Sitting of 26 June 2003

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

    Higher Education
    Mr. Peter Pike: What progress has been made in areas of traditionally low higher education take-up in improving that position over the last six years. [121694]
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What proportion of students entered higher education from social classes D and E in autumn (a) 2002 and (b) 1997. [121695]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): The proportion of young people from low-skill families entering higher education is about the same now as it was in 1997–18 per cent. for social class D, and 15 per cent. for social class E—which is why we have introduced the aimhigher campaign. The gap between progression rates into higher education from aimhigher areas and the rest is closing. Latest figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service suggest that this trend is likely to continue. Applications for 2003 university entry are up 2.6 per cent. in aimhigher areas, compared with 0.3 per cent. elsewhere.
    Mr. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that in Burnley there is a low take-up of higher education. The town's future prosperity depends on more people going on to higher education and, when they have done so, returning to work in suitable employment in the area. Will the Government continue to do all that they can to encourage more people to take up higher education and monitor that to see exactly how they are succeeding? That is important to the future of education, not only in Burnley, but in many other places.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct. When I visited Burnley recently, I discussed with him and colleagues the way in which we could address those questions. I pay tribute to the work that he and his friends and colleagues are doing to raise education standards throughout the town, as that is the way forward, provided that we can
    1182
    get the link between universities, nationally and regionally, and Burnley to encourage people to believe that a university education is a realistic proposition.
    Dr. Iddon: Bolton institute in my constituency tops the league on access to higher education, with 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of its students coming from the very backgrounds that we are discussing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a cost both for attaining and maintaining that position? Furthermore, there is an added cost for keeping those students in higher education, given their higher than average social and financial problems, to prevent them from dropping out.
    Mr. Clarke: I pay tribute to the work of Bolton institute. There is a welcome for many of our proposals in the White Paper on the importance of recognising the work of such organisations. My hon. Friend is right that there are additional cost factors, which are already reflected to some extent in the Higher Education Funding Council funding streams, but that is one of the matters that we need to return to and examine carefully.
    Mr. David Ruffiey: The Secretary of State will be aware that in the 25 weakest universities there is an average drop-out rate of one in four. Those students are not getting any qualifications at all, despite having started a course. In light of that rather depressing fact, will the right hon. Gentleman consider dropping his wholly unrealistic target of getting 50 per cent. of all 18-year-olds into higher education?
    Mr. Clarke: With respect, we had a full debate on the matter yesterday, instigated by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench. Not many Conservative Members were present, and I know that he could not be there. One of the issues that we discussed was the fact that the drop-out rate has remained roughly constant since 1997. However, we are committed to a 50 per cent. participation rate because we believe that the future economic and social strength of this country is dependent on a highly educated, highly trained population, and that is what we need to achieve.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Does the Secretary of State maintain the position that he took on 9 January, when he said that
    "the difference between the chances of access to higher education of the higher and lower social classes is a public disgrace."—[Official Report, 9 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 300.]
    We share that view, but could he explain to the House how, by charging the poorest students in the land top-up fees from 2005–06, he will encourage those students into higher education? On the target of 50 per cent. of students being in higher education by 2010, will he include in that overall target a specific target for young people from lower socio-economic groups?
    Mr. Clarke: I have had correspondence on this matter with the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who made a number of mistakes in a letter that he wrote publicly. I had to correct them, but unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman has still not replied. However, in the White Paper—we will legislate on the basis of its proposals, which were debated fully in the Opposition day debate earlier this week in which the hon. Member for

    1183
    Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) spoke—we addressed the matter very fully indeed. Those proposals will increase access rather than reduce it.
    Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my right hon. Friend agree that economic prosperity, social well-being and quality of life are vastly enhanced for people who study to a higher level? For people in my constituency, the two great determinants of getting into higher education are aspirations at the age of 11 and access to further education through FE colleges. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in the response to the White Paper, those two points are given great prominence? Although debt is an issue, will he take it from me, as the first person in my family to go into higher education, that aspiration at the age of 11 is the single most important factor?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. She puts her point extremely clearly and I can give her the assurances that she seeks. A proposal to scrap fees completely, as has been suggested by the Opposition, would lead to a situation where about 50 people in every sixth form in the country would not be able to go on to higher education, so in my hon. Friend's schools in Rochdale, if the Opposition came into government, the opportunity and the aspiration would be removed.
    Mr. Graham Brady: On Monday the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education rightly said that the surest way to widen participation was to improve results in schools. The Department's own figures show that in areas with grammar schools, 32.1 per cent. of children achieve A or B grades at GCSE, compared with 23.1 per cent. in comprehensive areas. Is not the Secretary of State worried that by attacking the remaining grammar schools, the Government will take opportunities away from the brightest children from ordinary families and thereby make participation worse, not better?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's presumption is wrong. We are not attacking particular groups of schools and will not do so. The issue of education standards should be carefully examined when considering the best system of education in any locality. Is the hon. Gentleman saying, on behalf of his party, that the Conservatives would bring back the 11-plus in every part of the country? Is that what he believes should happen? When will they publicise it? Will they have the confidence to put that policy to the country?
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about the aimhigher campaign. I recently had the privilege of sitting in on the aimhigher roadshow at Stuart Bathurst school in my constituency and found it extremely impressive. Can he assure me that that way of communicating to schools will be rolled out throughout the country to all schools with the clientele that would benefit from it?
    Mr. Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There has been a great deal of positive experience from the aimhigher programme in various parts of the country. When respected community leaders such as my
    1184
    hon. Friend give it their personal endorsement, that adds to the effectiveness of the programme. I congratulate him on doing that and hope that other colleagues in all parts of the House would consider doing so too.

    Education Funding
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: What recent discussions he has had with local education authorities in the south of England about funding of schools; and if he will make a statement. [121696]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): Both my right hon. Friend and I have had meetings with a number of representatives from local education authorities in southern England. Officials have held meetings with LEAs to help them if they face difficulties.
    Mrs. Gillan: No matter how many meetings the Minister has, nothing can disguise the crisis facing our schools, particularly in Buckinghamshire, where between 50 and 60 schools will be running deficit budgets this year. With teachers' pension contributions, the withdrawal of many standards fund grants, the impact of the work force agreement and national insurance increases, the costs are outstripping income. The Government are wrecking the education system and demoralising head teachers, governors, parents and pupils. Instead of Ministers behaving like political sheep and bleating out the mantra that there is more money in all our systems, why do they not take some real action and save our schools?
    Mr. Miliband: The House will be interested to know that the Government have taken £80 million of real action by adding that to the Buckinghamshire total for education spending over the past six years. The hon. Lady can talk as much as she likes about costs in the system. When there are more teachers who are better paid and better supported, we on the Labour Benches are relieved that we have a Government who are willing to invest and cover those costs, rather than cut them, as her party would do.
    Jim Knight: As my hon. Friend knows from correspondence that I have had with him, the current funding settlement has caused significant problems in Dorset schools, but that is set against an increase of 63 per cent. in schools funding in Dorset in the past six years and significant gains in school buildings in rural and urban areas in my constituency. Head teachers in my constituency are asking when there will be some predictability about levels of funding. What is my hon. Friend doing to help head teachers plan their staffing in the future and the level of education for our children?
    Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion of schools in his constituency. He has made representations in a serious and committed way, and the point that he makes about the need for long-term predictability and stability is absolutely right. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 15 May, we sought a three-year pay settlement in our submission

    1185
    to the School Teachers Review Body last year. We did not get that, but we are determined to come back to this House and the country and give predictability for the next two years and a funding system on which head teachers can rely.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the Minister really think it is fair that the recent funding settlement has provided an above-average increase for the constituencies of every member of the Cabinet, but in Kent, we have seen a 3.6 per cent. increase for education when costs are rising by 7.8 per cent.? This year, Kent has balanced the books by slashing overheads and introducing a big rise in council tax. In the next two years, we will see huge, swathing cuts in our schools. Does he think that that is fair?
    Mr. Miliband: The commitment of the Government has to be that similar pupils in different parts of the country have the same amount of money attached to them. That applies in Kent as it does elsewhere, as we have made clear. The hon. Gentleman will know that an extra £650 per pupil is being spent in Kent in comparison with six years ago. The assurance that I give him—this is a serious point—is that, for the next two years, the final two years of the spending review, we need to come back to the head teachers and the House to secure the predictability and stability that he wants. That is our commitment.

    Higher Education
    Paul Farrelly: When he proposes to announce his response to the consultation on the White Paper on higher education. [121697]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): We have received a large number of comments on the Government's higher education proposals. We shall publish a summary of these shortly.
    Paul Farrelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. We will certainly look forward to seeing the response in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Given that consultation on the White Paper ended on 30 April, which is some time ago, and as the Government's response in this week's debates was tantamount to a restatement of the whole document, what are the prospects of any changes in policy to meet the concerns that have been expressed?
    Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend was a very important contributor to one of those debates. Of course, we were debating one party's policy to contract higher education and reduce opportunities for youngsters from working-class backgrounds to enter university, and the policy of another party that agrees that extra funding is needed, but denies that there should be any contribution whatever from graduates.
    We had a huge number of replies in the consultation. We received 800 replies from interested parties and a further 1,000 responses as we went around the country speaking to principals in higher education and others. We will consider those responses very carefully. We will
    1186
    then publish our result and, as always, listen to what hon. Members in all parts of the House, but particularly on the Labour Benches, have to say about the issue.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Given that the Secretary of State has just admitted that the Government, for all their rhetoric, have not to date made any advances in terms of the participation of disadvantaged students, which does the Minister think will have the greater effect on such participation—the aimhigher scheme or the imposition of top-up fees?
    Alan Johnson: Let me say to my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I am sorry, it is the Johnson and Boswell thing, I am afraid. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that there has been no change in this regard for 40 years. When the Robbins report was produced in 1962, it decided that moving to a system of grant-maintained higher education would narrow the gap. It did not do so, and neither, incidentally—this is an important point for the Conservative party—did the introduction of tuition fees do anything to worsen that gap. The gap has stayed stubbornly and obscenely in place over the past 40 years. How do we address that?
    I should correct a mistake that I made in yesterday's debate, when I said that the Office for Fair Access would not deal with access. Of course, what I meant was that OFFA will have nothing to do with admissions, which will be for the universities. OFFA will look at access and look to ensure that we redouble our efforts through programmes such as outreach and other programmes that hon. Members have mentioned are taking place in their constituencies in order to encourage aspiration and then attainment among youngsters. The way of not assisting the situation would be to withdraw £193 million of funds that now go specifically to resolving this problem, which is what the Opposition wish to do.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What observations has my hon. Friend received on the 50 per cent. target that the Government have set for those reaching higher education? Does he envisage an increasingly diverse higher and further education sector in which the acquisition of skills is seen to be as important as academic qualifications?
    Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That issue is a central part of our White Paper. There are two aspects to it. First, the response to the consultation, both from the sector itself and from the business community, has been very positive in respect of people in higher education. The business community recognises that if we are to keep pace with our competitors, eight out of 10 of the 1.7 million jobs that are to be created over the next decade will require graduates to fill them.
    Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on countless occasions, the growth will come mainly from two-year foundation degrees that are vocational. We must expand that area to ensure that we not only meet the needs of this country, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) said, give people a life-enhancing experience.

    Education Funding
    Mr. Michael Jack: What assessment he has made of the use by schools of their reserves to meet funding shortages. [121698]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): We do not yet know to what extent balances will be used by schools in this financial year, 2003–04, because in many cases local education authorities are still considering schools' budget plans.
    Mr. Jack: In the course of the Secretary of State's inquiries, I invite him to consider Freckleton Church of England school in my constituency, which has already used the school's piggy bank to try to stay in business, but is £49,000 short. It is, in effect, sacking two members of staff, and is having to introduce mixed ability teaching simply to keep its head above water. There is a real problem in Lancashire, and Freckleton is but one of a number of schools that are suffering. Notwithstanding the extra money that Lancashire has received, might I ask the Secretary of State to look closely at the problems in Lancashire, especially on the Fylde coast?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not know the particular circumstances of Freckleton school, or whether falling rolls have been an issue there, but I can say that our information about school balances in Lancashire shows that the situation is very straightforward. At 31 March 2002, the end of the previous year, those balances totalled £40.876 million, which at 9.8 per cent. of budget share is above the national average. In the previous year ending March 2001, the total school balances in Lancashire had been only £33.663 million. We do not yet know the figure for the end of March 2003, but we understand that the latest estimates are that those balances will be greater than the £41 million that I mentioned. Schools in Lancashire have significant balances that are above the national average, so a serious resource is available.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although we have a Government who have piled a fantastic amount of investment into schools, the turbulence that has occurred this year has given many schools a pretty hard time? Does he accept that it is not good enough simply to blame local authorities, given that yesterday the permanent secretary told the Select Committee on Education and Skills that only 11 local authorities were guilty of not passporting money through to schools?
    Mr. Clarke: The fact is that the funding of schools is a shared responsibility between national Government and local government. The turbulence, to use my hon. Friend's word, was caused by some decisions in national Government, as I have acknowledged in this House on many occasions. Local education authorities take decisions of various kinds—how much to distribute to individual schools, how much is operated centrally, and so on. I believe that both the national Government and local authorities should take responsibility for the effects of those decisions on the funding of individual schools.
    1188
    As for passporting, my hon. Friend's figures are entirely correct. I am glad that the Select Committee is considering these matters, and I am to give evidence to it shortly. In relation to those 11 authorities that did not passport the money, there is a fairly high correlation between the areas with the biggest reported problems and the LEAs that did not passport the money.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the Secretary of State know that the permanent secretary also told the Select Committee yesterday that there was inadequate time between making the decisions and the beginning of the financial year for the Department to model the effect on schools or for local education authorities to change their funding formulae? That inadequacy, which has been recognised in normal years, was worsened by the extent of the turbulence. Did the Secretary of State's officials warn him that the time was simply too short?
    Mr. Clarke: The permanent secretary was right and the hon. Gentleman, in citing him, is therefore also right that there was an issue about timing. Modelling is interesting because local authorities' real decisions, for example, in setting council tax, must be taken into account. We have debated the issues fully and we shall ensure that the problems do not recur next year.
    Mr. David Chaytor: The budgets of schools in my constituency were screwed into the ground for the 12 years of the old unfair funding system. Schools in my constituency and many other poorer metropolitan districts in the north of England welcome this year's overall settlement. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the manufactured crisis that some local authorities have generated is not allowed to derail the new funding system and turn the clock back to the previous system?
    Mr. Clarke: I have two things to say. Despite my hon. Friend's support, which I appreciate, I do not associate myself with his language in his description of a "manufactured crisis." There is no doubt that a genuine problem had to be tackled in many schools. However, I can assure him that the fundamental formula for distributing resources throughout the country was established for three years and will remain on the basis that he described.
    Mr. Damian Green: Has the Secretary of State seen today's survey of local education authorities? It shows that, on top of schools using reserves to cover funding shortages, 67 per cent. of the LEAs that were surveyed report redundancies among teachers or teaching assistants. Will he take the opportunity to admit that when the Prime Minister said yesterday that only a small number of teachers were being made redundant, he was simply wrong?
    Mr. Clarke: The Prime Minister was not wrong. I have not studied the analysis that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but The Times Educational Supplement last week advertised more than 1,000 vacancies for teachers. As the Prime Minister said the other day, this year's overall number of teacher redundancies, which are due to a variety of reasons, including falling rolls and the

    1189
    financial issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is broadly comparable to that of previous years. We have said that all along.
    Mr. Green: The redundancies are only the most vivid problem. In the same survey, Labour-controlled Croydon reports more than 100 posts unfilled because of financial pressures. Leeds reports 78 fewer teaching staff than last year, and in Leicestershire, 63 schools have been forced to set deficit budgets. Does the Secretary of State understand why The Guardian yesterday published a poll, which was headed:
    "Voters losing faith in Labour on education"?
    Will he give schools that are going into deficit a guarantee that next year they will be given enough to get out of deficit and back to normal staffing levels?
    Mr. Clarke: I acknowledge that teacher redundancies are only part of the problems and constraints that individual schools have had to tackle. We have said that throughout the process. I also acknowledge that the various reasons for the position have caused genuine problems such as the hon. Gentleman describes in schools. However, he should be honest enough to acknowledge that, under this Government, a further 25,000 teachers and 80,000 classroom assistants have been employed and there has been a vast amount of investment in schools' capital. He should have the grace to acknowledge that, as I acknowledge the strength of one or two of his points. The Government's education record has been outstanding.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: May I thank my right hon. Friend for Brent's settlement this year and for the way in which the schools have been able to manage it? However, I draw to his attention Claremont school, which has had to go into reserves to balance its books this year. Will he congratulate Brent education authority on the additional contribution, above the 100 per cent. passporting, that it made to ensure that schools throughout the borough can maintain their staffing levels and survive this year? Will he also examine the inner and outer London education authority hangover in the problem of teacher pay with which boroughs such as Brent must cope?
    Mr. Clarke: First, I acknowledge the inner-outer London issue that my hon. Friend raises. I am sure that that is one of the matters that the review body will consider for future years. Secondly, I give credit to Brent and the many other local education authorities that have put money above the 100 per cent. passporting into education in their areas. Thirdly, on reserves and balances, there is an issue about what they are for. They are not simply to be kept stored in a bank account; they are there to get real things and good quality education. It is quite reasonable for reserves and balances to be held at a reasonable level, but above that, it is reasonable to use the resources to improve the quality of education.
    Mr. David Heath: Setting aside the £1,500 per child per year difference that still exists between Somerset and leafy London boroughs, may I ask the Secretary of State to look at some of the schools in my constituency—such as Bruton primary school, which I visited last week—which are facing real
    1190
    problems because their reserves have already been factored in for dealing with changes in rolls, yet they still face teacher redundancies? The Somerset education authority has written to him seeking a meeting, but he has written back saying that his diary is too full. Will he please reconsider that and meet the representatives of Somerset to discuss this very important issue?
    Mr. Clarke: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I am happy to meet Members of the House from all parties with delegations to discuss these and other issues. If he cares to write to me, I will certainly look at doing that. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has had a wide range of meetings in precisely that way. As I have said throughout this discussion, particular schools have particular issues, which are real and need to be addressed. We will continue to help local authorities to help them to do that.

    Colchester Sixth Form College
    Bob Russell: If he will visit the Colchester sixth form college to discuss funding for the college. [1217011]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): Sadly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be able to accept the hon. Gentleman's kind invitation. However, the hon. Gentleman should not despair, because my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education hopes to be able to visit the college in the autumn and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the increase in funding for further education over the next three years and the college's development plan for that period.
    Bob Russell: I warmly welcome that response. When the Minister visits the college, will he explain why a sixth form college that puts in a new building gets only a 30 per cent. building grant, while sixth forms in a school get a 100 per cent. grant? Also, why is it that, in the seventh year of a Labour Government, students who attend one of the 100 or so sixth form colleges across the country receive, on average, 25 per cent. less funding than sixth form students in schools? Why is there such an unlevel playing field between students at sixth form colleges and those who attend sixth form in a school?
    Mr. Lewis: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to thank me for the £370,000 grant recently awarded to the college to help build its new information technology and education block, or for the 19 per cent. real-terms increase in funding for the college sector over the next three years, or for the 7 per cent. real-terms increase in funding for full-time equivalent students over the same period. Where was the hon. Gentleman when we have spoken in the House, as we have done frequently, about the most ambitious investment and reform package for further education for a generation, which has the clear objective of closing the funding gap between 16 to 19-year-olds educated in schools and those educated in college settings? As to the question of VAT, that is a matter that Customs and Excise is currently considering.

    Pupil Testing
    Ann Winterton: What plans he has to extend testing of school children throughout England to those aged 14. [121702]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): None.
    Ann Winterton: I sense something of a U-turn here, because there have been authoritative reports in the newspapers that such testing might be introduced. Will the Secretary of State give the House an unequivocal assurance that the Government have no plans to scrap GCSEs or to have examinations for 14-year-olds? Will he say that clearly today, because such plans would adversely affect pupils and would not guarantee an improvement in the quality of learning in schools?
    Mr. Clarke: The report in The Times to which the hon. Lady refers was, in fact, completely incorrect, which is why I answered "None" just now. For her information, there are examinations at the age of 14. They are called key stage 3 examinations, and they will continue. We have no plans to scrap GCSEs, but we do have plans carefully to consider the report of a commission chaired by Mike Tomlinson on the whole of 14-to-19 education, and to come to a series of views about where we should go. Mr. To mlinson's committee will be producing initial thoughts later this year, and a final report at the turn of next year which everyone can consider and discuss in those circumstances.

    Specialist Schools
    Ms Julia Drown: What criteria he uses to assess applications for re-designations of schools as specialist schools. [121704]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): Specialist schools applying for re-designation are assessed against rigorous criteria. These consist of: first, progress in relation to the objectives of the programme and the targets set by the school; secondly, improvement in academic performance both in specialist subjects and across the whole school; thirdly, the quality of the specialist school development plans for the next four years.
    Ms Drown: Will my hon. Friend consider widening the assessment criteria to take into account educational and wider community benefits? Churchfields school in my constituency partly serves one of the most deprived areas in the south-west and was widely welcomed as a specialist school. The school has turned itself around and come out of special measures. It has achieved a 50 per cent. increase in academic standards and one need only look at the performing arts to see the huge talent that it is developing, yet it has been told that it cannot continue as a specialist school.
    Surely schools that are obviously benefiting from specialist school status—so widely welcomed in the community—should not have that status taken away. Will the Minister look again at the criteria to make sure
    1192
    that schools such as this can continue the success that they have so obviously developed from being specialist schools?
    Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend has spoken and written to me about the case of Churchfields school. I can assure the House that I do not decide; an independent panel looks carefully at every case and makes recommendations about re-designation. My hon. Friend will agree that the re-designation process has to be fair and objective. I know that Churchfields has appealed against the decision of the independent panel. The appeal will be considered in the new academic year to take account of its results this year. I look forward to the school making significant progress during that time.
    Mr. David Cameron: Will the Minister recognise the sense of disappointment often felt by heads, teachers, governors and parents when a school's application for specialist status is rejected? Will he look again at the application by Carterton community college in my constituency, a school without a sixth form which serves the local population around RAF Brize Norton and has a transient population? The headmaster is doing an excellent job in terms of discipline and results. The school applied for specialist status and was very disappointed not to get it. I hope that he will be able to look at the case again.
    Mr. Miliband: I can do better than the hon. Gentleman hopes, in the following sense: our commitment is to work with the schools to help prepare them for specialist status so that they are in a position to make the most of it. I cannot revisit the decision to reject the application, but I am committed to working with the school to make sure that the application next time is of a sufficient standard to get through.
    Jonathan Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that schools are far less likely to be rejected under this Government's specialist schools policy than under the previous Government, because we are putting in the money? When considering the specialist schools round, will he look carefully at Aylesford school in my constituency, which will share £60 million of private finance initiative new buildings, including a school in Ashford, about which I am sure the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) will be pleased? Will he look carefully at this school? The buildings are dilapidated, the staff are working very hard, the results are improving and it deserves to get the green light.
    Mr. Miliband: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for getting me back on message. When we came to office, there were only 100 specialist schools. There are now 900 and we predict that that will rise to about 2,000 by 2006. He will agree that they are making a substantial contribution to the rising standards across the country. I will look seriously at individual cases as they come through, but every judgment is made on an objective and independent basis.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What steps is the Minister taking to reduce the bureaucracy and red tape surrounding specialist school applications? One of my local schools, Hampton community college, which is

    1193
    desperately short of staff—especially senior staff—had to set aside three of its five most senior teachers for a term to make a bid that subsequently failed.
    Mr. Miliband: That is an important and good point and I can provide some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. The 250-page form is being reduced to a 50-page form in the new round, making a significant difference to the bureaucracy associated with the application for specialist status.

    Teachers' Pay
    Mrs. Joan Humble: What the increase in average pay for teachers has been since 1997. [121706]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The average salary for full-time regular teachers in the maintained schools sector in England and Wales rose from £22,900 in March 1997 to £27,200 in March 2001, the last year for which information is available. This represents an increase of 18.7 per cent. in cash terms, and 7 per cent. in real terms.
    Mrs. Humble: I thank the Minister for that announcement. He will undoubtedly agree that that welcome increase has contributed to the large rise in the number of teachers an extra 25,000 or so since 1997. But will he reassure me that he will examine the work load agreement with teachers and use it, together with increased salaries, to help to recruit, and above all to retain, teachers?
    Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The Government said in their evidence to the School Teachers Review Body last year that outside London, teacher salaries were in our view competitive. Indeed, current recruitment rates bear that out: there are 4,000 more teachers this year than last year. The top priority for teachers in terms of recruitment and retention is work load, and the work load agreement that we have introduced—in conjunction with support staff unions, head teacher unions and the majority of teaching unions—represents a first and historic attempt genuinely to change teachers' working conditions over the next three years. I believe that that will happen, and that the agreement will have the impact on retention that my hon. Friend hopes for.
    Michael Fabricant: Does the Minister realise that although the school achievement awards seem a good idea per se in order to reward teachers for good service and for having special skills, they create real difficulties for head teachers in meeting their budgets? In Staffordshire, which passes on 106 per cent. of the amount allocated to education by the Government, schools are having real difficulty in providing a fair and equitable distribution of awards to teachers. What steps can this Minister take to ensure that schools not only in Staffordshire but in other parts of England and Wales are not pressured in such a way that they are unable to pass on these awards?
    Mr. Miliband: If I understood the hon. Gentleman's question correctly, there are two parts to it. First, he will be reassured to know that school achievement awards are funded centrally, so there is no question of the money coming out of schools' budgets. Secondly, there is clear guidance on how the money should be allocated between staff, and he is of course right to point out that it is for the whole school team, not just for teachers.

    Student Debt
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What estimate he has made of the average debt of students leaving higher education in (a) Wales and (b) England in the last three years. [121707]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): My Department's last survey of student income and expenditure covered the academic year 1998–99. Results from the 2002–03 survey, including estimates of the debt of students in England and Wales who graduate in summer 2003, will be available later this year. According to the UNITE/MORI student living reports, the average debt anticipated by students at UK universities was £7,026 in 2000–01, £8,133 in 2001–02, and £8,816 in 2002–03. They did not give comparative figures for England and Wales, however.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for that useful reply. Has he had an opportunity to read the report published yesterday by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which examined the White Paper's models on top-up fees and student debt? At a conservative estimate, graduates will be burdened with debt for 10 years as a result of the White Paper's proposals. What can the Minister say today about the rising debt burden on students, and about the indisputable fact that that will not help access to higher education for those from poorer backgrounds?
    Alan Johnson: I have had a chance to read the headline figures: that same report said that the Conservatives' policy would be to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. Debt is a very important issue. On the White Paper's proposals, it has been said that we are adding another £9,000 to student debt by increasing the current level from£12,000—three student loans of £4,000—to £21,000. However, in terms of the poorest students—the main topic of the question—one must take account of the fact that we will be introducing a £1,000 non-repayable maintenance grant. So provided that a student takes that grant instead of £1,000 worth of loan, the overall figure will be reduced by £3,000. We will also be providing fee remission of up to £1,100 on the same basis as applies to tuition fees, so a further £3,300 can be deducted from the overall figure. So we are comparing £12,000 with £14,700. As to the time it takes to repay—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should write to the hon. Member.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is it not true that the Government have introduced income-contingent loans rather than mortgage-style loans, which led to an

    1195
    enormous burden, particularly for women? The problem with mortgage-style loans was that, once someone had started to pay back the student loan, payments had to continue at the same rate no matter what the student's earnings, even if there were no earnings at all. Is not income-contingent repayment a much more sensible and fairer way of paying back?
    Alan Johnson: I apologise for getting bogged down in figures earlier, Mr. Speaker.
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are suggesting a progressive policy. The old system, which still applies to some students paying back their debt, meant that once someone paid a penny over a certain threshold, the whole lot had to be paid back—divided by five or by seven. A woman on maternity leave, for example, would build up more debt. Our proposals are much fairer: unless someone reaches the threshold of £15,000, no money is paid back whatever. Dipping below it in the future will not mean building up debt, because no real rate of interest is attached. Our proposals are therefore much better. Chris Patten, the former chairman of the party, described Conservative proposals as "the worst sort—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Minister has given two very long answers, and you have rightly called him to order, Mr. Speaker. However, I have a very simple question for him. Is there any evidence that students from poorer backgrounds are put off going to university because of the fear of building up debt?
    Alan Johnson: There is obviously a question about debt, as the White Paper clearly states. It is, of course, an issue, but we also say that the main problem of getting youngsters into higher education revolves around the question of aspiration, attainment, application and then admission. [Interruption.] It is not just about whether there is debt or no debt. Debt existed under the previous Government's policies; there has always been student debt. The question is how best to deal with it and ensure that it is not too much of a burden on future aspirations.

    School Funding
    Mr. Mark Hoban: If he will make a statement on school funding in 2003–04. [1217091
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): We have invested a record £2.7 billion more in education funding this year, and we have introduced a new funding system which is widely recognised as being fairer than the old one. However, as we have discussed today and on many other occasions, some schools have faced difficulties this year. We are committed to ensuring that every school receives a reasonable per pupil increase for next year and the year after that.
    Mr. Hoban: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. However, despite Hampshire county council exceeding the Government's passporting targets,
    1196
    schools in my constituency have to balance the books this year, and if they are to avoid making redundancies, they have to use their reserves. If schools in Fareham do not receive a fair deal for the funding that they need, redundancies will hit next year rather than this.
    Mr. Miliband: I take seriously the views of the head teachers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, who are writing to explain the position. However, if he is interested in a fair deal, he should try to persuade his Front Benchers to support the current levels of spending—we have not yet heard whether they do. Until he persuades them, we cannot take him seriously.
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: I am someone who is interested in a fair deal, so will the Minister remind us and explain to the House again why a school in a deprived area in a county such as Hertfordshire should receive more Government funding than a school in Tamworth with the same level of deprivation, facing the same cost profile? Will he tell us?
    Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will be reassured to know that the pupils in the two schools to which he referred receive the same amount of money from the Government. The difference is in how the local education authority in each case decides to spend that money.
    Mr. Phil Willis: Not true.
    Mr. Miliband: The Government provide the same money per pupil across the country where the circumstances of the pupil are the same. The local education authority then has a choice about whether to fund similar pupils in the same way at school level. That is a choice that local authorities have to make.
    Angela Watkinson: What would the Minister say to the London borough of Havering, which received an increase of only 3.5 per cent. in its central Government grant this year? It has passported well in excess of 100 per cent. of its education grant to its schools, yet the very small grant that it received means that schools are still suffering extreme financial hardship as they try to balance their budgets. No matter how much the authority passports to schools, it is still not enough.
    Mr. Miliband: The hon. Lady will know that the amount of money available for distribution to schools depends partly on how much money comes from central Government and partly on how much is raised locally. The distribution to individual schools depends on the number of pupils in each school. I do not know whether the schools to which she refers are losing pupils, but that is a significant problem in a number of primary schools. There are 50,000 fewer primary school pupils this year than there were last year. I am afraid that there will be 50,000 fewer again next year, and another 50,000 fewer the year after that. That is a problem across the country, and we have to take it seriously.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. David Kidney: What plans she has to train more Crown Prosecution Service staff to become qualified lawyers. [121686]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): This week, the CPS law scholarship programme was launched. This will give full financial sponsorship to CPS administrative and clerical staff to qualify as lawyers. The importance of the scheme is that it will extend opportunities, broaden the legal profession and give the CPS a supply of home-grown lawyers.
    Mr. Kidney: My right hon. and learned Friend deserves much credit for the law scholarship scheme, whose launch I attended with her on Tuesday. I congratulate her on that achievement. I am pleased for the CPS staff who will benefit from the self-improvement that the scheme offers, but does she agree that the real praise should go to the CPS for taking up the scheme? It represents the most efficient use of resources and it is bound to help with recruitment and retention in the years to come.
    The Solicitor-General: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I shall pass on his warm words of welcome to where they belong—that is, to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the human resource team in the CPS and the chief Crown prosecutors. The previous discussion in the House was about improving access to education and training, but the point of the programme is that it can be very expensive to qualify as a lawyer. The fees alone can amount to £13,500. It also costs a lot—up to £20,000—for the CPS to recruit a lawyer. Instead of spending money recruiting lawyers from outside, the aim is to recruit administrative and clerical people who have ability, commitment and intelligence but who have never had the opportunity. The scheme will also strengthen the legal profession, which will be more diverse and therefore have more legitimacy.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I welcome what the Solicitor-General has said about currently employed CPS staff training as lawyers. However, will she ensure that during training they are also given specific and detailed guidance on the use of expert witnesses? That is especially important in light of the answer given yesterday in another place by the Attorney-General in connection with the tragic cases of Sally Clarke and Trupti Patel. Does she agree that it is crucial that all parts of the CPS are very careful in the use of expert witnesses, especially in tragic cases such as that?
    The Solicitor-General: Indeed, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, and I shall go further. He has asked before about matters arising from the Sally Clarke case, and I undertook to tell the House, after the Court of Appeal's written judgment was handed down, about the action that the CPS intended to take. In relation to current and existing cases involving either
    1198
    Dr. Williams or Professor Meadows as expert witnesses, guidance has been issued to the CPS about full disclosure of the Court of Appeal judgment on the defence. There will also be scrutiny and review of past cases in which convictions may have been secured on the evidence of Dr. Williams, to ensure that lessons are learned. I remind the House that, although serious issues were involved. neither the Court of Appeal in the Sally Clarke case nor the court of first instance in the Trupti Patel case made any criticism of the CPS.
    Mr. Andy Reed: While it is important to improve the quality and training of CPS staff, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is necessary that they make the right decisions? In Leicestershire and in my constituency of Loughborough in particular, a number of cases against local drug dealers have been lost. Everybody on the estate knew who they were, the police put enormous cases together and we were all confident that we could get a prosecution, but the local CPS plea-bargained and got those people off with only a light fine.
    It is necessary to improve the quality of the service that is provided. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that that will be done to ensure that local people benefit from decent prosecution and that people who deserve t o be put away are put away?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend's question raises a number of important points, which are being addressed by the CPS. The CPS needs to work closely with the police and to focus on the effect of its decisions on victims and witnesses. That is certainly happening. I remind the House, however, that the CPS must be sure that there is enough evidence, that the jury or the magistrates are more likely than not to convict, and that prosecution is in the public interest. That is the basis on which the CPS reviews cases.
    I take the points made by my hon. Friend. It might be a good idea for him to raise them in discussion with the chief Crown prosecutor in his area, who would, I am sure, look forward to working with him.

    Environmental Offences
    Mr. David Heath: How many successful prosecutions there were in respect of environmental offences during 2002. [121687]
    The Solicitor-General: There were 795 prosecutions by the Environment Agency in 2002, resulting in fines totalling £3.6 million. There are 50 Environment Agency prosecutors working across eight regions; they work with other agencies, such as the Health and Safety Executive and English Nature.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. Will she pass on my thanks to the Home Secretary for making good his assurance to the House that he would amend the Criminal Justice Bill to provide better regulation of the trade in endangered species?
    Does the right hon. and learned Lady agree that many environmental laws are difficult to prosecute under owing to difficulties of definition, difficulties in the sentencing and arresting procedure, or difficulties of

    1199
    distinguishing between corporate and individual offenders? Is it not time for a review of environmental law, perhaps in one of the many legislative vehicles that come from the Home Office or the Department for Constitutional Affairs?
    The Solicitor-General: I will pass on the hon. Gentleman's thanks to the Home Secretary. I think that he is referring to the amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to increase the penalty for endangered species trade offences. That would make those offences arrestable, which deals with one of the issues that he raised.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulty of prosecuting environmental offences. We should be clear about the fact that not only do such offences cause people costs, they can also endanger health through water pollution, fly tipping and the like.
    There are problems of definition, especially the definition of waste. There are also problems in courts taking such offences seriously, with the right level of sentencing. However, as the hon. Gentleman may know, the theme of the Magistrates Association conference last year was sentencing for environmental offences. The criminal justice system and people in general are waking up to these problems. People must stop committing environmental offences and we are on the case. I work closely with the Environment Agency prosecutors.
    Keith Vaz: In welcoming the work of the CPS on these matters, will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that, when cases are not seen through to prosecution, the complainants and witnesses who support the prosecution are told that it is not going ahead and are given the reasons, so that members of the public who try to co-operate with the prosecuting agencies and help them are kept informed of what is going on?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is nothing worse for a victim than to learn only when they open their local newspaper that the case against the person who had committed an offence against them has been dropped. They may not even read it in the paper, but hear of it from a neighbour or someone living in the area. The CPS is addressing that, with a new programme of direct communication with victims and witnesses. When charges are dropped or downgraded, the CPS lawyer responsible will write to the victim to tell them. That initiative is long overdue, but we should do more and build on the direct communication programme to ensure that victims who support prosecutions, in the public interest, are properly looked after by the criminal justice system.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that the abuse of public places by those
    1200
    who get rid of their chewing gum on pavements, pedestrian areas and market squares is an environmental offence? How many successful prosecutions are brought against those people, who despoil public places to the great inconvenience of so many members of the public? This is a real issue; what can be done about it?
    The Solicitor-General: I do not know whether what the hon. Gentleman is referring to really comes within the definition of environmental offences or whether it would better suit antisocial behaviour legislation, but I will undertake to look into it and write to him.

    Extraditions
    Andrew Mackinlay: If she will make a statement on co-operation on extraditions between her office and her opposite numbers in (a) EU and (b) EU accession states. [121689]
    The Solicitor-General: The Attorney-General and I have responsibility for extradition cases from Ireland. We discuss these regularly with the Irish Attorney-General. Requests for extradition from EU and accession states are dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Our treaty obligations and those of other European Union countries in relation to extradition are not working. There are 22 requests from France outstanding from the past five years which we have been unable to respond to—one each for 1995, 1996,1997 and 1998. If it was the other way round, some members of our press and hon. Members in this place would be going up the wall. Spain has two requests from 1996. Spain and the UK have a disgraceful mutual track record. Is it not time that we addressed this issue, so that within the European Union there is swift, fast-track extradition, ensuring that people are brought to court in all these fair jurisdictions?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If offences are committed here but the evidence is abroad or the defendant is abroad, we want them back here so that we can bring them to justice. Similarly, if people commit offences abroad and the other country wants them, we should ensure that we expeditiously arrange for them to be extradited.
    The issues that my hon. Friend has raised are starting to be addressed. Last month I attended the launch of an organisation called Eurojust, which is a network of European prosecutors, and I also discussed these issues with my counterpart Justice Ministers in Europe. The new European arrest warrant, when it comes into effect in January, will ensure that we have fewer hurdles and obstacles and less red tape, all of which delay and frustrate the system.

Business of the House
12.32 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the tax-raising Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 30 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Hunting Bill.
TUESDAY 1 JULY—Motions to approve Ways and Means Resolutions on the Finance Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 2 JULY—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on "a fair deal for passengers and motorists", followed by a debate on "a fair deal for small businesses". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 3 JULY—Debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report 2002–03 on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 4 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 7 JULY—Opposition Day [13th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
TUESDAY 8 JULY—Remaining stages of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, followed by Commons consideration of Lords Amendments.
WEDNESDAY 9 JULY—Debate on the Convention on the Future of Europe, on a Government motion.
THURSDAY 10 JULY—Debate on economic and monetary union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 11 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 17 July will be a cross-cutting questions session on domestic violence.
Subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the summer recess on Thursday 17 July and return on Monday 8 September. The House will rise again for the conference recess on Thursday 18 September and return on Tuesday 14 October. The House will recall that, in last week's business statement, I gave a commitment to outline the provisional dates for the Christmas recess. Again, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise no later than Monday 22 December and return on, or during the week commencing, Monday 5 January.
Mr. Forth: I thank the tax-raising Leader of the House for the business statement.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me, if I may, to pay my own tribute—on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, myself and, I hope, all Members—to Sir Denis Thatcher and to express our profound condolences to Lady Thatcher and to Mark and Carol. I am sure that we all agree that we will probably never
1202
know the full extent of Sir Denis's true contribution to our nation, but I simply wish to record that he will be sorely missed.
I should like to refer to early-day motion 1469, which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, refers to the retirement of Sir Nicolas Bevan, whose last day this is with us in the House. The early-day motion rightly records our thanks and gratitude to Sir Nicolas for his service to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House over a long period, and we wish him the very best in his retirement.
[That this House notes the distinguished and committed service to Parliament of Sir Nicolas Bevan CB; thanks him for his wise counsel and unfailing courtesy to honourable Members from all sides of the House; and wishes him and his wife, Christine, many happy years in retirement.]
Does the tax-raising Leader of the House recall saying, last Thursday,
"I very much share…his great respect for Parliament"—
he was referring to one of his predecessors—
"I have fought for democracy and liberty all my political life"?—[Official Report, 19 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 501.]
That is what he said. Is that the same person who had previously said, as quoted in the Morning Star,
"We cannot achieve Socialism through Parliamentary channels alone"?
I hope that he has thought better of that, but we will suspend judgment until we see what happens.
The tax-raising Leader of the House has announced today that three major, controversial Bills will be given only one day each for their remaining stages. I am talking about the Hunting Bill, to which a very large number of amendments have been tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House and which is very controversial, and the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill—which, again, has been given only one day, even though we have still properly to consider GP contracts and foundation hospitals—to say nothing of the Finance Bill, to which I suppose we must expect an amendment to be tabled in the name of the tax-raising Leader of the House to hold with what he said, or perhaps did not say. Perhaps we will hear from him about that later.
There will be only one day in the House of Commons to debate those enormous Bills with very large numbers of amendments. That cannot be satisfactory. It cannot be the way in which the House should seek to hold the Government to account. So I simply ask the Leader of the House this: why do we not sit on Friday 18 July and Monday 21 July, for example? There is no reason whatsoever—he has also said that such things are subject to the progress of business—why we cannot linger just a day or two longer. Their lordships are doing that to fulfil their duties, and there is no reason whatsoever why the House cannot do so too. I hope that he will give that serious consideration.
When will we have a further statement on Iraq? I believe that the House will have to be told not only about security—certainly in regard to the tragic events of just a few days ago, on which more facts are still emerging—but about post-war reconstruction. I hope that the Leader of the House can assure us that, some time before the recess, we will have a proper,

1203
comprehensive statement on Iraq, so that the House may be updated on developments there and can hold Ministers to account for what is happening there.
Does the tax-raising Leader of the House recall the Prime Minister saying, on 23 June.
"The reason why we have said that we will have a referendum on the single currency… is that it does represent a fundamental change in our constitutional arrangements"?—[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 721.]
That is what the Prime Minister said, so this question must arise: if the Government have finally recognised what we in the Conservative party have known all along—that the euro raises profound constitutional as well as economic implications—and that is the reason that the Prime Minister has given for holding a referendum on the euro, why, logically, cannot we have a referendum on the true constitutional changes that will occur following the Convention? I think that we need to hear that, and be told why that link has not yet been made in the Prime Minister's mind.
Finally, can we have a debate entitled, "Letting the Cat out of the Bag". I am sure that the tax-raising Leader of the House will recall releasing the text of a speech in which he said:
"I am saying we face a situation equally where the top rate of tax, the 40 per cent. band, now catches far too many middle income employees including teachers and police officers. This presents us with hard choices. I think the… rich might well be prepared to contribute a bit more."
That was the original text of the speech that was not eventually delivered. He must have been aware that his right hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) agreed with him. Indeed, his right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) went even further. He said:
"The hyper-rich can certainly pay more. I am concerned that under this government inequality is once again growing."
The Prime Minister, however, said:
"The government's policy is clear—we are not raising the top rate of tax."
The Mirror newspaper then said:
"A senior No 10 source branded the Cabinet Minister"—
the tax-raising Leader of the House—"an idiot". In the light of all this, cannot we have a debate on the matter to clear the air? We can now see what the hidden agenda of the Labour Party is. Since we cannot believe a word the Prime Minister says any more, should we rather not believe what his right hon. Friends are saying? Let us have a debate about it.
Peter Hain: Let me deal first with the serious part of that intervention. I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Denis Thatcher and agree with his statement that the whole House will wish to send its condolences to Baroness Thatcher and her family. The family, including Denis, have played a very important role in British public life, and I am sure that we would all want to acknowledge that.
1204
Secondly, I agree with and join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Sir Nicolas Bevan, who has been a great servant of this House and on many an occasion has given me good advice—
Mr. John Bercow: You might have taken it.
Peter Hain: I have always taken it. I have even shared the odd glass of wine with Sir Nicholas on occasion. I wish him happiness in whatever his future career or retirement might hold. I am sure that somebody of such talent will not be idle.
I note that the shadow Leader of the House has clearly changed his titles and his message. Apparently, I am no longer the part-time Leader of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are!"] No, apparently I am not. I now have another label. We will wait to see what the label is next week. I notice, however, that at least for once the right hon. Gentleman is on-message with the Leader of the Opposition, who referred to me yesterday with my full title, which is Leader of the House of Commons. I am glad that the shadow Leader of the House is for once following his leader and staying on-message with the leadership.
The shadow Leader of the House made various references to quotes from me a long time ago, and no doubt those will be a regular feature of his interventions, to which I look forward. In that case, no doubt he will also tell the House about his youth, which I am advised was spent in the Communist party. We might find some interesting things that he said at that time, too.
The shadow Leader of the House made a series of points about Bills only having one day. He knows, as everybody in the House knows, that that is fully adequate time for the scrutiny required at that stage in the parliamentary process, there having been very full scrutiny, and his colleagues on the Back Benches have had every opportunity to do that.
The shadow Leader of the House asks that we sit for longer and cut into the summer recess. Perhaps that is why he is shadow Leader of the House and will remain shadow Leader of the House. One of the decisions taken by my predecessor but one was to publish a calendar of the House in advance, which is enormously beneficial to hon. Members and their families. When possible, we will stick to that, although it was obviously not possible on one or two occasions earlier this year. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, on reflection, that his proposition was not a sensible one to advance.
On Iraq, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that there is a fast-developing situation and the dreadful news of the deaths of the six Royal Military policemen only recently just indicates that. The House will be updated, and that will happen in due course.
On the question about the euro and the European constitution, one of the interesting points about the clamour from the Conservatives and their media allies for a referendum on the European constitutional treaty is that they have demanded it before they know the outcome. We have already been through nearly 16 months of detailed negotiations—I was the Government's representative—in the Convention on

1205
the Future of Europe to create a consensus. The Convention brought together 100 representatives of national Governments and Parliaments, the European Parliament and the European Commission who, with alternates, formed a body of about 200 people. For the first time, a draft European constitutional treaty has been debated in the open with full transparency and scrutiny. That has given us a good basis to go to the intergovernmental conference for further negotiations.
At the end of that process, normal procedures will be followed. A report will be made to the House. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that we will want to involve the House in debate over the course of the coming months. We will table a motion on which there will no doubt be a vote. No doubt the Government will be opposed, and the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may table an amendment to demand a referendum, as they are free to do, if that is what they want. At the end of the process, people will be able to judge whether the new constitutional treaty will be good for Britain, as I believe that it will be. Britain's interests will be protected in a way that is possible by being at the heart of Europe. That has enabled us to get a very good deal on common agricultural policy reform, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will announce later. That is an example of the Government being right at the heart of the Europe and negotiating a good deal for Britain, as we will on the new constitutional treaty.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to "Letting the cat out of the bag". That was a typical engagingly flamboyant statement. He is an eloquent shadow Leader of the House—much more eloquent than the leader himself—and I look forward to hearing many such statements in the coming weeks.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I first associate myself and my colleagues with the tributes to Sir Denis Thatcher and the expressions of condolence to Lady Thatcher and her family? Many would see him as a model No. 10 consort, so perhaps this is an occasion on which we should record our admiration and gratitude to all those who, as husbands, wives, partners and families, are there in the background to support those of us in public life at different levels.
May I also record my gratitude and that of my colleagues to your Secretary, Mr. Speaker, not only for his unfailing courtesy to all Members of all parties and his wise advice, but for his commitment to the good order of our business and the way in which Parliament does its job? We wish him every success in his future career.
The Leader of the House was factually incorrect to say that all matters of the Finance Bill were properly considered in Committee—they simply were not. Many of the Bill's provisions, especially those relating to stamp duty, were brought forward at a late stage and were not properly consulted on or discussed in any detail in Committee. Of course, the Finance Bill is unique because it does not get the second chance of scrutiny in the other place. It is outrageous to try to push it through this House without proper scrutiny.
That point gives me the opportunity to ask the Leader of the House about his intended plan for the debate on the future of the House of Lords. He will know that the
1206
Government have less than a fortnight to respond to the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform—the reply must be made by 9 July. I am sure he will also recall that he and all his colleagues signed up to the manifesto promise:
"We are committed to completing House of Lords reform…to make it more representative and democratic".
The Leader of the House will be the first to recognise that in the light of the probable legislative programme in the coming Session, unless real progress is made now to fulfil that promise, it is unlikely that we will achieve it in this Parliament. A manifesto is usually a programme for a Parliament, not a long-term aspiration.
The right hon. Gentleman will also know that on 4 February, the vote in this House, which everyone keeps saying must be the predominant view on such issues, resulted in a clear majority against a fully appointed House of Lords, despite the fact that that appeared to be the preference of the then Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister. The majority was 78. It would clearly be an affront to this House if proposals were introduced that effectively made the other place a fully appointed House. It would be a direct insult to the view of the House.
Since the right hon. Gentleman voted for a considerable proportion of elected Members in the other place—100 per cent., 80 per cent. and 60 per cent.—he will also recall that a majority of this House, some 332 Members, voted for a substantial proportion of elected Members in the other place. Will there be a White Paper and will the Government introduce proposals, or will we be given a draft Bill to enable us to implement the views of this House? Finally, as the right hon. Gentleman and the Lord Chancellor are now in a position to aid and abet those of us who want to reform the other place, when are we going to get it?
Peter Hain: May I first associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's comment on our families in the background who make great sacrifices? That was particularly true of Denis Thatcher and the Thatcher family at large.
I do not accept the point about the Finance Bill, and I have said what I have to say about that. On the future of House of Lords reform, when we are ready to report to the House on how we intend to proceed, we will do so. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out how I voted. That is on the record and it remains on the record. It is important to explain that there was no clear consensus.
Mr. Tyler: Yes, there was: 332.
Peter Hain: Well, I do not think that it is true that there was a clear consensus on any of the options.
Yes, there is a manifesto promise. It is often forgotten that our Labour Government have already reformed the House of Lords in the most radical way that any Government have done, or even attempted to do, not just in living memory, but throughout the last century. There is unfinished business and that will be undertaken.
Kevin Brennan: May we have a debate on innovative practices in prescription in the NHS, in particular the Cardiff book prescription scheme, which allows general practitioners to prescribe highly effective

1207
self-help books for people with mild to moderate mental health problems? It was pioneered in Cardiff by Dr. Neil Frude and Dr. Jackie Gantley. It is a world first and worthy of being rolled out across the rest of the UK.
In welcoming my right hon. Friend to his new post as Leader of the House, may I offer him some advice? Should he require any reading himself to deal with the shadow Leader of the House and I he Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, I suggest "Arsenic and Old Lace".
Peter Hain: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion and will bear it in mind.
I applaud my hon. Friend for bringing that innovative scheme to the attention of the House. It deserves a lot of scrutiny and I am sure that my light hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will want to consider it. My hon. Friend has the opportunity on Wednesday to raise the matter again during Welsh questions. No doubt other opportunities will also arise.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: As the Leader of the House has a distinguished record, unlike some of his colleagues, on standing up to tyranny in Zimbabwe, and as he has spoken out on a number of occasions, will he give us a guarantee that there will at least be a ministerial statement, and preferably a debate, on Zimbabwe before the House rises? Those of us who were present in Portcullis House yesterday to hear Andrew Meldrum, the distinguished correspondent for The Guardian and The Observer who was thrown out of Zimbabwe, came away with a clear conclusion that it is urgent that the House takes further action.
Peter Hain: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's general sentiments. I share his horror at the atrocities committed over the years by Robert Mugabe's regime. Tyranny is running riot in Zimbabwe. It has to be stopped and checked. I think that Zimbabwe's neighbours share a responsibility for seeking to end that situation, which is disfiguring the whole of the southern African sub-continent, especially in terms of investor confidence. I also applaud what the right hon. Gentleman said about Andrew Meldrum. He is a fine and brave journalist who was kicked out by Mugabe and his thugs. He bears testimony to the dreadful damage that the regime is doing to that once beautiful, proud and effective country.
On whether there is time for a statement, I shall certainly draw the right hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of the Foreign Secretary. We will have to see what transpires.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: With regard to the Hunting Bill on Monday, will my right hon. Friend give me two assurances on procedure? First, it has been put to me that there is an intention on the part of the Government that the Bill will be recommitted to a Standing Committee at the end of the Report stage. If that were to happen, it would be an underhanded device, which would arouse intense anger in this House and elsewhere. That being so, I ask my right hon. Friend to give me an absolutely categorical assurance that there is no such intention.
1208
Secondly, my right hon. Friend will recall that on 21 March 2002, the Minister for Rural Affairs, speaking from the Dispatch Box, gave me an assurance that, in whatever form the Bill is completed, it will proceed to the House of Lords in that form. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs said:
"I am absolutely clear that if the Government introduce a Bill that is amended in the House of Commons, our promise in relation to allowing the Parliament Act to obtain will apply."—[Official Report, 21 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 462.]
When, later in the year, I wrote to my right hon. Friend asking him to reaffirm that commitment, in a letter to me dated 23 September 2002, he said:
"I certainly stand by … my reply to your question".
I should therefore like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to assure me, first, that there is no intention whatever to seek to recommit the Bill, and, secondly—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Peter Hain: First, I associate myself with my right hon. Friend's long and honourable record of voting in the House and arguing persistently for an end to cruelty. That has been exactly my position and I have often joined him in the Lobby in echoing that. The Government have a manifesto commitment on the matter and it is one that we intend to fulfil.
On my right hon. Friend's second question on the Parliament Acts and the procedure around the Hunting Bill, I confirm that the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs on 21 March 2002, which is recorded in Hansard, stands. That is the position that we will follow and the Government stand by it.
On my right hon. Friend's first question, we share the same objectives. It is the overwhelming view of the House to end cruelty, but it would be remiss of me not to explain the procedures that are likely to occur to fulfil the will of the House, whatever that might be on Monday. We are not sure which amendments will be carried and we are not sure whether all the amendments that have currently been tabled will be the end of the story. Further amendments may also be tabled. We will have to see.
I have been advised by parliamentary counsel—I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want me to be absolutely open and transparent about this, as I always hope to be with the House—that the Bill may need to be recommitted—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Well, wait for it; it is actually helpful to my right hon. Friend. I have been advised by parliamentary counsel that the Bill may need to be recommitted for the purpose of making technical and consequential amendments, without which the Bill, as amended, may not be effective law. That amended Bill would obviously have to be debated on Report and Third Reading and, as a result, it is doubtful whether it is possible to get it into the Lords before the recess. This is not a question of seeking to frustrate the intentions—
Mr. Kaufman: Absolutely disgraceful.
Peter Hain: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend said that, as it is surely in his interest and the interest of the whole House to have a good Bill. It may be that recommittal is not necessary. Technically and in other

1209
respects, the Bill may be in good enough shape to go to the House of Lords—[Interruption.] Actually, this is quite an important point and my right hon. Friend deserves a full answer. He will understand that if a defective Bill leaves this House, it will not be covered by the Parliament Act. It is therefore in his interests, as it is in the interests of the Minister for Rural Affairs, the Government as a whole and Labour Members who want to join together in banning cruelty, to ensure that the Bill that leaves this House for the other place is not defective, not least because it would not be covered by the Parliament Act.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the tax-raising and part-time Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the subject of the Hattersley thesis on taxation? As long ago as 13 March 1995, Lord Hattersley said in The Guardian:
"Labour now has a clear choice. It can either be the party of higher taxation and proud of it; or the party of higher taxes which it is ashamed to describe, afraid to admit and incapable of calculating with any accuracy."
Does the tax-raising and part-time Leader of the House agree that such a debate would provide an excellent opportunity to display both the divisions within the Government and the predominant opinion of the Labour party that the pockets of the British people should continue to be plundered on an unprecedented scale?
Peter Hain: The answer is no. The real choice facing the nation is between a Tory economic programme of boom and bust, unfair taxation and 20 per cent. public spending cuts and a Labour policy of economic stability, fair taxation and public investment to generate high-quality public services. That is the choice before the nation, and I am confident that it will decide in favour of Labour and reject the Tories yet again at the next general election.
David Winnick: As regards Monday's business, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be a genuine free vote among Labour Members, including Ministers? Arising from what he said a moment ago, does he accept both that there is an overwhelming desire among a large majority of Labour MPs for a total ban on fox hunting, and that the matter should be resolved in this Parliament, although it should have been resolved in the last Parliament? Will the Leader of the House bear that in mind? There should be no shilly-shallying to avoid making a decision which, as I have said, is wanted by the majority of us and, I believe, a majority of people in the country.
Peter Hain: I share my hon. Friend's objectives, and we all share them as a Government—[Interruption.] Well, the Conservatives do not because they do not want to end cruelty. We are united in wanting to do so. The issue is about taking the Bill forward in a coherent form—that is the only issue to arise from the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I can confirm that there will be a free vote and that the will of the House will be respected. May I congratulate my hon. Friend the
1210
Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on his birthday? I understand that he is 70 today, and I wish him a happy birthday.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: May I raise an important matter with the Leader of the House that is of great concern throughout Sutton Coldfield and the Birmingham area—care homes for the elderly and the policies being pursued by Birmingham council? Over the past three years, more than 120 beds have closed in Birmingham, and projections this week suggest that a further 176 will go. Meanwhile, the latest figures show that 146 people are waiting in local hospitals for a place in a care home. There is also a huge differential between what Birmingham city council pays for places in its own homes and what it pays to the private sector, which is a clear breach of the Government's best-value guidelines. It would be most helpful if we could have a chance before the recess to discuss these matters, which are of great importance, not least because there is great concern in Birmingham this week about the workings of the National Care Standards Commission and recent events in connection with that. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will try to find a slot before the House rises on 18 July.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a time for me to intervene. Questions are far too long, and perhaps the Leader of the House can bear in mind the need for brief replies.
Peter Hain: I understand the importance of the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman. There will be plenty of opportunities to raise these matters, as there have been in the recent past.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: May I probe my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the Report stage of the Hunting Bill on Monday? Given my four years' experience of serving in the Whips Office, during which time I helped to guide many Government Bills through the House, I was struck when I examined the Bill yesterday by the enormous technical difficulties that would arise if a substantial amendment, such as a total ban, were agreed. I hope that there is a ban, and I would vote for such an amendment. However, it would change the Bill dramatically. My right hon. Friend has explained some of the technical details, but could he go a bit further and clarify the timetable, if such an amendment were accepted, for example, on recommittal and when the Bill would come back from the House of Lords? On Monday, people will want to know how long the process will take. Clearly, we want a proper Bill to leave the House and go to the Lords.
Peter Hain: We do not know exactly what the timing consequences will be until the end of the Report stage, when we will know what shape the Bill is in. We do not yet know whether it will need recommittal then or not. However, on the basis of the advice that I have been given, it is pretty clear that it will not be possible to get it into the Lords, as we had intended, before the recess if recommittal is necessary. Recommittal is not something that the Government want, but it needs to be an option for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave and, as I have

