. I have found common ground with many speakers, in particular my noble friend Lord Borrie and the noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Crickhowell. The amendment anchors the Bill to public service and public interest. As I, and many other noble Lords, said at the beginning of the debates in Committee, that is where a lot of us start from and to where we want to return. It is the core of, we hope, this excellent Bill, which many of us are trying to make just a little bit better and—to borrow an expression, correctly quoted—to "tweak" it a little. That is what we seek to do. The amendments help that task massively.
I find myself in the strange position of disagreeing with my noble friend Lord Gordon. I think that plurality is different from diversity, but that diversity depends upon plurality. We can discuss that issue much further. We can play the matter either way, depending on the size of the groups concerned. We have seen that plurality can come in very small areas, such as the regionality which has been referred to. It can come from single owners because of the inevitable

1443
effect—as the noble Lord said—of one owner having to be divergent in order to maintain his position. Plurality can also come from competition.
I do not think the issue is clear cut. I think that plurality will do. The wording in the amendment would meet the noble Lord's case. Proposed new subsection (2C)(a) requires,
"the maintenance of a range of media owners and voices sufficient to satisfy a variety of tastes and interests".
I think that meets the noble Lord's case.
Plurality is the key to this entire Bill and to our broadcasting. It is why we have the broadcasting we have. We must keep returning to that point. It is why the other day several of us strongly made the point that ITN should be allowed to be as powerful as other news services—to have that kind of plurality which is also diversity. There is also the plurality in our constitution, over which many people have fought very hard for a long time. That should be reflected in the Bill, because, as has been said, we are talking about matters which affect our lives very deeply. They affect what influences our lives, what forms our lives and the way in which we challenge other people in our lives. The matter goes to the heart of our society and our daily exchange of views and opinions in that society. It is a difficult and cumbersome democratic society but one which is, many of us think, better than any other around and worth not only keeping but improving. The amendment would go some way to improving it.
I said that I would be brief, so I conclude on this note. If the amendment is adopted it will send a clear signal that the core of the Bill is public service; it is gathered around the way in which we have done broadcasting. We are pleased to have done it, and we wish to continue doing it.
I heartily support the amendments.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: I wish to speak briefly, not to plurality and diversity, on which Members of the Committee have been so eloquent, but to the proposed subsection (2C), which goes beyond plurality and diversity, requiring,
"the promotion and maintenance, in all media including newspapers, of a balanced and accurate presentation of news, the free expression of opinion and a clear differentiation between the two".
Too frequently people imagine that freedom of the press is to be equated with freedom of expression. I know of no argument in the long tradition of political philosophy which suggests that freedom of expression is for corporations, let alone conglomerates. Freedom of expression is for individuals.
What individuals also need if they are citizens is a balanced and accurate presentation of news. We know from the regular MORI polls that there is a great differentiation between the way in which the public view newspapers and the way in which they view the broadcast media. The trust of newspaper journalists is generally very much lower. In fact, they are less trusted than the politicians. On the other hand, the television news is trusted much more than politicians.
1444
The proposed clause would do a great deal to support democracy by securing not only the requirement that there be diversity and plurality in our media, but in particular that there be an obligation to provide balanced and accurate representation of the news, as is already required of broadcast media. That would be splendid.
We have not yet succeeded in writing into Clause 3 any public interest duty upon Ofcom. The proposed clause would go some way to remedying that deficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, spoke very eloquently to the insufficiencies of competition policy alone to deal with this matter. Sometimes there is a very good case for having a belt and braces. If competition law will riot be sufficient to secure these other objectives, we would do well to accept the new clause.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: When the Committee discussed possible appeal procedures on earlier amendments, the inability of competition law to cover satisfactorily complaints about, for example, content was raised several times. Clearly, competition law offers strong protection for the consumer, but it cannot always protect the interests of the citizen.
A media plurality public interest test of the kind proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, would offer a similar degree of protection for the citizen and hence support Ofcom's principal duty to protect the interests of both the consumer and the citizen.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his interesting point about religious ownership, which is very helpful as the Committee approaches the debate on Amendments Nos. 287 to 289.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I take up the point argued by Lord Gordon of Strathblane. It is interesting that he quoted "The Jewel in the Crown" as one of the finest examples of what commercial television has done I have been discussing the main strands of the Bill with Sir Denis Forman, who, I am sure, the noble Lord will accept is one of the jewels in our broadcasting crown. He is fiercely in favour of this set of amendments, largely because he believes that the economic imperatives of media ownership these days tend to work inexorably more in the direction of profit than anything else, that there are tendencies in the mass media market place for standards to fall rather than rise, and that a great deal of leadership, courage and determination is required of owners and their chief executives to pull standards up.
As several speakers have said, this set of amendments supports that latter strand, balancing the brute economic one. It is a question of the cultural rather than the economic, of values rather than prices, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and the right reverend Prelate said, of the citizen rather than the consumer.
I am not at all convinced by the argument that the noble Lord advanced, which is part of the Government's case, quoted in paragraph 223 of the Puttnam report, that liberalisation can
"provide a more diverse output in order to avoid competition for audiences with other stations that they own."

1445
That is a wonderfully head-over-heels argument. Taken to its conclusion, there would be one newspaper owner, so that there could be fierce competition within its ranks between all the thousands of stations and papers that it owned. That argument must be rubbish.
For that reason, I conclude with an extraordinarily premonitory quotation from Abraham Lincoln, speaking in the 1850s:
"The legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done but which they cannot by individual effort do at all—or so well—for themselves."
Surely that is exactly what this is about.
Lord Harris of High Cross: I was hesitant to intervene and would normally persist in my disciplined silence. I was for 12 years an independent national director of The Times, which ensured that ears were closed against anything I said. But, behold, I stand before the Committee as a new man. I resigned from The Times and am now two years into recovery, so I can draw on my experience during that period.
I stand in awe in the presence of so many self-appointed experts and authorities on competition, taste, truth, balance and all the rest. If one is involved in a newspaper one is reading other newspapers and also watching the media. I find astounding and hilarious the notion that the fearsome hand of Rupert Murdoch reaches out from Australia, America, China or wherever he currently is to regulate, rule and influence. It is a complete myth. Even within The Times, his flagship paper, there is great diversity and variety of presentation—infuriating diversity—on politics, art and all the other matters that papers deal with.
Therefore, I am very uneasy about the notion of a public interest clause to be administered in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, thinks appropriate. The public interest, I was taught as an economist at Cambridge some decades ago, is frequently a refuge for every kind of special interest that can present itself with a fine face by a well appointed PR machine.
I am particularly anxious that we do not get Ofcom embroiled in the matter. Ofcom has no experience or knowledge of newspapers. It brings together regulators in the electronic media. I have great confidence in the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, who is building up his team partly of former regulators and partly of quite new brooms. But the notion that we can go on loading Ofcom with ever more detailed interventionist responsibilities is misguided. It is also unnecessary.
I am very depressed to find here so little confidence in the work of our variety of newspapers, which is far better than in America or on the Continent, based upon consumer preference, the consumers voting with their money and changing their minds when they wish to do so. We have a press to be proud of and should not go poking around all the time looking for some pretext to close in and tighten regulation.
Noon
Baroness Buscombe: I have listened to the very good debate on these amendments with considerable care. Although we really want to see our media ownership rules liberalised to encourage market entry and to promote competition and diversity of ownership, I see also the merit of having some form of public interest test to act as a backstop to ensure a plurality of voices and, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said, voices sufficient to satisfy a variety of tastes and interests, with many speaking to many. The noble Lord referred to the remarks of the Minister Kim Howells in another place, who said we know what we do not want. But it is how we achieve that.
I also hear what the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, says when he talks about letting the genie out of the bottle. Liberalisation of ownership, which, I stress, we wholly support, may lead to consolidation, or ownership may venture in the opposite direction, and a thousand flowers may bloom. But, in any event, a plurality of voices, with many speaking to many, is what matters. It is about real choice for the viewer and the listener. That said, I am reluctant to support any move that adds a layer or a further barrier to entry to the market for commercial operators in this already extremely tough environment, particularly given the existence of an already very dominant player—the BBC.
Members of the Committee have expressed concern as to whether competition rules would be sufficient. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, we are not talking about a can of beans; we are debating the future of a very precious, unpredictable commodity. It is no more important than any other industry, as my noble friend Lord Fowler said, but it is an unpredictable, living thing. I see what the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is saying when he talks about future-proofing the Bill. That is a good point. I worry about the lifeline of the Bill.
I was fortunate enough to come into your Lordships' House to listen to a debate yesterday on a Motion to take note of the report of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs on globalisation. Although the Select Committee concluded that the opportunities created by globalisation outweigh the dangers, my ears also pricked up at the quote of Ken Tynan, who was concerned that we should not,
"sell our souls for a pot of message".
We want to be sure that, whatever the future, we want to protect the multiplicity of messages. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, says. Plurality of providers is not necessarily the panacea; it is a plurality of voices that we want to protect, to encourage and to enhance.
I am concerned with particular amendments, including the reference in the proposed subsection (2C)(c) of Amendment No. 280A to the presentation of news and,
"the free expression of opinion and a clear differentiation between the two".

1447
It sounds too much like editorial instruction, which we could not support. But I am in serious listening mode on this matter and I look forward to the Government's response.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I agree with so much of what has been said in the past hour. I agree entirely about the importance of media and how the industry is different from other markets, such as baked beans, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said. I could put up quite a good case for the importance of baked beans, actually, but let that pass. There is a great deal of common ground on all these issues. The maintenance of plurality and the public interest test is essential to the consideration of the Bill.
But it is my unpleasant duty to bring the debate back to the actual amendments, the effect that they would have on the Bill and what the legislation does. I am sorry to say that much of what has been said seems to assume that the Government are determined to demolish the public interest test and plurality rules. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, quoted Kim Howells speaking in the Commons with approval about plurality. I echo what Kim Howells said—it would be more than my job's worth to disagree, would it not? Surely, it is clear from what is said, and from a study of the Bill, that our policy is to set clear, specific limits on ownership through key rules. We set media ownership rules. We see that as the best method of guaranteeing adequate plurality.
The amendment would allow a new public interest consideration relating to media plurality, including newspapers, to be included in the Enterprise Act. It would enable the Secretary of State to intervene in mergers that raise that consideration. That means that, where there is a merger of television or radio companies and the Secretary of State thinks that it gives rise to public interest considerations, she could give an intervention notice and call the OFT and Ofcom to make a report. In the light of that report, she could refer the merger to the Competition Commission for consideration both of competition aspects and the plurality issues. The amendments are applying to broadcast media the same rules as apply to newspapers now.
I suggest to the Committee that we are in no way weakening the rules as they apply to newspapers. Any comments about newspaper variety, plurality, diversity and all those aspects are legitimate, but they do not relate to the Bill as it does not change provision for newspaper mergers. We have not provided what the amendments would provide because the broadcast media are different from newspapers. Newspapers are free in this country; no licence is required to publish a newspaper. But, because of spectrum scarcity over many years, there has been in place a system of licensing for broadcast media. It is under that system, ever since plurality of broadcasting started—with Radio Luxembourg before the war and ITV in 1995—that governments have exercised the public interest criterion through the licensing procedure. That is what the Bill provides to continue. There is no
1448
abandonment of public interest in the Bill; it is just that in broadcast media it is to be exercised through licensing rather than through the Enterprise Act procedures.
Of course I acknowledge that that may not be the case in future. With technological change and the potential for the abolition of spectrum scarcity, licensing may no longer become necessary. That is why the Bill provides that, at such a time, the Government can, without primary legislation, under the Enterprise Act, extend the public interest criterion in competition law to the broadcast media.
There has been reference to belt and braces. We have such provision. We have a protection of the test in addition to economic tests, and we have protection of the public interest in broadcasting through the licensing procedure. If, and when, that no longer applies, we have the capability, which we will assuredly use, to implement the public interest test through merger law into the broadcast media.
My noble friend Lord Puttnam raised the serious issue of cross-media rules. He pointed out that there is always a difficulty with them, as there is with all merger legislation. That can be triggered only by a merger. In other words, if there is a change in market share by some newspapers or some channels becoming more popular and having a larger audience, there is no way in which the existing restrictions can be triggered. However, that is also true of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Puttnam, because he does not seek to introduce a regime whereby media owners will be required to divest themselves of assets because they are being successful. That is the only way in which one can deal with that progressive change, that creeping change, as it were. So I am sorry, but the amendments do not solve the problem that he identifies.
The other issue is over who should be responsible for protecting the interests of the citizen. The amendments provide that the Secretary of State and Ofcom should be responsible for doing that. We provide in the Bill, and the existing regime provides, a licensing regime which allows the certainty and stability which is not possible in the newspaper industry. Parliament can agree the licence-based limits for media ownership and will have to agree to any changes of the rules. That is how the interests of the citizen are protected. They are not protected in the same way in the amendments.
There was scepticism about the industry's dislike for uncertainty. My noble friend Lord Borrie in particular, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, dismissed that consideration by saying "well, they would say that wouldn't they?" However, I hope that I have shown that if we can protect the public interest without uncertainty, surely it is better not to have that uncertainty. It is not the uncertainty to which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was referring of what happens when a reference is made. The uncertainty that would arise if the amendments were agreed to is that two parallel regimes would exist at the same time for broadcast media. One would be for licensing and one of competition policy. That might not last forever, but to propose that change would be an unnecessary addition to regulation.

1449
In summary, the amendments would be more regulatory. They would be an additional requirement to the existing provisions for protecting the public interests. They are not wanted. They are not wanted by the broadcasting industry for legitimate reasons, not just to protect its own interest. The amendments also are not necessary. We have a plurality test for newspapers because there are no licences, and we have to ensure the accurate expression of news and the free expression of opinion—although not within a single newspaper. I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, about that. If we started to say that individual newspapers had to be balanced we would be transforming our view of the relationships between Government and a free press. In broadcasting the licensing regime makes it possible to set simple rules, based on licence holdings, and there are already statutory requirements for accurate and impartial news and the prominence that can be given to any particular viewpoint. I believe that, although the motivation behind the amendments is admirable, and although the opinions expressed in their favour all around the Committee are sincere and given with the highest motives, they are based on a profound misconception.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I do not think that 11–2 is a bad result, although my noble friend Lord Gordon would concede that that is something they are more used to in Scotland than we are in England when one is on the losing side.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Puttnam: Never bring soccer into the Chamber. I shall run through one or two points. I listened to the Minster with great interest. His arguments were very wide-ranging. I did not think that he laid a glove on the amendment—not a glove. I shall also take up one point. I thought that it was wrong of him deliberately to misinterpret the reference to plurality by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill. It does not do the Government much justice deliberately to attempt to inflate her sensible and thoughtful position. I was enormously influenced, as I am sure that many other noble Lords have been, by her Reith Lectures 18 months ago. Maybe the Minister could do himself a favour by sitting down and listening to them. They were extraordinarily instructive.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did listen to them.
Lord Puttnam: Clearly, I was much more influenced by them than was my noble friend. I am grateful for the position taken by my noble friend Lord Borrie. There is an absolute need—I wrote down "need" at first and then crossed it out—an obligation in the 21st century to look right across the issue of media ownership—to look across the whole of the media. It is absurd in the 21st century to attempt to segment the media and to imagine that one could come to correct judgments regarding influence and plurality of voice.
1450
I was also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I agree with her. Optimising the media voice is at the core of the issue. I look forward to sitting down with her, because I have no intention of wrecking the amendment by one or two items of wording with which she is not happy. They shall go, but I am sure that we shall march happily through any Lobby together.
My noble friend Lord Gordon mentioned concentration of ownership. I suggest to him that concentration does not result in diversity. Every scrap of evidence that I have been able to adduce suggests that in the vast majority of cases the exact reverse is true.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, of High Cross, is a reformed character. My heart leapt when I heard him begin to speak. I suggest that as part of his cure he chats to the EU Commissioner Chris Patten about the circumstances under which Harper Collins withdrew from his book on China, and whether the proprietor had any say in that extraordinarily aberrant decision. The noble Lord might also like to circle the world and find out why 274 out of 275 editors of Newscorp newspapers came to exactly the same conclusion as their proprietor on the war in Iraq. Interestingly, the only one that did not was I believe in Borneo, where that opinion would have resulted in a catastrophic drop in circulation in a Muslim country. Presumably that editor was given leave to desist. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, seems to have made more of an impact on the Government's position than all the rest of us put together. That is interesting.
My noble friend Lord Bragg was right to say that our lives are affected by the legislation. I would say that not only our lives are affected, but our children's lives and in my case our grandchildren's lives. The issues go far, far beyond this Chamber, and far, far beyond the interest that the Government appear to be taking in their breadth and seriousness. We shall undoubtedly return to this at Report stage when, unless the Government are prepared seriously to reconsider their position, I cannot imagine us not dividing on the issue. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 281 to 283 not moved.]
Lord Crickhowellmoved Amendment No. 284:
Before Clause 340. insert the following new clause—
"INTERIM RETENTION OF CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON NON-EEA OWNERSHIP
(1) For paragraph 1(2) and (3) of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act, there shall be substituted—
"(2) Sub-paragraph (1) shall apply in relation to any Broadcasting Act licence other than a licence to provide a Channel 3 service and a Channel 5 licence as if paragraphs (a) and (b) (and the reference to those paragraphs in paragraph (i)) were omitted."
(2) OFCOM shall, within a year of the coming into force of this section and from time to time thereafter, carry out a review for the purposes of this section.
(3) Such a review shall consider whether, in the opinion of OFCOM—

(a) the provisions of sections 273, 274 and 280 to 284 are operating in such a manner as to provide for a fair and transparent programme supply market with respect to Channels 3 and 5;

(b) the relevant provisions of Chapter 4 of this Part are operating in such a manner as to provide for effective content regulation of Channel 3 and Channel 5 services;

(c) the provisions of sections 260 to 267 are operating in such a manner as to provide for a continuing significant contribution by Channel 3 and Channel 5 services towards the achievement of the purposes of public service television broadcasting in the United Kingdom specified in section 260;

(d) the provisions of sections 344 to 349 provide adequate additional safeguards in case of change of control of Channel 3 services or Channel 5; and

(e) the powers available to OFCOM under the Competition Act 1998 (c. 41), Part 4 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40) and sections 309 to 311 of this Act are adequate to promote effective competition in the broadcasting market in the United Kingdom.

(4) When, as a result of a review carried out in accordance with subsection (2), OFCOM considers that each condition specified in subsection (3) has been met, it shall make a report to that effect to the Secretary of State, giving reasons.
(5) The Secretary of State shall lay any report made to him under subsection (4) before Parliament.
(6) When a report has been laid before Parliament in accordance with subsection (5), the Secretary of State may by order repeal paragraph 1(1)(a) and (b) of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act and make such consequential amendments to that Part of that Schedule and to this Act as he thinks fit.
(7) No order is to be made containing provision authorised by subsection ( 6) unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this group of amendments is to provide an opportunity to debate Recommendation 86 of the Joint Committee, relating to non-EEA ownership of certain broadcast licences. Amendments Nos. 308, 322A and 322B remove the existing provisions to repeal such ownership restrictions. Amendment No. 284 permits removal of those restrictions by means of secondary legislation, but makes such removal contingent upon Ofcom expressing satisfaction with the effectiveness of the controls introduced under the Bill. The amendment therefore seeks to reflect the additional controls proposed in the Bill compared with the draft Bill, and the Government's desire for flexibility, while reflecting the Joint Committee's concern about the timing of the removal of the restrictions.
I have to say to those who favour the opening up of the market in certain broadcast licences to non-EEA ownership—they include my own Front Bench—that they sometimes display charming innocence and naivety in which the splendid principles that they espouse of open competitive markets and free trade, bear little relationship with the real and sometimes nasty world
1452
outside described in evidence given to the Joint Scrutiny Committee by, among others, Mark Thompson, the chief executive—
Baroness Buscombe: I take great exception to being referred to as naive and innocent. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw that remark.
Lord Crickhowell: I hate to upset my noble friend, but I am going to continue with my speech. Innocence is perhaps the word. I believe that the evidence I shall put to the Committee rather justifies the comments that I make. But I was going much wider than my own Front Bench. I was addressing my remarks to a far wider group of people and indeed to some of the Ministers who take this view.
I turn to the evidence given to the Joint Scrutiny Committee by, among others, Mark Thompson, the chief executive at Channel 4, and Greg Dyke. Mark Thompson did not think that there would be new factories of British production paid for by US majors. He thought it much more likely that they would see ways of exploiting US-created, globally valuable intellectual content in this market. In its written evidence Channel 4 told us:
"It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which consolidation and foreign ownership would not lead to a reduction in employment in the production industry unless there were specific safeguards with regard to content originated by UK producers".
The trouble is that at best quotas will only give partial protection. I again quote from the Channel 4 evidence:
"The UK production focus of US parents is also likely to change, with greater priority being placed on formats which can be exploited globally, rather than simply in the UK. The potential loss of content with local relevance and diversity, let alone the loss of minority interest programmes, is therefore also of real concern".
Greg Dyke said that he failed,
"to understand why Britain would want to allow American media companies to own our largest commercial broadcasters, while no European one is going to own a station in Cincinnati".
Referring to his own experience at Pearson, building up what was probably the biggest independent production company in the world, he found that,
"there are only two sorts of television products around the world, American and indigenous, and American dominates the world, and what you were always trying to do in America was to find some guaranteed markets because the deposits on production in America being sold to NBC or ABC are so large that what you wanted was some guaranteed markets, and therefore the real danger is that you will get a significant amount of dumping if you allow large American broadcasters who are also production companies having a studio… So I am not at all convinced of the arguments for changing the ownership rules in the way that is proposed".
Nor am I.
All this evidence demolishes, if I may use the phrase without causing offence, another naivety that because European companies do not move into our markets in this way, there is no reason to believe that Americans will. The Europeans do not have the American product so easily sold around the world; they do not have the very substantial libraries of audio visual content in English which they can place in the UK to drive down

1453
costs as well as increasing their value in secondary markets such as video, DVD, merchandising and publishing.
During a discussion meeting held by the Joint Committee on 4th July—covered in Annex 4—one witness who had been employed for many years by Disney confirmed the Greg Dyke view that the economics of the television business in the US necessitates the exploitation of content across as many international distribution points as possible. Where distribution points are owned and operated by a US major, the pattern is for an increasing percentage of content to be sourced in-house. Production quotas would be an inadequate protection because they would safeguard the quantity of independent productions shown but not the quality of them. There was a strong probability that independents would be granted access for cheaper programme slots, but would lose access relating to more valuable forms of programming, with these slots being preserved for in-house productions from a US studio.
The US majors have to be seen as huge international production and distribution machines in which the US market is critical and all other markets are peripheral. In the face of the argument that US investors would bring inward investment, expansion and job creation, we heard how when Disney brought ABC it quickly cut costs and merged operations. ABC's international programme sales operation was quickly reduced from 200 to two. The same would happen, I suggest, to the sales operations of UK companies.
We summed up much of this evidence in paragraph 243 of our report, and in particular we drew attention to the,
"cultural loss, with greater priority given to American programmes and less regard being had to the genuine commitment to public service broadcasting that had informed content production and made effective content regulation possible".
It is argued that the system of regulation being established by this Bill and the regulatory measures that have already been put in place will prevent all this. I have to say that my confidence that this might be so was considerably undermined by some agreeable homework that I gave myself while we were gathering our evidence. I read the remarkable history of the film industry by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. There is one overwhelming message that emerges from that history which is that for almost 100 years the countries of Europe have attempted by regulation to protect and preserve their own film industries from domination or, worse, destruction by the American giants and they have completely failed.
I have spoken of naivety and I am sorry that it has caused offence. I believe that there is naivety in the oft-repeated claim that there is no need to worry because British audiences, particularly regional audiences, will want familiar British programmes and American owners will not risk losing their advertising revenue by changing the character of what they place in the British market. The claim is made that they will maintain UK production and regional production, not because they are told to, but in their own self-interest.
1454
I admit that I would never call my friend and former colleague, Clive Jones of Carlton, naive about anything, but in perfectly properly considering the commercial interests of his company, I think that, like others before him in similar situations, he may have misjudged what is the likely outcome. In his evidence he said that he was relaxed about possible take-over, that regulation would be safeguard enough and that American companies would not come and destroy the business that they had just bought. His co-witness, Mr Mick Desmond, added:
"I think anyone coming in and fundamentally changing that shape and mix of programming would have a huge financial horror show".
As they gave their evidence, I was reminded of so many who were employed in the City at the time of the "Big Bang" who made very similar comments and whose complacency was quickly dissipated. In many cases they were very soon out of their jobs.
Paul Farrelly MP put it to Clive Jones that perhaps he was relaxed because the owners of existing companies could see an opportunity to realise their investments. Certainly, there are owners and those holding underwater options who might welcome a foreign take-over in current conditions. For my part I simply ask the question: would a US company buy with the object of acquiring declining advertising revenue or might it not be that the real motives would be those described by Channel 4 and by Greg Dyke to which I have already referred?
I am deeply sceptical of the view that audiences would fade away confronted by more US material. The American experience provides a stark warning. I suggest that those members who have not yet done so to read two recent contributions to the debate: the first was published on 1st February this year by Professor Michael Tracey; the second is Barry Diller's keynote speech to the National Association of Broadcasters in Las Vegas on 7th April.
Barry Diller is one of the great pros of the industry. He argues that what happened in America was an unintended consequence of the US Administration's programme of deregulation:
"Five corporations, with their broadcast and cable networks, are now on the verge of controlling the same number of households as the big three did 40 years ago. We didn't think that was such a healthy situation back then, but back then there was this real, scary regulation—they may have controlled 90% of what people saw, but they operated with a sense of public responsibility that simply doesn't exist for these vertically integrated giant media conglomerates, driven only to fit the next piece in their puzzle for world media dominance".
He asks, "Why should we care?" and answers that we should care for the same three reasons that the head of the federal communication commission cares. He quotes the chairman:
"the public interest is about promoting diversity, localism and competition".
Should we not care about the risk involved in selling control of British companies with a sense of public responsibility to those seeking world media dominance and in the process losing diversity, localism and competition? I suppose I shall be told that that is all in

1455
America, but it is the American conglomerates and practices that the Government seem to be eager to have here.
Professor Tracey is British, but he has lived for many years in America. Since 1988 he has been professor at the University of Colorado, where he is director of the Centre for Mass Media Research. He makes an eloquent plea for the values of public sector broadcasting: quality, integrity, democratic purpose, creativity, education and diversity. He believes that the legislation we are discussing threatens all of them. So back to the naïve belief that the British public will reject what is put before them or that American owners of British television will not risk putting it before them for fear of losing advertising or respect from the regulators.
Fear of losing advertising! It is the demand of the advertisers always to maximise audiences that is driving what is happening in the US with a huge reduction in real news broadcasting, the decimation of children's broadcasting, the extraordinary success of reality TV and the inexorable conclusion reached by executives that the audience is never wrong.
The remarkable collapse of quality news and comment programmes in the US, which Professor Tracey analyses in much detail, with its uncomfortable implications for democracy, is leading, he says, to,
"a crisis of journalism, nurtured and sustained by the dominance of the market".
He suggests that,
"the basic problem lies in treating communications as commerce rather than as an essential and necessary aspect of the public realm, that space in which exists public discourse, civic and democratic values, and in seeing audiences as consumers rather than citizens".
We have a situation where it is proposed that casually we should open up our industry to that quantitative change with just a few huge players that now co-direct all of America's media, which has brought about enormous qualitative changes. It has led Ted Turner, the legendary founder of CNN and former deputy chairman of AOL Time Warner to say,
"It's sad we're losing so much diversity of thought".
Professor Tracey observes,
"The assumption inside the Blair Government's proposals for, in effect, a free market in ownership should therefore be troubling because of the delusion, or is it a lie, that lurks at the heart of the policy".
He suggests that the policy does not adequately allow for,
"the fact that it is the natural instinct of corporate capital, left to its own devices, to control the market… and to cut costs whatever the price".
Against those warnings and the background of the American experience, the question that confronts us as we consider the amendments is: first, can we be confident that we can protect the crown jewels of British television by regulation? Secondly, is there any need to endanger the crown jewels by rushing the decision? In moving the amendment I am not taking a final and irrevocable stand on the arguments any more than we did in the Joint Committee. Our stance then and my stance now is rational and reasonable. It is
1456
based on the one unarguable fact: if we are to protect what is best in British commercial television there has to be effective regulation.
The Joint Scrutiny Committee was worried about the enormous range of challenges that Ofcom will face after it assumes its regulatory functions. We thought that it should be allowed to establish itself as an authoritative regulator of commercial public sector broadcasting before taking on the tasks that would arise from the lifting of restrictions on non-EEA ownership. Ofcom would then be able to facilitate a decision by Parliament based on evidence rather than on expectations.
The Joint Committee recommended that legislation to lift the restrictions on non-EEA ownership should not be brought forward until Ofcom recommended such a change, should it do so, following any of its formal periodic reviews of media ownership. Our parallel recommendation that there should he a review of the programme supply market in British broadcasting produced a two-and-a-half month review carried out by the ITC. That goes some way to giving comfort to those who support the change now proposed in that it notes majority support among the submissions received for it and recommends further regulations to provide what it calls an "insurance policy" to cover the supply risks associated with the change.
It also mentions the downside that I have addressed. By no means does it represent the comprehensive analysis that is surely needed of the likely impact on the strength and quality of public sector broadcasting in this country—what I referred to as the crown jewels. Some new investment and skills and additional worldwide sales of some types of production will be no substitute if the price is the destruction of one of the great glories of British television. I do not in that respect want to follow the American example because British public sector broadcasting must be defended. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey: That sounded pretty final and irrevocable to me. I rise with great temerity, because if the noble Lord can call the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, naïve, I hesitate to think what he will say to me after my remarks. If we are talking about naivety, it is strange to cite in evidence of the horrors of this proposal Mr Mark Thompson and Mr Greg Dyke, who, great though their skills and talents are, are of course competitors of the people about whom we are talking. So, unsurprisingly, they do not want them strengthened. But we will let that pass.
I want to make some brief points, because I do not support the amendment. First, we must separate issues concerned with cross-media ownership from those concerned with foreign ownership per se. I have grave concerns about cross-media ownership, to which we shall come. Foreign ownership is a different matter altogether. It does not raise, for example, questions of cross-promotion distorting policy. One can he for foreign ownership and against cross-media ownership.

1457
Secondly—this is such a naïve point I hardly dare make it—if we were just Britain and we could just have British television and companies could be owned only by the British I could support the noble Lord's point. But European companies under the EU can own companies. I am no raving Eurosceptic, but why is it fine for European companies to own them and not for American companies? We will come to one of the reasons cited in a minute. It is not in America that the head of the government owns and controls the broadcasting in this country. However strong the American broadcasters are, they are not yet Prime Minister or President. That argument has to be weighed.
Lord Fowler: Is not one of the points that the noble Lord should address that there should be some form of reciprocal arrangement? Is not that exactly the distinction that he is seeking? Members of the European Union do have that right. What the United States is doing is refusing to make reciprocal arrangements.
Lord Lipsey: I take the point made by the noble Lord. I should like to see reciprocity. However, the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that that is a rather plausible red herring, so to speak, because there is not the least possibility that Granada and Carlton are going to go to the United States and take over NBC; it is not conceivable to put that on the list. No British company would want to do it. While of course I should like to see reciprocity, I am not sure whether that would be advanced by keeping this restriction.
I turn now to what I think is the nub of the argument, which is the one advanced on dumping. It is said that they will send over all their lousy programmes on the cheap. Murdoch tried that in Asia and it failed. His take-over in Asia was in extreme danger until he introduced local presenters, local programming, and stopped dumping, whereupon he has enjoyed enormous success. That is the final and conclusive response to the argument.
Finally, if you want to deal with these issues, the right way to do so is through competition law. If competition law seems inadequate for the media—in some ways I think that it is, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Puttnam here—then competition law should be changed. But an arbitrary, anti-American ban, which is what is being proposed in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, then it seems to be a gross error in terms of finding a way of dealing with the matter. I think that we can find better ways and I hope that the Government and this House will do so.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 285A, tabled in my name, which is much more modest and addresses the simple issue of reciprocity. Regrettably I disagree with what has been said by both the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and my noble friend Lord Lipsey. I shall not give a full answer to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, except briefly to refer him to Clause 260 of the Bill. If Ofcom
1458
implements that clause, none of the things he fears could possibly come about. My noble friend Lord Lipsey thinks that competition policy would sort this out; it would not. Competition policy will not sort out anything. Regulation will deal with it, and we have very strong regulation.
I have already indicated that I am broadly agnostic about ownership; therefore I am not anti-American. I do not think that the Americans should be kept out for ever. In fact, they cannot be kept out for ever. Let us be realistic. Quite a number of the most popular programmes in this country are made in Australia and the United States. It is programmes that influence people, not the chief executive's office. I repeat, the programmes matter. So we are already receiving that input and, to be frank, with the increase in satellite traffic, programmes will come from all over the globe whether we like it or not. If they are popular then people will watch them.
This reminds me of the days of my youth when I listened to the American Forces Network to hear "big band" music at a time when the BBC thought it was far too jazzy for us. Today, satellite is the equivalent. We can access programmes from all over the world, so I am certainly not anti-American.
However, I do argue that we should have reciprocity. For my noble friend Lord Lipsey to dismiss that as a red herring is, if I may say, to fly in the face of a normal principle of trade. Some misleading statements have been made, I am sure unintentionally, by certain Ministers in another place. In rising order of objectionableness, the phrase, "It makes no sense that French, Italian or German companies can own television and radio stations when American companies cannot do so". The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, made the point: it is at the least relevant that there is reciprocity in the EU.
I shall quote from the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973. At that point, a "disqualified person" was anyone who was
"not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom",
and was not a British citizen. Everyone was banned bar Britons. By the time of the 1981 Act, that had been changed to a "national of a member state", because we were bound by treaty not to keep EU nationals out. Using reciprocity is the way in which we have dealt with this.
I hope that the Government will accept my amendment. It is fully in keeping with the traditions of British broadcasting. What the Government are currently proposing in the Bill marks a major departure from the traditions of British broadcasting.
The next mistake—I say that because, to be frank, it is not simply misleading, it is plain wrong—was made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in giving evidence to the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Puttnam. She said that there was no restriction on the foreign ownership of radio. Since no one in the committee picked her up on that point, she warmed to the task and said that we would not have had Classic FM if we had placed any restrictions on foreign ownership. However, while Warner was

1459
allowed to make a minority investment in Classic FM, it would not have been allowed to make a majority investment. The Secretary of State was wrong, there is a restriction on the foreign ownership of radio stations in this country, and rightly so.
Undoubtedly things will change, but let us be clear about this. If the most powerful nation in the world, with a huge internal market and a dominant position in the wider international English-speaking market, will not allow any nation to own more than 20 per cent of an American media enterprise, why should we unilaterally give in and say, "Oh, please, you can come into our house. It may be ridiculous that we are not allowed inside your house, but do come into ours". That is nonsense and it is not the correct way to protect British interests. Furthermore, to say that no British company could possibly move into the United States is equally nonsensical.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: Could my noble friend explain why we should forgo the advantages of having American investment over here just because the Americans choose to forgo the advantages they would enjoy by having British programming and investment there?
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I heard that argument raised when my noble friend and I attended the same Westminster Media Forum. The response to that is that just because they are behaving stupidly does not mean that we should behave stupidly.
Let us return to the principle of reciprocity. I take it that noble Lords think that reciprocity is a good idea. However, this could he a close call, so would noble Lords please concentrate closely: Do noble Lords think that we are more liable to get the Americans to agree to reciprocity if unilaterally we give in first, or—this is the tricky one—if we say, "Only if you let us in".? Answers on a postcard, please.
I repeat, let us be realistic. At present the Americans are saying no. I think that the Secretary of State was pessimistic when she said that there was no likelihood of it happening in the near future. I understand that the matter is presently under consideration in the United States because, like everyone else, the US recognises that people can receive services by satellite and that much of the regulation is out of date. All I can say is that I think the British national interest would be best served if we secured reciprocity and the ability, not for British companies to acquire ABC, but for them to be able to set up a service in Chicago or wherever. At the moment, that is not allowed.
Do not let us forget that one of our most distinguished Commonwealth citizens in the media field was forced to go through the humiliation of having to renounce his Australian citizenship, take a primary school test in American history, and apply for American citizenship in order to own anything in the United States. I do not think that he should have been put through that humiliation; I happen to admire Mr Rupert Murdoch a great deal. All I say is that if
1460
the Americans will not let us in over there, I see no reason for letting them in over here until they offer to change.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Noble Lords on these Benches support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, although I cannot hope to match him in his Welsh eloquence. I want to begin by taking up the points made on EC companies which have been raised by a number of noble Lords. The Government's position on this—stated baldly hut, I hesitate to say, also naïvely—makes no sense at all. It is set out in paragraph 239 of the Joint Committee report:
"The Government considers that 'it makes no sense that a French, German or Italian company can buy any TV or radio licence in the United Kingdom, but that American, Australian or Canadian companies, for example, cannot do so".
That point was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey.
There is a distinction to be made between European investment in British broadcasting and American investment. Broadcasting is very much more than a commercial business. It is in a real sense a reflection of national culture and the character of our society. The influence of broadcasting on the whole climate of opinion in our society is beyond argument. In that sense, the character of British broadcasting has infinitely more in common, in important ways, with the broadcasting systems of our partners and neighbours in the European Union than with our American neighbours. In Europe, Britain has one of the best broadcasting systems and it is so regarded around the world.
I have a vivid recollection of arranging, when I was chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, a dinner for the chief of one of the great American networks to meet ITV chairmen and managing directors. It was an interesting dinner because, although we shared a common language and had some common interests, we were deeply divided by our fundamentally different broadcasting cultures—which is not to say that American broadcasters do not produce very high-quality programmes that we all enjoy. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, that high-quality programmes are produced all over the world. However, the Bill deals with something much more fundamental than simply buying good programmes from anywhere in the world in a global market place. It deals with the character, quality and organisation of our broadcasting system; the purposes for which it is organised; and the ethos that lies behind it.
At the dinner to which I have referred, the distinguished American executive responsible for many highly entertaining programmes considered himself first and foremost a business man who had become a programme maker, whereas the ITV executives saw themselves as programme makers who had become business men. For our American guest, ratings ruled. Although the ITV executives needed to pay due regard

1461
to their companies' shareholders, dividends and commercial success, they equally paid due regard to the great regulator in those days—the IBA. That is the big difference between the broadcasting culture in this country and Europe, in the main, and that of the United States. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, pointed out, that difference is vividly set out in the book by Professor Michael Tracey.
The globalisation of communications has a major impact on national broadcasting systems, to which all have to adapt in one way or another, but the Government are being over-optimistic about the benefits of foreign—mainly American—ownership and investment and underestimate the dangers. The Government should pause for thought and he ready for a review of the balance of considerations by Ofcom once it has settled in. The Government seriously underestimate the difficulties that Ofcom will face in preserving programme quality simply by regulation, in the face of pressure from the great American corporations—especially when the going gets tough.
Does anyone seriously believe that if Mr. Rupert Murdoch, a major newspaper owner in this country, becomes the owner of Channel 5, Ofcom and its admirable regulators will, in the last resort, be able to prevent the kind of influence that would be brought to bear on a British national television channel by a man who is famous for defining public service broadcasting in terms of such contempt that he is alien to the broadcasting ethos in this country?
Those are the realities, so I regard reciprocity in a slightly different light from the noble Lord, Lord Gordon. His is a principled position. Mine is more tactical. I regard it as very unsatisfactory and a little humiliating that we should not approach this aspect of international trade relations on the normal basis of reciprocity. But I am keen on preserving reciprocity on the basis that it will be an additional barrier to allowing the domination of American investment in the UK. As there is a total imbalance and not the same appeal, there are fewer chances of Britain being able to enjoy equal opportunities in America.
I am genuinely puzzled by the Government's position on reciprocity. Paragraph 244 of the Joint Committee's report shows that in November 2001, the Government were very robust:
"Without reciprocal arrangements with other nations that would allow our own companies to expand into their markets, we do not feel that we could justify lifting our ban at the present time".
At paragraph 245, the Secretary of State is quoted as characterising reciprocity as
"a negotiation in train".
In the same sentence, she is also reported as saying that she saw
"no case for holding out for reciprocal agreement"—
in part, because no change in US policy appeared in prospect. Against that background, I fail to understand the Government's reasons for abandoning their
1462
November 2001 position and flying in the face of the all-party unanimity that was declared in a particularly forceful way in the report of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee.
Ownership is one of the Bill's biggest issues. If we do not have a positive response from the Government today, I shall echo the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, when speaking to a previous amendment, in saying that we shall need to return to the matter on Report. Your Lordships have an all-party view that has resonance in the nation.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: In the context of everyone declaring their personal position. I hope that I am not being naive or innocent. I certainly declare that I am not anti-American but have worked happily in the United States for public broadcasters and commercial television networks.
It is worth making two simple economic points in response to my noble friend Lord Lipsey because they may also be deployed by my noble friend the Minister. The first is whether ownership should be confused with investment. In my view, it is extremely likely that in any ownership decisions about the takeover of ITV, over-the-top market prices would probably be paid for ITV companies. Simple economics would suggest that the owners would probably be more likely to wish to take money out of those companies than invest in them.
The second economic point concerns the so-called dumping of programmes. This is not an issue about the quality of imported programmes; it is about economics and the supply of those programmes. I am sure my noble friend Lord Lipsey is right. Most people viewing television in this country would prefer to see home-grown programmes rather than what they might see as low-quality American ones. The dumping issue is not about quality. US broadcasters would be able to screen their American products in this country at marginal cost. This would be greatly advantageous to them, particularly in the situation where they might find themselves making an initial investment beyond inflation.
That might lead to audience share loss but it would generate an increase in profits. My concern is one that has been expressed by Members on all sides of the Committee. American companies would see this investment as an investment in an industry they would equate with baked beans. We discussed this on the previous amendment about the particular qualities of the media. Their interest would be maximising their profits. Their share of audience in this country would be less important than that. They would maximise their profits by using the opportunity to show, at marginal cost, programmes originating in America. This brings the debate back to the question that I raised on the previous group of amendments about trying to ensure the quality of television through domestic origination of programmes and original programming. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and other noble Lords raised fundamental points on the previous group about the special nature of the media industry, global or not.
1 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I commend particularly the way that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, expressed very important views that need to be decided today. I support this group of amendments for three reasons. The first is that, like many Members of the Committee who have spoken, I cannot see any justification for the United Kingdom to open up opportunities for the media barons of the United States or any other country to buy into the British communications industry on a non-reciprocal basis. If what has been said today is correct and the intention of the US is to drop its own barriers to foreign ownership, we should wait until that has happened. Even then, the conditions and regulations under which such change in ownership would take place need to be stringent. I share the doubts already expressed about the stringency of existing conditions.
Although that would he my own approach, like many other noble Lords who have spoken I would support a logical compromise suggestion by the pre-legislative committee that any decision on foreign ownership be delayed until Ofcom was in place. Ofcom will he a very large organisation. It will have wide, possibly conflicting, responsibilities. We should give it time to settle in before expecting it to take on board this potential Trojan horse.
The second reason—even more important—is the short or long-term effect that opening up our broadcasting industry may well have on the public service broadcasting requirement expected from all British terrestrial broadcasters. The debate on the previous group of amendments pointed to the worries that existed when aspects of cross-media ownership come to the fore. The worst case scenario is having one media baron, possibly Murdoch, owning a near monopoly of local and national radio, television and print media. There has been rather gloomy news this week that the United States plans to go even further down this particular liberalising free-market media ownership road. The effect on plurality, the range, the quality and possibly impartiality of what the average citizen would be able to see or hear, would be worrying. Diversity of thought was mentioned. I believe that to be crucial.
Many speakers have mentioned recent research by Professor Michael Tracey. He is someone versed in the broadcasting cultures of both the UK and the US. His findings show how little attention is given to programming unlikely to make money for American shareholders. Public service broadcasting does exist in the States and the small amount of it is sometimes better than in this country. However, there the market reigns supreme. Broadcasting is not seen as a public good. The warnings that have been given are stark indeed. One Commonwealth country, New Zealand, which started with a UK public service broadcasting regulated model, changed to a US liberal market model when new technology came in. It is now so dismayed by low-quality programmes that it is seriously considering a return to the current UK approach.
1464
My third reason is that my experience, when chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, confirms the ruthlessness of approach described so graphically by Professor Tracey. While I was in the United States, I had a number of meetings over some years with media academics at Stanford and other universities. They briefed me on how their industry operated. I asked about the weight given to research on issues such as the portrayal of violence and the reactions when this research was shared with broadcasters. Unlike in the UK, where broadcasters, academics and regulators take a keen interest in such findings, American broadcasters do not even bother to attend. They send their public relations people to rubbish such findings.
I hope therefore that the Minister will accept the proposed amendment. If our regulation ensures that high standards and quality of broadcasting are maintained, we should wait until Ofcom has settled down and America has removed its own restrictions on ownership by non-Americans.
Lord Fowler: I should like to speak briefly to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, of which I am a co-signatory. I agree strongly with everything the noble Lord said. I make my position clear. I am not opposed to foreign ownership in the media or in other areas. We take some pride in inward investment. Both Front Benches and political parties compete on how much inward investment has been brought into the United Kingdom. One benefit in the media area was the entry of Mr Murdoch into newspapers. He took on the reactionary practices of the then print unions. Therefore, I am not opposed to foreign ownership. Sometimes it has done some good. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and I have one requirement. If we are to have free competition without restriction, then the competition has to be free. One country should have the same rules as the other. Access to one market should be matched with access to the other. We are talking about a level playing field. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, it has nothing to do with anti-Americanism; that is an absurd point to make. It is a sensible question of trade negotiation.
However, the proposals of this Government have nothing whatever to do with a level playing field. In future, they propose that United States companies will be able to take over ITV, but that British companies will be excluded from doing the same in the United States—and that applies not just to NBC but also to all the other American television companies.
I find it both strange, and, frankly, unacceptable that the position that I have just been putting was the position of Her Majesty's Government a few months ago. It is not a position that has suddenly been invented on the Back Benches on both sides of the Chamber. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, rightly said, it was the Government's position in November 2001, when they said:
"Without reciprocal arrangements with other nations that would allow our own companies to expand into their markets, we do not feel we could justify lifting our ban at the present lime".