1211
explained, that will depend on the shape of the Bill after Report. It does not serve any objective, even for people wanting a total ban, which I have consistently voted for over the years, to proceed with a Bill that is not technically in order. It would not be covered by the Parliament Act, so that is not a sensible way for the House to proceed.
Mr. Simon Thomas: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1466, which deals with the great public debate on genetically modified crops and was tabled by the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher)?
[That this House welcomes the Government's decision to initiate a major public debate on GM food and crops; urges all constituents to join in this (debate through the use of the questionnaire on www.gmnation.org.uk; notes the deep public concern that has been widely expressed to date on the health and environmental implications of GM food and crops; further notes that much of the research evidence relevant to this debate will not be available within the timeframe of the consultation period; and therefore calls on the Government to extend the consultation period to enable maximum public participation on a fully informed basis.]
When can we have a little bit of that public debate in the House? It may have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice that such a debate is going on, because in Wales, his other area of responsibility, it has amounted to no more than a handful of public meetings and a consultation, the form for which is not available in Welsh. There is nothing on the website of the National Assembly for Wales about the consultation, even though the Assembly itself says that it is a GM-free zone. Importantly, the Government will not release their contribution until the debate has ended. When can we have a debate in Parliament, in Government time, on the material substance and facts about the future of GM crops in this country?
Peter Hain: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman's request must be considered in the usual way, but he should be aware that we have already extended the timetable for the debate on GM by three months at the request of the public debate steering board. There is plenty of time for the public and the hon. Gentleman to get involved, and there will be opportunities for him to do so in the House in the usual ways. The deadline for feedback to the steering board is 18 July.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: From early-day motion 1218, my right hon. Friend will be aware that the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury are working towards an announcement on whether to place an order with BAE Systems for the Hawk jet.
[That this House notes the decision to award the contract for the Hawk jet fighter is due to be made; recognises that thousands of jobs directly and indirectly through the supply chain depend upon this work; further notes the importance of the UK aerospace industry as a world leader providing thousands of high quality jobs in addition to supporting the UK's manufacturing sector; and calls on the Government to make an early decision in support of UK aerospace manufacturing.]
1212
Given that the workers are under precautionary notice of redundancy at the end of July, can my right hon. Friend arrange for an early statement on the matter and a decision that will give the British military the very best British kit?
Peter Hain: I share my hon. Friend's objective of taking advantage of the very best British kit and welcome the fact that he raises the matter. I will draw it to the attention of the relevant Cabinet Ministers because it is important that the interests involved are secured.
Sir George Young: The Leader of the House announced a debate on Tuesday week on the remaining stages of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill—a Bill that was programmed in Standing Committee, with 55 clauses and 46 Government amendments not debated at all. Does he agree that that is unsatisfactory? Will he consider reverting to the previous regime, whereby the Government indicated the date by which a Bill should emerge from Standing Committee, but up to that point there was great flexibility as to how that time should be used? Does he agree that that might enable the House to scrutinise Bills more effectively than does the current regime?
Peter Hain: Although I bow to the right hon. Gentleman's long experience of these matters, he may think, on reflection, that the procedure that we have adopted has led to greater scrutiny. Nevertheless, I shall look into the points that he raised.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Can we have an early statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about Government plans to privatise file stores? Those file stores are dotted around the country and hold sensitive information about citizens who are claiming social security benefits. The plan is to privatise the file stores by July next year, and no in-house bid is being invited—only a private sector solution. One of those file stores is in my constituency. There are good civil servants working there, and they want to stay civil servants. They do not want to be moved into the private sector. It is an important matter that affects many constituents.
Peter Hain: I understand the importance of the matter to my hon. Friend, his constituents and those of other hon. Members. I shall draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Mr. Paul Goodman: Some of us voted for the recent war because we were assured by Ministers that Saddam possessed a weapon of mass destruction that was a threat to our peace and security. Will the Leader of the House reconsider what he said a moment ago about an Iraq debate? Some of us would like to question Ministers very closely on those matters.
Peter Hain: Obviously, an inquiry is taking place through the Foreign Affairs Committee. No doubt it will report and the usual opportunities for consideration will follow. The hon. Gentleman joined us in the Lobby

1213
in support of the Government. Having been a Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for the middle east, covering the Iraq desk for nearly two years, having been in the Foreign Office when much of the process was building up and a Cabinet Minister at the time of the decision to take military action, I can say categorically that I have seen intelligence, shown to me by the most senior members of the Secret Intelligence Service and the Joint Intelligence Committee, which was conclusive on weapons of mass destruction. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman about my own experience, which persuaded me that what we were doing was absolutely necessary.
Ms Julia Drown: It has been reported that at next Monday's World Bank meeting, the US will block proposals to increase the voice and voting power of African countries there, whereas two weeks ago we thought there was the political will to achieve those proposals. Given the strong support in the House for Africa, and given that the Government have said that they want to support Africa in that way, could we urgently debate how we might influence US policy on the matter? If a debate is not possible, will my right hon. Friend get the message to Ministers that Members want them to do everything they can to achieve a positive outcome for Africa on Monday?
Peter Hain: As a son of Africa, though a British subject by birth, I obviously share my hon. Friend's desire to see a good deal for Africa. The Government have made that a priority to be achieved through the New Partnership for Africa's Development programme, which will bring enormous opportunities and resources to Africa in exchange for reform. I shall draw urgently to the attention of the Secretary of State for International Development the points that my hon. Friend makes.
Mr. Roger Gale: In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the Leader of the House chided the Opposition for seeking a referendum on the European constitution without knowing its contents. The Government, of course, have refused such a referendum on precisely the same terms. A few moments later, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the European constitution and the change that it would bring about. Is it a constitution and is it a constitutional change? If so, why do not the same rules apply to that constitution as apply to the euro and the agreement that the last Conservative Government reached to hold a referendum on it?
Peter Hain: The only Government who have ever held a referendum on Europe is a Labour Government in 1975. The only Government who will hold a referendum on the euro if the circumstances are right to join is a Labour Government. We have a proud record of referendums on Europe and we need no lessons from Conservatives, who have never supported referendums until they opportunistically see the chance to press seriously for the withdrawal of Britain from the European Union, which the shadow Leader of the House supports. That is their objective. As for the
1214
opportunity to debate on these matters, on 9 July—as I announced—there will be a full debate on a substantive motion.
Mr. Brian Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a short debate, if not next week then before the recess, on the relationship between Parliament, Government and the media, to allow us to underline the political neutrality of the self-monitoring, publicly funded BBC?
Peter Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The director of communications at No. 10 spent some time on the matter before the Select Committee yesterday. There is a real issue for the political class—those of us at Westminster and the media, who together occupy a political bubble around Westminster in which messages are transmitted between us which bear little resemblance to what the public outside understand. There is a serious problem about the public's engagement with Westminster politics and the barriers put up around it by the political class to which we all belong. That is the issue that has to be addressed, in addition to the one raised by my hon. Friend.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: May I pay personal tribute to Sir Nicolas Bevan for his outstanding service to the House over many years and his unfailing courtesy and friendship, which I have greatly valued?
Following up the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), I make a plea to the Leader of the House. If a Bill goes from Standing Committee back to the House on Report without many of the important clauses and new clauses being debated, if the Government table new clauses for the remaining stages of the Bill, and if it is an important Bill—I shall not name one, for obvious reasons—is it not obligatory for the Government to provide adequate time, which is more than one day, for the remaining stages? On behalf of the House I make a fervent plea to the Leader of the House to ensure that the House does its job properly.
Peter Hain: I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman raises, from his position of expertise and authority and speaking as he does on behalf of the Procedure Committee. The outcomes of pre- programming—before the procedures that the Government enacted for orderly business—were not guaranteed either. If we could reach a better understanding with the Opposition on how to manage time sensibly, that would be a different matter.
Mr. David Chaytor: My right hon. Friend will know that on Tuesday the Government published the draft Bill on the nuclear decommissioning authority, which proposes spending £50 billion on cleaning up old nuclear power stations. He may also know that on Tuesday evening the United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled against the Government by giving Ireland the right to be fully consulted on future decisions about Sellafield. Given that the high costs of reprocessing were a factor in the insolvency of British Energy, and that British Nuclear Fuels is about to announce a £1 billion loss on its accounts for the last financial year, is it not time that we

1215
had a full debate about the future of nuclear reprocessing and Sellafield, including the economic, environmental and security implications of sitting on 100 tonnes of plutonium?
Peter Hain: My hon. Friend brings to us a very welcome expertise and interest in this area for which I think the whole House is grateful. I urge him to continue to display that interest and take it forward. Of course, there will be opportunities for him to raise the matter in future, but I am grateful that he has done so now.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Instead of cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall, please could we have a three-hour session here with the Prime Minister on cutting, cross questions—very cross questions—so that he can explain some of his recent statements? They include the suggestion that officials never give evidence to Select Committees and his previous assertion that there was no constitutional basis to the euro, when he now says that there is such a basis. We could also ask a question that I and many others have asked him in seeking to find out when he knew about the dodgy document—but he has clearly failed to answer. There are many more cross questions for this particular Prime Minister.
Peter Hain: That was a very cross question, if I may say so. The hon. Lady knows full well that the issue of the documents about Iraq was discussed in great detail yesterday in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and it will be discussed again in future. The Prime Minister is due to appear before the Joint Committee in the meeting that he has agreed to. The hon. Lady gave the impression that the Prime Minister was not willing to answer questions—he does so weekly in the House and he has given more statements in recent times than probably any Prime Minister in living memory.
Mr. Forth: He does not give any answers.
Peter Hain: Perhaps that is because the questions are rubbish.
The Prime Minister has also made himself available to the House to be questioned by Chairmen of Select Committees, in an unprecedented fashion. He is more accountable to the House than any Prime Minister in living memory, and we are proud that that is the case.
Joan Ruddock: I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer that he gave to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). The consultation was indeed postponed for three months, but the period of consultation on GM does not cover the whole period in which there are results to be released by the Government on this subject. Given that President Bush has made the outrageous comment that the very sensible EU moratorium on genetically modified organisms is the cause of famine in Africa, surely it is time that this House debated these critical issues, whether there should be commercialisation of GM crops in this country, and whether such crops have any relevance at all to starvation in Africa.
Peter Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. My hon. Friend the Minister for the
1216
Environment, like his predecessor, is aware of the public concern and he will obviously bear it strongly in mind. He will listen very carefully to the views that she expresses, but as she will be aware, in terms of the activities of the public debate steering board on genetic modification, following on from the six regional launch events, further public meetings are now being organised by local authorities, other organisations and individuals so that people can get involved. People can also participate interactively in the public debate through the website. When that process has come to an end, there will be an opportunity, as there should be, for the House to consider the outcome.
David Burnside: May I add my condolences to those given to Lady Thatcher on the loss of Sir Denis? All hon. Members will have our little memories of Sir Denis. I remember that, when the doors were being closed at a British Airways reception in Blackpool about 10 years ago, Sir Denis came along with his minder and declared, "I do not know what reception I am at, but for God's sake give me a gin and tonic." He was acting as the loyal consort on behalf of the lady when she was up late writing her speech. There are some very fond memories of Sir Denis.
On behalf of the massed, united ranks of Ulster Unionists in this House over the years, may I also give my thanks to Sir Nicolas for his service to the House?
Earlier this week, half of the Ulster Unionist parliamentary party resigned the Whip because our party does not oppose the joint declaration from the British and Irish Governments. That requires two pieces of legislation, I believe, that have to be introduced into the House to allow for the possibility of an October election. One of them is the legislation relating to the new sanctions proposals. We object to it, but it must pass through the House in regard to the sanctions for those involved in a future Northern Ireland Executive being involved in non-democratic procedures. The second is legislation to allow a virtual amnesty for on-the-run terrorists and criminals out of Northern Ireland. Will the Leader of the House give the House some guidance? With only three weeks left before the summer recess and only two sitting weeks in September, when will those two pieces of legislation be introduced?
Peter Hain: The business managers are indeed very aware of the issues concerned and will bear in mind the consequences for the business of the House. It is terribly important that we keep our eyes fixed very firmly on the big picture. The people of Northern Ireland overwhelmingly support the Good Friday agreement, they want an end to paramilitary activity, and they want the stability of institutions for which the agreement provided.
Bob Spink: The people of Castle Point have lived for many years with the serious health and social problems caused by the operation of Pitsea tip. Can we have a debate to ensure that proper monitoring and contingency plans are in place to deal with any further problems caused by the operation of that tip and so that we can have an independent risk assessment of the risks associated with the odours and the materials deposited there?
Peter Hain: I will ensure that the Ministers concerned are aware of the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about that matter. Of course, there are opportunities for him to raise it in the House in future.
John Cryer: May I add my tribute to those paid to Sir Nicolas Bevan and wish him all the best in future?
Further to the earlier request for a debate on early-day motion 1466, which relates to GM foods and was raised in a fairly whinging way by the Welsh nationalist spokesman, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), the fact is that it is extremely welcome that the Government have organised the debate that is now taking place, and we should not take anything away from that. However, given that it is a Government-inspired debate and that there is much public anxiety about GM crops, and given the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) asked about comments made by people in the American Administration, should not we have a full day's debate here, in Government time?
Peter Hain: Again, I have dealt with the point about GM foods previously, and I acknowledge my hon. Friend's interest in the matter. He referred to whinging Welsh nationalists. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) is a valuable Member of this House, but he should not whinge as much as he does. The chief whinger, the leader of Plaid Cymru, having resigned two months ago, has announced today that he is going to re-stand for election to the leadership that he has just vacated. What a shower.
Mr. Peter Duncan: Will the tax-raising Leader of the House find Government time to debate the future of shipping services in the light of tax-raising Government press release No. 49, which was issued after the Budget? The change to national insurance will create a direct disincentive to employ British staff on ferry services between my constituency and Northern Ireland. Furthermore, it will directly penalise services between Scotland and Northern Ireland in favour of services to the Irish Republic, inasmuch as national insurance contributions will not be payable by staff working in international waters. The change will directly put Scottish jobs at risk and further prejudice ferry traffic on the north channel route. Will he accept the need for a level playing field for British jobs on British ships?
Peter Hain: This is obviously an important constituency matter for the hon. Gentleman, and I shall ensure that the attention of the relevant Secretaries of State is drawn to it.
Norman Lamb: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement about the desperate situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? There is more news this week of an offensive by Rwandan-backed rebels, which could plunge Rwanda and Uganda back into direct confrontation. Could such a statement also deal with the Government's response to the UN panel of experts' report that was published at the beginning of November last year, pointing to the direct link between exploitation of the country's natural
1218
resources and the continuation of the conflict? Nothing much has happened since then. What is the Government's response?
Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the European Union agreed a mission to establish a peacekeeping operation, which is now in the Congo, but the situation is desperate. It is a huge country—virtually the size of the entire European continent—that has been plunged into successive conflicts. The international community, as manifested in Europe's determination to act with the blessing of the United Nations, must ensure that stability is brought to the country.
Andrew Selous: Given that the European constitution will prohibit this House from legislating in relation to agriculture, justice, energy, social policy, economic cohesion, transport, the environment and aspects of public health unless Brussels agrees, does the Leader of the House think that in future it will still be worth being a Member of this House?
Peter Hain: It is interesting that such questions renege on commitments made by previous Conservative Governments to agree to decisions being made at a European level in Britain's interests. I do not recognise any of the threats with which the hon. Gentleman sought to alarm the House in the draft constitution that came out of the European Convention, which I helped to negotiate.
Michael Fabricant: May I echo the calls made by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins), for a debate on the integrity of news reporting by the BBC? The attack on the BBC that was made yesterday by the director of communications is but the tip of the iceberg. There has been constant pressure on the BBC from this Government for the past six years, and it is far greater than any such pressure that was ever exerted by the likes of Norman Tebbit. It is immensely important that the BBC is not only allowed to report fairly and accurately, but is seen to be allowed to do so. Following the attack made by Alastair Campbell yesterday, that is not the case.
Peter Hain: That question comes from a member of a party that complained to the BBC about its local election coverage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Conservative Members agree with that complaint. Alastair Campbell made it perfectly clear yesterday that he of course fully acknowledges the important role of the BBC and its broadcasting responsibilities, and the fact that it generally undertakes that role very well. Nevertheless, he put a series of questions to the BBC. Does it still stand by the allegation that it made on 29 May that Alastair Campbell and/or No. 10 Downing street added in the 45-minute claim? Does it still stand by the allegation made on the same day that he or they did so against the wishes of the intelligence agencies? Does it still stand by the allegation made on that day that both No. 10 and himself, and the intelligence agencies, knew the 45-minute claim to be wrong? Those, and a series of other questions, are very specific points that the BBC has to deal with. It has not answered them yet, and it should do so.
Mr. David Cameron: I have a number of people in my constituency who work for hunts and are

1219
worried about losing their jobs and livelihoods, and they would like to understand the full implications of what the Leader of the House said today. Will he confirm that if there is not a Report stage on the Hunting Bill after its recommital before the summer recess, and if the House of Lords does not have enough time to consider the Bill before the start of the next Session, it can be carried over only with the permission of the Lords, and the Government will have to reintroduce a Bill at the start of the next Session? Would it not be better to admit that the Government have more import ant matters on their hands, including Iraq, the health service, education, the Extradition Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill, and consign the whole thing to the dustbin?
Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Conservative Benches wish to consign it to the dustbin because they do not want to end cruelty. The Government do want to end cruelty, and this House has voted overwhelmingly to do so. We shall have to await the end of the debate on Monday to see where we stand; I have explained to the House in great detail what will happen thereafter.
Mr. George Osborne: Could the Leader of the House clear up some of the confusion that has arisen over his role? Is he a licensed critic of the Government, or just a critic?
Peter Hain: I am a Cabinet Minister and I support the Government's policies. He can ask me another question along those lines next time, and continue to do so.

CAP Reform
1.34 pm
Margaret Beckett: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the outcome of the final negotiations on the reform of the common agricultural policy, which concluded in Luxembourg at 6.35 am, UK time. [Laughter.] Yes, quite.
We approached the negotiations with two clear objectives: first, to get the best settlement that we could for UK farmers, consumers, taxpayers and the environment; and, secondly, to get an agreement that could lay the foundations for a successful outcome at the World Trade Organisation negotiations in Mexico later this year.
In pursuit of those objectives, we set negotiating goals: to simplify the CAP, reducing the burden on farmers; to provide for a substantial shift of support from production to a wider range of rural and environmental activities; and to give the European Union a strong negotiating stance in the WTO negotiations, which reach a key point in Cancun in September.
I am happy to say that today's agreement delivers what we wanted, as well as real change. The key points are: breaking the link between farm subsidies and production in order to reconnect farmers to their markets, reduce damaging environmental impacts and reduce bureaucracy, which is at the heart of our approach to sustainable food and farming; cross-compliance to make subsidies dependent on meeting standards in key areas such as the environment and animal health and welfare; reducing support prices for butter and rice, bringing them closer to world prices to the benefit of consumers; and a new financial discipline that will trigger action to reduce subsidies if CAP expenditure looks to be in danger of exceeding the agreed ceilings.
The settlement includes elements that were not on the table in the January package put forward by the European Commissioner. In other words, in some respects it goes beyond those initial proposals. First, national envelopes will allow us to develop targeted schemes to promote sustainable and environmentally friendly farming. Secondly, we have secured a further switch of resources to the second pillar and an earlier start date for modulation. The second pillar funding package that we have secured is more than a third larger than that which was available in the January proposal. For the first time, modulation applies on an EU-wide basis, switching support from production subsidies to targeted support for environmental and rural development objectives across the European Union. Thirdly, we have succeeded in protecting UK farmers from the immediate threat of an unfair settlement as part of the financial discipline process. I will place a detailed summary of the agreement in the Library; I wish Members happy reading.
The most radical and important element in the package is the new single farm payment, which we can use to replace the plethora of existing direct payment schemes such as arable aid, suckler cow premium, beef special premium, slaughter premium, extensification premium and sheep annual payment, to name but a few. Not only will that greatly simplify the bureaucracy

1221
associated with all those schemes, but, more importantly, because the payment is no longer linked to production, farmers will be free to produce for the market rather than for the subsidy. Farming, consumer and environmental interests all strongly supported such a move. We will, of course, consult on the detail of how to proceed, especially as regards use of the national envelopes and the important new provisions for cross-compliance.
Decoupling is particularly important in the WTO context. This deal enables the EU not only to meet, but to better, the domestic support targets that have been proposed in the WTO negotiations. The reforms should reduce the distortions in world markets that the CAP has caused, and will accordingly contribute to a successful conclusion of the Doha development agenda. I hope that our trading partners will recognise the scale and importance of the change and respond positively to it.
Reaching the agreement required an immense and a united effort. I want especially to thank our dedicated team of officials; my many Cabinet colleagues who actively engaged in support of our discussions, including the Prime Minister; and, of course, our colleagues in the devolved Administrations, who were closely involved throughout. It shows what we can achieve by working constructively with colleagues in the Agriculture Council. I want to pay special tribute to Commissioner Fischler, who showed considerable courage and tenacity in helping to pilot the agreement.
It is hard to overstate the importance of this morning's agreement in transforming the core elements of the common agricultural policy and laying down a new direction for its future evolution. Giorgios Drys, the Greek Minister, who did an excellent job of piloting the Council through the negotiations, said that we needed to get agreement for a new CAP. We have done that.
Mr. David Lidington: May I begin by offering more than the routine thanks to the Secretary of State for the statement? Conservative Members greatly appreciate the fact that she has come straight from the Luxembourg negotiations to report directly to the House of Commons. She sets an example that, we hope, will inspire some of her Cabinet colleagues.
As the Secretary of State said, the agreement is detailed and complicated. We will want to study carefully its impact on different agriculture sectors and parts of this country. I hope that the right hon. Lady can do a couple of things that will assist not only the Opposition but all Members of Parliament in the process of analysis. First, I hope that she will allow us time for debate to put the many detailed questions that need to be asked about the agreement. Secondly, I hope that she will publish a detailed assessment of the likely impact of the proposed changes on various types of farm businesses. It is not good enough that we should have to rely on outside bodies such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, however expert they are in their field. The Government owe it to Parliament to publish their detailed account of the likely impact.
Conservative Members welcome some aspects of the package. The most obvious is that decoupling—at least of a sort—will take place. I welcome the list of the
1222
multiplicity of schemes that could be scrapped in the wake of the agreement. We shall look to the Government to make certain that scrapping the schemes, albeit welcome, is not immediately used as an opportunity in Brussels or Whitehall to deluge farmers with substitute brand new sets of regulations and red tape.
The reality, however, is that the deal constitutes a botched compromise that falls far short of the radical changes that are needed. British farmers will have to bear more than their fair share of the costs of reform. The leader of the German farmers union said, in reaction to this morning's announcement, that the agreement was a
"typical EU compromise which gives and takes a little from everyone and creates terrible difficulties for those who have to implement it".
We hoped for a fair deal for British farmers. However, the agreement carries with it an undoubted risk of big market distortions and unfair competition, especially in the beef and sheep sectors.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that France and other countries can continue under the terms of the agreement to pay full production subsidies until 2007, and that even afterwards they will be free to link a considerable proportion of their farm support payments not to environmental or rural development schemes but directly to production subsidy? Will she also confirm that the modulation arrangements for transferring money from farm support to environmental or rural development projects discriminate blatantly against British agriculture? Will she further confirm that not only is the system weighted against larger farms—holdings in this country are on average significantly larger than those in the rest of the EU—but that up to one fifth of the money taken from farmers through modulation may be spent elsewhere in the EU on the schemes and under the framework of rules that the European Commission devises?
We hoped for a fair deal on the environment. Although it is true, as the right hon. Lady said, that today's agreement marks some advance on the previous position, I hope that she will take seriously the World Wide Fund for Nature's description of the deal as "an exercise in cosmetics." The head of agricultural policy at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds told the BBC that the Government have
"talked a good game on CAP reform. But internationally it appears to have lost out in securing major reforms."
Revenue from the modulation scheme is supposed to help fund the environmental payments system that was recommended by Sir Don Curry and that the Government promised for 2005 onwards.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the arithmetic no longer adds up? The revenue that DEFRA stands to receive from the EU-wide modulation scheme will not be sufficient to cover the sums that had been provisionally budgeted for the entry level environmental scheme. The only way in which she can deliver the environmental improvements that the Government have pledged is through imposing a new, national modulation scheme on top of the Community scheme. That will carry the risk of further market distortion and harming the competitiveness of British farmers when compared with those elsewhere in Europe.

1223
We hoped that the agreement would mean a fair deal for the developing world through the forthcoming international trade negotiations. It is trade justice week, yet the Secretary of State tells us of her delight in an agreement that will allow production subsidies in some form to continue indefinitely in the EU, despite all the pledges that the Government and other European Governments made at Doha and have subsequently repeated. Neither the Secretary of State nor the presidency conclusions mentioned the need for action to tackle export subsidies, which, as Ministers have admitted, cripple the ability of some of the poorest nations in the world to prosper through trade. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to say whether the detail of the agreement includes some planned action on that.
The French agriculture ministry gave the game away in a statement this morning. It said, with some satisfaction:
"This reform preserves—as was France's position all through the negotiations—the essential principles of the Common Agricultural Policy".
That was France's position throughout the negotiations. The Government promised repeatedly that they would use their influence in Europe to deliver agreements that would serve the interests of British agriculture, the environment and the developing world. However, they have been stitched up yet again by a Franco-German alliance that gives precious little credit for the concessions on so many European issues that the Government and the Prime Minister have been ready to make.
Again, the Government have failed to deliver on their promises. The gap between promise and delivery explains why so many people in this country are ceasing to believe anything that the Government tell them.
Margaret Beckett: The most evident gap was between reality and the rhetoric of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). I hope that I have not lost track of all his questions.
Sir Robert Smith: It was a speech.
Margaret Beckett: All right, it was a speech. The hon. Member for Aylesbury should ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for a debate, but I assure him that we shall do everything that we can to publish material that is as detailed as possible to assist hon. Members to assess the impact of the package. Consequently, he may find that he regrets some of his remarks.
I shall not bother to go into the list of quotes from people who said that the agreement does not go far enough. Many of us would have liked to go further, but pretending that the agreement is a bad result simply because we did not get everything that we wanted out of the negotiations shows the hon. Gentleman's total lack of experience in negotiating.
On the issue of unfair competition, it is correct that other member states will be able to keep production subsidies until 2007, should they choose to do so. It is
1224
also correct that, beyond that, they will have the option to keep a restricted range of subsidies—I will not bother to go into the technicalities unless someone particularly wants me to. A certain number of premiums will be available, but they will obviously be much more restricted than hitherto. Member states will be able to keep coupled only a minority of the payments available.
The point that the hon. Gentleman has totally missed is that we do not consider this to be an advantage. Indeed, when he said that we all thought that decoupling was a good thing and that we wished that we had had more of it, he seemed not to notice that he was shooting his own argument in the foot. If others wish to keep bureaucratic schemes that are, in many cases, very unpopular with their own farmers, it is no part of my plan to stand in their way. However, I believe that many farmers in Britain and across the rest of Europe—clearly, the German farmer whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned was not one of them—are fast coming round to the idea that they would like to have the advantage of total decoupling. We believe that it would give British farmers a competitive advantage, which is one of the reasons why we support it.
The hon. Gentleman also asked how the money would be worked out in terms of UK agriculture. As everyone knows from the January proposals, the initial package from the Commission contained quite a large gap between the funding that was raised in the United Kingdom for modulation and the money that could be spent here—not least, I am afraid, because of the appalling deal that was made by the previous Conservative Government when the basic agreement was reached on rural funding. We have made strides towards redressing that, however, and we hope to make further strides. At least we now have, potentially, some impartial criteria, rather than just an historic spend against which this can be judged. In consequence, we have massively improved the options available to UK farmers.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be insufficient revenues to cover the scheme proposed by Sir Don Curry. That is not the case. The details are buried in annexe something or other—I think that it is annexe 7, but I would not swear to it. The text that I saw this morning was literally hot off the photocopier at about 4 am, and I have lost track of what the number is, but there is a special annexe dealing with that issue, which we believe covers us completely for transitional arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman then asked about the possibility of the UK voluntarily modulating on top of the EU scheme. Given that the EU proposal—although larger than the original—is not for the 10 per cent. modulation proposed in Sir Don Curry's recommendation, we shall clearly be looking to address that issue. We shall have to consult on how we do that, but my impression was that both sides of the House welcomed Sir Don's report. If this represents a change of heart on the part of the Conservative party, it is interesting to note it.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether this represented a fair deal for the developing world, because some form of subsidy would continue. Sadly, perhaps, nobody has ever said that we could get a better deal and better market access for the developing world only if all subsidies that had been put in place by the developed world were abolished. Personally, I could 601live very

1225
happily with that happening, but no one has claimed that it was likely, or, indeed, part of the negotiating stance. It is not part of the package that has come of Geneva, which is intended to lay the basis for a sound foundation for the Doha discussions. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's ambition in that respect, but he is wrong to suggest that the package does not meet this requirement.
As for other remarks that other member states have made on these issues, this outcome was one of the goals that the Agriculture Council set itself. The atmosphere inside the Council was extremely constructive, helpful and co-operative, with all member states willing to try to help solve the specific problems that had arisen in other member states. One of the criteria that we set ourselves when we embarked on this final stage was that, if at all possible, there should be no specific winners, and no losers. That is the case.
Mr. Roger Williams: May I first draw the attention of hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests in relation to agriculture?
The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the move from support for European agriculture that is linked to production, but this has certainly not happened in the decisive way that the trade justice campaign would have wanted. It remains to be seen how the reforms will be viewed at the WTO negotiations later in the year. Indeed, the French ministry of agriculture was boasting on its website this morning that it had retained all its protection and all the ramifications of the CAP, in terms of support for production.
The reforms seem to amount to a virtual repatriation of agricultural policy, with all the dangers of trade distortion that that entails. There is also the danger of nations that are not as scrupulous as us in using state aid introducing such aid under the camouflage of the various options for decoupling and the implementation times. We will press the Government to design the scheme for this country in the best interests of the British farmer, and to allow for distinct solutions to be reached for the devolved nations.
We welcome a number of the announcements that have been made, in particular the commitment to retain at least 80 per cent. of the modulated money to be used in its country of origin. That is a great improvement on the first proposals, which limited us to less than 20 per cent., as a result of the Tories' reticence in claiming support for pillar 2 money in previous years. We also welcome the fact that the advisory service will no longer be compulsory, and that it will be a voluntary service that farmers can make use of, rather than being a requirement of the scheme.
We also welcome the ability of countries to decouple by 100 per cent. It was not clear from the right hon. Lady's speech whether it was her intention to introduce a scheme of that nature in this country. Perhaps she could let us know whether that is the case. We understand that the French expressed concern about the possibility of the abandonment and dereliction of land. In the peripheral areas of this country, too, there is concern that land could go out of agricultural production altogether. Will the Secretary of State tell us how the Government are going to tackle that issue? We
1226
also welcome the support for new entrants and young farmers, but it has not been spelled out in detail. It would be much appreciated if the Secretary of State could help us on that.
We are concerned about trade distortion, and I am not satisfied that the Secretary of State has given a clear indication of how the Government are going to ensure that farmers are supported in that regard. We have campaigned for a long time for a level playing field in terms of agricultural support, but this morning's announcement seems to leave us with a rather mountainous landscape, with hidden valleys, and peaks clouded in mist, because of the uncertainty over how other countries will implement the reforms, and the effect that that will have on British agriculture.
We are also worried about how the entitlements are going to work, especially for new entrants and for people who are taking up new tenancies. Will people who are giving up tenancies have ownership of the entitlements, or will those entitlements go back to the landlord? How will these provisions be applied when splitting land for sale?
Uncertainty is the greatest problem for any business, and that applies to farming, too. We are pleased that this announcement has been made. It takes us some way along the line, but I believe that it has still to be agreed by the Heads of Government meeting. If that is not the case, perhaps the Secretary of State could let us know. Farmers will want to make their business decisions shortly, and certainty is the key to their being able to do so.
Margaret Beckett: Like the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), the hon. Gentleman says that this will not be enough for the Trade Justice Movement. Let us show some common sense; it is not the job of organisations such as the Trade Justice Movement to be satisfied with whatever Governments achieve. Their job is always to be prodding us on. If they were not doing so, they would not be doing their job. I do not find it the slightest bit surprising that this will not be enough for such organisations, but it is an awful lot more than either they or anyone else—including me—thought we would get not so long ago. We must take these things with a pinch of salt.
I am mindful of the fact that every member state needs opportunities to provide prosperity for their work force and their farmers out of the package. I would simply and gently ask Opposition Members to cast their minds back—or just look through the press cuttings—to what some of my colleagues were saying some weeks or months ago and then reread what they are saying today. I say nothing more than that.
On trade distortion and abandonment, we recognise that there are dangers and we will discuss how those can best be overcome. But all these issues, such as the potential for the abandonment of land, were a real threat in the past. We believe that we now have a more constructive structure that will enable us to address them.
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not attempt to go into the whole issue of entitlement; it is a complex matter. The agreement contains a special section dealing with the issue of how entitlement arises and how it can be transferred where land is sold, rented

1227
and so on. We are mindful that there was a good deal of justified concern about that. We believe that the package has addressed that concern, but it is a little complex.
Paddy Tipping: This is a significant achievement that has long been sought, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown remarkable negotiating skills to belie those critics who said that the Fischler reforms would never happen. The important thing now is to work through the detail for British stakeholders. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she intends to move forward quickly with environment schemes, particularly the entry scheme and with a review of the agri-environment schemes? If we can achieve that, and achieve a simpler way into those schemes, it will help us to argue against the critics in the Chamber who will complain that other countries' ability to continue production payments until 2007 is anti-competitive. A new environment scheme must be the way forward.
Margaret Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. A couple of things strike me from what he says. First, we intend to press forward with the pilots for our entry-level scheme and with the or going work on agri-environment projects. My hon. Friend will not have had time to discover that there are a variety of other smallish but useful ways in which the overall settlement will be of assistance to the environment. For example, although we would have liked very much to get rid of set-aside altogether, we have obtained in the continued system the freedom to use land margins and so on—something that organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have wanted for a long time. There are lots of minor improvements along those lines.
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, although we want improvements to the environment, we believe that they can go hand in hand with continued and strengthened prosperity for farmers. Critics looking at the ability to continue production subsidy payments overlook the fact that every single economic analysis, of which I am aware, of the impact of decoupling suggests that it would make farmers better off. For that reason, although this is not generally in the public domain, there is increasing pressure, interest and comment from farming organisations in other member states—including some of those who were not too enthusiastic about these proposals—who realise the potential attractiveness to them. It has been said on behalf of one member state that the farmers there had a soul above having a higher income. I will believe that when I see it.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The key to removing subsidies in a so-called single market is the timetable for implementation. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) raised with the Secretary of State the question of the differential time scales to be applied by different countries. The potential downside to that is that market share will be taken by those countries in those commodities that retain subsidies over a period in which they will see off the
1228
competition. What analysis has the Secretary of State made of the impact of that process on the British market?
Margaret Beckett: With great respect to the hon. Lady, who has experience in the Department, her observations are misconceived. Only time will tell how people will use the freedoms that are now available to them, but there was very little demand for anything other than a general, broad common time scale for implementation of the package. Most member states were anticipating implementing at the same time and as early as they were free to do so. One feature of the way in which we strove to reach agreement—and one of the reasons why we got such a broad agreement—was people's willingness to allow freedom and room for manoeuvre to member states who had particular concerns, whether one thought that those concerns were necessarily as big a problem as they thought or not.
The hon. Lady spoke about market share. When I said that her comments were not right or germane, I meant that she was overlooking the fact that farmers will continue to receive a payment; it simply will not be geared to the level of production. That means that they will be able to produce for the market. One facet of the economic analysis of decoupling is that there is a strong suspicion that, in many cases, it will lead to a higher return precisely for that reason.
Mr. John Battle: My right hon. Friend deserves our thanks and congratulations for her tireless, detailed and sustained negotiating efforts—often out of the public eye—to bring about the achievement of real reform of the CAP. She will agree that general subsidies and, perhaps more importantly, dumping massively undermine developing countries' capacity to develop their own agriculture. Are any positive, alternative and supportive proposals to help small farming businesses in Britain, the EU and developing countries part of the new package? Such a strategic approach might help to create a new CAP that would contribute to the delivery of international trade justice.
Margaret Beckett: One of the things that we hope to do—we have begun this already in the UK on the back of the Curry commission proposals—is to offer marketing advice and support, as well as more general advice and support for people working together, whether in formal co-operatives or otherwise, to maximise their market opportunities. Such help and support is valued more widely.
My hon. Friend asked about general subsidies and dumping. He is right; this is a matter of great concern. I hope Opposition Members will not mind me saying, in all sincerity, that no matter how great their wish is to kick the Government by saying that this is not much of a deal, I hope that when they leave here they will say that the EU has moved a long way, even though they think it has not done nearly enough. It is now up to others. If we are honest, the EU has taken a much bolder stance in the negotiations than anyone would have anticipated. There is little point in doing that if it does not force others participating in the development round on to the back foot, forcing them to look again at what they do. There is perhaps not as fair a balance as there should be in some of the existing Harbinson proposals. It is time

1229
for those such as the Cairns group and the United States—they will be absolutely astonished at this package—to realise that it is up to them to look at what they do, as well. If we all move together, that will be of real benefit to the developing world.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Secretary of State, in her previous job as Leader of the House, introduced the timetabling of all Bills, so perhaps there is some rough justice in her now being subject to a procedure that allows no timetabling at all in respect of these negotiations.
The Secretary of State said a little earlier in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) that the question of a debate was a matter for the Leader of the House. I accept that that is true, but as she rightly acknowledged, there is no way that we can know all the details of the negotiations at this early stage. I am grateful for her statement, but it is important that a further debate be had in Government time, so that she can explain matters more fully. That would also give us a chance to examine the papers and end documents relating to the negotiations, so that we can find out how our constituencies will be affected. I am thinking in particular of small farmers in my constituency, who farm some very rough terrain indeed.
Margaret Beckett: Of course I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but having been Leader of the House, as he rightly says, I am mindful of my duty not to promise a debate, and even more mindful of my duty not to promise one in Government time.
Mr. Wayne David: Like other Members, I welcome this historic achievement. It will certainly be welcomed by many others, not least by the United Nations, which suggested such reform only a few days ago in the world economic survey. However, will my right hon. Friend use her good offices to help ensure that the United States of America follows the European Union's very good example?
Margaret Beckett: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have had many interesting discussions with the Secretary for Agriculture in the US, and with the US trade representative. I look forward to having more, not least in Mexico in September. My hon. Friend is right: the entire developed world has signed up to this. We have reached agreement on the question of trying to reduce subsidies. We have agreed that we should open up access to our markets and that we should strive for a successful development round, of which the next stage is Mexico in September. Of course, even a very good deal on agriculture is not sufficient for the Doha round as a whole, but it is equally true that without a decent deal, it would have been a stumbling block.
Ann Winterton: The EU is a rigid institution through which it is very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve change. The Commission is in the driving seat, and the Council of Ministers must negotiate on what is proposed. I say genuinely to the right hon. Lady, who claims that this is a new dawn for the common agricultural policy, that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We have a temperate climate, we grow grass and therefore produce milk, and
1230
we have good cereal-growing areas in the eastern regions. Yet British agriculture is currently at the lowest possible ebb. Does she believe that it will benefit from the negotiations? Might not the opposite be true?
Margaret Beckett: I respect the hon. Lady's expertise in these matters, but I believe that this genuinely is a whole new settlement for British agriculture that will be very much to the benefit of consumers and taxpayers, as well as to agriculture practitioners. I gently remind her that that is not my view alone. The proposals that we sought to secure—such as the freedom to decouple payments from production—were urged on us by consumer organisations, by those concerned about spending and the economy, and by farming organisations in the UK and elsewhere. Moreover, they were very much the thrust of the Curry commission proposals, which were widely welcomed in this House not so very long ago. So it is not only the Government who think that this is a dramatic new opportunity for British agriculture; so do many practitioners. But it is between all of us that we have a chance to deliver on that.
Mrs. Betty Williams: May I add my thanks and congratulations to my right hon. Friend for her hard work? No one in this House should underestimate the hard work that she has put in. She will be aware that the majority of farms in Wales are small farms. Can she highlight a couple of points that will persuade Welsh farmers to tell us, when we return to our constituencies tonight, that there is a welcome in the hillside and that this is a very good settlement indeed for them?
Margaret Beckett: First, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind remarks; I know that she appreciates just how much effort—effort on the part of many dozens of people, and down the years—goes into securing such an agreement. I take her point entirely about the structure of farming in Wales. Two points are germane to her remarks, and they will probably lead to a response from my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for devolved agriculture matters in the Welsh Assembly. We have secured the freedom for Wales to take decisions on its own about how it wishes to operate under these circumstances and rules. And because we have secured the national envelope, we have of course given ourselves freedom and resources that we can use. We work very closely with our colleagues in all three devolved bodies. They conveyed to us the flexibility that they would like to be able to use, should they need to do so, and we were able to secure it in the negotiations. So on the whole, we all feel that we have had a successful few days.
Mr. Simon Thomas: One thing that farmers in Wales and Scotland will welcome is the sweeping away of the plethora of farm payments, and the institution of a single payment. Many farmers will want to use that as a springboard for entrepreneurship and as a springboard into the market. Of course, we need to wait a little to consider the detail of the agreement, but perhaps the Secretary of State could confirm a couple of points now. On the national envelope to which she refers, will she confirm that the National Assembly for Wales will have complete freedom to run its own programmes and support

1231
mechanisms so far as the national envelope in Wales is concerned? Will she also confirm that the payments that she envisages are still farming money that will go to farming communities, not to a new plethora of project officers or to some form of rural development agency?
Finally, in saying that things could be better for British farmers, the Secretary of State seemed to acknowledge that there could be market distortion—albeit that she thinks that it will be in our favour. Nevertheless, market distortion in a single market is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. What will she do to ensure that it does not destabilise the market for British farmers?
Margaret Beckett: I would be very surprised indeed if the arrangements operated in such a way as to destabilise the market. I do not want to be over-optimistic, but I should not be too surprised to discover that, between us all, we are able to get our approach right and to take sensible and far-sighted decisions on how we use the opportunities before us. I should not be at all surprised to see other member states make much swifter moves in the same direction than are currently being anticipated. Indeed, there is widespread suspicion that that might be so.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about encouraging entrepreneurship, and he is absolutely right. I am told that one feature of the discussions that have taken place throughout the United Kingdom in the run-up to the negotiations has been that conversations with older farmers about the potential package tend to involve reference to the problems that such changes will create. However, discussions with younger farmers tend to turn very quickly to the opportunities that such changes will create, which I find one of the most encouraging signs.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the freedom within Wales. As I said, this is a devolved responsibility. He also asked me to confirm where and how such flexibility should be used. If he will forgive me for saying so, he seemed to ask me two somewhat contradictory questions.
Mr. Brian Jenkins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, first, on completion of the long, frustrating negotiations and, secondly, on the degree of success that she has achieved. We may not have gone all the way, but we have gone at least part of the way. I am particularly pleased with the reduction of support prices for butter and rice, which brings them closer to world prices. However, did the sugar regime stay intact? If the Secretary of State wishes to make a statement on the website, will she ask the French Government if she can use theirs because, apparently, the Opposition buy every single word on that site.
Margaret Beckett: I take my hon. Friend's point entirely. I am grateful for his welcoming of the reduction of support prices, and I would not disguise from him or the House the fact that we would have liked to see them go deeper and further. The sugar regime was not discussed at all in the negotiations and therefore remains as it is, but that does not mean that it is set in stone for ever. We anticipate discussions on outstanding regimes
1232
such as sugar starting around September. The Commission will bring forward proposals about that time.
Tony Baldry: At present, every cow in Europe receives about $2 a day in subsidy; what will be the subsidy for each cow following the agreement? What in the deal is less trade distorting, and what will give developing countries an incentive at Cancun to sign up to the Government's agenda on new issues and to the general agreement on trade in services? Unless we can deliver on agricultural reform, there is no incentive for developing countries to sign up to the developed world's agenda at the World Trade Organisation conference. Unless we can secure a significant reduction in subsidies for such things as EU cows, there is no reason why the developing world should co-operate with the World Trade Organisation.
Margaret Beckett: First, it will soon be impossible to answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the average subsidy per cow in the European Union, because once payment is no longer linked to production, it will not be as relevant. It will be for the individual farmer to decide how to optimise market opportunities and what that means for the balance of livestock. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) raised the issue of abandonment—he asked so many questions that I fear I may not have answered that one. We are all conscious of the fact that, once payments are decoupled from production levels, the question of abandonment may arise in some areas of some member states. However, we believe that the flexibilities allowed through the national envelope will enable countries, including ourselves, to address that problem if need be.
It is entirely right to recognise these as important issues to be set alongside other new issues at the trade talks. Discussions on matters other than agriculture are in the pipeline, and we retain the hope that agreement will be reached before Cancun, which will help to move things forward. The issues of market access, how we handle exports and so forth will come up in Cancun—and quite rightly so.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the huge effort that she has put into these matters? In common with other hon. Members, I hope that this will be a new dawn for agriculture—that would be appropriate because it seemed to take until dawn to reach agreement. The move away from production subsidies is welcome, but does the agreement allow—as did the initial proposals—for subsidy on land to remain, dependent on its historic use based on a three-year time frame? If so, what steps can the Secretary of State take to assist the many farmers in my constituency who farm unsupported crops and now fear that they may be undercut by other farmers who may switch to their crop and keep an historic subsidy?
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which I know is a source of anxiety. In fact, I can tell him that there will be an EU-wide ban on people taking such steps, so I hope that that reassures him. We had some reservations about whether it was the best method to tackle what is unquestionably a problem

1233
that needed to be addressed. It may appear to be a more minor matter for negotiation, but it is very important for those concerned.
Sir Archy Kirkwood: The statement is important and welcome, and the Secretary of State was generous enough to acknowledge that it was a team effort. It is good to know that the constituent nations and legislatures can work so well together. I should like to ask two brief questions. First, is the 80 per cent. modulation payback guaranteed, because some voices were raised late last night that the 80 per cent. is not all that it seems to be? Is it an unqualified return figure of 80 per cent.?
On degressivity post-2007, some people are slightly concerned that the EU Commission has a unilateral right to fix the rate and increase the degressivity. If that is not the case, it would greatly help some of the farmers in my constituency if the Secretary of State could make that clear.
Margaret Beckett: First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Secondly, how the 80 per cent. figure was arrived at is a little complicated, but as far as I am aware, there is no substance in suggestions that that will not be the net effect and outcome of the package. Finally, on degressivity and financial discipline, agreement was reached between member states and the Commission that strong financial disciplines were necessary and that some broad guidelines should be set down. As and when such trigger mechanisms should arise, further discussions are necessary on the matter.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on achieving for the first time for a long time a level playing field—at least in the medium term—for British farmers? Some member states might use national envelopes to provide unfair competition. If it became necessary, would the Secretary of State find something for our own national envelope?
Margaret Beckett: As always, there are restrictions on what use can be made of national envelopes. Throughout the working out of the agreement, the Commission tried to ensure—it will be considered in the legal text—that people do not use the freedoms and flexibilities available to them to create an uncompetitive environment or to undermine competition across the single market.
What often does not come through clearly enough when we get embroiled in the detail is the fact that we have secured a totally new structure for the CAP where the default option is that the support available is not coupled to production levels. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire raised the issue of abandonment. It is a matter of genuine concern for every member state—albeit slightly different concerns for each member state—but we have sought to build in enough flexibility to enable all to tackle those problems. The core of the new CAP is now different—totally different—from what it was before.
Mr. Mark Francois: I appreciate the fact that agreement was struck only in the early hours of this morning, but I want to ask the Secretary of State what
1234
plans the Government have to communicate the details of the agreement to individual farmers—ideally, in a format that would allow them fairly quickly to work out what the precise implications will be for their individual businesses. I am sure that she will appreciate that farmers, including those in my constituency, will be anxious to know what it really means for their bottom line. How do the Government intend to provide the information to enable them to work out the implications in as timely a manner as possible?
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and valid point, for which I am grateful. I can tell him that a great amount of work is now going on about how precisely to do so. He might like to ensure that the farmers in his constituency realise that nothing will happen before the end of 2004 or the beginning of 2005. Some may have preferred us to go a little earlier, but at least it gives us more time to get all the substantial administrative changes in place and to get the detail right. Farmers have time to assess their own options and to take their own decisions. One objective that we hope to achieve is stability for long-term planning for farmers and for their investment.
Geraint Davies: I give my right hon. Friend my complete congratulations on the considerable progress that has been made. However, will she make clear in Mexico in September what the real prize of decoupling subsidies from production is? Apart from the benefits that will be felt by consumers, small farmers and the environment, the real prize is that countless thousands of lives in the developing world will be saved as millions of people are lifted out of abject poverty. The decoupling will also remove a breeding ground for resentment that is being exploited by the proponents of terror. Will she make it clear in Mexico that the aim is not simply to create a fairer world by removing appalling trade distortions but that it is in everyone's long-term interest that we achieve a harmonious world by securing collective success and pushing forward relentlessly on this agenda?
Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I wholly share his view. I attended the meeting in Indonesia in the run-up to the Johannesburg summit on sustainable development, and then that summit itself. I witnessed the wrath of people from the developing world at the way in which the developed world exploited matters such as agricultural subsidies. I am therefore under no illusion as to how important they consider the matter to be. Indeed, I will not disguise from the House that I have bored stiff my colleagues in the Agriculture Council for the past 18 months by reminding them of the experiences of those of us who attended those summits, and of their duty to the outside world. I sincerely hope that that helped us get agreement last night.
Mr. Mark Hoban: In her statement, the Secretary of State said that there was a need to get the best possible settlement for taxpayers and consumers. Can she be a bit more specific about the deal's financial implications for those two groups?
Margaret Beckett: I cannot do so off hand, and certainly not after having been up all night. However, I

1235
mentioned in my statement the price cuts that will be of some assistance to consumers. Those are the sort of implications that we and everyone else will be trying to work through, as we assess the fine detail of the package.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the Secretary of State on reaching an historic agreement, but I remind her of the expression about being wary of Greeks bearing gifts. Will she give urgent attention to the vexed question of succession for tenant farmers? The matter is causing great anxiety to small tenant farmers in north Yorkshire and elsewhere in the country. She will be aware that a turkey factory in the Vale of York closed recently, with the loss of 300 jobs. As turkey is not a supported regime, will she raise with her EU partners the possibility that potentially fraudulent tariffs could be charged on turkey imported from Brazil, and the fact that those imports may be treated with illegal drugs? Clearly, that treatment is unacceptable, as is the fact that treated meat could be consumed by people in this country.
Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. If she would be kind enough to write to me about the matters that she has raised, I shall certainly look into them and see what can be done.
Sir Robert Smith: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has come to the House so soon after completing the negotiations, but I hope that she will be able to reassure farmers in my constituency on a certain point. The French are notorious in this country for standing up for their farmers at every opportunity. There is real concern that they have signed up to a deal that allows them to opt to do something different that will benefit their farmers. If a debate on the matter is not possible soon, will she at least make sure that documents are placed in the Library that show her Department's analysis of how competition will be affected by the
1236
differential arrangements? Also, she began her statement by describing how bureaucracy would be swept away, but questions from hon. Members about substitution, abandonment and unfair competition make it clear that, if she is not careful, bureaucracy will creep back in to govern the way that farmers use their land.
Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman's final point is perfectly fair. We are very mindful of that danger. I hope that he will recall that I said that we had hoped to find a better way to deal with the issue of unsupported crops, for example. Even so, there is no doubt that the deal represents a massive change in terms of bureaucracy.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the record of the French Government, who are rightly proud of the way that they defend the interests of their farmers and others at Agriculture Councils and on other occasions. However, I remind the House of the policies pursued by the Government. The negotiating stance on which we sought agreement was pretty well the stance that all the relevant interests in this country wanted. They believe that it is in their interests to move to this new structure for the CAP, and I share that view.
One of the key differences between the UK and other EU countries is that we have suffered such terrible experiences in recent years. That has forced almost all—certainly great swathes—of the farming community here to think very hard about where the future of farming lies. People in farming in this country have thought very hard about how best to transform their lives and their prosperity. They have considered the future of European farming in a way that has not happened to the same extent in other member states. I repeat what I have said before: had—heaven forfend—the negotiations been put off for a few more weeks, it is possible that there would have been a notable shift in attitude. Privately and behind the scenes, farming organisations across Europe are beginning to say, "Well, actually, maybe this is something we want to do too."

Points of Order
2.36 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have given Mr. Speaker advance notice of this point of order.
The list of present ministerial responsibilities states that the Attorney-General, the Government's principal legal adviser, is responsible for dealing with questions of international law, EU law, and human rights. It adds that the Solicitor-General deputises for the Attorney-General in this House. I was therefore delighted to see, in the list of questions published on Tuesday 24 June, that I had secured question No. 24 in today's oral questions to the Solicitor-General. I was therefore somewhat surprised to receive a letter stating that my question had been transferred to the new Department for Constitutional Affairs, and that as a result I would receive only a written answer, and would not have the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.
I know that Mr. Speaker, as custodian of hon. Members' interests, deprecates that sort of transfer, especially as my question was entirely in order, according to the list of ministerial responsibilities. Can we have a ruling as to why my question was transferred? I was telephoned by a clerk in the new Department, but I found it very difficult to return his call, as three clerks there share the same name. I was given the run-around by the Department—not the sort of treatment that I would expect to receive.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have considerable sympathy for the hon. Lady, given the situation in which she found herself. Of course, the creation of the new Department means that a somewhat transitional situation exists. However, the transfer of questions is a matter entirely for the Government, and not for the Chair.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have received a report of an incident that occurred during questions to the Solicitor-General. The Liberal Democrat spokesman on that subject, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), scuttled along the Opposition Front Bench immediately after the Conservative spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), had asked a question of the Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General was attempting to reply as the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon cut right across the line of sight. Would it be possible for you to advise the Liberal Whip to give a tutorial to his colleagues on how to behave in the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On that particular incident, the result was that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) was not called to put a question. However, in respect of general matters of behaviour in the House, I would wish that all hon. Members would
1238
take account of the courtesies. I have noticed that on too many occasions people use the House as a corridor. They are breaking the line of sight and failing to respect the position of the Chair when they enter and leave the Chamber. I hope that all the Chief Whips will take notice of these matters. The standard of behaviour in the House is a matter of great importance. We should uphold it, unless we make specific changes to the rules of courtesy that have been traditional in this place.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to early-day motion 1476, in the name of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and 48 Conservative Members? It criticises Labour Members who supported early-day motion 799 on top-up fees for not voting for an identical motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition on 25 June. Among those Members criticised for not acting in line with their previous commitment is my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Everybody in the House and more widely knows that my hon. Friend has had an operation and is under doctor's orders not to attend the House, so that he should be criticised, among other people, for not being here on that occasion seems obnoxious. There is a distinction between Members who abstain because they cannot help but do so and those who abstain deliberately. I am one of those who abstained deliberately, so I am referred to in the early-day motion. I can readily and easily defend my abstaining on that occasion because the motion was tabled by the Opposition in the context of their claim that they would cut the numbers—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I get the hon. Gentleman's drift—sufficient to know that that is not a point of order for the Chair. However, he has put the matter on the record. Some slip-up may have occurred and I am sure that we all wish the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) well and a speedy return to the House.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have considerable sympathy on the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). Before I deal with that, may I say that I am grateful for his backhanded support for the point that we sought to make.
In drawing up the list, we included all those who signed the early-day motion, but we realise that there are exceptional circumstances in relation to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). We are all very fond of the hon. Gentleman and we are sorry that he has not been in the Chamber. His name should have been excluded and, having discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), we shall take steps, on conclusion of these proceedings, to ensure that an amendment is tabled to that effect.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is equally not a point of order, but I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.

Standards and Privileges
[Relevant document: The First Special Report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Session 2002-03, HC 516.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Prior to the main business, I shall make a short statement that I hope will be helpful to the House.
Before I call the Leader of the House to move motion No. 1, "Standards and Privileges", I would like to make clear how the debate will proceed. The debate on motion No. 1 will also cover the detailed proposals set out in motions Nos. 2 and 3. At the end of the debate, the Chair will put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on all three motions. Members wishing to ask questions or raise points about the Standing Order amendments in motion No. 2 or the provisions in motion No. 3 about the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner should do so in the course of their speech on motion No. 1.
2.43 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Peter Hain): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm. 5663), the Response to that Report by the House of Commons Commission (HC 422), and the Second Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 403); and agrees with the recommendation in paragraph 50 of that Report that, in appropriate cases, the House should impose a penalty of withholding a Member's salary for a specified period without suspending the Member.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Wicks committee, published its eighth report on standards of conduct in the House of Commons on 21 November last year. I am sure that I speak for the House in expressing my thanks to Sir Nigel Wicks and his committee for their thoughtful, thorough and evenhanded approach to this sensitive and politically-charged subject.
The Wicks committee found that
"standards in the House of Commons are generally high, and that the overwhelming majority of members seek to, and in practice do, uphold high standards of propriety."
It found that
"the fundamental structure of the current system for regulating standards of conduct in the House of Commons is sound".
Nevertheless, it considered that the current system had fallen short of delivering confidence in certain respects. The Government accept that analysis.
It is of the greatest importance that the conduct of Members of the House meets, and is seen to meet, the high standards expected by the Wicks committee, and also by our constituents. Lapses, however rare, are very damaging to public confidence in the House and in our parliamentary democracy. If lapses occur, and are not seen to be tackled with sufficient rigour, the effect is many times worse. Our system for regulating standards of conduct must be transparent, fair and effective.
The Committee on Standards and Privileges published its observations on the Wicks report's recommendations with its second report on 11 February. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and his
1240
Committee for the careful consideration that they have given to the Wicks report and for their positive proposals in response to the Wicks committee's 27 recommendations.
I will leave it to the Chairman of the Committee to explain its thinking and in what respects it has met the letter of the Wicks recommendations and in what respects, and for what reasons, it has offered some alternative way forward, meeting in a different way the spirit of the Wicks recommendations. The Government are content to accept the Committee's recommendations and I have tabled a motion to make the necessary changes to the Standing Orders to give them effect.
We have slightly diverged from the Committee's recommendations in only one respect. In paragraph 62, the Committee noted the inter-party understanding that its Chairman be drawn from the Opposition parties and recommended that in future it should be provided for, preferably by amendment of Standing Order No. 149. The Government regard that as a strong convention and we intend that the Chairman should continue to be drawn from the Opposition parties, as both the Standards and Privileges Committee and the Wicks committee have recommended. We agree with them, but it would be unprecedented to make that a requirement of the Standing Orders.
The Government have agreed—after some consideration, as it is unprecedented for Select Committees of the House—to the Wicks committee's recommendation that no one party should hold an overall majority on the Committee on Standards and Privileges. We accept the Standards and Privileges Committee's recommendation that that should be implemented gradually, by natural wastage, to avoid over-rapid change and loss of expertise. Subject to the agreement of the usual channels, and of the House, we intend to move towards a Committee of 10 Members, of whom five would be from the Government party and five from the Opposition parties.
Similarly, we agree to the recommendation that Parliamentary Private Secretaries should no longer serve on the Committee on Standards and Privileges. While there has been no suggestion that those members of the Committee who have served as PPSs have acted on the Committee with anything other than independence of mind, it is important to ensure that there can be no perception that the Committee's independence is compromised by proximity to Government. As the Committee recommended, it is our intention to achieve that change gradually.
The House of Commons Commission has considered the recommendations in the Wicks report, which apply to it: those relating to the status of the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and the terms and methods of his appointment. Its report was published on 11 February.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Leader of the House has just said that he hopes that the recommended changes to the balance of Committee membership and to PPS membership will be made gradually. I understand that, but can he tell us when he expects that process to be complete?
Peter Hain: There was no recommendation about that, but I think that it should be sooner rather than

1241
later. That would be in the spirit of the recommendations of both Committees. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
The Commission accepted the Wicks committee's recommendation that the Commissioner should be appointed for a non-renewable fixed term of between five and seven years—it suggests five—and that he should continue to be appointed by the House on the recommendation of the Commission. I see that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood) is in his place.
Only one of the recommendations of the Wicks committee relates to a Government responsibility: recommendation 6 proposes that it should be an explicit requirement of the ministerial code that Members who are Ministers must co-operate with any investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, at all stages. The Government accept that recommendation. In fact, it was agreed prior to the Wicks report that an amendment should be made to the ministerial code to add an additional sentence at the end of section 1 to make it clear that Ministers must also comply at all times with the requirements that Parliament has itself laid on them as Members, including in particular the codes of conduct for their respective Houses. The amendment, which is already implemented, will be incorporated in the next published edition of the ministerial code.
Peter Bottomley: I wonder whether the Leader of the House could confirm to the House who is responsible for upholding the ministerial code. I have always assumed that it was the Prime Minister, but if it is a different answer perhaps at some stage in the debate it will be given to us.
Peter Hain: It will be the Prime Minister, obviously, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
The first motion before us this afternoon—as well as taking note of the Wicks committee report, and of the Standards and Privileges Committee and commission responses—affirms that the House agrees with the recommendation of the Standards and Privileges Committee that, in appropriate cases, the House should impose a penalty of withholding a Member's salary for a specified period without suspending the Member.
The Wicks committee recommended that the House should introduce additional financial penalties without suspension, as a sanction for breach of the code of conduct. The Standards and Privileges Committee supported that, recommending—in paragraph 50—that the House should have the power, on a recommendation from the Committee, to withhold salary for a specified period from a Member found to have breached the code. If legislation were required, it looked to the Government to introduce it.
The legal advice obtained confirms that legislation is not necessary: the House has the power to withhold salary, and does so when Members are suspended. I understand that the Committee accepts that advice. Nevertheless, it is right that the House should be given the opportunity to affirm that it is content for this to be done in appropriate cases. It would seem very reasonable that the House should be able to impose this sanction—in very rare cases, I would hope—while
1242
allowing the Member to conduct his or her parliamentary business on behalf of his or her constituents.
The second motion on the Order Paper would make a number of changes to Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards and Privileges) and to Standing Order No. 150 (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards). These are to give effect to recommendations of the Standards and Privileges Committee and of the commission. An explanatory memorandum has been made available in the Vote Office to explain the effects of this somewhat complex motion, and how it relates to the Committee's and the Commission's recommendations.
The amendment to Standing Order No. 149 makes explicit the S and P Committtee's power to appoint legal advisers, in the light of the Wicks committee recommendation that it should appoint an outside legal adviser to assist it with its work on a regular basis. In respect of Standing Order No. 150, the new paragraph (2A) implements a recommendation of the Wicks committee that the Commissioner's role in the rectification procedure should be set out clearly.
The new paragraphs (2B) to (2G) implement the proposal by the Standards and Privileges Committee for an investigatory panel. New paragraph (2H) requires the Commissioner to make an annual report to the House, as recommended by the Wicks committee. I understand that the Commissioner plans to make his first annual report shortly.
The revised paragraph (3) strengthens the Commissioner's independence by setting out more specifically than in the existing paragraph the circumstances in which he may be dismissed, and the procedure that is to be followed to do so. There has been concern about the Commissioner's security of tenure and this has been seen as compromising his independence. The amendment seeks to allay that concern, while allowing a means of dismissal in case the Commissioner were to become unfit or unable to hold office.
Mr. McLoughlin: I have a slight concern about this and I should like to express it and ask the Leader of the House whether he may be going a bit too far here. At the moment, the only way that the Commissioner can be fired or dismissed is on a motion of the whole House. A similar motion would be required to get rid of, let us say, the Speaker of the House of Commons, should the House so wish to do. The proposals would make it much tougher to bring about the dismissal of the Commissioner. Is the Leader of the House really sure that that kind of toughening up is necessary?
Peter Hain: I think so, but this is really a matter on which the House should make a judgment. It would still be possible for the Commissioner to be removed, as the hon. Gentleman says, by resolution of the House, but only if there were clear and transparent grounds for concluding that the Commissioner was unfit to hold his office or unable to carry out his functions. I remind the House of the public's concern about the Commissioner's security of tenure—it is an important

1243
point—and of the need not only to ensure but to demonstrate his independence, particularly given events a little while ago.
Peter Bottomley: Is it not right that the fuller answer to my hon. Friend is that it is tougher, in that a majority of the Standards and Privileges Committee would be required to pass a motion, and only after that could the resolution be considered by the House?
Peter Hain: Indeed; I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
The third motion puts in place the proposals of the House of Commons Commission on the terms of appointment of future Parliamentary Commissioners for Standards and, as the commission recommended, modifies the basis of the appointment of the current Commissioner so as to bring it in line with these.
Paragraph (a) provides for all future appointments to be for a fixed term of five years, and to be nonrenewable. Paragraph (b) provides for the appointment of the present Commissioner, which currently runs for three years from 13 February 2002 and is renewable, to run for five years from the date of this debate—that is, to 25 June 2008—and to be non-renewable. The Wicks committee had recommended that future appointments should be for a non-renewable fixed term, set by the House, of between five and seven years. The commission feels that five years strikes a reasonable balance between giving the Commissioner the opportunity to establish and develop his or her role, and allowing for a fresh approach from time to time.
The proposals to improve the Commissioner's security of tenure and to make the appointment for a fixed term and non-renewable, comprise a package that is designed to reinforce both the reality and the public perception of the Commissioner's independence.
I understand that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Philip Mawer, has agreed to the proposed modifications of his terms and conditions of employment and is willing to serve the House for a further five years, and I am most grateful to him for that commitment. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the wisdom, assiduity and independence of mind that Sir Philip has demonstrated in his service to date.
The Wicks committee has taken the view that there should be primary legislation to define the post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards as an office-holder, appointed and paid for, but not employed by, the House. The Government are not convinced that there is a need to introduce legislation in this area—we believe that the measures that it is hoped that the House will agree today should be sufficient to ensure the independence of the Commissioner—but of course we remain willing to consider the case for legislation, should a clear need emerge.
I take the opportunity, in concluding, to apologise to the House for the fact that I must depart early from the debate—I should stress, to attend to my duties as Leader of the House.
Mr. Eric Forth: Oh good.
Peter Hain: I said that just for the right hon. Gentleman's benefit. However, my very capable deputy,
1244
my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), will be here to wind up the debate, and if it continues for a long period I shall return to House. I commend the three motions to the House.
2.57 pm
Sir George Young: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and to commend the report of my Committee, the Standards and Privileges Committee, to the House. I begin by thanking the Leader of the House for his kind words about the work of my Committee and his constructive response to the recommendations that we have made.
Our business this afternoon has its roots in the report of the Wicks committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was published last November. This is actually the third occasion on which that Committee has reported on our standards, and the particular trigger this time was the circumstances, towards the end of 2001, that surrounded the decision to hold an open competition to fill the post of Commissioner, rather than automatically reappoint the present Commissioner's predecessor. I quite understand that that warranted a fresh look at our procedures.
As the Leader of the House said, we are all grateful to the Wicks committee for its continuing interest in the House's arrangements for maintaining standards. It is right that our system of regulation is open to critical, independent and professional review, and that can only help enhance public confidence in our arrangements. It is good that Sir Nigel Wicks was able to write in his covering letter to the Prime Minister that
"following the publication of the First Report in 1995, real progress has been made in establishing and enforcing high standards of conduct".
However, we must never be complacent, and I agree wholeheartedly with what Sir Nigel said when he said that one or two serious cases of misconduct can lead to disproportionate loss of public confidence, not only in individual Members but in the House of Commons as an institution. Such a loss of confidence is in the interests of none of us here today; indeed, it damages the democratic process.
Therefore both the Commissioner and my Committee are placing an increased emphasis on information and training, to help hon. Members to comply with the rules, thus minimising the scope for damaging breaches. We have also suggested changes to make some of the rules relating to allowances more explicit and more effective.
The thrust of the eighth report is threefold: first, to strengthen the independence of the Commissioner; secondly, to enhance the perceived neutrality of my Committee; and, thirdly, to improve and clarify the regulatory process. The Wicks committee's stated aim was to deliver public confidence in the House, while carrying the confidence of the House itself. To do that, the committee made 27 recommendations, all but one of them addressed to the House—the last one being addressed to the Government, to which the Leader of the House has referred. I endorse the preference of the Wicks committee for implementation through internal mechanisms of the House, such as Standing Orders, rather than through legislation.
In its own report, my Committee has given careful consideration to each of the recommendations that the Wicks committee addressed to the House. As I said a

1245
moment ago, we share the same aims and objectives, so it is not surprising that we therefore recommend acceptance of the substance of the vast majority of the Wicks committee recommendations. Where we have felt unable to follow the precise terms of its recommendations, we have, wherever possible, proposed alternatives to achieve the same objectives, but in a way that we think does so more effectively. Wicks's overall assessment of the proposal that my Committee has made in its report is that it will be
"a significant improvement on the current arrangements".
The House will be grateful for that endorsement.
The Wicks committee report was published in the context of an ongoing programme, with the Commissioner and the Committee working in tandem. Following a revision of the code and the guide, approved by the House in May last year, a completely new register was published in December 2002, with a much sharper focus than in the past and reflecting the more vigorous registration requirements to which the House had agreed. The Commissioner expects to initiate a more comprehensive review of the code later this year, the outcome of which will be considered by the committee.
The Commissioner has also, with the Committee's encouragement and approval, published procedural guidance for Members and other guidance, such as a comprehensive media strategy, which is to be followed, later this summer, by guidance on how frivolous or vexatious complaints will be handled. Pending the review of the code, a number of the Wicks recommendations have been given effect through such practice notes. Likewise, we have given effect to other recommendations, which may be formalised when the guide to the rules is next revised—probably early in the next Parliament, given that it is only a year since the House approved the last major revision.
One of the Wicks committee's key recommendations, which is designed to improve the fairness with which Members are investigated, is the proposed establishment of an investigatory panel. That proposal was designed to deal with cases—they are expected to arise only infrequently—that in the opinion of my Committee met two criteria: first, proof of the complaint would be likely to lead to the imposition of a serious penalty on the Member; and, secondly, that there appeared to be significant contested areas of fact that would not be properly decided unless the Member was given the opportunity to call witnesses and/or cross-examine other witnesses.
My Committee was sympathetic to the aims of that recommendation, but had a number of concerns about the details, not least that it left the Commissioner with neither an obvious role in establishing the facts, nor an opportunity to express an opinion on whether they point to a breach of the code. We have therefore proposed an alternative approach for those circumstances, which we hope are rare, where the Commissioner would sit with two assessors—one legally qualified, the other a Member of the House nominated by the Speaker. However, the Commissioner would retain sole responsibility for reporting the facts to the Committee and for expressing an opinion on whether the code had been breached. The proposed new Standing Order paragraphs (2B) to (2H) would give effect to that.
1246
We believe that that approach will meet the Wicks committee's objectives, while maintaining the centrality of the Commissioner's role in investigating complaints. As I said earlier, those arrangements are designed to be used only in the most serious and most difficult cases, and it remains the intention of both the Committee and the Commissioner that our existing procedures should be used to handle the vast majority of cases.
Another difference of view between my Committee and the Wicks committee is over taking evidence in public. My Committee understands the arguments for taking evidence in public, as is indeed the norm for most Select Committees. However, it considers that there are compelling practical arguments, to which we refer in paragraphs 44 to 47 of the annexe to our report, against taking evidence in public in standards cases. So we have no plan to change our present practice in that respect, but we shall, of course, continue our present practice with regard to publishing our reports of the evidence that we have taken, whether in public or in private.
The Wicks committee once again raised the issue of whether the House should introduce financial penalties, without suspension, as a sanction for breaching the code. As the Leader of the House has just said, to do so would give the House greater flexibility over the range of penalties that it could impose, and a financial penalty could be imposed on a Member without depriving his or her constituents of their representation in the House—a consequence of suspension about which concern has been expressed in the past.
My Committee has recommended that the House should have an additional power to impose on a Member who is found to have breached the code a specific penalty of withholding salary for a specified period. As the Leader of the House said, when we published our report, it was unclear whether legislation was needed. I understand it is not needed. Indeed, Standing Order No. 45A provides the framework for withholding the salaries of suspended Members. I hope that the House will agree that that will be a useful addition to its armoury in dealing with breaches of the code.
The Wicks committee made a number of proposals for change in the composition of the Committee, designed, in its view, to strengthen public perceptions of its independence. The effect of the proposed changes would be to prevent any party holding an overall majority on the Committee, to make it a requirement that the Chairman be drawn from the Opposition parties and to exclude Parliamentary Private Secretaries from membership.
I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Committee for the way it works. My firm view is that, when Members enter Committee Room 13, they leave behind in the Committee Corridor their party affiliations. A fly on the wall would find it impossible to deduce party affiliations from the contributions that Members make. It is a matter of considerable pride to me that our key decisions are always unanimous.
I should like to pay a particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) for the distinguished contribution that he has made to our work. His recent departure, to concentrate on his valuable work as Chairman of the Liaison Committee and as a member of the Public Accounts Committee,

1247
was a serious loss to my Committee, the impact of which has been, I am pleased to say, significantly offset by the welcome appointment of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) in his place. I understand that we may also lose the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), one of the Committee's longest serving members. Again, I thank him for his significant contribution to our work. I wish him well in his new post as PPS to a Secretary of State.
Despite our confidence that the present arrangements work well, my colleagues and I have none the less concluded that, in the interests of public perception of the Committee's independence, the House should go along with those three recommendations from the Wicks committee. In this area, perception is almost as strong as reality. I am grateful to the Government for clearly endorsing them today, as some aspects break new ground, particularly that relating to party balance. Although they are not being enshrined in the Standing Orders on this occasion, I hope that, with experience of their operation, the Government may feel able to do so on a future occasion.
The Wicks committee also made a number of recommendations designed to strengthen the position of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the current Commissioner, Sir Philip Mawer, for the way in which he carries out his duties. He came to the task in difficult circumstances, at a time when confidence in our self-regulatory arrangements had been dented by the circumstances surrounding the departure of his predecessor. He has worked hard both to re-establish confidence and, with the Committee, to build a fresh approach to standards enforcement that places a significantly greater emphasis on education and prevention. His first annual report is expected to be made to the House shortly, and it will put into the public domain more information about the work of his office than ever before. I hope that that will also enhance the accountability, both to the House and to the public, for his stewardship of his role.
The proposals regarding the Commissioner's security of tenure, terms and period of office and the resourcing of his office are principally matters for the House of Commons Commission, rather than for my Committee—and I see three House of Commons Commissioners in the Chamber this afternoon. We are grateful to the House of Commons Commission for its willingness to provide whatever resources are needed to enable the Commissioner to do his job properly, and we support the proposals on security of tenure and on the terms and conditions of the Commissioner's appointment that will be put to the House shortly.
In recent months, some sections of the press have commented on an apparent lack of activity on the part of the Committee. To our critics, that is evidence that the system is ineffective. I think that fewer reports of Members behaving badly is good news rather than bad news. Indeed, I hope that the approach of both the Commission and the Committee of putting a greater emphasis on education and prevention will, over time, result in fewer Members finding themselves in breach of
1248
the code and will promote yet higher standards of conduct. We will, however, continue to seek to deal firmly with cases of proven breaches of the rules.
I believe that our system of self-regulation is effective in ensuring that high standards of conduct are the norm in the House and that those who fail to meet them are punished appropriately. The Wicks committee concluded that standards are generally high and that the overwhelming majority of Members seek to, and, in practice, do uphold standards of propriety. The Committee and the Commissioner are seeking to ensure through enhanced openness about the procedures, while maintaining confidentiality in the handling of individual cases, that public confidence in our arrangements is enhanced. The changes that the House is being invited to make today, on the recommendations of my Committee, should also act to enhance public confidence. I commend them and my Committee's report to the House.
3.10 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I suppose that I should start by making a kind of declaration of interest. I was a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee in the previous Parliament, and I am currently a member of the House of Commons Commission. I therefore have a direct interest in and relevance to today's proceedings. I hope that if my comments are brief—unusually brief by my standards, some might say—that will in no way indicate a lack of interest on my part or a lack of importance attached to the issues. On this occasion, happily, I am in a position to endorse not only what the Leader of the House said but what my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee said. It is obvious from their comments that a lot of thought has been put into this matter on behalf of the House by the Government and in particular by the Committee, and I am more than happy, on behalf of Her Majesty's official Opposition, to endorse what has already been said.
I want to quote from the second report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, which sums up the dilemma that faced Members of the House following the Wicks committee report. Paragraph 5 on page 6 states:
"The Wicks Committee rightly recognises that the system for regulating standards of conduct must be consistent with constitutional principles, including the need to ensure that Parliament remains free to regulate its own affairs without executive or judicial interference. This collection of related rights and immunities is essential if Parliament is to be able effectively to discharge its responsibilities as the nation's legislature on behalf of the people; the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege asserted as 'axiomatic' the inclusion of the responsibility of each House for disciplining its own members."
That illustrates rather well the assertion and the principle in which I firmly believe—because Members of this House are individually accountable to their electorates, and because the House as a whole is therefore very much accountable to voters, there is always an ultimate check and sanction on Members way above anything that any committee can bring to bear. I hope that that is very much borne in mind by those who consider what is said in the House today and the approach that we take. Of course it is right that we constantly examine and re-examine our mechanisms to satisfy ourselves that they work properly, and of course it is right, as we are doing today, that we respond to

1249
recommendations such as those that Wicks brought forward. Equally, it is right that we assert ultimately what is set out so eloquently and succinctly in that paragraph—it is for us to judge, knowing that in the end we are accountable to our voters, as few others are, whether they be on elevated committees or even, dare I say it, in the press. I hope that we are able to make that important distinction.
Having said that, I would like to welcome very much the Government's response to some of the quite tricky recommendations that emerged both from Wicks and from my right hon. Friend's Committee. I pay tribute to the Leader of the House and to the Government for accepting some of those recommendations, not least those regarding the composition of the Committee, which in its own way is groundbreaking, and the Leader of the House's undertaking about the chairmanship of the Committee. It is appropriate in that regard to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for demonstrating that having a Committee of the House chaired by a distinguished member of the Opposition is not only something that can be made to work but made to work very satisfactorily, and can add to the perception of the effectiveness, impartiality and independence of the Committee. In addition, in relation to the no doubt painful recommendations about the role of Parliamentary Private Secretaries in the Committee, I can attest to the fact that, as my right hon. Friend said, the way in which the Standards and Privileges Committee has worked—certainly in the previous Parliament, and I have no reason to doubt that the same has been the case in this—has been consensual. There has been no evidence that I ever saw of partiality by members of the Committee. Nevertheless, on this occasion, we are right to take the view that perception, in this area perhaps above all others, is of vital importance, and that we take such steps as are seen to be necessary to reassure members of the public that this Committee, with the vital role that it plays in our business, is above and beyond any reproach, which I believe that it is and will continue to be.
All in all, while the Wicks committee did invaluable work, and it has rightly caused us to re-examine our position and our procedures in this matter, we have taken a responsible and robust view of what it said. What has been recommended and what the Government have said in response will bear examination and will ultimately enhance the reputation of the House. There is some evidence that that is already happening and, without rehearsing all the details again, what my right hon. Friend said is significant in that the number of complaints—let us remember that they are mainly from the public—has been dramatically reduced over the past year or two, which I hope indicates that matters in this important area are improving and will continue to improve, supported by the mechanisms that these resolutions today will put in place. I warmly recommend them to the House. I support them and I hope that the House will do so too.
3.17 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I wish not only to reiterate in precise terms what the shadow Leader of the House said about our accountability to the electorate,
1250
which it is important to rehearse, but to say how disappointed I am that the House is not full to hear him not only congratulate the Government but thank them. When the House was fuller, earlier in the day, I am sure that he would have found a different reaction. It is an almost unique occasion—I am sure that we should all relish this moment—and we will make sure that it is given prominence in future.
In common with several other Members present today, I gave evidence to the Wicks committee. I certainly do not want to rehearse all the issues that the committee considered, but I would like to say, as the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee has said, what a thorough job it did on our behalf. There is value in someone from outside the parliamentary building and the ethos of this place looking at our procedures and testing them against other criteria. I also endorse the points that the Chairman of the Committee made at the end of his speech with which I agree entirely.
This area raises important issues, which the Wicks committee and the subsequent discussions in the Committee and the Commission have underlined. Is the system for self-regulation of the House by the House sufficiently robust? Does it provide sufficient reassurance to the electorate to enhance and restore confidence in parliamentary integrity? Is it sufficiently even-handed to provide natural justice for those alleged to have infringed the code of conduct while also ensuring that justice is done and seen to be done?
I pay tribute to both the Committee and the Commissioner. There has been a steady and substantial improvement on all those counts in recent months, both in performance and perception. That is largely due to the fact that we had a fresh approach by new people, including, of course, the new Chairman and the new Commissioner. If this debate had taken place 18 months ago, it would have been extremely controversial. I guess that not only would the Galleries have been full but the House would have been full. The improvements that have taken place over that period are, if I may put it this way, a tribute to the new regime. It can also be said that there is much to commend in the guide and code improvements of 2002.
That does not mean that there might not be dangers in the future. Several witnesses drew it to the attention of the Wicks committee that the tit-for-tat period in the run-up to the general election was a real problem. Often spurious accusations against Members were made by Members of other parties, which were carefully timed to seek publicity for the complaint, in the knowledge that they would take time to feed through the system and, therefore, the result—probably, if not always, clearance and dismissal—would come after polling day. That affected hon. Members of all parties and did no credit to the House of Commons.
David Davis: Recommendation 7 of the Wicks report says:
"The Guide to the Rules should be amended to set out clearly the means by which the Committee on Standards and Privileges would deal with frivolous or vexatious complaints."

1251
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should take a much sterner line on vexatious complaints and introduce penalties for those who undertake such complaints? If he is, I agree with him.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am glad to find support for the view in the House and I suspect that it might be shared among all parties.
I want to give a specific example, and I hope that the Chairman of the Committee and the Commissioner will take it seriously. I am aware of a Member against whom a set of accusations was made, some of which were endorsed by a Member of another party who had designs on nomination to the constituency that the first Member represents. It took more than six months to clear the complaints, so an enormous amount of work was hanging over that Member during the whole process and he was distracted from his duties in the House. Such a situation could be damaging to a Member's work in certain circumstances. I understand that the Commissioner has cleared the Member of all the complaints, with his usual excellent care and consideration, but the process took six months.
I entirely endorse the point made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) that, in such circumstances, it should be open to the Commissioner to recommend to the Committee that action be taken. That action should be known to the House, and perhaps publicised more widely so that we would discourage such complaints because Members of all parties may suffer. The situation is especially likely in the run-up to a general election, so now is the time to take action. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support and I hope that he was speaking on behalf of his party because that might be substantially helpful as we discuss the matter.
My colleagues and I entirely agree with the suggestion in the first motion that the Committee should be able to recommend a salary penalty. We accept the Leader of the House's argument that other concerns such as the requirement for an Opposition Member to chair the Committee could be dealt with more appropriately in the way suggested rather than being a Standing Order requirement, as at the moment. We, like other hon. Members, note the Government's commitment that that would be their "firm intention"—I think that that was the Leader of the House's expression.
With regard to the third motion, I understand the Leader of the House's point that at this stage it is difficult to know whether it is necessary to make changes to the Commissioner's role by statute. I agree with him because, for goodness' sake, we should avoid bringing such measures through the House with the full legislative panoply. I am sure that he appreciates that time is precious.
I think that all the other matters in the third motion reflect the Commission's views. Unlike other participants in the debate, I have no official status because I am a member of neither the Commission nor the Committee. Thank goodness for that, because it is the last thing that I would want—I am glad that the matter is in the capable hands of the right hon. Member
1252
for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The Commission has agreed to recommendations 20, 21, 22 and 24 of the Wicks committee.
While addressing the second motion, I wish to follow the sequence of the excellent explanatory memorandum. I note that the Leader of the House quoted from it extenso—if that is the right word—and rightly so, because the House's explanatory memoranda are so good that they are generally much better than the motions, let alone the Bills.
Mr. Peter Luff: In extenso.
Mr. Tyler: In extenso. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his correction.
All the measures make good sense, including the amendments to Standing Orders Nos. 149 and 150. I was slightly worried when it sounded like the Leader of the House and the Chairman of the Committee were giving way somewhat on the need for independent legal advice. I noted that one of the Wicks committee's key conclusions was:
"to deliver public confidence now, the post of Commissioner alone is an insufficient representation of an independent or external element in the House's system of regulation."
I do not think that we have heard the last of that. Although the move on the investigative sub-committee procedures is perfectly acceptable, we might need to return to the issue if there is insufficient perception of independence.
I have no problem with paragraphs (2B), (2C) and (2D) of the motion because they are perfectly sensible. Paragraphs (2E), (2F) and (2G) also hang together and follow through perfectly well. Paragraph (2H) will just provide that we should receive an annual report.
My only worry is a matter to which the Leader of the House referred that should nevertheless be given greater prominence at this time on a Thursday afternoon: the ministerial code. I hope that it will be taken seriously within government. I recall raising the issue during a debate on a specific case. I welcome the Leader of the House's assurance that the ministerial code will shortly be published again in its revised form. The full co-operation of Members of the Government with the official process of the House and a system of full disclosure must be axiomatic and at the centre of things. The Leader of the House has given us an assurance, and we heard from the reply to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) that the Prime Minister will be the policeman of the process. However, he—or she—will be an interested party, so I would want to ensure that the Committee is entirely happy with the arrangement. It might wish to return to the matter if there is a problem.
The ministerial code is something of a shadowy document and might not be quite as sufficient as the impression that has been given. There is an important question about special advisers and political advisers who report to Ministers, although that is a subject for another day's debate. I hope that Leader of the House's personal verbal reassurance this afternoon will be reiterated by the Prime Minister in public, together with a published new document that takes full account of the recommendations.
3.28 pm
Peter Bottomley: I served on the Standards and Privileges Committee and left after the appointment of Sir Philip Mawer. I made it plain that that was in no sense a protest against him. It was the result of what I regarded as deficiencies in the treatment by the House of the former Commissioner, Elizabeth Filkin. Sir Philip is considering an issue in relation to me. I do not want to hide the fact that I might be the subject of a formal complaint, which may get reported at some stage, but I do not want to go into details because it might be prejudicial one way or the other.
Two parts of the way in which we got into this are worth recalling. The eighth report by the Wicks committee was a result of Sir Nigel's response to a letter I sent saying that, in my view, there was unhappiness in the House. The response by the Government and the Standards and Privileges Committee to the report by the Wicks committee is good.
In particular, I support the adaptation of the Wicks recommendation that the Commissioner, with two assessors, should be able to take forward significant disputes of fact. I am less happy about the cross-questioning of witnesses, in part because my experience started with the al-Fayed and Hamilton case. If the two of them had had the chance of knocking spots off each other, there would have been more new designs than Tate Modern could put on the side of a river cruiser. Experience will show how often that procedure is used and what the results will be.
The second genesis of the arrangements is that we now have a system under which complaints can be considered rather than leaving them up to the interests of the press. I pay tribute to the role of the press in sucking up all the dirt and trying to decide which bits matter, but on the whole it is not the best way of settling matters of fact. The existence of the role of the Commissioner and the way in which the job has been fulfilled by Sir Gordon Downey, Elizabeth Filkin and Sir Philip Mawer is a tribute to each holder of that post. I observe that two of the holders have been knighted; the reason for the middle holder of the post not being knighted cannot simply be that she is not a man. Her career was interrupted by the way we treated her and, given her public service, I commend, in public and in private, that the Prime Minister's office find a way of remedying what I regard as an extra deficiency.
If I look back over my experience, I can come up with two issues that might have gone to a Commissioner. One, which did not receive a great deal of publicity, was when someone thought that our late colleague, Jocelyn Cadbury, had been involved in nefarious dealings with drugs, and that so had I. He was dead; I was not. About half the British press camped outside a motel in Basingstoke, waiting for me to come along with the loot to exchange for illegal substances. When eventually it turned out that some juvenile had managed to put together a couple of links in "Who's Who" and had lived very nicely in the motel at the expense of a number of television companies and newspaper groups, I wondered what would have happened had that been a proper accusation rather than a "Ha, ha, ha. Look how the media have been misled by a junior fraudster."
There are difficulties. If a complaint is made against a Member of Parliament, it puts us in the position of having to disprove something. That is why I commend
1254
our present procedures, which look into questions of fact and consider whether there is sufficient evidence, on the face of it, to justify an investigation by the Commissioner and to put a Member of Parliament to the inconvenience of responding to questions.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman think that we could change the titles of the reports? The list of titles at the back of the Standards and Privileges Committee report acts to re-echo the accusations that were made. Those accusations were sometimes not proven or even dismissed, yet named individuals are still included in the titles. Once a matter has been dealt with, it might be helpful to refer to those reports without referring to the Member of Parliament by name.
Peter Bottomley: That is a generous thought. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee and the Commissioner can consider that.
I have dealt with the need for the Commissioner to determine whether there is a degree of fact, or apparent fact, before a formal investigation can start. I commend that approach to the media.
The second example from my past was when I took up the case of a black social worker in my constituency who suffered from the actions of a branch union official, who threw him out of the union without due process. After a year and a half, the union determined the case in the social worker's favour, so my representations led to justice. However, because of that union official, whom I consider a bad person, and a sad local councillor—I am going back some years—many parts of the media took the view that allegations that I had taken children from a home in my constituency to parties in Brighton were worth investigation. At the last moment, that led to interviews with me and to a newspaper report, which in effect said, "Minister in sex case row". I was a Minister; there was no sex case; there was no row.
On advice from someone with much experience in journalism, I said in simple terms: "It is not true. I did not do it. I shall sue." I then checked that the media understood that all those words had one syllable and were therefore capable of comprehension. Sadly, the thing had been printed and it led to lawyers earning a fair amount of money, although it was resolved before court.
That kind of accusation falls between criminal activity, which the Commissioner and Wicks systems do not look into, and inappropriate behaviour by a Member of Parliament. At times, there will be pressure to discover whether we are performing our constituency duties in a proper way. I would probably be failed on that quite often but, on other issues, many of us do not have a great deal to fear if we respond appropriately to questions that the Commissioner may ask when deciding whether a complaint needs to be looked into.
The eighth report of the Wicks committee was necessary. If I wrote such a report, I would not recommend the convention that the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee should be a member of the Opposition. Robert Sheldon's chairmanship of the Committee illustrates that point. However, if there is a general view that a non-Government Member should chair the Committee, so

1255
be it. I accept what the Leader of the House said about it not being necessary to write that into Standing Orders—it will be fine if Members abide by the convention.
We can put behind us issues arising from the way in which the second Commissioner was treated, although they will be recorded in the history books. There are a number of unexplained things, and there is a delicacy in the report by the House of Commons Commission that I will not embarrass Members by pointing out. The Commission's words may be literally true, but the word "not" could be inserted and they would still be true.
Together, the House, the Commissioner, the House of Commons Commission and the Wicks Committee have managed further to correct things that have already improved the situation, and I, too, commend the proposals before the House this afternoon.
3.36 pm
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): This has been an interesting, constructive and important debate.
I wish to start by commending two Members who cannot be with us today. My opposite number, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), cannot be with us because of illness. I spoke to him yesterday about the debate, and I hope that he recovers and is back with us as soon as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) was commended in one of the reports for his ability to divorce his two roles—as a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and as a parliamentary private secretary. He has reinforced that commendation by giving his apologies for not attending today's debate—he thought that it would be inappropriate for him to do so. I am pleased, as I know all members of the Committee are, that there was no implication whatsoever that his role was why the decision on dual function, which the Government support, was made. As a former Whip, I can testify to my hon. Friend's independence during the period in which he served on the Committee.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for explaining the Committee's views. As ever, he dealt with those matters with clarity and even-handedness. When preparing for this debate with the excellent support, as I have already said, of departmental officials, I discovered that the right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for many more years than I have been out of school, so it is with humility that I attempt to uphold the standards of the House of Commons in the role that I have been given.
May I comment on the intended convention that an Opposition Member should chair the Committee? The convention already works in the Public Accounts Committee, and the proposals in the report will be strengthened by the commitment of Members on both sides of the House to even-handed membership of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, with members drawn from all the main parties.
Peter Bottomley: I hope that the convention will not be applied too rigorously so that if for some reason the Chairman cannot attend, a Government Member cannot chair the meeting.
Mr. Woolas: I think that everybody would endorse that—I certainly would. I referred to the experience of the current Chairman; the previous Chairman was a Member of Parliament before I was born and, as my neighbour in Oldham, often referred to me as "the young lad". As has already been said, the impartiality of Lord Sheldon's chairmanship was never questioned. Perhaps we should all hope that in future the political affiliation of the Chair will not matter, and that if the convention and the Committee work as we hope, we will not have to worry about that.
Everybody is aware of the need for impartiality and the need to be seen to be impartial. That is part of the Committee's remit. One of the strengths of the Committee and of the Wicks report was that they looked outwards from this place as much as inwards in order to achieve one of their main tasks—to ensure public confidence in the proceedings of the House.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), who represents the Commission, for his comments. It is useful for all concerned that there is unanimity from that source as well. All hon. Members will be grateful for that.
The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) raised the matter of the tenure of the Commissioner. I make clear the Government's view that there should be no implied criticism of the previous Commissioner, whose devotion to public service is recognised. We have noted the comments that have been made. I emphasise that the restriction of the tenure to one term of office of five years, which is the term that the Commission recommended, ensures the perception of impartiality and overcomes the possible accusation—not that members of the press would imply such a thing—that favour might be curried in the House. That, of course, is not the case.
Like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I thank the shadow Leader of the House. We are attempting to move forward with consensus. We have not closed our minds to the argument for legislation, which the Wicks committee recommended, but we believe that it is not necessary. I put on record the fact that we have an open mind about that.
The Government believe that the Committee on Standards and Privileges and the Commission have recommended a sensible way forward and responded positively to the recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I ask the House to support the motion and the motions that follow.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm. 5663), the Response to that Report by the House of Commons Commission (HC 422), and the Second Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HC 403); and agrees with the recommendation in paragraph 50 of that Report that, in appropriate cases, the House should impose a penalty of withholding a Member's salary for a specified period without suspending the Member.

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES
Ordered,
That—
(1) Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards and Privileges) be amended in line 39, after second 'time', by inserting ', to appoint legal advisers'; and
(2) Standing Order No. 150 (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) be amended as follows:
(a) line 33, at end add 'unless the provisions of paragraph (2A) apply.
(2A) No report shall be made by the Commissioner if, in any case where the Member concerned has agreed that he has failed to register or declare an interest, it is the Commissioner's opinion that the interest involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose.
(2B) The Commissioner may at any time in the course of investigating a complaint, and if so requested by the Committee on Standards and Privileges shall, appoint an Investigatory Panel to assist him in establishing the facts relevant to the investigation.
(2C) An Investigatory Panel shall—
(a) consist of the Commissioner, who shall be Chairman of the Panel, and two assessors, one of whom shall be a legally qualified person appointed by the Commissioner and the other shall be a Member, who shall not be a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, appointed by the Speaker; and
(b) meet in private.
(2D) The Commissioner—
(a) shall determine the procedures of the Panel, subject to the provisions of this Order; and
(b) may appoint counsel for the purpose of assisting the Panel.
(2E) Any report that the Commissioner may have made to the Committee on Standards and Privileges in relation to the complaint before the appointment of the Panel shall be made available to the Panel by the Committee.
(2F) Any Member who is the subject of the complaint under investigation shall, if he so requests, be heard by the Panel; may call witnesses; and may examine other witnesses.
(2G) When the Panel has completed its proceedings—
(a) the Commissioner shall report as in paragraph (2)(e);
(b) the legal assessor shall report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges his opinion as to the extent to which its proceedings have been consistent with the principles of natural justice; and
(c) the Member assessor may report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges his opinion as to the extent to which its proceedings have had regard to the customs and practice of the House and its Members.
(2H) The Commissioner shall report each year to the House on the exercise by him of his functions.'.
(b) line 34, leave out paragraph (3) and add—
'(3) The Commissioner may be dismissed only following a resolution of the House, moved for by a Member of the House of Commons Commission, after the Committee on Standards and Privileges has reported to the House that it is satisfied that the Commissioner is unfit to hold his office or unable to carry out his functions; and any such report shall include a statement of the Committee's reasons for its conclusion.'—[Mr. Woolas.]

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS
Resolved,
That this House agrees with the proposals of the House of Commons Commission in paragraphs 8 to 10 of its response to the Eighth Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (HC 422), that—
(a) any future appointment to the office of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards shall be for a period of five years, and shall not be renewable; and
(b) notwithstanding the Resolution of the House of 13th February 2002, the appointment of the current Commissioner shall expire on 25th June 2008, and shall not be renewable.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Quadratic Equations
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
3.43 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: The subject of my debate may ensure that hon. Members will not want to stay for the whole of it, but I dedicate the debate to Sir Nicolas Bevan, who has been the Speaker's Secretary for 10 years. This is the last formal proceeding in the House before he leaves that position. I wanted to pay tribute to him and say that many hon. Members have valued greatly the service that he has given to the House. I know that he will be much missed.
Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will have the support of everyone in the House in the tribute that he has paid to the Speaker's Secretary. He might also want to know that the Speaker's Secretary was a classicist and therefore rather better at Latin and Greek than he necessarily was at quadratic equations.
Mr. McWalter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and his good wishes to Sir Nicolas. I take the liberty of dedicating a debate to Sir Nicolas because he has shown a strong interest in what one might call the non-conformist debates that have characterised the House from time to time. He has encouraged me to raise with the House the vital philosophical questions that Governments of all persuasions find it too easy to ignore. Despite the mathematical title of the debate, my aim is a philosophical one—it will be an essay in the philosophy of mathematics—and one main objective that I hope to secure is that Sir Nicolas will indeed find it enjoyable.
I put this matter on the agenda today because I have been troubled since the president of a teachers' union suggested a couple of months ago that mathematics might be dropped as a compulsory subject by pupils at the age of 14. Mr. Bladen of the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers was given a lengthy slot on the "Today" programme to present his views. He cited the quadratic equation as an example of the sort of irrelevant topic that pupils study. I had hoped that the Government would make a robust rebuttal, but there was no defence either of mathematics in general or the quadratic equation in particular.
If such assertions are left unrebutted, what was an ignorant suggestion at one time can become received wisdom a very short time later and an article of educational faith a short time after that. I wish to short-circuit that process and provide a rebuttal of that union leader's suggestion. I note that he was a maths teacher, but I do not regard the desire for changes that simply make the teacher's job easier to be in the best union traditions. He was happy to teach maths to those who enjoyed it, but he wanted to stop teaching maths to those who did not. By defending the centrality of the quadratic equation to mathematical education, I hope also to submit some thoughts on what we would be missing if we allowed mathematics to be regarded as a subject of no greater worth than any other subject on the curriculum.
1260
When I proposed this debate, it was arranged that the Minister for School Standards would respond. I submitted a draft to his office, but I note that he has taken flight, so I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education on having stepped into the breach. I hope that the absence of the Minister for School Standards signifies nothing other than unavailability, as opposed to possible hostility to what I am about to say.
I hope that you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I remind the House what an equation is, and then what a quadratic equation is. Of course, we all know that there is a strong appetite for equations in the House—witness the large assembly gathered in the Chamber, as well as the large number of hon. Members who seem to have mastered the mathematical material employing the calculus in the 18 volumes of background support papers for the Chancellor's recent statement on the euro—but it will come as a surprise to hon. Members who are interested in these things to hear that not everyone has an appetite for them. Indeed, it is said that Sir Stephen Hawking was told not to put even a single equation anywhere early in a book of his that sought to popularise science on the ground that one equation would immediately halve its readership. Apparently, the casual reader flicking through the book in a shop would put it back on the shelf if he or she saw the offending line of print.
What are these equations? From an early stage in primary school, we were given problems such as "If x + 5 = 7, what is x?" You will notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not making the problems too difficult at this stage. Since the time of Descartes, it has been customary to use letters from towards the end of the alphabet for such unknown quantities. Later on, at about the age of 11, we will grapple with so-called simultaneous equations, where there are two or more unknown quantities and two or more equations.
Even at that stage, many people, whether old or young, feel bewilderment when such problems are posed, and once the going gets a bit complicated the person who does not want to jump through those hoops is liable to ask, "Why should I bother?" If the education environment is one that says to children, "Study only what interests you", then because the xs and ys look about as boring and detached from reality as anything could be, the pupil is more than pleased when someone in authority says, "If you really don't fancy getting your head around these things, you don't have to." I believe that there is an underlying tension about what we are doing in education, and that the prevailing model is that if someone finds something hard or uninteresting, they are more than welcome to drop it and to move on to something that they find much more tractable and believe, in their minority and youth, to be of much more practical and immediate relevance to their lives.
In that sense, I contend that our educational system has become too focused on working with the current beliefs and enthusiasms of the pupil and insufficiently focused on ignorance. Since education is meant to dispel ignorance—and for all of us appreciating and overcoming our own tendency to ignorance is hard work—an educational model that moves only along the grooves of pupil preference must be deemed too soft. I contend that the soft model should be repudiated and that our model of education should explicitly

1261
countenance how important it is for pupils and students to master skills that at first glance seem to them to be strange and uncongenial. Indeed, I might put it more strongly. An idea or a book that seems uncongenial or difficult can, if its subject matter is important, engender those profound changes of attitude that education at its best can precipitate. Education is about climbing mountains, not skipping molehills.
Why should anyone feel passionate about the xs and ys in systems of equations? One answer is this: because if one does not make the effort to see what those xs and ys conceal, one will be cut off from having any real understanding of science. My passion comes from a sense that our society eschews educational difficulty, and hence culturally directs people away from the sciences. What that means—here is the source of my passion—is that in my constituency of Hemel Hempstead, women must wait 18 weeks for a laboratory to process their cervical smear test because many more young people want to work in television than in science, so there are not enough people to work in the laboratory. We have a society that is founded on science, but educationally we provide a university system that offers far more scope for studying the media than for studying physics. I do not wish to engage in the fashionable castigation of media studies or business studies, as many excellent courses go by such names, but where a society provides a very large number of opportunities to study such subjects and a fast-diminishing set of opportunities to study engineering and the mainstream sciences, it makes sense to ask how we have arrived at such a peculiar juncture.
To reflect on that point—and to use an analogy that Sir Nicolas would like—we can observe that a society can regress from being scientifically and technologically cultured to being backward. In the Rome of 800 AD, anyone who wanted to use metal for any purpose would have to find some left by those who lived when the empire was at its zenith. The technical citizens of ancient Rome knew which rocks contained metal ore and developed a furnace technology to liberate the metal from its elemental attendance. Eight hundred years later, such knowledge had been entirely lost.
We live in a society that has inherited an extraordinary wealth of knowledge about the world. However, that wealth appears daunting to the pupil or student. To become a scientist appears to require a capacity not only to amass a huge amount of knowledge but to master some ideas, which, at first glance, seem difficult, confusing, remote and mentally too taxing. As David Hume observed, most people have a sufficient disposition toward idleness to want to avoid excessive labour if possible. Consequently, our science-dependent culture is not replenishing the scientific basis that is needed for its continued existence. That neglect has terrible consequences, not only in Hemel Hempstead hospital.
How do quadratic equations relate to all that? First, they are a little more complicated than the linear and simultaneous equations that I mentioned earlier. They have only one unknown expression but they allow it to be raised to a power of 2, for example x2 = 4. Of course, x2 means that x is multiplied by itself. Another example is 3x2 + x-10 = 0. I suppose that it comes as a shock to find that solving those equations requires some effort. Even the first one—x x x = 4, what is x?—is not as
1262
simple as it appears. There are two solutions: x = 2 and x = -2. Most people in school learn a general formula to deal with more complicated problems. That is often done without understanding and the world appears to divide into sheep, who do not mind doing that sort of thing and goats, who view it as a pointless game that is less riveting than snap.
Why should anyone try to understand quadratic equations and the principles that lie behind solving them? They underpin modern science as surely as the smelting methods of the Romans were the key to their building culture. Modern science dawns with the experiments of Galileo. To describe how bodies fall, he knew from Kepler that he had to use the precision of mathematics rather than the imprecise language of Aristotle. The equation that he used for the most fundamental laws of motion was a quadratic equation in time, s = ut + ½ ft2, in which s is distance travelled, u is the initial velocity f is the accelerating force—usually gravity—and t is time.
To tell students that quadratic equations are beyond them, that they are about nothing and that educated people need have no inkling of what they are is to say that it is all right if they are so ill equipped to understand modern science that they cannot even comprehend its starting point. Those who tell us that we need no familiarity with quadratic equations are telling us to ignore 400 years of intellectual, scientific and technological development. When educators tell us that we should do that, I rejoin that they have a strange view of education, which I should like the Government to repudiate.
If we forget straight lines, the second aspect of the quadratic expression is that it gives us the simplest example of a graph. All admit the utility and importance of that method of presenting information.
If I imagine the simplest quadratic expression, x2, and I ask of it what values it takes when x assumes different values—when x is 1, x2 is 1; when x is 2, x2 is 4, and so on—I get a beautiful elementary curve: a parabola. Galileo used the properties of the parabola to analyse the motion of a falling body. He was able to do so because, long before him, Archimedes had identified some of the properties of the parabola. He knew, for instance, that it was impossible to measure exactly the long side of a unit triangle—a triangle with two sides of length 1, and the longest side, the hypotenuse. It is an extraordinary fact, however, that if such a triangle has a parabola—a curved side—it is possible to measure its area exactly. For example, when the parabola is defined by x2, when x goes from nought to six, the two straight sides and one curved side will form an area of exactly 72 units.
The mathematical materials of modern science and engineering were laid down by the ancient Greeks, and to tell students that they need not attend to any of these ideas is not merely to deprive them of the ideas that predate Galileo, it is to provide them with an education that neglects entirely the whole post-Hellenic edifice of human scientific culture. The Greeks thought that people were divided into those who could understand at least as far as proposition 47 of book I of Euclid's "Elements". Anyone who could get beyond that was not an ass. They called that proposition the pons

1263
asinorum—the asses' bridge. One way of looking at the quadratic equation might be to say that it is the pons asinorum of modern science.
I have two further observations on quadratic equations. First, it is powerful educational medicine to come to understand that something that can be expressed very simply can be extraordinarily difficult to solve. Much of modern culture tends the other way. People are presented with enormously difficult problems in politics or economics, for example—I have already mentioned the euro debate—and they assume that such problems have a simple and comprehensible solution. The quadratic equation can teach us to be humble.
Secondly, I have said that to solve such problems one has to make certain moves. In schools, pupils sometimes learn those moves without much understanding of what lies behind them. This is not the place to describe those moves, although I expect that the Minister will be able to remind us of what the generalised solution to a quadratic equation is, because I am sure that his team has equipped him to do so. He probably remembers it anyway from his own schooldays; it is the sort of thing that tends to stick. I am not sure how he is responding to that idea, but I shall persist with the thought.
It is quite extraordinary that one of the outcomes of making efforts to solve these equations is that we seem to have to expand the number system. For example, the solution of the humble-looking equation 2x2+2x+1 =0, a very basic quadratic equation with no hard numbers, seems to require that there be a square root of -1. Since, when we multiply a negative by a negative, we get a positive, it is hard to see how a negative number could have a square root, but the humble quadratic equation suggests that there should be such numbers.
Most people think they know what "number" means; but, in reality, a substantial strand of human intellectual development has involved thinking of how to overcome the limitations of the elementary idea of "number" that we started with, and this rich heritage has been truly a world effort, whether it took place in Iraq, India or China. Knowledge of these things makes people less Anglocentric than they otherwise might be.
Most recently, this bizarre number—the square root of -1—has, since the work of de Broglie in 1923, played a key role in the equations that define quantum theory and which help us to understand our world in its microstructure. I might add to that that the structures that help us understand the other form of equation, simultaneous equations—structures called matrices—are also what are needed in the wave equations of quantum mechanics, since the work of Schrodinger, also in the mid-1920s. If we are to develop nanotechnology, for instance, it will be important that our students are at home with these ideas. Nanotechnology depends upon quantum effects.
I have the honour to serve on the Science and Technology Committee here in the House—you will have probably guessed that by now, Madam Deputy Speaker—and one important aim of that Committee has been to ask the Government to think again about their educational strategy. Some of the concepts and skills that we ask our children and our university
1264
students to develop are regarded as "difficult." Mathematics lies in that realm, but so also do other activities such as learning foreign languages, mastering counterpoint and imagining biochemical structures in three dimensions. I submit that such activities, demanding as they do that the students make a real effort to change their perspective, are at the core of education; education as mountain climbing and not molehill jumping.
Students and pupils are told too often that if they find ideas difficult, they can still attain high levels of educational qualification by avoiding such demanding materials. That is actually to do a disservice to those pupils. A key role for education is to help students understand, in all its richness and complexity, the world they have inherited, and perhaps it is also important that they understand the debt they owe to previous generations of many nations and cultures.
A second key role for education in a science-based culture is to equip a significant number of people with the skills to be able to transform that culture for the better. A Government who aspire to have 50 per cent. of school leavers in higher education but who are content for most of those students to have not an inkling of the science and technology that underpins the culture is a Government who are willing to preside over cultural and educational decline, whatever the statistics look like.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Hear, hear.
Mr. McWalter: Oh dear. I would like to have support from elsewhere as well.
Someone who thinks that the quadratic equation is an empty manipulation, devoid of any other significance, is someone who is content with leaving the many in ignorance. I believe also that he or she is also pleading for the lowering of standards. A quadratic equation is not like a bleak room, devoid of furniture, in which one is asked to squat. It is a door to a room full of the unparalleled riches of human intellectual achievement. If you do not go through that door—or if it is said that it is an uninteresting thing to do—much that passes for human wisdom will be forever denied you.
Throughout human history, that door was locked to those of the working classes, to women and to those who come from nations that were enslaved. Now at last we have a society and culture that have made it possible for people on the largest scale to understand at a most fundamental level the culture they have inherited and the debts that they owe to their forebears. Now we have a society in which many citizens can be empowered to understand the natural world.
Siren voices still aver that many cannot cope with quadratic equations and similar structures, and with the worlds that they unlock. It is the Government's job to resist those who would devalue the educational currency in this way. An educational curriculum that is too undemanding cheats those who could have gained understanding, but who are denied that opportunity. Sadly, those who have been so cheated do not even know what it is that they do not know. If real education can be mentally taxing and painful, that is also one of its greatest values. Those who have profited from it are grateful to those who helped them to attain it for the

1265
whole of their lives. To deny real education to the many on the dubious ground that they cannot cope with difficulty is to fail to grasp an historic opportunity for human liberation.
Remembering the point about Stephen Hawking, perhaps one day, books that feature equations will have their circulation enhanced by that feature. Perhaps we will know that then, we have an educated citizenry.
4.11 pm
The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): I begin by echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on Sir Nicolas Bevan's retirement. I should also like to associate myself with remarks made by Members on both sides of the House throughout the day, and with the sentiments of the well-supported early-day motion. It is not often that a Government representative supports an early-day motion, but I do so on this occasion because it recognises Sir Nicolas's long and distinguished service. I wish him well in his retirement.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead on securing this debate. He said that he was expecting my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards to reply, and I should point out that there has been a fierce struggle among the seven Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills in that regard. In the end, my hon. Friend was thought to be far too junior. He has a good career in front of him, but he was part of the 2001 intake and is therefore far too young. So I have the honour to reply to today's debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead for defining what quadratic equations actually are. In fact, my Parliamentary Private Secretary provided me with one, and I shall check it with my hon. Friend afterwards to see whether my Parliamentary Private Secretary will continue to hold his post in future. I hope that I can provide my hon. Friend with a repudiation of the comments, made on the radio a couple of weeks ago, of the trade union leader to whom he referred.
Quadratic equations allow us to analyse the relationships between variable quantities, and they are the tool for understanding variable rates of change. It is in variable rates of change that quadratic equations are seen in economics, science and engineering. Examples of the use of quadratic equations include acceleration, ballistics and financial comparisons. Most drivers would feel capable of working out whether they can overtake the car in front, but do they realise that they are solving a quadratic equation in doing so? I dare say that many do not. In fact, it is claimed that the Babylonians, in 400BC, were the first to use the notion of quadratic equations in problem solving, although at the time they had no idea what an equation was.
In preparing for this debate, the DFES conducted a straw poll involving a 16-year-old who had just sat maths GCSE, a head of maths and an experienced chemical engineer. The 16-year-old thought that quadratic equations were logical and fairly straightforward because
"you substitute stuff into a formula".
He did say, however, that his opinion might have been influenced by having a good teacher. The head of maths said that quadratic equations formed an important step
1266
in students' ability to solve equations, taking them from simple—one unknown—and simultaneous—two unknowns—and paving the way for more advanced work in mechanics and complex number theory. The engineer said that he did not use quadratic equations now, but had in the past in detailed design applications. Where he works, the chemists use them to explain multiple reactions.
The place of quadratic equations in everyday life is pretty clear, but what are pupils taught at school? The national numeracy strategy has had a significant impact on raising the standards of mathematics in primary schools. Last year's key stage 2 results showed that 73 per cent. of pupils achieved the expected level for their age in mathematics, which is a 14 per cent. increase since 1998. We want to build on that impressive record, which is why we have launched "Excellence and Enjoyment—A Strategy for Primary Schools". Our vision for primary education is of excellence and enjoyment at the heart of a broad and rich curriculum.
The key stage 3 national strategy for 11 to 14-year-olds provides a comprehensive professional development programme for teachers, new materials and support from expert local consultants. The maths teaching framework emphasises the development of algebraic reasoning. It encourages pupils to develop an understanding of how algebra is a way of generalising from arithmetic, and to represent problems and solutions in a variety of forms.
Simple linear equations are taught from key stage 3. In 2002, key stage 3 results stand at their highest ever, with 67 per cent. of pupils achieving level 5 plus in the key stage 3 tests for both maths and science. Quadratic equations, with their more complex parabolic curves, are taught from late key stage 3 or key stage 4. Factorisation of algebra is a difficult concept to understand and students need plenty of practice. Teaching students to think logically and to analyse different problems is a very important skill, which is not only transferable to other areas of the curriculum but can be used beyond student life. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) from a sedentary position reminds us of that as I speak.
Pupils taking the intermediate tier GCSE mathematics study algebraic manipulation, including the solving of quadratic equations. They are covered in greater depth by pupils following the higher tier GCSE course and developed further for those going on to study maths on A and AS-level courses. It is at that level that students are taught the concepts that they will need, should they choose to do degrees in maths, sciences, engineering or economics.
There is a shortage of people nationally who can construct these mathematical models and who understand them enough to use them. The fact that an inquiry is taking place into post-14 mathematics is a testament to the importance of the subject. The aims of the post-14 inquiry, announced in July 2002, are to
"make recommendations on changes to the curriculum, qualifications and pedagogy for those aged 14 and over in schools, college and higher education institutions to enable those students to acquire mathematical knowledge and skills necessary to meet the requirements of employers and of further and higher education".
Professor Adrian Smith, the inquiry chairman, is due to report his findings this autumn.