1465
Therefore, the Government have a certain amount of explaining to do in this regard. They have conducted what I can only describe as a most amazing U-turn on their policy. We want to know why they have done so. Why have they changed their policy?
I have listened to quite a few debates on the issue and have taken note of several ministerial replies. But, so far, I have not heard any sensible explanation of why the Government have changed their policy from what it was 18 months ago to the one that they hold today. There is no mystery about the view of those like my honourable friend Mr Whittingdale in another place who simply want the destruction of any barriers. That is a perfectly consistent case, although I do not happen to agree with it. However, the position of the Government is not remotely consistent with the position that they have held up until this time.
Can the Minister tell the Committee how the Government got from where they once were to where they are today? Why has the policy gone from where it was to where it is today? What is the motivation? I notice that the Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell, says that the Government are opening negotiations to secure reciprocal arrangements with the Americans, but this is after the policy has changed. Like the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, I find that statement pretty astonishing. It seems to be the strangest form of negotiation to give away your main negotiating card before such negotiations begin. I do not see the sense in the Government's proposals.
If the Government were saying, "We don't want reciprocal arrangements-, that would be fine. I could then at least understand the case that they were making. However, that is not the case that they are making. The Government are saying, "We do want reciprocal arrangements; and, incidentally, just to encourage the negotiation along, we are giving away our position at the start". I do not believe that they will get very far with that approach.
Alternatively, are we to be told that it was the force of public argument and public debate, together with the pressure of public opinion, that forced the Government into this change of policy? I imagine that the boards of the ITV companies may well support the move because, self-evidently, it will increase the value of their companies. It would mean a bigger market for their companies and. therefore, the price of such companies would increase—provided that they are sold. Judging by the letters and telephone calls that I have received on the matter, it does not seem to me that there is a great deal of evidence of general public opinion to the effect that the Government must take this step. Indeed, I suggest that it is rather the reverse.
Frankly, as I said, the Minister has some explaining to do. The very least that the noble Baroness can do at the end of the debate will be to tell us why the policy has changed in such a dramatic way. Further, given that the Government's aim is still to get those reciprocal arrangements, can she say how that change of policy at this stage will help the Government in their negotiations? That is what the Government have to explain.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I have been greatly impressed by the speeches and the writing of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on these issues. I am especially glad that he has tabled Amendment No. 285. I do not have the noble Lord's breadth of experience, but I was a BBC television producer for some eight years. Therefore, in a sense, I have been brought up on the public service broadcasting ethic. Frankly, in the face of the opposition expressed throughout the country, I am staggered that the Government intend to go ahead with these proposals.
The fact that they are trying to push through these proposals by way of the Bill means that this Chamber is faced with a very serious issue. We, and we alone—another place has not really inspected the Bill—can do something about the situation. I am sure that the amendment will not be put to the vote today, but it is most important that it should be carried when it comes to the proper stage. If we create the opportunity for News International to dominate, and to do so even more than is the case at present, such proposals will allow this vast corporation to take even more power. I am absolutely convinced that it could become a media octopus, spreading its tentacles all over television, including the take-over of Channel 5. This would mean repercussions for all the channels, especially for the BBC.
We are talking about grave perils for British broadcasting that will emerge as a result of the enactment of this Bill. The Government may say, "All right, if such perils emerge, we can deal with the problem: we shall impose a requirement on Ofcom to review the situation". If that is the case, what will happen? Ofcom will be directed to look at regional broadcasting, news, and so on. But those concerned will simply patch things up. Patching of any kind is, by definition, second rate: it cannot be as good as the original. It would be disastrous to allow this situation to develop.
A few days ago, in the Guardian, Tessa Jowell accused the sponsors of these amendments of "demonisation". It is actually a good word, but that represents yet another error on the part of Ministers, especially Tessa Jowell, for whom I have a very high regard. If anything characterises the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, apart from his brilliance of presentation, it is his moderation. Throughout all of these debates, his moderation has been the key note of his proposals. It beats me how anyone could accuse him of demonisation. The fact that they would seek to denigrate the sponsors of these amendments shows the level and the measure of the Government's concern, though I am sure that my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench today will not indulge in anything of the sort. I believe that move to be both foolish and unjustified. Indeed, I should like to see that word withdrawn. One can use the word "naive", and so on, but "demonisation" is in a different category.
I have tried to be brief because I know that other noble Lords wish to speak, and I wish to hear again from the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I support this group of amendments, especially Amendment No. 285. I know

1467
that my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench will do all that she can to ensure that careful consideration is given to all the comments made during the debate. I hope that she will be able to do something about the situation at a later stage.
Lord Bernstein of Craigweil: I do not regard television companies in the United States as bogeymen. When I worked for Granada Television, we embarked upon a number of co-productions with American companies. On the whole, we had a very constructive relationship with them. Indeed, we sold "Brideshead Revisited" and "Jewel in the Crown" to the US, which were extremely successful. However, that does not mean that we should give ownership to American companies.
The point of an American television company buying an English company is not to invest in it. American companies have two very valuable/ expensive assets—the first is their production facilities, and the second is their programme library. It is important for them to maximise the revenue from those two facilities.
In the television world, the whole point of acquiring another company is distribution. If it increases distribution, it increases profit, as my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington pointed out. If American companies bought English companies, we would get not greater inward investment but the sale of American programmes in this country.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Four of my family's six Members of Parliament in the past 170 years were Liberal MPs, so I have a strong genetic prejudice in favour of free trade. We are a maritime nation, and we should have an open seas policy. I recall getting into trouble with constituents in central London for arguing against legislation to prevent foreigners from buying houses and flats there, so I have suffered for my principles.
In principle, therefore, I support my Front Bench in both Houses on their general thesis, but on American ownership of the media, which is the subject of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, and on the issue of reciprocity, which is the subject of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, I am influenced by experience in two other areas of the communications industries. The first is the film industry, with which the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is very familiar. Any Minister who has wrestled with the problem of the future of the British film industry is ineluctably brought back to the control of distribution by the Americans—that control was surrendered in past years—and the consequences that that has. He will find himself persistently in the position of the Irishman who, on being asked the way, said, "If I wanted to get there, I wouldn't start from here".
The second example from the communications industries is air transportation. I recently read the biography of the first Earl Swinton, for reasons that are not relevant to the debate. I followed him through the series of conferences that he held with the
1468
Americans before and after the war on the subject of transatlantic air transportation. Reciprocity played a crucial role in those negotiations.
I conclude with a decent relative scepticism about American ownership of our media and an absolute attachment to the principle of reciprocity.
Lord Bragg: I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. Until the past three or four weeks, when more evidence came to light and I thought harder about it, I used to think that foreign ownership could be accepted and protected in this country and in our industry. I speak as someone who, as has been pointed out, is part of a company—Granada—that could, perhaps, benefit commercially from foreign ownership.
My views have been modified for three reasons. The first is the forceful representations made over the weeks—expressed privately, publicly and in the House—about reciprocity. I take the argument made by my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane and by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. They made powerful arguments, as did anyone else who talked about reciprocity. To go in without some sort of reciprocal agreement would be foolish, in the sense that we would have to fight for it—if we were to get it at all—for years afterwards.
The word that I have picked out most from what was said so eloquently by other noble Lords is "dignity". It would be deeply undignified for a massive broadcasting country such as ours, which is still tremendous on the world stage, to roll over. That is how it would be seen, and it would, in that way, be rolling over. That has become a powerful issue for me.
I can express the same admiration for a great deal of American television as my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington expressed. I have worked with American television, and I have co-produced programmes with American television. I used to co-produce arts programmes with the American PSB television station. When I started, it did about 21 hours of arts programmes a year, as did ITV1. It now does six arts programmes a year, and they must all be American. They do not always fit our bill, so the co-productions have ceased. That is a digression, but it is not irrelevant.
Two other things have also made me change my mind. The first is the quotas that are supposed to protect the British interest, when foreign investment comes in. I am disturbed by the fact that there do not seem to be any ways of measurement laid out. How do we decide about the quotas? Do the companies that supply programmes for, say, ITV, have to be staffed by British people? Must those people be British-born? Must they be British residents? What percentage must be British? Must the companies do British subjects? Must they use British locations? Must they use British back-up in all the infrastructure? How are the quotas measured? Are quotas of people really involved?
What about the quotas in regulation? What regulation can we bring to bear, for instance. on areas of television that matter throughout the world? We can

1469
take news as an example. As has been said in the House several times, the ITN coverage of the war in Iraq was exemplary. It was very expensive. Had an American company been in charge of ITV and owned that news company, would it have doubled up and used its own people? That would have saved a lot of money. They had some good people out there and some good cameras. I was in America filming for three weeks while the war was on. I was filming for "The Adventure of English"—there is a bit of a paradox there. I watched American television news coverage every night for at least two or three hours. It is wholly different from ours. I do not want to go any further than that at the moment, but it is completely different from ours. If we doubled up with them, they could make a tremendous case. They have Pulitzer prizewinning reporters and wonderful cameramen, and I intend no irony in that. But, it is nothing like the way in which we do it. How do we judge that?
In ITV, for instance, we do programmes in drama, which is the mainstay of British television. Recently, there was "Dr Zhivago", which was very expensive. Why should anyone do that, unless he has come from a tradition that believes that, having had "The Jewel in the Crown" and "Brideshead Revisited", that is what he should do, because his peers—peers outside the House, that is—did it? That is the way that we went on. ITV took risks on major television with "Queer as Folk". That was an advanced, difficult drama. Such programmes would never have got on to American television. Why should anyone take such huge financial risks? "Dr Zhivago" was never going to get a mega-audience; it was going to get about half as much as "Coronation Street", if it was lucky. Why should anyone take a risk with subject matter, as with "Queer as Folk"? Who judges? How do we regulate for that sort of quality?
I can give personal examples. I could do arts programmes for about a fifth of the price that I do them now. Eventually, we would be found out, but we could toddle along for a while. I could buy from the mass of arts programmes circulating the world or the mass of cheap concerts. I could pull them down any time that I wanted. I could do cheap arts programmes any time that I wanted. They would look all right in the brochure, but they would not be what we have been doing for so many years. Such things worry me very much. There are benefits to be had from inward investment. I would welcome it but under the right terms.
I also think that Ofcom is heavily burdened. That matter could wait. It could be examined. Some of the questions that I have raised—they are only a beginning—could be answered. In that spirit, I support the amendment.
Lord Harris of High Cross: I hope that, even at this late hour, the Committee will be patient. There has been a well developed and orchestrated campaign in favour of the amendments. I can see some force in some parts of the argument. Emotionally, I often feel drawn, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, to
1470
reconsider my position, although that is largely theatrical. Essentially, the amendments are born of fear. They are negative and nationalistic, and they end up being restrictionist. That is my view of them. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, would come some way with me on that, but we are opposed by a mighty army of unreason.
It is regrettable and deplorable that the Americans perpetuate restrictions on the ownership of television and so forth by foreign nationals. It is unforgivable. However, we should not indulge in what. in student days, was called beggar-my-neighbour restrictionism. People think that because they are doing us down, we must try to do them down and that good will emerge from that. Reciprocity is, of course, an ideal to be aimed at, but, in the last resort, we must decide which way to go. Traditionally, the way that we have gone, in goods and services, has been in the direction of freedom of commerce and so on. There are down-to-earth, practical reasons for that, as well as reasons of high principle.
The case against following the Americans, if they will not agree with us, is that we would be denying ourselves access to some parts of the trade that would be in our favour. We would be excluding investment, know-how, challenge, stimulus and the other consequences of a competitive regime.
The anxious tendency—the nervous tendency—that we detect around the House ignores the two safeguards that foreign companies will still be subject to the same content control and other programme requirements as British broadcasters. Secondly, whatever the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, says, all experience confirms that local content is generally the best way to win and retain audience interest.
If we come to lofty principle, I simply assert that the maximum freedom of trade in goods, services and capital is the universal, global route to interdependence, mutual understanding, peace and prosperity in the long run. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, quoted examples of American companies coming in and sacking various people. He referred to the big bang that led to sackings and redundancies in the City. That may be the short-term impact, but the inevitable long-term consequences of this global spread of interests and investment is the expansion of competition, output and choice.
I wish the Americans would open up their market; I think in the long run—not the very long run—they will be compelled to open up their broadcasting frontiers. Unlike many other speakers who are nervous, I believe that now is the time to set an example and display confidence in our own culture and industry to stand up to competition from all corners. To talk about it being undignified to continue to accept rival competition from abroad seems to be stretching it a good deal.
Despite the absence of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whom I miss very much, I repeat my appeal to the Liberal Democrat Benches. So much of their view on these issues is restrictionist, backward-looking and conservative—it is actually Tory. This is restrictionism, protectionist—it is nothing to do with liberalism and not an awful lot to do with democracy.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: I support the amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, of which I am a co-sponsor. I shall try to be brief. There is not a little Englander bone in my body. I spent 22 very happy years of my 30 years in the film industry contracted to the largest media organisation in the world—Time Warner. So I certainly do not come to this from the perspective of a little Englander's sense of what is right. But I have two things to say. To my noble friend Lord Lipsey, I say this is not a rejectionist amendment. Were I the Secretary of State, I think I would be looking back 10 months to the time when our Joint Scrutiny Committee report first came out and thinking, "Why on earth didn't I embrace its sensible suggestion to pause, to think, to gather evidence and to ask Ofcom for a sensible recommendation?". It is pretty galling for us. The sub-theme from the Front Bench is, "We're not allowing Ofcom to get on with things". Yet here we are asking Ofcom to get cracking. In a number of amendments coming up, we suggest leaving it to Ofcom, taking its advice and allowing it to gather evidence. The Government, in this sense, appear to want it both ways.
Let me add a little factual background to the excellent amendment put down by the noble Lords, Lord Gordon and Lord Fowler. I believe that 2001 was a very bizarre year for the Government to change their mind, for it was the year in which the first intimations came out of the United States that with the on-rush of the next round of GATT talks, the Americans would have to start making some concessions if they were to win the concessions they sought. I agree with all noble Lords who have said that entering negotiations knowing the other side has already decided that it has to move a bit to get a bit, and hobbling our negotiators with the sense that we have already given up, is pretty bizarre. I get the sense that the left hand may not know what the right hand is doing. Right now, some poor devil at the DTI is engaged in the detail of the next round of GATT negotiations and we are pulling the rug from under his chair. This is not a particularly sensible position for the Government to be in.
I sincerely support the amendment despite the fact that the Government's initial response to content regulation as a way of dealing with much of the problem was admirable, prompt and entirely satisfactory. I commend them on that, but I do not think their present position is sustainable.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: One reason that the debate on this amendment has gone on for over an hour is because the matter was not debated at all in the House of Commons. To give this crucial issue a good airing is our duty rather than merely our choice.
I associate myself entirely with those who have looked at this from a cultural point of view. I believe that one cannot emphasise too strongly that in talking about broadcasting and the media, it is wholly different, as "Monty Python" said, from looking at cans of beans, to use the example of my noble friend Lord Thomson. I would say the same if we were
1472
talking about not allowing in European control of our media, but that pass has been sold. En passant, it might waken us all up if Signor Berlusconi's empire were suddenly to become hyperactive in taking over the jewels of our own broadcasting empire. How many of us then would be sanguine and share with the good and noble Lord, Lord Harris, that absolute faith in the long-term beneficence of indiscriminate capitalism that is so much a hallmark of his position? I would not.
There are particular dangers in confining the debate to the United States, for which I have the greatest admiration and against which I have not the slightest innate anti feeling. But there are dangers in allowing the massive purchasing power of a comparable culture to come into our own much smaller patch without let or hindrance. An owner from California will not have the same cultural commitment and identification with our great television presences, and that is already weak, as we have. The tyros of American media are not influencable in the same way as our own leaders. They are beyond touch or reach, personally and socially, to a high degree. They do not breathe the same cultural and geographical air.
Ownership is wholly different from regulation. Some may be tempted to believe that it is a matter of indifference to have regulation in the Bill. I think the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, referred to the public sector remit requirements of Clause 260, which we debated on Tuesday. The Government assurance, then given, that Clause 260 would apply to Channels 3, 4 and 5 was inaccurate and incorrect. It is not the case that if any of the great American beasts came into our small wood they would be subject to all the controls of Clause 260. But regulation, in any event, is a much weaker vessel. Regulation on the page is often very different from regulation on the street. That is partly a function of the complexity of the regulation we are talking about, partly of the legalisation of regulation and the fact that the privateer will always have at its beck and call a much greater army of legal power than ever the bureaucrats will.
I had one direct example of this when I was legal adviser to the independent directors of the Observer when it was owned by Tiny Rowland of Lonrho. Subsequently, I became a proprietor when the Scott Trust purchased the Observer from Lonrho. I have therefore seen this from both sides of the fence.
Those who are not used to dealing with such situations might take too much solace from the protections supposedly afforded by such as the independent director arrangements that prevailed for the Observer. Those arrangements did very little to restrict the rather sad effects of Tiny Rowland's influence on the paper that he owned—his influence via his appointments of the chief of staff, the editor, control of remunerations, control of funding for the paper and the rest of it. I beg those who are relatively indifferent to Amendment No. 285, on the grounds that there is plenty of regulation, to think again.

1473
Lastly, I refer again to Sir Denis Forman, because I believe his views to be of interest to the Committee. It was very interesting and warming to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, refer to his long partnership and experience with Sir Denis in Granada. He has absolutely no doubt about the importance of the amendment, and nor does Sir Jeremy Isaacs, with whom I have spoken. Sir Denis Forman said that,
"the impact of the United States on British television has been minimal and yet our television services have acquired the reputation of 'the least worst in the world'. Would it be sensible to open the one field in which we have international supremacy to the risk of a takeover by Hollywood, which already, God knows, has power enough?"
I close by reminding the Committee that at the beginning of this week the relevant Congress committee decided to dismantle the already weak cross-ownership controls within the United States, so that the four big groups will shortly have even greater and titanic force.
Baroness Buscombe: I have, after a lot of consideration, decided that I will, unusually, support the Government on this issue.
Lord Grocott: I am conscious of the fact that we are going beyond the time at which we would normally break on a Thursday. However, if I judge the mood of the Chamber correctly, we are having an extremely important debate on what everyone recognised right at the start was one of the key issues in the Bill. It would be sensible if, with the agreement of Members of the Committee, we completed this group of amendments, even if that means us running on longer than we normally would at this time on a Thursday. I hope that that is the feeling of the Committee.
Baroness Blackstone: I am very aware that noble Lords want their lunch. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for simply saying, with short and sweet brevity, that she supports the Government. I shall try to be short, sweet and to the point as well, so that we can all have a break and have something to eat.
I begin by addressing Amendments Nos. 285, 308, 322A and 322B. The starting point of our policy is that we believe that the existing rules are inconsistent and outdated. As every speaker in the debate knows, there is nothing at present to prevent persons from EEA states from holding any type of UK licence. There are a number of different kinds of broadcasting licences that non-EEA states can already own.
For the record, I should say briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
1474
wrote to my noble friend Lord Puttnam to correct the comments that she made on this matter in July 2002. Perhaps he never saw that letter.
Lord Crickhowell: I do not know to what the noble Baroness is referring. I was not aware that I quoted the Minister in another place or took up that point, but perhaps I did.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I believe the reference may be to a remark that I made, rather than one made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell.
Baroness Blackstone: I am so sorry—I meant to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon. I do apologise. I hope that he takes the point, however. He may not have seen the letter to which I referred.
As a result of existing rules, American companies already have a presence in UK media markets. They have helped build our satellite, cable and magazine industries. However, the current rules mean that Bertelsmann, a huge German company, could buy anything that it wanted, but that similar global firms such as Disney or Viacom cannot. That distinction is inconsistent and has no clear justification. We believe that opening up the UK broadcasting industry to foreign ownership should lead to increased investment, productivity and efficiency, and the introduction of new management skills and ideas. That, in turn, should mean better programmes for viewers.
Inevitably, debates on this subject turn to the question of American ownership and the fear that content quality will be eroded. That is what Members of the Committee have said in the debate today. The Government wholeheartedly understand and sympathise with that view. It is an entirely proper concern to look at the experience of countries like the US and New Zealand and say, "Not here, thank you". I associate myself personally with that view. However, we are not the US or anyone else. It is not the Government's intention to introduce a US-type market in the UK, and that is not what this Bill does. One must not be tempted to draw misleading comparisons with American TV. The fact is that the UK has strong content regulations which will maintain the quality and impartiality of our programming. The United States have no such content rules. In television, the Bill sets out for the first time the overall public service broadcasting remit, which requires the broadcast of a wide range of programme forms and genres. US broadcasters have no comparable public service remits.
Let me outline how the regulatory and public service provisions work. There will be demanding obligations for EU production, original production for UK screens, regional production and independent production. Under Clause 274, which concerns original productions, the Secretary of State defines what is an original production. The definition can be amended and the quota itself can be increased. Ofcom will be able to review licence commitments for regional programming and production, original production and news and current affairs programmes on a change of control of a Channel 3 or Channel 5 licence, and to

1475
vary the new licence to ensure that the new owner does not cut back on what the old owner actually delivered. Ofcom can also amend licence requirements, including those regarding regional programming and production, original production and news and current affairs programmes.
In relation to local radio, Ofcom will be subject to a new duty to carry out its functions so as to protect and promote local content. When a local licence changes hands, Ofcom will he able to vary the licence conditions in order to maintain the existing local character of the service and the quality and range of programmes included in it.
There are strict rules to prevent anyone from using UK broadcasting companies to further their own political agenda. For example, all broadcast news must be presented and reported with due accuracy and impartiality, and owners are prevented from using radio or TV stations to broadcast their own views on matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy. These extensive provisions will act as a guarantee of quality and diversity, regardless of who owns the channels.
In the Second Reading debate, my noble friend Baroness Cohen of Pimlico expressed concern that the content provisions would be bulldozed over by the financial muscle of American broadcasting companies. However, I am confident that we have robust provisions in place to prevent any evasion of the content rules. Ofcom will have sufficient power to ensure that any change in ownership does not dilute the UK's strong production base, its heritage of regional production or the thriving independent production sector. Broadcasters could be fined or ultimately have their licences revoked if they do not abide by their licence conditions.
The market also has its role to play in programme quality. That point was raised—on this occasion I am sure—by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. It would make no commercial sense for US companies simply to "dump" their content on UK screens even if they could. British viewers and listeners demand quality and British content, and if they do not get it they will simply go elsewhere.
I say to my noble friend Lady Jay that I find it rather hard to believe that a US owner would not care at all about audience figures. I believe that they would have to take them into account for the very reasons that I have suggested. In the end, it would make rather little commercial sense for them completely to ignore them.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My noble friend has very kindly referred to the point, on which I think that we will have to disagree. The problem that I was trying to raise was that the interests of the American broadcast companies would be very different from the public interest concerns that she has very rightly said are important in our regulation.
However, perhaps I may go back. I hope that she completed that point—I did not want to interrupt her in the middle of it. It is not correct that the Federal Communications Commission in the United States
1476
has no control over the quality of programmes in its licence regulation. It does have a public interest requirement. The problem and the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred—perhaps incorrectly, referring to a congressional committee when in fact it was the Federal Communications Commission that ruled this week on cross-media ownership—is that the enforcement by the FCC of that public interest requirement in the licence operation has diminished vastly over the years and is now in practice almost abrogated. That is the problem that we foresee.
Baroness Blackstone: I know that my noble friend is absolutely right in what she says about the FCC. The point that I was trying to make and which I think she has just endorsed is that the US system does not have the same degree of control over content as we have in the UK. ITV has a quota of 65 per cent original production. It actually achieved 81 per cent. Channel 4 and Channel 5 also exceeded their quotas in original production. Those channels are surpassing their targets because it makes commercial sense to do so, because high-quality original production aimed at UK audiences is quite rightly what viewers want to see.
Any non-European company that fails to take note of those facts and fails to deliver high quality original UK productions will suffer in terms of ratings and therefore advertising revenues. UK viewers want high-quality original production. There is no reason why American companies would be more likely to ignore that fact than the big European companies that are already entitled to buy into our market. Many European countries already have no restrictions on foreign ownership. The arrival or threat of arrival of non-European investors in those countries has not had an apparently detrimental effect. For example, in Germany, RTL, like the BBC and ITV, shows about 30 per cent non-European content.
There are those who say that it will he in the economic interest of large—particularly US—companies to buy UK companies and run them as cheaply as possible. It is true that it will be in the interest of any inward investor to run his or her operations as efficiently as possible, but that does not necessarily mean the same as running them as cheaply as possible. "Cheaply" implies for the lowest input cost possible. "Efficiently" means maximising profit. However, that can mean significant up-front investment in order to attract large audiences. Channels that have tried to treat broadcasting as just another commodity have had to change their business plans to reflect local demand.
Let us not forget that other huge differences between the American market and the UK market—the BBC. A well-resourced BBC will continue to be a tough competitor to commercial broadcasters, offering audiences alternatives if those broadcasters do not get it right.

1477
It is not just the Government who think that it makes sense to remove the foreign ownership rules. The ITC's independent review of programme supply, which reported in November, stated that most contributors to its review,
"felt that the combined forces of audience preference, economic logic and strong regulation would ensure that any American owner of broadcasting and production assets would focus on investment within the local market for the local market".
We share that conclusion.
I turn to Amendment No. 284, which we do not think is necessary. We are convinced of the robustness of the regulatory and public service provisions set out in the Bill regardless of who owns broadcasting licences. We think that the potential benefits of foreign ownership are worthwhile, and the ITC's independent review of programme supply generally agrees with the proposed changes. The report said that,
"the balance of analysis we have seen supports the Government's proposed change to the non EEA ownership rules, which would create an environment in which more expertise and capital could be attracted to the UK".
We therefore do not want to delay the benefits of investment, skills and management which we expect foreign ownership to bring.
Amendment No. 285A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Gordon, proposes that we open up broadcasting licences to foreign ownership only where we secure reciprocal arrangements with the country concerned. Noble Lords will remember that the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, concluded that reciprocity was "not pivotal—a point that I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, mentioned when referring to the committee.
We in the UK are not alone in this respect. As I have already mentioned, a number of other countries have already taken the same step, including Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Denmark, Ireland, Finland, Belgium and Luxembourg. Moreover, we believe that the removal of foreign ownership restrictions in the UK are beneficial in their own right. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that that is the key point here. We have changed our position on reciprocity because we have assessed our position and looked at the ITC's report. We believe that the benefits of allowing foreign ownership are considerable and that they outweigh any advantages to be derived from pursuing reciprocity.
I know that there are those who differ on this issue, but we believe that we have the balance right. Across the Bill, we are trying wherever possible to remove the specific regulatory barriers to investment—I think that my noble friend Lord Lipsey pointed that out very clearly—while at the same time enhancing our protection for content.
Lord Fowler: Does it therefore remain the Government's policy that they want to get reciprocal arrangements with the United States? If it does, do they think that the action they have taken strengthens or weakens their hand?
Baroness Blackstone: If we were able to obtain reciprocity it would of course be an advantage, although I am not sure—as again my noble friend Lord Lipsey pointed out—how many British companies would in fact wish or be able to buy into the American market.
I think that I have answered most of the issues raised in the debate. We are certainly not prepared to do anything to risk either quality or content. Where safeguards are in place they are being strengthened. In the light of what I have said I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: I should like, first, to thank all those who have taken part in this long and important debate. I am extremely sorry and upset that my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lady Buscombe, was angered by my opening remarks. I am so innocent and naïve about a huge range of matters discussed in this House, in relation to which I bow in awe to the expertise of others, that it never occurred to me that my words could cause offence. Clearly she was brought up in a much gentler world than that in which I have pursued my political career. But I shall try to do better on another occasion.
My noble friend has at least given one of a number of reasons why we have to come back to this matter on Report. As she has not explained the reason for my Front Bench's policy, clearly there has to be an opportunity on Report for her to do so.
Baroness Buscombe: I hate to intervene as we all wish to have something to eat. However, I made my position very clear on Second Reading. We have had an awful lot of Second Reading debates this morning, somewhat repetitiously. May I also say that the noble Lord knows little about my career before I came to this House, not least my involvement in the media?
2 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: Clearly, we will have to return to the issue, first, because some of us—those behind the noble Baroness, at least—want the position of our Front Bench to be set out and secondly, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, and others said, there is very strong feeling across the Chamber about this issue.
I need not give a lengthy response to the noble Baroness, if only because I anticipated in my opening speech almost all the points that she made. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that it is always a little irritating when one has just sat down to hear a noble Lord entirely ignore the words that one has just

1479
uttered, as he did on the question of European companies and the comparison with American companies. I pointed out that the real reason for the difference is that the Europeans do not have that American product that is so easily sold around the world. They do not have those large libraries of English language content.
The noble Lord's argument that we should ignore the remarks of Mark Thompson and Greg Dyke on the grounds that they have an interest was a little unworthy. I disagree with Greg Dyke on many issues, but I would bow to his experience in the American production market and take slightly more note of it than the views of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on that subject. If the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is not prepared to listen to Greg Dyke, I hope that he will listen to his noble friend Lord Bernstein and to his noble friend Lady Jay, both of whom have experience and supported the arguments that I advanced in relation to the real reason why American companies would want to invest here.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, questioned the adequacy of the reasons given for the urgent need for inward investment. They were just touched on by the Minister. My noble friend Lord Fowler also referred to the value of inward investment. I do not need to be told of the value of inward investment. During my eight years as Secretary of State for Wales, I spent an immense amount of time in the Far East, America and Scandinavia. During that period, we in Wales attracted rather more than 20 per cent of all the inward investment to the UK year after year with 5 per cent of the population. Inward investment can be valuable, but the question is whether it will be valuable in this case or whether there is an urgent need for it.
It is clear that this issue causes considerable concern. We have had a long debate. The issues have been well aired and I will withdraw the amendment in the confident expectation that we will return to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 340 [Modification of disqualification provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 285 and 285A not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldham: I judge that this might be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until after Starred Questions. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 2.3 to 3 p.m.]

Water Resources
Baroness Byfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to promote the sustainable use of the world's water resources.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Department for International Development recognises the key role that water plays in poverty reduction. We are working with developing countries, other development agencies and financial institutions to ensure that support is provided to develop integrated water resources management and water efficiency plans by 2005 and that commitments to improved access to water and sanitation are kept. Our work includes bilateral programmes in many countries in the developing world, including Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, India, South Africa, Uganda and Nigeria.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. Indeed, she will know that yesterday was National Drink Water Day, so it is something that is very close to our hearts. From the Minister's Answer, she obviously knows very well that we need to note the conservation of water, particularly in some of the areas that are so dry. Is she therefore not slightly concerned that the Water Bill, which is presently being taken through Parliament, does not have on its face the duty to conserve water in the United Kingdom? I feel that that is a wasted opportunity. It is one that we should be taking because we should be giving a prominent lead to other countries to show that we who are blessed with more water actually look to use our water wisely as well.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for reminding the House about National Drink Water Day. She is quite right that. if we are promoting the sustainable use of water resources across the world, it is important that we look at these issues as well. I understand from my noble friend that these issues are currently being discussed during the Report stage of the Water Bill.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I have spent an enjoyable morning at the Environment Agency Water Efficiency Awards. Will the Minister make sure that officials from her department have a chance to look at the excellent efforts made by both individuals and business in this country with regard to improving their water efficiency? I am sure that many of their practices could be very helpful in the cases to which she referred.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, of course we are very keen to promote learning between countries, riot just north-south, but also south-south, so I am N. ery happy to take up the noble Baroness's suggestion.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps I may add to that by asking the noble Baroness to look very closely at some of the projects which were opened up

1481
at this awards ceremony this morning, at which I was also present. On discussing the issue afterwards, many of the people who had won or came close to winning awards said that they felt quite desperate about how to get this wisdom across to a wider section of people. That applies not only in this country, but abroad as well. Her Majesty's Government have a role to help publicise really good practice. We heard much about that this morning.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. Publishing and promoting good practice is very important indeed. As I said in response to the noble Baroness, I am very happy to ask my officials to look at the proposals and the awards given this morning.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the real problem in developing countries is the maintenance of water supplies and how the local community can become involved? Does that mean that her department now has a new policy, which—on the worse scenario—would perhaps lead to privatisation in those local communities?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we do not promote privatisation. We work to ensure that water and sanitation are key elements in the national development plans in the countries in which we work. We have been concerned to find that many countries, despite having serious water and sanitation problems, do not prioritise these issues. If a country chooses to go down the privatisation route, using public/private partnerships for example, we will assist in terms of technical assistance, support and so on. We aim to ensure that the right kind of technical assistance is available to those countries.
It is important for the House to recognise that it is important that local authorities in developing countries have the right kind of experience and expertise. Where they do not, bringing in the private sector is very often the only way to go.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to communicate to her the concerns I heard from children in Angola recently, that they were obliged to drink from river water, and that they would come down with illnesses such as diarrhoea, which is such an important killer of young children? I therefore welcome what she said about taking steps towards improving access to decent sanitation and safe water. I also express my appreciation for the £8 million that the British Government provides to the Luanda urban poverty project. One of its functions is to obtain suitable safe drinking water for the many people in shanty towns in Luanda.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his comments about our programme in Luanda. I have seen what lack of access to clean water can do in countries such as Angola. We are trying to make sure that the poor benefit from improved water and
1482
sanitation services through effective regulations and appropriate tariff structures, including subsidies for the poorest if those are required.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, do we give any priority in our aid programmes to water and sanitation programmes?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have prioritised working on the policy aspects of water and sanitation. There are a number of other donors—the Japanese for example—that give considerably more than we do in terms of direct service delivery. Much of our aid is managed through direct budgetary support to governments where we have agreed a programme of reform. That is why the work that we are trying to do to encourage those governments to put water and sanitation at the centre of their priority list is so important.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the reports of arsenical contamination of quite a number of water points in Bangladesh, which has recently become apparent and which has had a very bad effect on the population's health? Is the Department for International Development concerned about that and doing anything about it?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have bilateral programmes in Bangladesh. They are focused around water resource management, looking principally at the sustainable use of water for land, agriculture and sanitation water. I am aware of the issues with respect to contamination. I am quite happy to write to my noble friend with the details of our programme in Bangladesh.

Flats over Shops
3.9 p.m.
Baroness Maddockasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any proposals to help bring back into use flats over shops that are lying empty.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Government recognise the potential contribution to housing supply that unused space above commercial premises could provide if converted to residential use. We have already introduced tax allowances to encourage such conversions. Only last week, we published guidance on unlocking the potential of empty properties.
Late last year, I asked the British Property Federation to advise me on the barriers that it sees that exist to prevent more residential accommodation over

1483
shops being made available. I shall certainly consider what further measures might be appropriate in the light of the BPF's findings.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I begin by wishing the noble Lord a very happy birthday.
Noble Lords: Hear! hear!
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I declare an interest as patron of the Empty Houses Agency.
I thank the Minister for an update as regards his department's position on this issue. I seek two reassurances. There is a scheme called Living Over the Shop, which has been helping to restore properties for a number of years. I understand that it is running into difficulties over money. First, can the Minister reassure me that a lack of finance will not mean that the scheme fails? Secondly, bringing back properties often requires refurbishment on which 17.5 per cent VAT is imposed at the moment. Is the Minister lobbying the Treasury to back him on this matter?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her good wishes. I was trying to keep quiet about the matter. I also thank her for her welcome. As I said, the department has published a document relating to the unlocking of the potential of empty property only last week, which is a valuable practical guide.
The project concerning living over shops has made a valuable contribution. I have met Ann Petherick on at least two occasions. She is part of the task force of the British Property Federation. At a meeting late last year I asked it to look into the issue. There has been previous funding from my department, but we have no plans for funding at the moment. However, I understand that one of the recommendations which will be brought forward by the task force is for a national programme. I hope that we shall be able to discuss that with our colleagues in the Treasury. More information needs to be available. There is so much potential for extra revenue let alone for the extra homes for commercial properties. About£ 18 billion a year could be saved and be available to UK businesses through the improved use of their own property. So there is an enormous economic and social potential. But as regards a particular project I cannot give a commitment in advance of the recommendations from the Property Federation task force.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord on his birthday. I believe that everyday is a birthday at the moment when dealing with the Local Government Bill. I add my support for further action on flats above shops. A great many towns in my own county have vacant flats above shops. With the new effort to provide much more affordable housing, it seems that many communities could add to the number, particularly for young people. It would also regenerate our cities and towns.
I was pleased to hear what the Minister said, but could not the Government do more? The task force suggested that flats could be built above the properties.
1484
The Government could do more to encourage the use and the building of flats above commercial properties in towns where we need more housing.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the policy is mixed-use development because that keeps the city centres alive, cuts down crime and reduces car use. There are a host of advantages. Building over shops is one thing, but there is a potential for 300,000 homes in existing empty spaces above commercial promises. Originally, it was living space, but in many cases that was not so. I have had my ears bent about this matter: there are some legal problems. The major property owners do not want to become landlords other than of the retail outlet which has the premises. The outlet does not wish to become the landlord. That is why the lessons from the project for living above shops should be taken on board on a national level. It is recognised that there is a need for an intermediary to deal with the landlord arrangements so that neither the retail tenant nor the property owner is involved in that aspect because it is not their business and they wish to do other things. We want to encourage them to make better use of the properties. Building above retail units and building mixed developments are part of the policy which we are trying to pursue.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the potential for 300,000 homes to be recovered from empty premises above shops. Taking empty properties as a whole, can the Minister indicate what their contribution could be if they were brought hack into use for future housing needs?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I was referring to empty properties in terms of empty dwellings. There are at least 80,000 in London. There are probably a few hundred thousand in the country as a whole. One must be very careful about the figures one gives because the snapshot taken of empty dwellings includes dwellings which are being bought and sold and all kinds of other arrangements. There may be as many as 400,000 empty dwellings, 80,000 of which are in London. We have proposals as regards dwellings left deliberately empty—I am not speaking about second homes or anything of that kind—not to confiscate them. but to do what we can to encourage their return to use. We shall be producing proposals on that in due course.

Fly Tipping
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have for dealing with the increase in fly tipping.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, The Government are committed to dealing with the serious and growing problem of fly tipping. The Anti-Social Behaviour Bill

1485
currently before another place, includes measures which will help the Environment Agency and local authorities to trace and prosecute those responsible for fly tipping. The Government are also considering a wide range of other measures, details of which will be published later this year and brought forward at the nearest legislative opportunity.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. All of us are aware of seeing the countryside being despoiled by fly tipping, but is the Minister aware of the very real concerns of the charity shops in towns which are suffering from fly tipping by stealth because they are given up to 15 million sacks of textiles and other materials each year? The shops recycle this material but exclude items of no use. That converts what was domestic waste into commercial waste and the charity shops are charged at the full rate for disposing of such items. Does the Minister believe that, as is the situation with some local authorities, there is a case for making a partial allowance for the very major recycling of wasted goods necessary in a year? Can he encourage his department to ensure that more local authorities look at that possibility?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are various recycling schemes with which local authorities are being encouraged to deal. In some case that would include some of the waste recycled by charities. It is a more difficult concept to take as a matter of principle that the charities' unwanted goods, however originally deposited, can be regarded other than as waste and therefore charged as waste either at the collection point or at the civic amenity. Some quite difficult issues are involved here.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend express the hope that the House welcomes the Bill to which he referred, but can we be sure that the penalties for this grossly unsocial and often evil behaviour will be sufficiently severe to deter it?
Lord Whitty: My Lord, the current maximum penalty for fly tipping is already pretty severe. For ordinary fly tipping it is up to £ 20,000 or two years' imprisonment. For hazardous waste the penalties are unlimited. The problem is that the actual level of fines is substantially lower than that. I see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not seated on the Woolsack at the moment, but I do not want anything I say to be interpreted as an attack on the courts. The importance of this and other environmental crimes deserves better recognition from the magistrates.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Minister has just mentioned hazardous waste. I am sure that he is aware that in July next year the number of landfill sites which will take such waste will be reduced from about 180 to about 14. What guidance will the Minister's department give to industry about
1486
what it should do with hazardous waste? Such a drastic reduction is likely to result in a greatly increased level of fly tipping of hazardous waste.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I disagree. I do not recognise the precise figures, but clearly the number of hazardous waste sites under the new regulations will be considerably limited. The problem at the moment is that hazardous waste is deposited with non-hazardous materials in what have hitherto been legal landfills. The whole point of the new regulations is to ensure that hazardous waste is separated and dealt with in a more managed way. I believe that the new regulations will provide for that. Therefore, I am less worried about any regression in dealing with hazardous waste; indeed, I believe that the situation will improve. The volume of non-hazardous waste and where it is tipped is the main cause of greater anxiety about fly tipping.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Environment Agency sometimes takes many months to produce an enforcement order; and that after its issue it still takes a long time to deal with the situation?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, I am aware that there has been delay in the system. That is partly because the Environment Agency has not hitherto had the powers to trace the vehicles or individuals concerned, either through the business—whereas it now has powers as a result of our changing the regulations earlier this year—or under the new powers in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill if Parliament accepts it.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, most of the fly tipping I notice is building material. It is offensive to all communities. The Minister said the punishment that currently inveighs is quite severe. What are the figures for prosecutions and how many people have been to gaol, for example, for this offensive situation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend is right that a large proportion of the problem in the nonhazardous sector is building materials. The volume makes the problem significantly worse. I do not have figures for the total number of prosecutions by local authorities. The number of prosecutions by the Environment Agency—some of which are for hazardous waste—is about 350 per year. Fines average between £ 2,000 and £ 3,000, while the maximum, as I have said, is £ 20,000 or two years imprisonment. The actual level of sanction is therefore much less than the law allows.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I revert to the question of £ 20,000 or two years. That is all very well, and we hear a great deal about the notorious cases. But in fact the most infuriating fly tipping is usually relatively small-scale and unidentifiable. In the majority of cases, the person who tips has a reasonable certainty that he will not be traced. Local authorities now have targets in this area. Will the Minister assure

1487
me that they are adequately resourced both to deal with the problem and, most importantly, to trace the offenders?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, local authorities allocate their own resources. The noble Lord will not be advocating greater direction than already exists in that regard. Additional powers on tracing and the ability to seize vehicles are covered by both the regulatory change we made earlier and in the proposals under the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that fly-tippers are only litter-bugs on a bigger scale— I agree that it is often a much bigger scale? Does he agree that until his department and local authorities give a leading example by keeping the roads for which they are responsible much cleaner, we will not be likely to change the deplorable culture of the British people in the matter?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree that it is the same psychology and, in some cases, the same people engaging in substantial fly tipping as in the disposal of smaller amounts of litter. It is probably a greater problem in this country than in many others. Nevertheless, we should register that in recent years there has been significant improvement in the performance of many local authorities on the prevention and clean-up of litter. It is important to register at least some success on that front, while I agree with the noble Lord that more needs to be achieved.

Zimbabwe: Passports
3.23 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smithasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider it right that a person born in Zimbabwe who has lived and worked in the United Kingdom and subsequently served in the British Armed Forces in the war in Iraq should be denied a British passport.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, British passports are issued to persons who hold British nationality as defined by the British Nationality Act 1981. A person born in Zimbabwe before 1st January 1983 will be a British citizen if his or her father was born in the United Kingdom. All that the Passport Agency requires is the necessary documentary evidence to support an application. Residence in the United Kingdom or service in the Armed Forces are not relevant to the question of nationality and eligibility for a passport.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. It indicates that the Government have looked with some care at the case that was reported recently in the press. It appears that an application for a passport has not been rejected. If
1488
the Minister gives me that assurance I am most grateful. In view of the fact that it is so easy now for almost anyone to obtain a passport—I understand from the Nationality Group of his department that a successful asylum seeker can achieve a passport within nine months—is he sure that the case was handled with sufficient care when the initial inquiry was made?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Passport Agency takes particular care with all cases. In the case to which the Question refers, the House will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to reveal personal details. If the individual concerned submits a formal application and also provides written consent to the Passport Agency it will be able to undertake a check on Army records, which I would confidently expect to provide the information for the applicant to make a successful passport application.
I have been assured that as long as written consent is given, a speedy resolution to the application can be achieved. Noble Lords can be confident that the Passport Agency wants to be helpful, and I am more than happy to assist in that process.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the Minister said that service in Her Majesty's Armed Forces does not qualify one for a passport. Why not?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is not necessarily a relevant piece of information to the passport application. In this instance we are trying to get the right documentary evidence in place so that a successful application can be made.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister confirm whether the Secretary of State has discretion in certain exceptional cases to authorise the issue of British passports; and, if that is the case will he ensure not only in this case but in similar cases that such discretion is exercised, so that people can contribute positively to the social, economic and political life of this country? More importantly, in the case of Zimbabwe, will he ensure that such citizens are treated with fairness because, once the evil regime of Robert Mugabe has been removed, I am sure that many people will return to Zimbabwe?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, discretion is limited. In passport applications we are talking essentially about conforming with the process and the criteria. That has to be the case, because it has to be an entirely proper process. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, have the Government lately considered preparing a Bill defining the circumstances in which a passport may be issued, withheld or cancelled? Is it not strange that that right, which many people regard as fundamental, is still, as far as I know, determined under the Royal

1489
Prerogative? Or is it the case that the European Court of Human Rights has effectively superseded the Royal Prerogative in that regard?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware of any consideration of a change in policy.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister tell me whether there are two separate processes to apply for British nationality and a passport, or whether those two things are linked? Not being a British national I do not know.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the processes are separate.

Communications Bill
3.30 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 340.
Lord Puttnammoved Amendment No. 286:
Page 295, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 286 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 322C. If our debates this morning could quite reasonably be described as sublime, we are moving swiftly here to the gorblimey. I and others have worked extremely hard to try to find out where on earth this proposal from the Government came from. It certainly was not sought by any advertising agency and does not appear to have been sought by any media owner. It may be the work of some mad teenaged deregulator. I have to ask that deregulator: whose interests did they believe, for one moment, they might serve?
For any agency to take advantage of the offer being made by the Government here, it would have to withdraw from its own industry body. That cannot be sensible. Having discussed this with media owners and advertising agents, no one knows where the proposal came from and I very much hope that the Government will move business along swiftly this afternoon by disavowing it and passing on to the next amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I have been caught unawares by the brevity of the speech of my noble friend in moving the amendment. It was somewhat out of keeping with our proceedings before lunch, but if it sets a pattern for the remainder of the day, I can only say how much I rejoice in it. I hope to respond with similar brevity, but with a degree of effectiveness so that my noble friend may feel able to withdraw his amendment after he has listened to my remarks.
The amendments would restore the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990 that prevent advertising agencies from holding broadcasting licences. The straightforward point I wish to make is that we do not believe that it is any longer necessary to prohibit the holding of broadcasting licences by advertising agencies. The ban affects a whole
1490
category of businesses—businesses that make an important contribution to the economy of the United Kingdom—and it is not our policy to maintain such bans unless they are fully justifiable.
In the past the ban was claimed to be necessary to meet the understandable concerns that for an advertising agency also to be a broadcaster could give rise to abuses and distort the market for broadcast advertising. For example, an advertising agency might be able to offer preferential rates for advertisements broadcast on its "in-house" channel, or the broadcaster might refuse to take advertising otherwise than from the in-house agency.
Those would be serious and undesirable developments, but we do not believe that they would arise because other measures are now available that present an effective way of ensuring that they could do so. In particular, the competition law powers that Ofcom will enjoy and will be able to exercise concurrently with the other competition authorities would prevent economic abuses. We therefore propose to lift the ban because we do not want to restrict participation in the broadcasting market unless it is necessary, and we do not believe it is because any abuses identified will be covered by other legislation, in particular, of course, under the powers in the Competition Act 1998.
So I respond to my noble friend by saying that things have moved on since the Broadcasting Act 1990. We now have in place a range of measures that will help to control the situation. Any advertising agency which applied for a broadcasting licence would be all too well aware of the potential challenges under the other legislation. It is that which is designed to secure the public interest.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Is the Minister aware that his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, makes the matter even more mysterious? We have here a vast Bill which is surrounded by a million representations from different interest groups. I repeat the question put by the Minister's noble friend: which interest group sought this proposal? I hate to sound like an old fogey, but this would trample on much of the sacred history that surrounds the rather unique achievement of Britain to have its public service broadcasting centrally funded in order to ensure a total separation of advertising from ownership.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I understand fully the point made by the noble Lord. If I thought that that aspect in relation to this deregulation measure could give rise to abuses which would threaten what he regards as the historic settlement in terms of the relationship between advertising and broadcasting, then of course I would not oppose the amendment. But I sought to establish that the legislation we now have in place is sufficiently secure to guarantee that any abuses that might arise would fall within its scope and thus we would be able to control the situation without needing to continue with the restriction that obtained in the 1990 Act.
Lord Puttnam: For the time being I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment, but first I wish to make two important points. I was not being glib when I said that I thought honestly that the Government would respond by saying "Oops, sorry, let us move on". There are real ramifications to this. I have talked to a number of people about the matter, among them Sir Martin Sorrel, all of whom have made it clear that if an advertising agency took advantage of this new opportunity—let us call it that—and decided to be prepared to leave its trade associations, how would the other agencies respond? Do they book time and space in the medium which has been bought by the new agency? Is that new agency still an agency? How do you hold together the corpus of interests represented by the industry bodies?
I put this to my noble friend on the Front Bench: please remember that, quite rightly, the advertising industry has been held up time and again during our deliberations in Committee on this Bill as being the one example of a well-regulated, well-organised and thoughtful industry sector. Why fly in the face of that and create legislation which could have the net effect of destroying an industry which until now has been a model of its kind? For the moment I shall withdraw the amendment, but I remain puzzled. I hope that, when we reach Report stage, either the Minister will have changed his mind or he will come back with a clear understanding from the entire sector that it wants this to take place. I ask that because it is the exact reverse of what I have been told. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 287:
Page 295, line 9, at end insert—
"() paragraph 2 (disqualification for religious bodies);"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 287 1 shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 288 and 289. Together, these amendments would bring to an end the extraordinary situation which currently exists where the Government have singled out religious groups as unfit even to apply for many categories of broadcasting licence. That is ludicrous for many reasons, not least because there is a significant demand for such programmes. To deny the consumer the opportunity to tune in, and religious broadcasters the right to do their job, places a large question mark against this Bill in respect of human rights. Furthermore, even without the blanket disqualification, more than enough regulations are already in place to allay all possible fears about the nature of religious programmes. The United Kingdom has the world's strictest religious content and ownership rules; of that I am sure.
I shall deal first with the impression given to any reader of this Bill. To go to such lengths specifically to identify religious groups as unfit for broadcasting seems at best surprising and at worst highly perverse. How does such disqualification equate with the Government's efforts and copious projects working alongside religious groups—here I want to emphasise that I mean all religious groups—to build community
1492
values and citizenship? In that role, religious groups are rightly recognised as pillars of society, upstanding members of the community, the vast majority of whom are good, law-abiding and tax-paying citizens. Why on earth do the Government feel the need to go to such great lengths to prevent the advocacy of those values on television or radio?
On a different note, the disqualification of religious groups is damaging to both consumers and broadcasters alike. Consumers should have access to the widest possible choice. To place in legislation an outright disqualification is quite contrary to the welfare of consumers, for there is a significant demand that will remain unfulfilled, for no discernible benefit. Placing such a rigid measure on the statute hook means that even in an area where the overwhelming majority of the people are in favour of having religious programmes, considerable difficulties will be faced by a would-be broadcaster by virtue of the fact that they are formally disqualified.
Even if it is not the vast majority listening to and watching religious programmes, it is not hard to imagine the comfort and support that such programmes can bring to the vulnerable and excluded, as well as those who are unable to get to a place of worship. The Bill deprives them of a choice to which they are entitled. What is to be lost from leaving licence decisions to Ofcom's discretion and having confidence in the considerable number of regulations in place? The Government's policy is damagingly over-cautious.
Whether that aspect of the Bill violates the Human Rights Act 1998 has been queried by a number of bodies—not least the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the pre-legislative scrutiny committee. A case that the European Court of Human Rights deemed inadmissible is now going to the European Court of Justice. The issue remains highly contentious and I fail to understand why the Government are digging their heels in. They claim that the spectrum is too limited to provide space for religious broadcasters but that is absurd logic. Why should such organisations be targeted when other, clearly questionable causes are free to apply without restriction? The rationale for political parties not being able to apply is something else altogether.
Britain is the only country in the world that advances an argument in favour of religious restrictions. Surely it is better to build a little flexibility into the system by allowing Ofcom to judge the merits of each licence application as it arises. Even if only one frequency is available, if people want to listen to a religious programme they should be able to do so without having to work around disqualification.
In the absence of blanket disqualification, three or four safety nets are already in place to prevent religious fanatics broadcasting on television or radio. According to the Broadcasting Act 1990, applicants must satisfy fit and proper ownership provisions. The content of religious programmes must be responsible and not exploitative. Significant regulation is already

1493
in place to prevent broadcasting by extremist factions or US-style telly evangelists—even if they were granted licences.
In response to questioning in the other place on 7th April 2002 about the content rules imposed on broadcasters, The Secretary of State identified a veritable swathe of regulation covering responsible religious programme content, non-exploitation of audience susceptibilities abuse or incitement to hatred, and blasphemy and obscenity. Countless other aspects must be complied with to broadcast a religious programme. Ofcom will still have the power to refuse licences, fine licensees and/or revoke their licences in the event of a violation.
The Radio Authority's recent reluctance to confirm or deny that UK religious radio stations will be eligible for digital AM licences under the Bill raises a new and important issue. It is becoming clear that DRM—the internationally accepted standard for future AM, long, medium and shortwave broadcasting—involves a complex and comprehensive arrangement of multiplexing and multiplexes. Will the Minister deal with that as a matter of urgency? Will the Minister give the Committee and place on record an absolute and concrete assurance that religious disqualification will not apply under the Bill to individual licences or any combination of licences involving multiplexes; multiplexing; multiplex data systems; multiplex frames; simulcasting of digital services with analogue AM signals; and multiplex configurations and reconfigurations?
That question is not just academic but is asked in light of the country's religious broadcasters being denied access to DAB licence applications due to supposed omissions in legislative draftsmanship repeated in Clauses 5 and 44 of the Broadcasting Act 1996. Religious radio and religious radio companies have been locked out of DAB since 1996. The FM waveband offers limited opportunities for further licensing but DRM AM, long, medium and shortwave represent their practical options for future national and local licence applications.
UK religious radio stations such as Premier need to know for certain whether they can apply for DRM licences without being refused access on the ground of digital multiplexing—thus repeating their experience of exclusion from DAB. If otherwise, they will not play a part in long, medium and shortwave radio broadcasting over the next 10 years and will be forced, as a consequence, to consider whether or not they have a future as broadcasters and employers. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who has put his name to the amendments, is unable to be in his place today. As I have spoken to these issues on earlier occasions—particularly on Second Reading— I rise in my friend's stead to support the amendments, in the wake of the strongly argued and eloquent case put by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
1494
Restrictions on the holding of licences by religious bodies began with the introduction of commercial radio in the 1970s. The present restrictions date mainly from the Broadcasting Act 1990—and were to some extent understandable in the context of the limited availability of licences. In this digital age, such restrictions do not fit—certainly not into what the Bill is heralding, with its offering of plentiful choice, expressed as diversity and plurality. I welcome the degree of derestriction that is available in the Bill, to allow ownership of a wide range of licence-holding by religious bodies.
The remaining licences subject to a ban are the analogue public service TV licences, national radio licences and—somewhat perversely, given the access offered to other kinds of digital licences—digital multiplex licences. The derestriction provided by the Bill puts independent religious broadcasters a bit nearer where they want to be—competing openly for broadcasting opportunities.
The Government have emphasised several times that the remaining restrictions are justified on the ground of spectrum scarcity but that argument does not find favour with the Christian and other faith communities, who want the ban on religious ownership completely removed. Amendment No. 287 removes religious bodies and their officers from the list of those disqualified from holding licences and Amendment No. 288 consequentially removes the list of licences that religious bodies and their officers are allowed to hold.
It is not just the remaining restrictions that cause concern. The possible unintended consequences of the regime of restrictions on religious ownership are damaging to potential applicants and existing licence holders—not least because investors are discouraged from supporting financially what may appear to them to be an industry with a very uncertain future. The strictures placed on those entering religious broadcasting and those already within it who wish to keep abreast of technological opportunities are severe. If religious bodies are to take advantage of new opportunities beyond the scope of existing licence categories when they are offered, that requires the specific exercise of the Secretary of State's discretion or even primary legislation. Until the Bill becomes law, there will continue to be no religious bodies among the 40 or 50 broadcasters on the various local or national digital multiplexes—the first of which were on air two and a half years ago.
When the Bill is enacted, all the licences with the strongest commercial and technical appeal will already have been allocated. Stigma is felt by various religious broadcasting organisations and individuals because they are considered unacceptable and are banned.
In this morning's debate on Amendments Nos. 280 to 283, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, suggested that other conditions could be set in a way that would allow religious bodies to be freed from the shackles of disqualification. It may well be that in considering whether or not applicants are fit and proper the regulator would be able to take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, into account.

1495
Another, perhaps even simpler, way forward is this. At present—I am speaking now to Amendment No. 289—the Secretary of State is given discretion to modify the list of licences that religious bodies are permitted to apply for. If instead the Secretary of State's discretion were a negative one, to exclude licences from those for which religious bodies could apply, that would alleviate at least one, if not more, of the severe consequences that I have described.
I return to the vexed issue of spectrum scarcity. Although the amendments would remove the remaining restrictions on religious bodies, that would not—to follow the Government's argument—make more spectrum available. So if the restrictions are not to be lifted, or if their effects are not to be alleviated, it would be helpful to know from the Government that more categories of licence would become available to religious owners as more spectrum was made available.
I would be the first to acknowledge that the Government have already done that in offering digital national sound programme licences in the Bill. In fact, I understand from a report in The RADIO Magazine of 19 April this year that the Radiocommunications Agency has already drawn up extensive proposals outlining new ways to measure FM reception, which to date has been based on legislation passed in 1904 and tests made in 1947. It may be possible to free additional spectrum in the FM hand, the magazine says,
"if a more relaxed approach is taken to planning standards."
I also understand that one of Ofcom's first targets will he clamp down on the overspill of both BBC and ILR local radio transmitters, and that there will be scrutiny of the BBC's national FM allocations. Such changes would enable more spectrum to be made available for all broadcasters, including religious ones. In France, Reims, for example, has 28 radio services. A similar sized city in the United Kingdom—for example, Gloucester—has about 15. Such a system of revised FM standards is already in use in many European and North American countries, allowing for better use of analogue FM spectrum. Taken together, the revised FM standards and, for example, more use of local AM plus new DAB licences should remove for ever the argument of spectrum shortage. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for emphasising these issues in relation to spectrum shortage.
If the Government wished to stop religious broadcasters from operating Channel 3, Channel 5 and the three analogue INR licences, it would be possible to do so specifically in legislation. They could then allow Ofcom to regulate religious broadcasters for all the other licences on the same basis as all other broadcasters in this digital age.
A further benefit would be that instead of religious broadcasters seeking licences abroad for broadcasting into the United Kingdom, and therefore evading Ofcom's regulation, they would be brought under Ofcom. That surely would be desirable.
Even if these arguments do not prevail now, these restrictions cannot be retained for much longer. In saying that, I want to make it clear, because several
1496
Members of the Committee have asked me about this, that I am not aware of any denomination that wishes to hold such a licence. However, there is a sizeable and growing independent Christian broadcasting industry, to which I have already referred, which is willing and waiting to play its full part.
I welcome the proposed lifting of some restrictions, and I am grateful to the Government for that. But I remain disappointed that other restrictions will still be in place. I hear the reasons that have been given in previous debates. Nevertheless, I look forward to the day when all these restrictions are removed, and pray that it will be soon. For religious broadcasting has a full part to play in our nation's life, both within the public service remit and within the range of new opportunities which the Bill now begins to make possible.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I too support the amendment, which was so succinctly and technically competently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The very clear way in which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester put his point makes the case even more unanswerable.
Clearly, too, the Government are to be warmly congratulated on moving some way to remove the existing statutory disqualifications. There is a question as to the reason for their ever being there in the first place. The removal already proposed—I join other speakers in emphasising that what we say on this matter applies to all faiths, and not only the Christian faith—will be a tremendous benefit, even if the benefit of the changes already agreed will be quite a little while delayed. The right reverend Prelate explained that, and I will not go into it.
However, the concession makes it even more mysterious that the Government have not gone the whole hog and removed all such restrictions on those with a religious background. I look to the noble Baroness the Minister for a full explanation. What possible justification can there be in today's world for not treating applications for any licence, whether analogue or digital, in exactly the same way, by asking "Do the applicants fulfil the financial and other requirements for that particular licence?" and "Are they, in the objective view of those granting the licence, the best candidate?"
That central point remains unanswered and requires an unequivocally clear, and above all convincing, answer from the noble Baroness, if the Government will not accept the amendment. The explanations so far about current spectrum scarcity simply do not stand up. There can surely be no logical reason why this one group should be excluded from consideration and citizens be deprived of their programmes.
Not only did the pre-legislative scrutiny committee raise the issue, but there are serious questions, which have already been mentioned, as to whether current human rights legislation is infringed by continuing such a discriminatory policy.
Lastly, the Government argue on the subject of foreign ownership that the UK's unique regulatory system will prevent the kind of abuse and monopolistic

1497
misbehaviour that concerns many Members of the Committee. One understands that concern. If the Government are right about that, surely the same argument should apply to the protection from any real or imagined abuse by those with a religious background holding licences.
In an age when radio and TV licences are granted to those providing so-called adult entertainment, and when an increasing quantity of violence, sex and bad language is tolerated in mainstream programmes, it becomes increasingly ludicrous that the risk of some kind of religious contamination—not vice, but religion—remains the one area which has to be subjected to this absolute taboo.
As I have said, the Committee will require an unequivocal and convincing reply, or—much better—a straightforward acceptance of the amendments in the face of the arguments, which are literally unanswerable.
4 p.m.
Lord Brennan: The Bill seeks, among its objectives, to make provision for the regulation of television and radio broadcasting. Such a statutory objective is of democratic import; therefore, if we find in its terms a provision that a significant proportion of society shall not be allowed even to apply for a radio/TV licence, nationally as well as locally, our democratic antennae should very carefully be switched on to find out why.
The history of the legislation, which I have looked at in detail, gives no clear, democratic indication as to why, in 1990, 1996 or now, the restriction is required. When the Government were taken to the European Court of Human Rights in 2000, their lawyers, presumably on the Government's instructions, accepted that the present restriction was a breach of Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights—a restriction on the freedom of religious expression. Their case had to rely upon the second paragraph of Article 10, which allows such a restriction to be applied if, and only if, it is a response to a pressing social need so as to be necessary in a democratic society. A pressing social need necessary for democracy—that is serious stuff.
The only explanation that I can gauge from the Government's arguments in 2000 to justify that exception relied on the practical question of whether there was sufficient frequency availability. Then, their argument was accepted by the Commission, and the case did not go further, while now it might. The critical question is: if the Government have determined that frequency is the justification for restricting the democratic right, and if otherwise that democratic right should be given force, explanations about frequency availability must be forthcoming and convincing. From my present investigation, I fear that that is unlikely to happen.
I shall explain why. On VHF frequency, which we use for local and national stations, as I understand it, Ofcom is about to look at resetting UK standards currently based on tests made in 1947. That may
1498
explain the reference by the right reverend Prelate to the fact that in Reims there are 25 more stations than the three available in Gloucester. So one expects that the argument that there cannot be any more frequency for VHF falls immediately.
Since the Government went to court in Strasbourg in 2000, provision has been made for 50 local digital audio multiplexes. According to my calculations, within each multiplex, there are 10 subdivisions and 500 frequencies opportunities. On medium wave, in certain parts of the country, regional frequencies can be made available subject to certain power factors without interfering with the general availability of main stations on medium wave. On long wave unused capacity has now been cleared in Scotland and will be used by stations there. Finally, we can expect digital radio mondial in the near future, with yet new standards. The result may be a doubling or tripling of availability—it matters not.
The result of what I have briefly summarised is that the argument that there is no available frequency is simply unacceptable. It begins to concern me democratically. The Human Rights Committee of the House has asked the Government for a reasoned explanation, so the Government must give an answer. I have not seen one; the Explanatory Notes are silent on the question. Is not an answer sufficiently given by just a detailed résumé of current thinking about frequency availability? The first step in the argument is the democratic right; the second is why the Government are justified in restricting it.
Members of the Committee may note that in subsections (5),(6) and (7) of Clause 340 the Secretary of State has the right reserved to him or her to revoke a disqualification by laying before the House appropriate delegated legislation. It must follow, therefore, that the Government must anticipate circumstances in which the democratic right will become exercisable. We can look to two answers. If it is frequency, justify it—not just now, but in the long term, as the Bill may stand for years to come. If it is not frequency in a convincing way, the amendment must be carried.
These proposals do not come before the Committee on behalf of religiously inclined citizens of this country, but from me as a democrat. I do not understand why those who would wish to tune into religious broadcasting in this country should find themselves in the same legislative slot as politicians or advertising agencies. The citizens of the nation would think it ludicrous. I do, too, subject to what the Minister may say, but I can assure him that this important democratic issue will not go away.
Lord Avebury: I hesitate to cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, who obviously knows a great deal more about human rights than most Members of the Committee. However, without knowing the details of the case that he mentioned, surely it does not lead to the exclusion of the religious views in question from the broadcasting arena. The provisions simply exclude certain classes of persons from the ownership of broadcasts. That does not mean

1499
that you cannot listen to religious broadcasts of all kinds on public service broadcasting channels. Freedom of expression is preserved, therefore, as those who want to air their views have every opportunity to do so—except for humanists, who are systematically excluded from religious broadcasting on the BBC. Every other system of belief has the opportunity of appearing on "Thought for the Day" and the many other excellent religious programmes that the BBC puts on.
But the supporters of this amendment ask for something more: the right to own stations. If the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, represents those views accurately, they are saying that it is a democratic right. It is not my right to own a newspaper. I would like to own The Times, but I do not have the money to do that. Rationing will be by cash. If the right were extended to certain people to bid for religious broadcasting channels, it would not necessarily involve the kind of religion that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, or I would approve of. It is rationing by the purse.
Lord Brennan: I thought that the noble Lord was asking a question, but he appeared to proceed into a speech. I am sure that it was a question, and I would like to take the opportunity to respond.
Lord Avebury: I apologise; I thought that the noble Lord had finished his speech.
Lord Brennan: We are not engaged in democratic patronage. We are engaged in the involvement of peoples' rights. The matter is not a question of ownership. The ownership of a radio station will be determined by Ofcom on the principles set out in their approach to the provision of radio station licences. The question to which I referred was the refusal to allow part of our society to apply to become owners. The factors that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has raised may well play their part in an Ofcom decision, but I do not find -Thought for the Day", "Sunday Morning" and one local broadcasting station in London to provide the same democratic benefit as the 650 that are available throughout Europe.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is not giving the full picture when he mentioned a couple a programmes that are on the BBC. The level and quality of religious broadcasting is infinitely greater than the few that have been mentioned. They include the "Moral Maze", "Beyond Belief", "Good Morning Sunday" and many other programmes that could be cited. I want to ask the noble Lord and the Committee whether they have considered the implications of opening up that field to people who want to broadcast their particular brand of religion in this country? Do noble Lords really think that the matter is confined to a few Christians, or do they think that, once the opportunity was there, the floodgates would open and one would have every religious denomination under the sun, provided that they could rake the money together, and apply to Ofcom for a licence?
1500
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is shaking his head. He does not believe that that would happen. I am sure that there is a strong likelihood of that happening. Why should Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and the many different varieties of those religions—because there is not just one denomination—not want their own point of view on the air? The noble Lord is asking us to open up Pandora's Box. That is not a job that I would be happy to undertake if I was in the seat at Ofcom. If there was a competing series of demands for religious broadcasting from all of the various denominations in this country, I do not see how a fair and equal choice could be made between them. How would Ofcom take into account the human rights implications—to follow the noble Lord's train of thinking—of choosing one religion rather than another as having the right to broadcast to the people of the United Kingdom?
Lord Crickhowell: I thought that the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, were astonishing coming from the Liberal Democrat benches. There must be many Liberals of the old tradition who must be turning in their graves to hear such strikingly illiberal views. I was not planning to comment on his speech until he made those closing remarks.
I wanted to comment on the remarkable and extraordinarily well researched speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. He repeatedly asked for an explanation of the extraordinary attitude of the Government. It so happens that we have had the explanation spelt out in short, sharp terms by the Secretary of State, the right honourable Tessa Jowell, when she was questioned on the subject before the Joint Committee. I shall quote the explanation and then I shall ask the Committee to judge whether that was adequate in the light of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. She said:
"The issue is essentially one of spectrum scarcity, and while we are operating in an environment of spectrum scarcity, we believe that the level of prohibition in relation to national radio licences and terrestrial television licences is right, simply because in practice spectrum scarcity means that we would not be able to provide the opportunity for every religion that might want to have its own channel to be able to have that spectrum space".
That was the explanation. I suggest that in the light of the comprehensive analysis by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, about spectrum availability and about the general principles involved, it is an extraordinarily inadequate explanation by the Government. For that reason I am happy on this occasion to support the amendment of my noble friend on the Front Bench.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Brennan: Was the noble Lord here the other day when we were arguing about whether there was space for two local television stations? We were told that we could not have that because there was not enough spectrum. If there are not enough for two local television stations, how can there be enough for the multitude of religions which now wish to broadcast?
Lord Crickhowell: I simply repeat the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. One cannot have a general exclusion of the kind that is applied to religious

1501
broadcasting units, and does not apply to others, without an extraordinary breach of principle. It is extraordinary as we move into a multi-spectrum age that again and again the only real explanation offered by the Government is one of spectrum scarcity. It is time to move on. That is what we felt in the Joint Committee. We felt that it was an inadequate response. Having heard what I thought was a deeply impressive speech from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, I am now wholly of that view.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I did not intervene at Second Reading and I have spared your Lordships any previous intervention in the course of your Lordships' debates on the Bill. Noble Lords may find that to be a matter of relief rather than blame. The matter is not a subject on which I pretend to have any expertise, nor even any familiarity with the vocabulary that is used.
I begin with a declaration of interest. I am a practising Christian, but I became involved in the issue when it was pointed out to me that the Bill contains what appears to be a startling denial of human rights. The Bill deprives someone of a licence, not because he lacks merit, but because he does not have the opportunity to have the merits even considered. The merits are not even relevant. I appreciate that the Bill represents a commendable improvement on the position under the 1990 Act. However, it is not clear, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, why the Government felt it necessary to stop half way. They seem to be saying "we will rectify half of the injustice, but the other half we will leave unjust". I can never quite understand why governments of all complexions, when they occasionally appear on the side of the angels, always give the impression that they wish that they were somewhere else.
As I understand the matter, some propositions are common ground. Of course there should be a structure for regulating broadcasting. There is such a structure. As many noble Lords have said, there is ample machinery to ensure that a licence is granted only to a fit and proper person. If a licensee ceases to be a fit and proper person the licence may be revoked. In addition there are the specific requirements under Sections 6 and 90 of the 1990 Act to ensure that the licensee observes the proper standards. There is also regulation under the published programme code. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, the effect of the provision that the amendment would seek to rectify is that we would drive potential programme owners abroad to broadcast into the United Kingdom and they would not be part of the structure at all.
If the applicant does not comply with the requirements, the licence should be refused. That is common ground. If the holder of a licence ceases to comply with the requirements, the licence should be revoked. That is common ground. That cannot justify taking a whole category of applicants and saying that their applications should not even be considered. The question whether they comply with the requirements does not even arise.
1502
I am already on ground on which I am not competent to speak, but it appears that the real thing is to do with the limited spectrum. We just heard that from the noble Lord who has a place on the Human Rights Committee. I do not claim the expertise to comment on that, and, in any event, I would not attempt to improve on the demolition job that my noble friend Lord Brennan has just carried out. However, even if it is true that there is very limited spectrum accommodation, the answer is to examine the various applications according to whatever criteria are deemed appropriate and allocate the available space to applicants who most nearly comply with the criteria. We cannot justify picking on one category—apparently arbitrarily—and excluding it from the race before it even begins.
Usually, the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, and I are on the same side, but obviously there will be moments when we disagree. A few moments ago he said that there were likely to be applicants for religious programmes from different traditions and that granting the facility to one would, in some way, give it an unfair advantage over the others. I follow the logic, and it might be persuasive, if it applied to the real world. However, history suggests that neither within the Christian faith nor between it and other faiths is there any such conflict. To my knowledge, there have been no such problems in the past. If there is only one channel available, it would be relatively easy to construct a consortium that would allocate time among the various members. The noble Lord must agree that, judged purely as a question of human rights, it would be grossly unjust to say to one group of applicants that they will not be entitled even to have their applications considered.
The question provoked an intervention from the United Nations Association, not a notoriously hymn-singing body. It is true that it was dealt with by the UNA's religious advisory committee. It was moved to write to the Secretary of State citing a list of the international human rights that were in danger of being infringed. It dealt with the European convention. It talked about Article 2—no distinction; about Article 18—freedom of thought; Article 19—freedom of opinion and expression; and Article 27—the right to participate in the cultural life of the community. It went on to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It referred to the right to hold opinions and the right to freedom of expression and the need for respect for the rights and reputations of others. That was all set out in some detail. Then it turned its attention to the United Nations convention on discrimination. I shall not go through all of it, but it was a long, complicated and well constructed letter.
In reply, the UNA committee received a letter of three paragraphs. The first thanked it for its letter. The last said that a list of present provisions was attached showing which could be applied for and which could not. The paragraph in between set out, in eight and a half lines, what is said to be the present policy of the Government, which it knew already. Not surprisingly, it was so incensed that the chairman wrote to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human

1503
Rights, inviting him to place it on the agenda of the Human Rights Commission. I do not know what emerged from that. For a Government who have earned a high international reputation for leadership in international human rights, that is a saddening story.
Lord Avebury: As the noble Lord knows, the Human Rights Commission has, among its instruments, a rapporteur on religious freedom, Mr Abdelfattah Amor. Is the noble Lord aware of any representations by Mr Abdelfattah Amor to the British Government on the subject? If so, does he not think that, with all the furore that the United Nations Association and others have raised, Mr Abdelfattah Amor would have noticed and would have done something about it, if he thought that the representations were valid?
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Sometimes, those who are on the side of the angels miss a trick. Even if someone has written to Mr Abdelfattah Amor—I agree that it would he a good idea, and I am glad that the noble Lord has suggested it—we do not know at the moment what his response will be. No doubt, we can all wait, and, in due course, we will see.
There is another aspect that raises another issue of justice and human rights. The exclusion is to apply not only to a body whose objects are of a religious nature but to an individual who is an officer of such a body. So far as I am aware, nowhere is the term "officer" defined. Is a layperson with a career independent of the Church or of his or her religious beliefs excluded because he or she is a Sunday school teacher on a Sunday afternoon? If the Broadcasting Act 1990 means what it says, that Sunday school teacher is disqualified from applying for a licence to broadcast on Wednesday evenings in order to talk about football. Such people are blanked out from all broadcasting for all purposes. What about the choirmaster or the caretaker? Who is in the net of people who will be silenced? It would be helpful if my noble friend could offer us some guidance as to the construction that has been placed on the term "officer".
There are further questions relating not only to freedom of speech or discrimination. There are people who have invested years of their life in this area of broadcasting. Are they to be deprived of the opportunity to deploy those talents? Are their potential listeners to be deprived of the opportunity of listening to them? It is almost as though the Government have said, "How many different human rights can we infringe with one provision?"
I know that my noble friend is capable of recognising the anomalies to which the provision gives rise. She and I have fought many human rights battles together, shoulder-to-shoulder. Now is the time to listen and to earn the credit for listening. She may even find it an enjoyable experience.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made some jocularly slighting remarks about the extent of the liberalism of my noble
1504
friend Lord Avebury on the matter. There is no more liberal Liberal than my noble friend, although, on this issue, I think that he is— I nearly used an Anglo-Saxon expression—head over heels. It is not humanists or atheists who are being excluded from applying for ownership of the media channels; they can do it endlessly, and they do. I dare say that Mr Desmond, the porn king extraordinaire, may represent one of the non-religious groups for which my noble friend Lord Avebury has particular concern. It has not got in the way of his getting his way with the regulators.
Baroness Whitaker: Does the noble Lord accept that to link Mr Desmond the porn king with the humanists and atheists of the western world is to make one of the more invidious comparisons that we have heard?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I do not know whether he is or is not. He could be a good practising Christian for all I know. The only point that I make is that my noble friend Lord Avebury got it precisely back-to-front. Anybody who is not of a religion can own one of the media outlets. It is only religious folk who cannot be owners. That must be discriminatory.
It is also like something from Alice in Wonderland that, as the House of Lords, we start with Prayers every day. What is the logic of us then writing into a Bill that the ethics by which we conduct our affairs are somehow inimical to the public interest? Why should the right reverend Prelate be prejudiced in ownership of a television channel? If there was a public interest that gave any credence to this provision, then many of us would be sympathetic to it. Is religion, as practised in modern-day Britain, whether Muslim, Christian or anything else, dangerous to the public peace or subversive of morality? Are we at risk of being drowned in the clash and clamour of religious fervour? The right reverend Prelate might wish that it were so. It is religious apathy that we are in danger of drowning in.
I suggest that we use common sense in considering this amendment. The Government should take the same constructive view that they did of the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote and myself earlier in the debate. We sought a higher profile for religions, spirituality and faith, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, in Section 260 of the Bill which is the public service remit.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord again. It was not faith that I referred to, it was belief—a term of art which refers to non-faith.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am corrected. I meant to represent the noble Baroness correctly. Our amendment refers to religion and spirituality. The noble Baroness referred to the possible addition of belief as the third limb. We are wholly sympathetic to that. I hope that the Government will be as sympathetic to this amendment as they were to that.
Lord Elton: Having been for three years the Minister responsible for the radio regulatory service at the Home Office, I am intrigued by the arguments about frequency and spectrum scarcity. I found the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, extremely persuasive. It surprised me when my noble friend Lord Crickhowell made it clear that the government case hitherto has rested entirely on the argument of spectrum scarcity. I rise to ask the Minister to explain the extraordinary juxtaposition in those circumstances of subsection (1)(b) which provides freedom of application to advertising agencies. According to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, they do not want it. We are now considering paragraphs which exclude the small number of religious bodies who do want it. This seems to me totally crazy.
Lord McNally: It falls to me to indicate to the House how these Benches would vote if these amendments were put to the test. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said that old Liberals would be spinning in their graves at some of the things they heard. If Lloyd George and Asquith are looking down from that great National Liberal Club in the sky and heard my noble friends, Lord Avebury and Lord Phillips of Sudbury, they would probably think that nothing much has changed in the old party. I should indicate that we would support the amendments if they were pressed to a vote on Report. Lord Crickhowell pointed to the discussions we had in the Joint Committee. I draw the attention of the Committee to a second part of our recommendation where:
"We recommend that the Government consider the case for permitting Ofcom, in consultation with religious organisations, to impose licence conditions on religious owners of a kind not applying to other licences, as an additional assurance against breach of licence conditions."
What has not been mentioned yet but which is one of the reasons for concern, is that so much of our broadcasting is influenced by the United States. That country has experienced so much disreputable and corrupt religious broadcasting that this should be a matter for concern. If noble Lords are convinced that Ofcom has all the powers to protect us from that kind of broadcasting, perhaps it is safe to let this go through. However, there is that underlying concern. Religious broadcasting has not always been as benign as has been suggested from some speeches of support. We do not want to creep into Britain the kind of Elmer Gantry broadcasting that has caused such disrepute in the United States. I hope that religious broadcasting—I was just about to say something nice about the right reverend Prelate.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I am in eager anticipation. I share with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, concerns about certain types of broadcasting, not least Christian broadcasting. The truth is that it is possible to do that outside this country and for it to be beamed in now. If we were able to bring this within the constraints
1506
imposed by the Bill, it would control broadcasting in a way which will not happen if there is free rein for people to broadcast from abroad.
Lord McNally: I take that point although there are protections, as was seen in pirate radio, to make it non-profitable. I do not wish to see religion and religious broadcasting placed in a ghetto. I was going to return the compliment when the right reverend Prelate supported me earlier in the Committee on political broadcasting. I hope that our public service broadcasters see it as part of their public service remit to continue to reflect what is still a country that considers itself overwhelmingly Christian. That belongs in public service broadcasting, as well as the reflection of other faiths and beliefs.
I also take the point that was graphically pointed out that the publisher of Asian Babes can apply for a licence but the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot. It is that kind of absurdity that jars against the defenders of individual rights. But I return to an underlying concern: the qualitative nature of some religious broadcasting. I draw the attention of the Committee to that other recommendation that Ofcom might be empowered to ask for clearer and further assurances of religious broadcasters, if this amendment were carried.
Baroness Blackstone: Let me begin by saying that after this debate, which has gone on for just over an hour, I may not manage to answer all the questions that were raised. I shall write to noble Lords where I fail to do so. The first and most important point I wish to make is that the Government support and encourage religious broadcasting. From some contributions this afternoon, one would not get the impression that that is the case. Anyone who suggests that is being grotesquely unfair.
We recognise that religious programming is an important part of public service broadcasting. Noble Lords will recall that in amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, I undertook to look at how that can better be reflected in the definition of a remit of public service broadcasting. Where possible, we have removed unnecessary restrictions on religious bodies holding licences. That has not been reflected in what has been said in the debate this afternoon.
Once the Bill comes into effect religious bodies will be able to hold a wide range of licences, including local analogue radio licences, national and local digital radio licences, digital terrestrial television programme licences, radio and television restricted service licences, and licences for radio and television cable and satellite services. The changes proposed in the Bill have been widely welcomed outside the Chamber. Again, that fact was not reflected in this afternoon's debate.
The only remaining significant restrictions on religious bodies holding licences relate to Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences, national analogue radio licences and multiplex licences. I should clear up one issue here that has arisen during the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly said—I support

1507
him strongly in this respect—there is nothing in this legislation to prevent religious broadcasters from broadcasting on multiplexes and, hence, using multiplex technology. The only constraint is on holding a multiplex licence; that is to say, a licence to operate a multiplex. However, if the noble Baroness requires even more detail on some of the issues that she raised and as regards the long list that she gave, I shall, as I said, write to her accordingly.
We want as few restrictions as possible. Our policy is to allow religious bodies to hold broadcasting licences wherever that is consistent with satisfying as many viewers and listeners as possible, and giving equal respect to everyone's beliefs; in other words, we want to avoid a situation where, through scarcity of spectrum, some religions achieve access to the airwaves but others do not.
Where there is no spectrum scarcity —such as with cable and satellite there are no restrictions. It follows from this that restrictions could be removed in the event that significant new spectrum became available. There has already been a concrete example of this, where the introduction of additional digital radio capacity on Freeview led us to remove the restriction on national digital sound programme service licences.
I should also make it clear that in the event of any new types of licences being introduced, we would carefully consider whether religious organisations should be able to hold them. There will not be a presumption that they cannot do so. The decision will turn, as now, on questions of spectrum scarcity.
I believe my noble friend Lord Brennan slightly implied that there is no issue as regards spectrum scarcity. I should point out to him that there is. Moreover, my noble friend listed a comprehensive range of frequencies and associated licences in an effort to demonstrate that our argument of spectrum scarcity did not apply. I shall study most carefully the list outlined by my noble friend when it is printed in the Official Report, but I believe that every type of licence that he mentioned is already open to religious ownership precisely because there is no spectrum scarcity in those cases.
Let us take the case for the continuing restriction on national analogue radio licences. At present, there are only three national analogue licences, which are currently held by talk SPORT, Classic FM and Virgin 1215. Given the limited spectrum availability in this area, we have taken the view that it would be inappropriate for one of those licences to go to a religious organisation. We take that view because we do not believe that a religious radio service would have sufficient appeal to justify it having one of only three national licences. To the latter we add our concern that it would he invidious for just one religion to have a national station, while the others would not. This could be perceived as extremely divisive and most unfair.
Some people have responded by suggesting that we lift the ban for multi-faith broadcasters. That could be said to address the second problem of not wishing to disadvantage specific religions. However, it does not
1508
address the first problem. Even a multi-faith channel is unlikely to have the level of support in terms of listenership that would justify it having one of only three national licences. I know that existing religious services have loyal listeners and viewers, but the viewing and listening figures support the view that the level of national support would not justify one of only three national licences being held by a religious body.
I hope that I have persuaded the Committee—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I thank my noble friend for giving way. I wish to question two points that she has just made. First, my noble friend said that there would not be a sufficient listenership to justify the award of a licence to a religious broadcaster. But is that not a matter that should be assessed on the strength of the evidence, if and when an application is made? My noble friend also made a separate point; namely, that there would be competition among Christians and between Christians and people of other faiths. Has she any evidence to suggest that that would be the case?
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Given that we are talking about only three national licences, all I can say in response to my noble and learned friend's first question is that I believe all the evidence available would support what the Government are saying; namely, that viewing and listening figures would not justify inviting a large number of religious organisations to make applications that would be bound to fail. We believe that it is more honest to make it clear at this stage that there would not be spectrum availability, rather than invite religious organisations to carry out a lot of work in preparing applications that would be bound to fail at the first hurdle. I wish to continue with my response, so I shall write to my noble and learned friend on his second question.
I hope that I have persuaded Members of the Committee that the restrictions are made necessary by reason of spectrum scarcity.
Officers in religious bodies are "disqualified persons" under this clause for the purposes of holding certain broadcasting licences. I know that some people are unhappy about this, as outlined in this afternoon's debate. They believe that that unfairly stigmatises people with religious beliefs. I can assure noble Lords that this is not the intention. Given that restrictions remain on religious bodies holding licences, it is important that the remaining restrictions are effective. In order to be effective, it is important that the restrictions not only apply to religious bodies, but also extend to office holders in such bodies. If that were not the case, it would be a simple matter for a religious body to put the licence in the hands of one of its officers and thus defeat the purpose of the restriction. The position is not unique to religious bodies; similar arrangements apply in respect of political bodies, whose office holders are also prevented from holding broadcasting licences. In short, restrictions on office holders are simply a necessary anti-avoidance device.

1509
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer asked me about the definition of "office holder" in this context. There is no definition of the word "officer" in the legislation. It would be impossible to list exhaustively all the possibilities, because all organisations have different structures. Therefore, the word has its ordinary meaning. It is a question of fact whether or not a person is an officer. Ofcom will have to consider all the relevant circumstances and make a decision. In particular, Ofcom will take into account whether the person has a formal position and what his role or function in the organisation might be. It seems to me that it is a matter of using common sense.
It is also important to recognise the nature and extent of the restriction. Religious office holders are prevented from holding broadcasting licences only to the same extent as religious bodies. They can hold all other licences in their own name. That fact does not seem to have been fully understood by speakers in this debate. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that this is a necessary evil rather than any deliberate intention to stigmatise religious office holders. Of course that is not the case.
The restrictions on local and national digital radio will be lifted as soon as the broadcasting parts of the Bill come into force—which should be by the end of the year. As soon as that happens, there will be plenty of new opportunities: local digital radio multiplexes are still being licensed, so religious broadcasters can seek to obtain some of these new slots. In the case of existing radio multiplexes, there should still be chances for religious bodies to get slots on these multiplexes that are currently unfilled, or become vacant in the future. There are also opportunities to take up radio slots on Freeview.
I understand from Ofcom that it will use its best endeavours to process any applications as soon as possible after the restrictions on religious bodies are lifted by the Bill. It is also proposing to review the existing guidance on religious ownership before the ownership provisions come into effect.
Let me turn to the human rights aspect, which a number of speakers mentioned. I repeat once again that we place restrictions on religious bodies holding licences only where there is spectrum scarcity. We have sought legal advice and are confident that the continuing restrictions are fully compatible with our obligations under the ECHR. Moreover, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has concluded that it considers the position in the Bill is likely to be compatible with ECHR.
While we remain convinced that for the present there is a case for some restrictions, we also believe that the Bill offers enormous possibilities for religious broadcasters. In the light of what I have said, I very much hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her extremely full response, but, with great respect, I feel that she has entirely missed the point. We are addressing in these amendments a point of principle.
1510
Mr. Kerridge of Premier Christian Radio said recently:
"The changes in the Bill are a bit like being invited to a wedding that took place last year. Faith groups are being asked to help the authorities in other areas of society for the social good, but are excluded when it comes to communication".
I hear what the Minister said about certain areas in which it is possible for religious broadcasters to be on air. That said, we are talking about discrimination against one particular class, one particular sector, of society, and that cannot be right.
I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment, most particularly those who added their names to my amendment. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford is sadly not in his place, but the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester spoke so eloquently in his place. I particularly appreciate the support of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for the amendment. I also want to thank my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Elton. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, almost apologised for not being here to intervene at Second Reading. He has missed quite a lot thus far. We have had an extraordinary number of interesting and sometimes, if not always, amusing debates. I encourage him to stay with us for the remainder of the Bill's scrutiny. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whose support for the amendment I greatly appreciate. He said that he would vote for it if we were to put it to a vote, which we will not do this evening. However, following the Minister's reply, I have every intention of putting it to a vote on Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, made a particularly eloquent speech. As he said, history gives no clear democratic indication as to why this restriction is required. We need an answer or an acceptance from the Minister that this disqualification should he lifted, and we have not received that this evening. This is a question of choice. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said—there are opportunities for those who represent different religious bodies to speak on radio. "Thought for the Day" was one example. I am sure if I rang up and asked to speak I would not get a slot—my name is not Anne Atkins. I have always wondered who Anne Atkins is.
It is interesting that the Government are working so hard to reassure us that strong content rules, coupled with a strong competition law regime, are enough to ensure that we can retain quality broadcasting. Yet when it comes to religious broadcasting we are not in a safe position. I think that is what it is—I cannot believe it is anything to do with spectrum scarcity. I simply will not accept that vacuous argument.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, pointed out that religious broadcasting has not always been benign. I entirely agree. He used the example of some extraordinarily aggressive broadcasting on American television. I have often listened to it and it is extremely

1511
disturbing. I think that is the main reason why the Government are concerned. There may be a strong lobby stressing that concern, but the Government cannot rest upon that argument if, at the same time, they want us to be assured that we have strong content rules in place.
We on these Benches are not satisfied. Noble Lords have asked the Minister to give us clear reasons. As I have stressed, it is ultimately a question of principle.
It has been suggested to me that this proposal to discriminate against one particular sector, which happens to be religious broadcasters, by preventing them even from making an application—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, said, we should let the merits be decided by Ofcom—makes the Bill hybrid. I will have to research this to be sure, but the ruling on hybridity applies to a piece of legislation that treats one class of persons differently from others. This religious disqualification seems to do this and if the Bill is hybrid in this way, it is in real trouble. This is really worth investigating and I ask the Government to consider that between now and Report.
I am grateful to the Minister, who has offered to write to me about my rather technical questions on multiplexes in particular. But this is really a question of choice and democracy—it is a question of principle. I am so grateful to all noble Lords who have supported the amendment. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 288 and 289 not moved.]
Lord McNallymoved Amendment No. 290:
Page 296, line 32, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
"(6) No order is to be made under subsection (5) other than one that is confined to giving effect to recommendations made by OFCOM in a report of a review under section 384."
The noble Lord said: The amendment would provide an opportunity to discuss the recommendation of the Joint Committee that there should be no powers to amend primary legislation on media ownership by means of secondary legislation. Unfortunately, I was absent this morning when the Committee discussed media ownership. Briefly, the Joint Committee felt that the Government were rushing their fences in terms of taking this power to secondary legislation in the area of media ownership.
We have in the past two or three years put some powerful organisations into being with the Competition Act, the Enterprise Act and now with Ofcom, but we are not yet sure how in practice they will operate. There is a great deal of proper concern about how media ownership will shake out under the new regime. Parliament should rightly keep control of media ownership matters through primary legislation. As the pre-legislative committee said, in due course Parliament may well be happy at the way in which the new bodies and the new Acts are working, but media ownership is too important to entrust, at this stage, to secondary legislation, and we ask the Government to draw back from that.
5 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord McNally. There is no reason to debate this matter in too much detail, but for us this was very much a power too far. We have spent some time in Committee discussing the pros and cons of the Secretary of State having the ability through secondary legislation to vary licence conditions. This is a far more serious and important matter, and by raising it we are helping the Secretary of State to pause and think about the implications of this power.
The power would mean that, in the run-up to an election, the Secretary of State of the day—it may well not be the current Secretary of State—can be lobbied by media owners anticipating that they may well he able to receive improved levels of access or favours in a postelection period. That would not be true of the Secretary of State alone; it would be true also of Front-Bench spokespersons from other parties. Surely, the best possible protection would be if the Secretary of State would make such a recommendation only following the advice of Ofcom. That would protect her and any other person finding themselves in the position of being lobbied by media companies. That is a sensible way forward, and I urge the Government to resist the grab for power, as on this occasion it could well turn round and bite them.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for the way in which the mover and my noble friend have contributed to this short debate. The issues as we see them are these. In the Bill, there is a balance between the powers of Ofcom and the Secretary of State to ensure that neither body has too much power in relation to change in ownership rules.
The Bill distributes different roles in the change process to different bodies. Ofcom has the responsibility of carrying out the reviews under Clause 384 and recommending changes. The Bill puts the order-making powers in the hands of the Secretary of State, who must consult Ofcom before exercising her powers, except where Ofcom has itself recommended the changes that she is making. Then, of course, Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise any proposed changes before they become law and, if it so chooses, to reject them.
The intention of the order-making powers is that the Secretary of State should have the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. In that way, it future-proofs the Bill as far as possible. Consistent with that, we believe that the Secretary of State should be able to take the initiative if she feels that changes are warranted. Ofcom will have the opportunity to make recommendations, which is right and proper. However, we would not want to be in a position where the Secretary of State could not act because Ofcom had no plans to review part of the legislation that was ripe for change.
I am somewhat surprised that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke as he did to the amendments. It has caused me to think further about the position,

1513
which we thought was much more in line with the case put forward by my noble friend Lord Puttnam—namely, the question of balance and how often such an event would occur. We are seeking to have balancing factors between the two actors in the position and Parliament's right to decide on the matter in the final instance with an affirmative resolution.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, says about primary legislation, but he will know how difficult it is and how long-term primary legislation needs to be. We recognise that ownership rules are an important part of the Bill, but we also recognise that this legislation is meant to obtain for a considerable period of time. There are bound to be changes in what, after all, is probably the most rapidly changing area of economic and technological development. We believed that we should assure the Committee that there is a balance within the legislation that guarantees that the two primary actors—the Secretary of State and Ofcom—work in consort, and that Parliament has the final say in terms of an affirmative resolution.
I hear what both noble Lords said. I hope that I have responded as fully as I can in reassuring my noble friend Puttnam. As for the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I can say only that the particular thrust that he put on the amendment would really suggest that the legislation and the issues of ownership ought not to be subject to change at all except by a fresh Broadcasting Bill. We have seen the processes involved with regard to this Bill. I do not believe that we have it in mind to introduce another Bill in the next two or three years, but ownership issues could certainly occur in a more limited time than that in which we could hope to bring back a piece of legislation of this magnitude. It is on that basis that I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that we have a balance and proper safeguards in the Bill and that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally: I do not believe that I have heard anyone deliver assurances in such emollient tones since I used to listen to Dr Charles Hill as the radio doctor. How could one doubt the Minister when he gives us such assurances?
Whether this was the time to future-proof and give flexibility caused a question mark in the mind of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee. I shall consult my noble friends who co-sponsored the amendment and read the Minister's assurances. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 340 agreed to.
Clause 341 [Licence holding by local authorities]:
[Amendment No. 290A not moved.]
Clause 341 agreed to.
Clause 342 [Relaxation of licence-holding restrictions]:
[Amendments Nos. 290B and 290C not moved.]
Clause 342 agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Media ownership rules]:
[Amendments Nos. 290CA and 290CB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 290D and 291 not moved.]
Lord Puttnammoved Amendment No. 292:
Page 430, line 23, at end insert—
"PART 1A CHANNEL 5 LICENCES
Ban on newspaper proprietors holding a Channel 5 licence
6A (1) A person is not to hold a Channel 5 licence if—

(a) he runs a national newspaper which for the time being has a national market share of 20 per cent or more; or

(b) he runs national newspapers which for the time being together have a national market share of 20 per cent or more.

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, each of the following shall be treated as holding a Channel 5 licence—

(a) the actual licence holder; and

(b) every person connected with the actual licence holder.

(3) The provisions of paragraphs 2 to 4 of this Schedule shall apply for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule insofar as they relate to national newspapers as if a Channel 5 licence were a licence to provide a Channel 3 service."
The noble Lord said: The amendment gives the Committee an opportunity to debate Recommendation 89 from the Joint Select Committee that the prohibition of joint ownership of Channel 5 and of a major national newspaper group should be retained. When moving Amendment No. 280 this morning, I honestly believed—perhaps naively—that we were offering the Government an alternative way forward on these vexed ownership issues. As the Committee will remember, that offer was rebuffed, somewhat to my surprise, albeit that Members of the Committee will surely find it hard to follow the logic of the Government's argument when they study it in Hansard prior to regrouping their forces for Report stage.
The Government have chosen their ground for battle, which is fine by me. I signalled my intention to the Government at the end of our Committee sitting on 22nd May that I would seek evidence-based responses in justification of their policy proposals, especially in the area of ownership changes. Given the nature of the responses that we have received so far from the Government Front Bench, and for the sake of brevity, I have decided to hold my fire on my own evidence-based objections, as it strikes me that they will he better used, and that we should avoid repetition, if I made them on Report. That would give an opportunity to seek the opinion of the House.
So I shall instead restrict myself to this observation. Today in Committee we have listened to, or had access to, two dozen noble Lords all of whom have direct and specific experience of the broadcasting industry or its regulation. I had the enormous privilege of chairing the Joint Scrutiny Committee which over a 10-week period was able to review literally hundreds of pieces of evidence and talk to hundreds of concerned individuals, and we reported accordingly. However the Government know better. Or, as Mark Twain once said,
"Every dogma has its day".

1515
In conversation with some of the officials who prepared the Bill, they agreed that this particular clause was a "judgment call"—their words, not mine. I would ask whose judgment and based on what expertise that is unavailable to the rest of us. It is quite clear to me that the two dozen expert voices that we have heard just in this House disagree with the Government's position. Before sitting down, therefore, I shall offer the Government three more bits of evidence—or assertions, as they certainly seem to prefer assertions—for them to chew over between now and Report stage.
The first one is from FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. It is significant because, as the Committee will know, on Monday of this week the FCC voted, along party lines, by three votes to two, to add significantly to the deregulation of the American broadcasting industry. Mr Copps said:
"I see centralisation, not localism. I see uniformity, not diversity. I see monopoly and oligopoly, not competition. This is a huge and foolhardy gamble with the future. Every American's future. This issue is not Republican or Democratic, it is not liberal or conservative, it is not north or south, not young nor old".
He quoted Judge Learned Hand, who reminded us that the hand that rules the press, the radio, the screen and the fast-spread magazines rules the country. Mr Copps concluded:
"The largest company owned less than 75 radio stations before deregulation. Today, one company, Clear Channel, owns more than 1,200 stations, eight stations in many cities, and in some towns virtually all the stations available. In fact the number of radio station owners has decreased by an incredible 34 per cent since 1996".
As Mr Copps said, this is not an issue of right or left. So I offer the views of the respected conservative columnist, William Safire, in the New York Times of 22nd May. He said:
"The overwhelming amount of news and entertainment comes via broadcast and print. Putting these outlets in fewer and bigger hands profits the few at the cost of the many. Does that sound unconservative? Not to me. The concentration of power—political, corporate, media, cultural—should be anathema to all conservatives. The diffusion of power through local control is the greatest expression of democracy".
To those on my own Benches I would say that there is tremendous resonance in the notion of power being given to the many, not the few. That is something to which certainly I signed up in 1997.
The Committee will forgive me if, as a movie producer, I finish with a quote from the film "Network". Noble Lords may remember that Peter Finch played, and won the Oscar for, the role of a type of Walter Cronkite figure who had just had enough. I think that he was called Howard Beale. He said:
"You people and 62 million other Americans are listening to me right now because less than 3 per cent of you read books, because less than 15 per cent of you read newspapers, because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube. Right now there is a whole generation that never knew anything that did not come out of this tube. The tube is the gospel, the ultimate revelation. The tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers. This tube is the most awesome force in the whole godless world and woe to us if it ever falls into the hands of the wrong people".
1516
I hope that the Government will explain how this particular part of their policy makes it absolutely certain that this extraordinary power will never fall into the hands of the wrong people. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: What the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, just said has tremendous truth. I support what he said completely. I was talking to none other than Floella Benjamin along that line yesterday.
I support the amendment. The Government's decision to relax the existing restrictions on Channel 5 is based on the premise that in comparison with Channel 3, Channel 5 is a much smaller enterprise. That premise then leads to the conclusion, so we understand, that there is no need for there to be any restriction as to who can hold a Channel 5 licence. The Government therefore propose that anyone who runs a national newspaper, however large its market share, will be entitled to hold a Channel 5 licence.
The logic is unfortunately flawed. It ignores the future. It is possible that in a few years' time Channel 5 will be a more substantial concern than Channel 3. Indeed, without restriction on the holder of a Channel 3 licence, it is more likely than not that Channel 5 will develop considerably in the future. It is almost inevitable that a newspaper group will come to control Channel 5 and will exploit that opportunity in a way that would not be possible with Channel 3.
Channel 5 presents a wonderful opportunity to a newspaper proprietor. It would be sitting there waiting to be exploited. It will inevitably develop a far greater market share than Channel 3 if in the hands of a national newspaper proprietor with significant market share. The result will be that the mischief that the Government intend or wish to avoid as regards Channel 3 will be achieved as regards Channel 5. We must stop that. I support the amendment.
Lord Lipsey: I am very sympathetic to the objective which my noble friend Lord Puttnam seeks to obtain, but I am not necessarily wholly convinced that this is the best method.
Before dealing with that, however, I should like to say that there has been a lot of talk today about Murdoch buying Channel 5 and the consequences. We should not think that just because something is possible it is certain to happen. An awful lot of hoops would have to be gone through before that happened. First, he would have to want to buy it. I shall return to that point. Next, the existing owners would have to want to sell it—that is, be convinced that he could get more value out of it than they could. They would then have to agree a price. The change would have to be approved by the competition authority. He would then have to invest huge sums in it and that investment would have to pay off. Not all his investments pay off although many of them do. It could happen of course, but it will not necessarily happen. I do not think that we should always be totally diverted by a single possibility. There are other newspaper proprietors and other people. We should try to look at the wider picture.