1267
The use of information and communications technology in schools and in teaching and demonstrating mathematics models is helping the understanding of all learners. With ICT becoming a more integral part of classroom teaching, students can visualise and problem-solve in more creative ways. Those, too, are lifelong skills that can be applied in daily life, not just as a student. ICT gives students confidence in their abilities and increases their eagerness to learn. Using graphical calculators to learn about quadratic functions, for example, helps pupils learn in a more innovative environment.
Several interesting initiatives support teachers in making maths lessons more challenging and exciting. I should like briefly to describe them. Census at school can be used in a number of curriculum subjects, particularly maths. Pupils fill out a questionnaire, see how a census works and are able to compare their school's results with those of other schools in the UK and elsewhere. That is particularly helpful for key stage 3 pupils encountering data and learning how to handle them.
The UK mathematics trust works with secondary school teachers and pupils to promote mathematics. It encourages all secondary schools to take part in competitions and events, including the team maths challenge. The trust also identifies and trains students for the international mathematics olympiad.
The work of the Cambridge university-based millennium maths project allows teachers and students to tap into resources over the internet. Students can ask university undergraduates for help with mathematical problems. The project also offers tailored and continuous professional development for teachers.
An increasing use of information and communications technology and innovative ways of teaching are both positive steps for the subject, as is the rise in the number of mathematics teachers.
1268
The intake to initial teacher training courses in mathematics rose to 1,670 in 2002–03, an increase of 8 per cent., and an overall increase of 28.5 per cent. since 1999–2000. The number of graduates applying to train as teachers of mathematics on post-graduate certificates in education courses in 2003–04 was 35 per cent. higher than for the same period last year. In a recent Ofsted report, it was noted that today's newly qualified teachers are the best trained ever. We need not only to continue to increase the number of teachers, but to support mathematics subject specialism. We want teachers to maintain their enthusiasm for maths and to develop their expertise throughout their careers.
In March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills announced that Adrian Smith would advise on options and costs for a national centre for excellence in mathematics later this year. The new centre should harness all the good work already under way and enable more teachers to tap into the resources and support that they need.
In conclusion, the teaching of quadratic equations, and of the mathematics curriculum overall, is key to a future work force that can develop and use mathematical models in daily life. As research in a book of quotations reveals, Napoleon said:
"The advancement and perfection of mathematics are intimately connected with the prosperity of the state."
We recognise the importance of mathematics at all stages of education, and we are committed to ensuring that all young people have the opportunity to acquire the skills that they need—as citizens, and as the mathematicians, scientists and engineers of the future.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead for securing this debate, and for making such an interesting and entertaining contribution.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Four o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. NIGEL BEARD in the Chair]

Humanitarian Crisis (Southern Africa)
[Relevant documents: Humanitarian Crisis in Southern Africa—Third Report from the International Development Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 116, and the Government's response thereto, HC 690. The Eighth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, on Zimbabwe, HC 339.]
Motion made and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Hilary Benn.]
2.30 pm
Tony Baldry: I am sure that we all welcome the opportunity to debate the Select Committee's report on the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa. I am also sure that all hon. Members, in their own way, will base their contributions on the impressions that they drew from their extensive inquiry, which lasted several months and comprised several visits to various countries in Africa. I am delighted to see that three Select Committee colleagues—the hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington), for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett)—are present, and I am sure that they will add to what I have to say.
Usually, when a Select Committee publishes a report, it does not prove to be timeless. That is not the case with the southern Africa report, and many of the lessons from the 2002 humanitarian crisis still need to be learned. That is particularly true of the three central recommendations on dealing with the underlying causes of food shortages in southern Africa. They relate to the HIV/AIDS pandemic, to early-warning systems and the co-ordination of relief efforts, and to Zimbabwe's role in exacerbating the region's food insecurity.
Today's debate is one of the first opportunities to put the Select Committee report into the context of the events at the recent G8 summit in Evian, which was meant to be a summit of delivery for Africa. It would be more accurate to say that it was a discussion of what should have happened but did not. I appreciate that France put forward what has become known colloquially as the "Chirac plan" on EU subsidies. I am also aware that EU countries, and France, in particular, made further commitments, which will help Africa, to the UN global fund on HIV/AIDS.
Yet, that is where it stopped. Doubtless, grumbles will grow about the fact that African countries receive more attention from donor countries than other parts of the developing world. However, that is simply because Africa is in danger of becoming the ghetto of a globalised world, as Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia said in evidence to the Select Committee. As paragraphs 17 and 18 of the report note, Africa is suffering an almost annual food shortage and is the only continent that is relentlessly moving backwards on the millennium development goals. That is in spite of the previous G8
340WH
summit at Kananaskis, which introduced an African action plan. Frustratingly, it is making little progress, despite the UN world summit on sustainable development, which the World Bank said should focus on Africa. That is why the Select Committee's conclusions on famine and disease are still salient.
Our report outlines the way in which food insecurity is identified as a major contributor to poverty. At the same time, poverty is a major contributor to food insecurity. We examined not a drought-induced famine but a chronic crisis, in which consecutive years of poor rainfall had exposed the region's underlying vulnerability, the declining viability of rural livelihoods and the impact of HIV/AIDS. In that context, I would highlight paragraph 157 of the report:
"Africa is missing the Millennium Development Goals partly because the donors are missing the 0.7 per cent. target. We once again urge the UK Government to make swift progress towards its target of providing 0.7 per cent. of GNI in aid, to set out a timetable for meeting this target, and to encourage other donors to do likewise."
The Select Committee's conclusion is nothing new. I suspect that the Treasury would have no trouble finding the funds for that level of aid as a proportion of gross national income if it received £1 each time Ministers were approached about the 0.7 per cent. It is worth noting that the Treasury and the Department for International Development offer an alternative in their response to the report, outlining how:
"The recent proposal … for an International Finance Facility is intended to allow a doubling of global ODA in the years to 2015. We are discussing this idea with key partners."
The Select Committee welcomes that initiative and, indeed, any initiative that might lever in further funds for development. Until the Treasury outlines further details, however, concerns will remain about where the international finance facility leaves the 0.7 per cent. pledge. Will it still be in place, will it be honoured or will it be sidelined? What will happen to overseas development aid after 2015? Members of the Select Committee who recently went to the World Bank found that there was a degree of scepticism among its members about whether the international finance facility would benefit development aid in the way that the Chancellor and others hoped it would. That is not because members of the World Bank do not think that the facility is well intentioned. Rather, they wonder how its mechanics will work after 2015 and whether it simply seeks to redirect money already in existence.
The Select Committee report highlights the urgent need to provide overseas assistance now to prevent the international community from facing a continual cycle of humanitarian crises and from "getting overstretched", to use the words of the former Secretary of State at DFID. Overstretch poses a serious challenge to the international community's ability and willingness to respond not only in southern Africa but, as the Select Committee noted throughout its report, in the horn of Africa. That is clearly important because the international community's willingness to respond will, by definition, depend on donors' assessment of the scale and the severity of the humanitarian crisis.
The Select Committee took evidence on food insecurity in southern Africa from representatives of the United Nations World Food Programme. They estimate that as many as 14 million people in southern

341WH
Africa, and another 14 million in Ethiopia and the horn of Africa, are at risk of starvation. That means that nearly 30 million people are suffering almost silent starvation. I say silent because parts of the media recognise only intermittently the scale and severity of that humanitarian crisis. That is understandable at a time when overseas coverage in the broadsheets has been dealing almost exclusively with Iraq. When articles have appeared, however, some journalists have gone so far as to suggest that we are not dealing with anything like the Ethiopia of 1985. I was in Ethiopia in 1985, and I can see that film crews looking for tents full of skeletal children today in southern Africa would be disappointed. None the less, the situation that we face today is no less a holocaust of hunger, and just as many people are affected by food shortages.
Let me put the issue in context. Paragraph 58 of the conclusion to the Select Committee report states:
"Implementing these improvements to early warning systems in southern Africa will require a commitment of financial resources and technical expertise from the donor community, national governments and regional organisations, notably SADC. We urge DFID to support reasonable requests for financial and technical assistance."
In that respect, the media cannot be guaranteed to act as an early-warning system. An early-warning system has to be initiated by the Government. To underscore that point, it is worth considering the recent assertion by the Institute of Development Studies:
"The case of Malawi in 2002 reveals the limitations of this argument. The media is a late indicator of distress, not an early warning. Journalists and television crews arrived in Malawi like spectators at a car crash: to observe the tragedy, not to prevent it."
Africans starve, journalists come, food aid dribbles forth, the journalists go and Africans still starve. The media did not fully recognise the scale of Africa's plight. If they cannot be guaranteed to act as an early-warning system, can Governments? I am not convinced that that is the case.
Judith Lewis of the World Food Programme told the Select Committee in December 2002:
"From my latest assessments in the field for southern Africa, certainly the peak period for assistance will begin in December and it is about 14.4 million people. In Ethiopia, they have assessments in the field now, and the 14 million, I think, was the worst case looking at all the factors."
At the same time that she was telling the Committee that, a DFID Minister was telling the House:
"A total of 427,000 tonnes of food aid was requested to help meet the needs of some 5.9 million people who are at risk. That followed the generally good harvests of 2001."—[Official Report, 3 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 885.]
There is a huge difference between 14 million and 6 million people.
DFID's response to the African crisis appeared to be based not on the requests of UN agencies in the field but on DFID's judgment of what the scale of the crisis should be. I do not accept that there was ever a cogent argument to suggest that the WFP had miscalculated the need by a factor of three. It is therefore striking how DFID's assessment of the number of Africans affected has changed. It was clear from its response to the Select Committee report that it accepted the scale and severity of the southern African humanitarian crisis. However, it
342WH
published its response in May 2003, not six months earlier, when food insecurity was at its most acute.
Likewise, this week's written statement from the Minister of State, Department for International Development recognised that 14 million people were at risk from famine in southern Africa, but it was less reassuring about the extent of the Government's willingness to commit to intervening in the continuing humanitarian crisis. The Minister states:
"The international effort is continuing but adjustments are being made to take account of changing circumstances."
How do Ministers believe that circumstances are changing? How do they intend to adjust the Government's humanitarian response? Two indications of the Government's current thinking appear later in the Minister's statement, but both are somewhat disconcerting. First, he asserts:
"There is expected to be little need for food aid in Malawi and Zambia where food supplies are good. In Swaziland and Lesotho, harvests are again poor but the small populations and relatively good access mean that the problems there are manageable."
He goes on to say that the Government
"intend to review this level of funding in September and decide whether to allocate further funds to the crisis."—[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 29–31WS.]
His assessment of food insecurity in much of southern Africa does not suggest that further funds will be committed to the relief effort. That would be a mistake.
I am again concerned that the Government are completely underestimating the extent of the continuing humanitarian crisis in southern Africa, as they did in December 2002. That is despite the fact that Ministers have acknowledged that 14 million people in southern Africa are still at risk.
In that respect, I contest the Government's assessment of Zambia in particular. Last month, the Zambian Government banned the distribution of food aid in all but the south of the country to stabilise grain prices. On 12 June, after meetings with other UN agencies, Government representatives, donor Governments and the Southern African Development Community, the UN World Food Programme and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation issued reports in which they starkly warned:
"Southern Africa still requires substantial food aid despite the fact that more food was produced in the region than during last year's severe food crisis … Over the next year, the six southern African countries will need to import at least 2.6 million tonnes of food to meet their minimum food needs … In addition, for the region to resume agricultural growth, increased and carefully targeted support will be needed for the agriculture sectors of the six countries."
That figure of 2.6 million tonnes of food aid cannot be stressed enough. That is what is needed now. It was also what was needed in Ethiopia alone in 2002, according to the Ethiopian Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Committee. None of that suggests that neither the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa nor that in the horn of Africa is receding to such an extent that UK and EU aid can be reduced to a similar degree. That raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the Government's response to the regional early-warning systems. The WFP and FAO reports resulted from extensive meetings with all the stakeholders identified in paragraph 58 of the Select Committee report. Those stakeholders are meant to put the early-warning system in place.

343WH
What has been the Government's response to the Committee's conclusion? They said:
"We agree … DFID is collaborating with SADC in designing a regional food security programme in which understanding and measuring vulnerability is a major component. This will be key to understanding and quantifying vulnerability both during food crises and in making links to longer term poverty."
What progress has been made in developing that regional food security programme? Is the Government's current assessment of the humanitarian situation in southern Africa based on the programme's initial findings? It does not appear that SADC, UN agencies and others are speaking the same language as DFID.
I should highlight paragraphs 69 and 83 of the Select Committee's conclusions and recommendations. They make it clear that DFID and donor Governments cannot take a laissez-faire attitude to helping southern African countries develop their early-warning systems. Nor can they take such an attitude to developing co-ordination within and between regional institutions and members of the donor community on the issue of food insecurity in southern Africa. I refer particularly to the following observation in the report at paragraph 83:
"On the basis that we believe food crises are likely to recur in the region, we believe it is unrealistic and unfair to expect regional governments in the immediate future to implement alone effective co-ordination between multiple organisations and institutions."
I am not reassured that DFID has fully taken that on board. It may agree with the Select Committee's sentiments, but is it acting fully on the recommendations that will count? Paragraph 83 went further to recommend that DFID undertake an immediate assessment of its working relationships with regional stakeholders. The contrasting language of ministerial statements on 23 June and UN reports on 12 June would not suggest that much progress has been made on that matter.
I do not dispute that DFID is working multilaterally—I would not expect anything less from it—but that does not alter the fact that the UK is responding to a level of crisis that, in many people's view, is completely different from that the WFP is witnessing. My concern is that there is too little recognition of the scale of the crisis. Until it is recognised, Africa's suffering cannot be stemmed.
Judith Lewis of the WFP made it clear to us that her calculations account for all factors; perhaps DFID's do not. It was not only Judith Lewis from whom the Select Committee heard. James Morris, the executive director of the WFP, met members of the Select Committee towards the end of our inquiry. He observed that there was
"a disaster unfolding, with 14 million people in the Horn of Africa, and 14 million in Southern Africa needing food aid. This could not be sustained by the World Food Programme".
In a later press release, he asserted:
"These figures are large and dramatic and the international community should take notice … Unless we come to grips with this problem very soon, we face the real possibility of witnessing a devastating wave of human suffering and death as early as next year."
I am sure that someone such as James Morris would not have put those issues in such stark language unless he felt that he had to grip the attention of decision makers. Those assessments were made in October 2002, and nothing that I have heard from the Government since—
344WH
more than six months later—seems adequately to tackle those concerns, which are still held by UN agencies such as the WFP.
It is worth noting that the European Union's food security adviser on the ground in Ethiopia is now saying that, unless something dramatic changes, all that will happen is that, year on year, there will be more food-insecure people in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa—predicting a potential 20 million starving people in Ethiopia alone.
The EU paper in which those comments are made rightly concludes:
"The main challenge is to reverse the 'one step forward, two steps back' tendency in the Food Security policy dialogue".
To do that we must be forceful in our message that crisis reinforces rather than supersedes the need for a long-term, structural approach to food security. For that reason, we need to give longer-term support to agricultural extension programmes—supporting farmer training by making available a broader range of agricultural technologies—to help with road building to enable farmers to get goods to markets more easily, to improve market information and to develop organisations that can advance credit to farmers.
Of course, many in southern Africa and the horn will look with interest at today's announcement about the supposed reform of the common agricultural policy. It will be difficult for them to find anything in the package of reforms that was announced in the early hours of this morning that will give them any reason to believe that large amounts of surplus EU commodities will not continue to be dumped in markets in Africa. It is difficult to see what in the reformed CAP of today is less trade distorting than the CAP of yesterday.
The eventual elimination of food insecurity and dependence on food aid must be an objective, but that should not disguise the poverty of so many countries in the world. To help them we need to tackle their poverty. When we met Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, he made it clear that he considered it imperative that his Government should have a longer-term food security strategy. He recognises that Ethiopia cannot go on, year after year, depending on financial and food handouts from the donor community.
I am sure that DFID will likewise want to pursue a longer-term approach, so I am pleased that the Government's response to paragraph 124 of the report accepts that in the past some of the Department's policy making on southern Africa has been short-sighted. Perhaps its estimate of those at risk of starvation will fall because it believes that many people are dying of HIV/AIDS rather than of food shortages. If that is the case, I suggest that the two are interlocked: hunger helps to beget HIV/AIDS and HIV/AIDS helps to beget hunger.
The WFP believes that the first defence against HIV/AIDS is food and likewise wants to distribute food foremost to HIV sufferers. That is exactly what the report says in paragraph 47. It is also what UNICEF said in its donor update on 9 June, which stated that
"the outlook for children is particularly bleak … the impact of the humanitarian crisis on children in the context of the HIV/AIDS pandemic has also been reflected in the stagnation or deterioration of what was until recently a steady improvement in the rates of childhood malnutrition across the region".

345WH
I appreciate the proposals made by France and the UK at the EU summit, in response to the recent announcement by the US Government of a $15 billion HIV/AIDS fund, to contribute € 1 billion in 2004 to the global health fund. That is good news. However, it is disappointing and sad that unanimity on taking that proposal forward could not be reached in the Council of Ministers at the recent EU summit at Thessaloniki. Clearly, the global health fund will require new donor support of about $7 billion over the next two years—roughly $3.5 billion a year—to meet the needs of the high-quality proposals that it is considering.
A reasonable financing framework is thus clear. Europe collectively should attempt to match the US initiative with our own contribution of $3 billion a year, while Japan and other donors should contribute at least $1 billion a year in addition, making a total of at least $7 billion a year during 2003 and 2004. Donor Governments should also make commitments to the global health fund—as the report urges in paragraph 153—instead of waiting in anticipation of the international financing facility, which at the moment remains an idea.
I should like to close my comments by referring to Zimbabwe. Clearly, DFID and I disagree to a certain extent about the food security threats in countries such as Malawi and Zambia. None the less, given the Minister's statement on Monday, it is evident that his Department is primarily concerned about the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. We would all agree on that. However, paragraph 34 of the report states:
"We believe that the UK Government is failing to communicate clearly the ways in which Zimbabwe is exacerbating food insecurity in southern Africa. DFID should explain clearly the culpability of Robert Mugabe's policies on land reform, and emphasise too that restrictions placed on the movement of genetically-modified maize have hampered the relief effort and contributed to the deteriorating situation across the region. If he continues with the same policies and approach, Zimbabwe will remain part of the problem rather than part of the solution to famine and food insecurity in southern Africa."
It is questionable whether the Government are still fully taking into account the extent to which Zimbabwe's policies affect not only Zimbabwe but people across southern Africa as a whole. The single mention of Zimbabwean governance in this week's ministerial statement acknowledges only that
"poor governance has made the crisis worse in Zimbabwe."—[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 3OWS.]
Poor governance has made the humanitarian crisis worse not just for Zimbabwe but for Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi and the whole region.
I understand that DFID had reduced overall development aid to Zimbabwe until that country's suspension, but the total amount given in 2002 was still larger than in 1997, when this Government came to office. The Department's most recent report states that development aid should be
"focused on systematic poverty reduction in ways that support local ownership".
It added that the Government
"has.… increased its commitment of assistance for well thought-out programmes in key sectors in reforming countries … which in turn will improve the quality of public expenditure management as a whole, and help reduce corruption".
346WH
It is clear that, under DFID principles, improving democracy is regarded as a totem for supporting development aid—a point that is echoed by the United States millennium development account—but that is not what is happening in Zimbabwe.
The UK's approach to the land reform programme in Zimbabwe has been confused. That DFID programme, more than any other, puts into sharp relief the confusion of the Government's approach to Zimbabwe, democracy and development principles. As the communiqué from the Abuja agreement in September 2001 rightly observed:
"Land is at the core of the crisis in Zimbabwe and cannot be separated from other issues of concern to the Commonwealth, such as the rule of law, respect for human rights"
and democracy. The communiqué also refers to the UK Government's financial involvement in land reform and welcomes the
"re-affirmation of the United Kingdom's commitment to a significant financial contribution to such a land reform programme and its undertaking to encourage other international donors to do the same."
That would be welcome if the land reform programme in any way assisted poverty reduction, but it does not. The Zimbabwean Government's "fast-track" land reform programme is not fair land reform. It does not meet the Abuja agreement terms and it does not deserve bilateral aid from the UK Government.
I should make it crystal clear that that does not mean that the Zimbabwean people should not receive emergency humanitarian assistance from DFID and other donor Governments; the people of Zimbabwe should not suffer because of Robert Mugabe's policies. However, I would welcome further clarification on DFID's approach to "good governance", as outlined in paragraph 166 of the Select Committee report.
If the Government are to understand fully the longer-term approach that is needed for southern Africa, their attitude towards Zimbabwe needs adjustment. What is happening now is different from what happened in 1985, and requires a different response. It requires long-term food security policies and improvement of the mechanisms for supporting the WFP.
In the long term, more needs to be done to deal with the following famine equation: drought plus HIV/AIDS minus fair trade equals famine. Otherwise, Africa will have 30 million people who are dependent on food aid. For Africa alone, the 2015 targets will become the 2030 millennium goals, as the continent continues to starve silently or—to reiterate the words of Prime Minister Meles—continues to be the ghetto of the globalised world.
2.56 pm
Mr. John Battle: I particularly welcome the paragraph of the ministerial statement of 23 June that is headed "Longer-term Response", but wonder whether we could bring it more to the fore. The paragraph reads:
"The relative severity of the humanitarian crisis in Southern Africa is leading to a reassessment of the significance of food shortages to the development prospects for the region. This reassessment is taking the very high rates of HIV/AIDS infection in Southern Africa into account … As part of this work, the UK will develop a strategy later this year for tackling hunger and vulnerability in Southern Africa over the medium term."—[Official Report, 23 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 32WS.]

347WH
I press the Minister to outline that strategy. I encourage him and the Department to get on with that longer-term development strategy, and to shift the frame from short-term crisis management to a longer-term approach.
Two occasions during our Select Committee visit to southern Africa changed my perception of poverty and hunger in Africa. The first was watching a woman and her two daughters in a rural part of Malawi trying to plough and hoe hard, dry ground that had lacked rain for nearly two years. I asked them, "Where are the men to help?" The answer was that the men in the family were too sick with HIV/AIDS to be able to prepare the ground or to plant seed for the following year.
The second occasion was a meeting at the Ministry of Agriculture at which there were 24 highly trained officials: technicians, agronomists, agriculturalists, top horticultural scientists and people skilled in economics. It shocked me to be told that, of those 24 in the room, five would die of HIV/AIDS within five years. That would strip out the ability of the Administration to manage the crisis. The HIV/AIDS crisis provides a framework within which we must view poverty in Africa. We must welcome all efforts to address that crisis.
It is tragic to note, as we did in our report, that Africa is the only continent that is moving backwards on the millennium development goals. As we said in the report, it will be impossible for countries to halve poverty and hunger by 2015, in line with those goals. The Department says that it shares the Committee's concern; it is essential to ensure that a humanitarian response promotes longer-term food security. At present, 115 million children, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa, do not go to school and 88 countries are behind their targets for the millennium development goal in education. In Africa, 7 million people are dying of preventable diseases. I do not blame the Government because targets are not being met, but those targets are starting to disappear across the horizon, as if they are unattainable.
The Department's response to the International Development Committee's report spells out that the crisis in southern Africa has complex causes, and it stresses a livelihoods approach, and of course we must accept that. There is a helpful reference to Malawi in paragraph 21, which states:
"In Malawi, significant progress has already been made towards a comprehensive, long-term National Food Security Strategy. This will include production, storage, marketing and trade issues."
One of the most important questions, which we pressed when we were conducting our inquiry, was why the strategic grain reserve in Malawi had been allowed to run down to such an extent that it had to ship in food aid. What had happened to the management of the strategic grain reserve was a big issue; I underline "was" because my question now is what is being done to restock the grain reserves. How do we ensure that there is enough grain to go into the reserves in the first place? The Department's reply in paragraph 23 states:
"In Malawi, encouraging progress is being made on risk mitigation through crop diversification, promotion of supplementary irrigation and support to small enterprise development made possible through income from public works employment."
348WH
I emphasise that, as I want the Department to tell us how support for small enterprise development can be fostered and pushed further.
The key economic challenge, not just in Africa, is how to link macro-strategies with micro-economic implementation. There is often a gap; there are great economic policy ideas at macro level but something entirely different happens on the ground. That is as true in Britain as it elsewhere. There is a general view in economics that countries start with agriculture, which is followed by an industrial revolution and then post-industrialisation. Now it is suggested that everyone can get a mobile phone without the wires.
It would be hard to dispense entirely with an agricultural strategy; it is hard enough to develop one in Britain. It has been a tremendous effort to try to reshape a bit of the European Union's common agricultural policy, which led to today's statement on reforms. We lack a vision of the role of agriculture in the world's societies and an international vision and strategy for agriculture that links the micro and the macro. What is needed is long-term agricultural sustainability, focusing on small farmers rather than on agribusiness.
In paragraph 27, the Select Committee states:
"The development of a cash-crop economy and export businesses can play an important role, not least in transferring technology to developing countries, but for widespread poverty reduction and livelihood enhancement the focus must be on small and medium scale agricultural producers."
The Department's response states:
"We agree. DFID believes that a sound development strategy can include developing both competitive large scale agribusiness as well as broad support for small and medium scale producers."
There is a question mark over that.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the Opposition spokesman, took us back to his days as an economics teacher. He said we should remember that there are buyers and sellers in the world. That is an early, idealistic, romantic view of economics because now the buyers and sellers are the same corporate body. That is the problem. The people who grow the product are also the people who process it and take it right through to packaging and delivery on to our supermarket shelves. That drives out small farmers. We cannot simply say that we will help the agribusiness world as well as the small farmers. Tensions, complications and contradictions may well emerge from such a strategy.
I encourage the Department to tell us what more it can do. The Government say that they will pay due attention to agriculture, and I agree that it is right that the strategy should be within the context of country strategies. It is within their poverty reduction strategies that the agricultural dimension to a country's strategy should be worked out. I emphasise that the vast majority in Africa who rely on agriculture for their livelihoods are small farmers. It is in rural areas, where small farmers are, that we see the hunger, the poverty and the crisis. Most of African agriculture is low-input, low-output small-scale farming.
DFID research shows that agricultural production per capita fell by 5 per cent. between 1980 and 2001. That is from the DFID report entitled "Better Livelihoods for Poor People: the role of agriculture", which was published in 2002. In other words, agriculture is going backwards as well as education and health. We

349WH
must consider this issue in a different way, because emphasis on small-scale production may bring down the price of food in rural areas and, indeed, for urban families, but when agriculture accounts for 37 per cent. of Africa's GDP, employs two thirds of its work force and provides half its exports, the agricultural sector will still be the engine of development and growth. There cannot be a quick jump to miss out agriculture. We cannot imagine that we can whip through the industrial revolution and get to post-industrialisation telecoms. The agricultural sector needs to be supported, and I suggest that it is the small-scale farming sector that needs that support. We must have a micro-strategy that links through to the macro-strategy.
I shall end with a brilliant example from Malawi. I visited a seed storage depot—well, it was really a hut in which seeds were stored. A DFID programme provided the seed packs. The very day that I went to see that seed storage depot—it was last October, if I remember rightly—the first drops of rain for months arrived. That seed package and fertiliser provided an opportunity for seeds to be grown just in time for the following year to prevent that year's famine—and that happened. Those seed packs were a local and, I think, a one-off initiative. I would like to know whether it caught on with other world agencies and whether there could be longer-term support from the international community. The ground cannot be prepared or ploughed if strength has been drained out through HIV/AIDS, and there is little point in ploughing it if there is not the seed and fertiliser to grow the following year's crop.
I encourage DFID to say that we must think and act according to a longer time frame, not only to anticipate climate shocks, such as a dry season, but to build, literally from the ground upwards, a long-term sustainable system that acknowledges that micro and macro-strategies must be riveted together. I know that it is difficult to get beyond annual budgeting even in the UK—the comprehensive spending review enabled us to get at least to three-year budgeting—but we need a comprehensive food security strategy that is developed from the base of small farming. If that were a top developmental priority and accepted by developing countries, we might be able to break out of the short-term panic that occurs every time that one season's rain is missed or the rain is light. However, that would require international pressure. We must also build on some of the practical action with which, in a tiny way, DFID already inspires us.
3.9 pm
John Barrett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on an excellent speech. He highlighted an important issue, which is that this is a long-term problem. In past decades, not much progress seems to have been made. He also made the important point that one of the problems in Africa is that many of the decision makers will not be around in the long term.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) described how the report relates to current events. Things are moving on, but much has stayed the same in Africa. I fear that the poverty, suffering and other elements that are mentioned in the report will still exist many years from now.
350WH
At first glance, Select Committee reports do not look like impressive documents. They are always blue—although I believe that that may change to purple—and contain lots of text, tables and statistics, but no photographs. Their layout is not designed for maximum impact. However, we are bombarded on a daily basis with glossy reports, in which more thought appears to have been put into the design than the content, and this report stands out because of its content. This is no "dodgy dossier" that needs leave a question mark as to whether something exists or not. The title "The Humanitarian Crisis in Southern Africa" says it all—there definitely is such a crisis.
As a relatively new member of the Select Committee, I begin by thanking my colleagues on the Committee who contributed to the report, the expert witnesses, the Committee staff and outside organisations, and those involved when we visited Malawi.
The Select Committee report ranges from the food crisis, to poverty, HIV/AIDS, early-warning systems, the Department for International Development's response, good governance, the NGOs, and much more. Many statistics are included, some of which are harrowing. There are 3.2 million AIDS orphans in the six crisis-affected countries; AIDS will kill many more people in southern Africa than hunger. In Malawi, between 6 per cent. and 8 per cent. of teachers die each year, and the cost of their funerals takes up a major slice of the education budget. As was said earlier, AIDS kills the very people needed to respond to the current crisis and whom the region needs most to survive: health workers, teachers and other able-bodied adults.
One of the greatest tragedies of the current crisis is its complexity. It is not just about people starving in Africa because of drought, although that is a major part of the equation, and is included in some detail in the report. There is also the problem of understanding the situation from the point of view of those suffering in Africa. It is impossible for many who read the report in the United Kingdom to appreciate what it means not to have a regular supply of nutritious food instantly accessible every day. I tried to live on a Red Cross food parcel for a week earlier in the year, and I am still suffering from that.
Nor is the crisis only about health problems that can easily be tackled with extra resources—again, that issue is covered in the report—or about the fact that corruption exists. Corruption has existed in Malawi, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West pointed out, and the questions that were raised about the sale of strategic reserves are not confined to the past. That led us to wonder whether such incidents might happen again. It is possible that some people made a lot of money out of the sale of grain that never moved out of the grain silos. Even in wealthy regions, we hear of money being salted away into western bank accounts, and of a small elite in some countries having a comfortable lifestyle.
As we saw on our visit to Malawi, education is the great hope for many young people. However, we saw school buildings with nothing in them but a few basic desks. Children who start going to school often drift away either because of basic problems such as no toilets being provided for teenage girls, or because they have to help in the fields. We were told that, for every 1,000 children who start primary school in Malawi, two would graduate and one would die of AIDS.

351WH
The report also covers the impact of genetically modified crops and the debate over whether it was right for Zambia, with people starving, to refuse 18,000 tonnes of maize from the USA. President Mwanawasa said that he would rather die than eat something toxic. That debate has not been helped by some people in the UK who are opposed to GM research under any circumstances. If drought-resistant crops can be developed by scientists and that process can be accelerated, they should be able to do what they can to help with the problem. Mistakes have been made, but a lot of good work is also being done by the Department for International Development, NGOs, local communities and some Governments, who are all responding to a desperate situation.
I should like to add to the debate something that the report cannot easily include. I mentioned that there are no photographs in the report. That can work to its advantage because people will not skim through it looking at the photographs and their captions without reading the text. However, I will try to convey some of the images from the Select Committee's visit to the region.
Those of us who visited Malawi saw at first hand things that will stay with us for a long time: the AIDS victims in the clinic in Lilongwe, where we were told about the spread of AIDS and the particularly high infection rate among young girls; the orphans who are looked after by extended families—often grandparents—which often means that no one is physically able to plough the family fields and to plant seeds by hand as the survivors are too young, or too old, to do the manual work required; those suffering from tuberculosis; and children in the malnutrition ward, where one child in every bed meant that it was a quiet period—there are two or three in every bed when it is busy. Those images have stuck with me.
We saw people queuing up in dark, overcrowded hospitals, and the enthusiasm of children who wanted to learn and who travelled miles to get to school, sometimes in the blistering heat. The image that stuck with me the most was that of an elderly woman whom I saw at a seed distribution project funded by DFID. She had a bag of grain, which I could have hardly lifted off the ground, balancing on her head and was ready to walk 6 km home.
We also saw a vast lake and an abundance of water not too far away from where people needed it, and we were aware of how irrigation could help. I tried to participate in irrigation by using a treadle pump. It was as exhausting as a trip to the gym. It was hard enough for a well fed MP, but it was a greater task for someone who was already weak from hunger or ill health.
We saw beggars in the streets and people breaking stones all day. It was a really troublesome time. Perhaps future reports should carry photographs, because they would sum up the situation. A photograph is often worth a thousand words.
Tony Baldry: One of the most depressing points about the treadle pumps that we saw is that they are very simple and do not cost much, but there was no manufacturing facility for treadle pumps in Malawi or in South Africa. They are all imported from India. The technology seems to be so simple. All of us receive letters
352WH
from vexatious constituents: I am sure that the Minister received them in his previous job. I have started to become vexatious, because I cannot understand why people who are banged up in prison for almost 24 hours a day, as they are in prisons in my constituency, cannot at least be doing useful work such as making treadle pumps. It is such a tragedy that such simple technology, which can revolutionise people's lives, has to be imported from India. Why on earth cannot we provide the facilities for them to be made in Africa, or, at the very least, put prisoners in this country to use by getting them to make some of the intermediate technology?
John Barrett: Absolutely. I could not agree more. It would make perfect sense to manufacture treadle pumps in Africa. Equally, mosquito nets are imported from Hong Kong to a country in which everybody needs them. It makes no sense at all. It would make absolute sense to increase the economic activity in the country and to produce—perhaps at an ever-cheaper rate—goods that were needed there.
The current buzz phrase is trade liberalisation. Yesterday, there was a good debate in the House, and positive contributions were made on both sides. However, although opening up new markets will help many, we must accept that we in the developed world are a major part of the problem. Poverty is a major factor in the humanitarian crisis, yet the European Union and the United States continue to protect and to subsidise their own farmers, which destroys potential markets for those in southern Africa.
The UN estimates that if the trade rules were made to work for poorer countries, it could be worth up to 14 times the total amount of donated aid, or 30 times the amount that must be paid in debt repayments. If we are to move forward on trade, we must ensure that basic agricultural products have access to more markets and that their producers can benefit from the added value. It is a scandal that what we pay for a cup of coffee in Starbucks is the same as what a coffee farmer receives for enough coffee to produce 1,000 cups of coffee.
Trade between countries in the region must also be encouraged, as I mentioned earlier. Sadly, the systems in many countries in southern Africa, and in many of those most in need, have great difficulty in maximising the effect of outside aid. As the hon. Member for Banbury said, one example is the problem of transporting food aid to remote areas that can be cut off during the rainy season. The need to repair bridges and roads may not appear to be a top priority during the dry season, but the hungry will starve if food aid cannot be distributed on the ground because of a poor road system and lack of bridge repairs. That is one success in which DFID is involved.
When the Select Committee visited Malawi last year, we were able to see what village life was like and what people were up against. We saw a compound of Red Cross trucks ready to be used to distribute aid, but we were told that they were the heaviest and most expensive trucks to run. They were designed to be used in areas of conflict and could withstand heavy use, but locally, smaller vehicles were more suitable and cheaper to run.
The food and AIDS crises have become interlinked in many southern African countries. Nowhere is that link highlighted more than in discussions about the use and

353WH
availability of anti-retroviral drugs. People need a good diet and to be relatively strong to cope with the medication available. For many of those who are weak, the use of some medication is out of the question, even if it is available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) mentioned yesterday the progress being made in Botswana in the fight against AIDS. The Government there have involved the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and money has been taken out of the equation. Drugs and medical services have been made available, and resources have been poured in to tackle the problem. There is an educational programme to inform people how to avoid infection, in a country with one of the highest infection rates in the world.
Sadly, with every possible resource being thrown at the problem, very little is changing. In a relatively wealthy country for the region, increased wealth has brought its own problems, from alcohol to mobility. Both have increased the spread of AIDS. Young men like to get drunk; they have lots of partners and they have unprotected sex. Treatment is hampered by the stigma attached to the virus so that many will not come forward for treatment until it is too late.
I am normally an optimistic person. It is nearly 20 years on from Live Aid in 1985, when young people in their millions were moved by the plight of starving Africa and, if I had thought then we would have all the same problems to deal with 20 years later, it would be bad enough. However, if we also take into account the scourge of AIDS, we have a disaster on our hands of a biblical scale. I am not a religious person, but after reading this report many will say, "God help Africa".
3.21 pm
Tony Worthington: As my colleagues have said, this is a welcome opportunity to discuss the crisis that drew us to southern Africa last year, and the current situation in a part of the world that is not making the necessary progress towards the millennium development goals. In fact, it is slipping backwards.
It was my privilege to lead the party that went out to southern Africa. I express my gratitude to DFID and the Foreign Office, and their staff in London, Lilongwe and Harare for the quality of the experience that they organised for us. I offer particular thanks to the Foreign Office and DFID staff for coming out of Harare in order to acquaint us with the up-to-date situation there. I would also like to thank the Government of Malawi, the NGOs and the international financial institutions for the help that they gave us in constructing the report.
I should like to put in a particular and special word of thanks to one other person. At his birth this man was given a name that seemed completely unexceptional, but the speaking of his name now brings forth signs of warmth and affection in everyone who hears it. I am referring of course to Harry Potter, one of DFID's advisers in Malawi who was our principal, ever-present adviser during our visit. I was delighted to hear that Harry had been awarded the OBE in the new year's honours list. On the evidence of the support that he gave us, it was richly deserved for many years of distinguished work in development.
354WH
We are considering the report and the Government's response. I am also grateful to the Minister for Monday's written statement, which gives us an update on the situation, and is much more positive than what we were hearing before our departure. It is gratifying that the great fears about the situation in southern Africa that prompted the visit did not come to pass, although there are still serious worries in Ethiopia, Angola and, above all, Zimbabwe.
We did not go to Africa to see the idiosyncratic parts of the crisis: we wanted to consider the endemic parts of the crisis, to see whether there was evidence of endemic failure. We found major shortcomings that need to be put right in order to avoid future disasters. Although we talk about the debacle of the disappearing grain store in Malawi, I want to concentrate on those factors that lead to continuing food insecurity.
I will not go through the report, because that would take too long and be unfair to everyone. I just want to draw attention to some issues that made a particular impact on me. Obviously, they draw on the situation in Malawi, but they are apposite to other African countries with which other members of the Committee and I are familiar. I want to talk particularly about the neglect of agriculture in the developing world.
Malawi is the most rural country that I have ever visited. More than 85 per cent. of the population are dependent on the crops that they grow. It is also a densely populated country. Unlike in other African countries, there are no large towns, with associated shanty towns, to which people flee the impoverished countryside in order to get jobs. There has been a decline in migrant labour, partly because of the situation in Zimbabwe and in South Africa. More and more people have to live on ever-diminishing, divided-up patches of land. There is no reliable system of codified, legalised land tenure, which is essential if there is to be foreign investment in Malawi.
The only major export is tobacco and there is only a tiny manufacturing sector. The country is landlocked. There is insufficient demand from the outside world to make the opening up of foreign markets a priority. I was surprised to learn that the only direct contact that Malawi has with the world outside Africa is the weekly British Airways flight. That is how isolated the country is, and the collection of problems that are assembled.
Much of the soil is depleted by the demands made on it and by the obsession with growing maize. Farm animals in some parts of the country are sparse, because of the pressure on land, insecurity and previous crises. There is a grave shortage of fertiliser, so there is dependence on foreign multinationals and a tendency to depend on foreign seeds.
In such a situation, one might expect a concentration on strategies to organise a macro-agricultural policy, but that is not so. The Government's response states that there is such a policy now, but I did not detect the slightest sign that the Malawi Government had an agricultural policy for sustainable development. I was looking for it, but I did not see it. There was no sign that the donors were facing up to the issues either. It is strange to me that in other fields, such as education and health, we talk about sector-wide approaches, whereas I have not come across that in agriculture.

355WH
In the past, there has been much justified criticism of state involvement in agriculture through corrupt parastatals. The pressures from the international financial institutions for liberalisation have left countries with declining state structures, few agricultural policy plans and affected by inertia. There is a profound market failure. I am talking about a lack of markets, a lack of investment and a lack of science being used to improve matters.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: The hon. Gentleman may come to this point later in his speech, but does he agree that in Malawi one of the big problems is the rather inefficient—to say the least—Government? When I was out there, the interest rates were astronomical. There is just no way that they can attract foreign investment to help their country along.
Tony Worthington: As the hon. Lady said, I will come to that. The point about the quality of governance is valuable and crucial.
The neglect of agriculture is not just by the Malawi Government. The international financial institutions must take their share of responsibility for the sad state of agricultural management. The Washington consensus—the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund—rightly demanded the abolition of inefficient and often corrupt state structures. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said, it is ludicrous to expect peasant farmers to achieve economic growth in the absence of markets and capital and with a viciously rigged trading system. The market has failed chronically, and we must put that right.
I was surprised at how little has been done over the years through the international financial institutions to build up Malawi's infrastructure. As other hon. Members have said, the treadle pump was greeted as something from the 21st century rather than something that has been around for centuries. Extraordinarily, we found that Malawi, one of the poorest countries in the world, would have been a net contributor to the World Bank this year if one new and questionable project had not been started. Ironically, the project is designed to provide food handouts for the population. We could not find any evidence of an irrigation strategy, although the Government's response claims that there is one.
In response to the crisis, DFID was, to its credit, funding the reopening of the Nacala railway to the coast through Mozambique. That would seem to be a priority for a landlocked country such as Malawi, so why, after the Mozambique war was over, was it not a priority for the Malawian Government and the international financial institutions? Why did it take a starvation crisis to stimulate the opening of access to the sea? The international financial institutions must improve their performance.
Almost every area of life has an appropriate UN organisation—WHO, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNESCO or the International Labour Organisation—but agriculture has the Food and Agriculture Organisation, which is the lowest-profile, most subterranean UN organisation. Its impact on farming in Africa is undetectable, yet it is crucial to a country that is dependent on agriculture. It
356WH
is extraordinary that in the generally excellent briefing documents that we receive from NGOs there is little reference to the production of food and agricultural organisation. There are occasional references to what are termed "livelihoods", but rarely anything about overall land policy and agricultural production.
Tony Baldry: Everyone on the Select Committee would thoroughly applaud and cheer everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying. One danger is that we have all become so involved in the theology of sustainable livelihoods that we have forgotten that people must earn money and create jobs and wealth. Agriculture is the key to that process for many people in Africa. We must focus on basic agriculture, and not be concerned merely with sustainable livelihoods.
Tony Worthington: Bingo. That is absolutely right, and I could not agree more. It is strange that so many words are expended about hunger, but so few are uttered about how the food is grown in those countries.
Extraordinarily, between 1997–98 and 2001–02, DFID's annual bilateral expenditure on agriculture and livestock fell by 25 per cent., whereas its overall direct bilateral expenditure has grown significantly. CDC has also withdrawn from agriculture in Africa. I picked up no sense whatsoever that the Malawian agricultural sector could develop a strategy to export its products.
The neglect of agriculture by donors is extraordinary, given that in sub-Saharan Africa agricultural growth and productivity has stagnated and fallen over the years. The sector is sick, yet it is being ignored. FARM-Africa, an agricultural NGO, tells me that agriculture accounts for 37 per cent. of Africa's GDP, but the figure is much greater in some countries. Agriculture employs two thirds of Africa's work force and provides half its exports. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West said, we have to start from where we are. We cannot make a sudden leap into 21st and 22nd-century economic growth. We have to start with what is there, and make it more efficient.
I hope that the tide has turned on the neglect of agriculture. The World Bank recently produced a policy paper that seems to indicate a change of thinking. In the past year, DFID has produced two consultation papers on food security and agriculture that also indicate a change of thought. I was delighted to see in the Minister's written statement updating us on the situation in southern Africa that some rethinking was under way.
However, the response to our report on agriculture is far too complacent. There is a passivity on agriculture that is difficult to understand. The response is to leave it up to developing countries to define their needs, but that is not happening. DFID says in its response that meeting the needs of the rural poor cannot be achieved by focusing exclusively on agricultural capacity. We do not say that either, but in many cases there is no focus on agricultural capacity and no holistic approach to considering legal, institutional and other barriers, as DFID advocates.
I see DFID as easily the best development ministry in the world. As the key leader of the development community in Africa, it should be giving a lead on this issue, because it has been neglected up to this point.

357WH
Current policies are not arresting decline. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that, because recent reports from the World Food Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organisation note that six countries, including Malawi, will still require substantial food aid despite the fact that more food has been produced this year. Increased and targeted support will be needed for the agricultural sectors of those countries.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) referred to governance. Many people feel that the high hopes that they had of the Malawi Government a few years ago have not been fulfilled. Regrettably, the political obsession in the country when we were there was the President's deliberations about whether to go for a third term of office. It was difficult to believe that the Government were fully focused on relieving poverty in Malawi. It must be remembered that when any President stands down voluntarily, many people are cut off from their source of status and income. At that time, the politicians of Malawi were focusing on their own food chain rather than on meeting the food needs of the poor, because in southern Africa politics is frequently a means of gaining personal access to the economic resources of the country as well as political power.
I said that it was difficult to find an organising strategy in Malawi for the agricultural sector. When we were there, relationships with the IMF had broken down, which was causing its own paralysis. I should be grateful if the Minister would update us on the situation.
The situation also cried out for more effective relationships and policies to be developed through the Southern African Development Community, which is the regional economic organisation. That will be crucial to future food security. The grain store debacle showed at the very least that the Malawi Government could not account for their grain. It disappeared. The anti-corruption bureau had great difficulty attaining successful conclusions to its anti-corruption investigations and, as with the grain store, the director of the bureau disappeared. I am told that he is now the ambassador in Germany. Malawi will need government of the highest quality if it is to achieve its own millennium development goal.
The final issue that I want to raise is the impact of HIV/AIDS on food security and poverty in southern Africa, which has the highest rates of infection in the world. Food security is crucial in two ways. First, a good diet is an essential, inescapable building block in the fight against AIDS for those who are infected, but many people in southern Africa do not have the constitutional resistance to fight AIDS. Secondly, the people who are brought down by AIDS often come from the most vigorous and productive sections of the population, and problems arise because extra burdens are put on children and grandparents. If famine and poverty are to be avoided, it is essential that we do better than we are doing at present in the fight against AIDS.
Having seen the plight of southern Africa, I want to ask the Minister some questions about the present policy on AIDS. The most positive contribution in recent months was a commitment, which has since been honoured in legislation, by the Bush Government in the United States to provide a fresh $10 billion to fight
358WH
AIDS. That is welcome, but raises many questions. Only $1 billion will go to the global health fund, although it was the chosen mechanism of the American Government and the UK to harness a truly international effort to fight AIDS. The global health fund does not have the cash to fund its next round of projects later this year, and the Americans are keeping money away from the global health fund even though it is now under the chairmanship of one of President Bush's most senior Ministers. Why is that? Of the $10 billion of fresh money, $9 billion will go bilaterally to just 14 countries: 12 in sub-Saharan Africa and two in the Caribbean. Malawi, although suffering heavily from the impact of AIDS, is not one of the chosen 12. Fourteen countries will be well funded and the others will receive nothing. What are the plans of the EU, the UK and the global health fund to remedy that imbalance? I should be grateful if the Minister would tell me what will happen.
What progress has been made in determining America's policy for the prevention and treatment of AIDS? There are various aspects. It seems that President Bush's figures for the number of people to be treated with anti-retroviral drugs are achievable only if countries have access to cheap generic drugs produced outside the United States, but the United States has been blocking such deals during the Doha talks. Linked with that is the fact that US aid, in line with American statute, must be spent on US products. That is what the law states for US aid, and it would be interesting to know how that can be squared.
What position are the Americans taking on the supply of condoms? That is important, because in recent years the European Union has filled the gaps left by the Americans. The number of condoms supplied by the Americans has fallen. When the first President Bush was in power, the Americans supplied 800 million condoms a year and they now supply 300 million. That is an unforgettable statistic. The average man in Botswana, which is one of the most affected countries, will receive only one condom a year from international sources.
It is important to know what attitude the Americans are taking on the provision of reproductive health services and HIV services alongside each other. In a country such as Tanzania, where only $3 to $4 a person a year is spent on health care, it is ludicrous to have separate provision of services for those suffering from AIDS or needing preventive services and those needing reproductive health services. I was delighted to read the words of the EU commissioner, Poul Nielsen, who said that American reproductive health policy was being driven by zealots whose ultimate goal is no contraceptive use at all and sex only within marriage. There is a conflict between what the people driving reproductive health services in America want and what would be good international co-operative practice in line with the Cairo conference 10 years ago.
I would welcome the Minister's comments on the issue. If countries such as Malawi are to end poverty, they must have good reproductive health services to enable families to choose family size. They must also have good preventive services to avoid the spread of AIDS. In its publication "Global Health-Sector Strategy for HIV/AIDS", WHO points out that existing reproductive health programmes
"provide a clear entry point for the delivery of HIV/AIDS interventions."

359WH
I agree, but that is not what has happened, and there is a real danger that American policy will prevent that common-sense approach. I was pleased to hear from the Secretary of State and the Minister that there is great determination in DFID to maintain the solidarity achieved at the Cairo conference on reproductive health in 1994.
Our weakness with regard to the Americans is that President Bush can show that he has put serious money into AIDS work, whereas Europe cannot. What is the position with regard to the global health fund and the funding of AIDS work in general?
I and everyone associated with the report take pride in it. It asks serious questions about future policy, and I hope that it will be a help to the Department, as any responsible Select Committee report should be.
3.47 pm
Dr. Jenny Tonge: It is tempting to start my remarks in yet another debate about Africa by asking where other Members are. I cannot imagine that they have been crowding into the main Chamber of the House Commons all afternoon for a debate on standards and privileges. That debate has already finished and the House has gone on to the Adjournment debate. We precious few, we band of brothers, are here yet again talking about Africa.
Mr. Battle: The hon. Lady will keep us going.
Dr. Tonge: Yes, I will keep the debate going as long as Members want. However, I suspect that they would not want me to do that.
As we heard from hon. Members and from the Chairman of the Select Committee, other parts of the world are making progress towards the millennium goals, but Africa is going backwards. I now find this such a depressing subject. By previous standards, the current crisis was well forecasted. I was pleased that the non-governmental organisations flagged up in good time the crisis looming in southern Africa and Ethiopia. My first experience of such a crisis was the famine in Sudan in 1997–98. The Select Committee, of which I was a member, led an investigation into why we did not get an early warning of what was going to happen in southern Sudan. Things have therefore improved in that the Select Committee is not looking back to a famine, but is looking forward to see how it can continue to prevent a very large famine.
As the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) implied, just because there are no skeletons on our screens night after night, that does not mean that there is no looming crisis in southern Africa. There is, and it is very large and continuing. Frankly, it will not get better unless an awful lot happens.
This was a very good report. I cannot say that I read it word for word, cover to cover, but it is extremely interesting. It opens up a huge number of issues. I want to address just a few of them and to throw in a few of my own, if Members will indulge me.
We still do not know enough about the financial situation and how much money is needed if we are going to make realistic progress in Africa. There have been all sorts of initiatives. I know that we have made progress
360WH
on debt relief, and I know that the international finance facility has been set up, but there is a lot of doubt about that.
I was very depressed to hear that the World Bank reforms to allow developing countries more voting power and more say in that institution are being obstructed by the United States. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that. Why is that happening? It seems to me that developing countries, especially African countries, need a much louder voice in all the international bodies, and a greater ability to make their voice heard.
The other issue that interested me was varying weather patterns—another factor in the current crisis in southern Africa. It would appear that the climate is getting more unpredictable. Many of the current food shortages are due to droughts in various parts of Africa, which have not been contained as they used to be. I know that there are many other factors, but it made me wonder whether any research had been done into climate change in southern Africa. Are the climate patterns changing? Will these long periods of drought be a permanent feature, and if so, is that related to global warming? That is yet another example of the west using all the energy, emitting all the carbon dioxide and causing global warming, with Africa suffering as a result.
Is any research being carried out on climate change? That is important, because it would help in the development of early warning systems, which are talked about a great deal. If we had more idea of what is happening to the climate in Africa, and whether there will be changing weather patterns, we might be able to improve our early warning systems. I was very impressed with an answer I received on 24 June to a question about early warning systems for food shortages and famine. The Minister gave me a full response, explaining the new systems that had been set up—including enhanced monitoring systems and early warning systems—to prevent such dreadful famines. Perhaps the Minister will tell us a little more about those in his closing remarks.
Food security is a funny thing. A couple of thousand years ago the pharaohs of Egypt had the problem taped. They had years of famine and years of plenty, but they had huge granaries to enable them to get through the lean years. It seems extraordinary that in the 21st century we are unable to cope with that. Despite all our technology and forecasting systems, the pharaohs managed the problem a little better. When will we get the report on the Malawian food storage scandal—or whatever it is to be called? When I was there, I was told that an investigation was going on. I did not know that the Minister responsible had gone to Germany, but that is an example of added value.
Tony Worthington: It was not the Minister who was involved, but the director of the anti-corruption bureau, who was reaching the end of his inquiries into the matter when he was transferred to another job.
Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that correction. Being the director of an anti-corruption bureau in Malawi must be quite fun.
Food production in southern Africa is not just affected by climate change. Strangely, we have not said much about Zimbabwe this afternoon. Zimbabwe was a

361WH
net exporter of food—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has indicated that she will talk about Zimbabwe. It is outrageous that all the food aid has to pour into Zimbabwe. It is unbelievable. Its surplus food used to feed all the countries around it. When are we going to stop being neurotic about the black-white issue and our colonial past? Something is wrong, human rights are being abused and a country is being destroyed while we watch. We were quite ready to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, so why on earth is not more pressure being put on Zimbabwe?
It may not be a very Liberal Democrat view, but I am becoming terribly frustrated, because although we keep saying that the surrounding African countries should he doing something about Zimbabwe, they are not doing anything about it. Surrounding countries in the middle east did nothing about Iraq, and the countries in Asia did nothing about Afghanistan. The situation in Zimbabwe is a very serious matter. It is a scandal that it is now hugely dependent on food aid, and we ought to deal with that.
The hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) talked a lot about agriculture, and I agree wholeheartedly with what they said. It is depressing that there is so little agricultural production in many African countries. That is due not just to the AIDS epidemic or people not being able to plough the land.
Yesterday, I mentioned the rice farmers in the north of Ghana who are out of business and unemployed because American rice is cheaper in Ghana than the rice they grow themselves. That is a nonsense. Countries should be encouraging small farms to produce as much food as they can to feed their own families and their own people. The big boys should come in with aid only when there is a massive drought, over perhaps seven years. Stuff is being dumped and sold cheaply because of subsidies when countries should be growing their own food, and that is absolutely outrageous.
The CAP reform has been much trumpeted in the media today. I listened to the statement by the Secretary of State, but she did not give much detail, and I hope that the Minister will tell us more about how that reform will affect developing countries and trade.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and others referred to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said, but I would add one factor. People who are very sick cannot work in the fields. They become a huge burden on their families, because they need to be helped. They need food and water, and to be nursed in the villages.
When I was in Malawi, I visited the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Blantyre, which looked a bit like my local hospital. It was a lovely, airy building with nice corridors and windows on each side. However, when I went into one of the wards, I saw that it was piled high with bodies. There were 120 of them—under the beds, over the beds, between the beds and in the corridor— and the sister said that it was quite a low count in a ward that had been built for 30 patients. She expected many more. She had four nurses, none of whom would be on duty the next day, so she would be on her own. Ten people had already died that morning and it was only 11 o'clock. It was a vision of hell.
362WH
Now I understand why the village people bring their relatives to the hospital gates and leave them there: they do not have the time or the energy to nurse them in the villages. One of the saddest things is that the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Blantyre is the only teaching hospital in the country, and there is a 40 per cent. vacancy rate for doctors and nurses in Malawi. If I were a doctor or a nurse in Malawi, and in the only teaching hospital the wards were like the ward I saw in Blantyre, I would head for another country fast. There is nothing that those doctors and nurses can do. They cannot learn or teach nursing, nor can they practise medicine. All they can do is set up drips, perhaps for a couple of days, and then act as mortuary attendants. That damages the country as much as all the other factors.
I spoke to a young doctor in Malawi—she was a public health doctor—who was keen to set up a scheme in which people could be cared for in their villages by visiting nurses or health workers, so that the hospitals could return again to their proper function. I hope that the Minister will take that issue back to his Department—I appeal to the civil servants present to do so—because, as a doctor myself, I felt for those people. They are achieving nothing, and it is no wonder that they leave. They want to progress in their careers and do something significant.
Intermediate technology was discussed earlier. Over the years, I have become a very sad person because, in my spare time, when the House rises early, I attend lectures at engineering institutes. There was an interesting lecture recently on intermediate technology, and how civil engineers could help the third world. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) talked about treadle pumps. At the lecture there was a man who had invented a roundabout pump. His pilot scheme in Africa involved the construction of a children's roundabout in the centre of a village, which was attached by some cunning screws—I do not know how exactly, because I am not an engineer—and worked the village pump. While the children played, jumping on and off the roundabout and swinging it round, the water was being pumped up out of the ground. The sad thing is that, at present, there are only about six such pumps in the whole of Africa. I asked whether there was not any way in which millions of such simple pumps could be installed in villages throughout Africa. Intermediate technology has a huge amount to offer.
I suggest that there should be a version of the treadle pump mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West for AIDS sufferers. They would probably find it easier to work such a pump, or even to construct one, than to undertake agricultural labour, which is tiring and heavy work.
Yesterday, I made a plea. A big multinational company, Merck, Sharp and Dohme, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Government of Botswana have established a public-private partnership to undertake all the prevention, treatment and drug provision in Botswana. I asked whether, instead of constantly bashing multinationals, we could pull those companies in and make them significant actors in the development field.
I know that such companies produce their glossy brochures, and set up schools for their workers, whom they invariably bring in from other areas rather than using local labour. However, there must be some way in

363WH
which the Governments of developed countries or international institutions can encourage multinational companies to form those partnerships to drive development along. Such companies have far more resources than most countries, and the example of what is happening in Botswana is to be commended. I hope that it will be replicated in many other countries.
The developed world must decide to do something radical about Africa. We are giving inadequate medicine to a dying patient, and I am not talking about AIDS. If we had the right amount of aid, trade or whatever, we could save the life of Africa. I sometimes wonder whether we are prolonging the agony: we give a little bit here and a little bit there, and we struggle against this and we struggle against that. Nobody is prepared to take the problem by the scruff of the neck and say, "I will solve it."
I remember Live Aid 20 years ago. My eldest son was a rockabilly at the time—I never understood what a rockabilly was, but he looked very strange. He supported Live Aid and went out campaigning having been inspired by Bob Geldof. It was good that Live Aid happened, but we have not progressed since then. As my hon. Friend said, nothing much is improving. I have held this portfolio for six years—I must be the longest serving international development portfolio holder—and it depresses me that so little progress has been made.
4.6 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: For the benefit of Members, I thought that it might be nice to start by mentioning that the Adjournment debate in the House marks the retirement of Sir Nicholas Bevan. Members have remarked on the sad shortage of Members in this Chamber this afternoon, but we know that many of them are in House paying their respects to Sir Nicholas. Perhaps we can pay our respects in Hansard. I am sure that hon. Members would like to join me in saying that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Uniquely, I have no objection. As I said in the House earlier today, Sir Nicholas has served the House for many years with great distinction, friendliness and courtesy.
Mrs. Spelman: You have ensured that it will be on the record, Sir Nicholas. As a more recent Member, I, too, have good reason to be grateful for the advice that he has given me in my relatively short time in Parliament; we shall miss him.
I am grateful to the Select Committee on International Development for the enormous amount of work that it has put into its analysis of the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa. I enjoyed reading its report, which was laid out with the Government's response. That lay-out resulted in an interesting dialogue between Members who took the trouble to visit the area to speak to many people and the Government. When those Members returned, they were well informed, on top of their already substantial knowledge of international development issues. The report forced the Government's response, which means that the quality of the dialogue in the report is excellent. When I discuss engaging with the ideas, the nature of the dialogue will become clear.
364WH
In essence, the report is a post-mortem about the peak of the humanitarian crisis, which has sadly not gone away. The research is ongoing, which is interesting. The important thing that we must draw from the report is how to avoid a repeat of the experience and how to prevent a dependency cycle. The severity of the crisis in the southern African region is a challenge to all of us who are concerned about those in the developing world.
What lessons have been learned from the crisis? The Select Committee was right to focus on the early warning systems. Although there was intelligence, the warnings undoubtedly came too late to save some lives. I welcome the vulnerability assessment report because there is a clear need to identify risk, and most of those countries are at risk. My concern about the southern African crisis was that DFID responded too slowly in two key cases. There was an early warning system for the severity of the famine in Malawi. When I wrote to the previous Secretary of State for International Development in March 2002, she replied that the shortages were localised. It was a long time before the view of the severity of that crisis changed from localised shortages to a full-blown disaster.
Exactly the same complacency characterised the initial response to the famine in Ethiopia. During an interview that the then Secretary of State gave on the "Today" programme, the famine was contrasted and compared with the severity of the crisis in southern Africa, but the indication was that it was much less serious, although almost the same number of people were at risk. My warning to the Minister is that we should be quicker off the mark in future with early warning systems, and I hope that the vulnerability assessment reports will enable him to do that.
Perhaps the key is better local intelligence on the ground. Non-governmental organisations gave early warnings of the severity of the crisis, but local intelligence gathering is very important. As hon. Members are aware, the media play a role and can help with the early warning system by drawing the world's attention to a looming problem. However, they can also hinder, because journalists who visit countries where there is an impending humanitarian food crisis sometimes misread the situation because of lack of specialist knowledge. There was an instance in Malawi when British journalists for broadsheet newspapers saw a severely browning crop on the ground. They assumed that that was an indication of the crisis, but it is a normal part of the maize cycle. We must be cautious of reports received through the media. Although they can be helpful in drawing attention to a problem, better local intelligence and a swifter response would undoubtedly have saved lives.
I am rather glad that the Select Committee members who are present today have used Malawi as an example of some of the fundamental underlying problems at the root of the crisis in the region. We are in an advantageous situation in that both the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on such matters, and I have been there. It is useful to test our views on a country that we have all visited because we start from the same base.
There is no question that Malawi has some special features of which we must take account. It is small, peaceful—thank goodness—and landlocked, but it is massively over-populated as a result of the Mozambique

365WH
war. Many of its problems arise from features pertaining to the country, but it also has problems in common with the region. The crisis was triggered by erratic rainfall and a modest fall in food production, as the report states. That shows how vulnerable the region is. The coping strategies that the population has evolved for living in such an adverse climate are incredibly fragile, and it does not take much to tip the population over the edge so that many people die. Sadly, death from starvation is an annual occurrence in Malawi.
Those conditions could be replicated next year, if not this year, if we do not tackle some of the underlying problems. Malawi has rain, and there was lots of it when I was there with thunderstorms and no shortage of water falling, but no way of capturing that benefice. The runoff from the soil was enormous. Soil erosion was tangible with vast quantities of topsoil brought down from over-cultivated fields to lie in the roads in huge pools, but there was no way of capturing what nature has to offer. The absence of irrigation is a problem in any form of farming, even subsistence farming and certainly commercial farming, in that country. It has rainfall, and a huge lake—another feature of the country—but in many ways the agrarian economy cannot take advantage of them. However, other drought-prone developing countries do respond to climatic diversity. Drought-prone countries in Asia have developed water systems and used treadle pumps, which are ancient technology, not high tech. If more help were given to the region, such technology could result in offsetting the volatility in the climate that is a feature of the region.
There is no doubt that Malawi, in common with other countries in the region, is badly affected by adverse world trade rules that work so hard against developing nations. We had a substantial debate on that yesterday, but I reiterate that Malawi has, over the years, been encouraged to grow a range of commercial cash crops, but with an absurdly repeated cycle of very limited success and frequent failure.
The example about tobacco in yesterday's debate on fair trade does not need to be repeated. Those of us who visited Malawi saw the small holdings of Malawian tobacco, but the fact that 300,000 farmers in Malawi grow tobacco means that it is an important cash crop for a country that has suffered badly from domestic subsidies applied to tobacco in the developed part of the world.
Coffee is another example. I saw neglected former plantations of coffee production. Malawi has the climate to produce coffee, but coffee has been badly affected by the devastating collapse in commodity prices. Nor has the country any chance to compete. Huge tea plantations are now derelict, bringing unemployment and aggravating the serious poverty.
There is therefore no question that today's news on common agricultural policy reform, which lacked any commitment to removing the export subsidies that so damage the cash crop-producing potential of these countries, is utterly depressing. I hope that the Minister will confirm the impression that we have been given that no word in the conclusions of that CAP reform statement today, which the Government will present as
366WH
a success, brings any comfort to the developing world. I record my party's deep regret that the opportunity has been missed.
Malawi survives on a regime of dependency on food aid. That is not desirable, but it is even less desirable that we have been giving Malawi food aid—we are not alone in that, but we have been a guilty party—but have not been giving it what it has been asking for. That is a more widespread problem. I acknowledge that the Government appear to have paid attention to that in the Select Committee's report, but I want to press the Minister to extrapolate some of the lessons that can be learned.
Faced with the incredible threat and reality of starvation in the region, a cry came from Malawian people not to give food for work in the programme. The initial idea had been to prevent starvation by providing people only with food. However, Malawian farmers were asking for something quite different. They wanted the implements with which to be able to produce the crop for themselves in subsequent years.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) described what he and I had seen in Malawi: women and children undertaking infrastructure projects because the male members of their household were too sick to take part in gruelling work. It is a hot country, and building roads by hand in hot countries is sheer hard work. The women who built the roads complained that if they were paid for their infrastructure work in food or cash, they had no sooner got home than members of the extended family tapped them for it. It is difficult for someone to be confronted by members of their family who are starving hungry when they have the wherewithal to keep them alive. How does that person refuse their family a portion of the food or cash that they have been given for their work?
People want vouchers for seed and fertiliser that they can cash in when the first rains come. That would make it much easier for them to explain to other members of the family that the benefit of their road-building programme will be seen in next year's harvest, when they will have the wherewithal to plant and perhaps to feed the extended family. For a long time, we seem to have resisted that request. The good news is that in the report published on 7 May, the response from the Government makes it clear that a conversion has taken place in DFID and that the pilot programme undertaken in Malawi, which has had such good results, has attracted the Government's attention. My question to the Minister is: if the programme worked well in Malawi, to what extent does DFID intend to replicate it elsewhere in the region?
To me, the timing is poignant. The pilot programme was an NGO programme for which funding expired on 16 May, with no prospect of the inputs-for-work programme being able to continue. The conversion seems to have come on 7 May, and I understand that funds have now been found for continuation of the programme using DFID moneys. I am interested in the Government's intention and the extent to which that will happen.
DFID having been converted on the benefits of the inputs-for-work programme, I ask the Minister to turn his attention to the way in which taxpayers' money is given multilaterally through the European Union. I had

367WH
a letter from Pascal Lamy in response to my enthusiasm for the inputs-for-work programme. It flatly denied the programme's benefits and said that the European Union was committed to continuing to provide Malawian farmers with cash. I know from talking to those farmers that that cash simply disappears before the point at which they need it to purchase their inputs.
Even worse, Pascal Lamy said that the EU intended to persuade Malawian farmers to stop producing maize. I would like to know the reasons behind that, because maize is a staple crop in that country and, as far as I can see, it is the crop most likely to lift people out of wondering whether they will survive until the end of the year.
I am deeply unhappy about the situation. A third of our overseas aid is given in that way. If DFID is persuaded of the benefit of the inputs-for-work programme, will the Minister use his good offices to persuade those in the European Commission who do not share that view?
Tony Worthington: I do not pretend to be an expert on maize, but when we were in Malawi, there was great concern about the dependence on maize because if someone grows maize on the same patch of ground year after year and there is no fertiliser and no other means of remedying the depletion of the soil, things start going downhill. A balance in the crops that are grown in Malawi would be welcome.
Mrs. Spelman: I accept that if the fertiliser is not there, it is a disaster for the soil. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman saw the powerful image that I saw. It was like patchwork. If one looked at a section of the countryside—the holdings are small—one could see the parcels of land that had been fertilised next to the parcels of land that had not. A family that was able to feed itself and perhaps the wider family would be next door to a family that might not have enough to live on that year.
It has to be said that the experimentation with organic fertilisers, which has gone on for nearly a decade in Malawi, has failed. One particularly shocking reason why it failed is that people were so hungry that they ate the green matter for composting for the organic fertiliser programme. There is simply not enough of such matter. Although we might have deep concerns about inorganic fertilisers and their consequences for the environment, the reality is that in order for people to survive in Malawi and to make the country's food supplies sustainable, providing people with fertiliser is the key. Once the soil comes back into balance through the use of fertiliser, some adverse effects that we have seen, such as over-fertilisation, can be easily avoided. It was a stark lesson for all who have been there to see the consequences when soil is deprived of the nutrients needed to produce the crop.
On the inputs-for-work programme, one question that I put to the women digging the road—in some cases phenomenal distances of 9 or 12 km were involved—was how the programme would continue now that they had finished digging. How would they be able to work for inputs the following year? I ask the Minister to consider irrigation, and simple ways of capturing water in communities.
The other key ingredient of growth in production, along with fertiliser, is sufficient water. That kind of provision might be achieved through the inputs-for-
368WH
work programme. Ultimately, that does not create dependency because once the smallholder has enough fertiliser and seed, is able to save the seed and can afford next year's fertiliser, we do not need to continue providing aid in that form.
The women to whom I spoke had plenty of ideas on what they could do to improve their infrastructure by those means. They referred to capturing water and the building of fire breaks, which is very important in a desiccated country, and they would like to build schools. Malawian children miss out on school when the rains come, simply because there is nowhere dry to sit and learn. That seems a fairly basic provision.
Another key aspect of the International Development Committee's report was HIV/AIDS. Like many countries in the region, Malawi has been decimated by AIDS. In the village where I stayed, which had a population of 2,000, the man with whom I stayed was looking after 78 orphans and 53 widows, who would otherwise have had no one. The society is teetering on the edge of complete social breakdown.
I want to commend the project carried out by the Merck company in conjunction with the Government of Botswana as a model of how the terrible AIDS pandemic could be tackled more effectively in sub-Saharan African countries. Botswana has the highest rate of infection of countries in the region at 38 per cent. The particularly shocking thing that I learned from talking to those working on the project is that there are no places in orphanages—they are full—but there are community orphanages, which I experienced in Malawi. Those involve children living by themselves in the huts where their parents have just died, with perhaps—if they are lucky—a community worker dropping in from time to time. That is a long way from our concept of an orphanage.
In consequence, the children suffer terrible abuse, including sexual abuse, which should worry us deeply. A generation is growing up in a society that appears not to love, value or care for them. Without nurture in their younger years, those children are more likely to develop aberrant and psychopathic behaviour, which should really cause us concern. It makes them more susceptible to recruitment as child soldiers. They have essentially been brutalised by the experience of the pandemic, which is why it is so important that we get to grips with tackling the crisis.
I am very disappointed by the response of European countries to the challenge presented by President Bush's allocation of $15 billion to the AIDS pandemic. I thought it pretty poor to say that we would only match the contribution to the global health fund. I am even more appalled that at the European Council meeting on 19 and 20 June it was not possible to reach agreement even on matching that. It is utterly depressing that the AIDS pandemic and its significance have been allowed to slip so far down the agenda that we cannot agree to match even one fifteenth of what America is prepared to allocate to the problem.
I have a challenge for the Minister. What help has DFID in mind for child-headed households, and what will the Government do about the problem of raids on the third world for medical professionals? I know that, as far as the national health service is concerned, the Government do not want nurses and doctors to be taken

369WH
from that region of the world, which faces such a serious medical challenge, but the problem of vacancy rates in the hospital in Malawi is not confined to that country. Four hundred South African nurses chartered a jumbo via a nursing agency in this country to bring them here. That practice goes on because agencies go on recruiting. As far as I can see, the Government have not found a way to stop it. I challenge the Minister to say what they will do.
Dr. Tonge: I share the hon. Lady's fury about that practice, and I understand what she is saying. However, I hope that I made it clear that I feel very much for the nurses and doctors who have to work with the AIDS epidemic, because they are getting no experience of anything else. They more or less act as mortuary attendants. They cannot do anything, because they do not have the resources, so they come here willingly. They are desperate to get out so, although I deplore the practice in one way, I can see how easy it is for agencies to recruit those staff. They want to come here.
Mrs. Spelman: I understand that. The beauty of the Botswanan model for tackling the provision of health care and palliative care is the realisation that care, treatment and medication do not have to be provided in a hospital setting, and that it is possible to replicate a series of clinics in a network throughout the country. I suggest that if trained health professionals working in the clinic setting, providing medicines, cannot cure patients, they can at least prolong life, and providing palliative care is a rather more optimistic way of using nursing and medical skills. That is why I advocate that model of working. The key to the success of the project in Botswana is top-down support from the Government of Botswana. The fact that they are working in partnership, believe in what the project can achieve and support it 100 per cent. has helped to make its replication successful. I hope that the Minister will respond to two strong pleas to consider that.
I cannot finish without referring to Zimbabwe, because I feel so strongly about it. Zimbabwe is a special case and a shameful case within the crisis in the region. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said that it was part of the problem but could be part of the solution. It has gone from being the bread basket to being the begging bowl. This year, it is expected to produce only 40 per cent. of the maize needed in that country alone, yet it used to feed its neighbours. In addition, escalating prices put the maize beyond the pockets of many very poor Zimbabweans and, with inflation running at 228 per cent., more and more people will be unable to afford it.
I should like the Minister to give us his up-to-date assessment of just how serious the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe is. I should like to know how many people he believes will need food aid this year. What is the prospect of a return to self-sufficiency? Is there any prospect that Zimbabwe's capacity to produce enough not just to feed itself, but others will return? How long will it take?
At her last International Development questions, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) said that there is nothing more that can be done.
370WH
Her view was that there will be a terrible tragedy. I do not accept that analysis, and I hope that, with new leadership in his Department, the Minister will be able to give us a more optimistic assessment.
I agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park that we cannot force peer pressure, but surely more could be done to bring it about. There must be more that we can do; the inconsistencies—where we are prepared to intervene and where we are not—are clear to all. It is shameful that we as a nation have adopted a hand-wringing position on Zimbabwe, and we can and must do more.
There are many early warning signals on Angola, which does not feature a great deal in the report. It is still badly affected by its conflict and is at high risk of being caught up in another ongoing crisis in the region.
I hope that the Minister will talk to us about better early warning systems. The impact of HIV and AIDS is, sadly, too far down the agenda, and anything that the Government do to bring it back up and get a real commitment will be welcome. Market access is key; perhaps it is not too late to do something about export subsidies. The developed world must stop producing rhetoric on sub-Saharan Africa and take some action, because if it does not there will be a constant cycle of crisis.
4.36 pm
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Hilary Benn): I echo the thanks of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) to Sir Nicholas Bevan for the service he has given to the House and to all hon. Members.
The report was impressive. It is not unusual to say that about what the International Development Committee produces, but in this case it was particularly impressive because it took such an important issue—the food crisis—and explored the complexities of the various factors and inter-relationships that make up the crisis. More importantly, it asked what lessons we can learn for the medium and longer term to minimise the chances of being in the same position again.
I concur with the comments of the hon. Member for Meriden about the dialogue that was published alongside the Government's response. I am grateful to all hon. Members who spoke in the debate, because it was evident from every speech that they brought their own experiences to the matter. There cannot be one hon. Member present who has not been to Malawi, and I shall say something later about my own experiences in that regard.
Three broad conclusions can be drawn from the debate and the report. First, the international response to the humanitarian crisis was generally effective in the end, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said. About 14 million vulnerable people were helped by Governments in the region, by non-governmental organisations and by the international community, and there is no doubt that lives were saved and suffering reduced as a result.
Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman was right to say, the crisis is continuing. Although improved harvests will allow feeding programmes in some countries to stop, we expect up to 7 million people in the region to need

371WH
assistance later this year. In Zimbabwe, the Government's disastrous policies made the crisis deeper and longer than it should have been and significant international assistance will again be needed. I will return to that point.
Thirdly, we need to adjust our longer-term development activities in southern Africa to take account of the lessons that we must learn from the crisis. The most valuable thing to emerge from the report and this afternoon's debate is that we should engage in discussion about what we can do differently and better in future.
We discussed variable climate as being a fact of life in the region. I understand that quite a lot of research has been carried out on the questions raised by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), but it might be helpful if I to write to her about that, so that I can give her more information.
HIV/AIDS has featured prominently in our discussion. We must give more thought to how we manage the significant risks that combinations of circumstances pose to poor people in the region.
I welcome the fact that the report acknowledged both the international response to the crisis, and the response that the Department for International Development made and continues to make as a major contributor to that response. The Department has provided £106 million so far. The UK was the second largest bilateral contributor. Bearing in mind the remarks of the hon. Member for Banbury, who chairs the Committee, we need to acknowledge that contribution, and our contribution to EU assistance.
Funds from DFID have supported the UN's regional appeal, as well as the work of NGOs and some government systems. I pay tribute to those working in the region for the UN, international and local NGOs and regional governments. I also pay tribute to DFID staff in the UK and in country, whose dedication and hard work has undoubtedly helped to save many lives.
One specific area of concern raised in the report was whether we reacted quickly enough to early signs of famine in Malawi. That is a legitimate question. I visited Malawi in 2001, and met the famous Harry Potter, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) referred. Harry Potter gave an interview to a journalist at the end of which the journalist said, "By the way, what's your name?" and responded with incredulity when he was told. On a visit to a village in Malawi, I remember someone remarking that the amount of grain in the bins appeared rather low for that time of year. The evaluations and review of donor performance that are under way, including those carried out by the National Audit Office, DFID, the World Food Programme and some NGOs, will help to provide the answer to that question. I undertake to keep the Committee and the House informed of the outcome of those assessments.
There are indications that the scale of the crisis this year will be smaller than last year and that about half as many people will need assistance. That is welcome news, although the problem will still be significant. Zimbabwe continues to be at the heart of the crisis, but significant crop failures in parts of Swaziland, Lesotho and Mozambique mean that help will also be needed in those countries. For that reason, we have already allocated
372WH
£35 million as an initial contribution to the humanitarian response. We will review the progress of that response, and therefore the level of our contribution, later in the year. I believe that to be a sensible response to the situation.
With regard to Zimbabwe, I do not accept that DFID has failed to articulate with sufficient clarity, force or passion the responsibility that the Government of Zimbabwe bear for the catastrophe that now afflicts that country and its people. The hon. Member for Meriden was right to say that Zimbabwe has moved from bread basket to begging bowl. If someone who had been away for 25 years was told that Zimbabwe needed food aid, they would not understand what had happened because Zimbabwe was traditionally considered the bread basket of Africa. That is illustrates the extent of the disaster unfolding there.
The economy in Zimbabwe is collapsing, with inflation at more than 300 per cent. Foreign exchange is unavailable, as are key commodities, and subsistence farmers have been affected by variable rainfall. We all know about the disruption and chaos in the commercial farming sector. Even though the harvest looks better this year, it is likely that humanitarian programmes will need to be just as big as last year's, as the Zimbabwean Government will not be able to afford significant food imports. The proportion of food aid from sources other than the Zimbabwean Government must increase compared with last year. We must be clear that the food crisis in Zimbabwe is a crisis of governance.
HIV/AIDS is a massive additional burden on the Zimbabwean people, with about 3,000 people dying each week. We all sincerely hope that there will be early change in Zimbabwe. The point that the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), made in answering the question—I read the exchange—was about the difficulty in doing more to deal with the problem while recognising that in the end the change must come from within Zimbabwe.
The hon. Member for Meriden will know that the international community has made its views clear. We all hope that change comes quickly: it must come if Zimbabwe is to have the future that its people deserve. In the meantime, we will continue, together with our partners, to press for change. We will continue to make our view clear that the Zimbabwean Government are responsible for the crisis.
Mrs. Spelman: The Minister will forgive me, but I cannot let that pass. Waiting for a solution to the crisis to come from within is inconsistent, because we did not do that with Iraq. What about the recent treatment of the opposition leader? If he had not been bailed and released at vast expense and the situation had become even more disastrous, it would have been hugely complacent to say, "We are going to wait." There would be no guarantee that the situation would not get considerably worse.
Hilary Benn: It is not a question only of waiting, which is why steps have been taken to make the international community's view clear. Action was taken in the Commonwealth a couple of weeks ago, and Zimbabwe was recently suspended from voting in the

373WH
International Monetary Fund, which is a decision that we supported along with a number of other Governments. If the hon. Lady has further specific suggestions that she wants to advance about the steps that can be taken, I am sure that all Members present would be interested to hear them. None of us lacks the willingness to do all that we can in playing our parts to try to bring about change, but I am merely acknowledging that the process must come from within Zimbabwe. I mean it when I say that I hope that that day is not long away.
Dr. Tonge: Would it not be possible to put a complete ban on travel for all members of the Zimbabwean Government? They could also be indicted, and if they set foot outside the country, even in surrounding African states, they would be arrested. Very little is being done. We know that President Mugabe went to Paris. We know why he was accepted there, but the opposition feels that nothing is being done. It could equally well have been argued that change should have come from within in the case of Iraq.
Hilary Benn: I do not accept that Iraq and Zimbabwe are comparable, and if we were having a different debate we could go into the reasons for that. The hon. Lady will know about the travel ban and the assets freeze, although they have not been wholly consistently applied given President Mugabe's visit to Paris, which she mentioned.
Zimbabwe apart, I agree with the Select Committee's report that there is much that we must learn from the current crisis. The first lesson is that we must intensify our work on the long-term issues that have allowed humanitarian crises to become a regular feature in southern Africa. Poverty and weak governance are central parts of that equation. The region has astonishingly diverse geography and economics. One can compare South Africa, an economic powerhouse, with the subsistence farming of Malawi. However, the region should be able, in the right circumstances, to ensure adequate food for all its people.
DFID's focus will continue to be on the poor communities that are most vulnerable to the shocks that can lead to food shortages, be they drought, flood, epidemics or economic crises. How can we best help those communities? Self-evidently, lifting people out of poverty is the best way to ensure that they have the resources to cope when there is a shock. The wealthier countries of the region—South Africa, Botswana and Namibia—have been able to manage without serious difficulties. Indeed, South Africa has donated food to its neighbours. In other countries, however, it is not only the most abjectly poor who have been affected. Last year and in the 1991–92 drought, even those thought to be better off were hit hard in some countries, notably Zimbabwe.
We therefore need a strategic approach, and that is what the strategy mentioned in the written statement that I submitted to the House is designed to provide. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) referred to that statement. The best way to answer the point that he raised, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Banbury, is to suggest that we consult on
374WH
the strategy with other interested parties when we produce it in draft form, if that is agreeable to members of the Select Committee. That would provide an opportunity to continue the dialogue referred to by the hon. Member for Meriden as we draw up the strategy and look to the longer term.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie was right about land tenure and ownership in Malawi. I remember having a similar discussion with business people in Blantyre. They spoke about the difficulty of securing investment in tourism around Lake Malawi—which is one asset in a country that has few assets in other respects—because the longest lease that one could obtain on a piece of land for investment was for 15 years. I do not know whether the situation has changed subsequently, but who would invest big money for the long term when they could not be sure that their lease on a site would extend beyond 15 years? That is another example of how the systems that operate in a country—in this case, the law relating to land ownership and leasing—can have an impact on the economy, and thus on poverty reduction.
Regional trade could play an important role in improving the local response to food shortages, because there is already extensive informal trade in food—for example, between northern Mozambique, which often has surpluses, and Malawi. There is also extensive formal trade between South Africa and other countries in the region. We must lower barriers to that trade and allow regional production, instead of longer-distance food aid, to pick up the slack where possible.
Wider trade policy issues are also relevant. The dumping of European and north American surpluses on southern markets can have disastrous effects. That gives me an opportunity to answer the question about the deal reached yesterday. Export subsidies are a feature of the common agricultural policy which arises from surpluses. The only reason to provide an export subsidy is to deal with the surpluses that have been created. The importance of that deal, which I think was reached at 5.30 this morning, is that, in time, as it reduces production, it will in turn reduce the need for the export subsidies about which the hon. Member for Meriden and others spoke. The issue of export subsidies must be tackled specifically in the World Trade Organisation. The deal, including the decoupling that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spoke about in her statement to the House earlier this afternoon, enables the EU to meet and, indeed, to better the domestic support targets that were proposed in the WTO negotiations. The hon. Lady is right that that is an important first step, but it is not the end of the story. What happens at the negotiations in Cancun and subsequently will provide the real test. Yesterday, we debated that issue extensively in the House.
Several important issues were raised regarding agriculture. DFID recognises the importance of agricultural production as the backbone of many communities, but some hon. Members argued that we were no longer interested in agriculture and that we were pulling back from our involvement in it. That is not the case, and we continue to fund a very large agricultural research programme. We are extensively involved in the agriculture sector in some countries, and Malawi is a good example. Hon. Members mentioned the targeted

375WH
inputs programme, and I saw goods being distributed as part of that programme when I was in Malawi in November 2001. People queued with their vouchers, had their identity checked and took their sacks of seeds and fertilisers. We have made inputs available to millions of farmers over the past five years, and we are about to supply further targeted inputs in Malawi.
The targeted inputs programme is very impressive, and shows that we must do different things in different countries. It is not a matter of supporting such programmes rather than focusing time and attention on the structures and systems of Governments that are developing their agricultural policies. The truth is that we must do both, and there are different circumstances in different countries. In Zimbabwe, governance is the issue. In Malawi, there is a great and continuing need for practical support.
Mrs. Spelman: Does the Minister understand that there is a difference between the targeted inputs programme and the inputs-for-work programme? The TIP disbursed vouchers to pre-selected groups or to those who presented for the vouchers. Under the inputs-for-work programme, only those who were most in need of agricultural inputs—those who were so poor that they had no other way of getting them—were prepared to work on infrastructure projects to secure the vouchers. On analysis, the difficulty with targeted inputs was that they sometimes went to groups that could afford them, rather than to the most vulnerable, who could not. One way of testing whether there was real need was whether people presented for work. The scheme could be finessed in that 10 per cent. of the inputs could, by nomination of the workers, go to those who could not work.
Hilary Benn: The hon. Lady makes an important point about what we must do to learn from the two schemes. I accept that we must reflect on that, as we said in our response to the Select Committee. We must also ensure that support is supplied in the most appropriate way as we and other Governments develop our approaches.
I should mention that, the year before my visit to Malawi, we made the TIP available to all households that wanted to avail themselves of it, although it subsequently became more targeted. That seemed to be an intensely practical means of dealing with the situation on the ground, and it is not helpful to get into a theological argument about the right way to tackle the problem. The fact is that we must respond to different circumstances in different countries.
It is not the case that the CDC is no longer interested in agriculture. At the end of 2002, about 10 per cent. of its portfolio was in agricultural holdings. Part of its purpose is to provide investment to support businesses. In some cases, its sells them to others as going concerns. Indeed, it has passed some agricultural businesses and holdings on to others, and they continue to provide employment and to engage in agricultural activity. The CDC continues to invest in agriculture, and examples include the largest arable farm in southern Africa, which is in Zambia, an integrated tea-grading and packing business in Tanzania, and horticultural businesses in
376WH
Kenya. I want to make that clear, because I do not want anyone to leave the debate with the impression that there is no continuing interest in agriculture.
Tony Worthington: Nor would I like to give the impression that the CDC had abandoned agriculture, but it is less focused on it. Its representatives admitted that themselves when they came to see us. They told us that the CDC was required to make profits that it could not achieve through African agriculture. That is the point. I take the Minister's point that there is interest in agriculture, but consider the input. I quoted a 25 per cent. fall during the life of the Government in the contribution to agriculture in the DFID budget. That is an expanding budget in absolute terms. If we examine the output, we see that it shows a fall in production in Africa. We cannot be satisfied with that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As we are not under pressure for time, I am allowing fairly lengthy interventions, but that is not the custom.
Tony Worthington: It will never happen again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend made a point about the attributed spending delivered through the bilateral programme. That issue applies not just to agriculture but to other areas of our work. We have had debates before about the long-term benefit of backing the judgment of the Governments of other countries, rather than the Department second-guessing what Governments want to do for the future of their countries.
My hon. Friend will understand only too well that as we provide more in the form of direct budget support to Governments. One of the consequences is that it becomes more difficult to ask precisely what proportion of the money provided was spent on health, education, water, sanitation or agriculture. We must be honest about that problem and face up to it. We deal with direct budget support because we think that with appropriate Governments in appropriate circumstances it is a better way of supporting the development process in a country.
It may appear that we are spending less, because as we shift from bilateral programmes that can be quantified to those in which we are providing direct budget support it becomes more difficult to attribute funds in that way. I would not want to reach a position in which we said that we would forget about direct budget support and go back to bilateral programmes, which can be quantified, because people were saying that countries did not appear so interested in such support. That is not in the long-term interests of proper development. We have to acknowledge that that is a consequence that arises from encouraging development in that way.
The other major issue raised during the debate was HIV/AIDS. The second thing that we need to learn from the crisis is whether HIV/AIDS has made humanitarian crises more likely in southern Africa. I thought that the hon. Members for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) and for Richmond Park spoke eloquently about its impact, as did others. It is very difficult to understand the scale of that impact because the numbers are so large. We

377WH
certainly know the figures for the shocking infection rate, but we need to understand more about the impact that has on food production and access to food in vulnerable communities.
HIV/AIDS is hitting the young and previously healthy and productive members of communities. Millions of households in the region are headed by older people or children, who are much less able to manage the hard labour of food production or the other work that is needed to cope with their extreme poverty. We have also heard about the devastating impact that that is having on the skills base. I learned from my visit to Malawi about the loss of capacity: civil servants, doctors, teachers, Members of Parliament and those in the armed forces. That problem has an impact on all parts of the community in that country. The loss of capacity is enormous.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park described the hospital at Blantyre. I went to the bottom hospital, as it is known colloquially, in Lilongwe, which treats tuberculosis. I went into a ward with around eight beds and five people, but the sole doctor said that three months previously 30 or 40 people had been crammed in. That was no longer the case because the hospital was trialling a new way of treating TB patients, which involved their coming in with a friend who would take responsibility with the patient for ensuring that when they returned home they took the tablets in the right order. That example of a change in the way in which health care is provided—a point that was made by the hon. Lady, with her expertise and knowledge—enabled previous overcrowding in that hospital to be reduced.
Questions were asked about the global health fund and my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie asked about the policy of the United States of America, rather than the policy of the Government of the United Kingdom. Clearly, I cannot answer for the Government of the United States, although I note with interest some of the positive developments. We have expressed concern in a number of international forums about some of the policy approaches, particularly those on access to reproductive health, on which my Department's position remains absolutely clear and strong.
On contributions to the global health fund, hon. Members will be aware of the additional contribution announced by the United Kingdom during the Evian
378WH
summit. Discussions continue within the European Union about the possibility of a significant additional contribution. I accept the argument that Europe must demonstrate its commitment with other G8 countries.
In Malawi, increasing funding is going to the National AIDS Council, including from DFID. If Malawi continues to strengthen its HIV/AIDS programme—I discussed that with then Vice-President Malewezi when I was there—it should be able to secure further funds from international agencies to support its work.
The final lesson that we must learn from the crisis concerns the systems that we use to monitor food shortages and vulnerability. The hon. Member for Banbury made that point at the beginning of his comments. We need to understand what worked and what did not. In some ways, southern Africa is ahead of other areas in its assessment systems. Co-ordination through the Southern African Development Community is good. A common framework for vulnerability assessment has been agreed and is being refined, but I accept entirely the argument that we could do better. For that reason, we have offered funding to SADC to help it to do that. In our view, any system must be relevant and consider the region's long-term development so that it operates continuously and not just in response to particular crises. We shall not have effective early warning if the system is geared up only when a famine has begun. That is an important lesson.
I welcome this debate. The Select Committee has produced an excellent report, which has caused us to think. That is good, because it means that the Select Committee is doing its job. I hope that our written response, the continuing dialogue and the offer that I made this afternoon to consult the Select Committee and others on the draft longer-term strategy will reassure hon. Members that we as a Department and as a Government take the matter seriously. We are committed, and as we take this important work forward we want to learn lessons and to do better in future.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question, may I say that from what I heard from my predecessor in the Chair and what I have heard since I took the Chair this has been an extremely interesting and well-informed debate? I congratulate all who have taken part.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Five o'clock.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
  The following questions should have been printed on 3 June 2003
  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Audit Commission
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many research projects the Audit Commission commissioned in(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2002–03; and what the criteria for selection of each project were. [113555]

    Mr. Leslie
    The number of research projects commissioned by the Audit Commission during the period is as follows:

    Research projects commissioned

    1 November 2001 to 31 October 2002

    24

    1 November 2002 to 31 March 2004

    26

    Note:
    The Commission's research programme is set by financial year. Until October 2002, its financial year ran from 1 November to 31 October. The current plans cover a 17-month period from 1 November 2002 to 31 March 2004 because, subject to parliamentary approval, from 2004 its financial year will run from 1 April to 31 March to coincide with that of central and local government.
    The subject areas covered by these projects include local government, housing, health and criminal justice. The criteria for selecting each project were tailored to the needs of each particular subject area, including the need for the work to be relevant to policy needs and provide good value for money; the likelihood of improvement resulting from the project; and the need to make best use of local knowledge at the national level.

    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Audit Commission has reached the level of the Commission for Racial Equality Standard for Racial Equality; and what percentage of local authorities in England have reached this level. [115490]

    Mr. Leslie
    The CRE Standard for Racial Equality is specific to the functions of local authorities and has not therefore been adopted by the Audit Commission. The policy of the Commission is to ensure that neither employees nor applicants for employment are discriminated against on the grounds of race, gender or disability.

    For 2001–02 the percentages of English authorities reaching levels 0 to 5 of the Commission for Racial Equality's Standard for local government were: 0–32 per cent.; 1–41 per cent.; 2–21 per cent.; 3–6 per cent.; 4–0.3 per cent.; 5–0 per cent.
    892W
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many complaints his Department has received in the last year relating to(a) the Audit Commission and (b) the average local authority in England. [115491]

    Mr. Leslie
    Between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister received about 130 letters (not all of which were complaints) relating to the work of the Audit Commission, the auditors or inspectors it appoints, or the bodies audited or inspected. Information on the volume of correspondence received by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about individual local authorities is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many subscriptions to(a) digital terrestrial, (b) digital satellite and (c) digital cable television are held by the Audit Commission; and what the (i) cost and (ii) purpose is of each subscription. [115502]

    Mr. Leslie
    The Audit Commission holds four subscriptions to digital satellite television at a cost of £1,128 per year per subscription. Each subscription ensures that the commission is kept in touch with developments in news, business and parliamentary affairs relevant to the commission's work. The commission holds no subscriptions to digital terrestrial or digital cable television.

    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many voluntary leavers there were as a percentage of staff in(a) the Audit Commission and (b) the average local authority in England in the last year for which figures are available. [115495]

    Mr. Leslie
    During the year to 31 October 2002 (the end of the Audit Commission's last complete financial year), the percentage of voluntary leavers from the commission was 9.2 per cent. of staff employed. Between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002 the average percentage of voluntary leavers from English local authorities was 10.9 per cent. of staff employed.

    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of waste was recycled and how many kilogrammes of waste were generated per staff member by(a) the Audit Commission and (b) the average local authority in England in each year since 1997. [115504]

    Mr. Leslie
    The Audit Commission's arrangements for managing and recycling their waste is organised locally. The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The commission has adopted a number of approaches to reduce the impact it makes on the environment, including the recycling of waste and the use of stationery from recycled sources.

    Information on the amount of waste recycled and generated by local authority staff is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Business Co-ordination Unit
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the responsibilities are of the Business Co-ordination Unit; and if he will make a statement on its(a) aims and (b) performance since 1997. [115133]
    893W
    Mr. Leslie
    The Business Co-Ordination Unit's primary responsibility is to match ministerial visit requests from the business and wider stakeholder community with suitable Ministers. Its aims are to increase ministerial interaction with key stakeholders and customers, including business, local government, national bodies with regional interests and the voluntary and community sectors. The unit was launched in 2000 and received a Charter Mark Award for excellence last December. It achieved more than 300 ministerial visits between 2000 and 2002 that otherwise would not have taken place.

    Care Homes
    Janet Anderson
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what council tax business rates relief is available to homes providing residential or nursing care for the elderly. [116128]

    Mr. Leslie
    There is no business rates relief available specifically for homes that provide residential or nursing care for the elderly. However, there are existing mandatory and discretionary rate relief available to ratepayers under the rating system and under certain circumstances homes that provide residential and nursing care for the elderly can qualify for these reliefs.

    To qualify for mandatory rate relief, the ratepayer must be a charity or a non-profit making body operating as a charity and use the property they occupy wholly or mainly for charitable purposes. Mandatory relief is available at 80 per cent. of the full rates bill, is fully centrally funded and can be topped up to 100 per cent. at the discretion of the local authority. The discretionary top-up is 25 per cent. centrally funded, and local authorities are required to meet 75 per cent. of any such top-up.

    Where the property does not qualify for mandatory relief, local authorities can consider the award of discretionary rate relief. To be eligible for consideration, the ratepayer must be a non-profit making body and the property used for social, philanthropic, educational or religious purposes. Local authorities have the discretionary power to grant up to 100 per cent. rate relief to certain non-profit making bodies. 75 per cent. of the cost of all discretionary reliefs is met centrally, with the local authority, and through them, the council taxpayer meeting the remaining 25 per cent.. However, whether or not a particular ratepayer would qualify for this rate relief would depend on whether it meets the qualifying criteria set by the local authority.

    There are no council tax discounts or exemptions available for care homes that provide residential or nursing care for the elderly. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister included provisions in the Local Government Bill currently before Parliament giving local authorities the power to grant their own discounts and exemptions. This could include care homes if the local authority wished.

    Coalfield Regeneration Trust
    Mr. Cummings
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future funding of the Coalfield Regeneration Trust. [114658]
    894W
    Mr. McNulty
    The Coal Field Regeneration Trust's current funding agreement for England continues until March 2005. Decisions on funding beyond that date will be taken in the light of it's continued good performance and evidence of the beneficial impact of the Trust on the coalfield communities.

    Council Housing
    Helen Jones
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many council homes have been subject to stock transfer in each year since 1997. [115262]

    Mr. McNulty
    Numbers of council dwellings transferring annually under large scale voluntary transfer since 1997 have been as follows.

    Number of dwellings transferred

    1997–98

    32,982

    1998–99

    73,900

    1999–2000

    97,385

    2000–01

    134,219

    2001–02

    35,390

    2002–03

    167,290

    Helen Jones
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average weekly rent for(a) council homes and (b) housing association properties is in each region of England. [115265]

    Mr. McNulty
    Annual average weekly rent data by region can be found on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website.

    Rent data for local authorities, from 1991 to 2001, are in Table 701, which is available in the Library of the House and located at www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/ statistics/live/rents/rentl-ukr-cy.xls.

    The vast majority of housing associations are Registered Social Landlords (RSLs). Rent data for RSLs, from 1994 to 2002, are in Table 703, rent data for local authorities, from 1991 to 2001, are in Table 701, which is available in the Library of the House and located at www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/statist ics/live/ rents/rent3-r-cy.xls.

    There are no data available from housing associations that are not registered social landlords.

    Council Tax
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the level of council taxes in England in financial years(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2003–04. 1114866]

    Mr. McNulty
    Information on the number of council houses in England is collected as part of the annual Housing Investment Programme round.

    (a) The reported figure for England as at 1 April 2002 was as follows: 2,706,000.

    (b) The figure for the financial year 2003–04 will not be reported until July 2004.

    895W
    Mr. Edward Davey
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what contingency plans he has for consultation and legislation on transitional relief schemes in the event of a revaluation of properties for council tax purposes. [114979]

    Mr. Leslie
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", published in December 2001, said that"ahead of revaluation we shall devise a transitional scheme in which those who gain from the revaluation will contribute to the costs of the losers".

    The Local Government Bill contains provision for the establishment of such a transition scheme and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will consult on proposals for a transitional relief scheme ahead of revaluation. It is still far too early to say what effect the proposed 2007 revaluation will have on council tax bills and therefore what kind of transition scheme there might be.

    Mr. Edward Davey
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the cost to(a) his Department, (b) the Valuation Office Agency, (c) local government, (d) other departments and (e) other public bodies of the planned revaluation of properties for council tax purposes in 2005. [114980]

    Mr. Leslie
    In paragraph 367 of the explanatory notes to the Local Government Bill the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister estimates that the cost of the proposed revaluation of domestic properties is in the region of £200 million including the cost of handling appeals. This is very broad estimate because the cost will be affected by the methods used and decisions on this have not yet been taken.

    Disabled Facilities Grants
    Mrs. Dean
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was spent on disabled facilities grants in each of the last 10 years in(a) England, (b) Staffordshire and (c) East Staffordshire. [113153]

    Mr. McNulty
    The amounts spent by local housing authorities on disabled facilities grants in the years 1992–93 to 2001–02 in(a) England, (b) Staffordshire and (c) East Staffordshire are given in the table. These grants were made under section 1 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and section 101 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to private owners and tenants. Corresponding data for 2002–03 are not yet available.

    £000

    England

    Staffordshire

    East Staffordshire

    1992–93

    64,503

    1,417

    215

    1993–94

    77,674

    1,688

    234

    1994–95

    89,449

    2,112

    230

    1995–96

    89,506

    2,496

    278

    1996–97

    91,910

    1,786

    396

    1997–98

    100,495

    1,871

    110

    1998–99

    107,102

    2,274

    133

    1999–2000

    116,421

    2,708

    168

    2000–01

    130,707

    2,594

    363

    2001–02

    145,148

    2,730

    464

    Fire Brigades Union
    Mr. John Taylor
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will ensure that members of the Fire Brigades Union will have the opportunity to vote in secret ballot on the revised pay and conditions of employment currently on offer to them; and if he will make a statement. [114586]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is pleased that following further discussions between the FBU and the employers the FBU Executive has decided to recommend the employers' final offer to its members. It is for the FBU to decide whether or not to hold a secret ballot of their members on this offer, but we would welcome any decision of theirs to do so. Firefighters should be in no doubt that the employers' final offer of a 16 per cent. pay increase over three years, linked to modernisation, is a generous offer and at the absolute limit of what the employers can afford.

    Firefighters (London Weighting)
    Mr. Goodman
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many firefighters in(a) the Slough constituency, (b) the Beaconsfield constituency and (c) the Wycombe constituency are paid London weighting. [110203]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister understands from the fire authorities concerned that Bedfordshire and Luton Fire and Rescue Service pay the 65 operational staff based in the Slough constituency a London weighting allowance; and that Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service do not pay London weighting to operational staff in the Beconsfield and Wycombe constituencies.

    Golden Jubilee Medals
    Mr. Whittingdale
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) whether he will distribute Queen's Golden Jubilee Medals to retained firefighters in Essex as soon as they are available; [115674]

    (2) what his policy is towards the distribution of Queen's Golden Jubilee Medals to firefighters (a) who are participating in industrial action and (b) who are not participating in industrial action. [115675]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The Government have always said it hoped that the Golden Jubilee Medals would be given to eligible firefighters by the end of June 2003 as originally planned. Minting has been completed and distribution to brigades began on 28 May. Essex firefighters will receive their medals within this timeframe. No distinction is being made between those that have, and have not, participated in industrial action.

    Graduate Recruitment Scheme
    Mr. Gareth Thomas
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people applied for places on the local government graduate recruitment scheme; and what plans he has to expand the scheme. [114279]

    Mr. Leslie
    The Government are committed to building the capacity of authorities to respond to local needs and we consider the recruitment and retention of quality staff in authorities to play a key role in improving
    897W
    the delivery services to local people. I refer my hon. friend to the answer given to him on 13 February 2003, Official Report, column 973W.

    The National Graduate Development Programme (NGDP) is run by the Employers Organisation (EO), one of the LGA's central bodies providing services to local authorities. The scheme was launched in 2002 to fund 50 applicants for that year. It was remarkably oversubscribed with 2,350 applications. The EO has made immediate plans to double the intake for this year, and is considering how best to increase the numbers for the future.

    Of course the NGDP is not the only source of graduate recruitment available to local authorities. Seven authorities in England run their own graduate schemes. Graduates also enter local government through both general recruitment and specific programmes aimed at professions such as Environmental Health, Finance and Planning. Precise figures for these are not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    High Hedges
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 19 May 2003,Official Report, column 626W, on the High Hedges (No.2) Bill, if the guidance will be published by 13 June 2003. [116810]

    Mr. McNulty
    Yes. Copies of the draft guidance on the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill will available in the Libraries of the House no later than 13 June 2003.

    Housing
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met representatives of the house building industry to discuss house building in England; and if he will make a statement. [113566]

    Mr. McNulty
    My ministerial colleagues and I have met frequently with the industry to discuss issues affecting house building.

    Recent meetings with individual developers have included my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Wimpy on 7 April and my right hon. Friend the Lord Rooker and representatives from Berkeley Homes Group on 12 May.

    Ministerial colleagues and I also meet with industry representative groups. I met with the Housebuilders' Federation on 17 January this year and my right hon. Friend the Lord Rooker spoke at the Housebuilders' Federation annual lunch on 8 April and met with representatives from the Housing Forum on 12 May. We also have contact with the industry through larger events, for example the Regional Housing Conferences. My right hon. Friend the Lord Rooker recently toured the exhibitions and spoke at the BRE showcase for off-site manufacture at Watford.
    898W
    Officials of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister also meet with the industry, both individually and in groups on a wide range of issues affecting housing, planning and sustainable communities.

    Tim Loughton
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new houses have been built in(a) Adur district, (b) Worthing borough and (c) West Sussex in each of the last six years; how many more need to be built in order to meet the Government's housebuilding targets; and by what date the houses need to be built. [114822]

    Mr. McNulty
    The numbers of new dwellings completed in Adur district, Worthing borough and West Sussex are shown in the following table. Annual rates of housing provision are kept under regular review and are established through regional planning guidance and the spatial strategy it sets out.

    Number of new dwellings completed

    1997

    1998

    1999

    2000

    2001

    2002

    Adur District

    62

    96

    144

    49

    54

    26

    Worthing

    58

    242

    81

    206

    80

    162

    West Sussex

    2,812

    2,533

    2,015

    1,757

    1,462

    2,094

    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to investigate the link between housing policy and children's health policy; and what plans there are to create a dedicated task force to investigate the link. [114296]

    Mr. McNulty
    The Government recognise the relationship between housing conditions and health, including children's health. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is developing a plan of action on housing and health alongside the Department of Health and others. This work is a key part of our cross-Government strategy to tackle health inequalities, and the needs of children will be a very important element of it.

    To tackle poor health associated with housing conditions, the Office has set a target to bring all social housing up to a decent standard by 2010, and to increase the proportion of private housing in decent condition occupied by vulnerable groups. The number of non-decent homes in the social sector has already been reduced by about 700,000 since 1996. The Office has also set a target to end, by March 2004, the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for families with children except in emergencies, and then for no longer than six weeks; and is currently consulting on proposals to make it unlawful for local authorities to exceed this six-week deadline.

    The draft Housing Bill contains proposals for a Health and Safety Rating System to establish health and safety hazards in the home as the basis for enforcing better housing conditions, with particular emphasis on the impact of these hazards on people most vulnerable to them.
    899W
    Mr. Wray
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he has taken since 1997 to provide improvements to housing in poorer inner city areas throughout the UK; and what proposals he has to regenerate these areas further. [115132]

    Mr. McNulty
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for housing in England only. Responsibility in other parts of the UK rests with the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen.

    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced policies on the issue of housing in the Communities Plan—"Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future" and is committed to improving the quality of social housing by making all social housing decent by 2010.

    PSA target 7 reads:
    "by 2010, bring all social housing into decent condition with most of this improvement taking place in deprived areas, and for vulnerable households in the private sector, increase the proportion who live in homes that are in decent condition."

    In the 88 most deprived districts there was a decrease in the proportion of non-decent homes from 52.3 per cent. in 1996 to 38.7 in 2001.

    The National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal sets out plans for narrowing the gap between the most deprived neighbourhoods in England and the rest of the country.

    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps his Department is planning to take to co-ordinate his recently announced housing plans for Milton Keynes and Multi-modal Study Paper with the emerging district-based community housing plans. [115936]

    Mr. McNulty
    The conclusions of the independent study into the housing potential of the Milton Keynes and South Midlands area are being reviewed as part of a series of local growth area Assessments for its main settlements, including Bedford and Luton/Dunstable/Houghton Regis. These will also take into account the London-South Midlands Multi-modal Study. Bedfordshire county council and all the district authorities are represented on the Assessments steering group alongside other regional partners. This process will ensure the proposed alterations to Regional Planning Guidance for the Area, on which future district housing plans will draw, are grounded in a realistic appreciation of deliverability and ensure sustainable patterns of growth.

    Richard Burden
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the operation of the Housing Density Directive; how many planning applications have been refused or called in; and which local authorities are affected. [114901]

    Mr. McNulty
    The Town and Country Planning (Residential Density) (London and South East England) Direction 2002 applies to local planning authorities in the area covered by Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (March 2001). Local planning authorities are required to consult the Deputy Prime Minister before giving planning permission for low density housing on large development sites. To-date 900W
    there has been one notification. The planning application has been called in by the Deputy Prime Minister for his own determination and will be subject to a local inquiry.

    Local Authority Cabinets
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether cabinets of local authorities have responsibilities for staffing matters; and if he will make a statement. [116135]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The legislation provides that local authority cabinets cannot be responsible for the appointment and dismissal of staff. A cabinet's views must, however, be taken into account when senior staff are being appointed or dismissed. No offer of appointment of the head of paid service, a chief officer, or deputy chief officer may be made where the executive leader or elected mayor has made a well founded and material objection.

    Cabinet members may be involved in staffing matters relating to assistants to political groups appointed under Section 9 of the Local Government Act 1989. Regulations also provide for a directly elected mayor to appoint an assistant.

    Local Elections
    Tony Wright
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what evaluation he has made of the effect of Comprehensive Performance Assessments on the latest local election results. [114556]

    Mr. Raynsford
    A range of issues affects the results of elections, and the performance of a council will be a significant factor for many local people. Comprehensive Performance Assessments (CPAs) are now beginning to provide clear and consistent information to local people, as well as to councils and central Government, on the performance of local government. All county councils and single tier authorities were assessed under the CPA process in the past year. District councils will be assessed in the course of the next 18 months. Half of the councils which have received a CPA were subject to elections in May this year.

    The trend between the 2002 CPA categories and 2003 local government election results tends to support the view that the performance of the council has an influence on the outcome of the election. 45 per cent. of weak and poor councils where elections were held changed overall control. In comparison this happened in just 29 per cent. of the excellent and good councils where elections were held.

    Local Government Finance
    Mrs. Brooke
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what evaluation he is carrying out of the impact of the new financial formula determining the Government settlement on local councils on(a) councils in the southwest region, (b) Dorset county council, (c) Poole borough council and (d) Purbeck council. [115092]

    Mr. Raynsford
    In the following table are the changes in formula spending shares and formula grant (after floors and ceilings) for 2003–04 on a like-for-like basis with 2002–03 for the areas requested.
    901W

    Formula spending share

    Formula Grant (after floors and ceilings)

    Area

    2002–03 FSS Comparitor £million

    2003–04 FSS £ million

    Change £million

    Percentage Change

    2002–03 Adjusted Formula Grant £ million

    2003–04 Formula Grant £ million

    Change £ million

    Percentage Change

    South West GOR

    4,780.1

    5,160.3

    380.3

    8.0

    3,391.3

    3,588.5

    197.1

    5.8

    Dorset

    281.7

    304.7

    23.1

    8.2

    174.4

    181.2

    6.8

    3.9

    Poole

    117.3

    125.0

    7.7

    6.6

    71.8

    74.6

    2.8

    3.9

    Purbeck

    5.5

    6.1

    0.6

    10.8

    2.9

    3.0

    0.1

    3.0

    In 2003–04, every council received at least a 3 per cent. increase in formula grant on 2002–03 on a like-for-like basis, which is above the level of inflation.

    Paddy Tipping
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average council tax was for each local authority in England in 2003–04. [115481]

    Mr. Leslie
    The information requested is available in the Library of the House.

    Janet Anderson
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will review the Standard Spending Assessment of Rossendale borough council and other local authorities within whose areas there are a proportionately large number of walls, bridges, roads and culverts requiring repair and where the ownership cannot be established. [116127]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The Government announced its intention to freeze the Formula Spending Shares methodology (which replaced Standard Spending Assessments in 2003–04) until at least 2006–07 in the White Paper 'Strong Local Leadership, Quality Public Services' in order to provide stability and predictability for local authorities. In any case the responsibility for maintaining roads lies with the highway authority, in this case Lancashire county council. The White Paper made clear that the Government would be prepared to provide additional financial assistance only in certain very limited circumstances, which would be unlikely to include repairs of this kind.

    May Elections
    Mr. Rosindell
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he has taken to increase voter turnout in the May 2003 local elections. [110694]

    Mr. Leslie
    Low turnout in elections is caused by a number of different factors, and no single solution will solve it. However, one of the most important ways in which we can help is to make voting more straightforward and accessible to all voters. In conjunction with the independent Electoral Commission and Local Government Association, we are promoting a programme of electoral pilots to test new methods of voting, which are aimed at increasing the opportunity for voting. These include various electronic voting techniques (including the use of the internet, telephone, SMS text messaging and interactive digital television), as well as all-postal ballots.

    At this year's local elections the 33 all-postal pilot elections recorded an average turnout of 49.5 per cent. One pilot authority achieved a 61 per cent. turnout in its pilot, while another more than doubled its turnout compared to the last comparable election. The Electoral Commission's evaluation of these pilots should provide
    902W
    us with more details about how they worked. Initial indications are that the new methods of voting are having a positive effect on voter turnout.

    Millennium Dome
    Nick Harvey
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the running costs of the Millennium Dome were in each of the last six months. [115999]

    Mr. McNulty
    Final cost figures are not yet available for March and April 2003, as English Partnerships are awaiting a number of outstanding invoices. However, EP's management, maintenance, security and staff costs1 incurred for the six months up to February 2003 was £1.477 million. This is made up of the following monthly breakdown:

    Month

    Cost (£)

    September

    242,000

    October

    241,000

    November

    262,000

    December

    253,000

    January

    250,000

    February

    229,000

    Total

    1,477,000

    These costs, and others incurred by English Partnerships since they took over responsibility for the Dome in July 2001 will be recovered from sale proceeds.
    1 Monthly costs include rates, utilities, security and maintenance, and English Partnerships' staff costs on management and maintenance of the Dome. Costs are calculated on an accruals basis and may be subject to reassessments, by the relevant authorities, of rates or other charges included in the cost of managing and maintaining the Dome.
    Angela Watkinson
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost of maintaining the Millennium Dome has been since its closure; and what plans he has for its future use. [116485]

    Mr. McNulty
    The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) was responsible for maintaining the Dome from its closure on 31 December 2000 to end of June 2001. English Partnerships (EP) took over responsibility in July 2001. In total £6.9 million was incurred from the Dome's closure on 31 December 2000 to February 2003: £1.9 million by NMEC from January 2001 to end of June 2001 and £5.0 million by EP from July 2001 to February 2003. EP's final cost figures are not yet available for March and April 2003, as it is awaiting a number of outstanding invoices.

    EP and MDL signed contracts on 29 May 2002, to develop much of the Greenwich Peninsula, including a new use for the Dome. The deal is conditional primarily on securing planning permission satisfactory to the contracting parties.
    903W
    On 23 December 2002 a planning application was submitted to the London Borough of Greenwich (LEG), for a 26,000 capacity arena inside the Dome, with associated facilities, and a new masterplan covering 190 acres of the Greenwich Peninsula.

    LBG's Planning Committee considered the planning application on 16 April 2003 and resolved that it is minded to grant permission subject to a number of conditions and resolution of section 106 negotiations. As part of the normal planning process, the application was referred by LEG to the Mayor and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 29 May 2003.

    Planning and Compulsory Puchase Bill
    Mr Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the transition will take place, and over what timescale, when county councils lose their strategic planning role under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. [114014]

    Mr. McNulty
    The proposed abolition of the structure plan function does not mean that counties will no longer have any strategic planning role. The Government expect that the expertise of counties will be an important resource in the preparation and revision of Regional Spatial Strategies and we will make regulations to prescribe counties as statutory consultees in this process. Counties will remain responsible for the preparation of mineral and waste planning strategies. Structure plans will be 'saved' for a three-year period from commencement of the relevant provisions in the Planning and Compulsory Bill unless structure plans are replaced by Regional Spatial Strategies during that period.