1517
The second and perhaps more important point is that if Murdoch does want to establish a strong presence here, it is not true that his only route is to buy Channel 5. Another possibility—which becomes more of a possibility as we get more and more digital homes; and we will of course all be digital homes when we get to switch-off—would be to make one of the existing Sky channels a heavily promoted, free-to-air channel funded through advertising. If we block the route of buying Channel 5, it would make that route more attractive. It might be just as dangerous. There is no lasting miracle to being a terrestrial broadcaster. It is a distinction that with time will mean ever less.
I do not think that there is a perfect solution here, but there is a three-legged approach that might offer an alternative to the approach in the amendment. The three legs are as follows. The first—we debated it earlier—is a much stronger public interest test for the competition authorities to bear in mind. The second is protection against the very specific abuses that can occur in cross-media ownership. The great fear in respect of cross-media ownership is that one uses the Sun to advertise one's TV channel. If there were in the Bill a set of cleverly devised measures that would prevent that kind of abuse of cross-media ownership, that might be more effective than simply banning such ownership.
The third leg—and this is the great difference with the United States—is stronger appropriate content regulation. The Government have already moved some way in that direction for Channel 5. It would be possible, as the Secretary of State said recently, for that content regulation to become stiffer as the channel grows, so I would not want anything as crude a simple ceiling ratchet, but there could be a device of that kind.
The philosophy of the Bill, which I broadly share, is that control of ownership is not the best way to regulate content. I hope I have spoken in a constructive spirit in seeking almost exactly the same objectives as my noble friend Lord Puttnam. I hope that I have set out a more constructive approach towards achieving the result that we all want, without the crude kind of control that is implicit in the amendment.
Lord Razzall: I support the amendment from these Benches. I will not delay your Lordships by repeating the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and the Tory Front Bench, but I would like to add two or three points which have not been made so far.
It is important to indicate why there has always been concern about newspaper proprietors owning television stations in this country. That does not amount to an attack on Sky. I take the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that there is no indication as to whether Sky and Rupert Murdoch wish to acquire Channel 5. The underlying concern that one has about newspaper proprietors owning TV stations or broadcasting media is that, by and large—and it is more large than by—newspaper proprietors
1518
and people who buy newspapers tend to have something of a political agenda. We have only to look at our media and newspapers run by Members of your Lordships' House to realise that there is a significant political agenda behind newspapers. There is a significant political motive, quite often, among people who own newspapers. It was for that reason that, in the past, governments of both political persuasions have not been convinced that it is a good thing for newspaper owners also to own television stations.
My second point relates to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey—and this argument has raged significantly in the run-up to the Bill. As I understand it, the Government's position is that, these days, ownership does not really matter, because what really matters is regulation. I suspect that that is the argument that the Minister will make against the amendment. I have heard people extremely close to the Prime Minister ask why so many people bother about the idea that Mr Murdoch and Sky can control a television station, because, after all, that can always be dealt with by regulation and ownership does not matter. The concern that we on these Benches, as well as the movers of the amendment, have is that that is a pretty big risk to take, bearing in mind the known motivation of newspaper proprietors with regard to the ownership of their newspapers.
Finally, once governments cross the threshold of allowing newspaper proprietors to acquire Channel 5, the intellectual argument will be lost that ownership matters in relation to TV stations. If, as is perfectly possible, we end up in a world in which the BBC is on one side, Sky TV on the other, and a failing ITV as a result of a collapse in advertising revenues, what will be the argument against allowing Sky then to say, "We can buy ITV"? I know that there will be competition and regulatory issues, and great hoops that will have to be jumped through, but once the intellectual step is taken to accept that a newspaper proprietor can own Channel 5, what will stop the same argument being used for that newspaper proprietor also to own Channel 3?
Lord Bragg: I rise to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Puttnam and much of what other noble Lords have said. Like many other noble Lords, I seem to have been talking about this all day, every day, so I shall be as brief as I can.
There are two reasons why I fear this part of the Bill if it is not amended. The first reason involves the domino effect, which works in British television. We can give instance after instance of that. Basically, various channels are competing for a single, finite market, and one gains at the expense of the others. As has been pointed out, if Channel 5 has very few obligations and regulations compared with the other main terrestrial channels, and money and influence are pumped in by what could be called a cross- media owner, there is no doubt whatever that it could and would grow like a rocket. Judging by the stuff that has been shown, which is not expensively made—some of

1519
it is okay—Channel 5 could grow comparatively cheaply and bring in audiences. That would seriously disturb the current balance.
Does that matter? I believe that it does. Can that be stopped by putting in a ratchet? Would all the regulations come in if the service got 10 per cent? That is like trying to put the genie back in the bottle. I do not know how one does that or when 10 per cent would have been reached. People could say, "In August, we were at 8.2 per cent. We managed to get 11.5 per cent in November, but that was only because of what we showed. We should not forget the situation back in January". They could play around like that for years. I do not believe that the ratchet effect would work at all. It will take all of Ofcom's efforts just to put a ratchet effect on someone who was determined to make Channel 5 grow and had the power to keep it growing. I do not believe that a ratchet will work; it is a non-starter.
What I believe will happen—my noble friend Lord Puttnam referred to those of us with some experience in this regard—is the domino effect. Channel 5 will grow and grab audiences. It will go head to head with Channel 3, which is where it will try to get its audiences. It will get those audiences, and Channel 3 will have to fight hack. The way to do that is to do two things: one makes things more cheaply and one offloads the cumbersome and expensive programmes, which, by and large, are one's public service responsibilities—classic dramas and programmes that take a lot of money. One can always make them more cheaply, as I said earlier. One can make drama and documentary cheaply but one then gets a cheap system. Channel 3 will have to fight back in relation to the new Channel 5. BBC 1 will have to follow Channel 3. Channel 3 must get its money; that is its obligation to shareholders. BBC1 must get sufficient viewers for a sufficient amount of time to justify everyone in this country paying a licence fee. It has very little room for manoeuvre in that regard and will have to fight back in the same coin. Those three bodies will compete for the same market and the audiences will drop on Channel 3 and BBC1. Moreover—I said that I should be brief and I will be—Channel 4 and BBC2 will suffer even more. I make that assertion and am quite prepared to discuss it at greater length if noble Lords want to do so. I hope that noble Lords follow me in that regard.
Secondly, I began by talking much earlier in our debate about where I started from, and where most people in this country start from; that is, the public service interest. We have developed broadcasting from its radio days as a system that is public service based. It has been a quite remarkable—an extraordinary—story. We have a commercial system, ITV, which is public service. When we invented a second commercial channel, Channel 4, we made it public service. We are a public service system and, by and large, it works. When people are required to put their hands up to vote for it, they do so. That is what we want. This approach will not serve that. I cannot see how this procedure will make the public system stronger, how it will make it more valuable and how it will enrich it. I fail to see how
1520
it would add value in any way to what is central and important to our system, which is currently under threat all over the place. The system has to manage very carefully without unleashing a massive competitor that would undoubtedly and inevitably go for the throat of the audiences. I think that would result in a great diminution of the public service content of our main terrestrial channels.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Bernstein of Craigweil: I also support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Puttnam. I was about to make a speech very much along the same lines as my noble friend Lord Bragg. However, first, he got in ahead of me; and, secondly, he made it much more fluently than I could. All I can say is that I support exactly what he said. ITV would suffer from a multi-media ownership competitor. One may say that that is no great problem because it is a commercial operation. That is true. But it also performs a great deal of public service broadcasting, which is bound to suffer.
As my noble friend Lord Bragg also said, Channel 4 is given the licence to be distinctive. If its advertising base is attacked, it too will have to drop distinctiveness for popularity. This is a very dangerous issue. I hope that the Government will think again before the Report stage, because it is an issue upon which many of us feel we cannot support the Government.
Lord Judd: I hesitate to intervene. I must apologise to the Committee because previous deliberations on the Bill have coincided with my responsibilities al the Council of Europe and Western European Union. But it is a Bill about which I feel very strongly indeed. I believe that the amendment comes to the centre of much public anxiety about the Bill and what is being proposed.
My noble friend Lord Puttnam, in speaking to his excellent amendment, talked about the experts who have spoken in the debate. Certainly, impressive experts with a great deal of experience have spoken in Committee. I cannot in any way claim to be an expert, but I can claim to be a person who cares about the quality of democracy. That quality of democracy depends upon the quality of information available to the electorate; the quality of commentary; and the quality of the stimulation of debate in society. The Bill deals directly and indirectly with all that.
As an ordinary layman, it seems that the danger of a concentration of power in the hands of wilful people with their own agendas is a threat to the quality of democracy. Therefore, I would say, "We cannot take this issue too seriously".
To my noble friend Lord Lipsey I would say only this: I have always had a high regard and a liking for him, because he is an utterly reasonable person. However, I think that he falls into a pit by his own reasonableness because he tempts himself to believe that he is dealing with other people who are equally reasonable and who do not in effect have ruthless agendas in which once an opening is made, that

1521
opening will be pursued through to a conclusion which may not at first be on the surface. But to pretend that that conclusion is not already in the minds of some of those people is—and I hope my noble friend will forgive me using the word, because I actually think it can be quite complimentary to some people in the cynical age in which we live—rather naïve.
Therefore, I want to put on record, again stressing the fact that I am not an expert in any way, that I think this amendment is absolutely essential, and that unless the Government move their position very considerably, I hope it will be pursued to a vote on Report.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: The amendment lies at the core of what is needed to improve the Bill. It would be nice to think that we know now how to mitigate the power that ownership gives and that we have reached a stage where the perfection of regulation is such that we can relax and allow ownership to fall where it will.
Those of us who have lived in heavily regulated sectors of our society have a tiny degree of scepticism about the perfectibility of regulation. That is why I spoke earlier today about the importance of belt and braces, and why I support the amendment.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I intervene briefly, simply to say that I can see no grounds for making any distinction between Channel 3 and Channel 5, except in one small respect, which is remediable: both were licensed by the Independent Broadcasting Authority. The fact that one is a larger body than the other is very much a temporary factor of the programmes produced by it. With the effect of cross-promotion, which would be available, I would agree with all noble Lords who have pointed out that that is easily changed.
There are two respects in which there are differences between the two channels at the moment. First, the ITC let Channel 5 get away with murder, frankly, in its first few years. Its licence should have been taken away because it breached every pledge it made when applying for the licence, with the result that we have reached the conclusion that it no longer has public service obligations. We can easily give it exactly the same public service obligations as Channel 3, and in my view we should. Secondly, at the moment it does not reach the whole of the country. That with time is changeable, in which case there is no ground for any distinction between the two.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: We have spoken often in the course of today's debates on various amendments about the example of the United States and whether or not that is relevant to the Bill. I support the amendment. I would say in that context that I wonder whether the Minister was able during the very truncated lunch-hour we had, to see the reports from Washington from yesterday, in which the Senate has moved to try to redress what it sees as the impact of the Federal Communications Commission's decision of Tuesday, about which we spoke earlier in the day. The
1522
Federal Communications Commission has now decided to relax still further the cross-media ownership rules in the United States and all the potential outcomes, to which various noble Lords who have taken part in this most recent debate on Amendment No. 292, have referred.
The Senate has now decided that it must try to introduce legislation to redress some of that in the face of the FCC's decision. I simply say to the Minister that I very much hope that as a Parliament we will not seek to do that kind of thing ourselves in a few years' time because when, as people have said, the genie is let out of the bottle by the relaxation of these cross-media rules we shall be faced with the kind of deregulation to be found in the United States. All of us have spoken about this at length and I certainly do not intend to do so again.
Echoing my noble friend who spoke about the relevance or otherwise of individual owners, we have to accept that this Bill, in the words of the Government repeated several times, is "proprietor neutral". I draw attention to the useful quotation from Mr Rupert Murdoch, to which my noble friend referred to in an earlier speech, but not in this House. When challenged on the question of regulation having an impact on the rules of ownership, he said, leaving out the expletives,
"You can tell these politicians whatever they want to hear, but once the deal is done you don't worry about it. They are not going to chase after you later".
Baroness Blackstone: I am going to disappoint my noble friends. I believe that every speaker in this debate is on this side of the House with the exception of the two Front Bench speakers for the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats.
We are convinced that our policy of freeing Channel 5 from ownership restrictions is the right one. I shall explain our reasons for reaching that conclusion, which, I readily concede to my noble friend Lord Puttnam, include judgment in difficult decisions of this kind.
One aim of this Bill, which I believe it achieves, is to strike the right balance between the interests of viewers on the one hand and growth and investment in the broadcasting industry on the other. I believe that removing the ownership rules from Channel 5 will be in the interests of both. Channel 5 is small. Opening the market to as many investors as possible will bring in new investment, which in turn should lead to better programming for viewers. Higher standards of programming on Channel 5 will in turn cause other terrestrial channels to raise their game as well.
I cannot agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Bragg said in this respect and neither can I see that there is anything wrong in Channel 5 growing. We hope and expect ITV to grow. What is there to fear from a strong Channel 5 competing for audiences with programmes that viewers want to see?
When we embarked on the thorough and wide-ranging consultation on media ownership that preceded the draft Bill, we made it clear that we wanted

1523
to promote competition and investment because we believe that it will in turn lead to higher quality broadcasting for viewers. At the same time we were certain that we wanted to protect plurality and diversity. We recognise that competition law will not always safeguard those elements and in order to ensure that different viewpoints are heard in the media we need to keep some media ownership rules. But with just over 6 per cent of the audience and a reach of only 80 per cent of the country, we do not believe that Channel 5 is large enough to need protecting in the same way as ITV, yet these amendments would apply much the same rules to both channels.
We believe in the importance of plurality, as I have said, but let us not forget the presence of the BBC and Channel 4. Even if Channels 3 and 5 were in the same hands there would still be three separately controlled free-to-air public service broadcasters. With an ever-expanding number of digital channels, our proposals for Channel 5 do not present any threat to plurality in the television market. Indeed, the development of the market, the growth in the number of digital channels and digital TV audience figures means that plurality is becoming integral to our broadcasting ecology.
An important safeguard of equality which applies to Channel 5, regardless of ownership, is provided by content regulation. The Bill maintains and strengthens that as Members of the Committee know. There is a quota for independent production. Channel 5 news will have to be of high quality and cover both national and international matters. Channel 5 must fulfil the quotas for original productions and 50 per cent of its content must originate in the EU.
A suitable proportion and range of Channel 5 programmes must he made outside the M25 area and a suitable proportion of its budget must be spent there too in a range of production centres. These requirements are not fixed. If the respective audience share of Channel 5 and ITV changes so that they are more or less comparable, the Bill will allow changes to the public service broadcast obligations of Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences. For example, Ofcom could alter the channel's original programme requirements or the quota for independent programmes could be changed by order of the Secretary of State.
If Channel 5's audience share—
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I thank the Minister for giving way. I and various other Members of the Committee toyed for a while with some form of ratchet arrangement which would bring about a change only if the audience increased. But I have been successfully persuaded that that would be a bad idea, because if people know that doing better means Ofcom heaping more obligations on them, they will simply limbo-dance under whatever threshold of comfort.
Baroness Blackstone: What I am going on to say may answer my noble friend's point. If Channel 5's audience share becomes broadly equivalent to that of ITV, the Secretary of State may introduce, for example, the equivalent of nominated news provider arrangements for Channel 5 or change those
1524
obligations for Channel 3. However, we do not think it practical to set out in advance precise audience or other targets that would in turn trigger precise new obligations. It involves too much double-guessing future market circumstances and it could produce perverse incentives if licence holders sought to remain just below the threshold.
Following the ITC's review of the television programme supply market, the Bill introduces a new requirement that Ofcom should review the effect on regional independent and original production and news and current affairs programmes when Channel 5's licences change hands. Ofcom will be empowered to introduce licence variations to prevent existing standards from slipping. We have an opportunity to offer a quality boost to Channel 5 and to provide the beneficial stimulus of more competition to the other free to air channels. That will encourage higher quality across the board and the end beneficiary of the changes will be the viewers.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. They have all added some air to an important and difficult issue. My noble friend Lady Jay sent me the article on the US Senate moving to tighten limits on media ownership. I want to make the point that this has nothing to do with Mr Murdoch. I have spoken little about Mr Murdoch and it insults the intelligence and argument of those moving these amendments constantly to pin things back on Mr Murdoch. I have enormous respect for him. If I did not respect him I probably would not be nearly as concerned about what the future may bring. It has nothing to do with Mr Murdoch.
Ironically—perhaps this is the good Lord helping me—immediately below the article on the US Senate is a headline that states:
"Berlusconi nearer to immunity after vote".
It goes on to record that Mr Berlusconi, who is far and away the largest media owner in Italy—and who also just happens to be the Prime Minister—has organised his troops in such a way to get immunity not just for himself, because he is a generous man, but for the entire Italian Senate. I wonder if that has anything to do with them voting with him.
That is clearly absurd. We sit in a democratic Chamber, thank God, still in a democratic country, and this is risible. The problem is that it is happening in a nation that will in a few days' time take on the presidency of the European Union. That is essentially what Amendment No. 292 and other similar amendments are about.
It has been said more than once today that we all know what we do not want. We certainly do not want the Berlusconi-isation of British politics. I suggest that we insufficiently value what we have. A former Conservative Minister wrote to me recently expressing his concern. Interestingly, he ended his letter:
"It seems to me that the Government is demonstrating no sense of history and is instead sleepwalking towards disaster".

1525
I will of course withdraw the amendment today because time in my judgment will give force to the arguments that have been made from all parts of the Committee. But I say to the Minister that it will be one or the other: an enthusiastic embracing of Amendment No. 280A, which we debated at great length; or some similar amendments along the lines of this one. The Government will lose on one or the other. The only person who will look foolish if I am wrong will be me. I urge the Government to choose intelligently and thoughtfully. They have a couple of weeks to ponder the matter, but their present position is unacceptable in every respect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Eatwellmoved Amendment No. 292A:
Page 430, line 30, at beginning insert "Subject to paragraph (1A),"
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 292B. Before doing so, I declare an interest as chairman of the Commercial Radio Companies Association. The amendments are of a more technical nature than the important debate to which we have listened. However, they correct what I am sure is a mistake in Schedule 14, in so far as it refers to the ownership of local radio digital multiplexes.
It is worth reflecting that commercial radio, urged on by the Government, has invested over £ 100 million of shareholders' funds in the development of the digital radio network. These funds are not expected to yield a return in the near future. They are an expression of confidence in the future and in the Government's commitment to digital broadcasting.
Unfortunately, the schedule as drafted would introduce investment controls on digital multiplexes that are far more restrictive than is currently the case, making a mockery of the Government's commitment.
The schedule would prevent a company from owning two overlapping digital multiplex services. The problem arises because that fails to take account of what in the trade are deemed to be "accidental overlaps". For example, if the schedule were to stand, Capital Radio would be prohibited from co-owning digital radio multiplexes in London and in Kent because the Kent and the London multiplexes overlap. I am sure that everyone would agree, when looking at the case in hand, that that would impact negatively on the provision of digital radio in Kent, where Capital Radio owns the heritage commercial radio service.
My amendment corrects this anomaly, which I am sure is a mistake, while still preventing undesirable concentrations of multiplex ownership. The simple consequence of my amendment would be that in an area with two or more overlapping digital multiplexes, there should be at least two multiplex owners. I stress that. This would not create monopolies because there should be at least two multiplex owners.
1526
Not only would the amendment remove the new restrictions inherent in the current schedule, it would also be consistent with the two-plus-one approach to local radio ownership elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise briefly to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. As the noble Lord has said, the amendments aim to provide a more practical framework within which the requirements for restrictions on holding national multiplex licences can operate. The Bill provides that:
"A person may not hold any two multiplex licences at the same time where the coverage area of one…overlaps with… the other in a way that means that the potential audience for one of them is or includes at least half the potential audience of the other".
As drafted, the paragraph disallows any company from holding two overlapping digital multiplex services. This would implement a more restrictive regime for the future of digital radio than exists in current legislation. The amendments therefore take account of any accidental overlap while ensuring that no detrimental concentration of ownership could occur.
This can be illustrated by example. If the Bill were enacted now, Capital Radio would be prohibited from co-owning digital radio multiplexes in London and Kent because the London and Kent multiplex coverage areas overlap. But in a Bill that purportedly future-proofs the development of multimedia and claims to be largely deregulatory in nature, is it not inappropriate to implement a measure that would discourage much-needed investment in this sector? The amendment provides the appropriate balance needed to prevent ownership concentration while allowing continued industry growth.
Viscount Falkland: I rise simply to say that we on these Benches agree with the amendments. I have nothing further to add because they have been so admirably explained by both the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
Lord Davies of Oldham: It would be easier to respond if I could agree with my noble friend that this is a mistake in Schedule 14, but unfortunately that is not the case for the reasons that I shall seek to explain. The amendments would change the proposed ownership rules on local radio multiplex licences. The present rules set out in the schedule provide that no person would be able to hold any two local radio multiplexes where the coverage area of one of the services overlaps with the other by 50 per cent or more of the potential audience. The amendment would provide that where there are three such overlapping licences, the proposed rules should be relaxed so that, instead of three separate owners, one owner could hold two of those licences.
Local radio multiplexes are the means by which terrestrial digital radio services are delivered to a locality. Each multiplex holds eight to 10 programme

1527
services, and therefore the multiplex owner plays a crucial gatekeeping role. The multiplex holder is entirely responsible for which services the multiplex carries, subject only to the requirement not to discriminate between service providers. As noble Lords will recognise, that provides the multiplex holder with considerable influence.
The media ownership rules are concerned with plurality and the need to avoid too much influence falling into too few hands. Nevertheless, we have taken the view that there should no limit to the number of multiplexes that anyone can hold, subject to the single restriction that they cannot hold two overlapping multiplexes, an overlap being where one multiplex includes at least half the potential audience of the other.
My noble friend clearly identified Kent as an area of difficulty, where the situation in London has created an anomaly. We do neither expect nor intend that anomaly to repeat itself and appear elsewhere.
The restrictions are not onerous and only affect London. From the point of view of plurality, London is such a large and important market that it is entirely reasonable to ensure that no one multiplex licence holder should be able to determine two thirds of London's digital radio stations, so the restrictions in Schedule 14 should be retained.
The Bill provides for the ownership rules to be revised as circumstances change. There will be no more clusters of three multiplexes licensed during the remainder of the first phase of the digital rollout. If more spectrum is made available for digital radio, that will not be until 2007 at the earliest. The introduction of the new spectrum will be the appropriate time to consider relaxing the multiplex ownership rules.
Meanwhile, with the proviso that I entered with regard to Kent, it is proper to preserve plurality. The issue affects the London situation overwhelmingly and there are good reasons for seeking plurality in those terms. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: Before my noble friend sits down, as he recognises the anomaly but does not accept the amendment, how does he intend to resolve the anomaly?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am not in a position to resolve the matter directly. The Radio Authority is seeking to deal with the situation in Kent but there is the problem of overlap with London. That unique situation is a product of the times and is unlikely to be repeated. It is a genuine difficulty but it is not likely that it will be resolved in the short term. I seek to defend that which we want to see obtaining across the country and to prevent the Kent situation recurring.
Lord Eatwell: I can advise my noble friend the Minister that the way to address the anomaly right away is to accept my amendment. I am astonished at my noble friend's reply. Over several years, the Government have encouraged the commercial radio industry to invest enormous sums of money in digital broadcasting. To kick that industry in the teeth when it has been encouraged to invest significantly in advance of any return is not the way for a Government decently to behave. I assure the Government that we shall return to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 292B not moved.]
Schedule 14 agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 343 [Restrictions relating to nominated news providers]:
[Amendment No. 293 not moved.]
Clause 343 agreed to.
Clause 344 [Changes of control of Channel 3 services]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 294:
Page 301, line 13, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 14 and insert—
"(ii) is involved, to a substantial extent, in the provision of the programmes included"
The noble Lord said: I wish also to speak to the other amendments in the group: Amendments Nos. 295 to 299 and 303 to 306.
This group of amendments narrows the definition of the "relevant change of control" that triggers a review by Ofcom of various public service broadcasting requirements of Channel 3, Channel 5 and local broadcasting licensees. The aim is to reduce burdens on Ofcom and licence holders and focus efforts on the changes of control that really matter.
Clauses 344 and 345 apply in cases where there is a change in the persons who have control over a company holding a licence to provide a Channel 3 service. The clauses require Ofcom to review the effect of a "relevant change of control" on various public service broadcasting requirements—including original and regional productions and news and current affairs programming—and to vary the Channel 3 licence if necessary to ensure that the new owner does not deliver less than the old.
Clauses 346, 347, 348 and 349 set out corresponding provisions for Channel 5 and local sound broadcasting services respectively.
A "relevant change of control" is defined in Clauses 344, 346 and 348. As drafted, the expression includes a change of control over any body which is "connected" with the licence holder and is involved to any extent in the provision of the programmes for inclusion in the

1529
relevant service. The circumstances in which one body is connected with another are in turn defined in Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990. They include, for example, the case where a programme maker is controlled by the licence holder, or where both the licence holder and the programme maker are controlled by the same holding company.
We believe that the net effect of these provisions is that the definition of a relevant change of control is too widely drawn. As things stand, Ofcom would be required to undertake a review every time there was a change of control of a connected body—for example, a production company in shared ownership with the licence holder—involved in even the most minor way in the provision of programmes for inclusion in the licence holder's service. This would cause a burden both for Ofcom, in carrying out really unnecessary reviews, and licence holders, in notifying Ofcom of irrelevant changes of control.
We therefore propose amendments to Clauses 344, 346 and 348 to make it clear that connected bodies must be involved to a substantial extent in the provision of programmes for inclusion in the service. This will ensure that efforts are focused on those cases that really matter, where the change of control has a genuine potential to affect the existing quality of the service.
For consistency of approach, corresponding amendments are also proposed in Schedule 15 to make changes to Sections 21 and 103 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, where similar definitions are used in the context of changes of control over Channel 3 or Channel 5 licences or national analogue radio licences soon after they are awarded, or within a year of the service commencing.
I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 295:
Page 301, line 15, leave out "to be likely to be" and insert "is likely to become"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 344, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 345 agreed to.
Clause 346 [Changes of control of Channel 5]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendments Nos. 296 and 297:
Page 303, line 34, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 35 and insert—
"(ii) is involved, to a substantial extent, in the provision of the programmes included"
Page 303, line 36, leave out "to be likely to be" and insert "is likely to become"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 346, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 347 agreed to.
Clause 348 [Variation of local licence following change of control]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment Nos. 298 and 299:
Page 305, line 20, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 21 and insert—
"(ii) is involved, to a substantial extent, in the provision of the programmes included"
Page 305, line 22, leave out "to be likely to be" and insert "is likely to become"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 348, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 349 agreed to.
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 299A:
Before Clause 350, insert the following new clause—
"MEANING OF "CONTROL"
(1) Paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act shall have effect subject to the following amendments.
(2) For sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A) there shall be substituted—
"(3) For the purposes of this Schedule a person has control of a body corporate if that person is able, or it is reasonable to expect that person to be able, directly or indirectly to ensure that the affairs of a body are conducted in accordance with that person's wishes.
(3A) In determining whether a person controls a body corporate all relevant circumstances shall be taken into account including the level of participation in the body corporate of that person and the level of participation of other participants in the body.
(3B) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (3)—

(a) a person has control of a body corporate if that person is beneficially entitled to more than 50 per cent of the equity share capital in the body or possesses more than 50 per cent of the voting power in it, and

(b) a person has control of a body corporate if that person is beneficially entitled to 50 per cent of the equity share capital in the body or possesses 50 per cent of the voting power in it, and is party to an arrangement with another participant in the body corporate under which they agree to exercise their voting power or any of it in a particular way either generally or in relation to any particular issue or not to exercise their voting power or any of it in relation to any particular issue."

(3) After paragraph 3 there shall be inserted—
"3A (1) In this paragraph "guidance on control" means guidance on the matters which OFCOM consider should be taken into account in determining whether any person controls a body corporate within the meaning of paragraph 1(3) to (3A) above.
(2) In determining the question whether a person has control of a body corporate account shall be taken of any published guidance on control.
(3) OFCOM shall prepare guidance on control and shall publish a draft of the guidance in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons who in OFCOM's opinion are likely to be affected by such guidance.
(4) OFCOM shall also publish, together with the draft, a notice that any person may make representations to OFCOM on the draft within such period as may be specified in the notice, not being less than one month from the date of publication.
(5) OFCOM shall take account of the representations made within the specified time in preparing the guidance on control and shall publish the guidance, not later than 3 months from the last day on which representations may be made under sub-paragraph

1531
(4), in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons who in OFCOM's opinion are likely to be affected by such guidance.
(6) OFCOM shall keep the guidance on control under review and may publish revised guidance from time to time; and subparagraphs (3) to (5) above shall apply to any such revised guidance as they apply to the original guidance, with any necessary modifications.""
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 299A and 300 and the Question whether Clause 350 should stand part of the Bill.
In relation to Amendments Nos. 299A and 300, on Report in another place similar amendments were tabled by my honourable friend Mr John Greenway. Although there was time to hear the reason for tabling the amendments, there was no time available for the Minister's reply. Therefore I return to the issue. I shall begin with the Government's introduction in Clause 350(2) of' a presumption of control in relation to any person with a holding of 20 per cent or more of shares or voting rights. As has been made clear in another place, there are significant concerns that the provision places on companies undue obligations that do not exist at present and that the 20 per cent figure is arbitrary and unjustified.
Starting at the level of general principle, it seems wrong to require companies to prove that they do not have control when they have an interest of between 20 and 50 per cent, rather than for the regulator to prove that they do, as is the case at present. It runs against the tried and tested principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty. For the principle to be reversed, some extremely important issue must be at stake, which we do not believe exists in this case.
The Government have already presented their justification for the change. In Committee in another place they argued that the 20 per cent figure was consistent with the application of the 20/20 cross-media ownership rule, and that it was in the range of shareholdings that the OFT and Competition Commission are likely to scrutinise as constituting a possible material influence under the mergers legislation of the Enterprise Act 2002. They also pointed out that, in the United States, persons with more than a 5 per cent stake in companies without a majority shareholder are deemed to have control.
However, those justifications are unconvincing. We have already debated today the 20/20 cross-media ownership rule, which in itself is arbitrary and unjustified. It is true that under the Enterprise Act 2002, there is the ability for the OFT to take into account more than a 20 per cent interest in deciding whether control exists, but it is still for the OFT to prove that it exists. In that respect, it is no different from the approach that the ITC can apply today. In neither case, however, is there a statutory presumption, which has to be proved to the contrary, that control exists at more than 20 per cent. The Government must explain why the difference in approach is justified. It is also true that in the US a 5 per cent presumption of control exists where companies do not have a major stakeholder. But that
1532
is hardly a justification for a rigid 20 per cent threshold in the UK, regardless of whether there is a major stakeholder.
We should be clear that we are not arguing that control should never be shown to exist at 20 per cent, or even at 5 per cent. We argue that a system of regulation is needed whereby Ofcom investigates each case on its particular merits and has the onus of demonstrating such control where it concludes that it exists. On that point, I shall give an example of government ownership regulation that is inconsistent with the 20 per cent presumption. The intention to increase the limit on ITN ownership from 20 per cent to 40 per cent indicates in this instance that the Government believe that 40 per cent ownership will not give control. They have argued that a 40 per cent limit is still necessary because they do not want to see a single body in control of ITN. That contradicts the Government's position on Clause 350. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide clarification in that regard. It all seems so arbitrary; it does not make sense.
The second area of concern that my new clause seeks to address relates to the changes to the meaning of "control" introduced under Clause 350(1). Part I of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act currently defines "control" as,
"having regard to all the circumstances, to expect that he will be able, by whatever means and whether directly or indirectly, to achieve the result that the affairs of the body are conducted in accordance with his wishes".
That is, at 50 per cent. Clause 350(1)(a) changes that to the following:
"although he does have such an interest in the body, it is reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances, to expect that he would (if he chose to) be able in most cases or in significant respects, by whatever means whether directly or indirectly, to achieve the result that affairs of the body are conducted in accordance with his wishes".
Our concern is that those changes give Ofcom much greater latitude in deciding whether a person controls a body. The phrase, "would (if he chose to)" would allow Ofcom to second-guess the behaviour of the person. "In most cases" could allow it to dismiss arguments that disprove a particular conclusion and in significant respects. Moreover, "affairs" (as opposed to "the affairs") would allow Ofcom to make judgments on only parts of a company's business. What is meant by the word "significant", for example? What will happen if individuals take a genuine view that something is not significant, but Ofcom takes the view that it is significant?
The much looser definition could, for example, mean that a chief financial officer or chairman of an audit committee was deemed to control a business simply because he would be able to expect that, in "significant respects", the company would do as he said. Indeed, any director with specific managerial responsibilities is likely to be able to make the company carry out his wishes so far as they relate to those responsibilities. Can that director be described seriously as controlling the company just because he has that kind of influence? We do not believe that such

1533
a significant loosening of the definition, and the greater degree of uncertainty in decision-making that it will cause, is either justified or proportionate.
As I noted previously, the Government claim that the revisions are justified because the previous definition was "insufficiently robust" and would,
"make it too easy for people to set up arrangements that, under the rules, would not be deemed to give them control, even though in practice it would be clear that they had control".
Yet no evidence of such avoidance practices has been presented to justify those claims. Yes, the Government have reduced the number of ownership rules, as they pointed out during the debate on the issue in Committee in another place, but that is not on its own sufficient justification for the proposed changes. Such changes should be proportionate to the identified need, which has not up to now been identified. I hope that the Minister will be able to shed further light on the area, and not just repeat the arguments made in previous debates.
I have also tabled Amendment No. 300 in order to probe the Minister further on a point raised previously in Committee in another place. Rather than the Government's proposed changes to the meaning of control, the amendment proposes that the words,
"to achieve the result that the affairs of the body are conducted in accordance with his wishes",
are replaced with,
"to control or materially to influence the policy of the body".
That wording is the same as that used in Section 26(3) of the Enterprise Act 2002, which defines enterprises ceasing to be distinct enterprises.
Finally, I wish to press the Minister on the question of consultation on matters that will be taken into account by Ofcom when determining whether a person has control of a body. As drafted, Clause 350(4) simply requires Ofcom to publish guidance setting out its intentions in that area, which I think is insufficient. My new clause seeks to ensure that, before Ofcom publishes any guidance, or revised guidance, it issues that for consultation. That guidance will be of great importance, reflecting Ofcom's policy towards control and the factors that it will take into account when assessing whether there is control. In order to ensure that such guidance is appropriate and encompasses all relevant factors, and so that it has the support and understanding of those likely to be affected by it, their views should be considered prior to Ofcom's publication of such guidance.
The Government's reasons for rejecting the proposal in Committee in another place were unconvincing. I agree, as was argued, that the need for consultation depends on the importance of the issues at hand, but that is no reason why there should be no consultation at all on what is by any standards an important area of policy. Furthermore, just because the principles of better regulatory practice encourage consultation, they do not require it, and there is no certainty that such a route will be adopted in that area when the time comes—that is, unless we can change that on Report.
1534
Finally, I would say that it verges on the paranoid to argue, as the Government have, that consultation will allow less scrupulous operators the opportunity of staying one step ahead of the game in respect of the new arrangements to get around the ownership rules. Such an argument could surely be applied to any form of consultation, which would be ludicrous. I urge the Government to think again on the proposal. The additional burden on the regulatory process would be entirely justified in this instance by gains in transparency and confidence in the regulatory process. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 300A, which is grouped with the noble Baroness's amendment.
I agree with the "innocent until proved guilty" point. I also think that 20 per cent is the wrong figure and could produce a degree of confusion. After all, the City regards 30 per cent as the trigger for requiring a full takeover bid. In other words, control lies at about 30 per cent. Likewise, over the years, the Radio Authority has regarded 30 per cent as the figure for control. There is a history of dealing with the 30 per cent figure, and I cannot see why we are suddenly reducing it to 20 per cent.
Lord Eatwell: I speak to Amendment No. 300B, which is also in the group. I remind the Committee of the declaration of interest that I made a few moments ago.
The amendment addresses the Government's position on minority shareholdings that act as a trigger for consideration of control. My amendment would correct what I thought was an unfortunate slip in the drafting, but, given the experience that I had with the amendment that I moved a few moments ago, it may not have been a mistake after all. The amendment would correct an error in the drafting as to the use and effect of the trigger. Most importantly, the clause, as drafted, lies entirely outwith UK regulatory practice. It is, for example, inconsistent with practice under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
Clause 350 amends Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 to enable Ofcom to treat a person as having control of a company if he or she has a minority shareholding of only 20 per cent. Ofcom would not have to provide any evidence that the person had such control. The burden of proof is placed on the minority shareholder to prove that he or she does not have control of the company. Not only is that offensive to our standards of natural justice and contrary to British regulatory practice; it is also economically inefficient. It discourages investment in the industry and could clog up Ofcom with requests for prior clearance of investment decisions.
My amendment would remove those distortions from the process by requiring Ofcom to advance some reasonable grounds for believing that the possession of

1535
a minority shareholding of one fifth of a company's share capital provided a person with control of the company, as is, for example, typical in the Financial Services and Markets Act. There must be reasonable grounds, rather than a simple assumption that that is the case. The person would then be given the opportunity to consider those grounds and, if they can, rebut them.
Clause 350 provides the regulator with a power that is open to abuse. The amendment would correct the position as regards the issue of control.
Lord Razzall: I shall add one comment to those that have been made, but I shall not detain the Committee long.
Several pertinent questions have been asked of the noble Baroness. I look forward to her answer. I shall add one more: is she happy that the definition of control—either amended in the various ways proposed or unamended—deals with something that is a concern in other jurisdictions, of which I would pick out Australia as being typical, where it has been the practice for control of media companies to be disguised by the use of offshore trusts? Is she satisfied that, under the provisions in the Bill as it stands or amended as proposed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, such questions will be dealt with by the definition of control?
Lord Crickhowell: I shall not speak for long but this is an important matter. It was not a subject for consultation by the Government. It came as a surprise to most of those involved and reverses the onus of proof. I entirely agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. It is likely to have a potentially damaging impact on investment, particularly at a crucial moment when companies are developing from a small base. Coming from a government who have always said they wish to encourage investment, this seems perverse. I agree with the points made by my noble friend Lady Buscombe.
As to which amendment I would pick, I admit to not having very strong views. I like the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for its simplicity and because it switches the onus of proof. That has some virtues. This is a clear case where the Government can come forward with a workable solution. Throughout the day the Minister has been unresponsive. She has found a reason to deny almost every suggestion that has been made. She is piling up an enormous raft of trouble for Report stage. I suggest that this is an occasion when she should understand that it would be perfectly possible for the Government to come forward with a more acceptable solution. If they do, they will remove that subject from lengthy debate at Report.
Baroness Blackstone: The 1990 Act, as amended by Clause 350, supplies a definition of where a person has control over a body even though they do not hold more than a 50 per cent interest. The intention is to allow the regulators to consider cases where a person has substantial control over a body without that being
1536
reflected fully in formal or legal terms, such as in a minority shareholding. The regulator is to look at all the circumstances to determine whether that person is reasonably to be regarded as having such control of that body.
I shall start with Amendments Nos. 300A, 300B and the first part of new Clause 229A. An amendment to Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act made by Clause 350(2) means there would be a presumption of control in relation to any person with a holding of 20 per cent or more of shares and voting rights. I am aware that there are many objections to this presumption of guilt. Having considered the arguments—the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, always poses his question at the right point—I am prepared to consider this further with a view to bringing forward amendments at Report stage to remove this presumption. They will place those with an interest in a media company in a similar position to those with a holding in any other enterprise. I therefore hope that Amendments Nos. 300A, 300B and the first part of 299A will not be pressed. I hope this meets the point raised by my noble friends Lord Eatwell and Lord Gordon of Strathblane.
Turning to Amendment No. 300, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, it is important to recognise that the Enterprise Act and the Broadcasting Act are different acts with different purposes. The relevant provisions of the Enterprise Act are concerned with merger control, while the Broadcasting Act provisions are concerned with safeguarding plurality. There is no necessary reason why their definitions of control should be expressed in the same way. That is the answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness.
I am quite sure that the words in the Enterprise Act were carefully chosen and that they achieved the required result in that context. That does not mean that they should be adopted in the different context of media plurality. The provisions in the Broadcasting Act have worked effectively since 1996. Those who operate them and on whom they operate, know how to interpret them. The purpose of Clause 350 is not to make any substantial change in those provisions, but simply to clarify them. Therefore, I can see no reason to abandon an established form of words in one context for a different form of words from a different context. Both formulations do the job for which they were intended: if something is not broken, you do not fix it.
I return to the rest of the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 299A. As the Committee will be aware, Clause 350 already requires Ofcom to publish and, from time to time, revise guidance on the matters that will be taken into account when considering questions of control. Subsection (3) onwards of the new clause would also require Ofcom to consult on the guidance in draft and give a timetable in that respect.
I recognise that Ofcom is required in some cases to consult on draft guidance. However, that is not always the case. It depends upon the importance of the issue.Further, Clause 3 requires Ofcom to adopt "best regulatory practice". Therefore, even where the Bill

1537
does not require it, I should imagine that Ofcom will choose to consult on guidance in many cases. In my view, it is really a question that can both safely and sensibly be left to Ofcom to decide. After all, we are talking about pretty technical issues. It is not obvious that consultation would always be of real benefit.
The proposed clause would also make the guidance much more prescriptive by making it include the factors that Ofcom consider,
"should be taken into account".
Clause 350 deliberately makes it clear that the factors in the guidance need not be exhaustive. This is because companies will constantly bring forward new arrangements for avoiding control. No one blames them for that; it is the nature of the game. But it is important that Ofcom should not have its hands tied by over-prescriptive guidance that would prevent it from reaching correct decisions on these new arrangements just because it had not included them in the guidance. The test that matters is whether the person in question could be said to control a body, not whether the arrangements are already set out in the guidance.
As for the specific question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, I should have thought that matters like offshore trusts would be taken into account. However, I shall check the position and write to the noble Lord to confirm that information.
In the light of my response, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I shall be brief. I thank the Minister for her reply, with which I am somewhat disappointed. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, we are discussing important issues. That is especially so as they were not properly aired in another place. I shall consider with care the Minister's response to all these amendments. Unlike my noble friend, I like all the amendments in the group. I am certainly supportive of the noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Gordon of Strathblane. Their amendments simply approach the matter from a different angle in an effort to face this most important subject. We are concerned about any proposal in the Bill that would in any way deter investment. That point is tremendously important.
As I said, I shall read and carefully consider the Minister's response in the Official Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 350 [Meaning of "control"]:
[Amendment No. 300 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): Before calling Amendment No. 300A, I must advise the Committee that if it is agreed to I shall not call Amendment No. 300B due to pre-emption.
[Amendment No. 300A not moved.]
Lord Eatwellhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 300B:
Page 306, line 38, leave out from "be" to end of line 41 and insert "taken to have control of a body corporate as mentioned in subparagraph (3)(b) if—

(a) he is a participant with a 20 per cent interest in that body or is one with more than a 20 per cent interest in that body;

(b) OFCOM has reasonable grounds to believe that he has such control; and

(c) having been given the opportunity to consider those grounds, he is unable to show to the contrary."

The noble Lord said: I am very grateful for my noble friend's reaction to the remarks that I made. I shall get it right this time: amendment not moved.
[Amendment No. 300B not moved.]
Clause 350 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 351 [Annual factual and statistical report]:
Baroness Whitakermoved Amendment No. 301:
Page 308, line 18, at end insert—
"(1) the extent to which news and current affairs programmes included during the period are serving all groups within the community and such international and national coverage is relevant to their interests."
The noble Baroness said: I declare both my interest as the deputy chair of the ITC and its support for the amendment. The amendment echoes the one tabled previously by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Prashar, to Clause 331, for which my noble friend on the Front Bench at the time offered some support.
The amendment is directed at a perceived, serious failing in our news and current affairs programmes. Recent authoritative research by Professor Ian Hargreaves on news and by the BBC, the BSC, the ITC and the Radio Authority, shows that broadcasting content simply does not reflect the world and the interests of minority parts of our multicultural society. The news research shows that less than half think TV news represents all sections of society fairly. It shows that black and Asian viewers trust the impartiality of TV news significantly less than white viewers and that it is often felt to be not relevant to their interests.
The joint research shows a widespread perception of tokenism, negative stereotyping, unrealistic and simplistic portrayals of particular communities and negative or nonexistent images of countries or areas of origin. The reasons people wanted proper and more sensitive coverage were, principally, three: to demonstrate a sense of belonging within our society; to foster a better understanding of minority cultures; and—very important—to allow children to identify with positive representatives of people from their communities.
These are important social objectives. To abandon them to the inertia of the status quo would contribute to undermining both order and a sense of freedom. It will be an easy matter for Ofcom to include among its annual reporting obligations regular research of the

1539
kind I have referred to on how far news and current affairs programmes met the needs of all our communities. I beg to move.
Viscount Falkland: We on these Benches broadly support the noble Baroness's amendment, particularly with regard to the young in ethnic communities in this country and, beyond that, in the way that she has described. We particularly support her desire to avoid the inertia of the status quo. That is always a danger, and I am sure the regulatory body will be well aware of it. We support the sentiments behind the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: As Members of the Committee will know, I serve in an area of the country where there are very many different ethnic communities. I warm to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has made. I imagine it would be easy to include this proposal, and I hope that it gets a favourable response from the Minister.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: This amendment would require Ofcom, in its annual statistical and factual review, to consider whether news and current affairs programming is serving,
"all groups within the community and such international and national coverage is relevant to their interests".
This annual statistical review, which is essentially quantitative, is the wrong vehicle to get at this more qualitative judgment. We believe the intention behind the amendment is entirely admirable, but this is not the best way to achieve what my noble friend wants. It would not be in keeping with the general purpose of this clause to require Ofcom to review a qualitative issue such as whether news and current affairs programming is relevant to the interests of all communities. The general purpose of Clause 351 is to produce a statistical and factual review of the whole television and radio market.
The factors to be considered by Ofcom are on the whole quantitative and objective, such as the size and behaviour of audiences and the financial condition of the market, rather than qualitative issues. However, we believe that the Bill requires all public service broadcasters to provide programmes which,
"reflect the lives and concerns of different communities and cultural interests and traditions"
in the UK.
In addition, one of the overall purposes of public service broadcasting is the provision of services which are properly balanced and meet the needs and satisfy the interests of as many different audiences as practicable. These provisions, which reflect the aims of the amendment, fall within Ofcom's review and report on public service broadcasting under Clause 260. The review would take place no less frequently than every five years.
1540
I hope that, for the reasons that I set out, my noble friend Lady Whitaker will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Whitaker: I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate and to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for their enlightened support of the amendment.
I must tell my noble friend on the Front Bench that the research to which I referred was in large part quantitative, and I am not entirely sure that I follow him in the split that he made in how Ofcom should account for broadcasters. However, I shall read carefully what he said in Hansard. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 351 agreed to.
Clause 352 [Grants to access radio providers]:
[Amendment No. 302 not moved.]
Clause 352 agreed to. Clause 353 agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Amendments of Broadcasting Acts]:
Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendments Nos. 303 to 306:
Page 440, line 19, leave out "In"
Page 440, line 20, after "licence)" insert "shall be amended as follows.
(2)" Page 440, line 21, at end insert—
"(3) In subsection (2), in the definition of "associated programme provider", for the words from "appears" to "inclusion" there shall be substituted "is or is likely to be involved, to a substantial extent, in the provision of the programmes included"."
Page 450, line 12, after "interpretation)" insert—

"(a) in the definition of "associated programme provider", for the words from "appears" to "inclusion" there shall be substituted "is or is likely to be involved, to a substantial extent, in the provision of the programmes included"; and

(b) in the words after the definition of "the relevant period","

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 307 and 308 not moved.]
Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 354 agreed to.
Clause 355 [Interpretation of Part 3]:
[Amendment No. 309 not moved.]
Clause 355 agreed to.
Clause 356 [Licence required for use of TV receiver]:
[Amendments Nos. 309A to 309C not moved.]
Clause 356 agreed to.
Clauses 357 and 358 agreed to.
Clause 359 [Powers to enforce TV licensing]:
[Amendment No. 309D not moved.]
Clause 359 agreed to.
Clauses 360 and 361 agreed to.
Clause 362 [Matters in relation to which OFCOM have competition functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 310 and 310ZA not moved.]
Clause 362 agreed to.
Clauses 363 to 365 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 310A not moved.]
Clauses 366 to 368 agreed to.
Clause 369 [Adaptation of role of OFT in initial investigations and reports]:
Lord Wakehammoved Amendment No. 310B:
Page 324, line 33, leave out from "daily" to "newspaper" in line 34 and insert "or Sunday"
The noble Lord said: I get the impression that we are moving on rather fast. I shall therefore be as quick as I can. In moving Amendment No. 310B, I shall also speak to my other four amendments in this group. Although the amendments are perhaps out of the wide range of the debate which we have been having all day and arc relatively small in some senses, they are pretty important to the newspaper industry. I should like to say a word or two about them.
Four of the amendments seek to restrict the way in which the public interest regime would be operated in the case of small and local newspapers, a regime which is in my view quite unnecessary for those small and local newspapers. Amendment No. 310F seeks clarification from the Government on exactly what they meant by a concession which they made in another place.
Amendments Nos. 310B and 310C effectively remove from the newspapers that are subject to this regime the weekly newspapers and the smaller newspapers, leaving in fact only daily newspapers. That is very much in line with what the Joint Committee which considered the draft Bill recommended: that there should be a substantial deregulatory outcome for the newspaper industry, whereas I think the Bill as drafted unnecessarily increases the burden on newspapers. The Bill would, for example, put a burden on newspapers with a circulation of fewer than 50,000, including I note with some horror a newspaper that is circulated in my old constituency of Malden which has a circulation of 8.000 copies. I think that that is a very heavy weapon to employ.
There are many reasons why that burden should not fall on local newspapers. The Competition Commission has never found that an acquisition of purely local newspapers raises issues that are against the public interest. The editorial content of local newspapers has to be driven by the views of the local population—otherwise they do not survive—and the burden of compliance on these newspapers is both onerous and in my view unnecessary.
Amendments Nos. 310D and 310E are concerned with restricting the Secretary of State's discretion to intervene in regional and local newspaper transfers to those where the acquiring newspaper owns a 25 per cent share of all newspapers in the United Kingdom or
1542
the acquiring publisher is to acquire newspapers in some substantial part of the United Kingdom where the publisher already owns a 25 per cent share. So again it is an attempt to restrict the interventions of the Secretary of State in the regulatory regime to those that I think will be of public concern and will avoid unnecessary complications for the smaller newspapers and where there is no public interest likely to arise.
Amendment No. 310F follows a helpful government amendment to the Bill in another place to remove the supply of the newspaper advertising from the criteria that allow intervention on special public interest grounds when examining plurality interests. Despite this change, the industry feels that the width of the interpretive direction given to the decision-making authority by this clause could still enable newspaper advertising share to remain a trigger as a backdoor option under Section 59(6) of the Enterprise Act. Indeed, the illustrative draft of statutory guidance for the operation of the new regime refers to the newspaper advertising. The amendment seeks simply to clarify the Bill and to avoid any future ambiguity in its intentions and applications. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Fowler: I support my noble friend, particularly in Amendments Nos. 310B and 310C. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and I debated earlier today the rival merits of the regional and local press. It is worth underlining what my noble friend Lord Wakeham said. Although the amendment appears not to raise some of the profound issues we discussed today under some of the broadcasting amendments, a strong regional and local press is vital to this country. As I suggested earlier, there is no question that public support for and trust in the regional press is very great indeed. All the surveys suggest that it is rather greater than trust in national newspapers. We would be well advised to pay careful attention to that and certainly not to change the rules in any way that would act against the interests of local newspapers.
My concern, as has also been set out in Amendments Nos. 310B and 310C, is that the Government seem to be moving backwards. The Joint Committee on the draft Communications Bill recommended that the Government should have full regard to the need for a substantially deregulatory outcome for the newspaper industry, especially as regards local newspapers. However, far from deregulating the industry, the new regime, in some respects, is rather more restrictive than the present one. The practical implications for the Bill as it is now drafted mean that the transfer of smaller, free and paid-for local newspapers, which would not be subject to the special merger regime under the Fair Trading Act 1973, would be exposed to extended discretionary scrutiny on plurality grounds alone under a new exceptional public interest regime. The proposed regime would increase the scope of discretionary ministerial involvement in newspaper transfers where the newspapers in question have an average daily circulation of under 50,000. That would lead to the anomalous situation in which the transfer of a newspaper with a circulation of 8,000, 9,000 or

1543
10.000 could be treated with the vigour of the special controls together with mergers that threaten national security. That seems frankly to be out of proportion.
The amendments address that issue. To someone such as myself who, in my old days, was a chairman of regional newspapers, the process of going before the Competition Commission, putting forward the evidence and setting it out seems to place a tremendous time and financial burden on any newspaper company that has ever sought to do that. Therefore, the burden of compliance under the new regime would be onerous for smaller weekly and free newspapers. The direct costs that arise can be unduly onerous as well.
I hope that the Minister will listen to the points that have been made, particularly by the Newspaper Society, which is well respected in the regional newspaper industry. It has represented the regional newspaper industry for a long time. I hope that she will listen to it and make some movement towards the amendments proposed by my noble friend.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise briefly to say that I fully support my noble friend's amendments, which would tighten the definition of newspapers so that smaller newspapers are not caught by the special public interest regime. They would also reduce the scope of the Secretary of State's discretion to intervene in cases in which editorial plurality problems are not raised without removing altogether the possibility of intervention. It would be otiose of me even to begin to repeat the words of my noble friends Lord Wakeham and Lord Fowler, who have considerable experience in this area. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the amendments.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for the celerity with which the noble Lord moved this important amendment, and for the succinctness with which the subsequent contributions have been made.
I defer to the vast knowledge of the noble Lords, Lord Wakeham and Lord Fowler, in terms of the newspaper industry but I will not defer to them in signifying my interest in and commitment to the local press; none of us could have served in another place without having a particular relationship with our local newspapers. We know that many criticisms voiced about the national press are singularly inappropriate in relation to local newspapers; they conduct themselves with a degree of partiality and effectiveness, which their bigger brothers and sisters often should take note of in relation to national journalism. We are aware of the reasons for the differences between them.
Amendment No. 310B amends Clause 269, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said, by deleting references to local newspapers that are published on other than a daily or Sunday basis. Although we believe that our definition could be more elegant, it was drafted in this way to ensure that only local periodicals were subject to the special newspaper merger regime, and not national periodicals, such as the Economist.
1544
Local periodical titles were included in the definition of a newspaper at the insistence of Parliament during the passage of the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965, which was the precursor to the Fair Trading Act 1973. That was in recognition of the importance of local newspaper titles and of the fact that the vast majority of such local titles are weekly.
I consider it appropriate that local newspapers should be included in the special newspaper merger regime. I listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord. There have been cases under the Fair Trading Act regime where transfers involving local weekly papers have given rise to an adverse public interest finding and it is important that the Secretary of State should continue to be able to address those cases in which public interest issues are raised.
Although previous cases involving local weekly titles have also involved a local daily, it is entirely possible that public interest concerns could arise in a case involving only local weekly titles and the regime should surely have sufficient flexibility to permit scrutiny of such cases where relevant.
Noble Lords will be aware of examples of previous cases involving local weekly titles; they include the DMGT/T Bailey Forman transaction, which the Competition Commission found gave rise to plurality concerns in the East Midlands, and David Sul livan's proposed acquisition of the Bristol Evening Post plc, where the proposed acquisition of a number of weekly titles was blocked on plurality grounds. Issues arise infrequently. We are dealing with powers that would be triggered only on rare occasions but they should. however, be available.
The jurisdictional tests proposed for newspaper mergers are the same as those for the standard Enterprise Act merger regime. The only exception to that is that where there is an existing 25 per cent share of supply of newspapers in at least a substantial part of the UK, plurality issues may be taken into account although there is no increase in the share of supply. I hope that the noble Lord recognises the importance of that. That ability to intervene in newspaper mergers where there is no direct overlap has been introduced because consolidation may not be directly relevant to plurality assessments.
Also, under the proposals set out in the Bill, the very smallest newspapers will be taken out of the regime altogether. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, emphasised that point. The enterprise acquired needs to have a turnover in the UK in excess of £ 70 million or it must have a 25 per cent supply threshold. So we have a framework which takes out some of the smaller positions.
Amendment No. 310C seeks to amend Clause 369. It would introduce the concept of "substantial". Although the term,
"substantial part of the United Kingdom".
is used elsewhere in the Bill, in relation to t he share of supply test, its omission from this part of the Bill is deliberate. The two tests are intentionally different as they serve different purposes.

1545
The phrase,
"circulating wholly or mainly in the UK or in a part of the UK",
in the Clause 369 definition of "newspaper" is designed to exclude titles that are predominantly overseas publications but which have some circulation in the UK—for example, the Wall Street Journal or Le Monde. After all, this is only the first step in applying the any jurisdictional test that might be so applied.
However, the share of supply test ensures that having established that a given title is essentially a UK publication, it is only where the newspaper merger involves a share of supply of at least 25 per cent in a substantial part of the UK that the newspaper public interest regime may apply.
Amendments Nos. 310D and 310E are intended to restrict the scope of the special public interest regime for newspaper mergers in such a way that the 25 per cent share of supply must apply to the acquiring company and must be satisfied in the same area as that in which the daily newspapers, if any, of the target circulate.
These amendments would undermine the purpose behind the special public interest regime. This aspect of the regime is intended to enable scrutiny of acquisitions of newspaper titles where there is no overlap in share of supply in the UK or a substantial part of the UK, but where at least one of the parties has a significant presence in at least a substantial part of the United Kingdom.
The amendments would mean that a number of types of acquisition would not be caught by the special public interest regime, even if the track record of the acquirer suggested that the acquisition would be likely to have an adverse effect on accurate presentation of news, freedom of expression of opinion, or plurality of views in newspapers in the UK.
In effect, the amendments would prevent scrutiny under the special public interest regime of acquisitions concerning only local weekly newspapers, acquisitions of a local monopoly, involving daily and weekly titles, if the acquirer does not itself have a 25 per cent share of supply in the same area, and acquisitions of newspapers with a significant share of supply in at least a substantial part of the UK by an overseas purchaser.
I believe that it is important that the Secretary of State should be able to intervene in acquisitions such as these, if it appears that, having regard to the newspaper public interest considerations, such an acquisition may operate against the public interest.
As I have already indicated, we consider that local weekly newspapers play an important part in the communities they serve. To exclude such titles from the ambit of the special public interest regime surely would undermine that role. I stress that the Government are committed to sustaining the role emphasised in terms of the beneficial effect by noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.
1546
I turn finally to Amendment No. 310F. It seeks to prevent the OFT using newspaper advertising or newspaper advertising revenue when assessing whether or not the share of supply test is satisfied for the purposes of the special public interest regime. The Bill as originally drafted expressly specified that newspaper advertising could be used as a basis for establishing whether the share of supply test was satisfied.
The Opposition in another place tabled amendments to remove express references to newspaper advertising. The amendments caused the Government to reflect further with the OFT as to how it might operate the share of supply tests in the extended jurisdiction regime.
Following discussions with the OFT, we are satisfied that it is not necessary to include an express reference to newspaper advertising in the provisions dealing with the special newspaper public interest regime. Accordingly, in order to avoid any confusion that might be caused by having express reference to newspaper advertising in the special newspaper public interest regime, amendments were tabled by the Government at Report in another place to delete this superfluous wording. Unfortunately, it did not have time to consider these beneficial government changes and as a result we are picking up the consequences, as is so often the case. We consider that it would be inappropriate to require the OFT to use two different methodologies to assess whether or not the share of supply test is satisfied depending on whether the merger falls within the standard merger regime or the special public interest regime. Moreover, that would be contrary to the aim of streamlining procedures between the standard merger regime and the public interest regime, as far as it is possible to do so.
We consider that share of the supply of newspaper advertising or newspaper advertising revenue may be an appropriate measure of economic strength in relation to free newspapers where circulation and distribution figures may not be available or may not be a true indication of the economic strength of the titles in question. We also consider it important that the OFT should be free to use the measure of share of supply that it considers appropriate having regard to the relevant circumstances and regardless of whether the acquisition leads to an overlap in share of supply.
I have dealt at somewhat greater length with the amendments out of deference to the fact that the noble Lord moving them had truncated his remarks and gone to the heart of the issue. I also believed that it was obligatory for me to present the Government's defence of the present situation as fully as I was able to do, within the time constraints under which we are all operating. On the basis of the reply I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. As regards Amendment No. 310F I am happy with his reply, but I am not quite so happy as regards others. because it is overkill, too bureaucratic

1547
and expensive for the industry. The right thing for me to do is to read Hansard and reflect on what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 310C not moved.]
Clause 369 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 370 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Wakeham: This probably reveals me in my true colours. As regards my earlier remarks on a previous amendment, I was very supportive of the Bill. I listened to a great deal today and as the debate continued I tended to be more and more supportive of it and less supportive of some of the amendments which were moved. I may find myself in the rather unique position at Report of voting with the Government and against many of my colleagues in the House. I know that it is not normal for a former Chief Whip to say things like that.
Having said that, I agree with the Minister in particular as regards what he said in response to the first debate this morning on Amendment No. 280A. I do not believe that there is any serious dispute about the need to take the public interest into account. The Minister set out the logic of this Bill in a very clear way. Certain parts of the media, television and radio need licences and, quite rightly, the public interest is controlled by the granting, withdrawing or the modifying of such licences.
The Bill is about that important issue. I have not addressed the Committee on that subject at all because I am concerned about the newspaper industry. The newspaper industry does not need licences. Anyone can start one up, but there is still a public interest which has been and continues to be dealt with by competition law. The Bill does not change that and I am happy with that position.
My concern is that the logic set out by the Government is not followed in the Bill in the way that it should be. The Bill gives Ofcom some responsibility for newspapers. I would like to see Ofcom removed from the responsibility of the newspaper industry entirely. I do not think it is wise for a regulator with a primary role in the statutory oversight of broadcasting content and licensing of the electronic media to be involved also in newspaper mergers. There is a danger that Ofcom will become involved in the editorial content of newspapers and indeed in editorial personnel. That is a slippery slope down which we should not tread.
There is no justification for a number of things I heard in today's debate; for example, that newspapers must be unbiased—accurate and truthful, yes, but partisan and prejudiced are in my view the essential stuff of a free press and I wish to preserve those qualities. For that reason, logic indicates that newspapers and their control should be removed from the Bill. 1 am therefore unhappy about Clause 370. My remarks could be repeated about Clauses 373, 375,
1548
377, 378 and parts of Clause 384. My noble friend Lord Peyton, if he were here, would not be happy with those parts of the Bill.
I suspect that my proposals would make Ofcom a better organisation and that some people who think this is the right way forth are not in a position to say much about it. It is a dangerous slope to seek to bring the newspaper industry into the Bill, with which I have a great deal of sympathy. The Government are handling the television and radio side of it better than perhaps the debate has given them credit for. But I am still very concerned about the effect on the newspaper industry.
Baroness Buscombe: I support my noble friend Lord Wakeham and have added my name to his on all the amendments in this group. As he said, we want to remove Ofcom entirely from responsibility for newspapers. We oppose the clauses concerning newspaper mergers for a number of reasons. I hope that the Minister will look on our arguments favourably, not least because there is a great deal of concern in the industry surrounding the Government's proposals. I believe that the Government are fully aware of that.
The new regime presented in the Bill will mean that four regulators will be involved in making references in investigating the merger and determining what measures should be taken following any reference: the OFT, Ofcom, the Secretary of State and the Competition Commission. We are concerned that a newspaper wishing to become involved in a merger would be required to negotiate with all four regulators on exactly the same matters. Surely that is overly bureaucratic and burdensome for all those involved, not to mention time-consuming for Ofcom.
We therefore propose that Ofcom be taken out of the regime entirely. I appreciate that this may seem to be a drastic measure, but for the reasons I am about to give, we believe that it would be beneficial for newspapers and for the regulators involved.
Concerns have been expressed beyond your Lordships' House that Ofcom's capacity for content regulation might impinge on its activities in other areas. Ofcom will be dealing with sectors in which there has been spectrum scarcity and in which some content regulation has been justified. We would appreciate some reassurance from the Government that Ofcom's content powers will have no bearing on its role in newspaper mergers, and how will they ensure that that is the case. Alternatively, would the Government consider removing Ofcom from the mergers regime entirely?
Does the Minister agree that it is a regressive step to grant a body with a powerful content arm a say in newspaper matters, a body which, with all due respect, is completely out of touch with our tradition of a free press? Does the Minister further agree that the OFT is perfectly well equipped to deal with newspaper mergers in the same way as any competition issue is

1549
dealt with? In fact, does it make sense to leave those who have previously advised the Secretary of State on such matters to continue to do so in the future?
Baroness Blackstone: I am aware of the concerns in the newspaper industry about Ofcom's role in this area. However, the role will be advisory and limited to the specified newspaper public interest considerations set out in the legislation. It will take no decisions and will have no role in newspaper mergers unless the Secretary of State intervenes in a particular case. Furthermore, unlike the OFT's competition analysis, Ofcom's advice on plurality will not be binding on Ministers.
It has been suggested that the advisory role contemplated for Ofcom should instead be carried out by the OFT, which I believe lies behind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. However, that would be contrary to the thrust of the reforms of merger control set out in the Bill and in the Enterprise Act 2002, which is to establish and empower the OFT as a specialist competition authority.
I should also make it clear that, under the current regime, the OFT has no track record in advising on public interest issues relating to the accurate presentation of the news, freedom of expression of opinion or plurality of views in newspapers in relation to mergers. Instead DTI officials have responsibility for this advisory function under the current special newspaper merger regime, which I think answers the question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
As the independent media and communications regulator, Ofcom is the body best placed to advise the Secretary of State on the specified newspaper public interest considerations so as to help her decide whether to make a reference or, following a Competition Commission report, to implement the remedial action required. DTI know-how and expertise in this area can be shared with Ofcom as part of the transitional arrangements for the introduction of the new regime and, over time, Ofcom's expertise in this area will develop.
Ofcom's involvement will also help to make sure that it can comment on the newspaper merger regime when it carries out its triennial review. Such reviews may cover ways in which the regime could be improved and, indeed, whether there continues to be a need for such a regime.
We have also seen repeated assertions in the press that the provisions of the Bill will lead inexorably to regulation of the press. Contrary to those reports, the proposals set out in the Bill do not give Ofcom any role in content regulation. I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that the Government are not bringing in statutory regulation of the newspaper industry through the back door.
I agree that Ofcom, the Competition Commission and Ministers will be able, indeed will need, to look at the range of views currently available in newspapers in
1550
a relevant market and to consider the track record of the parties to a newspaper merger against the specified newspaper public interest considerations. Similar consideration takes place under the current special newspaper merger regime. I could give the Committee a recent example from Northern Ireland but will not take up time doing that now.
It should also be borne in mind that the merger control regime assesses the impact of structural changes. Assessing whether or not a purchaser is likely to have an impact on accurate presentation of news, freedom of expression of opinion, the plurality of views available in newspapers given the purchaser's track record and, if necessary, imposing remedies to ensure that the public interest is protected following such structural changes is clearly different from ongoing monitoring of content.
The newspaper public interest considerations are only relevant to assessing the impact of a given merger on the public interest and have no relevance outside that context. As a result, Ofcom's advisory role on such issues cannot lead to the sort of creeping regulation feared. It is significant that an advisory role for Ofcom was supported by the pre-legislative scrutiny committee.
Clause 370 agreed to.
Clause 371 [Extension of special public interest regime for certain newspaper mergers]:
[Amendment Nos. 310D to 310F not moved.]
Clause 371 agreed to.
Clauses 372 to 375 agreed to.
Clause 376 [Advice and information in relation to newspaper mergers]:
[Amendment No. 310G not moved.]
Clause 376 agreed to.
Clauses 377 to 382 agreed to.
Schedule 16 agreed to.
Clause 383 [Annual Report on the Secretary of State's functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 311 and 312 not moved.]
Clause 383 agreed to.
Clause 384 [Review of media ownership]:
[Amendments Nos. 313 to 313B not moved.]
Clause 384 agreed to. Clause 385 agreed to.
Clause 386 [General restrictions on disclosure of information]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 314:
Page 335, line 8, at end insert "of the United Kingdom"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 314, I shall also speak to the other amendments in the group. They correct minor drafting errors, or make small technical amendments to the Bill. Amendment No. 314 makes clear that the words in Clause 386 should be read in accordance with the definitions in Clause 398. Amendment No. 322AZA simply

1551
translates a number of terms in the Broadcasting Act 1990 that relate to existing telecoms legislation into the language used in Part 2 of the Bill.
Amendment No. 323 is a consequential amendment missed from an earlier amendment made in another place to Schedule 17 (160). Amendment No. 324 brings the language used in the European Parliament (Representation) Act into line with the Bill. Amendment No. 328A is a drafting correction that removes an erroneous "or". Given the lateness of the hour I have been brief, but if any noble Lords would like more details, I would be happy to write to them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 386, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 387 to 397 agreed to.
Clause 398 [General interpretation]:
[Amendments Nos. 315 and 316 not moved.]
Viscount Falklandmoved Amendment No. 316A:
Page 348, line 8, after "or insert ", or in connection with,"
The noble Viscount said: I speak behalf of my noble friend Lord Razzall who is not in the Chamber. This is a minor, drafting amendment to amplify the existing definition of consumers in a market for a service. I have some optimism that the Government will be sympathetic to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple GuitingThe Government are sympathetic to the amendment and are most grateful to the noble Viscount.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 398, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 399 agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
[Amendment No. 317 not moved]
Schedule 17 agreed to.
Schedule 18 [Transitional Provisions]:
Lord Crickhowellmoved Amendment No. 317A:
Page 529, line 32, at end insert "or
(c) for any right or obligation to arise,"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 317B and 317C. These have been prompted by the advice of a very distinguished group of lawyers. Many thousands of commercial agreements have been entered into where there is the provision that in the event of a party losing its telecoms licence, that agreement may be terminated or may even come to an end automatically. Obviously, when they entered into the agreement, the parties did not have in mind the circumstances of licence loss now being created by the Bill, which is abolishing the licence regime and replacing it with something else.
To avoid problems arising and many agreements being unintentionally terminated or revoked, the Government have inserted a provision to the effect
1552
that the loss of licence created by the implementation of the directives by the Bill shall not be effective to trigger such clauses in commercial agreements—
Lord Davies of Oldham: In the interests of time, we see merit in these amendments and will consider them. Perhaps that may help the noble Lord.
Lord Crickhowell: I wondered whether the Minister might rise to curtail this debate. These are important amendments with a very good pedigree behind them. I am grateful to the Minster and look forward to seeing the emergence of what he referred to. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: As the Minister is in such a good mood, I hope that he will say something nice about my amendment, which follows on from an earlier debate. The Minister is nodding his head so I know he is aware of what I am about to say. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, had written to me saying that he hoped to have some good news for me. Therefore I will not make the speech that I had prepared. I shall listen to the noble Lord instead.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord will not have to listen to me for very long. I was merely going to say that my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey had indeed written. We did not think we had given the appropriate reply to the earlier debate on this issue and the amendments of the noble Lord. I would like to assure him that we will consider his amendment in the same vein as those of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I hope both noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Crickhowell: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 317B to 318 not moved]
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 318A.
Page 531, line 39, leave out from "applies" to end of line 40 and insert "where OFCOM give a continuation notice to the holder of a licence granted under section 7 of the 1984 Act."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 318A and to speak to Amendments Nos. 318B to 318F, 319A to 319E and also to comment on Amendment No. 319.
As far as Amendment No. 319 is concerned, the Government agree in principle with the intention behind that amendment. These are government amendments meant to address this issue, we hope satisfactorily as far as Amendment No. 319 is concerned. This aims to secure that where the conclusion of the relevant market review is that it would not be appropriate to impose an SMP condition on the relevant person, Ofcom should then terminate the continued obligation. We agree that this is appropriate. I confirm that this will be one of the effects of the government amendments which I now move on behalf of the Government.

1553
This has arisen because we have some difficulties with regard to time in relation to European directives and our compliance with them. If we are not to have an unacceptable lacuna in important existing regulatory requirements—including the BT price cap—it becomes necessary to provide for the transitional continuation of a wider class of existing licence conditions. This does however have the advantage that it eases the timetable constraints for the market review process, thus meeting a significant concern on the part of the industry.
Amendments Nos. 319D and 319E are merely consequential on the amendments which I sought to move. We think that these are appropriate and necessary modifications to meet the new timing constraints impacting particularly on the process of market review which is required by the EC directives. I beg to move this amendment and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will not press Amendment No. 319.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about Amendment No. 319. However, do I gather that the Government do not contemplate adding any particular words into the Bill such as those we propose in this amendment? If that is the case, we are not clear that the clause is to be construed as if the words in the amendment were added. Would it be able to take account of a case where Ofcom has decided not to apply SMP conditions? In such a case, if Ofcom, having made that decision, does not serve a notice, then can the Minister confirm that the failure to do so would be subject to appeal, and where is that to be found in the Bill?
Such an appeal would be bound to succeed, thus effectively placing Ofcom under an obligation to issue the notice. It would surely be more straightforward and kinder to those who have to understand what is already a horrendously complicated piece of legislation to spell that out in plain English.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I understand the noble Lord's point. He will recognise that we are seeking to address that issue by way of amendment. However, we have a little time left to us as far as concerns the passage of the Bill. I shall happily write to the noble Lord with such reassurance, and shall fill in the details as regards the matter he raised.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise to seek some reassurances from the Government on the issue. I make it quite clear at the outset that I find the whole area reasonably technical and quite difficult. However, we are discussing important amendments. There is no question of our being unhappy with the amendments. In the same sense expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, we, too, have concerns about interpretation. Therefore, we are looking to the Government for assurances.
As we understand it, the Government's amendments to Schedule 18 seek to provide the Director General of Telecommunications with the
1554
power to issue notices to continue certain licence conditions beyond 25th July 2003, once the Telecommunications Act licences have been abolished, as is required by the EC electronic communications directives. The four GSM mobile operators—O2, Orange, T-Mobile, and Vodafone—are looking to us for assistance to obtain confirmation from the Government that there will be circumstances where Amendments Nos. 318A to 318F will not allow continuation notices to be issued for licence conditions that are in place on 24th July 2003.
Article 7(1) of the access directive is clear that national regulatory authorities are obliged to maintain obligations that,
"were in force prior to the date of entry of this Directive".
The directive came into force on 24th April 2002. The corollary of that obligation is that national regulatory authorities should not issue continuation notices for any conditions that have been imposed after that date. A particular example that concerns the four mobile operators is,
"the control of interconnection charges"—
a condition introduced by Oftel on 4th April 2003, after a review by the Competition Commission—nearly a full year after the access directive came into force.
Amendments Nos. 318A to 318F should not alter Oftel's position, as described in its submission to the Competition Commission in June 2002. Oftel stated then that a,
"licence condition proposed by the Competition Commission and imposed by the Director General. will fall away on 25th July 2003".
Oftel also said that it,
"can impose a 'replacement' condition to take effect from 25th July 2003, following a market review".
Oftel has commenced such a review, and the initial consultation period will end on 24th July 2003. If appropriate, any replacement condition should flow from the review within the next few months.
In addition, the four mobile operators to which I referred seek further clarification that this is what the Government believe should happen, and that no continuation notice for this condition will be issued on the basis of Article 7(6) of the framework directive—that is, where it is an exceptional and urgent case. We believe that that would not be appropriate or proportionate, bearing in mind that the due process is already in train.
Lord Davies of Oldham: As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, when he moved Amendment No. 319, these are very technical and complex matters. We have a little time before we need to reach a definitive position on the Bill, so if the noble Baroness will allow me, I shall write to her before Report with our response to the very important position that she has adopted and the points she has made in her contribution to this debate.
Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to the Minister, and hope that he will write to us before Report, as he says, so that we can review the situation then.

1555
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendments Nos. 318B to 318F:
Page 531, line 41, leave out from first "that" to "has" in line 15 on page 532 and insert "a provision contained in a condition of the licence is to have effect, after the abolition of licensing—

(a) to the extent specified in the notice; and

(b) subject to such modifications (if any) as may be so specified.

(2A) OFCOM are not to give a continuation notice except to the extent that they consider that provision to which it will give effect, as modified by the notice, ("the continued provision") corresponds to provision of one or more of the following descriptions—

(a) provision that they have power to include in SMP conditions;

(b) provision authorised by section 70(2) or (4) for inclusion in access-related conditions;

(c) provision relating to matters mentioned in Article 16 of the Universal Service Directive or Article 7 of the Access Directive.

(2B) A continuation notice relating to provision corresponding to anything that OFCOM have power to include in SMP conditions—

(a) may identify the market by reference to which an SMP condition replacing the provision would have to be set; and

(b) in so far as the provision corresponds to anything that OFCOM have power to include only in SMP apparatus conditions, must do so.

(2C) OFCOM arc not to give a continuation notice relating to provision corresponding to anything that OFCOM have power to include only in SMP apparatus conditions except to the extent that it"
Page 532, line 18, leave out "that condition" and insert "the continued provision"
Page 532, line 18, at end insert—
"(2D) The modifications for which a continuation notice may provide—

(a) must be confined to modifications for the purpose of securing that the provision to which they relate continues to have effect for so long as the notice is in force; but

(b) in the case of provision which is expressed to impose a requirement to be met before the abolition of licensing, may include a modification under which that requirement must continue to be met for so long as the notice remains in force."

Page 532, line 20, leave out from beginning to "remain" in line 24 and insert—

"(a) the continued provision,

(b) every provision made by a direction, determination or consent given or made for the purposes of the continued provision, and

(c) so far as necessary for giving effect to anything mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), every provision made by or under the licence under the 1984 Act that is not so mentioned,

are to"
Page 532, line 27, leave out sub-paragraphs (8) to (10) and insert—
"(7A) Where the continued provision is one that OFCOM have power to include only in an SMP apparatus condition, it shall be their duty, as soon as reasonably practicable after giving the continuation notice—

(a) to carry out an analysis of the market which, under subparagraph (2B), is identified in that notice;

1556

(b) to take all other steps necessary for enabling them to decide whether or not to set an SMP apparatus condition by reference to that market for the purpose of replacing the continued provision; and

(c) to decide whether or not to exercise their power to set such a condition for that purpose.

(7B) In the case of every other continued provision, it shall be OFCOM's duty, as soon as reasonably practicable after giving the continuation notice—

(a) to take all steps necessary for enabling them to decide whether or not to set a condition of any other description under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of this Act for the purpose of replacing the continued provision; and

(b) to decide whether or not to exercise their power to set a condition under that Chapter for that purpose.

(7C) It shall be the duty of OFCOM—

(a) as soon as reasonably practicable after making a decision required by sub-paragraph (7A) or (7B), but

(b) in a case where that decision is a decision to set a condition, not before the coming into force of that condition,

to give a notice under sub-paragraph (7) with respect to the continuation notice.
(7D) The duties imposed by sub-paragraphs (7A) to (7C) apply only where OFCOM have not previously given a notice under subparagraph (7) with respect to the continuation notice in question.
(7E) This paragraph has effect in the case of a licence granted under section 7 of the 1984 Act to persons of a particular class as if—

(a) references to the holder of that licence were references to the members of that class; and

(b) the manner in which a continuation notice or notice under sub-paragraph (7) is to be given to members of that class were by its publication in such manner as, in OFCOM's opinion, is appropriate for bringing it to the attention of the members of that class who are affected by the notice."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 319 not moved.]
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendments Nos. 319A to 319E:
Page 533, line 8, at beginning insert "Sub-paragraph (1A) has effect"
Page 533, line 14, leave out from "2003/330)" to "in" in line 15 and insert
"(1A) If, at any time after the commencement of section 42. OFCOM—

(a) are satisfied that a procedure has been followed in relation to the proposal that satisfies the requirements of Article 7 of the Framework Directive, and

(b) publish a notification to that effect in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of the persons who, in their opinion, arc likely to be affected by the proposal,

the proposal (with such modifications, if any, as are specified in the notification) is to have effect, from the publication of the notification,"
Page 533, line 45, at end insert—
"( ) Section 189 applies to a decision by OFCOM to publish a notification under this paragraph as it applies to a decision by them under Part 2 of this Act.
() In this paragraph "the Framework Directive" has the same meaning as in Chapter I of Part 2 of this Act."
Page 534, leave out line 39 and insert—
"(a) any provision to which effect is given, after the abolition of licensing, by a continuation notice"

1557
Page 535, line 4, leave out "the conditions" and insert "anything"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 320 not moved.]
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 320A:
Page 540, line 2, at end insert—
"(1A) Where a dispute—

(a) has arisen or arises about anything occurring or existing before the time when the revocation of those regulations comes into force ("the relevant time"),

(b) relates to matters disputes about which would (before that time) have been referable to the Director under regulation 6,

(c) is neither a dispute which was referred to him before that time nor a dispute arising after that time which is referable to OFCOM under section 182, and

(d) is referred to OFCOM after that time either during the transitional period or in a case in which OFCOM are satisfied that the circumstances that prevented the making of a reference before the end of that period are exceptional,

sub-paragraph (1) is to have effect as if the dispute were a dispute arising before the relevant time in the case of which a reference to the Director had been made under regulation 6 before that time."
The noble Lord said: What I have to say now is known as the Pepper v. Hart statement—that is, a statement about the meaning of the Bill which is intended to be relied upon in courts if there is any doubt about its correct interpretation.
Doubts have been expressed in this House, in another place and elsewhere as to whether the Bill clearly provides that decisions taken by the Secretary of State or by Oftel in exercising any Ofcom function in the transitional period envisaged by Clause 401 is subject to appeal under Clause 189—that is, to a full appeal on the merits. Our view is that this is indeed the effect of Clause 401. Subsection (2) provides that in relation to any such exercise of Ofcom's functions, references in the Bill to Ofcom are to have effect as references to the Director General of Telecommunications or to the Secretary of State, as the case may be. This is as much in respect of references to Ofcom in Clause 189 as in respect of any other references in Part 2 of the Bill.
I hope that noble Lords will find this statement helpful and will not press Amendment No. 320AA. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 320AA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 320A, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 320A agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendments Nos. 320B to 320G:
Page 540, line 4, after "(1)" insert or "or (1A)"
Page 540, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) But OFCOM are not to give a direction by virtue of subparagraph (2)(a) containing provision which they would have no power to include in—

(a) a condition set under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of this Act; or

(b) a direction under section 187."

1558
Page 540, line 25, leave out from "consider" to end of line 27 and insert "that the direction makes provision corresponding to that which they have power to include in—

(a) conditions set under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of this Act; or

(b) directions under section 187."

Page 540, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 and insert "(in whole or in part) a direction which—

(a) was given by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(a); or

(b) is a direction to which a notice under sub-paragraph (4) relates."

Page 540, line 30, at end insert—
"(6A) Where a direction which OFCOM have power to revoke under sub-paragraph (6) makes provision corresponding to anything that OFCOM have power to include in a condition set under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of this Act, it shall be their duty, as soon as reasonably practicable after giving the direction or as the case may be the notice under sub-paragraph (4)—

(a) to take all steps necessary for enabling them to decide whether or not to set such a condition for the purpose of replacing the direction; and

(b) to decide whether or not to exercise their power to set a condition under that Chapter for that purpose.

(6B) It shall be the duty of OFCOM—

(a) as soon as reasonably practicable after making a decision required by sub-paragraph (6A), but

(b) in a case where that decision is a decision to set a condition, not before the coming into force of that condition,

to give a notice under sub-paragraph (6) revoking the direction in question.
(6C) The duties imposed by sub-paragraphs (6A) and (6B) apply only where OFCOM have not previously revoked the direction in question."
Page 540, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) In this paragraph "transitional period" means the period which is the transitional period (within the meaning of section 401) in relation to this paragraph."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 321 and 322 not moved]
Lord Davies of Oldhammoved Amendment No. 322AZA:
Page 542, line 12, at end insert—
"Transitory amendments to telecommunications terms in Broadcasting Act 1990
23A (1) This paragraph has effect, in the case of each of the provisions of the 1990 Act to which it applies, in relation to times between—

(a) the commencement of Chapter I of Part 2 of this Act; and

(b) the commencement of so much of this Act (apart from this paragraph) as amends or repeals that provision.

(2) The provisions of the 1990 Act set out in sub-paragraph (3) shall have effect (subject to sub-paragraph (4)) as if—

(a) for every reference to a telecommunication system there were substituted a reference to an electronic communications network; and

(b) for references to running such a system there were substituted references to providing it.

(3) Those provisions of the 1990 Act are—

(a) section 46 (licensable programme services);

(b) section 51(1)(a) (procedures for consideration of applications for additional services licences);

(c) section 72 (local delivery services);

(d) section 75 (procedures for consideration of applications for local delivery licences);

1559

(e) section 112 (licensable sound programme services);

(f) section 117(1)(a) (procedures for consideration of applications for additional services licences);

(g) section 181 (apparatus deemed to be apparatus for wireless telegraphy).

(4) Sections 46(2) (licensable programme services), 112(2) (licensable sound programme services) and 201(2) (programme services) of the 1990 Act shall each have effect as if for paragraph (b) there were substituted—
"(b) a service which satisfies the conditions in section 230(5) of the Communications Act 2003;".
(5) In sections 48 and 114 of the 1990 Act (additional services), references to electronic signals shall have effect as references to signals within the meaning of section 29 of this Act.
(6) Section 75(2) of the 1990 Act (consultation with relevant licensing authorities) shall have effect as if in paragraph (b) for the words "would be required to be licensed" there were substituted "is a system which (but for repeals made by the Communications Act 2003) would have been required to be licensed".
(7) In section 181 of the 1990 Act (apparatus deemed to be apparatus for wireless telegraphy), "connected"—

(a) shall continue to be construed in accordance (notwithstanding its repeal) with section 4 of the 1984 Act; but

(b) shall be so construed as if, in that section of the 1984 Act, a reference to an electronic communications network were substituted for every reference to a telecommunication system.

(8) Part 5 of Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act (restriction on holding of licences by operators of public telecommunication systems) and the Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991 (S. I.1991/1176) shall have effect as if references to a national public telecommunications operator were references to a person who provides an electronic communications network so as to make it available for use by members of the public in the whole, or substantially the whole, of the United Kingdom."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 322ZA not moved.]
Schedule 18, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 19 [Repeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 322A to 322C not moved.]
Lord Evans of TempleGuiting moved Amendments Nos. 323 and 324:
Page 567, leave out lines 43 and 44.
Page 569, line 25, at end insert—

"European Parliament

In section 12(4), in the

(Representation) Act 2003

definition of "programme

(c. 7)

services", the words from

"(including" to "local delivery

services"."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 325 to 327 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 400 agreed to.
Clause 401 [Transitional provision for anticipatory carrying out of functions]:
Lord Aveburymoved Amendment No. 328:
Page 351, line 10, at end insert—
"and where in pursuance of such an order under section 403 any such function as is referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) is carried out by that Director or the Secretary of State, references in section 189
1560
to OFCOM shall in relation to anything referred to in that section have effect as if they were references to that Director or the Secretary of State as the case may be."
The noble Lord said: In Committee in another place, Stephen Timms, the Minister, agreed that only decisions made by Oftel or the Secretary of State after the Bill comes into force but before Ofcom takes up its powers—which is likely to be somewhere near the end of this year—should be subject to appeals, including appeals on merit, under Clause 189. The wording of the Bill does not specify that, and the Minister said in Committee in another place that it needed to be changed.
No amendment was made on Report. We were told that it was the Government's intention that the Minister would make a statement on Report in another place, but that did not happen either, perhaps because debate of the relevant parts of the Bill was curtailed by the fall of the guillotine. In view of what the Minister said about the last group of amendments that we debated, we do not believe that there is an ambiguity in the Bill in relation to which a Pepper v Hart would be appropriate in this instance. On contrary, we would like the right of appeal to be in the Bill, in accordance with the Minister's undertaking. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: We support the amendment.
Lord Evans of Temple Gutting: I must apologise to the House. In the rush to get through before the next debate, I inadvertently spoke to the wrong amendment a few minutes ago. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is saying. The Government's view is that the Pepper v Hart statement is actually watertight. I shall take away his points and return later, but certainly before Report stage. I apologise again for my mistake.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful for that assurance and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 401 agreed to.
Clause 402 [Application of enactments to territorial sea and other waters]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 328A:
Page 352, line 39, leave out "or"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 402, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 403 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 329 not moved.]
The Earl of Northeskmoved Amendment No. 330:
Page 353, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) until the requirements of Directive 98/34/EC (as amended by Directive 98/48/EC), including any relevant notifications and standstill periods, have been complied with in relation to the provisions to be brought into force by the order."

1561
The noble Lord said: I assure the Committee that this is not one of my "techie" amendments—rather it is procedural. I should also emphasise that my purpose here is simply to seek reassurance from the Government.
As the Committee will be aware, Directive 98/48/EC requires parliaments of member states to notify the Commission of future national legislative initiatives that specifically pertain to information society services. By way of reassurance to the Government, I know that radio and television broadcasting services and telecommunications services are specifically excluded from the requirement to notify. So far, so good. But electronic communications networks are not so excluded. None the less, national legislative instruments implementing EC directives are also excluded. One could perhaps conclude therefore that even Chapter 1 of the Bill is, as it were, "safe".
Someone of a churlish frame of mind might be tempted to ask why I am therefore wasting the Committee's time, but I am concerned that matters may not be quite as straightforward as all that. Members of the Committee will recall the passage of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. During the proceedings my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale raised the issue of the technical standards directive. The Government's position was rock solid. With unshakeable conviction, it was maintained that the Bill was not notifiable. I do not doubt the sincerity with which that view was held, but in the event the Commission disagreed and maintained that that Bill was indeed notifiable. The rest, as they say, is history and the Bill was duly notified.
I have no doubt that the Minister will rise shortly to tell me that my amendment is unnecessary because the directive does not apply, but that was precisely the approach adopted by the Government in respect of the tobacco Bill. I hope, therefore, that he will also be able to give me an assurance that the Government are not relying solely on their own interpretation of the directive in this matter. In other words, have they consulted the Commission to ascertain its opinion on the status of the Bill?
We should bear in mind that, on the free admission of the Minister, the Bill is explicitly inconsistent with the Human Rights Act and thereby European law. I leave aside the considerable concerns that exist about the religious disqualification. While I admit that that may not be of immediate relevance to the technical standards directive, it is the first and so far only Bill where it has proved impossible for the Secretary of State to attach a Section 19 statement, albeit, in the Government's view, only in respect of Clause 314. We all know the reasons why. Nor, judging from the Committee's deliberations on Amendment No. 260, is the Government's stance on the issue a matter of dispute. But if I can put it this way, that may make the Bill a target, the more so because one of the primary aims of the technical standards regime is to achieve
1562
consistency of regulation throughout the single market. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, put this rather more robustly, arguing:
"It is barely an exaggeration to say that a sword of Damocles hangs over us in this matter".—[Official Report, 3/6/03, col. 1306]
The Committee may feel that this is an unduly narrow issue, that I am fretting unnecessarily. But it is worth reminding ourselves that, should the Bill be enacted without notification and it subsequently transpires that it should have been notified, it will be open to anyone, on simple application to the court, to strike the Bill down in its entirety. Observing the passage of most of the Bill from afar, I have been struck by the enlightened, non-partisan and tireless way in which Members of the Committee have toiled to improve it. I have no doubt that that will continue through remaining stages. It is testament to the worth of the excellent work of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, as a complement to rather than a substitute for this House's deliberations.
If I may say so, your Lordships deserve a collective pat on the back even if, as we come to the end of Committee stage, many of us could wish that a corresponding enlightenment had emanated from the Government Front Bench more often. However remote the possibility, I should hate to see such sterling work come to naught for want of being absolutely certain about the Bill's status with the technical standards regime. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I hope to persuade the noble Earl that his amendment is in substance unnecessary. Quite simply, the amendment is unnecessary because it merely restates a requirement of European law which is already in place. The Bill is quite long enough already—some may say far too long—and there is certainly no need to make it any longer by duplicating existing requirements which need no such support. We believe that that would be bad legislative process.
Of course the Government will meet the requirements of the directive. We will notify any provision of the Bill that is necessary. I can assure the noble Earl that any such provisions will not be commenced until the requirements of the directive, including any stand-still periods, are complied with. That will be no very demanding matter because the overwhelming mass of the Bill is in any case not notifiable. Parts 1 and 5 are not notifiable because they impose obligations only on Ofcom and not any other person. Part 3 and Part 4 are not notifiable because broadcasting services are excluded from the scope of the directives. As laws which merely implement Community obligations are not notifiable, that takes out most of Part 2 since it is largely taken up with implementation of the EC electronic communications directives. There are indeed some provisions that do not implement the directives. Those mostly carry forward existing requirements. So again they do not introduce new technical standards. However, we do

1563
see a possible case for notifying Clauses 117 to 121 on regulation of premium rate services and Clauses 125 to 128 on persistent misuse of a network or service.
The provisions, although not altogether new, carry forward to a considerable extent aspects of current telecommunications regulation rather than impose new burdens, but they do so in a different and explicit statutory form, which did not exist previously. We are inclined to think that it would be appropriate to notify them at the appropriate time. I hope that the noble Earl will agree that his amendment is in this light unnecessary and that he will feel able to withdraw it.
The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. As I hope that I made plain in my introductory remarks, I was fairly certain that the Minister would advise me that the amendment was unnecessary, but the substantive question to which I really wanted an answer was whether the Government had consulted the commission on its interpretation of the status of the Bill. There is no need for the Minister to reply to that issue at this time, but if he could write to me about it, I would be grateful. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 403 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

European Union (Accessions) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Gypsies and Travellers
7.52 p.m.
Lord Aveburyrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they intend to do to address the social deprivation of gypsies and travellers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to your Lordships who stayed until this late hour to discuss a subject which is of great importance, but which receives little attention. Travelling people are the most socially deprived of all the minorities in England, but their needs receive comparatively little attention. Their accommodation, educational attainment, health and job opportunities are all inferior to those of the rest of the population, and the disadvantages they suffer, which are handed down from one generation to the next, are compounded by neglect.
We are not immediately concerned with travellers in Wales, but I would like to draw attention to the Welsh Assembly's work, because it has conducted a survey and concluded that there can be no doubt that, in many respects, gypsies and travellers are one of the most discriminated-against groups in Wales. The Assembly has made a series of recommendations which are intended to deliver equality in service
1564
provision for travellers. From now on, I shall refer to "travellers" as meaning gypsies and travellers for the sake of conciseness.
I wanted to mention the work of the Welsh Assembly because many of the recommendations it makes read across to England; for example, that in referring to gypsies and travellers, public authorities should capitalise the word, which they do not always do, even in your Lordships' House. I am sorry to say that the Minute Room insists on putting small T for travellers whenever I write large T. I hope that that can be corrected.
Most importantly of all, the Welsh Assembly recommends that there should be a duty to provide accommodation for travellers. That is a point that I shall return to later on.
When I asked the Prime Minister to refer the needs of travellers to the Social Exclusion Unit, he said that he would make sure that my suggestion was borne in mind, but that competition for new projects was very strong. Three years down the line, nothing has happened. The Deputy Prime Minister's housing Green Paper, Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All, did not mention gypsies once, and the policy statement which followed contained one paragraph about the refurbishment of their sites, but nothing about new homes. Not one penny of the £22 billion announced by the Deputy Prime Minister for sustainable communities in February is to be spent on accommodation or facilities for travellers. They are to be fobbed off with £16 million over the next two years, part of which may be spent on transit sites but none on permanent sites.
The Human Rights Act was intended to promote equality between different ethnic groups but only just over one in three local authorities have reviewed their policies in relation to travellers to see which of them is Strasbourg compatible. 'The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, told me in a Written Answer that any person claiming to be a victim of a local authority's failure to comply with the Act had a right to bring proceedings. Noble Lords will agree that that will not be too easy for someone who is homeless on the roadside.
As the Minister knows, however, there has been one important case in which the High Court found that a local authority was in breach of its duty because respect for private and family life meant that there is a positive obligation to facilitate the gypsy way of life. Can the Minister confirm that the homeless code of guidance is being revised to take that judgment into account?
The Homelessness Act requires housing authorities to produce a strategy for dealing with homelessness by the end of July, and that must set out how the authority is going to prevent homelessness and provide enough accommodation for people who are homeless or likely to become homeless. Since there are 2,500 traveller caravans on unauthorised sites, and the people living in them are by definition homeless, according to the definition in the Housing Act 1996, one would have expected to see vigorous action to provide sites as the deadline approaches. Not a single extra pitch has been provided, to my knowledge.

1565
The Race Relations (Amendment) Act requires all public authorities to assess the way that their policies affect minorities and to take remedial action to correct inequalities. They must publish a race equality statement and monitor their own performance. I am not aware of any steps that are taken by councils to remove the gross disadvantages experienced by travellers.
Now, perhaps, there is a new opportunity, if the Government accept the recommendations by Pat Niner that there should be a clear, widely understood policy on accommodation, so that travellers have a secure base to which they can return if they are nomadic, and where they can remain permanently if they wish to settle down. That is the key to attacking the problem of social deprivation among travellers, as we have known for the past 40 years; it is the principle underlying the Traveller Law Reform Bill, which was reintroduced by Mr David Atkinson in another place, and the Early-Day Motion in the name of Mr Kevin McNamara. It is the goal of the new Parliamentary Travellers Group, which has just been formed, and it is the theme of the Liberal Democrat policy development paper, Gypsies and other Travellers, on which the Minister in another place, Mr Tony McNulty, commented favourably in the past few weeks.
There is also widespread recognition of the fact that friction between travellers and the rest of the population arises largely in relation to unauthorised sites, on which the lack of clean water, sanitation and refuse disposal inevitably generate problems.
The Government say that they are committed to improving the lives of travellers—but they have yet to respond to the Niner report after seven months—and to aiming for,
"sustainable solutions that are agreeable to all",
to use the Minister's words. That means waiting for ever. Over the years since the 1968 Act, the problem was always to get agreement between counties and districts on where to put sites, and local residents would always fight proposals for a site in their neighbourhood. In the end, decisions must be made that will not be popular with everybody, and the sensible way forward is to reinstate the duty of local authorities to provide enough accommodation for gypsies,
"residing in or resorting to their area",
to use the phraseology of the 1968 Act, and at the same time to get an agreement between the Government and local authorities on the numbers to be put in each area, as Sir John Cripps suggested as long ago as 1977.
What Ministers have proposed so far is grossly inadequate. The £17 million refurbishment grant over three years may be compared with Pat Niner's estimate that £123 million over 30 years is needed merely to maintain the 308 sites that were in use in early 2002. That is not even to reinstate the remaining 16 sites which had degenerated to the point of being unusable. If spending continued at that rate, it might be just enough to prevent further losses, but in the next two years, 2004–05 and 2005–06, they plan to spend
1566
£16 million on refurbishment and the provision of transit sites. So the money has to be split between the two.
The policy of leaving the provision of sites entirely to the private sector is failing, as we have repeatedly told Ministers since 1994, when the 1968 Act was repealed. Between January 2002 and January 2003—the figures for which have just been announced—the number of pitches on private sites went up by 44, but at the same time the number on council sites decreased by 92. The effect of all that is that the number on unauthorised sites shot up by 351. That follows an increase the previous year of 327. So in two years one has 680 more caravans parked on unauthorised sites as a result of the policy of Fenéantisme that we have had from the Government.
The effect of the 1994 repeal was masked for a few years, because council sites were still in the pipeline being constructed, and because there was an unexplained fall in the total number of traveller caravans in the first two years after 1994. But now the chickens are coming home to roost. It is a scandal that traveller homelessness is on the increase, with two out of every 10 families already with nowhere to go. It is unjust and unacceptable for the Government to be offering local authorities increased powers to manage unauthorised encampments when it is their own failure to do anything about providing accommodation for the last six years that has brought about the present crisis.
At the very least, the Government should allow the Housing Corporation to lend money on traveller sites so that registered social landlords can play some part. They should also promote a few pilot schemes for the provision of group housing as in the Republic of Ireland, which the Housing Corporation could already fund. The Government could invite local authorities to make land available for this purpose, and thus to meet their obligations under the Homelessness Act.
No one pretends that these are simple problems, but we shall not solve any of them until there is, as Pat Niner says, a clear, widely understood policy for accommodation, to which has to be integrated properly resourced programmes for equality in education, health and social welfare. We want the Government to set out their goals and how they are to be achieved. They have done a lot for minorities; now it is the time for travellers to enjoy some of the fruits of equality that are the right and prerogative of us all.
8.3 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for securing the time for this important debate. I declare my interest as a landowner. I regret that the only experience I have of directly working with a gypsy traveller child was several years ago and spanned six weeks at one afternoon a week. However, I worked last year on the passage of the Education Bill, focusing on issues surrounding access to education for looked-after children. Some of the issues we discussed then are germane to this debate.

1567
There is a well recognised history of deprivation of education as regards traveller children, stretching back at least 40 years, which began with the Plowden report in 1996. An Ofsted report, The Education of Travelling Children, stated:
"Access to the curriculum for secondary-aged children remains a matter of grave concern. There are possibly as many as 10,000 children at this phase who are not even registered with a school".
There are issues about registration; the attendance of secondary schoolchildren, which averages about 75 per cent and is markedly lower than that of any other ethnic group; and lower levels of achievement than other groups.
Clearly, there are problems in engaging a semi-nomadic community and settled society. There is also distrust by the gypsy traveller community of settled society which one can understand, given the history of persecution in this country over several centuries, including during the Second World War on the Continent. There are other examples.
We must do more to address the issue of the failure to allow access to secondary school education for possibly 10,000 or more children. I should like to concentrate on this issue and ask the Government what they are doing seriously to address this problem. Indeed, they are already doing much and I pay tribute to their policy of inclusion generally which impacts on this group of people. Sure Start is a very important programme which has involved large investment for the early years. That is repeatedly emphasised in the literature as being an important way of engaging gypsy traveller children in mainstream education. If one can ensure that their families have a good experience of pre-school education they are more likely to continue to primary and, one hopes, to secondary education.
The additional funding made available to schools in difficult areas through education action zones and for those in areas of urban deprivation through the Excellence in Cities initiative have an important part to play in improving access to education for gypsy traveller children. I visited the Star primary school in Newham a few months back, headed by Marion Rosen. It is a school with a majority of asylum-seeking children. It is well recognised as being in an area of high deprivation. The school was under special measures for about two years, but with the introduction of Marion Rosen and her inspiring leadership, it is now described in the latest Ofsted inspection report as being a good school and as especially good at including asylum-seeking children and those with special educational needs.
The Government have recognised the need for leadership in this area and have established a centre of excellence for the training of head teachers. Again, the literature in this area emphasises the importance of good leadership to increasing inclusion, including of gypsy traveller children. In the Education Bill, more leeway was allowed to schools in terms of the application of the national curriculum so that the best and most appropriate teaching was provided to children who did not necessarily fit in with the mainstream. It is a constant theme of the literature that gypsy traveller children and their families often find
1568
that the national curriculum is not relevant to their own culture. But when that is reviewed by schools, and when elements of gypsy history and culture are introduced, it is an important way of encouraging confidence and engagement in the school.
Last year Ofsted reported that we now have the best teachers in our schools since it started its work. That is a key part of being more inclusive. We need to have high expectations of traveller children. Good teachers have high expectations of all their children.
I also welcome the work of the group for school inclusion. I welcome, too, the £155 million the Government invest through the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant for all those children from ethnic minorities. But we have to recognise that more investment is needed. These children suffer from cultural impoverishment if they do not receive their secondary school education. They do not meet Pythagoras or Aristotle; they never get to know Romeo and Juliet. They are deprived of their rights to a decent, broad education.
In the House we now have a large representation of women. We have some people from the Afro-Caribbean, Chinese and Asian communities. As far as I know, we have no representation from the gypsy traveller community. The gypsy traveller community is unlikely to have a voice. They are likely to be neglected. Their important deprivation is likely to be ignored as long as we fail to ensure that many of their children have a full education.
Other consequences of being under-educated are a higher likelihood of involvement in criminality, as we all know; and a higher likelihood of pregnancy at a young age, which is likely to lead to lower life chances for their children—and so continue the cycle of deprivation. I ask Her Majesty's Government what their aspirations are for those children. What do they hope for for the future? What is the role in particular of the Traveller Education Service? How have the Government improved the service since 1997 and what are their plans for its further development?
As Ministers will be aware, the service has an essential role to play in terms of, for instance, admissions. If a child arrives at a school in the middle of a school year, having perhaps moved frequently before, the Traveller Education Service will help the child to obtain a school uniform; perhaps secondhand, by one means or another. In the transition from primary to secondary school, when so many children are lost, the Traveller Education Service, with its good relationship with the traveller community, is able to work to ensure a good transition. The Traveller Education Service works in partnership with education welfare offices to ensure that children do not absent themselves from school.
There have clearly been improvements in attendance and achievement. That was noted in the Ofsted report and must be attributed largely to the achievements of the Traveller Education Service. How are the Government building on that success? Are they increasing resources to that essential service, and how are they targeting the available resources?