    Planning Policy Guidance 22
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the level of protection for neighbouring residents against noise and visual intrusion provided by the safeguards in paragraph 47 of Planning Policy Guidance 22. [109834]

    Mr. McNulty
    The annex on Wind Energy—including paragraph 47—in Policy Planning Guidance Note 22 contains guidelines about various factors which should be taken into consideration in relation to wind turbine location, including noise and visual intrusion. Where protection for residents against any such factors is considered necessary, assessments will be made on a case by case basis and, where appropriate, planning conditions can be attached to the planning permission.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Helen Jones
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many council homes have been refurbished under PFI schemes since such schemes were introduced. [115263]

    Mr. McNulty
    The first two council housing Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) contracts were signed in March this year by Manchester city council and the London borough of Islington which will see a total of 2,500 council homes refurbished. It is too early to expect any of these to have been refurbished at this point in time. Manchester let a small preliminary contract in advance of the main agreement which has resulted in 21 homes being improved.
    904W
    Helen Jones
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which local authorities have signed contracts for the refurbishment of homes under PFI schemes. [115264]

    Mr. McNulty
    Derby city council signed a contract in July 2000 for the purchase and refurbishment of non-council properties in its inner city area. Manchester city council and the London borough of Islington both signed contracts in March this year for the refurbishment of council properties and other pathfinder authorities are expected to sign later in the year.

    Property Portfolio
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the estimated value is of the property portfolio held by his Department. [108366]

    Mr. Leslie
    The estimated value of The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's property portfolio excluding non-departmental Public Bodies and Agencies is £3,744,297.

    Public Buildings (Disabled Access)
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of buildings owned by(a) the Audit Commission and (b) local authorities in England are suitable for and accessible by disabled people. [115505]

    Mr. Leslie
    Of the properties currently leased by the Audit Commission, 75 per cent. are accessible by people with disabilities. The average percentage of local authority buildings open to the public in which all public areas are suitable for the accessible to people with disabilities was 30 per cent. in 2001–02.

    Regional Government
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what safeguards will be introduced to ensure that infrastructure is compatible with development in the Regional Spatial Strategy and local development scheme and plans. [114393]

    Mr. McNulty
    Regional Spatial Strategies and Development Plan Documents will be prepared in consultation with infrastructure providers and will be subject to independent examination at which the soundness of these plans will be assessed. These two types of plans will collectively constitute the development plan. Applications for planning permission for infrastructure development will be determined in accordance with the development plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

    Resilience Projects
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what additional expenditure over and above that identified prior to 1 April 2002(a) was spent in 2002–03 and (b) will be spent in 2003–04 on national and regional resilience work in the fields of (i) central response, (ii) local responses, (iii) essential services, (iv) mass evacuation, (v) warning, (vi) site clearance and (vii) threat assessment; whether arrangements exist to release expenditure during the current financial year for resilience projects currently under consideration in these fields which may be identified as requiring urgent implementation; and if he will make a statement. [113925]
    905W
    Mr. Leslie
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is fully engaged in the Cabinet Office-led capabilities programme, and all resilience work is co-ordinated within that programme. The central response capability focuses on mechanisms such as business continuity planning which assure that Government departments can function and respond effectively to a no-notice crisis. The local response capability focuses on mechanisms which allow local authorities and emergency services to plan and respond to serious disruption, while the site clearance capability aims to create an action plan for the handling of rabble and site clearance. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has specific responsibilities as lead Government Department for the regional response and site clearance capabilities, and contributes to the development of other capabilities as necessary. Under the central response capability, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister did not incur any specific additional spend during 2002–03, and has budgeted for £1 million in 2003–04. On the local responses and site clearance capabilities, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister spent £2,072,412 during 2002–03, and has budgeted for £4.5 million in 2003–04. With regard to the other areas the hon. Member has raised, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is either not directly involved in those workstreams or has incurred no spend.

    The capabilities that we are working to deliver have been developed to allow the Government to deal with the widest range of scenarios. Should a specific additional urgent operational need arise, at any point of the spending cycle, action would be taken to meet it. The public expenditure framework the Government have put in place provides the flexibility to deal with unexpected pressures.

    Sefton Metropolitan Authority
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of buildings owned by Sefton Metropolitan authority are accessible by people with physical disabilities. [116619]

    Mr. McNulty
    43 out of 52 (83 per cent.) of public buildings owned by Sefton Metropolitan borough council are accessible by people with physical disabilities.

    Sickness Absence
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many working days were lost to sickness in(a) the Audit Commission and (b) the average local authority in England in the last year for which figures are available. [115494]

    Mr. Leslie
    During the year to 31 October 2002 (the end of the Audit Commission's last complete financial year) an average of five days per member of staff were lost through sickness. The average number of days lost between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002 through sickness per member of staff of English local authorities was 10.2.

    Social Housing
    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people are on the waiting list to be housed in Shrewsbury and Atcham. [115026]

    Mr. McNulty
    Local authorities in England report the numbers of households on their housing register (excluding tenants awaiting a transfer) as at 1 April in their annual Housing Investment programme return. As at 1 April 2002 the latest reported figures are 1,335.

    South West Regional Assembly
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 22 May 2003,Official Report, column 986W, what criteria will apply in determining whether the South-West Regional Assembly will receive the full £600,000 or a lesser sum. [116809]

    Mr. Raynsford
    As part of the funding agreement, the South West Regional Assembly has produced a business plan, covering general operating costs and specific projects. It makes quarterly claims, assessed and processed by the Government Office for the South-West, for expenditure against that plan. Should projects originally envisaged in the plan not be pursued, for whatever reason, the grant paid may be less than the £600,000 ceiling.

    Starter Homes
    Mr. Lepper
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what categories of workers will be eligible for consideration for starter homes in the next round of the Starter Homes initiative. [114699]

    Mr. McNulty
    From 2004–05, funding for the provision of key worker housing will be integrated into the Housing Corporation's affordable housing programme and will target key public sector workers. The Housing Corporation expects to invite bids for key worker housing schemes at the same time as bids for other affordable housing schemes, in the autumn 2003. It will be made clear at that stage which key worker groups will qualify for assistance, taking into account the advice of Regional Housing Boards.

    Waste Management
    Mr. Bill O'Brien
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the total area of land for which planning permission for waste management purposes was granted in the years 1999 to 2003 was; and if he will make a statement; [115776]

    (2) if he will list the (a) incinerations, (b) composting plants and (c) material recovery plants that received planning approval in the years 1999 to 2002; and what their capacities were. [115766]

    Mr. McNulty
    This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Details of planning applications, and the statutory registers of decisions on them, are held by individual local planning authorities.

CABINET OFFICE

  Creche Facilities
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the creche facilities made available by the Office to the children of its staff. [121109]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office has a nursery at Sunningdale that is run in partnership with the Edith Rose Day Nursery. This can be used by staff in the Centre for Management and Policy Studies. They have priority over private customers on the waiting list. The charge per week is £140. This is subsidised for parents who earn less than £24,001 per annum. The nursery can also be used by parents on residential courses at Sunningdale.

  Type of childcare provision

  Number of parents using childcare

  Cost to the Department

  Cost per head

  Cabinet Office

  Nursery

  6

  £10,939

  £140 per week. Subsidy of £41.50 per week for people earning less than £19,000 and £26 per week for people earning less than £24,001

  Westminster Holiday Playscheme

  33

  £3,840

  £26 a day up until 25 October 2002. £30 a day from 18 December 2002. Subsidy of 50 per cent. up to 25 October 2002, subsidy of 43 per cent. from 18 December 2002

  Child Care Vouchers

  92

  £87,668.92

  £21.42 week for full-time, pro-rata for part-time

  Central Office of Information

  Westminster Holiday Playscheme

  4

  £392

  £26 a day up until 25 October 2002. £30 a day from 18 December 2002. Subsidy of 50 per cent.

  Government Services
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what representations he has received regarding the accessibility of government services via the internet. [120867]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have received a wide range of representations on the subject.

  The Government are committed to internet access for all who want it by 2005. Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (published in April) show that levels of internet access in the UK continue to grow. 50 per cent. of the adult population are now regular users of the internet. In May, to further drive up levels of internet use, we launched the "Get Started" campaign to promote the benefits of the internet to key groups such as the elderly, those with disabilities and the unemployed.

  To promote the accessibility of websites themselves it has been Government policy since February 2001 that all new or redesigned websites meet the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Accessibility Initiative's guidelines. These are detailed in the "Guidelines for UK Government Websites" available on the Office of the e-Envoy's website or in printed copy from the Stationery Office.

  Performance Targets
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the performance targets that(a) his Office, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental
  908W
  Staff in London have access during the school holidays to the Westminster Holiday Playscheme. Each place at the playscheme costs £30 a day. The Department subsidises each place by £13 a day.

  Eligible staff in all locations are able to apply for child care vouchers. These support parents to make their own choices about where and what type of child care they want for their child. Vouchers are payable over 48 weeks per annum and are for £21.42 a week for staff who work full time and either have a partner who works full time or are single parents; or pro-rata for staff who work, or who have partners who work, part-time. Staff using a subsidised nursery place at Sunningdale are not eligible for child care vouchers.

  A table showing the type of child care provision in my Department; the number of parents who used it; the cost to the Department; and the cost per head is as follows:

  public bodies are required to meet; and for each target (i) who sets it and (ii) who monitors achievement against it. [120868]

  Mr. Alexander
  Key performance targets for the Cabinet Office are agreed as part of the Spending Review and the latest set were published in Spending Review 2002: Public Service Agreements 2003–06 (Cm 5571). The Department monitors progress towards the target along with HM Treasury and progress is reported regularly.

  The Cabinet Office has one executive agency, The Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA). In addition, the Central Office of Information (COI) is a department and executive agency reporting to the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

  Key performance targets for GCDA and COI are set annually by me when I approve their Corporate and Business Plans. The targets are announced to Parliament. Key targets for 2003–04 for both GCDA and COI are expected to be announced shortly.

  The Chief Executives of GCDA and COI are directly responsible to me for ensuring that the agencies achieve their performance targets. Performance reports, including performance against targets, are submitted to me on a quarterly basis.

  Performance against targets is published annually in the agencies' annual reports and accounts. Copies of these are held in the House of Commons Library, or can be accessed via their websites: www.gcda.gov.uk and

  909W
  www.coi.gov.uk. COI' s performance against targets is audited by the National Audit Office (NAO). GCDA's performance against its financial target is audited by the NAO, and performance against other targets is independently reviewed within the Cabinet Office.

  The Cabinet Office has no executive non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), and its advisory NDPBs are included within the main departmental targets.

  Quasi-autonomous NGOs
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations there are in England; and how many there were in 1997. [121866]

  Mr. Alexander
  As at 31 March 2002, the number of public bodies sponsored by UK Government Departments that were based in England totalled 802.

  Addresses for public bodies were not collected centrally in 1997. On 1 September 1997, the number of public bodies sponsored by UK Government Departments, excluding those sponsored by the Northern Ireland, Scottish and Welsh Offices, the Scottish Courts Administration and the Royal Mint, totalled 846.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what projects the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment has been involved with in West Wiltshire. [121340]

  Estelle Morris
  Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) has been involved with the following projects in West Wiltshire.
  Enabling a social housing scheme in Westbury with the Guinness Trust Design Review of a redevelopment of Kingston Mills, Bradford-on-Avon Design Review of Thoulstone Park Golf Club, Chapmanslade Design Review of Cutteridge Farm, Trowbridge Design Review of a Former Gas Works, Bradford-on-Avon

  Institute of Sport
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made on the establishment of the English Institute of Sport. [121408]

  Sport England

  Performance indicator

  Description

  Programme

  Year

  Qt R1

  Qt R2

  Qt R3

  Qt R4

  Average time taken to process each application

  Sum of working days taken for all cases completed in the period/Number of cases completed in the period

  Community capital

  2001–02

  71

  70

  66

  82

  Average time taken to process each application

  Sum of working days taken for all cases completed in the period/Number of cases completed in the period

  Community revenue

  2001–02

  21

  49

  39

  64

  Average time taken to process each application

  Sum of working days taken for all cases completed in the period/Number of cases completed in the period

  World class

  2001–02

  43

  36

  27

  60

  910W
  Mr. Caborn
  The English Institute of Sport (EIS) is a nationwide network of world class training facilities and support services.

  The majority of the facilities for the EIS are now complete and are providing a top class training environment for our elite athletes. Most of the remaining sites will be ready for opening by the end of the year. The range of services supplied by the EIS, which spans sports science and sports medicine, is already being delivered directly to athletes and is being co-ordinated by the EIS regional managers.

  These arrangements should ensure that the EIS network provides our top athletes with the support required to enhance their medal success at the Athens Olympics.

  Lottery Funding
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the average length of time was from the submission of a Lottery funding hid to(a) receipt of that application and (b) receipt of funding by distribution body in each of the last 10 years. [121629]

  Estelle Morris
  Information on the time taken by Lottery distributors to acknowledge applications is not available centrally. Each distributor is required to have a performance indicator on the average time taken to process applications, but the indicator can be formulated differently by individual distributors. The timing of the release of funding by distributors to successful applicants can depend on many factors including the nature of the project concerned, the terms and conditions of grant agreed between the applicant and the distributor, and the rate at which the project progresses. For many projects, a grant may be released in instalments over a period of months or years.

  The information on application processing times is not available for the lifetime of each distributor but the details provided by the distributors sponsored by the Department are shown in the following tables:

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Arts Council of England

  63 days

  71 days

  Community Fund

  11 weeks

  12.5 weeks

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  5.6 months

  7.4 months

  Film Council

  1—

  55 days

  Millennium Commission

  2—

  2—

  UK Sport

  1—

  12 weeks

  1 Not available.

  2 See the following.

  911W
  The Millennium Commission's work is increasingly focussed on the delivery and monitoring of existing projects rather than new applications.

  The New Opportunities Fund sets performance indicators that measure their performance in achieving their policy directions across the lifetime of each programme and are not by each financial year.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many bids were made to and how much funding was(a) requested and

  £

  Distributing Body

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Arts council of England

  236,448,607

  438,569,060

  348,730,571

  156,693,442

  171,034,631

  Arts council of Northern Ireland

  4,307,651

  7,062,937

  4,740,377

  10,402,112

  8,622,996

  Arts council of Wales

  9,110,844

  13,770,498

  27,130,278

  12,925,265

  16,528,332

  Awards for all (England) Joint Scheme

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Community fund

  159,573,748

  300,936,127

  222,316,992

  286,452,996

  511,166,766

  Film council

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2,000,000

  Heritage Lottery fund

  107,857,356

  331,742,595

  482,869,443

  287,154,304

  217,126,985

  Millennium Commission

  333,468,200

  437,053,600

  1,078,936,503

  51,674,629

  42,596,296

  New opportunities fund

  0

  0

  0

  0

  93,099,315

  Scottish arts council

  13,624,157

  37,404,662

  28,195,108

  36,892,837

  14,331,128

  Scottish screen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sport England

  94,934,628

  108,423,663

  169,574,273

  214,901,672

  276,758,494

  Sport Scotland

  14,608,885

  20,287,827

  14,636,987

  26,653,011

  17,444,590

  Sports council for Northern Ireland

  4,574,880

  6,529,998

  7,618,882

  10,515,805

  6,267,805

  Sports council for Wales

  4,922,738

  13,494,761

  18,223,262

  6,971,813

  4,754,354

  UK Sport

  0

  0

  200,000

  12,160

  11,011,950

  £

  Distributing Body

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Arts council of England

  102,495,067

  169,348,066

  105,417,740

  1,375,292

  Arts council of Northern Ireland

  1,522,456

  3,580,320

  1,662,631

  170,806

  Arts council of Wales

  11,491,739

  9,593,214

  7,909,221

  931,738

  Awards for all (England) Joint Scheme

  0

  0

  33,346,684

  13,099,734

  Community fund

  364,125,191

  324,035,982

  275,819,367

  123,106,661

  Film council

  14,188,552

  27,552,072

  28,759,193

  19,431,635

  Heritage Lottery fund

  183,800,172

  252,556,164

  310,038,016

  118,549,168

  Millennium Commission

  38,323,058

  4,543,272

  0

  0

  New opportunities fund

  87,029,281

  283,286,909

  398,905,082

  272,354,494

  Scottish Arts council

  14,804,013

  9,735,060

  3,544,944

  284,786

  Scottish screen

  3,392,911

  3,361,188

  0

  0

  Sport England

  295,945,174

  264,803,648

  142,817,084

  27,701,222

  Sport Scotland

  6,355,986

  19,184,986

  11,716,056

  1,062,534

  Sports council for Northern Ireland

  3,662,642

  2,883,638

  236,899

  125,210

  Sports council for Wales

  3,240,967

  16,853,584

  20,515,883

  6,722,023

  UK Sport

  23,941,847

  63,927,347

  10,776,350

  3,608,121

  Note:

  The Millennium Commission and Scottish Screen have not provided figures for 2002 or 2003.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the departmental Regulatory Impact Assessment procedure; and how many RIAs have been reviewed in respect of the Department over the last year. [120856]

  Mr. Caborn
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) must be completed for all policy proposals that have a potential impact on businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. It includes details of the arrangements for monitoring and evaluating policy proposals and their impact.
  912W
  (b) allocated by each distribution body in each of the last 10 years. [121631]

  Estelle Morris
  Information regarding awards is shown in the table, which is derived from the Department's Awards Database, which contains information supplied by the distributing bodies.

  The figure for the year 2003 is up to 1 June.

  This Department has never held comprehensive information on either the number or value of applications for Lottery grants.

  Information on the number of RIAs that have been reviewed in respect of the Department in the last year is not held.

  From this year the National Audit Office (NAO) has a new role in independently evaluating a selection of RIAs. In their Annual Report, published in February 2003,the Better Regulation Task Force put forward suggestions of RIAs for the NAO to review.

  The NAO review will focus on the quality of analysis in the RIAs and the thoroughness with which the RIAs have been undertaken. The findings and recommendations of best practice will be fed back to departments. It will play a valuable part in driving up standards of RIAs.

  Rural Sport and Recreation
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the impact on rural sport and recreational plans to concentrate sports council funding on selected sports.[120963]

  Mr. Caborn
  1 have had no such discussions.

  Sports Administration
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made on the establishment of Regional Sports Boards; and if she will make a statement.[121410]

  Mr. Caborn
  Chairs of the Regional Sports Boards have been appointed in all the regions apart from the West Midlands which is still under consideration. However, the Chair of the London Board has just resigned for whom a replacement will be appointed as soon as possible. Sport England has appointed the members of seven of the Boards. Recruitment of the members of the West Midlands Board will start when a chair has been appointed and recruitment of the members of the North West Board will commence shortly following the appointment of its chair on 11 June.

  All those regions which have a Board in place have held initial meetings and made plans for future meetings. Preparation of regional sports strategies will be a priority for all of the regions as well as making strong partnerships with other regional agencies/organisations. Sport England intends to delegate funding to the Boards this autumn. Three Regional Sports Board chairs will be appointed to Sport England's Council in October.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the membership of Regional Sports Board. [121411]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is as follows:

  North East Region: Tim Cantle-Jones (Chair), Professor Chris Drinkwater, Don Robson, Chris Roberts, Tanni Grey Thompson, David Marker, Alison Curbishley, Ged Bell, Irene Lucas, Angela James, Peter Warburton, John Mowbray.

  East Region: Sir Robin Miller (Chair), Vanessa Brown, Nicholas Buckworth, Roger Fennemore, Tom McNab, Isabel Newstead, Steve Palframan, Dr. Gina Radford.

  South West Region: Ged Roddy (Chair), Marie Hunter, Maggie Rae, Professor Eric Thomas, Will Behenna, Steve Evans, Rod Carr, Phil de Glanville, Penny Spink, Colin Johnson.

  Yorkshire Region: Councillor Peter Price (Chair), Mike Twiggs, Jane Glaister, Anna Young, Malcolm Brown, Kate Birkenhead, Pat Marsh, Ashley Metcalf, Novlette Rennie, Alan Smith, William Nabarro.
  914W
  London Region: Vacant (Chair), Dr. Sue Atkinson, Councillor Lyn Brown, Professor Steve Hodkinson, Yvonne Marson, Richard Sumray, Karam Bhullar, Danny Crates, Philip Lewis, Mike McFarlane, Neil Taylor.

  East Midlands: Len Jackson (Chair), Nicholas Bunting, Mary Butler, Ted Cassidy, Karen Chouhan, Lindsey Davies, Wendi Jarrett, Jeff Moore, Patrick Nelson, Dr. Mary Nevill, Jackie Strong, Mike Turner.

  South East: Mary MacAnally (Chair), Councillor Gerry Ceaser, Brenda Chester, Rafiq Chohan, Professor Martin Elson, David Knight, Richard Leman, Paul Millman, Ben Oakley, Linda Plowright, Neil Snowball.

  The members of the North West and West Midlands Regional Sports Boards have not been appointed yet. With the recent appointment of Andy Worthington as Chair of the North West Board, the recruitment of the members will now begin. Appointment of the members of the West Midlands Board will begin once its Chair has been appointed.

  Tyntesfield Estate
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether the Heritage Lottery Fund has received an application from the National Trust for funds in connection with the Tyntesfield estate. [120420]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) has not received a worked-up application from the National Trust (NT) for what they propose to do at Tyntesfield although at the time of making the NHMF award to Tyntesfield, the Board approved in principle a further grant award from HLF subject to the receipt and favourable assessment of a fully worked-up application which meets HLF's priorities. The NT is currently working-up this application in accordance with standard HLF procedures. As part of this process a series of meetings and discussions have taken place between HLF and NT staff regarding the shape, timetable and content of their bid. HLF expect to receive an application in December this year.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Air Quality Targets
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received regarding(a) her Department's targets for air quality and (b) the attainment of those targets. [120896]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Government objectives on air quality are set out in the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland published in January 2000 and its Addendum published in February 2003. Prior to the publication of these documents the Government consulted widely. The Strategy and summaries of responses received are published on my Department's website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/airquality/index.htm
  915W
  (b) We are on course or have already met the Air Quality objectives for five of the nine pollutants in England, namely benzene, 1,3-butadiene, carbon monoxide, lead and sulphur dioxide. Significant progress has been made towards meeting Air Quality objectives for nitrogen dioxide, particles, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and ozone. This is as a result of the measures that have been implemented to reduce emissions of these pollutants, and their precursors, particularly from road transport and industry.

  Biofuels
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to prohibit the use of biofuels on set-aside land; and if she will make a statement. [120537]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 20 June 2003]: The set-aside requirements are part of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) support arrangements for the arable sector.

  The current scheme allows the growing of certain energy and other non-food crops. We believe this is a valuable flexibility in the use of set-aside land, which can contribute to wider environmental benefits.

  Bushmeat
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to stop the trade in bushmeat. [119443]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since March 2002, the Department has had in place a series of measures designed to tackle the disease risks posed by illegal imports of all types of meat and animal products. The number of illegal imports seized in 2002–03 rose to three times the number made in the previous year, reflecting increased enforcement activity and better evidence-based targeting.

  Additional resources for the coming years, together with the improved enforcement and intelligence capability provided by HM Customs and Excise, should ensure that this work is consolidated and built upon. HM Customs are setting up four mobile detection teams to target meat and animal products, and will be increasing the number of detector dog teams to six during the current financial year.

  Defra are also working with the Food Standards Agency and HM Customs to understand what drives the demand for exotic meats and animal products in the UK.

  In addition, under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) the UK played a key role in setting up a Working Group of Central African countries, which is due to report to the next Conference of the Parties in October 2004. We expect its recommendations to provide a valuable resource for all the countries of the region, in aiding their efforts to harmonise and strengthen local controls on the bushmeat trade.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what legal action her Department has taken in the last four years against those who import bushmeat into the United Kingdom. [121061]
  916W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  A decision to bring a prosecution before the Courts is a matter for the enforcement authority. For imports of meat covered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora (CITES), this is HM Customs and Excise. For other offences regarding illegal imports of meat and animal products, responsibility lay with Local Authorities until 11 April, when this was taken over by HM Customs.

  HM Customs and Excise have prosecuted three people in the last four years for CITES offences involving "bushmeat". Two were convicted, and one was acquitted but convicted under a separate animal health charge. Data on Local Authority prosecutions for offences under other meat and animal products legislation have not been collected centrally. We are not aware of any recent prosecutions by Local Authorities for bushmeat offences.

  Cartagena Protocol
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policy is on the ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on exports of genetically modified crops. [118030]

  Margaret Beckett
  The Government regard the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety as an important international agreement governing the handling and movement of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Once in force, it will provide a common basis for all countries of the world to take informed decisions about imports and exports of any GMOs that may affect wildlife and natural habitats. Most of the UK's obligations under the Protocol have been, or are being, implemented at European Community level. The Community legal framework for the Protocol is expected to be completed later this month with the adoption of measures governing exports of GMOs. Adoption of these measures will demonstrate that the UK is fully able to meet its obligations under the Protocol and will enable the necessary national ratification procedures to be completed shortly thereafter.

  Cod Stocks
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the recent report of the International Council for the Exploration of the sea on the level of cod stocks in the North Sea, Kattegat, the Irish Sea and waters to the west of Scotland, measured against minimum recommended levels; and if she will make a statement. [120660]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The report explains that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea was able to refer to new preliminary assessments for Irish Sea and West of Scotland cod but that these have yet to be properly reviewed by ICES. For the North Sea and Kattegat there was no new assessment, but some, again preliminary, indications of the abundance of pre-fishery young cod. The report concludes overall that there is no change in the perception of the stocks concerned, and they are all below recommended precautionary levels. We will take close account of this and all emerging
  917W
  scientific information in discussions on the Commission's recent proposals for further cod recovery measures.

  Fallen Stock
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment has been made of the cost-effectiveness of the new proposals for fallen stock collection compared with traditional methods of disposal, with particular reference to disposal of carcases through locally based incineration; [120950]

  (2) what plans the Government has to incorporate existing local operators of fallen stock disposal facilities in the new scheme; [120951]

  (3) where the facilities for collection and disposal of carcasses under the fallen stock scheme devised in response to the EU Animals By-product Regulations are based. [121081]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In light of the low response rate from livestock farmers to the letter inviting interest in a national scheme, the Government are now considering whether the scheme should go ahead, and if so in what form.

  The Department has not made any specific assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the proposed national fallen stock scheme against existing collection/disposal routes such as incineration.

  However, the industry estimate that with full utilisation of the scheme economies of scale would mean the costs of carcase collection could be 40 per cent. lower than is currently the case for adult cattle, and 60 per cent. lower than for adult sheep.

  The proposed national fallen stock collection and disposal scheme would be open to existing approved collection/disposal facilities, such as knackers' yards, hunt kennels, incinerators and rendering plants, although other operators could, provided they comply with the relevant legislation, also participate in such a scheme.

  Officials have arranged for a list of those premises which are currently approved by the Department to collect/dispose of animal by-products such as Fallen Stock, to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Note:

  Not all Hunt Kennels collect and/or dispose of Fallen Stock.

  Local Food Chains
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under what regulatory provisions local authorities can be exempted from EU procedures on purchasing in order to encourage greater use of local food chains. [121571]

  Alun Michael
  Public contracting authorities, including local authorities, must comply in full with UK public procurement regulations when awarding contracts for the supply of food. The regulations implement EU Directives on procurement that are designed to ensure that public sector contracts are awarded following transparent competitions that do not unfairly exclude suppliers from outside the UK. Even 918W
  when the values of contract requirements fall below the thresholds for applying the Regulations the European Treaty prohibits the public sector from demanding local food. Discriminating on grounds of nationality is strictly prohibited under any circumstance.

  It is a common misconception that the EU Directives work against local producers and growers. There are legitimate ways and means for public contracting authorities to increase the opportunities that local producers have for competing for public sector contracts. One of the most effective measures is to ensure that the quality of food specified takes into account food production and processing standards that result in safe, healthy nutritious food and ensure that adverse environmental impacts are reduced as much as possible. More detailed guidance on stimulating the demand and supply of local produce can be found in Defra's Action Sheet at:

  http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/sustaim/procurement/index.htm

  Marine Stewardship Council
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the Scottish Fisheries Authorities regarding the extension of her Department's Marine Stewardship Council grants scheme to Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [117810]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]: I understand that the Scottish Executive will consider grants under the European Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance towards Marine Stewardship Council fisheries accreditation.

  Nitrogen Dioxide (Airports)
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people were exposed to nitrogen dioxide in excess of European Union limits at(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick, (c) Stansted, (d) Manchester and (e) Luton airports, in each of the last five years.[121248]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We do not collect data for the number of people exposed to nitrogen dioxide levels in excess of the EU limit value, which has to be achieved by 2010, at the above-mentioned or any other airports.

  Local authorities have a statutory duty under the Environment Act 1995 to review and assess the local air quality in their area against the air quality objectives for seven pollutants prescribed in regulations, including nitrogen dioxide for the purpose of local air quality management. The majority of local authorities have set up their own air quality monitoring sites and where they identify through modelling and monitoring that it is unlikely that the air quality objectives will be met by the relevant deadline, the local authority must designate an air quality management area and produce an action plan setting out the measures they intend to implement to work towards meeting the air quality objectives.

  The boroughs of Hillingdon, Hounslow and Spelthorne have designated air quality management areas around Heathrow as they are predicting they will be unable to meet the air quality objective for nitrogen

  919W
  dioxide in 2005 (this non-mandatory deadline is five years earlier than the deadline for the EU limit value). Reigate and Banstead Borough Council have also designated an air quality management area in respect of the 2005 nitrogen dioxide objective near to Gatwick. These authorities are required to draw up air quality action plans, in partnership with the airport operators and other interested parties setting out proposed measures to tackle the problem.

  Stanstead, Luton and Manchester airports are not the subject of any air quality management aeras.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish guidelines used by his Department for considering the speed and timing of the deportation of asylum seekers once all appeals have been exhausted.[117926]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no publishable guidelines or data available on how quickly removal should take The speed with which a person or persons can be removed depends on whether there are any barriers to removal and how quickly they can be overcome.

  The Immigration Service (IS) is fully committed, however, to removing from the United Kingdom, all of those who have no entitlement to remain in this country. The IS targets in particular those who have applied for and failed the asylum process and those who have not lodged an appeal within 15 working days of adverse decision.

  I am able to report that, following a series of measures, there has been a steady increase in removals performance across the board. Some 14,400 people (including dependants) were removed in 2002, representing an increase of 12 per cent. over the previous year and a 45 per cent. increase compared to 1997. Though, among other things, greater contact management with asylum seekers at all stages of the asylum process and better intelligence, we would expect this trend to continue over the coming months.

  Through close collaboration with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), planning and work is also undertaken to overcome immigration related problems with specific countries. Were necessary, this includes working with other Government Departments and the Governments of the countries where specific problems exist. Through this approach, and by drawing upon the joint expertise of Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) and FCO, measures can be identified and implemented that counter particular, and sometimes unique, problems including difficulties with delays and barriers to removal.

  Cannabis Arrests (London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests have been made in(a) Lambeth and (b) other London boroughs for possession of cannabis in the last 12 months.[120920]
  920W
  Caroline Flint
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that for the period June 2002 to May 2003, 132 persons were arrested for the possession of cannabis in Lambeth and 17,329 persons were arrested in other London boroughs.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Paul Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his Department's policy to conduct a further regulatory impact assessment on the Criminal Records Bureau to find out what impact the fee increase will have upon the voluntary sector; [120089]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact the increase in Criminal Records Bureau check fees will have on the voluntary sector. [120090]

  Paul Goggins
  As the Criminal Records Bureau moves towards full cost recovery, it has been necessary to make the increases in fees that were announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 5 June 2003,Official Report, column 27WS. We have made it clear that checks will remain free in the case of volunteers (worth an estimated value of £10 million in the 2003–04 financial year). In other cases, responsibility for paying the fee rests primarily with the individual applicant, although it is open to the employer to reimburse the cost. I will place in the Library a Regulatory Impact Assessment which assesses the impact of the fee increase for the voluntary and business sectors.

  Drugs Treatment
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what protocols there are for GP intervention in the treatment of his or her patient while that patient is under a Drug Treatment and Testing Order. [121059]

  Caroline Flint
  The treatment element of a drug treatment and testing order is commissioned by the Probation Service working with other local joint commissioning stakeholders. No national guidance has been issued on the extent of or timing for the involvement of an offender's GP in the delivery of the agreed treatment programme, which, if appropriate, would need to be considered in the light of the particular circumstances of the agreed programme and the delivery of the National Treatment Agency models of care standards.

  Extradition
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which countries do not have reciprocal extradition arrangements with the UK. [121167]

  Caroline Flint
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East, (Mr. Ainsworth) on 20 May 2003,Official Report, column 760W.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been extradited from the Irish Republic to the UK in each year since 1997: and how many related to terrorist offences. [121166]
  921W
  Caroline Flint
  Extradition relations between the UK and the Republic of Ireland are governed by the Backing of Warrants Act 1965. These cases are dealt with on a police-to-police basis, with the extradition hearing taking place before the appropriate judicial authority. This process requires little or no ministerial involvement.

  Details of requests made to the Republic of Ireland under the backing of warrants arrangements are not held centrally.

  Official Visits
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits have been made by Home Office(a) officials and (b) Ministers to France to look at drug treatment regimes in the last five years. [121224]

  Caroline Flint
  The Home Office became responsible for the UK National Drugs Strategy in June 2001. No Home Office Minister or official has been to France to look at drug treatment regimes since that time. However Home Office Ministers are familiar with drugs policies and practice in France through frequent contact with colleagues there and through advice from officials and others who keep in close touch with developments.

  Public Sector Workers (Assaults)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he plans to extend the legal protection afforded to police officers assaulted in the workplace to other public sector workers: [120649]

  (2) if he plans to establish a new offence of assaulting a public sector worker in the course of their duty; and if he will make a statement. [120650]

  Paul Goggins
  Assaulting a public sector worker in the course of his or her duty is an extremely serious matter, as reflected in guidelines issued by the Magistrates' Association. Magistrates court guidelines already make clear that when an assault is against a "victim serving the public", it should be considered as an aggravating factor. The Criminal Justice Bill contains provisions on sentencing and sets up a new Sentencing Guidelines Council, charged with drafting and distributing a new set of consolidated sentencing guidelines applicable across all criminal courts. The purpose of the guidelines is to ensure consistency and to require the courts to take account of all the relevant aggravating or mitigating features. The guidelines could, and we expect will, refer explicitly to the fact that if a victim was at the time of the offence working with the public, it should be treated as an aggravating feature of the crime. We have no current plans to introduce specific offences for attacks on public sector workers.

  Sex Industry
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women from Central and Eastern European countries are estimated to be working illegally in the sex industry in Britain. [120169]

  Beverley Hughes
  A Home Office research study 'Stopping Traffic' (Police Research Series 125, published in 2000), indicated that there was intelligence 922W
  to suggest that some women and children are trafficked into the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation. This was estimated at between 140 and 1,400 per year but it was impossible to make a more accurate assessment of numbers. The report concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that this was on a large scale compared with other European countries.

  Statistics collected by the Metropolitan Police's Clubs and Vice Unit suggest that up to 75 per cent. of women involved in off-street prostitution in London are non-UK nationals. Of these, 20 per cent are thought to be from the Balkans, and 28 per cent. from European countries.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Sitting Costs
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what additional costs were incurred as a result of the House sitting after 10.30 pm on 16 June 2003. [120448]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The main additional cost is overtime for some support staff. The information about overtime worked on 16 June 2003 is not currently available, but I expect it to be minimal compared to the daily cost of running the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Committees
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will publish the list of Ministerial Committees of the Cabinet. [122619]

  The Prime Minister
  I have today published the list of Ministerial Committees of the Cabinet together with their Chairmen, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I will make an announcement on full membership and terms of reference in due course.

  EU Rebate
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the proposals discussed at the European Council on 19 and 20 June 2003 in Thessaloniki would permit a reduction in the UK rebate from EU budget contributions. [121899]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government will not accept any watering down of decision making for EU budget contributions. We have made clear that Convention proposals to introduce Qualified Majority Voting or reduce the say of national parliaments in this area are unacceptable, and will continue to do so in the Intergovernmental Conference.

  Lord Chancellorship
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the consequences his proposal to abolish the Lord Chancellorship will have on the Church of England churches for which the Lord Chancellor has the benefice. [121895]
  923W
  The Prime Minister
  The arrangements for these appointments currently remain unchanged with the appointment of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton as the Lord Chancellor. This will be looked at during the transitional period.

  Staff Creche
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the creche facilities made available by his office to the children of his office's staff. [121114]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Minister of State, Cabinet Office gave him today.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Biotechnology
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how much her Department has spent in each year since 1995(a) as a Department and (b) through grants to external bodies on (i) the promotion of and (ii) research into biotechnology; [121655]

  (2) how much her Department has spent in (a) sponsorships, (b) grants and (c) other financial assistance to biotechnology companies in the UK. [121656]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 25 June 2003]: For the most recent financial year (2002–03), the Department's expenditure on sponsorships, grants and other financial assistance for the biotechnology industry sector in the UK was approximately £18 million.

  The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) spent approximately £81 million on biotechnology in 2001–02. Further information is available in the BBSRC's "Annual Report and Accounts 2001–2002".

  The Medical Research Council (MRC) expenditure on biotechnology in 2001–02 came to approximately £140 million. Further information is in MRC's "Annual Report 2001–2002".

  It is not possible to give precise information, due to the lack of a generally accepted definition of biotechnology and the differences in the ways individual Research Councils analyse their annual expenditure.

  Information about expenditure dating back to 1995 is not readily available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Broadband
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made in implementation of broadband in(a) Cleethorpes,
  (b) Great Grimsby, (c) Scunthorpe and (d) Brigg and Goole. [119440]

  Mr. Timms
  BT ADSL broadband is available in Scunthorpe and Brigg and the Great Grimsby exchange will be enabled on 20 August. Goole reached its trigger 924W
  level on 25 February and is awaiting an enablement date. Cleethorpes currently has 177 registrations (70 per cent.) towards its trigger level of 250.

  Cable broadband is also available through NTL who operate in the areas of Cleethorpes, Grimsby and Scunthorpe.

  Early-day Motion 1390
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on early-day motion 1390. [120934]

  Mr. Timms
  Subscribers should not have to pay to be removed from fax marketing mailing lists and existing regulations already give subscribers the right to opt out of this form of marketing free of charge. Under the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999, no one may send an unsolicited direct marketing fax to any subscriber who has been registered with the Fax Preference Service (the FPS) for at least 28 days, or who has previously instructed the sender not to fax them. There is no fee for registering with the FPS and this can be done by phone, fax, post or e-mail. Further information about the Regulations and plans to update them is available on: http://www.dti.gov.uk/indiistries/ecomniiinications/telecom_data_protection_ directive_9766ec.html

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met the regulator to discuss investment criteria in the electricity transmission sector.[115819]

  Mr. Timms
  My ministerial colleagues and I and departmental officials have regular discussions with the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) on a range of issues, including the electricity transmission sector.

  The Transmission Issues Working Group, on which DTI and Ofgem officials sit with transmission licensees, was set up to look at the issues surrounding connecting up to 12 GW of new renewable generation to the existing transmission system and has recently reported on the costs entailed. It continues to monitor the progress of work recently started by the Scottish Transmission Owners.

  In addition, the Government continue to engage with Ofgem and industry on matters relating to the British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements (BETTA). This includes ensuring that the arrangements under a GB market will provide fertile conditions for new investment in renewables generation, a key lynchpin of our objectives outlined in the Energy White Paper.

  Employers' Liability Insurance
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to publish her Department's review of the employers' liability insurance system.[120388]

  Mr. Browne
  I have been asked to reply.
  925W
  The Department published a First Stage review of the employers' liability insurance system on 3 June 2003. Copies are in the Library.

  The report identifies a number of areas for further action. We will report in the autumn on the progress that has been made and any further steps we intend to take.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether in the last 24 months the Minister of State for Energy and Construction has received invitations to visit facilities which extract energy from municipal waste; how many meetings the minister has had in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003 with companies which operate waste management facilities extracting energy from waste; and how many times in each of these years the minister met the trade association responsible for waste management. [121196]

  Mr. Timms
  My hon. Friend, the then Minister for Energy and Construction, received a number of invitations to visit facilities which extract energy from waste, and visited CPS Civic Ltd.'s Energy from Waste plant in Sheffield in March this year. He had two meetings with companies operating energy from waste facilities during 2001, one such meeting during 2002, and two meetings during 2003. He met the Energy from Waste Association on one occasion in 2001 when he gave a speech at their Annual lunch in May 2001.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the cost to developing countries of implementation of regulations that arise from General Agreement on Trade in Services negotiations. [121363]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 25 June 2003]: The GATS process is based on a positive list, bottom up approach. Countries decide for themselves in which sectors and to what extent they wish to liberalise. Therefore, it will be for them to assess if potential costs will outweigh potential benefits. However, HMG recognises that developing countries require support in this assessment, and this is why the Department for International Development is co-ordinating with the World bank and UNCTAD to conduct research in this area, which will help inform the position of developing countries in the negotiations.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how WTO investment rules apply to(a) multinationals and (b) national Governments. [121365]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 25 June 2003]: Some existing WTO Agreements, for example, the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Investment Measures, the General Agreement on Trade in Services and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, contain rules which may affect the way Governments offer incentives to invest in their country or specific sectors, but these rules do not form a complete set of multilateral rules governing investment. WTO agreements apply only to measures taken by
  926W
  Governments or public bodies and not to multinationals. Any future agreements negotiated in the WTO are likely to be concluded on the same basis.

  Gas Meters
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason data gathered from the testing of gas meters that have been reported as faulty by consumers are not published. [121299]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter for Ofgem. I have asked the Chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  ISO 9001:2000
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of ISO 9000 certified companies have(a) transferred and (b) are in the process of transferring to ISO 9001:2000; and what plans there are to encourage UK companies and their suppliers to do so before the deadline. [120287]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department does not collect information on the numbers of UK businesses certified to the ISO 9000 standards but contacts with certification bodies indicate that approximately 50 per cent. of certified UK businesses have transferred to ISO 9001:2000 and a further 25 per cent. are in the process of transferring. The ISO 9000 standards are voluntary and it is a matter for the companies involved to make any changes to their quality management systems to meet the requirements of ISO 9001:2000. My Department has, however, been providing general advice on the new standard and certification bodies have been encouraging UK businesses to transfer to ISO 9001:2000 since it was adopted in December 2000.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department has made of the number of companies in the UK which are ISO 9000 certified; how many are certified by UKAS accredited companies in the UK; what reports the Government have received that some have been certified inappropriately; and what percentage her Department estimates have been certified inappropriately. [120288]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department does not collect information on businesses certified to ISO 9000. However, figures produced by the International Standards Organisation indicate that in, December 2001, there were 66,760 ISO 9000 certifications in the UK. Neither my Department nor UKAS collect information on the number of UK businesses certified to ISO 9000 by UKAS accredited companies. My Department is made aware from time to time of certifications which might be deemed inappropriate for various reasons (for example because the certifier is unaccredited and the certificate is not accepted in the market as a result) but keeps no record of the precise numbers of such cases.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's policy is on change of ISO 9000 certification to the latest version of ISO 9001:2000. [120289]

  Ms Hewitt
  All ISO standards are reviewed at least every five years to ensure they continue to meet the needs of business and industry. ISO 9001:2000 is the
  927W
  most recent version of the ISO 9000 series of quality management systems and has been produced by quality and industry experts working under the aegis of the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). From 15 December 2003 it is the intention of the certification organisations only to issue certificates against the new standard. It is a matter for individual businesses to decide whether to be certified against the new standard.

  However, ISO 9001:2000 is intended to reflect modern management approaches and the experience gained in industry and commerce over the past 25 years, with the focus moving from compliance to achieving results, and as such it is welcomed by the government. We hope that businesses will use the new standard to improve their productivity and competitiveness and that as many as possible will transfer to the new standard.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice the Government is giving to ISO 9000 certified companies about the need to transfer to ISO 9001:2000, by 15 December this year. [120290]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers to his questions answered today PQs No. 120287 and 120289.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of her staff retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year.[111955]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 662W, by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor for the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Nuclear Waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when BNFL plans to return high level nuclear waste from reprocessing foreign spent fuel back to customer countries; what facilities exist at Sellafield to store on an interim basis treated wastes; and whether she has received commitments from all foreign customers that they are prepared to accept the repatriation of their wastes. [119489]

  Mr. Timms
  The arrangements for the return of high level nuclear wastes (HLW) are a commercial matter between BNFL and its overseas customers, subject to meeting the appropriate regulatory requirements. All new reprocessing contracts signed since 1976 have included return of waste provisions and in signing such contracts overseas customers have accepted that wastes can be returned.

  The HLW arising from reprocessing is conditioned, by vitrification, into a solid form suitable for safe long term storage and transportation. Vitrified HLW arising from fuel reprocessed to date is currently stored in a purpose built, engineered storage facility at Sellafield, in advance of return in accordance with the contracts.

  Oftel
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on Oftel's928W
  policy on special offers in the telecommunications market; and what mechanisms are in place to ensure repeated special offers do not distort the telecommunications market. [121527]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand that Oftel looks at any issues of anti-competitive behaviour in the pricing of telecommunications services, such as the use of non-off or repeated special offers, on a case by case basis. Any examination of such issues will be carried out within the framework of relevant legislation such as the Competition Act 1998 or the Telecommunications Act 1984. Oftel will look at issues relating to special offers if specific complaints are made to it or if it believes there is a competition issue which it needs to investigate on its own initiative.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether there is a statutory duty for Oftel to respond to formal complaints from alternative operators regarding uncompetitive practices from competitors; and what is the maximum time permitted for Oftel to deal with a complaint. [121528]

  Mr. Timms
  Section 49 of the Telecommunication Act 1984 imposes a duty on the Director General of Telecommunications to consider any non-frivolous representations made to him. Under the provisions of the Competition Act 1998, he has discretion as to whether or not to take action on a complaint brought to him.

  With effect from 25 July 2003 the new European Directives on electronic communications introduce a mandatory target of four months for resolution of disputes. There are no statutory time limits on other investigations, though Oftel works to internal management targets.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Post Office card accounts have been opened in Scotland. [119356]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the format requested. National figures are available only.

  However, I understand from the Post Office Ltd. that, as of 31 May 2003, 32,900 Post Office card accounts have been opened.

  This number should grow rapidly over the coming weeks and months as those people opting for a card account complete the application process. By the end of May 2003, some 330,000 people had said they want to open a Post Office card account.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Post Office card accounts have been opened. [119837]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand from the Post Office Ltd. that as of 31 May 2003, 32,900 Post Office card accounts have been opened.

  This number should grow rapidly over the coming weeks and months as those people opting for a card account complete the application process. By the end of May 2003, some 330,000 people had said they want to open a Post Office card account.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans her Department has to subsidise the production of wood and wood products as a means of locking up carbon. [119181]

  Mr. Timms
  I have no such plans.

  Trade Statistics
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the percentage of trade with the EEC was in 1973; and what percentage of UK total trade was in 2002 with those states who were members of the EEC in 1973. [119173]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: In 1973 the eight members, other than the UK of the then EEC accounted for 32.6 per cent. of the UK's total trade in goods, In 2002 they accounted for 46.2 per cent.

  Unscrupulous Tradesmen
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) accreditation and (b) regulatory measures are in place to protect the general public, with particular reference to vulnerable groups, from unscrupulous tradesmen. [121666]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  There is a sizeable body of law, which gives consumers protection in respect to both civil and criminal matters. Within this framework, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and Trading Standards services enforce a wide range of legislation aimed at protecting all consumers. Some of this legislation is directed at practices more likely to affect vulnerable consumers. Through the Enterprise Act we have strengthened the enforcement of consumer protection legislation by making it possible for enforcers to seek a Stop Now Order against a trader acting unlawfully in respect of a wide range of legislative infringements, which harm the collective interests of consumers. These provisions came into force on 20 June 2003.

  The Enterprise Act empowers the OFT to formally approve and promote voluntary codes of practice that meet its challenging core criteria and, if necessary, withdraw that approval publicly if a code is found to be not operating satisfactorily. The aim of the new scheme is to promote and safeguard consumers' interests by helping them identify better businesses and to encourage businesses to raise their standards of customer service.

  Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will ensure that implementation of the European Union waste electrical and electronic equipment directive in respect of the re-use of printer ink and toner cartridges will encourage an expansion of re-use. [118082]

  Mr. Timms
  The implementation of this Directive does not affect printer cartridges.

TRANSPORT

  Efficiency Savings
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the target was in each of the last five years for efficiency savings as a percentage of total running costs for each of the non-departmental public bodies for which his predecessor Department was responsible; and whether each target was met. [120925]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information is as follows:

  Strategic Rail Authority

  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) was established in February 2001 and no targets for efficiency have yet been set. The SRA's Financial Framework designates their Chief Executive as being responsible for using resources 'economically, efficiently and effectively'. I am satisfied that he has done this.

  Lighthouse Authorities

  The Secretary of State has no power to set targets for the two lighthouse authorities that are identified as non-departmental public bodies (Trinity House Lighthouse Service and Northern Lighthouse Board). The two organizations set their own operational targets.

  European Maritime Safety Agency
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will put forward Rosyth as the permanent location for the European Maritime Safety Agency. [121463]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Glasgow was nominated in 2001 as the UK candidate location for the European Maritime Safety Agency, in a joint submission by the Department and the Scottish Executive.

  Low-wave Radar
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he is having with his EU counterparts on restrictions on the use of low-wave radar by vessels in the seas around the British Isles. [120674]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Low-wave radar is not a term that my Department recognises. Surface wave or surface duct radar may achieve "over the horizon" ranges, but has little application to commercial shipping. There are no discussions with European counterparts on this matter at this time.

  Overcrowding (Trains)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the levels of overcrowding on trains have been in each year since 1992. [121342]

  Mr. McNulty
  Overcrowding is primarily a problem in London in the peak periods. Overall overcrowding levels fell from 1992 to 1996, rose in 1997, fell in 1998, rose in 1999 and 2000, were unchanged in 2001 and fell in 2002.

  Nearly half a million people now travel by train into London each morning. This is the highest figure since the late 1980s. Despite this growth in use at peak times the number of operators that have overcrowding levels exceeding the Strategic Rail Authority's threshold has

  931W
  fallen to three. A graph showing London commuter numbers and crowding has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  An updated version of the chart showing passenger numbers and crowding figures from 1990 onwards has also been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) number of staff employed by and (b) budget of each regulatory body for which his Department is responsible in each year since 1997. [117784]

  Mr. McNulty
  Two transport bodies can be described as regulatory: the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Rail Regulator (ORR).

  (a) Staff (Full-time equivalent)

  (b) Budget resource (£000)

  ORR

  1997–98

  132

  8,005

  1998–99

  134

  8,513

  1999–2000

  136

  12,108

  2000–01

  104

  15,049

  2001–02

  115

  10,315

  2002–03

  133

  13,129

  CAA

  1997–98

  1,008

  70,836

  1998–99

  1,011

  74,063

  1999–2000

  1,011

  75,857

  2000–01

  11,083

  176,305

  2001–02

  1,082

  81,280

  2002–03

  1,060

  80,432

  1 Note from 1.4.2000 staff numbers include the Directorate of Airspace Policy (54 staff).

  Note:

  For both regulations the figures are for 1 April to 31 March. The budgets are gross total (not just staff costs), without fee income being deducted.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's regulatory impact assessment procedure, and how many RIAs have been reviewed in respect of the Department over the last year. [120756]

  Mr. McNulty
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) must be completed for all policy proposals that have a potential impact on businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. It includes details of the arrangements for monitoring and evaluating policy proposals and their impact.

  Information on the number of RIAs that have been reviewed in respect of the Department in the last year is not held.

  Road Safety
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people have(a) died, (b) been seriously injured and (c) been injured in road crashes caused by drivers with alcohol levels (i) between 50mg
  932W
  and 80mg of alcohol per 100m1 of blood and (ii) between 20mg and 50mg of alcohol per 100m1 of blood in each of the last 10 years. [121509]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 25 June 2003]: The information requested is not available.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Home Secretary concerning the role of the police in enforcing standards of road use. [R] [121491]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers in my Department have discussions with the Home Secretary and his Ministers as and when necessary on a range of issues of which roads policing is one. Officials in both Departments have a regular dialogue on these matters.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 595W, on secondments, if he will name the organisations to which civil servants in his Department have been seconded since 2001–02 up to the date for which the most recent figures are available in (a) the private sector, (b) NGOs and (c) other, stating in each case the dates of the secondments, the number of civil servants seconded to that organisation and their grade. [114162]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Sewel Motions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list Sewel motions passed by the Scottish Parliament since May 1999 that apply to his Department's responsibilities and Government Bills he has sponsored. [120688]

  Mr. McNulty
  Of the Bills sponsored by my Department, the following was the subject of a Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament on the date indicated:
  Railways and Transport Safety—20 March 2003

  Sunset Clauses
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to include a sunset clause in all new legislation unless a specific case can be made to exclude a sunset clause. [120758]

  Mr. McNulty
  The revised RIA guidance 'Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment' was published on 28 January 2003. It advises policy officials to consider time limiting or sunsetting at an early stage of policy development and gives specific examples of where sunsetting maybe appropriate.

  The Department for Transport actively promotes the better regulation agenda and the use of sunsetting where appropriate.

  Wheel Clamping
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cars were clamped by the DVLA
  933W
  in the Ogmore constituency (a) in the week commencing 9 June, (b) in the month preceding 9 June and (c) in the previous year. [121314]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the week commencing 9 June, 30 vehicles were wheel clamped during the operation in the Ogmore constituency. No vehicles were wheel clamped during the previous month. 78 vehicles were wheel clamped between June 2002 and June 2003.

TREASURY

  Budget Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much production and printing of the 2003 Budget Report and its accompanying notes cost; and how many copies of the 2003 Budget Report have been sold at the full cover price. [121507]

  Mr. Boateng
  The cost of producing and distributing the Financial Statement and Budget Report (FSBR) and associated documents was met from within the Treasury's three-year Departmental Expenditure Limits. The Stationery Office, the publishers, are responsible for the sale of the FSBR through their chain of bookstores.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department's vote in the Council of Ministers against a legislative proposal(a) was sufficient and (b) was not sufficient to achieve with other member states a blocking minority; [117211]

  (2) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department abstained in the Council of Ministers on a legislative proposal which was passed by qualified majority voting; [117225]

  (3) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department has been outvoted by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers; and if he will list the legislation by year; [117245]

  (4) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department indicated dissent from a proposal in the Council of Ministers but did not register a vote or abstention. [117266]

  John Healey
  The position and voting record of the UK on matters discussed by the ECOFIN Council and the ECOFIN (Budget) Council are set out in the statements made to Parliament after each Council meeting.

  In addition, the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union publishes a monthly document listing legislative and non-legislative acts of the Council, including the results of votes, explanations of voting and statements for the minutes when the Council is acting in its capacity as legislator. This record is published on the Council's website at: http://register.consilium.eu.int/ isoregister/frames/introacfsEN.htm

  Drug Seizures
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much illegal drugs were seized by HM Customs and Excise in the latest 12 months for which figures are available; and what the cost of such operations was. [122012]

  John Healey
  Details of drugs seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the costs of their activities are published in their Annual Report for 2001–02, the last full year for which results are available, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House (CM 5671).

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officials in the Department serve on EU committees or working parties. [116080]

  Mr. Boateng
  We do not keep central records of officials serving on EU committees or working parties. Departmental officials serve on EU committees and working parties as the business need requires. We have set out in previous Written Answers, for example on 10 June 2002, 18 June 2002, 28 April 2003 and 30 April 2003, the number of officials representing the Department on specific EU bodies about which details have previously been requested.

  Euro
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from(a) business leaders and (b) mortgage providers in Northern Ireland regarding the proposed use of fiscal regulators instead of monetary policy with regard to the United Kingdom joining the euro. [121913]

  Mr. Boateng
  None

  Euro Roadshow
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the events he plans to attend as part of the Government's euro roadshow. [121392]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Economic Secretary to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 459W.

  Income Tax
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the revenue impact would be of extending the 22 per cent. income tax rate bracket to include yearly incomes of(a) £40,000, (b) £45,000, (c) £50,000, (d) £55,000, (e) £60,000, (f) £65,000, (g) £70,000, and introducing an additional income tax bracket of (i) 45 per cent. (ii) 46 per cent. (iii) 47 per cent. (iv) 48 per cent. (v) 49 per cent. (vi) 50 per cent. (vii) 51 per cent. (viii) 52 per cent. (ix) 53 per cent. (x) 54 per cent. (xi) 55 per cent. (xii) 60 per cent. and (xiii) 65 per cent. for yearly incomes above (a) to (g) starting at (A) £50,000, (B) £55,000, (C) £60,000, (D) £70,000, (E) £75,000, (F) £80,000, (G) £85,000, (H) £90,000, (I) £95,000, (J) £100,000, (K) £105,000, (L) £110,000, (M) £115,000, (N) £120,000, (O) £125,000, (P) £130,000, (Q) £135,000,

  935W
  (R) £140,000, (S) £ 145,000 and (T) £ 150,000; and what he estimates the administrative costs would be of each of these changes. [121663]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Labour Force Statistics
  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the 10 fastest growing occupations were(a) in the UK and (b) in each of the English regions between 2000 and 2003, using Labour Force Survey Standard Occupational Classification 2000 by way of minor group and unit group level of analysis; [121428]

  (2) what the 10 fastest growing occupations were (a) in the UK and (b) in each of the English regions between (i) 1992 and 1997 and (ii) 1997 and 1999, using Labour Force Survey Standard Occupational Classification 1990 by way of minor group and unit group level of analysis.[121429]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Jon Cruddas, dated 26 June 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the fastest growing occupations in the United Kingdom and the regions of England between 1992 and 1997; 1997 and 1999; and 2000 and 2003. (121428, 121429).

  I have arranged for the information requested to be placed in the House of Commons Library. The data are compiled from the Labour Force Survey (LFS).

  The Standard Occupation Classification 2000 was first used in the LFS in the three month period ending May 2001. Information for 2003 is not yet available. Therefore, estimates of change between 1992 and 1997; 1997 and 2000; and 2001 and 2002 have been given. These estimates relate to the three month period ending May of each year. They exclude those occupations for which the LFS sample size is too small to provide reliable estimates, and are not seasonally adjusted.

  Pensions
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to tax lump sum payments payable to the spouses of the pensioners who do not live for five years after their retirement. [121796]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's consultation paper, 'Simplifying the taxation of pensions: increasing choice and flexibility for all' proposes a consistent set of rules governing the payment and taxation of benefits from tax privileged pension schemes. These rules will replace several sets of current rules, which are neither consistent nor coherent.