1569
The helpful Department for Education and Employment research report RR238 points out that the schools with the most effective practice invest significant management resources in the establishment of good relationships with parents and pupils. It gives an example of what that means in practice. A teacher assigned to working with those communities says:
"I know the families very well. I have known them for 13 years and they know me. I have signed their passport forms, driving licences and sometimes a parent will come into school with a letter or something they don't understand and I try and help them with that. The school is a place where they know they can get help".
That kind of long-term investment by those staff is necessary, but obviously it is resource-intensive. The time of the staff is an important and limited resource. Can the Minister give an assurance that every school with gypsy traveller children on its roll has a designated, named person of the kind I have just described? Are Her Majesty's Government ensuring that adequate management resources are provided to ensure good relationships with parents and pupils?
We cannot afford to have perhaps over 10,000 gypsy traveller children missing out on their education. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to consider targeting more resources on the Traveller Education Service. I would also urge the Minister to consider how he can ensure that schools are sufficiently resourced to allow staff to develop essential relationships with traveller parents and communities. I look forward to the Minister's response.
8.16 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on bringing this debate to the House. I confess with a measure of guilt that I was not as aware as I should have been of the distinctive contribution of the travelling communities to our society, and their particular needs. In researching the background to the debate, I have been glad to be able to take the opportunity to remedy that a little. I am particularly grateful for the briefing I have received from some of those most involved in supporting the travelling communities and drawing attention to their needs.
Speaking only for the Church of England for the moment, the diocese of Salisbury among our dioceses deserves special mention as having a priest who is particularly dedicated to this work. I was also pleased to access research undertaken on behalf of the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies, in part already referred to, as well as to receive briefing from some of the statutory and voluntary agencies.
Perhaps I may start a little further afield. The diocese of Chester has a special link with the Anglican Province of Melanesia, which comprises the Solomon Islands and Manuatu in the Pacific, amounting to seven dioceses in total. I am pleased that a predecessor of mine linked us with that part of the world rather than the Arctic or one or two other places that one could think of.
1570
It was both a privilege and pleasure for me to make an extensive visit to the province and to visit all the main centres of population. The people there have very little money, but I never encountered anyone begging or suffering from malnutrition. It seemed that everyone had someone to look after them. In the local pidgin English, each person is someone else's wantok or relative. Life is lived in large, extended families, although within those extended families there is still a particular concentration on the nuclear family.
When I returned to the United Kingdom and to my house in Chester, I was struck by the many contrasts. The most obvious one was that of our wealth and sophistication, but alongside I was also struck by people who live in the streets and who would come up and beg; people sleeping rough and who had nowhere to go. Quite soon after I got back, two lads, both in their late teens or early 20s and quite well spoken, called at my door and asked politely whether they could borrow a tin opener to open their tins of baked beans for their evening meal. They were two of a stream of people who call at my house. I contrasted that with the fact that I witnessed no homelessness or such activity in the Solomons.
Other contrasts would include, for example, the basis on which land is held or owned. We are used to property rights of a fairly absolute kind, with the ability to possess and to sell freehold. In the Solomons, land is held on a custom basis; that is, it belongs to a given village or family and is allocated as required to everyone living in the village or belonging to the family. The one Anglo-Saxon bishop still serving in the Solomons—he has been there for 30 years—emphasised to me the value of this way of relating people and communities to the land. Indeed, in those Solomon Islands where modern western ways have been tried, largely around the capital of Honiara, it has tended to produce unrest and conflict. I say that to illustrate the different ways in which cultural groups can organise their lives. For all their differences, I have been struck by the similarities between the traditional ways of life in the Solomons that I encountered and those of the travelling communities in this country that should be allowed to continue.
This debate is intended to draw attention to social deprivation among the travelling communities, which is entirely right. As our society has progressively become more organised and regulated, the traditional way of life of the travelling communities has come under increasing and inevitable pressure. For reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, outlined, that has impacted in a particular way on their ability to travel with some security as to where they can exist from time to time.
Our challenge is to offer the travelling communities access to employment opportunities, welfare and education. I endorse entirely the words of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I have been deeply impressed by the ability of many schools in the diocese of Chester to rise to the challenge of educating travelling children and to see them as an enrichment of the school community.

1571
That access needs to be in a form that respects the rights of travelling communities to continue their traditional lifestyles but also enriches society. We can too easily become patronising and speak about "us" and "them", as though it were a one-way traffic. I will refer later to the reverse process.
There are ample statistics to demonstrate that members of the travelling communities suffer from various disadvantages to their health, compared with the average. Life expectancy in the travelling communities is as much as 10 years lower for a man and 12 years for a woman—a stark statistic indeed. A report in the British Medical Journal on maternal deaths from 1997 to 1999 suggested that deaths among women in the travelling communities were
"quite possibly at the highest rate among all ethnic groups".
On the broader health front, an article in the Journal of Public Health Medicine in 2001, based on extensive research in the traveller community in and around Sheffield, concluded that
"the health status of gypsy travellers is significantly poorer than in the lowest socio-economic UK population group".
It is interesting to note that health statistics were similar for travellers who still live in caravans and move around to some degree and those who were more traditionally housed.
I will not rehearse the precise statistics in the health papers but the key question is why the statistics for the travelling communities, even when they are accommodated in relatively fixed dwellings, is so low. The answer is paradoxical. Either it is harder for the travelling communities to access healthcare because they tend to be on the move and do not conform to the norms for accessing healthcare or they are reluctant to do so because of distrust.
On the other hand, there is clear evidence that the reduced opportunities that many travellers have to follow their traditional lifestyle when accommodated in conventional housing is itself a major cause of stress and ill health. Our response must correspondingly be two-sided. We should make it easier for the travelling communities to access healthcare in sensitive ways adapted to their culture. We should as far as possible honour the aspirations of the travelling communities to continue their lifestyles, which will undoubtedly evolve in a dialogue with the sophisticated world around them.
In seeking to make it easier for the travelling communities to access healthcare, we need to encourage and perhaps even to require health trusts to have strategies that focus on the needs of their ethnic minorities. That suggests the use of healthcare professionals who understand the culture of the travelling communities and can relate to them and other ethnic groups as well, and gain their confidence. I am aware that that is already happening and no doubt the Minister will give me further information, but I sense that the matter needs to go further. The statistics for life expectancy speak for themselves.
The second strand is equally important—to honour the aspirations of the travelling communities as far as possible to continue their distinctive lifestyles and to
1572
permit their distinctive cultures to evolve. That is what they want unequivocally to do. That has been true across the generations. I was interested to read a research project by Save the Children relating to younger members of the travelling communities in Scotland. When the young people were asked what was the best thing about belonging to their communities, the overwhelming answer was, "Our freedom and nomadic way of life". We need to recognise that that will not go away. I add that I find my own life rather too nomadic, but that illustrates the differences that exist. As previous speakers have made clear, in recent years the travelling communities have found it much harder to achieve that in a non-stressful way.
I shall conclude with some remarks on why we should seek to honour that desire to maintain traveller and gypsy traditions. We should not do so grudgingly or by concession, or merely on the grounds of individual rights, but with a deep sense of respect and gratitude for the contribution to the wider riches of society that the traveller culture can make. Their history in this country has been one of discrimination from Henry VIII onwards—and often of abuse, including, relating to children, much bullying when they have been in mainstream schools. However, because of the great stress on anti-bullying policies in schools today, that is improving.
I do not doubt that at times there have been genuine problems which should be addressed by the authorities in a proper way. The law applies to us all, although when we make law in this Chamber I sometimes think that we should bend over backwards a little more to take account of the proper needs and aspirations of the minority groups that those laws will influence.
I do not wish to romanticise traveller or gypsy communities. There is no doubt a great deal that can be gained by an interaction of those communities with modern society in this country. However, we need to open up those channels in a way that is genuinely mutual, reciprocal and non-threatening.
Let me return to our experience as a diocese in our links with the Solomons. It has deeply enriched us to have clergy from the Solomons working in our parishes. In particular, one priest, who is in Episcopal orders, has been working in a parish in the diocese for six years. His ministry has been a breath of fresh air—just because he comes out of, and represents, a culture which in some deep respect is very different from our own. When he was asked to take his first funeral at a crematorium, he was simply astonished at our casual, almost throwaway, quasi-supermarket-inspired ritual of death with a 20-minute slot on the crematorium conveyor belt. Back home a funeral would have taken a full day as the family gathered with the whole community to mark, mourn and signify the passing of one of their members.
That is just how the travelling communities tend to mark the death of one of their members. They do it with elaborate ritual; someone stays with the body of the deceased in a specially-furnished caravan until the body has been reverently buried, with their close

1573
possessions being carefully distributed or buried with them. I do not wish to endorse details of the ceremony, but the respect for human life which that ceremony reflects is something that I often think we could learn from in wider society.
The Chief Rabbi. Dr Jonathan Sachs, recently published an important book, The Dignity of Difference. One of the key challenges of the 21st century will be to learn how to live alongside other communities with different traditions, and to allow those traditions, as far as possible in a non-threatening and non-stressful way, to evolve in an inevitable dialogue with the modern world. That is true both across the globe as a whole, as we saw in yesterday's debate on globalisation—as that shrinks international distances—and within countries—and perhaps especially in Britain after all the immigration of the past 50 years and the ongoing movement of peoples.
Traveller communities represent some of the oldest, perhaps the oldest ethnic minority group in our midst. How we learn to treat them better and indeed to learn from them, may well have wider consequences for the overall stability and richness of our country than we often realise.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I too would like to thank my noble friend Lord Avebury for initiating this very important debate. The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right. Few of us realise how deprived this group in our society have been, nor that they have been part of our society for a very long time. Like the right reverend Prelate, I have not had a great deal of involvement with the gypsy or traveller community.
Two issues came to mind when I came to face this debate. As an aspiring Member of the other place, I got involved with a gypsy site in the south of the Guildford constituency I worked in. The problem was one of disenfranchisement. We were anxious to make sure that those on this permanent site benefited. It was a permanent site that had been in dispute for 17 years. It was owned by the gypsy families concerned but their right to establish a permanent caravan site had been disputed by local residents for 17 years. In the end, a high profile High Court case, with the local authorities supporting the gypsies, solved the issue. They are still there and they are a group of extended families who now live very much in harmony with the local community.
The other picture that came to mind was that I spent the last 20 years as an academic at the University of Sussex. I lived in Guildford and commuted quite frequently. Beside the new Brighton bypass there is a site that is constantly used by travellers as an unauthorised site. One saw this regular routine of a number of caravans and lorries building up. Then one would see the big pick-up trucks sitting on the top of the hill, ready to go down and take them away. The next day one saw some of the caravans being hauled out and they would be gone. Then within three or four weeks the constant movement would start all over again.
1574
These two events probably epitomise some of the problems that we face in what is a very sorry story of racism and prejudice. We have flouted our own race discrimination and human rights legislation.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned that he doubted that there was any member of this ethnic minority in this House. There are probably no members of that ethnic minority who are magistrates, school governors or policemen, even though we put such emphasis on having ethnic minority representation in all those spheres of life. This process of moving them on and moving them on creates problems and the social deprivation seen in their communities today.
I was interested in the statistics given by my noble friend, Lord Avebury. At the last count there were 13,612 gypsy caravans and 13,058 sites. But of those sites, at least 1,000 and probably closer to 2,000 are actually unusable and unused. I understand that 8,000 or so are local authority sites, while 4,500 are private sites. Twenty-six per cent of the sites are situated next to motorways, 13 per cent are next to runways, 8 per cent are next to commercial and industrial sites, 12 per cent are next to rubbish tips, and 4 per cent are next to sewage farms. Very frequently, the latter are noisy and dirty sites. Therefore, it is not very surprising that we find that the health of this group is affected by the conditions of these sites.
Similarly, given the constant process of moving on because of the use of unauthorised sites, it is not surprising that we see such deprivation in the education of these children. Like the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I am wearing my hat as the spokesman for education. I was especially interested in considering the question of education. Indeed, it is extraordinary that the Education Act 1996 sought to protect parents from prosecution if they could prove that their children were kept away from school by the need to travel. Therefore, we obliged them only to attend school on 100 days of the year—that is, 200 sessions a year, instead of the normal 400 sessions on almost 200 days that is generally required for our children.
We accept that those children need only attend school for half the number of days normally required. Local authorities are obliged to find places for traveller children; and, indeed, they run traveller education services. I fully agree with both the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the right reverend Prelate in this respect. There are often very good examples of what is done for travellers, given the circumstances. Under Section 488, the Education Act 1996 provided funding for such services. However, I am not sure whether local authorities would provide those services if they were not funded.
Nevertheless, we have had a series of Ofsted reports that have condemned the quality of education provided for traveller children. We know that those children are not high achievers; that they are disproportionately absent from school; and disproportionately likely to be excluded from school. In fact, 80 per cent of those who leave school are

1575
regarded as being functionally illiterate; in other words, 80 per cent of those children flunk key stage 4 in our schools. It is quite a thought. As a nation, we are ashamed that 20 per cent of our adult population are functionally illiterate and are not able to look up a plumber in the Yellow Pages. However, among the traveller community, the figure is 80 per cent. It is a shocking statistic.
The latest Ofsted report, Managing Support for the Attainment of Pupils from Minority Ethnic Groups, noted that there had been very little improvement, although it did note very positive efforts by the traveller education services, which were often at odds with the practice of the eviction of families and the constant moving on from unauthorised sites. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned, there are a number of good examples of practice. I noticed one example from the Oxford Experience, where a teacher said:
"We made a big map of the British Isles and all the children put down and moved model cars to all the places that they had visited. All the Gypsy Traveller children were able to speak about the places they had visited and then we started talking about travelling. All the children in the class enjoyed this and learnt [a lot] from it".
As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, it is an enriching experience to have people from a different culture; and, indeed, a very important one.
In its report of October 2001, Managing Support for the Attainment of Pupils from Ethnic Minority Groups, Ofsted mentioned:
"When time was devoted to joint planning and teaching about Gypsy Traveller history and culture… [this] added much to the knowledge and understanding of all the pupils in the class and made a marked contribution to the self-esteem of pupils from Gypsy Traveller families and to their general attainment".
We have quite a large number of gypsy families in Surrey—we have a long tradition of gypsies there. A good feature has been the establishment in the past two years of the Surrey community travellers' forum, in which travellers participate and talk with the local authority about developments. This has begun to open up a new development for the travelling community in Surrey and has helped to ease relationships with some of the local authorities there.
The right reverend Prelate spoke about deprivation and health. To my mind, it is not the slightest bit surprising that infant mortality rates, the prevalence of coronary heart disease, respiratory diseases, and so forth, are so much higher, given the sites that many travelling communities have to occupy.
The question then arises: what do we need to do about this? My noble friend Lord Avebury mentioned the Traveller Law Reform Bill. If it had become law, it would have improved matters. Nevertheless, as he said, we need to go further than just facilitate site provision by local authorities. We probably need to go back to the 1968 Act so that there is a much more positive duty on local authorities to do something about the situation.
Similarly, rather than just establishing a gypsy and traveller accommodation agency, the Government need a strategy, something we have not seen from
1576
them. The Niner report contains some very important conclusions, but, as always, the Government have used this piece of research in order to procrastinate yet further. In October last year, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said:
"Ministers will need some time to consider the implications of the sites research and how it will inform future policy development".—[Official Report, 30/10/02; col. 197.]
In all conscience, have they not had enough time to think about policy development? It is time that the Government, who put such great store by social inclusion, come up with a much more positive policy towards this community.
I should like to end by quoting a piece from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of' the Child and its findings about the UK, which were not very complimentary. It noted:
"The Committee is concerned at the discrimination against children belonging to the Irish and Roma Travellers which is reflected among others by the higher rate of mortality among these children, their segregated education, the conditions of their accommodation and attitudes towards them. The Committee is also concerned at the existing gap between policy and effective delivery of services. In line with its previous recommendations, the Committee recommends that the State party devise—in a consultative and participatory process with these groups and their children—a comprehensive and constructive plan of action to effectively target the obstacles in the enjoyment of rights by these groups".
These are very necessary words, and I hope we shall hear something positive from the Minister this evening.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Hanningfield: I, too, thank the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, for bringing this issue to the attention of the House. That gypsies and travellers suffer from social deprivation—or social exclusion, as it is often called—is beyond doubt. We have already heard some statistics that demonstrate this from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester has referred to health aspects.
I should like to reiterate a few of these statistics. Some 98 per cent of gypsies and travellers die before the age of 65, and infant mortality is three times the national average. I wish to add some statistics to complement those given by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. On education, attainment at the secondary level is disastrously below national averages. As many as 10,000 children are not registered for secondary education at all, and only 12 gypsy or traveller children are likely to be in further or higher education at any time. We are particularly proud that in Essex we have some girls from traveller families doing A-levels, which is most unusual. Normally, it is the boys who stay on in continuing education.
Those statistics should be of concern not only to traveller communities but to all of us. You cannot build a decent society on foundations of systematic social exclusion. Social deprivation and social exclusion cause problems for the whole of society, not

1577
just that part of it directly affected. That is why the issue raised today by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is important and worthy of our attention.
Before going on to talk about specific areas of social deprivation, I should like to reflect on the history of prejudice towards gypsies and travellers, as it puts our debate today in context. Several noble Lords have already touched on the matter, but I should like to add my comments, as these are important issues and I believe that it is helpful to restate them. As an aside, I should say that several gypsy families have married into farming communities over the centuries, so there may be more gypsy blood in this House than we might imagine.
There are currently something in the region of 200,000 to 300,000 gypsies or travellers living in this country. Since they arrived in the 16th century, they have been subject to prejudice and persecution. Legislation over the past 150 years has sought increasingly to restrict the ability of gypsies to pursue their traditional mode of living. Anyone who has travelled extensively in eastern Europe, as I have done, will recognise that this attitude towards gypsies is not localised but is prevalent across the Continent. In fact, the prejudice that undoubtedly exists in this country towards gypsies does not compare in any way to the prejudice, persecution and stark deprivation that these communities suffer in some parts of eastern Europe.
Deploring the prejudice to which gypsies are subject is one thing, but what we cannot do is simply pretend that it does not exist. It is a part of human nature to be suspicious of what is different. Gypsies, partly as a result of social deprivation, but also partly as a result of lifestyle choices, exist on the margins of modern society. There is no doubt that a minority of gypsies engage in criminal or anti-social activity, which tends to reinforce the social exclusion of all gypsies, who are then tarred with the same brush. It is a vicious circle.
The solution to this problem is twofold. We must tackle the social exclusion to which gypsies are subject—and I look forward to hearing from the Minister today how the Government intend to do that. But we must also deal with those gypsies or travellers who are engaged in illegal or anti-social behaviour, as we would with anyone engaged in such activity. Those pockets of troublemakers actually do more damage to their communities than anyone else, and local citizens have a right to expect that action will be taken against them when problems arise.
I turn now to some of the specific causes of social exclusion. Let us start with education. The 1999 Ofsted report, Raising the Attainment of Minority Ethnic Pupils, found that gypsy children have the lowest results of any ethnic minority group and are the sector most at risk of exclusion in the education system. We cannot tackle social exclusion unless we tackle educational exclusion, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said. Education is the key to integrating minority communities into the wider society. If we are to deal properly with the problems social exclusion causes, it is vital that we get access to education right. The difficulty with educating children of communities who traditionally are itinerant is clear.
1578
However, there is evidence that access to education has improved over the past few years. Much of the improvement can be attributed to the work of local authorities. We have heard some criticism of local authorities today, but I should like to talk a bit about what they do.
In Essex, the county that I lead, we have an excellent traveller education service which is at the leading edge of good practice. We offer traveller parents support to access school places for their children and we offer schools the support they need to help maintain and raise the achievement of gypsy and traveller children. We do so because we take seriously our responsibility to lead our community. We recognise that tackling the anti-social behaviour sometimes associated with social exclusion can best be done through education. In the long run that will benefit the health and vitality of our community.
Health is the other dimension of the social exclusion of gypsies and travellers on which I want to touch. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester said, there is no doubt but that gypsies and travellers suffer impaired access to health and social care. As a result, the general health and life expectancy of the gypsy and traveller population is, as I said, well below that of the rest of society.
Social services departments play an important part in addressing these problems by working closely with gypsies and travellers to provide them with the support they need. For example, in some areas of Essex we have dedicated community development nurses for gypsies and travellers who help to ensure access to GPs. Also, on one of our permanent sites in Essex we facilitate an afternoon clinic attended by a health visitor on a fortnightly basis. If we could afford it we would do more. These initiatives are vitally important for tackling a key component of social deprivation. I would he interested to hear from the Minister whether the Government have any plans to provide further support to local authorities who provide such services.
I turn to the issue of site provision and accommodation for gypsies and travellers. This is not a marginal issue in the context of this debate. It is at the heart of what we are discussing, because it is often problems arising from inadequate or inappropriate site provision that reinforce the problems of social exclusion. As I understand the present legal position, the Caravan Sites Act 1968 placed a duty on local authorities in England and Wales to provide static sites for gypsies, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said. That requirement was removed by the then Conservative government in 1994 through the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. The objective of that legislation was to make it easier for local authorities to move on gypsies and travellers where they were causing a nuisance.
It seems to me that that policy objective could have been right. No one should have to tolerate anti-social or criminal behaviour from any section of the community, and local authorities should be empowered to take the swift and effective action that is necessary to tackle these disturbances as quickly as possible. I believe that that is

1579
in the interests both of local communities and the majority of gypsies and travellers who inevitably suffer because of the infractions of the minority.
Clearly, however, the 1994 legislation has not in practice proved effective. For a number of reasons local authorities have been reluctant to use it to effect evictions. But the problem of anti-social behaviour and illegal sites has not abated. In many parts of the country it has got worse. For example, in my own county of Essex we have recently seen examples of illegal encampments on green-belt land. That has caused a great deal of concern in local communities and led to the honourable Member for Billericay introducing in another place a Bill designed to enable local authorities to respond more quickly and effectively to that kind of activity. At the same time, the Bill recognised that those problems could not be solved unless there was adequate site provision for gypsies and travellers who genuinely want to abide by the law.
It seems to me sensible that we recognise that these two things go hand in hand. First, we have a right to expect that all sectors of the community abide by the same laws and regulations. Secondly, we have a duty to make sure that people are not excluded from the possibility of complying with the law. At the moment we have a situation in which some local authorities do not recognise any responsibility for making any provision for gypsies and travellers available. That causes problems. It means that gypsies and travellers are forced to camp illegally or they are moved on to those areas that do make provision.
In Essex, we have 12 sites for gypsies and travellers. Sometimes, those sites are created in the teeth of local opposition, as we have heard. It is of the utmost importance, when dealing with local opposition, that we are able to explain why official sites are beneficial.
If we do not have the power properly to ensure that those sites are not abused or our provision of sites does not lead to a reduction in the incidence of illegal encampments, we are likely, quite rightly, to lose the confidence and trust of the communities. I would be interested to learn of the Government's latest thinking about strengthening that dimension to encourage local authorities again to create sites across the country.
I hope that my remarks this evening have made clear where we on this side of the House stand on this issue. We fully support measures that promote the social integration of gypsies and travellers. We recognise the very real difficulties and hardships that those communities face.
At the same time, the settled community has rights, too. Local council tax payers are entitled to expect protection from illegal or anti-social behaviour of the kind that took place on the road to Brighton. I have friends in Brighton and I know how many people complained about that. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, spoke about that. The perpetrators of such behaviour must be tackled. Local authorities must be empowered to intervene quickly and effectively, but also to provide sites for gypsies and travellers. When planning regulations are flouted
1580
and damage is caused, effective action by local authorities to nip the problems in the bud will benefit both local communities and gypsy and traveller groups alike.
We support the sentiment expressed in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I again emphasise the importance of education as the key to breaking down barriers of social exclusion, but we would also wish the very real concerns of local communities to be taken into account in the consideration of these matters. I again thank the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, for his Question this evening.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Gutting: My Lords, this has been for me, and I hope for everybody else, an informative, vivid and fascinating debate. Perhaps I may begin on a personal note. I was brought up in Suffolk. My father was an oral historian with a particular interest in gypsies. As a child, I remember gypsies visiting our house frequently and I still have a number of gifts given to me by them. For me, therefore, the word "gypsy" has always been spelt with an upper case "G" and always will be.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was very constructive, but cogent, in his criticism of government policy and 1 hope to discuss that in a moment. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned the importance of education. The right reverend Prelate referred to health and the position of gypsies in our society; and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, spoke movingly about prejudice and racism and drew attention to the paradox that while the Government believe in ethnic representation, we look around and ask where that gypsy representation is in our society.
I was particularly interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, because, as chief executive of Essex, he is, as it were, at the coal face. As on many issues, he shared his practical experience with us and referred to the problems of social exclusion and health, producing some devastating statistics on mortality rates and education. Crucially, he touched on that extraordinarily important relationship between central and local government in this matter.
I cannot hope to answer every point made in this short debate. I regret that it is such a short debate, because the subject should be given a great deal of air. I shall ensure that noble Lords get a written response to any points that I do not deal with.
I stress at the outset how grateful we are—all noble Lords said this—to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for securing this debate. He has been at the forefront of this issue for many years. We all remember that, as Eric Lubbock MP, he introduced the Caravan Sites Act 1968, as a Private Member's Bill. That was the first piece of legislation that fully recognised the accommodation needs of gypsies and travellers.
As noble Lords have said, gypsies and travellers represent one of our oldest communities, yet—this is another paradox—they have long been one of the most excluded groups in this country. The Government are committed to improving their quality of life and are

1581
keen to see more social inclusion, as noble Lords have stressed. That can happen only with government engagement and when people look past the stereotypes of gypsies and travellers and recognise that they are an integral part of society and deserve a fair deal like everyone else. There obviously must be a government role in the process. The Government of course acknowledge that gypsies and travellers have a right to pursue a nomadic lifestyle and to enjoy the existence that they have chosen, within the boundaries of the law. The fact that I have to say that suggests how much work needs to be done by all of us to make gypsies and travellers part of our society. We also acknowledge their absolute right to access essential services such as healthcare and education—noble Lords stressed the importance of that; I will discuss that at some length because it is a key issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was very critical of government policy. I am delighted to say that the Government are actively trying to make a step change in their policies on gypsies and travellers. Some fairly profound criticisms were made of the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He referred to the slowness with which we have done things. I stress that I have made an unambiguous statement and I will follow it through.
We have made some progress in effecting that change by commissioning research on the provision and condition of local authority gypsy/traveller sites in England; introducing the gypsy sites refurbishment grant, which is not enough but is a significant start; and consulting on guidance on the management of unauthorised camping.
The Government continue to develop policy in conjunction with key players such as representatives from the gypsy and traveller community, the Institute of Public Policy and Research and the Commission for Racial Equality. In addition, the Government are reviewing planning procedures, and gypsy and traveller provision will be looked at as part of that review.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned the extraordinarily important Pat Niner research which was commissioned. I am pleased that that research revealed, as we all know, that a widely understood policy is badly needed. The Government are working on that with key players, including the research groups I mentioned and gypsy and traveller representatives to ensure that we have a sustainable policy, for which noble Lords were asking. That is a positive step forward. I do not know the timescale but I shall find out and let noble Lords know about that important matter.
The Government introduced the gypsy sites refurbishment grant in 2001 and over the past three years have provided £17 million worth of funding to assist with the upkeep of those sites. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, says, that is not a great deal of money, but it is a significant start and something to build on.
1582
The current network of 324 local authority authorised sites provides a much needed resource for gypsies and travellers. We are certainly conscious of the need to keep these sites open and available for use; and we are fully aware of many of the problems that have to be dealt with.
Round 3 of the grant has been extended to provide funding for temporary sites and emergency stopping places, as well as to continue to refurbish existing sites. That further injection of funding will, we hope, persuade local authorities to ensure adequate provision in their areas.
Furthermore, on 27th March, my honourable friend, the Member for Harrow East announced at the Local Government Association conference that further funding of £16 million will be made available over the next two years—£8 million per year in 2004–05 and 2005–06 to continue to improve and upgrade existing sites and to establish temporary sites and emergency stopping places.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he in a position to calculate how many temporary stopping places will be provided out of this money, and whether he will compare that with the 2,000 places which Pat Niner said had to be provided?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I regret that I do not have that statistic in this document. I shall certainly find out and let the noble Lord know. However, it is important to return to the point I made about the Pat Niner research: that the Government understand that the research is needed and will use this to develop a sustainable policy. With such a significant statistic as the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, it will be very difficult to ignore.
The ultimate answer to homelessness is to have an adequate number of authorised sites for gypsies and travellers in which to camp. We have gone some way to improve the situation through the gypsy site refurbishment grant. However, central Government can only go so far. We must therefore have the input and co-operation of local authorities in order to provide these sites for the gypsy and traveller community. That touches on an important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, about the relationship between central and local government in this matter. That is an extremely interesting issue.
The Government continue to issue clear guidelines to local authorities of their need to provide both permanent and temporary site provision and to give gypsies and travellers, who either reside in or pass through their areas, proper sites to live in. Obviously these sites should have the basic amenities. Such provision would help reduce the level of unauthorised camping and encourage good practice and social inclusion by local authorities.
Until an adequate number of authorised sites are made available, gypsies and travellers have little choice but to camp in undesirable/unauthorised locations. So this problem is fully understood.

1583
I have been asked where the Government stand in regard to our new guidance on managing unauthorised camping. I am pleased to announce that the Government are on track to issue this document later in the summer. I would like to take this opportunity to assure noble Lords that the new guide is not just about local authorities and police services evicting gypsies and travellers from unauthorised sites, it is about understanding the causes of unauthorised camping and developing effective strategies and identifying proportionate responses to them. The guide has been informed by those agencies that have experience of unauthorised camping at the local level and includes the views of gypsy and traveller representative groups.
While the new guide is geared towards addressing the small number of disruptive and unsettling encampments that impede upon the lives of other gypsies, travellers and local residents, it will also set out good practice standards to enable local authorities—obviously that good practice is not needed in Essex—and police services to be more aware of the needs of gypsies and travellers.
The guide will strive to address the wider issues of unauthorised camping and adequate site provision, and the need for local authorities to put in place integrated, balanced and consistent policies and strategies. Local authorities, in implementing such policies, will have a better understanding of the gypsy and traveller way of life and the needs of the local community.
Before moving on to education, I would like to say a few words about homelessness legislation. As I have just two minutes left, they will be a very few words. The Government are committed to tackling homelessness. That is why we are taking forward a challenging new approach which focuses as much on the problems homeless people face as the places they live. This approach was set out in our March 2002 publication More Than A Roof.
One aspect of this is a strengthening of the homelessness safety net, including implementation of the homelessness provisions of the Homelessness Act. One of the most important provisions of the 2002 Act is the new requirement for local housing authorities to adopt a homelessness strategy based on a review of homelessness in their district. This must be a strategy for preventing homelessness and ensuring that accommodation and support are available for people who are homeless or likely to become homeless.
1584
So among other things they will need to take into account the needs of gypsies and travellers who are likely to become homeless in the district and include an analysis of whether existing site provision is adequate.
In the final minute I wish to move on to education. I am really sorry that I do not have more time. I agree with everyone who said that this is an absolutely crucial area. As we know, the Department for Education and Skills has, since 1997, continued to fund the Traveller Education Service. From April the grant was merged with other small grants to form the Vulnerable Children Grant; a funding increase from £31 million to £84 million, for which all LEAs are eligible. It is to support a coherent strategy for a range of locally identified vulnerable children including those from gypsy and traveller families.
There is a matter of good practice which has already been mentioned that all schools should be following. Many schools are doing that, particularly those with minority ethnic pupils, including gypsy travellers. All schools under the specific duties outlined in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 are required to have in place a written race equality policy. Schools are also required to have arrangements to assess the impact of their policies on pupils, parents and the staff with different racial backgrounds, including the gypsies, Roma and travellers of Irish heritage.
Resources are being allocated in one important area: better data on school registration, attendance and achievements of gypsy and traveller children. We are recognising the importance of collecting this data as the key to addressing school attendance issues. The DfES has invested £11.25 million for electronic registration systems in secondary schools with higher rates of unauthorised absence.
I conclude on education by stressing again that we feel, as do other noble Lords, that investment in education for the gypsy and traveller community is an absolutely key issue of the highest importance. I am sure that this Government are committed to interesting and exciting initiatives in this area.
I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. I have found it extraordinarily interesting. I hope that some of what I have said will enable your Lordships to leave the Chamber encouraged that this Government are determined to help the disadvantaged people we have been talking about this evening.
House adjourned at a quarter past nine o'clock.

Official Report of the GrandCommittee on the

  Railways and Transport Safety Bill
  (Second Day)
  The Committee met at a quarter before four of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Carter) in the Chair.]
  Clause 77 [Professional staff on duty]:
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 32, line 32, at end insert ", and
  (d) a professional harbour master acting in accordance with his duties"
  The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 33, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 34. We touched on the issue briefly at Second Reading. Clause 77(1) states that the provision relates to a professional master of a ship, a pilot of a ship or a seaman while on duty.
  If one compares that with those who are described for aviation functions in Clause 93(1) on page 40, one will see that there it is a much longer, more detailed list. Rightly, the Government believe that aviation needs to be more subscribed because it is more complicated. The list includes, for example, engineers, maintenance engineers and so on.
  However, included in Clause 93 are air traffic controllers. At Second Reading, I suggested that harbour masters should be included, too. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that it was a different job. Anyone who has been into a modern control room of a large harbour will know that it resembles an air traffic controllers' office. It has a similar function and is equally as complicated and computerised.
  If we are to have restrictions on alcohol for masters of a ship, their pilots and seamen, at least we should ensure that those who are responsible for making sure that ships are going in the right direction, entering and leaving harbour and parking in harbours, if "parking" is the right word—I am sure that my noble friend will correct me if I have used the wrong nautical term—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: "Docking".
  Viscount Astor: "Docking". Thank you. I had not realised that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was such an accomplished sailor or that he had expertise in sailing vocabulary.
  Amendment No. 34 is a probing amendment. I want to know whether small passenger vessels carrying people for a fee—be it four, five or six people—around
  GC 250
  a harbour are covered by the Bill. If not, should they be covered? If they are, I am unhappy with the Bill as it stands. This is a probing amendment. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: We on this side of the Committee are happy with these two amendments. However, Amendment No. 34 would benefit from a little expansion. There are usually two watchkeepers on board a vessel; one is on the bridge and the other is in the engine room. It is important that the engineering watchkeeper should also be free of drink.
  Lord Greenway: I can see where the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is coming from in moving the amendment. He is right in saying that harbour masters, as part of their duties, control shipping within their harbours. As in the days of old, they do not necessarily spend their time going around the harbour in boats, when perhaps they could come under the auspices of the Bill.
  We are in danger of widening the scope of the Bill. What would be the position, for instance, of the Marine and Coastguard Agency which monitors shipping going through the Dover Strait? Would it, by association, be brought in through Amendment No. 33? I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
  As regards Amendment No. 34, I believe that the noble Viscount's concerns are misplaced. Those people would already be covered under the Bill because it would be a professional master in charge of a ship. "Ship", as we know from the definition in the Bill, covers almost anything down to a rowing boat. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey:I shall start with Amendment No. 33. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, compares what we are doing as regards shipping and as regards aviation functions. As he said, a long list of aviation functions is covered by the stricter alcohol limits, but only two are other than on the flight; that is, the air traffic controller and the licensed aircraft maintenance engineer. If we were to extend land-based professionals in the shipping area, we would be widening the scope of the Bill considerably.
  If harbour masters are on board a vessel and exercising a navigational function, they are covered by the Bill. But if they are on shore, the analogy with air traffic controllers is not as strict as the noble Viscount suggests. Air traffic controllers have the sole responsibility for the movement of aircraft and aircraft have to obey their rules. Therefore they are in constant two-way contact with the aircraft. The navigators are responsible in the harbours. There is on many occasions, although not always, radio contact, but it is not the same control function that is exercised by an air traffic controller. They are not responsible for ma king split-second decisions, which is the definition required for the stricter alcohol requirements. However, we would expect harbour authorities to enforce company policy that is designed to combat alcohol and drug abuse among its workforce.
  As regards Amendment No. 34, a person whose primary and main function is the command of a vessel carrying passengers for a fee is already covered, as the

  GC 251
  noble Lord, Lord Greenway, suggested, by Clause 77(1). It states that the offences created by this part apply to,
  "a professional master of a ship … a professional pilot of a ship … a professional seaman on a ship while on duty".
  That covers the point of the person on watch in the engine room.
  In relation to this amendment and Amendments Nos. 41 and 49, the definition of a ship is contained in Clause 88(1)(a). The formulation is that a
  "'ship' includes every description of vessel used in navigation".
  That clearly includes vessels carrying passengers for a fee. I suggest that the amendment is superfluous in that sense, as are Amendments Nos. 41 and 49, which also relate to the definition of a ship.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Berkeley: Does subsection (1)(a) include rowing boats and boats as small as that?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is still going to be consultation, as we know. We discussed on Second Reading that there would be consultation about the extreme limits of a vessel. There is an issue about jet-skis as well, for example. We do not want to put a final definition in the Bill while we are still consulting.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The description "professional seaman" strikes me as slightly wrong. I had the honour of being a seaman with the Royal Navy's auxiliary service for a short while, and I noticed that "seaman" referred to those who worked on the deck and the bridge, but that "engineer" was the term used for those who worked, obviously, in the engine room. Should the provision read "professional crewman"? That might not upset half the crew by calling engineers "seamen".
  Lord Greenway: It is almost not the done thing to refer to "seamen" any more. I think that "seafarers" is the generally accepted term, to bring in both sexes.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In the interests of political correctness, if for no other reason, I had better look at the matter again.
  Viscount Astor: I have something more to say on Amendment No. 41, but I will wait until we get to it. I am not entirely convinced with the Minister's explanation on Amendment No. 33. I am not an cexpert, so perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, could help me. The Minister referred to those responsible for navigation—for example, boats that cross the English Channel—which seem to me to be directed. They do not set their own course; they are directed to follow various routes and paths.
  Lord Greenway: The noble Viscount is right on that, but they are directed more by the coastguards who monitor the Dover Strait. Ferries have to stick to an
  GC 252
  accepted route, whereby they cross the main shipping separation lanes at right angles, to minimise the crossing time.
  Lord Berkeley: I am sorry, but I cannot let the matter go by. I know about directions in the Dover Strait, but there is a shipping channel in the middle of the English Channel, between Cherbourg, the Channel Islands and the UK. Last week, a ship that was alleged to be registered in Monrovia knocked down and cut a yacht in two. I happened to be around there at the same time, and the fog was very thick. That bloke must have been doing 20 knots in 50-metre visibility. Who was directing him? From whom does one seek redress if one happens to be cut in two?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Not a harbour master, and it is them that the amendment is about.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken. I am not sure that I am much clearer and who is responsible for whom. I am certainly not trying to widen the scope of the Bill beyond a fairly narrow definition. That is the main point that I hope the Minister will take on board. I may be wrong, or may have to add something or make changes. However, my point is that, in the same way that there are air traffic controllers, those who are responsible for issuing instructions to ships in busy shipping lanes, whether they are entering or leaving a harbour, should be subject to the same restrictions on alcohol intake, because it is an extremely important and safety-related occupation.
  I have probably not got the amendment right, and I will have to go away and consult. Perhaps I will talk to the Minister about it. However, that is my concern. I am not trying to widen the Bill: I merely think it quite important that we ensure that those who give instructions to ships come under some scrutiny. I am grateful for the Minister's help and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
  Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 35:
  Page 32, line 34, leave out "or drugs"
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 35, I am also speaking to Amendments Nos. 38, 42, 47, 52 and 55. On the Floor of the House, these would be probing amendments because I am really seeking information. Part 4 of the Bill deals with shipping. Part 5 deals with aviation, and we are entirely familiar with that. These parts create offences of acting while under the impaired influence of drugs. I should like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that this Bill, as drafted, is enforceable in so far as drugs are concerned.
  We know easily, simply, straightforwardly and well how to make a judgment in respect of alcohol. There is a well-established practice as regards drivers who have had an excess of alcohol. That makes it very simple to translate that regime into this field with appropriate embellishment. Drugs has been a more difficult area in the past, but none the less it is very important. The

  GC 253
  offences committed by someone under the influence of drugs can be just as serious as anything that anyone can do under the influence of alcohol. I should like to hear that these offences, if they are observed, can be properly enforced and properly penalised. I beg to move.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: This might be an appropriate moment for me to declare an unremunerated interested as President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I shall speak about further road safety issues later today. I, too, support what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said on these amendments. I supported the Private Member's Bill which he introduced in your Lordships' House some months ago, the Prevention of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs Bill. I was convinced that as the incidence of drug-taking in society has increased, so the incidence of drugs being found in people who have been concerned in road accidents has been increased. It is necessary for us to know a great deal more about this problem. I hope that by these probing amendments we shall be able to move this matter forward today.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have already debated these matters at very considerable length at Second Reading of the Bill sponsored by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. I do not know that I have a great deal to add to that. I find the way in which these amendments are framed slightly odd. They would take out the issue of navigating or flying under the influence of drugs, whereas Amendment No. 62, which is being debated separately, deals with the more complicated issue of driving under the influence of drugs. I should have thought that if one was to take out drugs in these amendments, one would want to put something comparable in for shipping and aviation. But that opportunity has not been taken.
  These amendments are copying the wording which is in current use for roads. I must say that I believe that is the right thing to do for the moment, but we are seeking to improve the situation for roads. The major problem is that there is no single test of prescribed limits for drugs because there is such a wide variety. Their effects and the time for which they are retained in the body varies very much. There would have to be a whole variety of prescribed limits.
  Therefore, we have to rely on improved roadside tests of impairment and the comparable test would have to be done for shipping and aviation. All I can say is that we are working on that. We are looking to improve the number of police who are capable of conducting impairment tests. We are looking to improve the enforcement of impairment tests at the roadside. If and when we can do that then, of course, we would seek to apply that also, where appropriate, to aviation and shipping. But I am convinced that that is the way forward rather than taking out the drugs element of the offence as provided here for shipping and aviation.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I immediately plead guilty to the illogicality of arranging the amendments in such a
  GC 254
  way, but I did say that they were probing. There is a serious aspect to the matter. Although I entirely accept that what we are doing is forming the legislation so that it is consistent with extant road-traffic legislation, we are indulging ourselves in, if I may put it this way, cosmetic legislation—if the Minister's response is too depressingly true—and we are not yet in a position to enforce it. I do not accept that.
  I accept that there are technical difficulties; I accept that we need high levels of training and may need some fairly sophisticated analytical equipment and experts to use it. However, that does not necessarily imply that we need very complex legislation to cover the offence. That is an entirely separate issue. We are now debating later amendments and not Amendment No. 35.
  The group of amendments is tabled simply to elicit information. Sadly, I have not received the information that I particularly wanted. I had hoped that the Minister would say that it would be straightforward to enforce the drug offences. I never had any intention of not making the use of drugs an offence—I have every intention of leaving the Bill as it is—but I thought it legitimate to put the questions now in order to seek answers.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am very sorry that I do not seem to have communicated well. The noble Lord knows that we are making progress with road safety legislation. I understood him to be asking whether we would apply that progress to shipping and aviation. The answer is yes.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: There is nothing between us and our purpose is the same. Our mental processes may be somewhat different but, at this stage, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 36:
  Page 33, line 7, leave out "fishing"
  The noble Lord said: This part of the Bill contains an oddity. We are dealing with shipping and we provide a defence for those who use drugs for medical reasons or under doctor's orders. Subsections (1) to (4) all deal with shipping in general. However, subsection (5), which deals with the defence, is apparently restricted to fishing vessels. I find that slightly difficult to understand. I thought, again, that we had better find out what was going on. I think that the word "fishing" might have slipped in by accident. If it has, it would be sensible to remove it. I do not think that there would be any difficulty with that because, if the offence is general, the defence should also be general. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: The matter was originally dealt with in 1974, so I congratulate the Opposition on catching up with the times. The substance of the argument at that time, if I recall, was that fishing vessels and other vessels were dealt with in separate regimes. Is that still the case?
  Viscount Astor: Amendment No. 37 is grouped with that of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith arid not

  GC 255
  only takes out "fishing vessel" but inserts "ship", which comes to the same effect. That is intentional. I carefully studied the debate in another place. Perhaps it would be helpful if I quoted the Minister when a similar amendment was moved in Standing Committee. He stated:
  "Commercial vessels with smaller crews are likely to be operated on shorter voyages. In those circumstances, crew members who are unwell but still working should be able to wait until going ashore before taking medication that they know will impair their performance. Not doing so would risk not only their health but the safety of the vessel".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 27/2/03; co1.371.]
  The point was that those in fishing boats would not be able to wait and therefore that should be a defence. Fishing boats sometimes have very small crews. We do not want at any time someone to be on a vessel, whether it be a fishing vessel or otherwise, in need of medication but not able to take it.
  I am sure that this was done in the days when the fishing lobby was perhaps stronger than it is now. Sadly, the fishing fleet is now a lot smaller in this country. However, it seems to me that the same rules should apply across the board, whether for fishing vessels or small craft. Both types of vessel suffer the same issues and face the same problems, which are entirely different from those of larger vessels with a number of crew working on them.
  I read carefully Hansard from another place and was unable to discern the argument put forward by the Government for why this provision should be specific to fishing vessels. I would have been much happier if the Government had said that it applied to a smaller vessel or to a vessel with a limited crew. If there is one rule for fishing, that rule should apply across the board to other smaller vessels with professional staff.
  4.15 p.m.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: If my memory serves me correctly, the Minister gave the reason that it was traditional that those in charge of fishing vessels should be allowed to use the medicinal defence. However, I remain unconvinced about that. Subsection (5) seems to allow someone to be in charge of a fishing vessel while their performance is impaired because of drugs. It seems unusual that legislation should allow that to happen.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am being pulled in two opposite directions. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, do not want to take away the fishing vessel defence. They had better not or—
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I did not come down one way or the other. I was merely seeking information.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for that. There are those in the Committee who would want not to take away the fishing defence, which has been in existence for a very long time, but to extend that defence to all commercial vessels. We really do think that that is going too far. If there is any compromise
  GC 256
  that might be reached to talk about smaller commercial vessels on a short voyage where the arguments which are applicable to fishing vessels would apply, we could think about that and discuss it between now and Report. However, we would be reluctant to do what the amendments do; that is, to extend the fishing defence much more widely.
  On the other hand, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, wants to abolish the fishing exemption. I suggest that he keeps away from some of the ports in his home country if that becomes known.
  Earl Russell: Am I right in supposing that there are certain circumstances in which medication may impair one's concentration but not taking medication might impair it even more? Let us suppose, for example, that the medication makes one drowsy and that not taking it puts one at risk of a heart attack. If that were the helmsman, I would rather he went on taking the medication.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure that that is right.
  Viscount Astor: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, makes an extremely good point, and one which I was going to make. Very often in the summer I take a small water taxi on the west coast of Scotland from Crinan, and there is a crew of one. It is licensed to take 10 or 12 passengers. It is an extremely safe vessel, but I would be concerned if the captain of that assigned fine vessel was somehow unable to take any medicine if he needed to following the very clear logic of the noble Earl.
  It seems to me that in those cases boats with a crew of one or two which are professionally licensed should have a similar defence, if that were necessary. I believe that the Minister offered to discuss that between now and Report to see whether there is a sensible solution. I am grateful for his offer. I leave it to my noble friend to deal with his amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Again, I was seeking to find out exactly what was intended. As I see it, fishing vessels are a very specific vessel whereas the problem can be a general one. The reality is that even on a large vessel with a crew of 20 or 30 which nowadays might be a super tanker with 200,000 tonnes of crude oil on board, although there is a multiple crew, there could be a flu outbreak on board. Half the crew or more could be acting under medical orders from the shore. That may or may not be reasonable. I agree that there are risks and one needs to be extremely careful. This is a transport safety matter.
  However, I am glad we have had the debate. I believe we need to think about the wording a little more carefully. I am quite sure that "fishing" is too narrow. Whether we can arrive at a satisfactory wording, I do not know. The reality nowadays is that even ships in the middle of the Indian Ocean are capable of receiving medical advice. There might not be a doctor on board, but they all have satellite communication and so forth. They are not entirely adrift.