  The simplification proposals were issued for consultation so people could put forward their views before final decisions are taken. The Government are now considering the responses received and will announce further details of the proposed new tax regime in the autumn.

  RAF Logistic Support Services
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reasons for the treatment 936W
  of RAF Logistic Support Services as a conventional management grouping for financial year 1999–2000; and why no accounts direction was given. [121494]

  Mr. Boateng
  The RAF Logistics Support Agency was under the control of the Chief of Defence Logistics from 1 April 1999 and was integrated with other Defence logistics organisations in 1999–2000 to form the Defence Logistics Organisation. It ceased to be a Defence agency on 31 March 2000. In the light of these changes, and with the agreement of the NAO, the Agency was treated as a conventional management grouping in 1999–2000. No accounts directions were or are given by HM Treasury to such management groupings which are, therefore, not required to produce separate accounts. However, the Agency was included in the Department's Resource Accounts for 1999–2000 which were subject to an accounts direction and were audited by the NAO.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Treasury's regulatory impact assessment procedure; and how many regulatory impact assessments have been reviewed in respect of the department over the last year. [120753]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) must be completed for all policy proposals that have a potential impact on businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. It includes details of the arrangements for monitoring and evaluating policy proposals and their impact.

  Information on the number of RIAs that have been reviewed by the Treasury, Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise in the last year is not held centrally.

  From this year the National Audit Office (NAO) has a new role in independently evaluating a selection of RIAs. In their Annual Report, published in February 2003, the Better Regulation Task Force put forward suggestions of RIAs for the NAO to review. The NAO review will focus on the quality of analysis in the RIAs and the thoroughness with which the RIAs have been undertaken. The findings and recommendations of best practice will be fed back to departments and aims to improve the standards of RIAs across Government.

  Tax Credit Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many suspected cases of working families tax credit fraud there were in the last year for which figures are available, broken down where possible into cases where there appears to be(a) understated income, (b) understated or undeclared capital, (c) undeclared subsidiary income, (d) an undeclared partner, (e) undeclared employment or self-employment, (f) overstated hours, (g) misrepresented child care, (h) fictitious children and partners and (i) fictitious employment. [121216]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue undertake investigations into tax credit claims where there are grounds for believing that the claim may not be compliant. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my response of 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 536W, for details of the number of Working Families Tax Credit cases identified for investigation in 2002–03.
  937W
  As non compliance may cover a range of circumstances and involve more than one reason for suspicion, a breakdown of the additional information requested is not available.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS GCHQ
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations have been carried out into unverified prepayments by GCHQ in respect of procurement of projects and services since the Intelligence and Security Committee's investigation; what the nature of the accounting misapplications and unverified monies was; and if he will make a statement. [121598]

  Mr. Straw
  GCHQ has worked closely with the National Audit Office to establish the cause of past problems. There was no question of money going missing.

  The past problems have now been resolved and regular reconciliations put in place to ensure GCHQ's prepayment balances are properly recorded and can be reconciled to other organisations' records.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to ensure that GCHQ will be able to produce resource accounts that reflect a true and fair record of expenditure. [121600]

  Mr. Straw
  The main areas of weakness identified by the National Audit Office in GCHQ's accounts have related to asset accounting. GCHQ is taking appropriate measures to address these issues, closely consulting HM Treasury and the National Audit Office.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to establish that equipment missing from the GCHQ Fixed Asset Register did not contain classified material. [121601]

  Mr. Straw
  Analysis of the accounts has produced no evidence of any financial loss or security problems relating to classified material arising out of the discrepancies in the Register.

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan of the time required to register voters in Afghanistan for democratic elections scheduled to take place in 2004. [121974]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  According to the Bonn Agreement, elections must be held in Afghanistan by June 2004. The UN Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA) is working closely with the Afghan Transitional Administration to develop a programme of voter registration. The actual process of registration is scheduled to begin in August and run through the winter until March 2004. Subject to security constraints, rural areas, less accessible in winter, will be registered first 938W
  followed then by urban areas. Registration will be non-compulsory and conducted individually, to ensure privacy. UNAMA expect to have a final voters list ready by May 2004.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds(a) have been provided and (b) have been pledged by (i) the UK, (ii) the EU and (iii) the international community to assist the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and the Afghan Transitional Authority in registering voters in Afghanistan. [121975]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan have estimated that the elections and voter registration will cost about USS84 million. However, the UN have not yet formally issued a request for funding from donors. The UK Government and other donors will consider requests once they have been made.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the International Crisis Group report on the constitutional process in Afghanistan, published on 12 June. [121976]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The International Crisis Group report on the constitutional process in Afghanistan highlights a number of important issues that will affect the integrity of the constitutional process, including the importance of ensuring adequate security to allow the Afghan people to participate freely. However, the report contains several factual errors to which the United Nations has drawn attention, and inaccurately portrays both the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the international community as being insufficiently committed to the constitutional process. The British Government continues to support both the Afghan Transitional Administration and UNAMA in their efforts to support the constitution-making process, including by helping to fund the popular consultation on the constitution which is currently under way.

  Colombia
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government will take to ensure full account is taken of the recommendations made by non-governmental organisations to the forthcoming meeting for international support for Colombia on 10 July. [121834]

  Mr. Rammell
  Representatives from civil society have been invited to make a presentation at the London Meeting on International Support for Colombia on 10 July. We shall ensure that participants in the meeting take full account of these views in further discussion throughout the meeting and beyond.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the areas of decision-making where the current treaties require unanimity and which would move to qualified majority voting under the Convention on the Future of Europe's proposed draft European Constitution. [121998]
  939W
  Mr. MacShane
  Annex VIII of document number CONV 727/03 of the Convention on the Future of Europe provides a complete list of the legal bases for which the draft EU constitutional treaty proposes changing the adoption procedure. That document is available on the Convention's website www.european-convention.eu.int in the "Documents" section.

  Family Visit Visas
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many family visitor visa applications were(a) received, (b) determined and (c) refused at each entry clearance post in each month since January 2003. [120602]

  Mr. Mullin
  The information requested is as follows:

  Family Visitor Applications Received

  Family Visitor Applications Determined

  Family Visitor Applications Refused

  January

  19,013

  18,182

  4,995

  February

  16,972

  18,207

  4,908

  March

  22,223

  18,238

  5,347

  The table shows the number of family visitor applications received, determined and refused at our visa issuing posts worldwide for the period January to March 2003. The figures for April and May are currently being collated and are not yet available. Those family visitor applications which have been determined are those which have been resolved, either through the refusal or the grant of entry clearance.

  The hon. Member may find apparent errors in the arithmetic. For example in February, 16,972 applications were received, but 18,207 were resolved. This is due to a variety of reasons. Applications can be carried forward from one month to the next before being resolved. Applications may be withdrawn during processing but still count as an application received. Posts are also required to count all applications received (a mother and three children on one passport may count as four applications, but only one entry clearance may be issued).

  Iraq
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British personnel are searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; and how many sites they have visited. [115497]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  Coalition investigations into Iraqi programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction are moving from an initial approach based on specific sites to a broader approach, encompassing other forms of evidence such as documentation and interviews, under the auspices of the Iraq Survey Group. On current plans the United Kingdom contribution to the Iraq Survey Group will be around 90–100 personnel, military and civilian, supported by Coalition forces. As at 22 June 2003, Coalition forces had initiated investigations into 159 sites within Iraq, from a list of over 500, which may be connected to programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction. Additionally, investigations had been
  940W
  initiated into a further 83 sites identified since the conflict began. We anticipate that further sites will be identified as investigations progress.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) mass graves and (b) bodies have been discovered by United Kingdom and United States forces in Iraq. [121567]

  Mr. Rammell
  At present, the coalition has received reports of more than 80 mass grave sites, and has confirmed the existence of more than 20. Estimates place the number of people executed by the Saddam Hussein regime at around 300,000, and some human rights organisations place this number higher.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria are to be used for the selection of members of the Iraqi council; and how many of those being considered are women. [121972]

  Mr. Rammell
  The political council will be formed in consultation with representatives of a wide cross-section of Iraqi society and political groupings. We expect it to reflect Iraq's diversity, through the inclusion of representatives of the major ethnic and religious groups, geographical regions, women and professional people.

  The UK attaches a high priority to the effective representation of women. We are working with Iraqis, with our coalition partners and with the United Nations Special Representative to achieve this.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what timescale he envisages for the establishment of the Iraqi council announced by Mr. Paul Bremer; and what issues he expects to appear on the agenda of the council's first meeting. [121973]

  Mr. Rammell
  Ambassador Bremer's aim is for a political council to be established by the end of July.

  No decisions have been taken yet on how it will operate. Among the first issues we expect the political council to deal with are the appointment of interim Ministers; and the setting up of commissions to deal with issues such as judicial and economic reform.

  Mr. Jonathan Brown
  Mr. David Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the British embassy in Oman formally requested a complete set of the travel ban documentation that applies in the case of a constituent, Mr. Jonathan Brown. [120680]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 20 June 2003]: Travel ban directives originate from the Omani authorities only. Our Embassy in Muscat cannot interfere in the Omani judicial and administrative system. Our own judicial and administrative systems are similarly protected.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the British Embassy in Oman have taken to ensure that the Omani authorities regularise the visa status of a constituent, Mr. Jonathan Brown; and what steps the Embassy is taking to secure his return to the UK. [120681]
  941W
  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 20 June 2003]: For Mr. Brown to be able to leave Oman, the local authorities require him to regularise his expired visa and pay the court judgment of approximately £10,000 against him. Our Embassy wrote to Mr. Brown on 20 July 2002 explaining this. On 5 February 2003 an Embassy staff member assisted Mr. Brown by taking his passport to the immigration services to secure the visa extension. The authorities could not, however, proceed, as Mr. Brown was unable to provide all of the information required. On 19 May our Ambassador reminded Mr. Brown in a letter that the Omani authorities required this information; to date Mr. Brown has not given it to them. We have repeatedly offered to contact Mr. Brown's family to secure funds to pay his judgment. Mr. Brown has not responded to these offers.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Department's Regulatory Impact Assessment procedure; and how many RIAs have been reviewed in respect of the Department over the last year. [120844]

  Mr. Straw
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) must be completed for all policy proposals that have a potential impact on businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. It includes details of the arrangements for monitoring and evaluating policy proposals and their impact.

  No RIAs produced by the FCO have been reviewed over the last year.

  From this year the National Audit Office (NAO) has a new role in independently evaluating a selection of RIAs. In their Annual Report, published in February 2003, the Better Regulation Task Force put forward suggestions of RIAs for the NAO to review.

  The NAO review will focus on the quality of analysis in the RIAs and the thoroughness with which the RIAs have been undertaken. The findings and recommendations of best practice will be fed back to departments. It will play a valuable part in driving up standards of RIAs.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Colombia
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what measures are in place to ensure that(a) UK and (b) EU (i) policies and (ii) aid to Colombia comply with the human rights recommendations of the United Nations. [121838]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has one remaining government-to-government bilateral project in Colombia which is ending this year. This provides advice on improving the exchange of information between non-governmental organisations working in agriculture. The project is consistent with the UN human rights recommendations.
  942W
  The EU has made clear its support for adoption of the UN's human rights recommendation. The EC's €105 million Country Programme for Colombia (2001–06) contains four elements. Two directly support efforts to improve human rights, ie support to administrative and judicial reform and promotion of human rights; the other two elements (social/economic development and alternative development) seek to address the underlying causes of conflict. In designing projects under these the Commission take account of the need to avoid their funds being used in any way which would not be compliant with UN human rights recommendations.

  Departmental Ministers
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how many Ministers there were in the Department for International Development in each year since 1996. [120995]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) on 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 661W.

  Liberia
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assistance Her Majesty's Government has provided to civilians affected by the civil war in Liberia; and if he will make a statement. [121911]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to my written statement of 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 38WS.

  Poverty and Social Impact Analyses
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what poverty and social impact analyses have been(a) commissioned and (b) completed, and for which countries, since 2000; and if he will place the results in the Library. [120491]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development commissioned a series of pilot Poverty and Social Impact Analyses (PSIAs) in seven countries in 2002. These were selected following demand from national governments and were carried out by both international and local consultants; they were funded by DFID headquarters and have been finalised. These pilots were in Honduras (electricity reform), Mozambique (fuel tax), Uganda (export promotion), Rwanda (macro policy), Armenia (water policy), Indonesia (rice tariff) and Orissa State India (public finances). The aim of these studies was to provide lessons to national governments in developing countries, as well as partners in the donor community, on what could be done, and how.

  DFID's policy is to support nationally-led processes, and support governments in undertaking PSIAs, together with partners and other national stakeholders. For example, DFID is supporting government-led initiatives in PSIA in a number of countries as and when demand arises; this currently includes co-ordinating stakeholder workshops in Ghana and Uganda to determine PSIA priorities. DFID is supporting PSIA in a number of other countries, which is led by national governments, and often financially supported by other donors.
  943W
  The results of the DFID pilot studies will be placed in the Library.

  USAID
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development on what projects since 2001, and in which countries, the Department has worked in bilateral donor collaboration with USAID; and whether the aid given in such projects has a tied condition for the benefit of(a) the joint venture and (b) the partners of USAID. [120486]

  Hilary Benn
  A comprehensive list of co-financing projects is not held centrally. However, some examples of collaboration with USAID are available, particularly in health and population. Countries where we have co-financed or contributed to health and population projects include India, Cambodia, Bolivia, Tanzania, Malawi and Kenya.

  The US has untied its aid to least-developed countries in line with the DAC Recommendation. We cannot establish without disproportionate cost how many instances there are of the US untying its funding to collaborative projects.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the Department's contributions to the negotiations surrounding the World Trade Organisation. [121358]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is working closely, at both ministerial and official level, with other Government Departments to ensure coherence between the UK's trade and development policies in the Doha round of trade negotiations. Internationally, Ministers and officials are talking with developing country governments, the European Commission and the WTO Secretariat. The Government are committed to making sure that the Doha round brings real benefits to the poor.

  More immediately, DFID is funding a variety of initiatives to help developing countries to set their own trade policies to reduce poverty. This includes improving developing countries' ability to negotiate favourable deals in trade negotiations, helping them interpret trade agreements, and supporting them in taking advantage of new international trading opportunities. To this end, the Government have committed £45 million to trade related capacity building since 1998.

SCOTLAND

  Scotland Office
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on which Cabinet sub-committees Scotland will be represented by(a) the Secretary of State and (b) the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. [121154]

  Mr. Darling
  As in the case of all Cabinet committees this is a matter for the Prime Minister.
  944W
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the projected staff complement of the Scotland Office within the Department for Constitutional Affairs. [121152]

  Mr. Darling
  The future staffing required to deal with Scottish business will be considered in due course.

  Scottish Parliament
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive about the Scottish Parliament building; [119894]

  (2) how the estimate for the Scottish Parliament building which was used in the Scottish Parliament White Paper was reached; [119895]

  (3) when the estimate of £50 million for the Scottish Parliament building was announced by his predecessor; and what the process was by which this estimate was reached; [119896]

  (4) if he will list contracts that (a) had been completed and (b) had been signed relating to the (i) planning, (ii) construction and (iii) equipping of the Scottish Parliament building prior to the transfer of responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body; [119897]

  (5) which (a) departments and (b) consultancies were used to evaluate costs of potential sites for the Scottish Parliament building when this matter was considered prior to the transfer of responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body; [119898]

  (6) what sites were proposed by the then Secretary of the Scotland Office as possibilities for the Scottish Parliament site; and what the estimates were for each site when this matter was considered prior to the transfer of responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body; [119899]

  (7) if he will publish minutes of Scotland Office meetings relating to the new Scottish Parliament building prior to the transfer of responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body. [119900]

  Mr. Darling
  The First Minister has announced that an investigation will be carried out by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie and the Auditor General for Scotland into all aspects of the Holyrood project.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Secretary of State next intends to visit the Scottish Parliament. [121150]

  Mr. Darling
  I expect to do so as and when appropriate.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many special advisers are employed in the Scotland Office, within the Department for Constitutional Affairs. [121148]

  Mr. Darling
  No special advisers are currently employed in the Scotland Office.

DEFENCE

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the actions his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are taking to comply with the requirements of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002; whether he has made an estimate of the cost of compliance; and if he will make a statement. [117708]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence has always managed asbestos in MOD buildings in accordance with legislation and has strict procedures for ensuring compliance. These are contained in the MOD Health and Safety Handbook (JSP 375) leaflet 54. Additional guidance is contained in the Defence Estates, Design and Maintenance Guide 16—Asbestos Based Materials. Copies of the publications mentioned have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Actions taken by the department include:
  Policy on Asbestos has been revised to reflect the changes in the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002.
  Design and Maintenance Guide 16—Asbestos Based Materials, is being revised to incorporate the requirements of the new Regulations.
  A programme of non-invasive assessments is to be carried out on all MOD buildings in order to establish whether or not asbestos may be present. Further more intrusive surveys may be undertaken and management plans generated depending on the results of the survey.

  It has not been possible to determine the cost of the implementation of these Regulations. There are in excess of 40,000 buildings with associated infrastructure. The costs of the survey will vary from establishment to establishment depending upon such factors as the number, type, age and use (past and present) of the buildings.

  Defence White Paper
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he plans to make to the number of infantry battalions as part of the Defence White Paper. [121761]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently no plans to make changes to the number of infantry battalions. The White Paper that we intend to publish in the autumn will provide an updated statement of Defence Policy and explain our plans for the delivery of enhanced capability.

  Drugs
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many convictions there were for drug-related offences among armed forces personnel in the latest year for which data are available. [121332]

  Mr. Caplin
  The number of convictions under the Service Discipline Acts for drug related offences in each of the three Services for the calendar year 2002 is as follows:946W

  Number

  Naval Service

  9

  Army

  11

  RAF

  5

  It is not possible to determine whether drugs misuse played an aggravating factor in other criminal offences without examining each individual case file. This could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of each of the armed forces tested positive for the use of controlled substances in the latest year for which data are available(a) as a proportion of those tested and (b) by substance. [121333]

  Mr. Caplin
  The details are as follows.

  Number

  The Naval Service

  Numbers tested

  12,901

  Numbers positive

  43

  Percentage positive

  0.33

  Substance detected

  Cocaine

  9

  Ecstasy

  8

  Cannabis

  29

  Amphetamine

  2

  Benzos

  1

  Total

  49

  Army

  Numbers tested

  88,946

  Numbers positive

  534

  Percentage positive

  0.60

  Substance detected

  Cannabis

  278

  Ecstasy

  141

  Cocaine

  107

  Amphetamines

  44

  Others

  16

  Total

  586

  RAF

  Numbers tested

  10,569

  Numbers positive

  10

  Percentage positive

  0.095

  Substance detected

  Ecstasy

  3

  Cannabis

  8

  Cocaine

  1

  Total

  12

  It should be noted that the number of substances detected is greater than the number of individuals due to positive tests for more than one substance.

  Submarines
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the(a) work, (b) progress and (c) timetable for the interim storage for laid-up submarines. [121465]

  Mr. Ingram
  Outline proposals from industry, for undertaking the work to store intermediate level waste from our decommissioned nuclear submarines, have now been received and evaluation work has started. An exercise to determine the most effective procurement strategy will also begin shortly. Further consultation
  947W
  with the public is due to commence in August and will inform our own evaluation work, and lead to the selection of potential bidders to be invited to undertake more detailed negotiations from early next year. This is expected to take up to three years to complete and will result in the selection of a preferred bidder and solution.

  Tank Transporters
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what make of tank transporter was being used to transport the Scimitar armoured vehicles involved in the accident on the M1 on 11 June; and whether this vehicle was owned by his Department. [120878]

  Mr. Ingram
  The vehicle being used was not a tank transporter and was not owned by the Ministry of Defence. It was a commercially operated tractor and flat-bed trailer combination, contracted by the Department, specifically for the move from Marchwood to Catterick.

  The armoured vehicles being moved comprised two Spartan and one Samaritan Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked).

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the number of armoured vehicles that can be carried safely by(a) individual heavy goods vehicles and (b) specialised tank transporters; and what advice is given to personnel and contractors. [120879]

  Mr. Ingram
  When a commercial road haulier is tasked to move armoured vehicles, the company is provided with details of their numbers, type and weight. The contractor is then responsible for determining the appropriate number of large goods vehicles required and must operate under Road Vehicle regulations.

  Where Army specialist tank transporters are used, the unit commander will allocate the requisite number in accordance with the Ministry of Defence regulations.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  English Teaching
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the standards of English teaching in secondary schools. [121710]

  Mr. Miliband
  Ofsted reports that English teaching is good in about seven secondary schools in ten at each key stage.

  Last year attainment in English at Key Stage 3 and GCSE was at the highest level ever.

  Higher Education
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the cost of reaching his Department's higher education participation target. [121711]

  Alan Johnson
  "The Future of higher education", and in the annual grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Assessments of the costs 948W
  for increasing and widening participation beyond 2005–06 will be made as part of the 2004 Spending Review, work on which will commence shortly.

  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of students in higher education are from social classes D and E; and what the proportion was in 1997. [121708]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest information shows that in 2001 10 per cent. of students accepted for entry to higher education courses were from Semi-skilled (social class D) or Unskilled (social class E) family backgrounds. The corresponding figure for 1997 was 11 per cent.

  Teachers' Work Load
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary for Education and Sills what steps he is taking to reduce the workload of teachers in schools. [121712]

  Mr. Miliband
  The National Agreement, signed by Government, employers and school workforce unions in January, sets out our shared strategy for raising standards and reducing teacher workload. The signatories have now agreed draft changes to the teachers' contract. The first phase of changes, including the removal of administrative and clerical tasks from teachers, will, subject to Parliament, come into force in September. We have also established a National Remodelling Team and a network of LEA facilitators to provide schools with practical advice and support in implementing the Agreement.

  Teacher Morale
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of state for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the impact of school funding on teacher morale. [121713]

  Mr. Miliband
  We know that this is a difficult year for some schools and for their teachers because of the changes to the school funding system. Our key priority now is to work with all stakeholders to secure a better, more stable and predictable funding system for next year and to ensure that all schools can expect to receive a reasonable per pupil settlement for 2004–05.

  Community Cohesion
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to ensure that community cohesion is emphasised within the school environment. [121024]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 25 June 2003]: In December 2002, the Local Government Association, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Office, and the Commission for Racial Equality jointly published "Guidance on Community Cohesion". This gives advice to local authorities on the practical steps they can take to promote community cohesion through all their policies and services, including education.

  The Government is also expanding the Specialist Schools Programme which requires schools to set objectives and targets to work with partner schools and the wider community, to spread the benefits of specialism to other schools and beyond.
  949W
  Excellence in Cities establishes important links between the schools which deliver the programme and the communities they serve. In particular, City Learning Centres, Excellence in Cities Action Zones and Learning Mentors all work directly with the wider community as well as with pupils and students.

  In addition, citizenship education, which has been a compulsory subject in secondary schools since September 2002, plays a part in building community cohesion in schools by teaching pupils tolerance, respect and understanding. It helps pupils learn how to become helpfully involved in the life and concerns of their school and develop socially and morally responsible behaviour towards those in authority and each other.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 19 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) with regard to Annaliese Katherine Ginnaw. [121433]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, replied to the right hon. Member's letter of 19 May on 19 June 2003.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the(a) funding, (b) staffing and (c) activities of the National Disability Team established to promote good practice in relation to disabled students. [120957]

  Alan Johnson
  The National Disability Team was set up by the Higher Education Funding Council for England to improve provision for disabled students in higher education. Between January 2003 and December 2005 it will receive a total of £1.2 million from the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland. The National Disability Team is staffed by a Director, a Deputy Director, three co-ordinators and some administrative staff. More detailed information on their activities can be found on their website at www.natdistream.ac.uk.

  Education Funding
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many local education authorities have failed to passport 100 per cent. of resources to schools in the present financial year. [121700]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I recognise that this is a difficult year for some schools because of the changes to the school funding arrangements. But part of the difficulty has been where LEAs have decided not to passport the full increase in their school funding to their schools budget. My Department has been in discussion with a number of the 19 authorities who were shown as not passporting in the analysis of local education authorities' budget returns I published on 2 May. Our latest figures show that 11 LEAs are not passporting.
  950W
  We do not yet know to what extent balances will be used by schools in 2003–04 because in many cases local education authorities are still considering schools' budget plans.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills What representations he has received from schools about the adequacy of financial resources for 2003–04 to deliver the Government's standards targets. [121703]

  Mr. Miliband
  We have received a large amount of correspondence concerning education budgets for the current financial year from both schools and local education authorities, as we do each year.

  Ethnic Minority Pupils
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether Ofsted assesses ethnic minority intake as part of its inspection process in(a) school sixth-forms, (b) sixth-form colleges and (c) further education colleges; and if he will make a statement. [121278]

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

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, if he will make a statement on the Department's Regulatory Impact Assessment procedure; and how many RIAs have been reviewed in respect of the Department over the last year. (120852)

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) must be completed for all policy proposals that have a potential impact on businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. It includes details of the arrangements for monitoring and evaluating policy proposals and their impact.

  Information on the number of RIAs that have been reviewed in respect of the Department in the last year is not held.

  From this year, the National Audit Office (NAO) has a new role in independently evaluating a selection of RIAs. In their Annual Report, published in February 2003, the Better Regulation Task Force put forward suggestions of RIAs for the NAO to review.

  The NAO review will focus on the quality of analysis in the RIAs and the thoroughness with which the RIAs have been undertaken. The findings and recommendations of best practice will be fed back to departments. It will play a valuable part in driving up standards of RIAs.

  Schools Budget (Wandsworth)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to use his powers under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to compel Wandsworth Borough Council to increase its schools budget. [121705]
  951W
  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend has no power to compel a local education authority to increase its actual school budget. His reserve power under the School Standards and Framework Act to set a minimum schools budget for an authority applies where he considers that the authority's proposed schools budget for the following year, as notified to the Secretary of State by 31 January, is inadequate.

  School Funding Taskforce
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he has taken to ensure that head teachers are represented on the interdepartmental taskforce on school funding. [120474]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department for Education and Skills is working in partnership with LEA and school representatives to identify changes that need to be made to the funding system for 2004–05 so that all schools can expect to receive a reasonable per pupil settlement in that year.

  Headteachers are represented at these discussions. We will be discussing how best to ensure sufficient funding increases for every LEA; the right balance between support through general grant and through ring-fenced and targeted grant; confidence that schools and pupils will receive the money intended for them; the right balance between school and LEA central provision; that variations in the budget increases received by different schools within each LEA are appropriate and fair; and that workforce reform, in line with the National Agreement, can be sustained. We will aim to ensure that changes are in place in good time to allow LEAs and schools to plan for 2004–05 and so provide increased predictability and stability in school funding.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of undergraduate students undertaking courses for which annual per capita funding is less than £1,100. [121971]

  Alan Johnson
  No publicly funded courses in England attract less than £1,100 per full time equivalent student a year.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what remit relating to sustainable development is required by his Department's(a) executive agencies; (b) advisory non-departmental bodies; (c) executive non-departmental bodies; (d) tribunals; (e) public corporations and (f) other bodies. [116669]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills has no executive agencies. Our executive non-departmental public bodies were tasked, in a letter sent in October 2000, with ensuring that sustainable development is incorporated into their activities and operations. As an example, in the remit letter issued to the Learning and Skills Council in November 2000, there are clear strategic objectives relating to sustainable 952W
  development. Otherwise, we have one small independent tribunal, whose administrative function is provided by the Department.

  My Department is developing a sustainable development action plan for the education sector. It will seek a step change in the environmental operations of all publicly-funded educational establishments in England and in how people learn about sustainable development in all contexts. The Department itself will aim to become a model of best practice and would expect the same to apply to all of our associate bodies.

  Truancy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures have been taken since 1997 to reduce cases of truancy from schools; and what plans he has to improve schools' links with local police to catch truanting children. [121514]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Since 1997 we have been supporting schools and Local Education Authorities through funding a range of local and national initiatives to tackle truancy and improve school attendance, including the dissemination of school attendance guidance, a series of practitioner conferences and funding for the introduction of electronic registration systems into over 500 schools to track and manage absence.

  As part of the three year £470 million Behaviour and Attendance strategy, targeted support is now being provided for schools with some of the greatest challenges to meet in improving behaviour and attendance. 700 schools are currently covered and this will extend to a further 1,900 schools by 2005. In addition the strategy will support all secondary schools with behaviour and attendance training and audits which will be available from September. Local Education Authorities with higher than expected levels of truancy are being provided with additional expert support to impact on school attendance rates.

  We have also co-ordinated national truancy sweeps in consultation with schools, Local Education Authorities and the police, and we have issued guidance on the operation of truancy sweeps. The last nationally coordinated truancy sweeps took place over three weeks last month involving all police forces in England and a further round is planned for the autumn. At local level truancy sweeps are now a regular feature in most Local Education Authorities and they are planned and conducted in partnership with schools, the police and other bodies such as Connexions and Youth Offending Teams.

  All schools are encouraged to develop good links between themselves and their local police. This includes the development of joint school and police liaison protocols.

  University Research Funding
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much of Higher Education Funding Council for England's university research funding has been distributed to universities in the northwest of England in each year since 1997; [121805]
  953W
  (2) what percentage of quality related research funds have been allocated to north-west universities in each of the past five years; and which universities have received such funding. [121806]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is in the following tables. Table 1 shows the total amount of research funding allocated to higher education institutions (HEIs) in the north west region by the

  Table 1: Time series of research funding for academic years 1997/98 to 2003/04

  £ millions

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  2001/02

  2002/03

  2003/04

  North-West Region

  77

  88

  89

  91

  93

  98

  108

  England Total

  720

  841

  872

  884

  906

  940

  1,038

  North-West region as a percentage of England

  10.7

  10.5

  10.2

  10.3

  10.3

  10.4

  10.4

  Notes:

  Figures include quality-related research (QR) funds, generic research (GR) and collaborative research (CollR) funds for 1997/98 to 2001/02.

  For 2002/03, figures relate entirely to quality-related (QR).

  For 2003/04, figures relate to quality-related (QR) and capability funding.

  Source:

  HEFCE

  Table 2: Time series of quality-related (QR) research fielding for academic years 1997/98 to 2003/04

  £ millions

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  2001/02

  2002/03

  2003/04

  North-West Region

  73

  84

  85

  86

  89

  98

  105

  England Total

  684

  805

  835

  847

  868

  940

  1.020

  North-West region as a percentage of England

  10.6

  10.4

  10.2

  10.2

  10.2

  10.4

  10.3

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Adjudication Panel (Bognor Regis)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost was of the Adjudication Panel hearing held at the Inglenook Hotel, Pagham, Bognor Regis, on 10 and 11 June; and how much of the total figure was for the cost of legal counsel. [121947]

  Phil Hope
  The total cost of the Adjudication Panel hearing for all nine cases, over two days, was £3,500. This includes hire of the venue and the cost of legal counsel, which was £300.

  Audit Commission Corporate Governance Report
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on how many occasions the Audit Commission has held a press conference on the publication of a local government corporate governance report; and if he will list the(a) dates and (b) reports. [121661]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Audit Commission has held press conferences in relation to corporate governance inspections on three occasions: twice with regard to Walsall, on 15 January 2002 on the publication of a corporate governance report, and on 11 June 2002 on the publication of an update to that report and a referral to the Secretary of State under section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999; and once with regard to Kingston upon Hull on 29 July 2002, on a referral to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister under the same section.
  954W
  Higher Education Funding Council for England in each year since 1997. Table 2 shows the proportion of quality-related research funding allocated to HEIs in the North West region for the same period. HEFCE research funding for the north west region has risen from £77 million in 1997/98 to £108 million in 2003/04. The proportion of quality-related funding allocated to this region has fluctuated marginally over the same period, and stands at 10.3 per cent. in 2003/04 compared to 10.6 per cent. in 1997/98.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what additional funding he has made available to(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and (b) Shropshire County Council in respect of increased costs of record checks by the Criminal Records Bureau. [121726]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Funding to meet a range of cost pressures was included in the general increase in formula grant announced as part of the 2002 Spending Review; the amount of funding relating to the increased costs of record checks by the Criminal Records Bureau was not separately identified.

  Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council received a 7.1 per cent. formula grant increase in 2003–04 on a like-for-like basis with 2002–03; Shropshire County Council received a 5.4 per cent. formula grant increase.

  Empty Property
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what definition of the term empty property his Department uses. [121211]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not use a standard definition of the term 'empty property'. It is commonly used to refer to property that is not occupied, even on an infrequent basis. Generally, properties that are used infrequently, such as second homes or holiday homes, are excluded from any definition but properties that are under-occupied, particularly in the case of commercial property, may not be.
  955W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently published guidance, "Empty Property: Unlocking the potential—an implementation handbook" which sets out further information on identifying whether a property is empty. Copies of the guidance have been placed in the House Library.

  Social Services
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on per capita funding for North

  Authority

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  North East Lincolnshire

  162.17

  171.91

  178.53

  185.52

  221.11

  Isle of Wight

  171.48

  181.65

  188.13

  194.18

  221.74

  Milton Keynes

  132.00

  167.60

  142.32

  146.03

  196.45

  Brighton and Hove

  196.70

  203.57

  207.60

  209.90

  241.83

  Portsmouth

  180.33

  187.73

  192.98

  194.91

  237.43

  Southampton

  180.74

  189.58

  194.37

  198.59

  238.75

  Bracknell Forest

  122.36

  127.64

  130.62

  133.99

  176.71

  West Berkshire

  103.86

  108.03

  112.95

  116.26

  161.94

  Reading

  150.20

  156.31

  160.39

  164.15

  222.76

  Slough

  187.14

  194.09

  201.41

  203.10

  248.25

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  118.71

  125.50

  131.32

  134.57

  184.30

  Wokingham

  81.81

  83.78

  86.77

  89.67

  132.70

  Medway

  133.41

  137.83

  143.17

  146.54

  179.97

  Average for South East Unitary Authorities

  149.75

  156.01

  160.83

  164.08

  205.72

  Formula Spending Shares are not grant, nor are they the Government's assessment of how much an authority should spend on a particular service, they are simply the formula used to calculate an authority's Revenue Support Grant. Funding for social services (as for all other services) is largely funded through redistributed business rates, Revenue Support Grant and council tax. The amount of funding each social service department receives is determined by the local authority taking into account local priorities. Revenue Support Grant is an unhypothecated block grant that may be spent on any service.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Automatic Punishment
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Solicitor-General what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the introduction of a pilot scheme to confer an automatic punishment on those found to have breached(a) bail orders and (b) other orders; and if she will make a statement. [121690]

  The Solicitor-General
  I meet regularly with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office and the Department of Constitutional Affairs to discuss Criminal Justice System issues.

  Bail is a standing item on the agenda because we want to do more to ensure that defendants on bail (a) turn up when their case comes to court and (b) don't commit further offences while on bail.

  Fly Tipping
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on her policy on prosecuting offences relating to fly tipping. [121691]
  956W
  East Lincolnshire social services departments in the last five years; and what the per capita funding for unitary authorities in the south-east was in each of the last five years. [121718]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The table shows the Personal Social Services Standard Spending Assessments/Formula Spending Share per head for each of the last five years for North East Lincolnshire and each of the unitary authorities in the south east, together with the average for unitary authorities in the south east.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Environment Agencies and local authorities are responsible for these prosecutions. There is no specific offence of fly tipping and offences are usually prosecuted as illegal disposal of waste contrary to Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  There are challenges in prosecuting offences of fly tipping as, for example, it can be difficult to obtain the evidence necessary to prosecute. However, the government positively encourages prosecuting agencies to take strong enforcement action and prosecute offenders because fly-tipping is a serious environmental crime.

  Exclusion Orders
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Solicitor-General what representations she has received on introducing the powers allowing for exclusion orders under section 40A of the Criminal Court (Sentencing) Act 2000. [121692]

  The Solicitor-General
  I am aware that my hon. Friend raised this in debate following the Home Secretary's statement on the publication of the domestic violence consultation paper on the 18 June 2003 and that the Home Secretary undertook to write to her. I have received no representations on introducing the powers allowing for exclusion orders under Section 40A of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Ambition:Construction Programme
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have(a) been

  957W
  funded, (b) been trained and (c) started work having been trained by the Ambition:Construction programme since it was launched in 2001. [119949]

  Mr. Browne
  In 2001 we launched the Ambition initiative to help unemployed and disadvantaged people gain the right skills to meet the needs of employers in key sectors such as construction.

  Ambition:Construction has been operational since June 2002 with pilots currently running in six locations. Training is provided across the full range of building skills including bricklaying, roofing, plastering, joinery, glazing and painting and decorating. The aim of this training is to provide participants with the skills they need for a wide variety of jobs in the construction industry, including house building.

  By the end of May 2003, 775 people had been funded by Ambition:Construction. Most of the training courses on this programme last 6 months and so only 184 have so far completed training. Of those, 171 have obtained jobs.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what criteria determine the award of advance payments by the Child Support Agency in respect of arrears due to a parent with care. [118027]

  Maria Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Huw Edwards, dated June 2003:

  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You ask what criteria determine the award of advance payments by the Child Support Agency in respect of arrears due to a parent with care.
  In essence there are six criteria;
  The arrears owed to the parent with care for the period of maladministration must be over 100 and the non resident parent must be making payments of regular maintenance at the current liable amount. He must also have made and be paying an arrears agreement and it would take longer than 26 weeks to clear these arrears. An interest payment will be made if the interest totals 10.00 or more
  There must be clear evidence that Agency maladministration resulted in a delay, which caused the arrears to accrue. Any delay in part or whole caused by the parent with care or non resident parent will not qualify for an advance payment.
  The Agency must, on the balance of probabilities, be satisfied that the non resident parent would have complied with the maintenance assessment had it not been for Agency maladministration
  The parent with care must have shown an interest in the progression of the case during the period of delay
  An allowance will be made for normal processing times in the calculation of the advance payment. Only time lapsed beyond this point will be considered as delay for payment purposes
  The parent with care must sign a declaration slip agreeing to the Agency retaining any arrears payments received from the non resident parent relating to the advance payment, or to refund any relevant direct payments.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on recent charges in the management of advisory and support services offered by his Department to disabled people seeking employment. [118545]

  Mr. Browne
  Disability Employment Advisers (DEAs) have a key role under Jobcentre Plus, both in providing direct support for those disabled people and employers who need their specialist expertise and in supporting other advisers. To ensure better integration with other services, DEAs are now the responsibility of Jobcentre Plus District Managers.

  In addition, our Green Paper "Pathways to Work" (CM 5690) outlined proposals to pilot new teams of specialist advisers to support those on incapacity benefits, building upon best practice within Jobcentre Plus. Existing DEAs will form the core the new teams, which will be able to maintain good contact with clients through a series of early and on-going work-focused interviews, and facilitate better referrals to new and existing provision.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to increase funding by social enterprises to help more disabled people obtain labour market placements and longer term employment; and if he will make a statement. [119159]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department does not give any direct funding to social enterprises. However, social enterprises can act as Providers of Jobcentre Plus programmes.

  The Social Enterprise Unit, which is based in the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), provides the focal point for strategic decision-making on social enterprise across Government. The Unit is in DTI in recognition of the contribution that social enterprises can make to the business landscape in the UK, and to the nation's economy, through their enterprise, innovation, competitiveness and social inclusivity.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his Department has commissioned analyses to ascertain what kinds of jobs are being created in the United Kingdom. [120286]

  Mr. Browne
  We have not commissioned analyses to ascertain what kinds of jobs are being created in the United Kingdom. However, information from the Workforce Jobs series shows that the number of jobs has increased across a wide range of sectors since 1997. These increases are shown in the table.

  Sector

  Increase in job numbers (March 1997— March 2003)

  Finance and Business Services

  826,000

  Public administration, Education and Health

  714,000

  Distribution, Hotels and Restaurants

  387,000

  959W

  Sector

  Increase in job numbers (March 1997— March 2003)

  Other Services

  231,000

  Construction

  201,000

  Transport and Communications

  186,000

  Source:

  Workforce Jobs

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many jobs created in the UK in the past 12 months can be characterised as enduring for longer than one year. [120291]

  Mr. Browne
  The number of jobs created in the UK in the past 12 months which can be characterised as enduring for longer than one year is not available. However, the Labour Force Survey (LFS) shows that 94 per cent. of people in work are in permanent jobs. In the last year the number of people in permanent jobs rose by 105,000, while the number of people in temporary jobs fell by 23,000. The LFS also shows that 81 per cent. of those currently in work have been continuously employed for more than one year, up 1 per cent. from the same quarter last year.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of the jobs created in the UK in the last five years are characterised as(a) skilled and (b) semi-skilled. [120293]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is not available. However, changes in the level of employment over time by skill level are collected as part of the Labour Force Survey. Latest figures are in the table. The definition of occupational classifications was changed in 2001 so it not possible to provide comparable data for earlier years.

  Major occupation group (main job)

  2001

  2002

  Higher skilled employment

  10,821,051

  11,187,179

  Mid skilled employment

  8,858,373

  8,784.692

  Lower skilled employment

  7,723,923

  7,673,457

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey

  Employers' Liability Insurance
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost was of the review of Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance; and if he will make a statement. [119445]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: The costs of the EL Review principally comprised internal staffing costs within DWP and publication costs. No consultants were engaged.

  Estimated staffing costs for the review team within DWP were: £88,575. The cost of publication of the review in English was £16,178. The (estimated) cost of publication of the review in Welsh is £7,864.

  These were redistributed resources within the Department and not additional costs.

  Leaflet BC1
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) social security offices and (b) job centres have the October 2002 edition of leaflet BC1 in stock; and how many hospitals give the October 2002 edition of the leaflet BC1 to new parents. [116922]

  Mr. Browne
  The October 2002 edition of leaflet BCI was superseded on 7 April 2003 by the current edition.

  All social security offices, Jobcentres and Jobcentre Plus offices are notified of the production of new versions of leaflets on the Department's Electronic Reordering System. This notification advises offices to destroy old stocks and replace them with the new version of a leaflet.

  The information requested on hospitals is not available. Those hospitals that have joined the Department's publicity register receive a catalogue of leaflets in April and an update in October enabling them to update their stocks of leaflets. Free copies of leaflets can also be ordered through the publicity register, or collected from our offices, Post Offices, Citizen's Advice Bureaux. Copies can also be printed from the Department's website.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the responsibilities of each Minister in his Department. [121683]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is as follows.

  The right hon. Andrew Smith MP

  Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
  The Secretary of State has overall responsibility for all work and pension matters as well as public expenditure issues.

  Malcolm Wicks MP

  Minister of State for Pensions

  Pensions Overview Pensions Legislation

  Pensions Green Paper Package

  Pension Credit

  The Pension Service

  Older People

  Age Discrimination

  Winter Fuel Payments

  Basic Pension

  SERPS/State second pension

  MIG

  Stakeholder Pensions

  Regulatory Reform

  Third Age Service

  Des Browne MP
  961W
  Minister of State for Work

  Employers (inc. National Employment Panels)

  Employment Zones

  Jobcentre Plus

  Labour Market & Economy

  Employment Strategy for Ethnic Minorities (Strategy Unit Report Lead)

  Welfare to Work Overview

  New Deal 25+

  New Deal for Disabled People

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  New Deal for Partners

  New Deal for Young People

  Rapid Response Service

  Adult Disadvantage

  Industrial Injuries

  Compensation Recovery

  Links with DfES

  New Deal 50+

  Health and Safety Executive/Health and Safety Commission

  E-Government

  Maria Eagle MP

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Commons)

  Incapacity Benefit

  Disability Discrimination Act

  Disability Rights Task Force

  Disability Legislation

  Remploy

  Workstep

  Disability Living Allowance/Attendance Allowance

  Access to Work (Job Match)

  Motability/Specialised Vehicle Fund (SVF)

  Disability Rights Commission

  Carers/Long Term Care

  Carers Allowance

  Vaccine Damage Payments

  DWP Input to Veterans'

  Taskforce

  Independent Living Funds

  Civil Partnerships

  Single Equality Body

  Commons Lead on:

  Human Rights

  Freedom of Information

  Appeals and Adjudication

  Maternity/Paternity pay

  Asylum/Migration

  Chris Pond MP
  962W
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Commons)

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  Bereavement Benefit

  International Relations

  European Union Business

  Social Fund

  Debt Management Policy

  Fraud

  Methods of Payment Reform

  The Euro

  Income Support (Working Age)

  Jobseekers Allowance

  Better Letters

  Better Buildings

  Pensions Legislation (support)

  Commons Lead on:

  Child Support Agency

  Poverty and Social Exclusion

  Green Issues

  Right Hon. Baroness Hollis of Heigham

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Lords)

  All issues in the Lords

  Child Support

  Child Support Agency

  Maternity/Paternity pay

  Diversity

  Asylum/Migration

  Green Issues

  Poverty and Social Exclusion

  Opportunity for All

  Rural Affairs

  New Deal for communities

  Appeals and Adjudication

  Appeals Service

  Freedom of Information

  Data Protection

  Human Rights

  Devolution

  Research & Statistics

  Civil Partnerships

  Tax Credits

  Baroness Ashton of Upholland

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Lords)

  Cathy Ashton is a joint DfES/DWP Minister. Her specific responsibilities are:

  Sure Start

  Early Years and Childcare

  Special Educational Needs

  New Deal
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the(a) target population, (b) total expenditure in the last financial year and (c) the average cost of a job placement were for the (i) New Deal for Lone Parents, (ii) the New Deal for Young People and (iii) the New Deal for Disabled People. [110734]
  963W
  Mr. Browne
  New deal for lone parents (NDLP) is open to all lone parents who are not working or who are working fewer than 16 hours a week. New deal for young people (NDYP) is aimed at people aged 18–24 who have been claiming jobseeker's allowance continuously for 6 months. New deal for disabled people (NDDP) is a voluntary programme aimed at people claiming incapacity or disability benefits.

  Information on expenditure for 2002–03 is in the table.

  Forecast expenditure 2002–03

  £ million

  New deal for lone parents

  80

  New deal for young people

  339

  New deal for disabled people

  27

  Source:

  Departmental Report 2002–03

  In 2000 we estimated that the average cost of a young person moving into work through the NDYP was around £4,000. Independent evaluation of the prototype phase of NDLP found that the cost per participant moving into work was £1,388. A cost benefit analysis of the National NDLP programme is due to be published shortly. Equivalent estimates of cost per job are not yet available for NDDP.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many individuals have completed European Computer Diving Licence qualification while on New Deal placement. [118314]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the achievement of qualifications by New Deal participants is not collected on a national basis.

  Information on qualifications held and subsequently achieved through New Deal is recorded and monitored by New Deal Personal Advisers on an individual basis at local level. However, information at national level could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on procedures for assessment of training quality of New Deal placements; [118320]

  (2) how many providers of New Deal placements have had placements cancelled due to ineffective training or poor employment practises. [118321]

  Mr. Browne
  New Deal providers are subject to thorough contractual and quality audits. Individual contract reviews are conducted by Jobcentre Plus Field Contracts Managers and District Programme Quality Management Teams. Reviews assess the administration, delivery, quality and propriety of the provision being delivered against the requirements set out in providers' contracts.

  In addition, the Adult Learning Inspectorate in England, and ESTYN in Wales, play a pivotal role in the quality assurance of New Deal provision, under the provisions of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. All inspection under the provisions of the Act is carried out in accordance with the Common Inspection
  964W
  Framework. The framework focuses on the learner, and on evaluating the effectiveness of education and training in meeting all learners' needs.

  The information requested on the volume of providers who have had placements cancelled due to ineffective training or poor employment practices is not available as Jobcentre Plus does not collate this information on a national basis.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of those on each option of the New Deal for Young People have entered sustained employment in the East Riding of Yorkshire since the scheme began; and how many entered sustained employment in the last(a) year and (b) quarter for which figures are available. [116763]

  Mr. Browne
  In the latest quarter for which information is available (January to March 2003) 20 young people left the New Deal Options for unsubsidised, sustained jobs in the East Riding authority area. This is 24 per cent. of all leavers from the Options in that period. Due to the small volumes involved, figures for individual New Deal Options for the latest quarter cannot be published because of the risk of identifying individuals.

  The information requested on the New Deal for Young People since the programme began, and in the last year, is in the table:

  New Deal Option

  Numbers entering unsubsidized sustained employment1

  Numbers of Leavers1

  Proportion of leavers entering unsubsidized sustained employment2

  Employment

  April 1998-March 2003

  280

  500

  55.9

  April 2002-March 2003

  40

  110

  36.3

  Education and Training

  April 1998-March 2003

  230

  610

  38.1

  April 2002-March 2003

  40

  100

  38.1

  Voluntary Sector

  April 1998-March 2003

  100

  240

  39.8

  April 2002-March 2003

  20

  50

  39.6

  Environment Task Force

  April 1998-March 2003

  110

  290

  39.1

  April 2002-March 2003

  30

  60

  50.0

  1 All figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  2 Proportions are based on unrounded numbers. Therefore these figures cannot be delivered from the rounded figures used in the table

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes),Official Report, column 925W, how many people on the education and training option of the New Deal for Young People have gained a qualification in each of the last five years. [121257]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on qualifications achieved through the New Deal for Young People is recorded and monitored by New Deal Personal Advisers on an individual basis at local level but it is not collected centrally and a national figure could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. While achievement of qualifications is an important element in the
  965W
  development and employability of young people, the success of the programme is measured through the number of Young People helped into work. This measure clearly shows that the New Deal is working as it has helped over 425,000 young people find work.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if his Department will issue guidance to local authorities discouraging them from reassessing pensioners' housing benefit entitlement in October 2003 until payments of pension credit have come on stream. [1219691

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (State Pension Credit) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/325), which will complement the introduction of state pension credit, come into force on 6 October 2003.

  At that date, local authorities will reassess existing housing benefit and council tax benefit claims to reflect the increased applicable amounts payable to all pensioners aged 65 and over and the more generous rules on the treatment of assumed income from capital. Where pension credit must be taken into account as an income in the housing benefit or council tax benefit assessment, no case can be reassessed until the pension credit is in payment and the Pension Service has notified the local authority of the award.

  Stress
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate his Department has made of(a) the number of workers suffering from stress and (b) the resultant financial cost. [121265]

  Mr. Browne
  In England and Wales in 2001–02 approximately 563,000 people reported suffering from work-related stress, depression or anxiety. The costs of Work-related Stress were last estimated in 1995–06 at £353–381 million to UK business and £33.7 to £33.8 billion to society (1995–06 prices)1.
  1Taken from the Self-reported Work-related III Health Surveys (SWI). It should be noted that these estimates are based on a number of assumptions and are intended to be broadly indicative.

  Unemployment
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the factors influencing unemployment levels over the last three months; and if he will make a statement. [120931]

  Mr. Browne
  Recent labour market developments reflect continued steady growth in employment, up by 51,000 in the last three months and 242,000 over the last year. The increase in employment has been matched by a rise in the labour force brought about by population growth and higher activity rates. As a result unemployment has been broadly flat, though it has been fluctuating from month to month around this flat trend.

  ILO unemployment currently stands at 1.495 million. The ILO unemployment rate is 5.1 per cent., up 0.1 percentage points in the last three months, but down by the same amount over the last year. The number of
  966W
  unemployed claimants is 950,800. The claimant unemployment rate is 3.1 per cent. and has been unchanged at this level since December 2001.

  The Government's approach is based on macroeconomic stability combined with active labour market measures to help jobless people, particularly the most disadvantaged, get back into work. Steady economic growth and policies such as New Deal have contributed to a rise of 1.5 million in the number of people in work since 1997, while long-term unemployment has fallen by 75 per cent. to a historically low level.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what funding programmes are operated by his Department to support voluntary organisations working with young people; and what the level of support has been over the last three years.[116493]

  Mr. Browne
  The Department funds contracts, directly and indirectly with a number of voluntary organisations to deliver the support available through the New Deal Programmes, including New Deal for Young People. Information is not available on the exact level of support made through these channels.

  Each Government Department produces a Learning to Listen Action Plan every year. This year's plan for the Department for Work and Pensions will be published online shortly. Learning to Listen is the embodiment of our commitment to engaging with children and young people pursuant to creating effective policies.

  We strongly believe in listening to the voices of children and young people. Recent examples of our commitment in this area are the varied consultations held with children and young people during the measuring child poverty consultation and the visit to DWP of the UK Youth Parliament.

  As part of celebrating the European Year of Disabled People, the Department is funding 167 projects in the voluntary sector, which aim to promote disability issues in a positive light. Many of these projects do include young people as participants or beneficiaries. In the 2002-03 financial year, we provided some £1,130,000 of Government funding to these projects. We plan to provide some £630,000 of Government funds and £550,000 of EC funds over the next two years.

  Welfare-to-Work Targets
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received regarding the Government's welfare to work targets. [120884]

  Mr. Browne
  The Department has not received any representations regarding the Government's welfare to work targets. Workplace Health and Safety

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average period of time is between visits to places of employment by health and safety inspectors in England and Wales. [118552]
  967W
  Mr. Browne
  HSE's operational directorates and divisions deal with a wide range of workplaces, both fixed and transient, across several employment sectors. This requires HSE to adopt different approaches based on understanding of hazards and risks and the performance of duty holders. Higher risk sites and high hazard sites where there is potential for catastrophic events are visited more frequently than lower risk sites which might be visited infrequently. The lowest risk sites might be contacted through other means than visits such as seminars and mailshots.
  968W
  In addition, local authorities have inspection responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for approximately 1.2 million premises in the retail, finance and leisure sectors.. Intervention strategies are based on assessments of intrinsic hazard and risk and judgments about the competence and willingness of duty holders to control risks and comply with the law. Intervals between visits will vary substantially between sectors and between duty holders within each sector. For these reasons it is not possible to provide a meaningful average for the frequency of visits.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government Finance
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  I am publishing today figures showing that English councils have collected an extra £40 million in council taxes this year. The tables are available in both Libraries of the House. They can also be found at the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,http://www.odpm.gov.uk/.

  The figures demonstrate the continuing success of a joint initiative launched in 2001 by the Government and the Local Government Association (LGA) to help poorly performing councils improve their collection rates.

  The council taxes and non-domestic rates collection results 2002–03 show that English councils had collected £14.09 billion in council taxes by the end of March 2003. The figures represent 96.4 per cent. of the £14.62 billion collectable. This is an increase of 0.3 percentage points on top of the previous year's increase of 0.3 percentage points.

  I am very pleased local authorities are continuing to improve their collection of council tax. By working in partnership with the LGA we have been able to support councils in their efforts. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will continue this partnership in particular with the development of a Good Practices Guide for local authorities.

  It is important councils keep up their good work. The money collected for council tax is spent on essential public services and unpaid taxes create a burden for those residents who do pay.

  The councils showing the best improvements in their performance included some of those that had previously had the lowest collection rates, such as Hackney, which improved its collection rate from 74 per cent. during 2001–02 to 79.5 per cent. this year—an increase of 5.5 percentage points; Torridge, which improved its collection rate from 92.1 per cent. during 2001–02 to 97.1 per cent. this year—an increase of 5.0 percentage points; and Lambeth, which improved its collection rate from 86.5 per cent during 2001–02 to 90.1 per cent. this year–an increase of 3.6 percentage points.

  Other improving councils included Newham (increase of 3.2 percentage points), Leicester (increase of 3 percentage points), Derby and Eastbourne (increase of 2.5 percentage points) and Haringey and Waltham Forest (increase of 2.4 percentage points).

  In addition, collection rates for non-domestic rates (business rates) were released today. Figures show that £14.89 billion in non-domestic rates for 2002–03 had
  44WS
  been collected by the end of March. This represents 98.2 per cent. of the £15.17 billion collectable, an improvement of 0.3 percentage points on last year.

  Additionally, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has collected information on the level of arrears outstanding. Total gross arrears in England for council tax as at 31 March 2003 are estimated to have been £1.5 billion. Estimated total gross arrears figures for England at the end of March 2003 for non-domestic rates and community charge are also available. These total £0.7 billion and £0.1 billion respectively.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Home Office Strategic Framework
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I have today published a summary of the Home Office Strategic Framework. This document provides the context for the work of the Department, now and in the future. It sets out emerging challenges and opportunities and the role of the Home Office in contributing to the wider priorities of Government. The document shows that as we strive to build a safe, just and tolerant society, two themes run throughout the Home Office's work—effective enforcement of law, order and our borders; and civil renewal, social inclusion and active citizenship.

  Copies of the Strategic Framework are available in the House Libraries and on the Home Office website.

  Independent Police Complaints Commission
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I am pleased to announce that I have appointed John Wadham and Claire Gilham to be the first Deputy Chairs of the Independent Police Complaints Commission along with 15 Commissioners.

  They are:

  Newly Appointed Commissioner

  Current Position

  Claire Gilham (Deputy Chair)

  Lecturer, Deputy District Judge, Lay Chair NHS Complaints procedure, Board Member of Muir Group Housing Association, Chair of Statutory enquiries, Northwest region and Member of the Mental Health Act Commission.

  John Wadham (Deputy Chair)

  Director of Liberty.

  Ian Bynoe

  First Deputy Chair of the Police Complaints Authority.

  John Crawley

  Chief Executive of FCH Housing and Care (a Midlands housing, social care and regeneration agency). Chair of a NHS Primary Care Trust.

  Tom Davies

  Director for Wales, the Prince's Trust.

  Mike Franklin

  Assistant inspector with a portfolio for race and diversity within HM Inspectorate of Constabularies.

  Gary Garland

  Currently a Trial Attorney with the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia dealing with serious breaches of international law. He has previous experience as an international prosecutor and a senior prosecution lawyer and a former member of the Bar Council.

  45WS

  Newly Appointed Commissioner

  Current Position

  Deborah Glass

  Currently PCA Member and previously Chief Executive of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation.

  Len Jackson

  Currently Chair of the East Midlands Sports Board. He was previously Managing Director of Amelca plc and Pork Farms (Northern Foods plc). He has chaired voluntarily New Deal Employer Coalition and Common Purpose, an Educational Charity.

  Nicholas Long

  Trustee for NACRO, Surveyor and member of Metropolitan Police Authority where he is Deputy Chair of Finance Committee and member of Operation Trident Independent Advisory Group.

  Laurence Lustgarten

  Professor of Law at University of Southampton, occasional lecturer to the judiciary and police service, member of the Advisory Council of the Kurdish Human Rights project.