  GC 257
  I hope that we will think about this more. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
  Clause 77 agreed to.
  Clause 78 [Professional staff off duty]:
  [Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 33, line 30, at end insert—
  "( ) Nothing in this section shall relate to voluntary members of a lifeboat crew."
  The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 39 concerns the national lifeboat service. Clause 78 concerns professional staff and lays down sensible conditions. It also refers to medicinal matters. Some lifeboat crew are professional, some are volunteers. Perhaps I should have included in the amendment the coastguard, and here I have an interest to declare. I am a member of the auxiliary coastguard. When I get on my water taxi in the summer I go to an extremely nice Scottish island where I have a small cottage and spend the summer there. Some 26 years ago I became a member of the local coastguard. I know that it is 26 years ago because last year they awarded me a 25-year long-service medal.
  It used to be that ships got into trouble and the coastguard and lifeboat turned out, but now it happens more with yachts. On Saturday evenings, just as the pubs are closing, people trying to get back to their yachts or into their dinghies fall off, or drop the oars. Someone comes rushing in and says "Call out the lifeboat or the auxiliary coastguard". The problem is that we are all in the pub too and in not much better a state; a marginally better state. We would not want to have to feel that we are unable to do our duty because we have either had medication or for some extraordinary reason that medication and perhaps two pints of beer had impaired our judgment or ability.
  This is a probing amendment to ensure that in an emergency those who are voluntary members of various organisations will not be prevented from carrying out their role. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I wonder whether the amendment will be necessary. The Bill will allow such people to have 80 millilitres, or whatever, of alcohol in their blood.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: It is 80 milligrams.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Eighty milligrams. Members of lifeboat crews will not be required to live a totally abstinent life. They will be allowed to have their two pints of beer which I believe does come within the 80—I shall not mention again the units.
  Lord Greenway: I declare an interest as a member of the committee of management of the RNLI. I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this issue. The noble Viscount is quite correct. Now, roughly half of lifeboat crews are paid, but those who
  GC 258
  are unpaid are largely those who man what we call the inshore lifeboats, the fast response, semi-inflatable boats.
  It is true that in the old days some of the lifeboat men could even be employed in the pub and when the maroon went up they dashed off regardless to save lives at sea. Things have changed a little since then, but I would be intrigued to hear the response of the Minister.
  Viscount Simon: I have one comment to make on the introduction to the amendment by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. There is one point with which I disagree. He stated that alcohol taken with medication might disagree. However, one should not take alcohol with medication when it is stated that one should not do so.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hoped that my noble friend Lord Fyfe would confirm my recollection of the films, "Whisky Galore" and "Local Hero", but he was not entirely willing to do so. The killer argument against the amendment is that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution supports the proposal within in the Bill.
  Looking at this purely from a safety point of view, it would be slightly odd if people doing the same thing should have a different regime according to whether they were full time or volunteers. Certainly, they have the same regime if they are on shore because whether they are professional, paid lifeboat men or volunteer lifeboat men, they are subject to the normal drink/ driving rules when they are driving to the launch, jetty, or whatever it is.
  Lord Greenway: Slipway.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The slipway of the lifeboat. Surely, if that applies on shore it should apply at sea, purely from the point of view of safety. Incidentally, I hope that the 25-year award to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was for long service and good conduct, not just for long service.
  Viscount Astor: Sadly, it was just for long service. I do not think there was any mention of good conduct.
  I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. As always, I shall study carefully what the Minister said. I am much reassured by the views of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. However, it was an interesting aspect to raise so that we all clearly understand what will be the new duties, which are significant. On the west coast of Scotland half the crews are voluntary. They are on standby and certainly this will be a matter of which they must be aware. When they are on standby and there is a limited number of them, some will have to behave in a rather more sober fashion than their compatriots who are not on standby. That will have to be disseminated throughout. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 78 agreed to.
  4.30 p.m.
  Clause 79 [Non-professionals]:
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 33, line 32, after "person" insert ", subject to their being in a position to pose a substantial safety risk,"
  The noble Viscount said: Again, this is a probing amendment. As regards regulations, we felt that the Secretary of State should be governed by certain criteria. Occasionally, we risk being over-prescriptive. The amendment introduces the words:
  "pose a substantial safety risk".
  That is by way of giving guidance to the Secretary of State as regards recreational craft. There are always examples, both for non-professionals and professionals, where behaviour is not as one hopes, whether in ships, cars or anything else. However, in general it seems to me that the marine fraternity are fairly well behaved and we should not be over-prescriptive.
  There does not seem to be a huge problem or a substantial threat to safety. However, the amendment is an attempt to understand the way in which the Government are thinking when considering regulations. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether draft regulations will be available during the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Greenway: This has to do with what the Minister described at Second Reading as a proportionate approach reflecting on safety risks. As the Minister said, at present consultations are taking place with the boating authority. Can he give us any information as to how those consultations are proceeding? We shall have more to say on this matter in an amendment soon to be debated.
  The whole nub of non-professionals is a difficult issue. Many people are involved. We are talking of millions of people who go to sea in leisure craft. This is a matter which should be carefully considered. I am sure that that will happen in the consultation process. However, I should like an opportunity to discuss such matters in detail when we have seen the draft regulations.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am concerned with the declaratory effect which would arise if through the Bill Parliament were saying that it is okay for people in private vessels to be over the limit. I believe that would be unhelpful. Therefore, I hope that considerable thought will be given to the idea of exempting.
  Viscount Astor: My amendment says nothing of the kind.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It could say something of the kind. It could be interpreted to override the limit of 80 milligrams per millilitre in cases where there is no substantial safety risk. I am grateful for the amendment and the attempt to guide the consultations which are taking place on which vessels or which people should be exempt in the regulations being produced under Clause 79(4).
  GC 260
  However, as it stands, in addition to being slightly ambiguous about allowing people to exceed the limit, the amendment is difficult to interpret, to define and to legislate. The uncertainty would affect both those who are regulated and the police who would have the task of enforcing the provisions. In the absence of guidance from regulations, how are they to know what is a substantial safety risk?
  Consultations on the regulations are proceeding. I cannot give an undertaking that they will be available before the passage of the Bill. However, I can give the assurance that they are proceeding well and that they will come to a positive conclusion. I suspect that the result will be a more precise definition, such as distinguishing between a rowing boat and a jet-ski rather than a phrase such as that in the amendment.
  I recognise that the amendment is well-meaning and seeks to tease out what is happening as regards regulations. I am sorry that I cannot be any more precise than I have been.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the Minister. If I had a better memory, I would think back to debates on other Bills where the Government have argued that "substantial" is a perfectly reasonable word and that it is perfectly possible to define it in many circumstances. Luckily for the Minister and the rest of the Committee I am certainly unable to remember any of those circumstances today.
  As I said, the amendment was largely an attempt to try to understand the Government's thinking, and certainly not to override. It is also to say to the Government that when they come forward I hope that the approach will be proportional and not too prescriptive. If it is, clearly, it will not work. I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 41:
  Page 33, line 36, at end insert—
  "(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) a ship includes a vessel used in a private capacity for sport or leisure purposes."
  The noble Viscount said: This is what we might call the jet-ski amendment. The Minister was helpful in an earlier amendment and said that we really do not need this amendment because of Clause 88(1)(a). It is generous and kind of the Minister to point me in the right direction. For the benefit of noble Lords, that clause states:
  "(1) In this Part—
  (a) "ship" includes every description of vessel used in navigation".
  The question is whether a jet-ski, or something like it, fits that description. If one reads subsection (1), one thinks it might be more helpful. It states:
  "a reference to the navigation of a vessel includes a reference to the control or direction, or participation in the control or direction, of the course of a vessel".
  I do not know about the rest of the Committee, but to those of us who occasionally watch people on jet-skis it seems that they have no control of the course or the

  GC 261
  direction. They seem to roar around in an entirely random fashion. The only direction they seem to have is to get as close as they can in order to disturb one as much as possible.
  I hope that people control jet-skis. I am sure that most do but some do not. The amendment seeks to determine the Government's thinking. For example, will something with an engine be defined by the Bill? It would be helpful to know that. Would that include something with an outboard or an inboard? It would be helpful to know the kind of definition involved. I do not ask the Minister to draft regulations in his head today. However, perhaps he could give some help on how this will be considered in future. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I express the hope—a hope against hope—that the Opposition will refrain from tabling amendments simply for the sake of it. Clause 88 includes everything the Opposition want included. For that reason I believe that they should exercise a small degree of reticence. I cannot see any point in the amendment they have tabled; I wish I could. Nothing that has been said in its favour has advanced the view that there is a point.
  It is not the job of this Committee, whether we meet here or in the Chamber, to debate pointless amendments. I express that view because it governs a whole lot of other points.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: We have a duty to examine exactly what it is that the Government may choose to exempt from the alcohol limits. It strikes me that the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, helps us to have a debate and determine exactly what type of mariner the Government might, by regulation, wish to exempt.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: It is perfectly possible to look at the clause as a whole and have a debate about that. But the noble Lord has omitted to do that.
  Lord Greenway: The amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is unnecessary here because jet-skis is one of the areas which is under specific watch as regards this Bill. It is one of the areas that concerns all users of the sea. There is absolutely no way that jet-skis or personalised water craft, which I believe is the correct description, would in any way be omitted from this Bill.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I must distance myself from my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. Much as I have been tempted on the Communications Bill to wish that amendments had not been tabled, and despite the fact that I hope that in response to an early amendment I have drawn attention to the definition of a ship in Clause 88 which clearly includes the subcategory included in the amendment, nevertheless, I am grateful for the amendment. It enables me to say particularly about jet-skis that it is our intention that they will be brought within the Merchant Shipping Act definition by means of an order to be made under Clause 109 in Part 6 of the Bill.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: If my noble friend had encouraged the debate about Clause 79, very well and
  GC 262
  good. But to have amendments simply for the sake of putting forward the point of view that he has expressed seems to be irrelevant.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government cannot take that view about any amendment—not publicly. It has enabled me to say where and in what way jet-skis will be brought within the Merchant Shipping Act definition. I cannot say what the definition will be but I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will be reassured to know that it is in hand.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister has been very helpful. Strap-on power packs are available now which can be hitched on to one's back or stomach, or one can even be pulled by them. In thinking about these definitions, I wonder whether the Minister might also take those into account because they, too, can be very dangerous.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That sounds scary, although it sounds as though it would be more dangerous for the person doing it than to anyone else.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: If they go out of control, it is a danger to everyone else.
  4.45 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the Minister's response. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that I am slightly surprised by his tone and attitude. I could certainly have opposed clause stand part; instead, I chose to table a probing amendment. That is perfectly reasonable. One reason why I feel especially aggrieved with the noble Lord is that I remember when he was in opposition having to reply to hundreds of amendments that he had tabled to a Bill, to which he spoke at inordinate length. The proceedings were tiresome; but I did not complain.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I—
  Viscount Astor: I shall let the noble Lord intervene in a moment. I have kept my speeches comparatively short. We will get through the Committee much more quickly if we all stick to that rule. I hope that the noble Lord does not feel that trying to insult the Opposition will improve the Committee's proceedings.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I may have spoken at inordinate length in opposition, but I always understood what it was all about. That is what this Opposition have proved incapable of doing.
  Viscount Astor: The noble Lord may have understood it, but I must say that many of us did not at the time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 43:
  Page 33, line 43, at end insert "after consultation with relevant trade associations and recreational boat user groups"
  The noble Viscount said: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will dislike this amendment almost as much as the previous one.

  GC 263
  However, I shall not be deterred, because it is our job to probe the Government. I shall make an even shorter speech than last time, because this is a probing amendment to ensure that the Government will consult various organisations. I am sure that the Government will, but it would be helpful if they would say who they are and how the process is going. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can certainly give a positive response to the amendments. We are already holding preliminary discussions with the British Marine Federation and the Royal Yachting Association on the nature and extent of the proposed regulations on the recreational mariner exception. When those preliminary discussions are complete, we shall have more formal consultation. Clearly, anyone who desires to be consulted or whom we can identify as having a relevant interest will be consulted.
  On consultation with Parliament, the regulations on the exception will be made using the affirmative resolution procedure; therefore, Parliament will have its say.
  Lord Berkeley: Is there a royal jet-ski association? If so, do the Government plan to consult it?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have no idea. Does my noble friend wish me to write to him about that?
  Lord Berkeley: No.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the Minister's reply, which is enormously helpful. In the process, he has enabled the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to put his name forward to be the patron of yet another organisation, whose interests I am sure he will serve with great skill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.]
  Clause 79 agreed to.
  Clauses 80 to 82 agreed to.
  Clause 83 [Detention pending arrival of police]:
  [Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
  Clause 83 agreed to.
  Clause 84 [Arrest without warrant]:
  [Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 48:
  Page 37, line 14, leave out paragraph (b).
  The noble Viscount said: This short amendment concerns a simple subsection about in-patients and other medical matters. Clause 84(3)(b) states:
  "is not on a ship".
  Is the Minister aware of my noble friend Lord McColl's fine institution, called Mercy Ships, which runs hospitals on ships? The provision appears to exclude the charity Mercy Ships and other charities that operate hospitals on ships. The Government
  GC 264
  should consider that, because this clause concerns arrest without a warrant; there are hospitals on ships; should not paragraph (b) affect them? I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, I was not aware of the organisation of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. Perhaps either the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, or I could have a word with him about it. The noble Viscount says that the provision is simple; it is not at all.
  Clause 84 gives a police officer the right to arrest a person whom he suspects is committing or has committed an offence under this part, but subsection (2) states that he will not have the right to arrest a person who is in hospital as a patient. Such a person should be protected from the requirement to provide any specimen, if the doctor in charge of his case considers that that would be prejudicial to the proper care and treatment of the patient. If the doctor in charge does not object, specimens of blood or urine may be taken for analysis in the laboratory. That is the same provision as in road traffic legislation, in Section 9 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
  The amendment would extend that protection to ships' hospitals. We are far from clear that the analogy holds between a hospital on land and a ship's hospital, which may be a sick bay, an undesignated place or somewhere where someone is receiving medical instruction over the Internet or the airwaves. In any case, it is difficult to establish whether, in the close knit community of a ship, a ship's doctor is sufficiently independent or detached from the suspect.
  A hospital comparable with a land hospital will occur only on a large cruise ship or perhaps some military vessels. For the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a hospital means an institution,
  "providing medical or surgical treatment for in-patients or out-patients"—
  the phrase used in Clause 84(3)(a).
  The situation is difficult; removing the paragraph would make it even more difficult. Given the problems of definition, it would not be desirable to give up the ghost, as the amendment would in effect do.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. Perhaps I should write to him with the details of charity hospital ships so that we can decide whether anything needs to be done. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 84 agreed to.
  Clause 85 [Right of entry]:
  [Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
  Clauses 85 and 86 agreed to.
  Clause 87 [Orders and regulations]:
  [Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
  Clause 87 agreed to.
  Clauses 88 to 90 agreed to.
  Clause 91 [Being unfit for duty]:
  [Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
  Clause 91 agreed to.
  Clause 92 agreed to.
  Clause 93 [Aviation functions]:
  Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 53:
  Page 40, line 41, leave out "or undertaking" and insert "contract or other obligation"
  The noble Viscount said: This amendment is grouped with a cluster of other amendments, but I shall move mine briefly. I have a simple question. The Bill uses the words,
  "the terms of an employment or undertaking".
  What would that include? Is the drafting sufficiently wide to include contract or other obligations? Is my amendment necessary? If the Minister can tell me that that is included, I shall of course be happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Berkeley: I shall speak to Amendment No. 54, which is grouped. It would close an anomaly in the current proposals to extend alcohol testing to cover aviation. As Members of the Committee will know, the aim of the Bill is to establish consistency between modes. To achieve that, it has been framed to reflect the drinking and driving provision set out in the Road Traffic Act 1988, where a police officer may require a driver to take a breath test if a moving traffic offence has been committed if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a driver has been drinking or if an accident has taken place.
  For the record, more than 200,000 drivers or riders involved in injury road crashes were tested in 2001. So the police have extensive experience in post-incident breath testing. The Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety shares my view that much of our success in reducing drink-drive fatalities is due to the rigour of police enforcement.
  As drafted, Clause 82 extends the Road Traffic Act 1988 in its entirety to cover shipping, giving the police the power to breath-test in the aftermath of an accident at sea or in a public place. The comparable clause governing aviation, Clause 95, omits that power, granting the police the power to breathalyse only when an offence has been committed, or if there is reasonable cause to suspect the presence of alcohol.
  I fail to understand why the power to breathalyse after an aviation accident has not been included. We hope that such accidents will not happen as often, but the power still needs to be available. Aviation does not concern only large planes but small planes. If the aim is to establish consistency between modes, I see no reason to omit the third occasion on which breath-testing can take place, with a comparable approach to enforcement of the law.
  It is worth putting on record that extending that power to aviation should not be interpreted as meaning that there is a major problem of alcohol consumption among pilots. The Air Accident Investigation Branch does an excellent job and has
  GC 266
  been the model for the rail accident investigation branch, which we discussed during our first day in Committee. That is useful, but it is odd that investigators do not have the power to refer a breath test and are unlikely to attend before the immediate effects of alcohol have worn off. Such a power can be discharged only by a police officer.
  So I strongly commend the amendment, in line with the policy of establishing a consistent approach between traffic modes and I hope that my noble friend will accept it on the Government's behalf.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 55A and 55B.
  On Amendment No. 55A, the presence of uniformed police officers on commercial aircraft could cause undue concern and anxiety to passengers. I therefore propose that the airline or its agents should be made responsible for escorting the individual concerned—whether a member of the flight or cabin crew—to a room where the uniformed officers are waiting. Under existing provision, the police would still ultimately have the right to enter the aircraft, if that were required.
  On Amendment No. 55B, I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say, but the Government should be rather more proactive on the matter. I refer of course to drugs and alcohol. The Bill should include a requirement to introduce standardised peer intervention programmes within commercial air transportation in the U K; and the CAA should act as the responsible oversight body.
  If we consider aviation in the United States, such programmes have already achieved a proven record. What has been done has been achieved under the title of the US Human Intervention and Motivation System. There is a great deal to commend that system to us.
  Of course, such schemes will be introduced effectively only if they are required. Without that, the lesser parts of the aviation industry will regard them as a provision that can be overlooked. The standard and content of such provision should not vary significantly. The Bill should be viewed as an opportunity for positive preventive action that will help to reduce the risk of breaches of the prescribed limit in the first place. That would be regarded as a positive step for the travelling public and those suffering from drug and alcohol problems.
  Perhaps I should have said at the outset that in this instance I speak as the president of the British Airline Pilots Association.
  5 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for the manner in which all the amendments have been spoken to; I hope that I can set the Committee's mind at rest.
  First, on Amendment No. 53, Clause 93(5) extends the offence that would be committed by personnel carrying out aviation functions while under the

  GC 267
  influence of alcohol or drugs to those holding themselves to be ready to carry out those functions at short notice. Subsection (5) states:
  "A person who in accordance with the terms of an employment or undertaking holds himself ready … shall be treated as carrying out an activity ancillary to the function".
  I am advised that, legally, there is no difference between "terms of an employment" and "terms of an employment contract". On the other hand, replacing "or undertaking" with "or other obligation" has dangers.
  First, an undertaking is important. A recreational aviator may have given an undertaking to abide by the rules of a flying club. Those rules could provide that the pilot's use of an aircraft on a particular day were subject to the determination of the club on that day; timings may be variable. In such circumstances, the pilot should not be under the influence of alcohol or drugs at any time when he or she is prepared to fly.
  It could also be construed that "other obligation" is limited only to obligations relating to employment, which is not what we—nor, I think, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor—intend.
  Amendment No. 54 concerns the police power to test suspected offenders provided that they have reasonable cause to do so. An accident may well be a factor taken into account when the officer considers whether he has such cause. The Government consider that to strike the right balance.
  The amendment would allow the police to carry out post-accident testing of aviation personnel. There would be problems with applying the amendment. For example, if a licensed maintenance engineer were over the limit when an aircraft was released to service, that could be days or weeks before any accident. There could be the same problem with air traffic controllers. The amendment refers to,
  "accidents where the aircraft is in a public place".
  That would exclude a significant number of potential aviation accident sites, including runways.
  Aircraft are sometimes involved in minor incidents or accidents caused by the actions of third parties—for example, a ground worker may drive a vehicle into an aircraft. Post-accident testing in such circumstances would cause unnecessary delay while the aircraft's crew were tested, even though the police did not have reasonable suspicion that an offence had been committed. So the amendment is defective in a number of ways.
  On Amendment No. 55A, the process of carrying out a test is a procedural matter for the police. We are seeking to agree an appropriate testing protocol with police representatives, so that passengers should not be overly alarmed. In practice, suspected offenders will almost certainly be asked to leave the aircraft for the purpose of conducting a screening test. That ought not to cause alarm among the passengers.
  GC 268
  If that request is refused, a uniformed police officer may have to enter the aircraft to remove the suspect. Good practice suggests that anyone seeking to gain entry to aircraft, especially the cockpit, should be readily identifiable as having the authority to do so. That is why we require the police to be in uniform. There is no need to place a separate requirement on operators to escort crew members from the aircraft; the police already have sufficient powers.
  Amendment No. 55B concerns peer intervention programmes. I am glad that it has been introduced as an addition rather than an alternative to statutory provision. The Civil Aviation Authority does not have power to approve or oversee a peer intervention programme introduced by an overseas registered operator—which, I think, is the kind of operator with which my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis is concerned. So the new requirement and the inherent costs would fall only on UK-registered carriers.
  The CAA already operates its own successful support programme. Peer intervention would be unlikely to address or identify one-off "binge" drinking, for example. The current Bill provides a framework of criminal sanctions on which individual companies can develop their own alcohol or peer intervention programmes. If it is felt that the UK needs to introduce a national peer programme, that should be industry-led, developed with the support of both employers and unions. I suggest that that is a better approach than the statutory framework suggested by the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful for my noble friend's comments on Amendment No. 54. Obviously, I accept that there are defects in its drafting, but I am slightly surprised that he was not more positive about the principle.
  Constables will have the power to breath-test after an accident at sea. That accident may be in a harbour, which is a private place under some definitions. Yes, Heathrow Airport runway is also a private place, as is the local flying club runway, and so on. But if a driver on a public road runs into someone or causes an accident, the police have powers to breathalyse him. The public may well be involved in marine accidents. The Government seem to accept that, but not for air accidents.
  I wonder whether my noble friend would accept that there may be further work to be done on consistency across modes. I invite him to draft an amendment to table on Report.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We must consider the drafting of Clause 95, which states:
  "In place of subsection (3), a person may be required to provide a specimen either … at or near the place where the requirement is made, or … at a police station specified by the constable".
  That provision is the same as that on land under road traffic legislation. That seems right. There is no significant restriction on the power of constables to

  GC 269
  require preliminary breath tests. If the requirement is made in the place identified by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, it is covered by the Bill. However, if he wants to talk to me before Report to give me specific examples of something that he thinks is not covered by the Bill, my door is always open.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I refer again to my amendments. My noble friend has been helpful in his reply. But on Amendment No. 55A, would it not be an advantage if both approaches could be considered? On Amendment No. 55B, although the Minister has been enormously helpful, would it not be advantageous if consultation with the industry, trade unions and any other interested party took place, either during the Bill's passage or afterwards? What is important—there is no difference between the Minister and me on this—is that the provisions should work favourably and positively. All those whom I have mentioned have a real interest in achieving that.
  I hope that the Minister can say that at some stage there will be appropriate consultation, which should take place now or in the near future.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can do better than that. I assure my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis that consultation is already taking place on the matter with the Civil Aviation Authority and air transport operators.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My union, BALPA, the Transport and General Workers' Union and others have a similar interest.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We shall certainly include the unions.
  Viscount Astor: M y small, modest amendment led this group; I am entirely happy with the Minister's reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 93 agreed to.
  Clause 94 agreed to.
  Clause 95 [Specimens, &c.]:
  [Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
  Clause 95 agreed to.
  Clause 96 [Arrest without warrant]:
  [Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
  Clause 96 agreed to.
  Clause 97 [Right of entry]:
  [Amendment No. 55A not moved.]
  Clause 97 agreed to.
  Clauses 98 to 101 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 55B not moved.]
  Clause 102 agreed to.
  Schedule 6 agreed to.
  Clause 103 agreed to.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 56:
  After Clause 103, insert the following new clause—
  "ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC EFFECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES
  (1) Section 117 of the Railways Act 1993 (c. 43) (safety of railways and other guided transport systems) is amended as follows.
  (2) After subsection (2) there is inserted—
  "(2A) If to any extent they would not do so apart from this subsection, the general purposes of Part 1 of the 1974 Act shall be interpreted by taking into account the overall economic effect of personal injuries on the public (whether passengers or not) arising from the use of alternative modes of transport.""
  The noble Lord said: We now move to Part 6, entitled "Miscellaneous". I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
  Amendments Nos. 56 and 67, which are grouped, are two of a number of amendments which I have tabled which are designed to subject safety to some interesting discussion, but, more importantly, to a consistent and more rigorous analysis. Much of the work that is done on transport safety—railway safety in particular—is based on recommendations that are either political or are based sometimes on "seat of the pants" opinion.
  Amendment No. 56 would require the Health and Safety Executive to take into account the overall effect on the public when personal injury is incurred by travellers and the public are forced to use alternative modes of transport. Members of the Committee will be able to recount their own examples of such incidents. The most recent one was probably the closure of the Central Line for more than two months when a motor fell off a train. We can debate the reasons arid the consequences of that but the fact remains that the public were subjected to serious inconvenience. It is probably not possible to identify the number of people who used road transport as an alternative in that situation and who were killed or injured on the road, or who had heart attacks due to walking too far or whatever, but it must be possible to make an assessment. Similarly, during the recent spate of firemen's strikes passenger lifts were closed at certain stations for safety reasons and passengers using those stations had to walk up and down the stairs. That caused great inconvenience to people.
  I believe that the staff of the Health and Safety Executive will say that this matter has nothing to do with them and that they just set the rules and issue guidelines. HSE inspectors occasionally offer encouragement to people as regards the matter that I am discussing but I suggest that they often put the fear of prosecution into people in a very forceful way, as we discussed on the first day of our Grand Committee proceedings. That causes operators to play safe to cover themselves even if the end result of that is to force people on to less safe modes of transport. It would be useful to place a duty on the Health and Safety Executive in this regard which would eventually filter down through its guidance and through the

  GC 271
  companies that it supervises. That would, I hope, have the consequence of making all forms of transport safer.
  Amendment No. 67 addresses the cost of preventing fatalities. I refer to the document, Managing the accidental obstruction of the railway by road vehicles, published in February 2003, which I believe that I mentioned on the previous occasion. I believe that that is the first example of the Department for Transport placing the same value on preventable fatalities on railways as on roads. That is a significant step forward.
  Some interesting assessments have been produced of the costs associated with preventing a road fatality. It is estimated to be about £1.2 million. That seems a reasonable figure. The railway figure is set in the Railway Group Safety Plan at £1.30 million per equivalent fatality avoided. But then there is the sting in the tail. The figure is £3.64 million for the prevention of multiple fatalities or where the risk is close to intolerable.
  Several years ago I asked a Minister—I think that it was in another place—why the value per unit of a person killed or injured was higher if many of them were killed at the same time. The Minister said that Ministers did not like the publicity attached to a large accident. I shall not say which government were in power at the time as that has been the situation for years, but not liking bad publicity is about the worst possible reason that one could give for attaching a higher value to a fatality. However, in recent years Ministers have taken a much more robust approach, which is excellent. But the fact remains that that figure still exists. When you look at the Uff and Cullen requirements for the train protection warning system, which I believe had a preventable fatality figure of about £10 million, and the European rail traffic management system, which many people still discuss, is alleged to have a preventable fatality figure of £45 million and rising. So, what is the point of having it at all unless we have an infinite sum of money available.
  The position has to some extent been exacerbated by Professor Uff who, at a conference in March, said that what we must at all costs avoid is another major catastrophe. Is he talking about a rail crash, a road crash or an airline crash? Some 100 plus people could be killed in an accident on any of those modes of transport. That, I am afraid, is a case of power without responsibility as Professor Uff does not have the chequebook that gives money to the railways. It is important for Ministers—and would be helpful to them—to attribute the same preventable fatality figure to all modes of transport. Then they could say that they would not follow a certain course of action as the money would be much better spent elsewhere. I seek a regularly updated report on the matter from the Government that could be used by the railway industry and others as the basis for assessing standards, priorities and other such matters. I believe
  GC 272
  that that would result in a safer and certainly more cost-effective railway. I believe that that is what we all want. I beg to move.
  Lord Bradshaw: Before the Minister replies I should like to support the sentiments, if not necessarily the words, expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The placing of a more consistent value on preventing fatalities and injuries across all modes of transport would be advantageous. However, I do not believe that we should impose a duty on the Health and Safety Executive in that regard. I know from my experience in local government that in assessing road schemes a value is placed on the number of lives saved and the number of injuries incurred. I have seen maps with these things plotted on them and I have seen these values calculated. A hierarchy is used to determine the way the limited resources are spent to promote the cause of road safety.
  It would be very easy to devise a system which applied widely to other modes of transport and, if necessary, to add premiums for railway or aircraft accidents. I make a plea to the Minister—if not directly supporting the amendments that we are discussing—to adopt a more rational system of accident avoidance and that we spend the money that is available in an objective fashion. I am afraid that money is often wasted on certain headline schemes when many more lives could often be saved by concentrating on more mundane schemes that would probably also be better value for money.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I, too, wish to support the sentiments that lie behind the amendments that we are discussing. It strikes me as absurd if huge sums of money are spent by the railways—on the insistence of the various enforcement agencies—which they cannot afford if that has the effect of forcing up fares which in turn drives people off the railways and on to the roads where the risk of accident is that much higher. I hope very much that that matter will be borne in mind when considering the assessment to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred. The safety statistics with regard to road and rail travel are overwhelmingly in rail's favour. For that to be lost due to people being driven off the railways and on to the roads as they cannot afford rail fares would be perverse in the extreme.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: In principle, I accept the matter of relative valuation. Heaven forbid that any Member of the Committee should have a relative die in a road, rail or aviation accident. The cost to the individual is the same. It is a personal tragedy on a huge scale and has an immeasurable economic effect. That would, of course, vary slightly from family to family but in principle it is the same. To have what I call a class distinction between the road regime, the railway regime and the aviation regime seems to me patent nonsense. If we can introduce a more rational framework in that regard, it would be absolutely right to do so if only because—I refer to some of the more

  GC 273
  extreme, expensive regimes that have been discussed—spending that money could save far more lives. That surely would be worthwhile.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Needless to say the impulse behind the amendments is very much welcomed by the Government. If I spend a little longer than I sometimes do in setting out what we are doing, that may be helpful. However, I say immediately that Amendment No. 56 would involve a significant change to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, and an amendment to this Bill is not the place to do that. We would never get it through the ministerial and departmental procedures. It would need a lot of extra consultation and further thought.
  But we want the fullest consideration of all relevant aspects when safety decisions are being contemplated. There is evidence that rail safety authorities are starting to look at the wider impact of decisions they take. For example, in its advice to the Secretary of State on the European rail traffic management system, the Health and Safety Executive took into account the effect of modal shift as part of its analysis. So I think that we are moving very much in that direction. Rather than putting a measure such as the one that we are discussing on the face of the Bill we should recognise that part of the role of the rail safety and standards board, which came into being only last month, is to review railway operating standards and the process by which they are developed. I would encourage the rail industry, which comprises the members of the RSSB, to play a full part in this work to ensure that it takes into account everything which it considers relevant. That ought to include modal shift.
  I turn to Amendment No. 67. It is true that in the past there has been a different assessment of the value of a fatality in a road accident as opposed to a rail accident. It is also true that public perception is very much as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, described it. If you have lost a loved one, it does not matter whether that occurred in a road, rail or aviation accident. That is the direction in which the Government are moving.
  For many years we have published an annual report which sets out the value of preventing a highway fatality. That has to be taken into account by the Highways Agency and local transport authorities when they are considering road safety improvements. The current value is £1.2 million at 2001 prices per fatality saved on the roads. We think that there should be the same standards for rail safety as for road safety. That is the principle that we adopt. The rail industry itself has set a higher figure but, clearly, it is up to that industry to review the figure that it uses.
  There is not the same agreement with regard to aviation and shipping. Aviation is the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority and shipping is the responsibility of the International Maritime Organisation. They are responsible for any appraisal value for safety set by individual countries.
  GC 274
  With the assurance that we are moving very much in the direction of the thinking behind these amendments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will be reassured by my comments.
  Lord Berkeley: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for that very full response. He must have realised that I had no intention of pressing the amendments. The statements that my noble friend made are desperately important for the industry at this time. I shall study them with great interest. As I say, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 57:
  After Clause 103, insert the following new clause—
  "HSE: RESPONSIBILITY FOR ROADS
  In section 117(6)(b) of the Railways Act 1993, for "guided" there is substituted "land surface"."
  The noble Lord said: This amendment possibly could have been grouped with the previous amendment. However, it was not. It again concerns the Health and Safety Executive. It is very unclear to me what responsibilities the Health and Safety Executive has for different types of transport. I am tempted to discuss guided buses but I shall leave that for Report stage or perhaps discussions with my noble friend the Minister before that stage.
  It is clear from what my noble friend has said that he favours compatibility of responsibility between modes of transport. I believe that on the roads during the year eight people have been killed while undertaking maintenance whereas five have been killed while undertaking railway maintenance. In operations—if I can call it that—on the roads about 3,500 people are sadly killed every year as opposed to an average of about 10 on the railways if one excludes suicides, which we can debate.
  My view is that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act requires the executive to have a duty to protect people. I refer to some Written Answers going back over the past year or two. I asked about a report which was published a year or two ago which stated that 40 per cent of London bus journeys involved serious driving faults and 3.2 per cent involved dangerous driving faults. The response from my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham was:
  "HSC is not responsible for monitoring the performance of bus drivers, and will not be taking any action on this particular issue. It has no duty to investigate incidents of unsafe driving in passenger service vehicles and buses".—[Official Report, 15/10/02; col. WA45.]
  I suggest that either it should be responsible for that or that it should at least make sure that others are.
  However, great interest is taken in the matter of signals being ignored on the railway. In April a very comprehensive report was published on an incident that occurred in Southampton. The first half of the report expressed surprise that TPWS had worked, which I thought was rather odd but there we are. It appears that the driver concerned had not followed the correct procedures and had carried on very slowly into

  GC 275
  Southampton station where, horror of horrors, there was a train at the relevant platform. The train coming into the station did not hit the other train as the driver stopped. That was a serious incident but if the Health and Safety Executive examined every incident in which one car nearly hit another, it would be rather overworked.
  I wondered whether the Health and Safety Executive was responsible for setting standards of safe driving for passenger service vehicles, buses and trains. But the answer is that it is not because other bodies do that. The Health and Safety Executive does not appear to consider it necessary to supervise that matter.
  The Health and Safety Executive has certain responsibilities and duties under the Act to which I referred. It is quite clear from what has been said by Ministers and the HSE that people are at work when they are driving down the motorway, or at least there are enough people defined as being at work with a responsibility to be there. I believe that there should be more clarity in that regard. I refer again to the document, Managing the accidental obstruction of the railway by road vehicles. It is a wonderful book. It states on page 12:
  "There are differing views on whether highway authorities have a similar legal duty"—
  under the Health and Safety at Work Act. The document continues:
  "Highway law has its roots in common law and authorities generally have powers rather than duties".
  In other words, the authors of the document do not appear to know whether the Health and Safety at Work Act applies to roads. That is very honest but I suggest gently that it would not be a bad idea if that matter was clarified at some stage.
  I turn to Amendment No. 68. My noble friend the Minister has kindly covered this matter. The European technical standards for interoperability on the railways will be introduced. I think that we all welcome them. However, I have heard Ministers comment that if the technical standards for interoperability are more stringent than the UK standards we shall not be able to afford them, but that if they are less stringent we shall not be able to accept them as they will be less safe than our standards. Ignoring any rather arrogant approach that we are always better than the rest of Europe, which I am sure was not meant by that comment, there is a serious risk that HSE and others in the industry might try to second-guess everything that the rest of Europe does. That would give us the worst of both worlds as we would have to comply with two sets of standards and no money with which to do it.
  I seek some warm words of comfort from my noble friend before I withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My noble friend Lord Berkeley is a rational man and a purist. He seems to think that if you have a regime which works in one area
  GC 276
  it can be made to work in another area. I do not know whether I am rational but at least I am pragmatic. My noble friend seeks to make the Health and Safety Executive responsible for roads in the way that it is responsible for rail. Where does the expertise lie? Does it lie with the Health and Safety Executive or with those who are responsible for safety on roads at the moment? Our strategy on road safety, Tomorrow's roads— safer for everyone, sets out the areas where the Government are targeting their activities. It recognises that good road engineering reduces the risk of accidents. Better maintenance, well planned small-scale improvements at accident blackspots and longer-term and more co-ordinated planning and improvement of roads will all help to ensure that road infrastructure is as safe as possible.
  But the officials with the expertise in these matters are not in the Health and Safety Executive. They are working for highway authorities, engineering consultants or the Government as the inspectors at the public inquiries into major road improvement schemes.
  The Department for Transport works with vehicle manufacturers and dealers to improve further vehicle safety by encouraging the design improvements that help prevent accidents happening in the first place and to reduce the consequences if they do. Again, the expertise in this subject does not lie in the HSE.
  My noble friend Lord Berkeley is right to say that some people using the roads are at work but that is a very limited and, as I say, purist interpretation of the responsibilities. I prefer those responsibilities to lie with those who are capable of exercising them. The coda to Brecht's Caucasian Chalk Circle states that everything shall be with those who are good for it. I shall give the rest some other time.
  Amendment No. 68 concerns a complicated area of European law. Technical specification for interoperability—TSIs—apply to individual subsystems only. Thus, compliance with the TSI can only guarantee the safety of each individual subsystem and not the safety of the railway as a whole.
  Health and safety dutyholders remain legally responsible for ensuring the safety of the whole railway, including the management of interfaces between the individual subsystems and the safe operation of trains.
  If my noble friend Lord Berkeley is asking—as I think he is—whether there is any gap in responsibility, my understanding is that there is not.
  Lord Berkeley: I am very grateful to my noble friend for those comments. I was more grateful for the answer on the second amendment than for that on the first. Bearing in mind the Government's recent announcement, or, perhaps, leak to the press, about corporate manslaughter, I have to compare the effort on the part of the authorities—I do not want to specify which authorities—in pursuing railway staff for corporate manslaughter—I do not wish to express any judgment on whether that is done rightly or wrongly—with the lack of activity on the case where a car went

  GC 277
  over a bridge which happened to have been demolished 25 years ago and landed on a rail track. Sadly, the occupant was killed by a train.
  It could be inferred that the relevant highway authority had a responsibility to put a barrier in front of that non-existent bridge or at least a sign. I am told that there was a sign but unfortunately it had gone rusty and one could not read it. When I tabled a Question asking whether proceedings would be taken in respect of corporate manslaughter, the answer was no. I am not sure that the same rules are being applied in every case. I hope that if and when the Government bring forth ideas on corporate manslaughter, there will be no question of Crown immunity. That would simply compound what is already a big inequality in that regard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 104 [Railways safety levy]:
  [Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
  Clause 104 agreed to.
  Clauses 105 and 106 agreed to.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Marketmoved Amendment No. 59:
  After Clause 106, insert the following new clause—
  "PRESCRIBED LIMITS

  (1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) shall be amended as follows.

  (2) In section 8(2) leave out "50" and insert "35".

  (3) In section 11(2) in the definition of "the prescribed limit"—

  (a) in paragraph (a) leave out "35" and insert "22";

  (b) in paragraph (b) leave out "80" and insert "50";

  (c) in paragraph (c) leave out "107" and insert "67"."

  The noble Baroness said: This is the first of a number of amendments which I have tabled under the general theme of road safety. It is appropriate that a transport Bill should contain some significant elements of road safety. I believe that the Government have conceded that point by including in the Bill the duty to clear snow and ice from the highway.
  I want to set in context the fact that on the rail network, with which most of the Bill is concerned, there are about 17 deaths a year whereas there are 70 deaths per week on our roads. Other Members of the Committee may share my irritation at the lack of road safety legislation in this Parliament despite pronouncements both within and outside the House. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurance to those Members of the Committee who have an interest in these matters. I am sure that, given sufficient comfort today, we need not return to the issues at a later stage in the Bill.
  Amendment No. 59 deals with the reduction from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. That is entirely within the department's own 1998 consultation, Combating Drink Driving: the Next Steps. Since 1998 they have clearly been very long and very slow steps.
  GC 278
  Some 520 people die each year in crashes in which one or more of the drivers is over the 80 milligram BAC. It is estimated that something like 50 lives would be saved each year by the reduction I am discussing.
  We have the highest permitted levels of alcohol in Europe along with Ireland, Luxembourg and Italy. While it is certainly true to say that the alteration of drink-drive policies and penalties along with the introduction of the breathalyser made a significant difference some years ago, some worrying trends are developing.
  Between 1993 and 2001 the number of accidents caused by drink-driving has risen by 27 per cent. That should worry all of us, because it reverses the previous trend and perhaps says something about a diminution in the acceptance that driving having consumed alcohol constitutes a serious problem. For a number of years there was a significant culture change in which people believed that drink-driving was unacceptable. I am worried that there may be a change in that attitude. It would bode well for the Government to show leadership in that regard by reducing the alcohol limit and reinforcing the message that drink-driving is unacceptable.
  I do not intend to detain the Committee further on the subject. I have some very detailed briefings which I hope that I shall not have to use. However, I should like to record my thanks to Brake—the road safety charity—the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which have given me much information on the subject. Surveys show that public opinion is very much behind a reduction in the drink-drive limit. I hope that the Government will give the matter serious consideration. I beg to move.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I should like to speak to this amendment and to my Amendment No. 60—the two are grouped together—which concerns the testing regime. I have no intention of repeating the statistics which the noble Baroness has just shared with the Committee.
  The case for the reduction in the drink-driving limit is in fact the Government's own case. It is very convincingly set out in the 1998 paper. They make it very clear that the number of lives that would be saved as a result of reducing the limit from 80 to 50 milligrams would be 50, that the number of serious injuries that would be cut would be 250 and that the number of slight injuries that would be cut would be 1,200. There would be a saving to the taxpayer, or to the country, of £75 million a year. Those are all the Government's figures.
  To have adopted a 50-milligram limit would have been entirely consistent with the consultation paper and the recommendation of the European Union. As the noble Baroness said, it would have brought us into line with the overwhelming majority of other European countries. The European Union Committee has looked at the matter twice, most recently last summer when I was fortunate enough to be one of its members. We agreed unanimously that the case for

  GC 279
  reducing the limit to 50 milligrams was overwhelming. We were very disappointed that the Government declined to accept that.
  So far as I can understand, the Government declined to reduce the limit because they felt that it was less important than the scale of penalties that applied in this country, compared with in other European Union members. There is some truth about the penalties, but the evidence is that it is not the penalty that makes the difference in terms of the effectiveness of the law, but the rate at which breath tests are carried out. That brings me to my amendment, which effectively would give the police the power to stop people and conduct random testing, as happens in a number of other countries in Europe.
  Indeed, that happened to my son-in-law in France when I was with him a week last Friday. We were returning from a football match in Le Mans and, on the outskirts of his town, the police were stopping about one person in 10. There was a check of documents and a very courteous exchange, and it finished with him blowing into a bag. The result of course was negative, because he is a very responsible citizen, and there was no suggestion that he had committed any sort of offence. However, such tests are accepted by French people as a normal part of road safety legislation. So far as I can tell, there is no great resentment about it.
  The number of tests that we perform in this country is not one that puts us on the same level as others in Europe. Only Ireland and Austria have a lower rate of testing than we do. Even if the penalties may be severe, the chances of being caught in Britain are that much worse. In the Netherlands, the figure of testing is one in 16. In Spain, it is one in 30. In Finland, it is one in four. In this country, the chances of being tested are only one in 67. We need to revisit the issues of the limit and how we allow the police to carry out tests. I hope that the Government will think again about the limit in particular.
  5.45 p.m.
  Viscount Simon: The Committee will be surprised to learn that I added my name to Amendment No. 59 slightly grudgingly, although I admit that I say that with a good tongue in cheek. I regard the proposed new limit as a compromise. On 1st May, the Minister said, regarding air crew, that the reason for the reduction in the BAC limit is that,
  "a combination of concentration, unremitting attention and exceedingly swift reaction is required".—[Official Report, 1/5/03; col. 830.]
  What happens if someone is in a car? Do they need a combination of concentration, attention and swift reactions? Of course they do. Therefore the limit should be the same as for pilots, at 20 milligrams. It is as simple as that. The BAC limit of 50 milligrams is therefore a compromise, and I support it. Further on, the Minister said that we had higher penalties than other countries with lower limits. However, the
  GC 280
  penalty for that lower limit is having more people killed and seriously injured on the roads. That is another reason why the limit should be reduced.
  Amendment No. 60, tabled by my noble friend Lord Faulkner, regards random breath testing. Such testing has proved exceedingly efficient as I know from my experience of Australia, where I used to live. People would rather abandon their cars when they saw a random check than be breathalised with the possibility of being over the limit. If they stopped in the middle of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, they would be fined an excessive amount, but they would rather do that than lose their licence.
  Lord Berkeley: I support both the amendments. I have a lot of sympathy with the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, on the figure of 20 milligrams. Brake has done an excellent job in producing a briefing paper that summarises the facts and figures, alongside the excellent Select Committee report.
  Brake says that 70 per cent of people are in favour of lower limits. That seems pretty conclusive evidence. However, having talked to a number of Members of Parliament on the subject from all parties, I was surprised by some of the responses that I received. They said, "Well, there are no votes in that, because my constituents won't be able to drive to the pub", to which my answer was, "Yes, and to kill people afterwards". I hope that that is not a real reason for the Government resisting the suggestion. The figure of 70 per cent of the population seems high, and I am sure that Members of Parliament and their constituents are more responsible. I hope that my noble friend will take the amendment seriously.
  Viscount Astor: I want to say something about Amendment No. 60, which is on breath testing. It seems that successive governments, including one of whom I was a part, have always denied that there is random testing. However, we all know that random testing exists, whatever the police say. What happens is that someone leaves some event and is stopped and breathalysed. When they say, "This is random testing", the police say, "No, it's not, because we have a reasonable reason to suppose that you might have had a drink, because you have been at a race course", or a football match or whatever. In practice, random testing happens and I have nothing against it. I have always been perplexed as to why governments and police forces have denied that it happens. The amendment is probably rather unnecessary.
  I remain to be convinced on the limit. One can follow the argument that, whatever level we bring it down to, there is always a diminution of accidents. Presumably if we got the level down to zero, someone would say that there would be none because of it. However, I do not think that practical, and a degree of practicality comes into the matter. Not enough testing goes on, and I support all Members of the Committee who have pointed to that. However, I want the

  GC 281
  Government to produce convincing evidence that such a limit would make a significant difference to road safety and he practical and enforceable.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Random testing goes on anyway, but the police are rather devious about it. I remember an occasion when I was travelling along the M4, and took a by-road that was not part of the M4. Someone in front of me was stopped, and then I was stopped as well. The police officer said that he had reason to believe that I was drinking. That was completely untrue, as I am very observant about ensuring that I do not have anything to drink before I drive. He was pretending, because he wanted to stop me—that was the only cause.
  I support what has been said on this side of the Committee, and also by the noble Baroness, because the time has come to abandon in part the hypocritical idea that we do not involve ourselves in random testing, given that we do. There is no reason why there should riot be random testing as well as the provisions that currently apply. I certainly support the idea that limits should be reviewed.
  The time has come to abandon the pretence that, somehow or other, people on the Continent and people here are totally different, and that therefore we should not apply the same sort of rules applied on the Continent. There is ample reason why the same sort of rules should apply here as in France, Germany and so on. It is absolutely absurd that we should have a separate regime.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If we were to go to the general public and ask their interest in most of the provisions of the Bill, the answer would be, on a scale of one to 10, one, two or three. If we asked them about alcohol limits or random breath testing, it would be eight, nine or 10. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said that she hoped that I would give her some measure of comfort, she knows perfectly well that I shall not. It is not for me, the spokesman on transport in the House of Lords, to announce a major change of government policy on alcohol limits or random breath testing. If that means that she brings the amendment back on Report, so he it, but I cannot help her.
  The merits of introducing an alcohol limit of 50 milligrams have been extensively examined and debated over a long period. In March 2002, the Government issued a statement that we had considered whether it would be desirable to make such a change and concluded that we should maintain emphasis on enforcement and publicity. We are mindful of the fact that our penalties are among the toughest in Europe. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis asked for us to be the same as the rest of Europe, but there are very considerable differences in different European countries.
  Penalties in this country are far more severe for exceeding the 80-milligram limit than in other European countries with a 50-milligram or lower limit. We have a mandatory minimum disqualification of 12 months for any drink-drive offence, which can be combined with up to six months' imprisonment and a
  GC 282
  fine of up to £5,000. Most countries with a lower legal limit impose only minor penalties at the lower alcohol levels, and imprisonment and licence removal are not generally available below 100 milligrams or more.
  We changed the law last year so that drivers who cause death while under the influence of alcohol must now retake an extended driving test at the end of their period of disqualification. Courts have sentencing options such as drink-drive rehabilitation courses open to them.
  We wish to concentrate on alternative measures, which we believe can be just as effective, or even more so, in cutting drink-drive casualty totals. In particular, we want to emphasise the importance of effective enforcement of drink-drive laws and driver education. We are aiming to make it a requirement for repeat offenders to take a further driving test before being allowed back on the road. We are examining the effectiveness of breath-alcohol interlock devices as a means of preventing re-offending, and we have extended the annual £2 million publicity campaigns.
  That approach of powerful publicity and enforcement backed by tough penalties has achieved a two-thirds reduction in drink-drive deaths since the 1970s. We have one of the best overall safety records in the European Union and beyond. It is encouraging that in 2001—the latest available figures—provisional results show that numbers of those killed in drink-related road accidents fell from 530 to 480, and those seriously injured from 2,540 to 2,410. We recognise that there is more to be done, and will continue to monitor the situation closely.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Does my noble friend support the idea that, in the European Union, there should be a common policy so far as the matter is concerned? If so, does he support the idea that Transport Ministers should convene a meeting as soon as possible to discuss the possibility?
  6 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is not up to this Government. There is no common policy, and we cannot impose one. If anyone wants to start a debate on a common policy on alcohol limits, we will of course take part in it. I have been saying that we have a good record in drink-driving, one that is better than that of many countries with stricter alcohol limits but perhaps worse enforcement and publicity. We emphasise that the safe option is never to drink and drive.
  I shall deal with Amendment No. 60. We do not consider that there is a need to give the police unrestricted powers to require breath tests. I shall not venture into the minefield of whether there is random testing at the moment. Police forces in Great Britain as a whole make very effective use of their current powers, which provide that a police officer may require a specimen of breath to be given for a breath test where he has reasonable suspicion that a person concerned has committed an offence. We do not believe that they should have unlimited powers to stop and test. They are already quite adept at targeting

  GC 283
  drink-drive suspects, and the Government believe that forces should continue to use intelligence-based methods to catch offenders.
  Members of the Committee will observe that I read that answer. It is the answer that I would give on any occasion on which the matter came up. It is a matter of government policy on which I have no flexibility.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am grateful to Members of the Committee who spoke in support of my amendment. The Minister misunderstood my hope for comfort. I did not want it on the issue in particular, but to understand a little more about where the Government stand on road safety issues. To many of us, it seems that there has been quite a reining back on the Government's part of their commitment to road safety since their strategy came out in 1998.
  There are a number of ways in which that lack of commitment has been demonstrated, not least of which is the absence of a road safety Bill in the House. I find myself rather irritated by the constant refrain that there is no parliamentary time, when the Home Office seems to be able to get acres of parliamentary time for any Bill that it wants.
  A couple of the Minister's statements caused me concern. As I said, the 1970s and 1980s showed a rapid reduction in the level of drink-driving, but that trend is now reversing in terms of the number of accidents. I do not think that we can afford to be complacent on that, and I do not understand why the Government choose to ignore both their departmental consultation in 1998 and reports from the Select Committee on Transport and independent bodies. I regard that as most unfortunate.
  I shall finish on enforcement for drink-driving. As is the case in road safety enforcement generally, cash-strapped police authorities tend to put much less emphasis on enforcement than previously. That is having a marked effect on the extent to which people think that they will be caught. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, said, it is the fear of being caught that prevents people from behaving in such a way rather than anything else. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
  The Earl of Caithnessmoved Amendment No. 60A:
  After Clause 106, insert the following new clause—
  "DRIVING WITH UNCORRECTED DEFECTIVE EYESIGHT
  After section 96(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (driving with uncorrected defective eyesight) insert—
  "(4) It is mandatory that drivers requiring corrective eyewear carry spare corrective eyewear while driving.""
  The noble Earl said: The amendment is the lead amendment of a group on the Marshalled List, but I have alerted the Minister and one or two others that I have changed the group. The amendments should not have been put in the groups that they were, so at the moment I speak only to Amendment No. 60A.
  GC 284
  We move on to another area of concern on which safety on the road is a key issue. It is a forgotten area of government policy. From the variation and consistency of the written replies that I have had to questions that I tabled, it does not seem a very joined-up area of government policy either.
  We all take it for granted that we can get into a car once we have passed our test at the age of 17, or soon thereafter, and drive happily. Sadly, our body ages and our eyesight changes. To use a Scottish word, there is a peelywally eyesight test when one takes a driving test, but eyesight alters markedly as people grow older, particularly in their 40s and 50s. However, no further testing is done until one is 70.
  That has been the cause of a number of deaths and accidents. One cannot say how many, because there are no great statistics about it. Certainly there is one important case, that of Gordon and Jan Holley, whose 18 year-old daughter Emma was killed in September 2001 by someone who simply forgot to get into his car wearing his glasses, set off driving down the road, could not see and did not see. That ended in a fatality. We will discuss aspects of the matter on further amendments.
  Amendment No. 60A suggests that it be,
  "mandatory that drivers requiring corrective eyewear carry spare corrective eyewear while driving".
  Had that been law, that person should have had a spare pair of contact lenses or glasses in the car. It is already the law in Switzerland, Spain and certain states of America. It would be beneficial to have something like it in our country, too. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In one minor respect, the noble Earl is in error. He says that someone takes the peelywally test of reading a licence plate 20.5 metres away when they pass the test and do not do it again until they are 70. I took the peelywally test when I passed my driving test in 1950, and I have not taken it since. When I renewed my licence at the age of 70, I still did not have to do it; I simply had to say that I had short sight and astigmatism corrected by glasses. I still have not been given even that minor test. I conducted it for myself, of course, but that is not the same.
  The amendment goes too far. It would impose an additional expense and burden on an individual to keep a spare pair of glasses in the car, and presumably to have a spare pair in other places at other times. I understand that there may be occasions when people forget their glasses, but they should not drive. That is the better solution.
  The Earl of Caithness: One should not drink; one should not do a lot of things, but there is plenty of legislation to correct an individual who does not do what an individual should do in a society that we could accept. I was saddened by the Minister's reply, in that he said that the amendment went too far. It is law in other countries, as I said. The issue is serious. Like the previous issue that we discussed, it has caused and is causing accidents and deaths. It needs to be considered. Perhaps on the other amendments we can

  GC 285
  have a better assessment of how the Government seek or hope to change the law to consider the whole area of eyesight. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Caithnessmoved Amendment No. 60B:
  After Clause 106, insert the following new clause—
  "DRIVING WITH UNCORRECTED DEFECTIVE EYESIGHT (NO. 2)
  After section 96(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (driving with uncorrected defective eyesight) insert—
  "(5) Vision screening equipment shall be used to test drivers' eyesight as part of the driving test.""
  The noble Earl said: In speaking to Amendment No. 60B, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 60C and 60F. Amendment No. 60B comes back to the point raised by the Minister when he said that he did not have a proper screening test when he passed his driving test. We should take that a stage further. He was right to remind us that there is a visual test in which one has to read letters of about 18 millimetres high at a distance of about 20.5 metres, but surely there should be a proper screening test at the same time. One's eyesight is sensitive. It is clear from research that some people who drive cars at the moment are not visually fit to do so.
  Amendment No. 60C is a simple amendment that requires an eyesight prescription to be produced with all applications for a driving licence. That would be a sensible way forward. If one is to get a driving licence, one fills in a form, and one can quite easily mislead the people to whom one will submit that form unless one gives a prescription with it.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Does the regime that the noble Earl wants to utilise in Amendments Nos. 60C and 60F apply anywhere else?
  The Earl of Caithness: Is the noble Lord asking whether it applies in other countries?
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Yes.
  The Earl of Caithness: I do not know. However, from the evidence obtained in this country so far, it is something that should be considered. The noble Lord might prefer to do only what the rest of Europe does, but perhaps we should be leaders and take it along with us.
  Amendment No. 60F would mean that one had one's eyesight tested every five years. That is certainly a legal requirement in many states of America, particularly when people reach the age of 50. From that age on, they have to have their eyes tested every five years and, if they do not meet the standards, they have to have a prescription and wear glasses. It would seem a logical and sensible way to try to increase the level of safety.
  There has been a lot of support for that suggestion. The Chief Constable of North Wales Police, talking on behalf of ACPO, said that it had always maintained that the current eyesight test was not rigorous enough,
  GC 286
  that research clearly indicated public support for some sort of compulsory or mandatory eyesight check for drivers on a regular basis, and that such a requirement would have its support. Mr Jonathan Simpson, campaigns manager for the RAC Foundation, said that it was vital that drivers had their eyes tested at least every two years, regardless of whether they wore spectacles, and had an examination immediately if they were in the slightest doubt about their sight.
  By taking the small steps that I propose—they are not draconian—one could improve considerably the level of safety on our roads. I beg to move.
  6.15 p.m.
  Viscount Simon: I am in general agreement with the noble Earl's suggestion. I have no idea what my noble friend the Minister will say. There is a possible defect in Amendment No. 60C, which states:
  "A current eyesight prescription shall be produced".
  It does not state "produced and filled". In of her words, the eyesight prescription and glasses may not have been made up.
  Lord Berkeley: I do not support the amendment; I merely seek clarification from the noble Earl. We have been discussing transport across modes. As the legislation involves people in charge of heavy machinery—many people would call them missiles, some with passengers aboard, which run the risk of hitting other people and causing death or injury—what should happen to train drivers, bus drivers, airline drivers and even ship drivers? Should these requirements apply to them? It would help the debate if we knew the answer.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The issue raised by the amendments is comparable to the issue raised by Amendment No. 60A. It is already an offence under Section 96 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for a person to drive with uncorrected defective eyesight. If a person cannot meet the eyesight test, even with corrective lenses, the driving licence will be either revoked or not issued in the first place.
  People such as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and myself, who have defective vision which needs to be corrected, regularly have their eyesight checked for all kinds of reasons—of which driving is perhaps not the most important—and they make any recommended changes. That is perhaps a matter of self-interest which applies to many other spheres and to almost all kinds of work. Driving is not an exceptional case. We might as well say that people should not go to work unless they have a spare pair of glasses or can prove that they have received and filled a prescription within the last two years. Driving is not different from other activities.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My noble friend has referred to the generality of the situation. Can he refer to any specific cases where people have been prosecuted

  GC 287
  specifically because they have not complied with the rules so far as spectacles or their equivalent are concerned?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: When introducing the previous amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, gave an example of a tragic case when a person died as a result of someone driving without their glasses or lenses. I do not know. I shall be interested if the noble Earl knows of any statistical evidence in relation to the number of accidents that have occurred.
  I should say to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis that last year, there were 123 prosecutions for driving with uncorrected defective eyesight. In 2001, a total of 228 driving incidents in which eyesight may have been a factor were reported by the police to the DVLA. That is another important protection. Cases of that kind are reported to the DVLA, which will no doubt require the kind of protection the noble Earl seeks.
  All drivers, irrespective of their age, must be able to satisfy the visual acuity standards for driving—that is, the ability to read a car number plate from a distance of 20.5 metres or, when I took the driving test in 1950, 25 yards. A driver who drives when he is unable to meet that standard commits an offence.
  It is not a terrible test—it is simple—but it has served its purpose well. It is equivalent to the standard laid down in the EC second directive on driving licences 91/ 439/EEC. The test has the advantage that drivers can use it at any time to check that their eyesight continues to meet the standard. It can also be used by police to test drivers at the roadside when they stop a vehicle or at the scene of an accident.
  In light of the fact that we are talking about only 228 incidents a year—I should like to know how many involved injury; I suspect it is a small proportion—the requirements suggested in the amendments would be excessive.
  The Earl of Caithness: The Minister relies quite heavily on the figure of 228 incidents, but the police very rarely use the powers that they have at their disposal. It is a matter that is normally taken into account. I can give the Minister some very disparate statistics. I had hoped that he would provide information to bring us up to date with what is happening.
  At the International Motor Show last year, a firm called Specsavers tested the eyes of 3,000 people. Nearly a quarter of them—738—failed a basic vision-screening test. They could well have been driving illegally. That is a substantially different ratio from the 228 incidents which took place in this country.
  Specsavers tested people's eyesight at road shows elsewhere around the country. In other places, out of 546 drivers who agreed to participate in a voluntary sight check, 25 were unable to read a number plate at a minimum distance; one person had to be taken to within two metres of the number plate before he was able to read it; 53 drivers were borderline; and 51 drivers admitted that they had never taken an eye examination.
  GC 288
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, says, "Well, we are all very good. We are all very sensible. We have our eyes tested at regular intervals". He and I might be doing that, but a great many people out there are not. The statistics show the kind of problem with which we are dealing.
  The Government have carried out no research in this area. It is a lacuna in the Government's policy.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is not the case. We have undertaken a programme of research into aspects of drivers' vision. We are supporting European Commission plans to review medical standards, including those relating to vision, and we will be represented on a number of working groups of medical experts from EU member states who will take the issue forward.
  The Earl of Caithness: I received that answer to one of my written Questions. The wording is identical. But in reply to my written Questions, I did not receive any statistics from the Government of how many people had their eyesight checked by the police at the scenes of accidents to ascertain whether it was defective. In the 228 cases to which the Minister referred, eyesight must clearly have been a problem. The figures that I have given, which show that nearly a quarter of the people tested at the International Motor Show were not up to the required standard, means that there is a latent problem in this area that the Government are refusing to consider and take seriously.
  I hope that between now and another stage the Minister and I can sit down and consider the matter. We need to find the basis of the problem. We need to know the extent of the problem and to act on it. These small amendments would go a long way towards improving road safety in this country.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Earl withdraws his amendment, I should say that I will of course talk to him between now and Report. However, in terms of cost and intrusion, these are not small amendments. That does not mean that they are necessarily wrong, but they are certainly not small.
  The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the Minister's offer to meet me between now and Report. I do not believe the amendments would be terribly costly to implement properly. There is a requirement in Amendment No. 60F that one should have one's eyesight tested every five years. If we altered that requirement to apply to people over 50, there would be no extra expense, because at 50 people should have their eyesight tested on a regular basis anyway. Bringing that requirement into law would not cost a great deal of money.
  I shall clearly not get much more out of the Minister at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 60C not moved.]
  The Earl of Caithnessmoved Amendment No. 60D:
  After Clause 106, insert the following new clause—
  "DRIVING WITH UNCORRECTED DEFECTIVE EYESIGHT (NO. 4)
  After section 96(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (driving with uncorrected defective eyesight) insert—
  "(7) Drivers' eyesight should be tested at the scene of an accident where possible.""
  The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 60E and 60G. During the debate on the previous amendment, we touched on the issue of police powers and the number of times they carried out eyesight tests at the scenes of accidents.
  Amendment No. 60D requires that a driver's eyesight should be tested at the scene of an accident. That happens very rarely. On an unfortunate occasion when I was involved in an accident, the police did not carry out an eyesight test on either the person who ran into me, or on me. It would have been helpful if they had done so.
  A person should have to produce a prescription and satisfactory proof of appropriate eyesight corrective measures after an accident or at a routine roadside check. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not wish to curtail the debate, but I have already offered to meet the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, between now and Report. The matters that he has raised in these amendments should be on the agenda.
  The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful, but I had hoped for some reply to the points I have made. Of course they should be on the agenda, but it would be helpful to know the Government's thinking.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: By all means. I repeat: it is an offence for a person to drive with uncorrected defective eyesight. If that cannot be achieved, the driving licence will be revoked. The police already have the power to conduct checks of a motorist's eyesight at the roadside where appropriate, and I have given the statistics of when that has happened.
  The police notify DVLA of drivers who do not meet the required standard—that is, the 228 cases to which I referred earlier—and a system is in place for dealing with drivers with defective vision. All reports are investigated by the DVLA. Where a driver's eyesight is found to be so poor that he cannot meet the required standards even with corrective lenses, the driving licence is revoked.
  As regards police powers to require a driver to submit to a test, that is a very difficult area at present. The testing of eyesight at the roadside is not a simple task. It might divert police officers from their other responsibilities—for example, after an accident involving injury. The likelihood of proving an offence of driving with uncorrected defective eyesight will be greater where the constable has already had reason to suspect it. A more extensive application of testing could be an unreasonable imposition on the driver and a burden on police time.
  GC 290
  I am not convinced that the delivery of a current eyesight prescription would serve a useful purpose. I could not do it. I do not have a current eyesight prescription. I go to my optician; he has my prescription and he makes up my glasses. I do not take it away with me. I do not believe that the amendment would work.
  The Earl of Caithness: It was helpful of the Minister to read that part of his briefing. It gives a better basis for our negotiations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 60E to 60G not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 107 shall stand part of the Bill?
  6.30 p.m.
  Viscount Astor: This is a very strange clause. There was not a lot of debate on it at Report stage in another place or in Standing Committee. I am not quite sure where it came from. It could be described as the "white van" clause. I have a number of questions about it, some relating to principle and some to detail.
  What evidence led the Government to come to the decision to allow drivers not to wear seatbelts while they are delivering? Had there been a flood of letters from freight companies, delivery companies, milkmen and so forth stating, "We have to spend so much time putting on and taking off our seat belts when we are delivering. That is hugely time consuming. We would save an enormous amount of petrol"—or diesel or whatever they use—"if we did not have to bother about putting on our seat belts"?
  Where has the pressure come from? I have seen no evidence; I have read no evidence. I am sure other noble Lords are more up-to-date and more in tune with the freight industry than I am and may be able to help the Committee, but I can find no evidence of why this is necessary.
  It is a strange clause because it refers to the driver or a passenger. Does that mean that they both have to be delivering? What happens if the driver sits still and the passenger gets out and pops an item through a door? Does he have to wear his seat belt? It makes no sense to refer to the driver or a passenger. If it refers to one passenger, why does it not refer to two passengers or three?
  The clause refers to the driver of or passenger in a motor vehicle which is,
  "constructed or adapted for carrying goods".
  How does one adapt a vehicle? Does it mean that you turn it into an official goods vehicle or does it mean simply painting a sign on the side of it? What is the definition of "adapted"? After all, goods vehicles are goods vehicles. They suffer a different tax regime; you pay a different disc rate.
  It is a very bizarrely drafted clause. It is the kind of clause that might have been drafted late one night when the Minister responsible could not drive home because he had exceeded the limit. But, of course,

  GC 291
  Ministers have official cars and so that could not possibly have happened. Indeed, as we know, Ministers are very sober people.
  The clause goes on to state,
  "while on a journey which does not exceed the prescribed distance".
  We do not know what is the prescribed distance. I am interested to know what that means. Does it apply to someone delivering down a street, who goes from No. 1 to No. 2 and moves the van five feet? Will that be the prescribed distance, or will it be to the end of the street? What will it be?
  Most bizarrely, the clause refers to a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for carrying goods which is on a journey,
  "undertaken for the purpose of delivering or collecting any thing".
  What does that mean? Presumably, if it is a goods vehicle and it is licensed for delivering or collecting goods, it will deliver goods. Why does the clause state "any thing"? What is meant by that? The drafting is bizarre. I do not understand what it means. It is either goods or it is not goods. What is it?
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: It can be anything you like.
  Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said "anything you like", but presumably, if it has a goods licence, it should be delivering goods. If it has not, it should not be delivering goods.
  This is a bizarre clause. I do not understand where it came from or who promoted it. It could have been promoted from any side of another place. I have failed to discover where it has come from. I do not understand what the clause means. It is incredibly badly drafted. I do not know where the pressure has come from.
  It does not seem to me that delivery drivers and freight firms are suffering because they have to put on a seat belt. There are equally as many accidents during short journeys as there are during long journeys. I shall be interested to hear the views of the Committee. I oppose the Question that Clause 107 stand part of the Bill and I await with interest the Minister's reply.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Is the noble Viscount going to refer to the other amendments in the group?
  Viscount Astor: I am speaking to clause stand part.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I know, but we have grouped together other amendments with the proposition that the clause should not stand part. There is opposition to the clause standing part and therefore it will be helpful to debate the other amendments in this group.
  Viscount Astor: I apologise for interrupting the Minister but I do not see where they are joined on the Marshalled List.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: They are not on mine.
  Viscount Astor: Certainly clause stand part has not been grouped with any amendments as far as I am concerned.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is an error in the proposed groupings. We have been given notice. It states in the Marshalled List that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Luke, have given notice of their intention to oppose the Question that Clause 107 stand part of the Bill. If it is more convenient I shall speak to that now and get it out of the way.
  Viscount Astor: Thank you.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It will teach the Government to be kind to Liberal Democrat amendments in Standing Committee in another place. It is all their fault.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: It usually is.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: But that does not mean that it is badly drafted or wrong. It clarifies the position concerning the existing exemption from the requirement to wear seat belts that applies to people undertaking deliveries over a short distance. The current exemption in Section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is intended for those making frequent stops. It would be unreasonable to require seat belts to be used every time such a vehicle moved a few yards to its next stop.
  The reason why it is a worthwhile provision is that the existing legislation is not well understood. Van and goods vehicle drivers are not clear about the limitation of the exemption. They frequently do not use the seat belts provided in their vehicles at any time—not only when making deliveries—and so the clause proposes a suitable change in the wording of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
  The phrase to which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, takes such enjoyable exception comes from the Road Traffic Act 1988—that is, the motor vehicle constructed or adapted for carrying goods. As to the question of the distance, that is reflected in the clause stating the prescribed distance undertaken for the purpose of delivering or collecting any thing. The "prescribed distance" will be prescribed in legislation with the aim that the distance will be clearly understood. It will set a maximum distance that may be travelled in goods vehicles before users are required to use their seat belts. That distance will be established following consultation with interested parties. We envisage that it will be quite short. A new regulation will provide clarity for vehicle users and make it easier for the police to enforce the exemption.

  GC 293
  If seat belt wearing rates in vans and goods vehicles can be lifted to something approaching the levels used in cars, we estimate that up to 20 fatalities and 240 serious injuries might be prevented annually. I defend Clause 107.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for that explanation. The Minister said that a short distance will be prescribed in regulations. The Minister can write to me if he does not know the answer, but will the regulations come under the Road Traffic Act to which he referred or will they come under this Bill? Will they be produced under the affirmative or negative procedure?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They will come under the Road Traffic Act and follow the negative procedure.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful. It will help if we can be told during the passage of the Bill the results of the consultation to which the Minister referred.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the Bill leaves the House I shall write to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and anyone else who requires it, with such information as I have. There may not be much, if any.
  Viscount Astor: I am grateful for that helpful reply. I am delighted that it is all the fault of the Liberal Democrats. For an awful moment I thought it might be our fault. Luckily it is not.
  Clause 107 agreed to.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Marketmoved Amendment No. 61:
  After Clause 107, insert the following new clause—
  "DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL ROAD HIERARCHY

  (1) There shall be a new classification of speed limits for rural roads to be known as a rural road hierarchy.

  (2) The hierarchy will set maximum speed limits for different road types, and include speed limits no higher than—

  (a) 20 mph for rural roads in the vicinity of schools and roads designated as quiet lanes under the Transport Act 2000 (c. 38);

  (b) 30 mph for rural roads passing through villages;

  (c) 40 mph for rural roads which have been classified as country lanes;

  (d) 50 mph for poor quality single carriageways;

  (e) 60 mph for high quality single carriageways; and

  (f) 70 mph for duel carriageway roads.

  (3) For the purposes of this section, a "country lane" is any road which is primarily used for local access, where there is no white centre line and which has been designated as such by the local transport authority.

  (4) Local transport authorities shall have the power under this section to review any restricted and unrestricted non-urban road or roads for which they are the traffic authority, and reclassify them as part of the rural road hierarchy according to the existing or desired function of the road.

  (5) Local transport authorities may amend the existing speed limit for a road or roads within that classification, taking into account guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

  (6) As soon as is practicable and no later than six months after the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall issue guidance as to the way in which a transport authority shall exercise its powers in developing a rural road hierarchy.

  GC 294

  (7) Guidance under this section shall include guidance on—

  (a) the function of the rural road hierarchy;

  (b) definitions of different road types and areas, including country lanes, quiet lanes and villages (subject to the requirements in subsection (4) above and the Transport Act 2000) and how the assessment of road quality is to be made;

  (c) the procedures for reviewing the classification of roads and reclassifying them, including the use of appraisal;

  (d) requirements for public consultation;

  (e) appropriate speed limits for different road types within the hierarchy, subject to the requirements in subsection (2);

  (f) the procedures for applying speed limits on an area basis;

  (g) how the rural road hierarchy will link to requirements under the Transport Act 2000 for the production of local transport plans; and

  (h) the relationship between the rural road hierarchy and urban roads."

  The noble Baroness said: I apologise for the confusion. Clause stand part does not appear on the Marshalled List that I am using. I was not sure whether it was due to a lack of visual acuity on my part.
  In moving Amendment No. 61, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 63 and 65, which are grouped with it.
  Amendment No. 61 seeks the creation of a rural road hierarchy. It is estimated that approximately a half of all deaths on our roads occur in rural areas—that is in the region of 1,800 deaths each year. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place has written in a recent letter to Mr Begg, the chair of the Commission for Integrated Transport, that in his view—and the view of the Government, presumably—there is a direct relationship between speed and accidents. However, during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, when discussing speed limits he said that the issue is not reducing speed in itself, but reducing casualties. I would appreciate the Minister clarifying the Government's thinking on this matter.
  There is widespread agreement that there are a number of problems with the current rural road speed limit policy. First, the default limit of 60 miles per hour was set at a time when there was much less traffic on the road and when vehicles tended to travel much more slowly. There was also a more well developed sense of civic duty and adherence to the law.
  Secondly, the current system tends to lend itself to a rather piecemeal approach to a traffic management policy on rural roads. Local authorities are encouraged under the current system to deal with accident blackspots—although they are not allowed to call them that—in a rather piecemeal way when a more strategic look at the road as a whole is needed.
  Thirdly, we tend to look at speed limit policy almost exclusively from the point of view of the motorist and forget the people who live in rural communities who want to use the roads for cycling, for horse-riding and for walking alongside, although there are not always footways.

  GC 295
  It is of great concern to a number of people that the regulations concerning home zones and quiet lanes still have not emerged from the department some two and a half years after they were agreed as a part of the Transport Act 2000. A number of organisations, including the Council for the Protection of Rural England, have formed a coalition to promote changes to the rural road hierarchy. Indeed, the Government have their own road safety strategy, which was launched in March. I had the pleasure of speaking at that event. Clearly I was a considerable draw. However, the Prime Minister was speaking after me and perhaps people had stayed on to hear him quote from the road safety strategy that:
  "We are therefore proposing to develop a new hierarchy of roads defined by their function and quality".
  Two years later we still do not have it.
  The proposal was moved forward in the Transport Act 2000; a working group has been formed to look at the issue; and in June 2001 the Transport Select Committee in another place suggested that the Government should get a move on. We are still waiting.
  Amendment No. 63 concerns the licensing of heavy goods operating centres, particularly in rural areas. There is currently a gap in the system. Noble Lords are looking slightly puzzled.
  I am sorry. Amendment No. 63 concerns the duty to hold a licence. It was previously our understanding that the Government intended that all vehicles stopped by the vehicle inspectorate or by the police should have a valid operator's licence. If they did not have one the vehicles would subsequently be impounded. However, a recent decision of the transport tribunal has led to a query to the effect that it might be possible for a leasing company which owns a vehicle simply to say that it had no idea that the operator did not have a licence.
  Can the Minister clear up the point? If that is the case, in the interests of safety we have brought forward an amendment which will place a duty on leasing companies to ensure that the operators of their vehicles have valid operators' licences.
  Amendment No. 65 also concerns heavy goods vehicles. Currently when someone chooses to use a piece of land as a heavy goods operating centre, unless the proposals are very large they do not require planning permission. That is not a problem in itself except that the remit of the traffic commissioner to grant the licence deals only with the site; he cannot comment on the suitability or safety of the local road network. The local authority cannot comment on it either because no planning permission is required. Planning permission is not of itself an important issue, but the lack of a requirement for it denies the local authority an opportunity to comment on a site.
  It means that there are cases when permission is given for an operating centre to exist despite the fact that the local road network is clearly unsuitable. Also, sometimes, although one site on its own might not cause a problem, the cumulative effect of a number of sites along a particular route can cause difficulty to the
  GC 296
  local area. At the moment, that is outside the power of the traffic commissioners and the local authority to deal with. I beg to move.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Berkeley: I support all these amendments, but I shall speak to them briefly. I will raise Amendment No. 61 when I speak to further amendments. It is disappointing that we have not made further progress on the matter. It is clear that the effect of fast traffic on unsuitable roads represents a threat. There may be the threat of accident, but there is also the threat of fear which sometimes makes people almost prisoners in their own homes or village. We have all had experience of walking along country roads—on the correct side of the road, as advised—when a vehicle comes round a bend and one wonders whether one will end up sandwiched between the vehicle and a high bank. That matter should be taken seriously.
  I was particularly impressed by the CPRE's view and the quotation it produced from Wales. Unlike provision here, the road safety strategy of the Welsh Assembly states that the problem with road safety is not simply a question of the number of collisions and the number of resulting casualties. Pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders often perceive Welsh roads as dangerous to travel on. I think that says it all. But it is not just a Welsh problem, it is a United Kingdom problem and it needs tackling. There are some very good points in this amendment which, it is to be hoped, can be developed during the next few weeks.
  Briefly turning to the other two amendments, I fail to understand why whether a lorry is hired or not makes the slightest difference as to whether it can be impounded or other action taken against it. The traffic commissioners exist and, in my view, they should be used much more. As most lorries are hired these days, that exemption has the effect of completely negating this clause.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I, too, support these amendments and speak also to my Amendment No. 65B. I shall not add to what the noble Baroness and my noble friend said about the rural roads hierarchy and speed limits, except to say that I agree with every word. The need for a new and rational approach to speed in the countryside is important. The manner in which it is proposed in the amendments is commendable.
  Amendment No. 65B is very much in the spirit of Clause 107, to which the noble Viscount referred. If it is sensible for the exemption for van drivers to wear seat belts to be removed from the Bill, I should be interested to know why it is not sensible for the exemption that applies to taxi drivers and private hire vehicles to be removed as well. Indeed, I would argue that there is a stronger case for taxi drivers no longer to be exempt from seat belt legislation for two reasons. First, their passengers are obliged to follow signs in the back of cabs to belt up, even if the driver is not wearing one. Secondly, if all taxi drivers were obliged to wear seat belts, it would set a good example to everyone else. I suspect that that was included in legislation when the seat belt law was passed simply because the taxi driver

  GC 297
  lobby was effective and threatened all sorts of reprisals against politicians whom they carried around London unless they were granted that exemption. We have moved on since then and it is time that that change was made.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for the manner in which the amendments have been spoken to and I shall deal with them in turn.
  In November 2001, we published a report on the possible future development of a rural road hierarchy. We are working on a framework to assess what speeds are appropriate and what speeds are actually being driven on rural roads. We expect the first results in mid-2003. We plan to publish advice on village entry signing to assist local authorities introduce 30 mile per hour speed limits in villages.
  We have also finished trials on vehicle-activated signs which curb inappropriate speed by warning drivers of hazards ahead or reminding them of the speed limit in force. The revised Traffic Signs Regulations General Directions 2002 allow more flexibility in their use. I anticipate the criticism that we are being slow on some of these issues. I shall certainly have to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about home zones and quiet lanes. The important point is that those speed limits are already available to local authorities if they wish to introduce them.
  Viscount Astor: The noble Lord just mentioned Traffic Signs Regulations General Directions 2002. While the Bill was passing through another place, the Minister said that the department was currently preparing guidance in the form of a traffic advisory leaflet, which he hoped would be available within a month. That was on 11th March. Does the Minister know whether it has actually been published? If he does not know now, I should be grateful if he would write to me.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It clearly has not. I shall have to write to the noble Viscount and other noble Lords who are interested in the subject. My point is more fundamental. Speed limit definitions are available to local authorities now if they want to use them. Rural communities differ enormously from one county to another. Those which have narrow, high-hedge lanes are very different from those in which roads run between open fields. What may be suitable in one area is not necessarily suitable in another. The amendment would prescribe inappropriate limits. I trust local authorities to use their powers effectively. That is why, despite any delays that there have been in specific regulations or guidance, I oppose the amendment.
  Amendment No. 63 concerns heavy goods vehicles being operated without the necessary operator's licence. We introduced powers to permit the impounding of illegally operated goods vehicles in the Transport Act 2000. A scheme was introduced in 2002. The Vehicle Inspectorate can detain and dispose of vehicles used by operators without the necessary operator licence. The owner of the vehicle can apply for the return of the vehicle on the grounds that he did
  GC 298
  not know that the vehicle was being operated illegally. I have been assured that "knowledge" is wider than actual knowledge. Clearly, the lessor must not lose the lorry if he is being deceived by the operator. The lessor is not required to police the operator's licences and we do not believe that he should be.
  Turning to Amendment No. 65, traffic commissioners have wide powers to decide whether an operating centre is suitable and of sufficient capacity for use by the goods vehicles that an operator plans to use from the site. It is not within the traffic commissioner's area of expertise to assess the effect of operating centres in introducing additional vehicles onto the local road network. I accept the point that some of those operating centres may be too small to require planning permission, although I should like to know—I shall endeavour to find out—whether that is a widespread problem. But local authorities have other powers than planning powers. They can impose traffic regulation measures around operating centres under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to prohibit, restrict or otherwise regulate the use of goods vehicles. We believe that those powers are the appropriate powers and are available.
  Amendment No. 65B concerns taxis. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, might care to he in my position when chairman of the central area board of the Greater London Council. When I offended the taxi drivers they just drove around County Hall until I gave in. If I did not give in, they drove around Parliament Square until I gave in. One offends them at one's peril. However, taxi drivers put it to us that they face a risk of violence or theft from their passengers and they would not wish to be restricted by seat belts. We agreed this exemption in 1983 when seatbelts became compulsory. If anything, it seems that the justification for the exemption is greater now than it was 20 years ago.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Is there no obligation on a traffic commissioner considering an operating centre to consult the Highways Agency?
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: No.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: None. I see, thank you.
  Lord Bradshaw: Before my noble friend Lady Scott speaks, I should like to say that we received the same answer when we raised the issue of operating centres when the Transport Act 2000 was under consideration. Since then, owing to the policies which have been pursued to make farm buildings more versatile in their use, local authorities have been inundated with applications for the use of centres which, of course, already have access. They find themselves unable to intervene in such cases. In addition, local authorities do not employ officers who know anything about road transport operations generally. Traffic commissioners know about vehicles, turning circles and the width and height of vehicles.

  GC 299
  The answer we were given by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in debates on the Transport Act 2000 has palpably failed. It is essential that something is done to stop huge juggernauts trundling through rural villages, making people's lives an absolute misery. The failure of the Government to act in that regard is causing huge resentment and much damage to rural roads. I would press that point very hard.
  My second point is that the lessors of vehicles, who are usually the big companies, have an absolute duty, because they are concerned with their vehicles and getting them back again afterwards, to ensure that the people to whom they lease them hold operator licences. Those records are available on computers to anyone who wants them. I warn the Minister we shall press the matter later.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I allowed the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, tacitly to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, by failing to respond myself. Local authorities have a statutory right to object to operator licence applications and they can appeal to a transport tribunal against a traffic commissioner's decision.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate. This is not the time to engage in a discussion with the Minister about whether one should have 50 or 60 mile per hour limits on rural roads. The point is that a debate should he had about appropriate and default limits. The Minister is right to say that local authorities have a significant amount of choice at the moment. But part of the problem is that any kind of changes—such as, 30 mile per hour speed limits in villages, to which the Minister referred—require vast amounts of signing. A huge number of regulations state that there must be 30 mile per hour signs at particular intervals and that there must be street lighting. A lot of paraphernalia has developed alongside any proposals to change the current default position.
  One reason for this amendment is to obtain an understanding that if the default position were changed, all of that would be unnecessary. I agree that villages should have a 30 mile per hour speed limit—my authority in Suffolk was the first authority in the country to introduce a blanket policy of 30 mile per hour speed limits in villages. But it was difficult to do, because it is not the default position. It was expensive and involved vast amounts of what has become known as "signage". The amendments are therefore partly aimed at dealing with that issue. I hope that the current discussions, which I am heartened to hear are still ongoing, will include some of that.
  My noble friend Lord Bradshaw made the point well that although clearly no lessor can be expected to deal with someone who leases a vehicle who deliberately misleads them about whether he has a licence, there should nevertheless be a basic duty of care on the part of companies which are making a profit from leasing out vehicles. There should be a duty of care on them to ensure that the people to whom they are leasing have
  GC 300
  such licences. That is not too much to ask. However, with those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smithmoved Amendment No. 62:
  After Clause 107, insert the following new clause—
  "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE DRIVING ABILITY IS IMPAIRED DUE TO THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS
  (1) In the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) after section 40A (using a vehicle in dangerous condition) there is inserted—
  "40B DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE DRIVING ABILITY IS IMPAIRED DUE TO THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS
  (1) A person commits an aggravated offence if he drives a motor vehicle on a road while his ability to drive is impaired by drugs.
  (2) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section in respect of the effect of a drug on his ability to drive it is a defence for him to show that—

  (a) he took the drug for a medicinal purpose on and in accordance with medical advice, or

  (b) he took the drug for a medicinal purpose and had no reason to believe that it would impair his ability to drive.

  40C FIELD IMPAIRMENT TEST AND BLOOD OR OTHER SAMPLES
  A constable shall have the right to require any driver whom he reasonably suspects of committing a moving traffic offence to take a field impairment test, or require a blood or other bodily sample for analysis, or both, for the purpose of establishing whether or not that driver is under the influence of any drug."
  (2) A person guilty of an offence under this Part shall be liable—

  (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both, or

  (b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

  (3) It shall be the duty of each coroner to publish each year a report containing a list of all accidents which led to fatalities in which any of the drivers involved tested positive for any drug.
  (4) It shall be the duty of each police force to include each year in its annual report a report containing—

  (a) a list of all motor accidents which led to fatalities in which any of the drivers involved tested positive for any drug, and

  (b) a list of all motor accidents causing injury in which any of the drivers involved tested positive for any drug."

  The noble Lord said: I feel that I want to go on self-denying ordinance on this one. I should like to make it conditional, but simply in this sense. There is no need for the Minister to repeat much of his remarks that he made in response to my first group of amendments, which were really in response to this amendment. On that basis I shall not say very much at this stage—partly for time and partly because I hope that we might come to an agreement to talk.
  The difference between the Minister and myself on this issue is not over getting something done; it is over timing. I should like to see this proposal brought into this Bill. This is a railway and transport safety Bill which is a very logical place to put the matter of drugs and driving. The Minister has told me that he has work going on elsewhere which we hope will result in

  GC 301
  changes in this area, but the Bill will be aimed at a different problem. In a sense, drugs and driving perhaps will be a secondary issue for that particular Bill.
  I cannot help but wonder whether we could find a way to get this matter into a sufficiently good form so that it could be included in this Bill. The amendment as it stands at the moment would not satisfy me if I were in the Minister's position. I admit that because one learns as one goes along. After all, I am an amateur draftsman. I am not a professional. The Government have immense resources behind them which are specifically trained and qualified to undertake this task. I readily acknowledge that.
  The sticking point is the difficulty that different drugs have different effects on people. I know that police training is going on so that they are better at recognising people who are driving while under the influence of drugs. But there are the specific problems of defining measurable levels of effect in order to determine impairment to the extent that it is positively dangerous, in the way that one can with alcohol.
  However, I cannot help but wonder whether that should not be taken care of by a regulation-making power, which would mean that it could be introduced drug by drug as the information became available. Consequently, one would not have to wait for a blockbuster approach to the whole issue. If we cannot have heavy discussions about this, can we work out a compromise before the next stage of the Bill? I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am much less optimistic than the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The problems of testing for impairment from the use of drugs are much more intractable than he thinks. I shall be happy to meet him and talk about the issue between now and Report.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
  Lord Faulkner of Worcesterhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 64:
  After Clause 107, insert the following new clause—
  "DRIVING WHILE USING MOBILE TELEPHONE ETC.
  (1) The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1078) are amended as follows.
  (2) After Regulation 109 there is inserted—
  "MOBILE TELEPHONES
  110 No person shall drive, or cause or permit to be driven, a motor vehicle on a road, if the driver is using a hand-held mobile telephone or similar device.""
  The noble Lord said: I have been got at by the Minister and I shall not move this today, but I shall bring it back on Report.
  [Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
  Baroness Scott of Needham Marketmoved Amendment No. 65A:
  After Clause 107, insert the following new clause—
  "THE NATIONAL TRAIL
  (1) In the interest of public health and safety, the following shall have effect.
  (2) The Secretary of State shall within one year from the coming into force of this enactment make a permanent Traffic Regulation Order to prohibit the use of non-essential mechanically propelled vehicles on the National Trail.
  (3) Non-essential mechanically propelled vehicles shall mean all such vehicles but shall not include those driven by individuals with an estate or interest in land adjoining the Trail or their lawful visitors or emergency vehicles.
  (4) A Traffic Regulation Order shall mean an order as defined in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) arid as subsequently amended."
  The noble Baroness said: I have not been got at by the Minister but, nevertheless, in the interests of the advanced stage which he earlier revealed, much to my amazement, I shall be fairly brief. Amendment No. 65A reflects widely-held concern about developments on the network of national trails. National trails are the long-distance routes which were introduced by an Act of Parliament in 1949 on what are essentially footpaths and are intended to be used by walkers, cyclists and horse-riders. They have become increasingly under threat from the enormous growth in 4 x 4 motor vehicles and off-road motorbikes, which are using these trails effectively as a playground. That has caused clear environmental problems as well as the sort of amenity issues which destroy the enjoyment of walkers and cyclists.
  However, there are some real safety issues here. The surface of these routes is being destroyed. They are being turned into a sea of deep and rather unpleasant mud during wet weather. When the weather is dry, these routes are now set into muddy ruts which make walking difficult. Indeed, that makes it difficult for horses and cyclists too. In addition, there are a number of incidents or accidents which have taken place where horses have been startled by off-road vehicles that suddenly appear, particularly motor bikes.
  Most people would agree that it is a nonsense that motor vehicles are allowed onto national trails at all. That has happened because of ancient highway law in which, if it can be proved that wheeled vehicles have ever been allowed on a highway, they continue to be allowed to do that. Therefore, if it has been shown that horses and carriages were using ancient routes 200 years ago, such vehicles can now lawfully use them. Most people would agree that for safety reasons as well as amenity reasons it is time that this legislation was changed. After all, we do quite a lot to reduce the use of traffic in city centres. It seems rather absurd that we are unable to do the same on these trails. I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: I support the principle of the amendment. I declare an interest in that I live near the Ridgeway and I assume from the amendment that the Ridgeway is covered by the national trail. This is a very important amendment. I am also an honorary member of GLEAM, a group that encourages and lobbies the Government about national trails and so

  GC 303
  forth. Recently, national trails have become a nightmare at weekends. There is a voluntary agreement and large signs are put up by various august bodies—whether it be English Nature or the National Trust—stating that there is an agreement with off-roaders that the trails will not be used at weekends. I was on the Berkshire Downs last Sunday for approximately 10 minutes and 40 motor cycles came past, all extremely noisy. I noticed that many had no licence. I do not know whether they were insured. They were certainly off-roaders and should not have been used on the road. There is also a great number of four-wheel drives. None of those are driven by local people. They are not farmers going about their business. They do not need access to fields. They are people who go out for the enjoyment of driving off-road.
  There are places one can go if that is one's sport. There are particular off-road sites and parks that can be used. But what is occurring is that bridleways and, to some degree, footpaths, are being generally destroyed. Because of the ruts they are becoming almost impassable for anyone else. This is an issue that has been around for some time. I think it was in 1990 that my honourable friend in another place Robert Key, the Minister, tried to do something about it, but failed for various technical and legal reasons. I always thought it was a disappointment that we never managed to do anything about it.
  Quiet rural enjoyment is an important issue. It has become much worse because there are so many more motor cars, 4 x 4 vehicles and bikes around—the jet ski equivalents, as it were. This is an extremely important issue to those of us who live in the countryside. I warmly support the intention behind the amendment.
  Lord Bradshaw: I support the amendment. It is slightly wrong; it should read "National Trails", of course, not "National Trail". I think that there are 14 national trails, with three more in the offing. They are very well defined—we are talking about very specific places— because they are nominated in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. They are all long-distance trails that go right across the country, and are a considerable source of enjoyment. However, principally so far as the Bill is concerned, they are becoming extremely unsafe to use. I live on the Ridgeway, as does the noble Viscount, and I can vouch for the fact that they are appalling. We have some photographs that we can give to the Minister afterwards.
  I hope that we have drafted the proposed new clause correctly. If we have not, we are perfectly willing to take advice. It is not a case for piecemeal traffic orders. We are trying hard in Oxfordshire to get them, but they take years, are lugubrious, and deal only with parts of the trail because they go from county to county. One needs to keep changing traffic orders. I hope that the Minister can at least hold out some hope that something will be done on the issue.
  Lord Berkeley: I have seen the photographs. They were not needed to convince me, but they have certainly convinced me that something has to be done, and I support the amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I want to add my support, too. I live in the countryside and, from time to time, motorcyclists can be a problem. I sympathise with them to the extent that, if they enjoy the sport, they need somewhere to enjoy it. However, as my noble friend said, there are places that set themselves up specifically to provide that facility.
  I am sure that the Minister can give me the assurance that I seek that nothing in the CROW Act would actually permit the vehicles to start running around on moorland above the height of 800 metres, or whatever it is, where there is free access. I assume that to be the case but, to be honest, I cannot remember the answer, and nor can my noble friend.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am very glad that the noble Lord referred to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, as we debated the issue at great length and very passionately during its passage. It is under that Act rather than a traffic safety Bill that we shall make improvements. The issue, which does not really belong in this Bill, is not about traffic safety, but amenity. I feel very strongly about it, as it is important and genuine.
  We have 189,000 kilometres of rights of way in this country. Unambiguous rights for mechanically propelled vehicles exist on only about 2 per cent of them, which are classified as "byways open to all traffic" or BOATs. There are a further 3 per cent classified as "roads used as public paths" or RUPPS, on which the current legislation is unclear as to whether vehicular rights exist. That was the matter discussed under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act.
  Under the provisions in that Act, we are reclassifying all RUPPs as "restricted byways". They will have rights of passage for walkers, cyclists, horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles but not mechanically propelled vehicles. The Government will undertake public consultation on proposals for implementing the restricted byways provisions in late July, with a view to bringing them into force late this year or early next year. That means that 5,000 kilometres of RUPPs will become restricted byways.
  It is on my next point that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, will not agree with me. Where rights exist for mechanically propelled vehicles, they may be regulated by local traffic authorities making traffic regulation orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I should like to talk to him and to anyone else who is interested between now and Report stage about how adequate that is and whether it can be improved in any way.
  We are taking positive action under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to achieve the purpose of the amendment. I do not want to be picky about the amendment but the national trails are really long-distance routes in legislation. We are not clear what is

  GC 305
  meant by a non-essential vehicle and that might be a defect in the amendment. Hearing the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, I recognise that there are particular problems about the Ridgeway. There was a traffic regulation order proposed but the inspector, after a public inquiry, said that it was not justified on public safety grounds.
  It is already an offence to drive on a footpath or bridleway under Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Apart from the Ridgeway, half of which has vehicular rights, only a small proportion of long-distance routes have motor vehicle rights. Let us talk about the detail.
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am grateful to the Minister for making that offer. In the 10 years that I have chaired the rights of way committee in Suffolk, it has proved to be very difficult indeed to use traffic orders to have the effect that he says. The practical obstacles are immense. I assure the noble Lord that certainly in my case it is not from lack of political will. However. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to meet with the Minister and discuss this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 65B not moved].
  Lord Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 65C:
  After Clause 107, insert the following new clause—
  "ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY IN ACCIDENTS INVOLVING A ROAD VEHICLE AND A BICYCLE
  (1) The Secretary of State shall within one year of the coming into force of this Act, make regulations providing that, in any accident involving a road vehicle and a bicycle, the driver of the road vehicle shall be assumed to be at least 50% liable for any injury caused to the cyclist.
  (2) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
  The noble Lord said: In this Railways and Transport Safety Bill I thought that cycling should be discussed, very briefly. The Government have a very welcome policy to encourage cycling in its 10-year plan both for health and traffic reasons. However, as a cyclist I am struck by the fear factor which cars engender when they get too close, especially speeding cars. From many discussions I have had, it is clear that fear puts people off cycling.
  There is the fear of parents, probably the lost generation who do not cycle and who prevent their children cycling. There is evidence that if children cycle, particularly to school, they carry on doing so in later life. We are all aware of the road congestion caused by people taking their children to school, but it is a vicious circle. The fear factor stops them cycling to school so they go by car, with some justification. Transport statistics show that something like 670 pedal cyclists were killed or seriously injured in 2001 compared with 32 per billion passenger kilometres. Without going into detail, cyclists are 20 times more at risk per kilometre, even more so than pedestrians per kilometre. So, it is pretty serious.
  GC 306
  Sadly, the fear factor has been reinforced by the Department of Transport's advertising campaign on the web to make cyclists wear their helmets. I believe it is meant to encourage child cyclists and teenagers. In a letter from Philip Darnton, President of the Bicycle Association to Steven Norris, Chairman of the National Cycling Strategy Board, he complains, quite rightly, about "cranial x-ray pictures" on the web: your brain cut open after an accident.
  The advertisement then goes on to state that 3,000 cyclists between 12 to 16 were killed or seriously injured on the roads in 2001. The department has got the figures wrong. Its own figures state that it is not 3,000 but 699. That is really putting the fear of God into people who might be thinking about cycling. I think it is putting people off. I wonder what the department's policy is. It wants to promote cycling and is doing great work in that respect. However, the same department puts the fear of death into those who cycle or who might think about it. I think that a clarification of policy is required.
  I cycle in Paris and Brussels quite often, as well as on other parts of the Continent, and find it much less threatening. I get more respect from cars and I have been inquiring why. I find that drivers take great care to avoid cyclists, not only when they are turning left where cyclists and pedestrians have priority, but because apparently they are automatically liable to at least 50 per cent of the damage or compensation if they hit a cyclist.
  I firmly believe that the best way to ensure that cycling is encouraged is to carry on what the department is doing to promote cycling but to put a little fear into those who are safely cocooned in a nice, comfortable steel box and take away some of the fear that is currently there among those who cycle which, sadly, is exacerbated by the cross-section of smashed skulls. I believe that the best way to put fear and respect into drivers is for them to know that they will be automatically liable for at least 50 per cent of the damage.
  I recognise that this is very much a probing amendment. However, this is an important issue which will need to be discussed in the coming weeks. I beg to move.
  Viscount Astor: This is an entirely proper issue to raise but it is an entirely wrong amendment to deal with the problem. To make cycling safer we need to improve cycling lanes and cycling routes, as the Government have done recently. We need to encourage people to wear safety equipment and safety helmets and encourage other safety measures. That is what will make cycling safer.
  As regards making car drivers automatically 50 per cent liable, one can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, got the idea in France or Belgium because under Napoleonic law one is usually guilty until proven innocent. This is against natural justice. Some racing cyclists go through London a great deal

  GC 307
  faster than some cars. The noble Lord has raised an important issue but I believe that the amendment is entirely the wrong way to deal with it.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I take almost exactly the same view of the amendment as the noble Viscount. My noble friend said that cyclists had not been referred to very much in the Bill. There is another group of people who have not been referred to much; that is, pedestrians. It strikes me that if we are to pass laws which make life easier for cyclists, there needs to be rigorous enforcement of the road traffic laws which apply to the relationship between cyclists and pedestrians.
  The most dangerous road crossing that I know is a few yards from where we are holding this Committee, where cars, vans and other road vehicles religiously stop at the red light to let noble Lords and other members of the public cross the road. The one group which ignores the instruction from hour to hour, day to day, almost universally are the cyclists, in particular those who whiz through red lights at the kind of speeds to which the noble Viscount referred. If there is to be protection for cyclists from motorists, I want protection for pedestrians from cyclists.
  Viscount Simon: Perhaps I may add that crossing the particular crossing mentioned by the noble Lord, a cyclist collided with me when he went through a red light.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall not take sides between motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. I am far too chicken to cycle in London or anywhere else. But I do have a very profound objection to the amendment, and to any amendment which would make a fundamental change to the civil law on negligence.
  The principle of the civil law on negligence in this country is that it is for the courts to decide on costs in relation to the circumstances of the particular case. To restrict the ability of the courts to make a proper decision in a particular case is quite unacceptable. At the very worst, the amendment could have the result that a drunken cyclist who collides with a stationary
  GC 308
  car would be able to claim compensation in the knowledge that the car owner would be assumed to be at least 50 per cent liable. This is very seriously wrong.
  Lord Berkeley: I think I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed. It has been an interesting debate. My noble friend Lord Faulkner raised the subject of pedestrians, which is another interesting subject. On that happy note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 108 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
  Clauses 109 and 110 agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 67 to 69 not moved.]
  Clauses 111 to 115 agreed to.
  Schedule 7 agreed to.
  Clause 116 agreed to.
  Clause 117 [Commencement]:
  Lord Bradshawhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 70:
  Page 53, line 33, leave out "come into force on the passing of this Act" and insert "not come into force until the Secretary of State has issued a letter of comfort to Transport for London"
  The noble Lord said: The Committee will be grateful to hear that I do not intend to move this amendment in the light of comments made by Alastair Darling in another place.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): If the noble Lord wants to make a speech—
  Lord Bradshaw: I do not.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: For courtesy, may I put it to the Committee? If the noble Lord does not want to move his amendment, he should simply say, "Not moved". If he wants to provide an explanation, for the courtesy of the Committee, other Members of the Committee may wish to speak.
  Lord Bradshaw: All I was going to say was, "Not moved".
  [Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
  Clause 117 agreed to.
  Clauses 118 and 119 agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendments.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock.

  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Northern Ireland Office: QWAs in House of Lords
  Northern Ireland Office: QWAs in House of Lords
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Waterways Ireland
  Waterways Ireland
  Disclosure Process: Responses to Consultation on Reform
  Disclosure Process: Responses to Consultation on Reform
  Scientific Procedures on Animals: Statistics
  Scientific Procedures on Animals: Statistics
  Criminal Records Bureau: Corporate Plan 2003–04
  Criminal Records Bureau: Corporate Plan 2003–04
  G8 Summit: Government's Objectives
  G8 Summit: Government's Objectives
  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
  Fire Services Bill: ECHR Compatibility
  Fire Services Bill: ECHR Compatibility
  Office of the e-Envoy: Charges to Government Departments
  Office of the e-Envoy: Charges to Government Departments
  e-Government Interoperability Framework
  e-Government Interoperability Framework
  Employer Task Force on Pensions
  Employer Task Force on Pensions
  Oxford and Cambridge Universities: Independent and State School Entries
  Oxford and Cambridge Universities: Independent and State School Entries
  Slug Pellets
  Slug Pellets
  Rural Delivery Review
  Rural Delivery Review