  Naseem Malik

  Head of Legal Service at Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council.

  Rebecca Marsh

  Operations Manager at Guidance Accreditation Board and Deputy Chair of Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust. Previously a regional lay Chair for NHS Complaints.

  Mehmuda Mian Pritchard

  PCA Member and non-executive director of the NHS Litigation Authority and Friend of ASRA Housing Association.

  David Fetch

  PCA Member.

  Amerdeep Somal

  Prosecution team leader at the CPS and Secretary of Roshni Asian Woman's Refuge Management Committee.

  Nicola Williams

  Barrister and PCA Member.

  The IPCC will commence in April 2004, replacing the Police Complaints Authority, and will operate according to the powers and duties provided to it by the Police Reform Act 2002. It will be responsible for the effective and efficient running of the police complaints system.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  I have received the annual report for 2002–03 of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is being presented to Parliament as a Command Paper today.

  Copies of the report are available from the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

  Forensic Science
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar)
  I am announcing Forensic Science Northern Ireland's 2003–04 key targets and the publication of its corporate plan 2003–06 and annual business plan 2003–04.

  The following key targets were set for Forensic Science Northern Ireland in 2003–04.
  46WS
  QUALITY OF SERVICE

  To turnaround 85 per cent. of reports in which a file is required to be submitted to the DPP within the notified time scale.

  QUALITY OF SCIENCE

  Maintain a quality management system that is externally validated to the international standard ISO 17025.

  FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

  To continue to recover from customers the full cash cost of the services to them.

  RESULTS

  By 31 March 2004 to agree and initiate a major programme of organisational development, guided and informed by the outcome of the Trading Fund Scoping Study (to report in summer 2003).

  Achievement against these key targets will be recorded in the agency's annual report for 2003–04, which will be published in July 2004.

  FSNI has published a summary of its corporate plan 2003–06 and annual business plan 2003–04, which explain its business and organisation, describe its key targets for 2003–04 and set out the assumptions about workloads and resources that support its planned activities. Copies of the summary plans have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. Copies will be available to the public from FSNI or on the FSNI website.

  Forensic Science (Annual Report)
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar)
  I have today published the Forensic Science Northern Ireland annual report 2001–02. The annual reports set out performance of the agency against key targets. Copies of the report have today been laid in the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Arms Embargoes
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  The Government remains 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 June 2003, the Government approved an export licence application for de-mining equipment for the HALO Trust for
  de-mining operations in Armenia.

  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

  47WS
  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.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  "Building Schools for the Future"
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband)
  On 26 February, I made a statement about the Government's proposals for a new approach to capital investment, "Building Schools for the Future". The proposals are to:Continue existing, successful capital programmes for primary and secondary schools; but use the extra capital investment available in 2005–06 for a major programme of secondary school building;
  Collaborate better with other capital funders to create schools that are community assets;
  Target the extra capital investment on geographical areas, covering groups of schools;
  Develop exemplar designs to ensure consistently high standards of design for all new schools; and
  Establish a new national body to support local authorities in ensuring that new schools are well designed, built on time, offer value for money to the taxpayer, and properly maintained over their lives.

  We consulted widely on these proposals and received 1,141 responses by the close of consultation on 31 May. We also held six consultation meetings across England to listen to the views of schools, local education authorities, dioceses, local learning and skills councils, and others with an interest.

  Four-fifths of respondents agree the time is right to approach capital investment in a new way to build schools of the future. This level of support, which extends across schools, local authorities, and the design and construction industries, means we can push ahead with reform. We need to rebuild and refurbish our secondary schools on a much larger scale, not just patch and mend worn-out buildings.

  We will also look carefully at the availability and balance of capital funding across the system, so that there is significant investment to address the urgent building needs of primary schools and secondary schools that are not included in the early phases of "Building Schools for the Future".

  Local authorities and local people will play a central role in drawing together this new approach. "Building Schools for the Future" is about Government supporting the delivery of local educational visions, and the proposed new national body will be designed to offer technical support to assist local partnerships deliver their strategies.

  The new approach will also help central and local government plan together over the long-term and improve on the old culture of annual, win-lose bidding.
  48WS
  We must ensure we have a standard of school that our young people deserve, inspirational well-designed schools to motivate teaching and learning, and up-to-date facilities to enable us to compete as a world-class economy in the 21st century.

  My Department is writing today to all local education authorities, and to those who either responded to the consultation or attended one of the regional consultation meetings. We are announcing the consultation results, and confirming our intention to proceed with our plans. We hope to issue to local education authorities in July detailed guidance on how to access funding under "Building Schools for the Future".

  Thirty copies of this letter, the summary of consultation responses, and a report on the regional events will be placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Police Agency (Key Targets)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  Key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency for financial year 2003–04. The targets are as follows:

  KEY TARGET 1:
  To achieve at least 65 per cent. patrol activity from those officers devoted to patrolling.

  KEY TARGET 2:
  To achieve a crime solving rate of 48 per cent. for the investigation of primary crime and maintain a 60 per cent. solving rate for the investigation of all crime by 31 March 2004.

  KEY TARGET 3:
  By 31 March 2004, to ensure that the Force fulfils at least 95 per cent. of its agreed customer taskings at those establishments where the Force undertakes security related taskings.

  KEY TARGET 4:
  Using the system established in 2002–03, measure and evaluate MDP's effective contribution to security at those establishments where the force undertakes security related tasks, and seek to maintain and improve upon the baseline figure achieved in the previous quarter at individual establishments.

  KEY TARGET 5:
  By 31 March 2004, within the overall recruitment to the Force, to have recruited at least 15 per cent. women and at least 6 per cent. from minority ethnic communities.
  49WS
  KEY TARGET 6:
  By 31 March 2004, excepting unforeseen operational commitments, to reduce the amount of overtime worked by each officer to no more than 32 hours overtime worked on the core programme of CSA-agreed tasks per 28 day period averaged over a 17 week period.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Foot and Mouth
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  I have arranged for copies of Defra's response to the report by consultants DNV into the health and environmental impacts of Defra's foot and mouth disease site at Throckmorton to be made available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Copies are also available on the Defra website at
  http://www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/regions/wmidlands/wmidlands.htm

  The Department has sent copies of its response to the elected representatives to whom DNV sent their report.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Draft Mental Incapacity Bill
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)
  My Department will announce tomorrow the publication of a draft Bill on Mental Incapacity (CM 5859). This draft Bill proposes ways to empower and protect vulnerable adults who find it difficult to make their own decisions. It would also promote choice by enabling people to appoint someone they trust to manage all their financial, welfare and healthcare affairs if they should lose capacity in the future.

  The draft Bill will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses, which intends to report later this year. This will provide an opportunity to listen to people's views and ensure that our proposals would work in practice.

  Copies of the announcement and draft Bill will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed paper Office. The announcement and draft Bill will also be made available on the Department for Constitutional Affairs website at http://www.lcd.gov.uk/

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.

Communications Bill
11.7 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—
"DUTY TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN DISABILITY AND OLDER PEOPLE'S ADVISORY BOARD
(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, in accordance with the following provisions of this section, to exercise their powers under paragraph 14 of the Schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002 (c. 11) (committees of OFCOM and advisory committee) to establish and maintain a committee to be known as "the Disability and Older People's Advisory Board".
(2) The Disability and Older People's Advisory Board shall consist of—

(a) a chairman appointed by OFCOM; and

(b) such number of other members appointed by OFCOM as OFCOM think fit.

(3) The chairman of the Disability and Older People's Advisory Board must be a non-executive member of OFCOM or a member of their Content Board but is not to be the chairman of OFCOM.
(4) In appointing persons to be members of the Disability and Older People's Advisory Board OFCOM must secure that the Advisory Board are able to give informed advice about matters referable to—

(a) the interests of persons with disabilities;

(b) the interests of persons of pensionable age;

(c) the development of domestic electronic communications apparatus which is capable of being used with ease and without modification by the widest possible range of individuals including those with disabilities;

384

(d) the development of technologies which facilitate access by disabled or older people to electronic communications services;

(e) telecommunications services for disabled or older people;

(f) television and other broadcasting services for disabled or older people; and

(g) employment and training opportunities for disabled or older people in the broadcasting and telecommunications industries.

(5) The validity of any proceedings of the Disability and Older People's Advisory Board shall not be affected by any failure by OFCOM to comply with subsection (4).
(6) It shall be the duty of OFCOM when appointing members of the Disability and Older People's Advisory Board in accordance with paragraph 14(3) of the Schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002 (c. 11) (at least one member of non-advisory committee to be member or employee of OFCOM) to secure, so far as practicable, that a majority of the members of the Board (counting the chairman) consists of persons who are neither members nor employees of OFCOM.
(7) The following shall be disqualified from being the chairman or another member of the Disability and Older People's Advisory Board—

(a) governors and employees of the BBC;

(b) members and employees of the Welsh Authority; and

(c) members and employees of C4C.

(8) Before appointing a person to be the chairman or another member of the Disability and Older People's Advisory Board, OFCOM must satisfy themselves that he will not have any financial or other interest which would be likely prejudicially to affect the carrying out by him of any of his functions as chairman or member of the Board.
(9) A person is not to be taken to have such an interest by reason only that he is or will be a member or employee of OFCOM.
(10) Every person whom OFCOM propose to appoint to be the chairman or another member of the Disability and Older People's Advisory Board, shall, whenever requested to do so by OFCOM, furnish OFCOM with any information they consider necessary for the performance of their duty under subsection (8).
(11) In addition to paying remuneration and expenses under paragraph 14(4) of the Schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002, OFCOM may—

(a) pay to, or in respect of, any member of the Disability and Older People's Advisory Board who is not a member or employee of OFCOM, such sums by way of pensions, allowances or gratuities as OFCOM may determine; and

(b) provide for the making of such payments to or in respect of any such member of the Board.

(12) In subsection (11)—

(a) the reference to pensions, allowances and gratuities includes a reference to similar benefits payable on death or retirement; and

(b) the reference to providing for the payment of a pension, allowance or gratuity to, or in respect of, a person includes a reference to the making of payments towards the provision or payment of a pension, allowance or gratuity, or of any such similar benefits, to or in respect of that person."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, to move this proposed new clause as a probing amendment is not appropriate on Report, but it does seek to extract from the Government exactly what is their attitude on the issue. What colours the debate is the news that Ofcom has stated that it will set up a committee to give advice on attitudes towards and activities concerning disabled people. That is welcome, but it is a fact that any body that is set up on a voluntary basis can be

385
removed as easily as it has been created; that is, at will. Moreover, what tends to happen with voluntary activities is that they last only as long as the people working on their behalf remain enthusiastic and committed.
When considering all the issues and legislation surrounding disability, if we could rely on people always behaving in a generous, open-handed and considerate manner, we would not have needed any of our disability legislation in the first place. Similarly, if we could rely on people always to be on top of matters, we would not need any legislation. So, although we must welcome what the new chairman of Ofcom has done, we still need a commitment to ensure that the committee will continue to function and operate in a recognisable form in the future. To be perfectly honest, that explanation probably deals with the arguments lying behind Amendments Nos. 31 and 32.
I turn now to my Amendment No. 46, which is grouped with Amendment No. 31. This amendment seeks to form a committee to advise the consumer panel. It is a straightforward issue. The panel is to include one or two representatives from certain groups. If one has representation for large issues such as disability matters from only one person, there is a tendency for that single representative to be expert in one form of disability and to know a little about all the surrounding issues. Such people then tend to pick up more information as they go along and find out exactly who to talk to. But that is not a sufficiently wide information base to enable such a representative to advise the consumer panel; it is simply not enough.
If a committee were set up to advise the representatives serving on the consumer panel, then we would stand a chance of being able to bring forward and present sufficient information to ensure that those representatives were able to hold their own. We want to make sure that they are briefed with enough information to function well on the panel.
I know about this from personal experience. As a spokesman for disability issues, I am always going into new areas in which I might well know the first two or three steps, but I do not know all the intricate detail. That is simply the way it works. As soon as someone is put in charge of a certain field, they need much more information. I am sure it is the same for any other issue that requires this kind of portfolio of knowledge.
I hope that the Government will be able to give us an assurance either that they will make provision for more information, or that something has already been put in place. I say that because we have genuine worries about both of these situations. I look forward to hearing a positive response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support Amendments Nos. 31 and 32, to which I have added my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, explained, these amendments would place on the face of the Bill a commitment for Ofcom to establish and maintain—the important word here is "maintain"—a
386
disabilities and older people's advisory board. Last week the chief executive of Ofcom, Stephen Carter, undertook a commitment that Ofcom would establish,
"a standing committee on matters concerning disabled people".
As I understand it, this will be a high-level committee with both consumer representatives and industry stakeholders. It will have a wide, holistic remit covering access to services, representation in the media and employment in broadcasting.
Members on these Benches warmly welcome that announcement. It gives an indication that Ofcom recognises the importance of disability issues in the communications industry and plans to make them a priority. With these amendments we seek to probe the Government as to whether they will take a step further and give the new board a statutory footing. That would guard against future abolition under different personnel and give it the stature it deserves and needs to attract the best people and get buy-in from industry and other stakeholders.
There is a real risk that without placing the disability and older people's advisory board on the face of the Bill it will dissolve after a few years if Ofcom finds itself with a different set of priorities. Evidence suggests that where such organisations are not written into legislation, the tendency is for them to wither over time. Oftel set up a consumer panel which had no statutory underpinning, and subsequently it has been abolished. On the other hand, in the Telecommunications Act 1984, a statutory advisory body was created on disability and older people. DIEL has been a highly effective body of expertise. For the Government to reject this amendment could be perceived as a step back or a downgrade for disabled persons in the communications sector, in which case I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this issue.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 46. I agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said.
I, too, was delighted to hear Stephen Carter, Ofcom's chief executive, announce at the Broadcasters Forum on Disability that he was laying plans before his board to set up a standing committee to advise Ofcom on issues affecting disabled and older people. With such a commitment, the purpose of this amendment has been accepted in principle. All that is needed is for the Minister to ensure that that commitment is not lost.
It is essential that a commitment to maintain an advisory committee for disabled and older people is on the face of the Bill. With such a fast-changing industry, the complex and wide-ranging needs of disabled people in relation to all the areas covered by Ofcom can too easily be forgotten. The Disability and Older People's Coalition, which is made up of a large number of leading disability organisations, remains concerned at what might happen under a different leadership of Ofcom or under a government less committed to social inclusion. There is no guarantee that such a

387
committee, and all its expertise and good work, would not be jettisoned. The Minister may well try to provide reassurance that that would not happen but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, it has happened before. Oftel set up a consumer panel without specific statutory provision and then later abolished it.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 is to ensure that that cannot happen. If it was considered essential to set up DIEL back in 1984 before the era of mobiles, digital radio and multi-channel TV, giving Oftel a statutory advisory committee on matters affecting disabled and older people, how much more pressing it seems today. This Government have done more than any other to take action against social exclusion. I am sure that the Minister accepts the threat of exclusion which disabled and older people face in relation to communications services and trust that he will see the case for these amendments.
Similarly, Amendment No. 46 seeks to ensure that the consumer panel—the body charged with holding Ofcom to account on behalf of consumers—can carry out its duties in respect of disabled and older people effectively. The consumer panel must inform itself about the needs of disabled and older people and have regard to their needs in carrying out its functions. If it is to be effective in those duties and make a meaningful contribution to the future inclusion of disabled and older people in the digital revolution, it must draw on a wide range of expertise and establish its credibility with disabled and older people. The odd person on the panel will not be able to do this—they cannot hope to cover the wide range of access barriers confronting different groups of disabled people. Nor is it acceptable to expect disability and older people's groups to help the panel unless they are resourced to do so. Without a statutory committee these resources are highly unlikely to be made available.
Not only do the whole disability sector and Age Concern back this amendment but support comes from the industry too. BT has backed the establishment of such a committee so that it can go to one place and get informed, holistic and reasonable guidance on improving its services for disabled people. It is essential that a specific advisory committee is placed on the face of the Bill.
The range of issues and challenges in relation to disabled and older people in this area is vast which is why these amendments seek to ensure that both Ofcom and the consumer panel are required to maintain permanent disability and older people's committees. DIEL has been forced to carry out both roles but that was only for telecommunications. Now we have a body dealing with every type of communications service and an even greater range of challenges.
If disabled people and older people are to have faith in Ofcom and the consumer panel, they must have a voice and a place within each and this must be specifically provided for on the face of the Bill. I urge the Minister to think again and accept these amendments.
11.15 a.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, even in the presence of my noble friend Lord McIntosh I shall make a very brief speech. The brevity arises from the fact that the case has been substantially made in the splendid speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and his supporters. All I want to say is that the All-Party Disability Group strongly supports these amendments. Disabled people are genuinely fearful that if the measure we are discussing is not on the face of the Bill it can easily be eroded. The case made by the noble Baroness is a very strong one. Past experience shows that these committees wither away. They have no value unless they are incorporated on the face of the Bill. I am sure that my noble friend will take account of that point and do what he can to help.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I wonder if when my noble friend replies he can deal with the very important point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, on the problem that arises if there is one disabled person on the panel. At the moment I believe that there is a blind person on the consumer panel. I believe the whole House will understand that the requirements of blind people differ from those of the deaf and those disabled people who use wheelchairs and, indeed, from those of older people. The matter cannot be dealt with by one disabled person serving on the consumer panel.
As I understand it, all telecoms companies are to be required by their general conditions of entitlement to consult the consumer panel on services for disabled people. If that is the case, I am not sure how that panel will receive the advice it needs on the range of services which need to be provided for disabled people if there is not a committee to advise it or other advice is not made available to it. I should be grateful if my noble friend could deal with that point when he replies to Amendment No. 46.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I add support from these Benches to the points ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and other speakers, and particularly to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The arguments are persuasive for a specific advisory board, and for it to be laid down in the Bill. As has already been said, the Minister represents a government who have a good record in these spheres, so I hope that he will be sympathetic to the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I do not feel very comfortable at finding myself in a minority of one. Personally, I marvel at the degree of faith placed in the suggestion that yet another committee be appointed. Although I am happily not all that disabled, I may at least be older than anyone who has spoken so far. Therefore, I feel that I can speak on behalf of old people. I would take no comfort whatever if the Government were minded to accept the amendment.

389
I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Currie, and his colleagues are really in need of yet another committee strung round their necks. The Bill, in terms of the instructions it contains for Ofcom, is already an indecently large affair. I see no need to complicate matters further. It would be absurd. I do not want anyone to say that I do not sympathise with either old people or the disabled, and I hope that no one will waste their time doing so. However, I do not believe that appointing such a committee would in any way help. I find it inconceivable that the noble Lord, Lord Currie, and the very substantial staff whom he will need will for a moment be either so stupid or so insensitive as not to take the greatest possible trouble to see that the needs of old people and the disabled are fully met.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, I want to emphasise that Ofcom announced last week—my chief executive announced in a speech—that we will set up a panel of this kind, precisely because we think that it will have considerable value. Disability is one of those genuinely wide-ranging issues that spans the whole spectrum of Ofcom's activities, and that can be well tackled by a converged regulator. A panel of that kind will be extremely helpful in guiding and informing the work of Ofcom.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Currie. I go back to a comparison with the little debate that we had on ethnic groupings, and why it was still important at this stage to have them firmly in the Bill. The whole approach may not have been firmly embedded in the same way as for other groups—to some extent I include gender—that have been more absorbed.
I want to refer briefly to very thorough research that we did at the Broadcasting Standards Commission—it was some time ago—which gave two clear indications from the wide groupings of different disabled people. First and foremost, they wished to be treated as individuals. Secondly, they wanted a body that was representative of all their problems, that would bear them in mind, and that would ensure that whatever legislation was passed would consider their problems. I suppose that we should all declare an interest so far as age disability is concerned, and it may be an issue in future.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, the noble Baroness indicated that she was in disagreement with me. I am not quite sure of the basis of that disagreement.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I apologise. Certainly I was in disagreement with the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. My disagreement with my noble friend Lord Currie was not on the intention of Ofcom, which is highly desirable—we have heard it
390
spelt out already—but much more with the fact that I still consider there to be a need for a more statutory body in the Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am not altogether disturbed by the disagreement of the noble Baroness with me. I am glad to know that Ofcom will appoint a body that it considers necessary, but for us to do so seems absurd. She is not doing herself justice in supporting that.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I totally accept that it is the noble Lord's right to disagree with my view. I still wish to stand to that view.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I shall start on a positive note. We will consider the principle of stating in the Bill a requirement for Ofcom to establish a committee for the disabled and elderly with a statutory base. Of course, the Bill already provides that Ofcom will be bound by statute to establish an advisory body to advise it on the consumer interests of, among others, disabled people, the elderly and those on low incomes. That is a key function of the consumer panel.
What noble Lords see in the Bill is a sturdy framework on which the consumer panel can build and which Ofcom must provide. The top level is the membership of the panel, representing the diversity of consumers across the UK. As a whole, the panel will be responsible for giving informed advice on, among other matters, the interests of the disadvantaged, the disabled and the elderly. The top level is supported by five important pillars.
The first pillar is the list of matters on which the panel must be able to advise, set out in Clause 15(3)(a) to (k). That includes the cost of services, their provision and availability, apparatus—televisions, set-top boxes and remote controls—standards of service, information about service standards and so on. The second pillar is the power to carry out and publish independent research. in Clause 15(6)(b). The third pillar is the panel's freedom to advise other bodies as it sees fit, in Clause 15(2). Fourthly, the panel has a duty to have regard to the interests of a diverse range of consumers including the disabled and the elderly, who are named constituents of the panel, in Clause 15(6). Finally, the panel must have the power to organise itself and set up its own committees, under Clause 17(1) and (2).
I shall now move Amendment No. 34. In Committee, we considered an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to require the consumer panel to produce an annual report. It will add the vital elements of accountability and transparency to the work of the panel—
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. He said that he now moved Amendment No. 34; in fact, he is speaking to Amendment No. 34.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg the House's pardon. I will move Amendment No. 34 in its

391
place, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for their recommendation.
As I said, the Bill is a sturdy framework on which the consumer panel can build, and I do not think it necessary or desirable to add further detail to the legislation, as required by Amendmem No. 46. The panel has all the powers that it needs, and has the duty to provide informed advice about the interests of disabled and elderly people across a broad range of issues. Having heard the debate, we will consider the composition of the panel, as raised by several noble Lords this morning, when we consider Amendment No. 31.
Moving on to Amendment No. 35, this has not been spoken to, so there is no way I can reply to it.
I have already signalled our intention t o consider the principle behind Amendment No. 31, but I cannot accept it outright, and I must resist Amendment No. 32 for a number of reasons. Principally, both amendments risk creating duplication of the work of the consumer panel and the content board, and they seek to do in legislation what Ofcom would itself have to do as a matter of operational necessity.
It is incredibly difficult for a regulator, bogged down in the detail set out in statute, to serve its true constituents— citizens and consumers. It is the very people whose interests we are trying to champion who will suffer from an inflexible regulator that cannot move and respond to changing needs and circumstances. The needs of people with disabilities and those of the elderly will always have to be addressed and their interests taken into account. The Bill provides for that. Ofcom will be able to serve the interests of those groups better if it is not tied into inflexible legislation.
However, as I have signalled, we will consider Amendment No. 31, given the strength of feeling expressed about it today. But the practicalities of setting up committees should not be for the parliamentary draftsman or the lobby group to try to translate into legislation. That is why we must resist Amendment No. 32. The chairman and his board of experts, with a finger on the pulse of the new organisation, are best placed to decide how to structure their organisation. As was mentioned earlier today, Stephen Carter has done just that, announcing on 12th June his intention to set up a standing committee on disability issues.
We have set clear objectives. Ofcom must have regard to the needs of persons with disabilities, of the elderly and of people on low incomes. We have placed many provisions throughout the Bill to support these objectives. We have appointed a respected chairman, acting in the public interest, and we should let him and his board get on with the job.
That said, I hope that in the light of the commitment I have given to consider Amendment No. 31, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will withdraw the amendment and will not move Amendment No. 32.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, we always, of course, prefer the words that we seek to include in a Bill to be accepted outright. However, the Minister's response has been one of the more positive responses I have received.
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Currie, however, denied me the opportunity of catching the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on the hip. I was quite looking forward to that, as the opportunity does not often arise. However, I am sure that we shall be able to fence again at another point.
Given the Government's assurance that they will address this issue and follow the lead of people outside who are dealing with these matters, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Consumer consultation]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 17, line 5, leave out from "matter" to end.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before making substantive points on the amendment, perhaps I may clarify exactly what we want to see deleted from the Bill as I am slightly concerned about the wording of the amendment. I have no doubt that, in terms of drafting, the wording is correct—although I shall check on that, or perhaps the Minister will be able to assure me that I am correct. I hope that the wording gives effect to our intention, which is to delete the words in brackets:
"(other than one referred to them for advice by OFCOM)".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can confirm that that is what the amendment does.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. That helps to clarify what I am about to say.
The House will recall that in Committee on 15th May, in a debate about the consumer panel, we discussed my Amendment No. 66 which sought to avoid overlaps between the content board and the consumer panel by making it clear that the consumer panel had no remit over content. That reflected widespread concerns expressed to me by content providers about the potential double jeopardy between the content board and the consumer panel and the need for clearly defined boundaries between the two.
What was incorporated into the Bill following a rather short debate was government Amendment No. 65 inserting the words,
"(other than one referred to them for advice by Ofcom)".
The Minister said that the purpose of the amendment was to give the consumer panel the power to consider matters of content referred to it by Ofcom and that these could be matters which had a "high consumer dimension". He gave the example of "misleading advertising".
I accepted at the time that the Government's intention was to define limits on the consumer panel's role as regards content. However, some content

393
providers are concerned that there will now be overlaps between the panel and the content board, and that there is a danger of "double jeopardy". I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to discuss the point with him between Committee and Report.
The Advertising Association is very concerned that misleading advertising was specifically cited as an example of an issue which could be referred to the consumer panel for advice, as it also foresees overlaps between different bodies on advertising. It had previously understood that, as thinking on the content board developed, government policy had moved on from the White Paper in which that was originally proposed.
Although the Advertising Association recognises that it is important to consumers that misleading advertising is prevented, the instances of upheld complaints about misleading advertising are very limited because of the stringent controls and pre-vetting procedures which are in place. It therefore questions why misleading advertising should have been singled out for attention by the consumer panel.
My Amendment No. 33 would restore Clause 15(5) to the clarity it achieved prior to the government amendment in Committee. The advertising industry and broadcasters who have supported the move to a single regulator did so because they believed it would reduce the regulatory overlaps and duplication that currently exist between various regulatory bodies. We should not recreate that problem in the new regulatory regime. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I strongly support what the noble Baroness said. The role of the consumer panel as proposed in the Bill is a very important one. Under this clause, it has a range of responsibilities that are of great importance. It is vital that the line should be absolutely clear-cut between the responsibilities of the content board and the consumer panel.
This affects advertising in one respect, but even more importantly it affects the whole function of the content board in ensuring the quality and diversity of programmes and their separation from matters of an economic character.
On the advertising side, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. The idea of misleading advertising being one of the dimensions on which the consumer panel might be entitled to have a view was perhaps an unfortunate slip of the tongue. The arrangements within the television industry for regulating advertising have worked admirably over many years. They are under active and constructive consideration at present. I listened to an interesting speech delivered recently by the noble Lord, Lord Currie, at an Advertising Association luncheon in which he referred to looking for a means of marrying the self-regulatory principle of the Advertising Standards Authority to the statutory backing that is inevitable in terms of television advertising.
394
All that works admirably, but to work admirably it is important that the borderline between the responsibilities of the consumer panel and those of the content board should be absolutely clear cut. It is equally important that the content board should be distinctively separate from all the other many responsibilities in the field of economic competition that lie within the responsibilities of Ofcom.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, it has always been our policy that Ofcom should be able to seek advice from the consumer panel on matters of content where there is a high consumer dimension. We made that clear in paragraph 7.5.2 of the White Paper, A new Future for Communications, and in paragraph 4.3.2 of the policy document published alongside the draft Communications Bill. The Joint Scrutiny Committee supported this position when it examined the draft Bill, in paragraph 48 of its report.
The amendment that we made in Committee, which this amendment seeks to reverse, does not extend the panel's mandate to content. It merely clarifies what has been our intention from the start and resolves any apparent inconsistency that existed between Clause 15(5) and Clause 15(6).
I understand that there is some concern in the advertising industry that this will lead to double jeopardy. Although the consumer panel will be a powerful voice for consumers, it has no regulatory functions. Its function is to provide advice to Ofcom and other bodies as it sees fit. It is simply not possible for the panel's advice on a content matter referred to it by Ofcom to present some form of double jeopardy for industry or overlap with the work of the content board. Regulatory functions rest with Ofcom, and, where conferred on it, the content board.
The consumer panel will be able to advise on content issues only where specifically requested by Ofcom. I do not agree that this is the thin end of the wedge. The panel is a statutory body and will not be able to go beyond the boundaries laid down in statute. In the content board, Ofcom has already begun to develop the proper structure and expertise to handle content matters, and the board will be best placed, within the regulatory framework, to do that job.
I will not speculate or try to give examples of what Ofcom might or might not refer to the panel. The example of misleading advertising, which we used at Committee Stage when explaining the amendment, was used purely for illustrative purposes, and not singled out for special treatment. There is no perception in government that this is a problem area.
It is Ofcom that will decide when a matter has a "high consumer dimension", and Ofcom that will decide whether, if it needs advice on that matter, the consumer panel would be best placed to provide it. I hope that my answer provides the reassurance that the noble Baroness was looking for and persuades her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buseombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomson,

395
for his support of the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson said, it is important to clarify this crucial borderline between the responsibilities of the consumer panel and the content board. It is important to address this borderline, because there is tremendous concern in the industry that this clause, as it stands, muddies the water, not least because there is no question but that self-regulation really works in the advertising industry. We on these Benches want to be sure that nothing in the Bill will undermine the advertising industry's ability to regulate itself successfully.
The Minister says that it is in Ofcom's hands to decide whether to seek advice from the consumer panel on matters with a high consumer dimension. I am grateful that the Minister has made that clear. I am also grateful that the Minister has explained that the term "misleading advertising" was used as an example purely for illustrative purposes and that he explained that there is no perception in government that this is a problem area.
I should have much preferred the Minister to have accepted our amendment to clarify the situation once and for all and to assure the industry, because I still think that this wording is unnecessary. I do not think that it helps the process. I do not think that it helps Ofcom. I will not press this today. I will go back to people in the advertising industry and ask them. They are the experts—they know. I will consult the Advertising Association in particular about whether it is happy about what the Minister said today.
Lord McNally: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, is she aware that had she pressed the amendment, we would have supported her in it? We would gladly join her in any further consultations with the advertising industry.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his strong support. I will take on board his assistance in this matter. Together we will consult the advertising industry, and, on that basis, we will perhaps return to this matter and press it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 34:
Page I7, line 46, at end insert—
"( ) The Consumer Panel must—

(a) as soon as practicable after the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the commencement of this section, and

(b) as soon as practicable after the end of each subsequent period of twelve months,

prepare a report on the carrying out of their functions in that period.
( ) The Consumer Panel must publish each report—

(a) as soon as practicable after its preparation is complete: and

(b) in such manner as they consider appropriate."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
11.45 a.m.
Clause 16 [Membership etc. of the Consumer Panel]:
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 42 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Committees and other procedure of the Consumer Panel]:
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 46 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Training and equality of opportunity]:
Lord Gordon of Strathblane Lord Gordon of Strathblane moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 23, line 6, leave out "television and radio" and insert "broadcasting and telecommunications"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised this matter at the Committee stage. If the object of this Bill is to bring together telecommunications and broadcasting, it seems a little lopsided, to say the least, that the training provision applies solely to broadcasting. To be fair, the Minister said that she was sympathetic to the aims of the amendments, but Ofcom cannot be given any power under the regulatory regime permitted by EC communications directives to impose any obligations in this area on communications providers.
That seems a little strange, but, not being particularly knowledgeable in the field of European directives, I consulted the Communication Workers Union. I said that this could not be right, and asked it to provide me with some ammunition. It furnished a couple of documents, including a Green Paper from some time ago, which said:
"Consideration in this context must also be given to the need for retraining and redeployment of employees as the traditional telecommunications sector adapts to a competitive environment".
It may be that there is scope for doing that under European directives, in which case perhaps my amendment could be accepted. If, on the other hand, I am wrong, and the Communication Workers Union is wrong, if the Government accept that it is a good idea that communications workers are trained, how will they find a way around the problem? I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gordon for giving us sight of the European documents that he mentioned. I have no doubt that they are representative of the views of the European Commission and the European Information Society at that time. Indeed, no-one doubts the importance of training, nor that companies have an important role to play in the teaching and learning process.
In the UK, a new set of sector skills councils is being created to lead the skills and productivity drive in industry and the business sectors recognised by employers. I am pleased to say that the sector skills councils of relevance to the communications sector are among the first to be fully licensed by the Government: eskills UK, with a sector coverage of IT, telecommunications and contact centres, and Science, Engineering, and Manufacturing Technologies Alliance, covering engineering, manufacture and some science occupations, received their licences on 8th

397
April. The audio-visual industries are represented by the existing Trailblazer sector skills council. It may be that the Commission's thinking may have developed further since 1996. In any event, the directives which we have now implemented and work within, were agreed last year, following a comprehensive review of Community regulation of the telecommunications sector, which commenced in 1991. As we explained earlier, it would not be compatible with that framework to place any training-related obligations on communications providers as such.
We are bound by the limitations of the directives, and the simple fact is that Ofcom will not be permitted to impose any obligations of that type on communications providers. The directives limit the type of obligations that can be imposed on providers of electronic communications. The scope of the general obligations, which apply to any provider, is set out in Clause 48. In very broad terms, it covers such matters as consumer protection, service, interoperability, network access, availability of service in the event of a disaster, protection of health and compliance with international standards.
There is no provision for any kind of obligation in relation to training, and member states have no discretion to add other kinds of conditions that go beyond those allowed by the directives. Thus, any duty on Ofcom to promote training in those industries would be legally ineffective. I hope that in light of my remarks, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I will obviously withdraw the amendment at this stage. However, it is regrettable that we do not have an obligation on Ofcom to do something to encourage training—not to provide it or even to fund it but simply to encourage it. However, I must accept the Minister's assurance that we are simply not allowed to do so by Europe. However, I do not regard European directives as having come down from Mount Sinai by second post after Moses. This does not appear to be a particularly sensible directive and I hope that at some point in the future we will find time to change it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 23. line 16, after "of" insert -and equalisation of opportunities for"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 49.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, drew our attention to the phrase "fair"—this is an odd word—treatment. We were not sure what it meant. I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, saying that it was a known concept but I have never come across it previously. That is when the alarm bells start to ring. The phrase "equalisation of opportunities for" gives a much better idea of the normal practice with regard to disabilities. In this area of civil rights one invariably must
398
change at least the way in which one behaves to give civil rights to someone. For example, the idea of reasonableness that is enshrined in the DDA means that one must make a reasonable adjustment. I do not know whether being fair involves making a reasonable adjustment; my point is that simple.
If we added the phrase "equalisation of opportunities", that would be in keeping with the approach. It is reasonable that one should, for example, provide ramps or change furniture in an office for someone in a wheelchair. I also refer to the concept that is accepted by the "Access to Work" scheme of providing a reader/writer for dyslexics. Those are examples of what is done to get people with disabilities into the workplace.
I do not know how far the concept of fairness addresses that. The situation is very worrying. What does being fair mean? To be fair to whom? Compared with whom? I do not know what is meant. There is no clarity.
Amendment No. 49 states:
"between disabled persons and persons who are not disabled; and … between persons who have had disabilities and persons who are not disabled and have not had any disabilities".
Those lines were originally in the draft Bill. I should be less worried about the concept of fairness if those lines were in the Bill. It would not be as good but it would still be better.
The amendments are intended to clear up an area in which we are creating confusion. We do not seem to be in alignment with earlier legislation. I refer to the idea of reasonable adjustment. I suggest that the Government should agree to the amendments because the current wording in the Bill simply adds confusion. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I can be extremely brief. I understand from some signals that the Government will look extremely positively on this amendment. We are grateful to them if that is what they will do. All we have done—I say "we", but I should refer to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, because I am simply an interested bystander—in Amendment No. 49 is to put back in the Bill the words that were in the draft Bill. We never understood why they were removed in the main Bill. I understand that the Government now intend to put them back, which is a very good idea.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise to support Amendments Nos. 48 and 184, to which I have added my name. I confess that when my attention was first drawn to the wording of Clause 24 with regard to employment of disabled persons, I was somewhat taken aback. -Fair treatment of disabled persons" sounds condescending to me, not to mention the fact that it could be used to hide a multitude of sins. It would be virtually impossible to prove that an employer did not treat a disabled person "fairly", as it refers to a process—that is, "treating fairly"—rather than an outcome which can be easily referred to, to examine whether or not the employer satisfied the commitment to secure,
"equalisation of opportunities for disabled persons",

399
as our amendment suggests. I will stop there because I believe that the Minister is eager to get to his feet.
Lord Evans of Temple Culling: My Lords, I hope that I will rise to everyone's expectations. Amendment No. 48 would require Ofcom to take all such steps as it considers appropriate for promoting the "equalisation of opportunities" for disabled persons in relation to employment with broadcasters. Similarly, Amendment No. 184 would require Ofcom to include conditions in the licences of broadcasters to whom Clause 330 applies, requiring them to promote the "equalisation of opportunities" in relation to employment with them. That would, I assume, be instead of the current requirements to promote the "fair treatment" of disabled persons, although the amendment could be read as requiring both fair treatment and equalisation of opportunities. That would clearly be unnecessary.
We are aware of the concern that the term "fair treatment" is not in line with the terminology used in other disability legislation. The use of the term mirrors the current obligations in the Broadcasting Act 1996 and is well understood in the con text of that legislation. The obligations have served us well, and have stood the test of time. They have helped to contribute to an impressive range of measures to promote disability issues, such as the development of workshops on the portrayal of disabled people, guidance on being more inclusive of disabled people both in front of and behind the camera, and systems of regular reporting. It is for that reason that we are extending the obligations in the 1996 Act to cover all licensed broadcasters.
That said. I am aware that more recent disability legislation, such as the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 prefers the term "equalisation of opportunities". I do not believe that the terminology makes any difference to the substantive requirements in the Bill, but I can see how it may be helpful for our legislation to he as consistent as possible with other legislation in the area. We will therefore bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to substitute our reference to "fair treatment" with the more up to date term. "equalisation of opportunities". I hope that in the light of that, the amendments will not be pressed.
The intention behind Amendment No. 49 seems to be to specify that in addition to the term "equalisation of opportunities", which is used in Clause 24 in relation to disabled persons, there should also be a reference to equality of opportunity between disabled persons and persons who are not disabled; and between persons who have had disabilities, and persons who are not disabled and have not had any disabilities. I believe that that is unnecessary and, in fact, would be positively unhelpful. The amendment is inconsistent with the Disability Discrimination Act, which does not confer rights on non-disabled people.
During the debate on 15th May, it was rightly pointed out that the earlier draft of the Bill contained language similar to that proposed in this amendment. That was, of course, an error, which was discovered
400
only after the draft Bill was published. Again, that shows the value of the extensive consultation that has taken place on the Bill.
I hope that my response has helped to clarify the position. We cannot accept the amendment, and I trust that it will not be pressed.
Lord Addington: My Lords, as they say, a brace is quite a good haul. I thank the noble Lord for his response. I believe that we shall probably want to check his comments on Amendment No. 49, but I assume that the noble Lord's lawyers are good ones.
With regard to Amendment No. 48, I believe that everyone is now more aware of what is going on. A point of confusion has been removed and, having had those assurances from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Noon
Lord Puttnam Lord Puttnam moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
"BACKSTOP POWERS IN RESPECT OF TRAINING
(1) In pursuance of their duty specified in section 24(1), OFCOM may, in the circumstances specified in subsection (2), exercise the powers granted under this section.
(2) Those circumstances are that—

(a) OFCOM are not satisfied that adequate opportunities for the training and retraining of persons for employment and work in connection with the provision of television and radio services are being prodded, and

(b) OFCOM are satisfied that the failings identified in accordance with paragraph (a) cannot be remedied by the exercise of their relevant powers under section 330.

(3) OFCOM may impose a training levy to be fixed by OFCOM in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(4) OFCOM shall not fix any training levy unless—

(a) at the time the levy is fixed there is in force a statement by OFCOM of the principles that OFCOM are proposing to apply in—

(i) fixing the levy; and

(ii) distributing the receipts of the levy; and

(b) the levy is fixed in accordance with those principles.

(5) Those principles must be such as appear to OFCOM to be likely to secure that—

(a) the levy is fixed in such a way as to ensure that levels of payment of the levy relate to the benefits to those paying the levy of the training and retraining to be provided; and

(b) the money received from the levy is expended in ways that relate to OFCOM's duty under section 24(1)."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is not a great deal to add to what I said in Committee. I live in hope that at Third Reading the Government will either come forward with their own adaptation or accept the amendment.
The situation is really quite simple. Here is an industry which is entirely skills-dependent. I believe that that is generally agreed. The nature of those skills changes very rapidly. It is a technology-based

401
industry. The Government have a commitment in their manifesto to encourage industries to pursue aggressive training policies and broaden their scope where possible, and the industry has done exactly that. It has an all-industry body and all-industry agreement on training. The purpose of the amendment is merely to empower Ofcom, where necessary, with backstop powers to pursue non-payment.
It is an industry where the majority pay, pay well and pay willingly but, unfortunately, where a number of backsliders—some significant and some minor—will avoid and evade the commitment which the industry itself has made. It seems entirely appropriate that Ofcom should have powers to pursue non-payers in whichever way the Government or Ofcom consider appropriate. The present situation is too slipshod and the burden falls too heavily on those who have offered and shown preparedness to pay for training. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, as my name is attached to the amendment, I rise briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said. I particularly endorse what he said about the present situation being altogether too slipshod. The need in this industry—perhaps above all others—for training is too obvious to be ignored. Frankly, I believe that it would be wrong if we allowed training to remain on a voluntary basis. The black sheep who default in the cause of training should be brought into line. I hope that on this occasion, if on no other, my endeavours to say something that pleases Ofcom will even commend themselves to the noble Lord, Lord Currie.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, we on these Benches strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I should declare an interest. I have a daughter who is in the management of the BBC and who owes a great deal to the training that the BBC provided. It was postgraduate training of a very high quality. In those far-off days, the BBC carried an undue burden of training throughout the broadcasting industry. I believe it is fair to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, indicated, that that burden is now far more evenly spread. However, some areas within the industry would require the kind of statutory compulsion provided by the proposed levy. I hope that the Government will deal sympathetically with what the noble Lord has proposed.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, Amendment No. 50 seeks to insert a new clause proposing to give Ofcom power to impose a new training levy if it is not satisfied that adequate opportunities for training and retraining are being provided and if those failings cannot be remedied by exercising relevant powers under Clause 330. The new clause goes on to indicate how Ofcom should fix the levy and how receipts of the levy should be used.
As my noble friend Lady Blackstone made clear when we debated the same amendment in Committee, we recognise the crucial importance of a well trained
402
workforce to the broadcasting industry. Without the highly skilled workers it needs, the industry will struggle to remain competitive in the world media market place. The nature of the industry and the characteristics of much employment within it only serve to underline that stark truth.
Because of our recognition of those facts, we have introduced the new, strengthened provisions on training in the Bill. For the first time, training obligations will apply to all television and radio broadcasters who meet the threshold conditions set out in the Bill, and Ofcom will have a new duty to promote training more widely in the sector.
In Committee, we also indicated that we would consider an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, designed to ensure that the training requirements apply to companies which, while individually small, are part of a much larger group of companies. We have tabled amendments for discussion next week on this topic. Those provisions put the broadcasting sector well ahead of most others, and we are confident that they will deliver the intended result.
Much will depend on the licence conditions that Ofcom imposes under Clause 330 and the action that it takes under Clause 24. Following a recommendation of the ITC's programme supply review, the Secretary of State asked Skillset, the sector skills council for the audio visual industry, to establish a task force and report back to Ofcom on these very issues. Skillset and all the key stakeholders are already well advanced in their task.
It is not clear from the amendment on whom the training levy would be imposed. Thus far, we have assumed that Clause 330 would apply to the licensed broadcasters, but the aim may be to catch independent producers who are not, of course, subject to Ofcom regulation. However, that would be extremely complex to achieve, requiring a whole new layer of regulation to ensure that independent producers identify themselves and to make arrangements for the levy and introduce sanctions if producers do not pay up.
That does not mean that independent producers cannot or should not play their part in contributing to industry training. They can and they should. PACT, the trade body representing independent producers, has been operating the Independent Production Training Fund, with the support of the main broadcasters, since 1993. The Skillset task force, which I have just mentioned, is looking, among other things, at the scope for raising the current ceiling on contributions to the fund from independent producers. PACT is represented on the task force and I hope that it will make a positive contribution to the discussions. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, in withdrawing the amendment, I want to make two points. One is that clearly I and those who agree with me are seeking some mechanism whereby Ofcom can use the significant and broad powers that it has to, as it were, encourage those

403
who believe themselves to be taking a free-rider position on training to join the body that pays and pays willingly. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I tend to meet—just the two of us—in this House only about once a year. On those occasions, we discuss the engineering and construction trade industries' training arrangements. There has never been a moment of dispute. The arrangements are regarded as very valuable by those industries and seem to work extraordinarily well. I suppose that, in essence, I am seeking a not dissimilar arrangement for the communications industry. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Transitional functions and abolition of pre-commencement regulators]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 26, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) Where, under contractual arrangements in place prior to the commencement of this Act, liability is established for payment of charges levied by pre-commencement regulators, such arrangements shall continue to have effect after the abolition of the pre-commencement regulators as if they applied to charges levied by OFCOM."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, no doubt because of the inadequacy of my explanation of these amendments in Committee on 15th May, the Minister was not at the time fully aware of their purpose. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was good enough to acknowledge in a letter of 2nd June, what we are dealing with in Amendments Nos. 51 and 233 is the passing on of charges which have been levied by Oftel, even though after commencement they will be payable to Ofcom.
As the Minister is now aware, the providers of masts and towers, who played a key role in the development of terrestrial radio and television services and who also license antenna space to mobile and fixed wireless operators, have clauses in all their contracts with these users to enable them to recover the charges imposed by the existing regulator. The amendments seek to ensure that the existing contractual arrangements continue to have effect as if any new charges levied by Ofcom were, for the purposes of those contracts, charges by the previous regulator.
Secondly, in Amendment No. 232, we deal with rights and obligations established by reference to definitions contained in previous legislation. As far as we could see, there was nothing in the Bill to cover existing arrangements between broadcast transmission providers and service providers, although the amendment is not limited to agreements of that kind. As the Minister knows, the agreements between landlords and the owners of towers and masts often confer rights on the operators which allow the sharing of these rights with holders of Telecommunications Act 1984 licences only. The disappearance of those licences and of the distinction between broadcasters and other providers of electronic communications networks means that key permitted-use clauses in agreements between the operators of towers and masts and their customers would be invalidated, and they would be obliged to renegotiate amended contracts with their landlords.
It appears that the Government have taken these points into consideration in their Amendments Nos. 227 to 231 and 234 to 235. We look forward to hearing their explanation of how the objectives that we outlined have been met—no doubt much more effectively than we were able to do.
However, as far as I can see, paragraph 2A of Amendment No. 227 appears to safeguard the position of persons holding 1984 Act licences, while paragraph 2B of Amendment No. 227 addresses the problem of agreements with persons holding such licences by others. We are concerned, however, with the wording of paragraph 2B(1) of Amendment No. 227, which refers to the,
"rights or obligations of a person under the agreement".
This may not cover the agreements we had in mind, in which the landlord grants a power to the operators of masts and towers to let space to third parties who hold 1984 Act licences but who are not themselves parties to the agreement.
With respect, we suggest that the amendment should make it clear that the expression "person under the agreement"—which could be taken as limited to persons party to an agreement—should be amended to,
"person referenced under the agreement".
In conclusion, there has still been no communication between the department and the operators of the towers and masts. It would have saved us time on the Floor of the House if there had been direct communication between officials in the department and those persons who are immediately concerned with these agreements. I hope that this residual point regarding paragraph 2B of Amendment No. 227 might be the subject of discussion between them before we reach Third Reading. I beg to move.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I sought to rise early without pre-empting the debate, but no one else other than the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is participating in the debate.
Your Lordships will recognise that the government amendments to which I am speaking at this point are an attempt to meet the representations made in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is doing himself a disservice when he suggests that he had not put the case sufficiently well for his amendments to be accepted. We understood the issues clearly, and we hope that we have now provided a framework in the Bill for meeting his concerns.
I am sorry to hear what he said about communications directly with the industry; the department prides itself on being as open as possible in discussions about the Bill. I do not know where the fault lies, but I doubt that it lies on our side. Nevertheless, our concern was that the issues having been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Crickhowell, in Committee, it was to those representations in the House that we directed our

405
energies. I hope that I will be able to establish that in fact the government amendments meet the concerns to which Amendments Nos. 51 and 232 are directed.
Your Lordships will recall that certain amendments on these matters were tabled in Committee, and we indicated that the Government were sympathetic to their concerns. Therefore. I am happy today to outline our solutions. I also hope to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that these amendments are helpful to the concerns of the transmission company, Crown Castle, which lie behind his contribution.
The Bill already makes transitional provision which is addressed to the effects which the advent of the new regime will have on private agreements. We sought input on these issues from the industry when the draft Bill was published last May, and accordingly included some provisions for such matters in the Bill—specifically paragraphs 8, 12 and 16 of Schedule 18. However, a group of legal experts—who were also advising the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who is unfortunately unable to join us today—recently advised us that this provision is not wide enough. Their advice was that some of the impacts that were not caught could be adverse for the affected parties.
We have considered these concerns in drafting our amendments, which we think will be of material assistance. As it stands, paragraph 3 of Schedule 18 prevents the triggering, merely as a consequence of the ending of licensing under the 1984 Act, of any provision in commercial agreements which might cause those agreements to cease to have effect or to be capable of being terminated. However, we were advised that there are many kinds of provisions in agreements, other than termination provisions, which could be triggered by the ending of licensing. These would not be caught by paragraph 3.
We recognise that this could be a problem with serious consequences. The provisions in question might, for instance, trigger a situation of default under a finance agreement. It is impossible for the Government to know of all potentially affected agreements—much less to know in detail what is in them. We must therefore proceed with some caution.
However, we think it possible to produce an effective solution by a general substitution, providing that this general rule can be adjusted by a court if necessary, when the general approach does not properly reflect what the parties would have agreed had they contemplated the abolition of the licences. The amendments therefore have the effect that any provision in such agreements which might be triggered by the end of licensing will instead be triggered by a long-term suspension of the right to provide services. This seems to be the nearest equivalent in the new regime which the Bill will inaugurate to the revocation of a licence in the old regime.
In many cases, this substitution will be sufficient to prevent any seriously adverse consequences from the ending of licensing. Nevertheless, substitution of the most nearly equivalent event will not always be the right solution. We have therefore allowed for the possibility
406
that any party to such an agreement can apply to a court for a direction that this substitution is not to be made, or is to be made only with such modifications as the court thinks right in all circumstances.
We believe that this strikes the right balance. I hope that noble Lords who have taken a keen interest in these issues will find that the amendments effectively address the general concerns about agreements that are conditional on licensing which motivated in particular the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in Committee.
As regards Crown Castle's agreements, the amendments will be helpful. They will ensure at least that the ending of licensing under the 1984 Act will not lead to automatic termination or invalidation of any of its agreements, which was one of its significant concerns.
I recognise that this will not meet every concern which the noble Lord has so clearly explained and that on many other points it may be necessary for Crown Castle to modify and update its agreements for the new circumstances. But, as I have emphasised, it is not possible for us to know all of the circumstances addressed by private agreements. Accordingly, we have to be cautious in making what after all is permanent provision once enshrined in the legislation.
Where the parties to such agreements are not constrained from adjusting them to suit the new circumstances and can equitably do so, it is not likely to be appropriate to make general statutory provision which may have unforeseen and adverse impacts in a particular case.
In the light of these amendments, therefore, I hope the noble Lord will feel we have addressed the issues raised by himself and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in Committee. We will examine the issue he has raised with regard to third parties and if we can improve the amendments to take it on board, we will do so at Third Reading. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will consider that the government amendments to be moved on Report meet the proper concerns that he has expressed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply, particularly for his undertaking to examine the point I made about paragraph 2B(1) of Amendment No. 227. Provided we can be sure that the consideration of that problem is undertaken before Third Reading and that any changes in the wording of that paragraph are agreed between the department and the industry before that stage, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McNally Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 52:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
"FUNCTIONS OF OFCOM IN RESPECT OF PRESS COMPLAINTS COMMISSION'S CODE OF PRACTICE
(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to make such arrangements as they think fit to provide for the enforcement of the Code of Practice issued by the Press Complaints Commission.
(2) In pursuance of its duty under subsection (1), OFCOM may—

(a) issue such directions as they think fit to the Commission, and

(b) impose penalties in accordance with subsections (3) and (4).

(3) OFCOM may impose a penalty on any party to the Code if that party has, in the opinion of the Commission, breached the terms of the Code.
(4) A penalty under subsection (3) is to be such amount not exceeding £500,000 as OFCOM determine to be—

(a) appropriate; and

(b) proportionate to the breach of the Code in respect of which it is imposed.

(5) In this section—
"the Code of Practice" and the "Code" mean the Code of Practice issued by the Press Complaints Commission in December 1999 and any subsequent revision of that Code (including any such revision of the coming into force of this section),
"a party to the Code" means any person engaged in the publication of a newspaper or magazine who has agreed to comply with its provisions, and
"Press Complaints Commission" and "Commission" mean the body first established in 1991
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in some ways I feel as though I am about to lead the Charge of the Light Brigade in moving the amendment. After all, the noble Lord, Lord Currie, is on record as saying that he does not want powers over the Press Complaints Commission. The Minister, Tessa Jowell, says that she is against state regulation of the press—a noble declaration. I am sure that she is against murder of the first-born and is in favour of motherhood and apple pie, but that has nothing to do with what is being proposed in the amendment. I take confidence in the thought that my reading of history reminds me that the Charge of the Light Brigade captured the Russian guns—so let us go on.
Looking back over the past 10 years, it is interesting to see just where we are in the relationship between Parliament, the politicians and the printed press. Ten years ago, the print press was in the "last chance saloon". The Calcutt committee had recommended that unless it mended its way, it should be supervised by a statutory tribunal. Clive Soley had introduced the Bill on press freedom and responsibility in another place. A report from the National Heritage Committee had called for a press ombudsman on privacy law. The possibility of an incoming Labour government certainly concentrated the minds, too, because every Labour government since the war had initiated either a Royal Commission into the press or a departmental inquiry into its behaviour. Yet there is no doubt who has left the "last chance saloon". It is the politicians rather than the press. It is still there, drinking gaily and with abandon as ever.
This morning I attended a meeting with the president and CEO of the United States' public broadcasting service, Pat Mitchell. The noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, was there and he made an observation which I am sure he will not mind me repeating. He said that the watershed in the relationship was reached when the present Prime Minister, as Leader of the
408
Opposition, travelled half way around the world to address a management conference of News International. And we all know what happened next.
The relationship between the media owners and this Government is a depressing one. A senior journalist told me that he was once telephoned by one of the rather aggressive No 10. spin doctors complaining about the contents of an article. After some time, the journalist said, "If you don't like it, you should talk to my editor", to which the spin doctor replied, "We don't talk to editors, we talk to owners", and slammed down the telephone.
It is not quite true because the relationship is also cosy with the editors, too. As someone who has an association with a lobbying company and therefore has to fill in great detail about what I am doing and what is being done, a few years ago I asked how many visits Rupert Murdoch had made to 10 Downing Street. I recall that he had made five as against one for every other media owner. Those meetings take place with no one knowing what happened, what was agreed or what deals were done. I believe that it is an unhealthy relationship. I would prefer the relationship between journalists and politicians to be the same as that between the dog and the lamp post. When they get any closer than that, there is danger.
My reason for moving the amendment was instigated in part by the evidence given by the newspaper proprietors to the Puttnam committee. Anyone reading it or having attended will know that it was churlish and defensive—"Why are we here? What has this got to do with us?". When reading the evidence given recently to the DCMS committee, one finds the same attitude with the noble exceptions of the editors of the Guardian and the Independent. There is a feeling that it is none of Parliament's business. I begin from the basic principle that in a parliamentary democracy no individual or organisation is beyond the scrutiny of Parliament. Therefore, I believe that we have a right to discuss how our free press defends its own freedom.
I was attracted by the discussion in the Puttnam committee that the print media could well come under the accredited self-regulation that is being encouraged for other parts of the media. When they say that the Bill is about the electronic media, I would point out that it is a communications Bill. It is not an electronic communications Bill or a broadcasting Bill; it is a communications Bill. In any case, convergence is bringing the print media into the electronic media. I attended a seminar addressed by the editor of the Guardian when he said that the newspaper now has more readers world-wide reading it on the Internet than are buying the printed version. So convergence will bring the print media into this debate.
The proposal before the House—the issue has been discussed elsewhere—is not the slippery slope to state regulation described by one of the red tops in one of its less hysterical editorials. What I and others are after is an effective and respected Press Complaints Commission. It is no use saying, "We already have that". Journalists as varied in experience as Alan Rusbridger and Andrew Neil have stated recently that

409
the PCC does not yet have the respect and confidence that it should. I have said previously that a target to aim for is that the Press Complaints Commission should have the same respect within its industry and by the general public as the Advertising Standards Authority. It is not yet there.
I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. However, for much of his term of office he seemed too often to be the apologist for the media rather than the regulator. I have said to the new chairman, Christopher Meyer, that he must beware of becoming the PR man for the press. One does not see the chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority rushing to defend every dodgy advertisement. The chairman of the Press Complaints Commission must be the regulator far more than hitherto.
In two important speeches, Christopher Meyer has suggested improvements. The DCMS committee's recent report suggested others. This flurry of activity has coincided with parliamentary interest. It is important that we do not lose sight of the issue once the legislative spotlight is turned off. That is why I wish to have left in the Bill a small power for Ofcom. We cannot continue to be stressed by the state of our press without stating what must be done about it. I read with great pleasure the wonderful interview by the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, in the latest edition of the House Magazine. He says:
"We journalists were pretty respectful towards the politicians in my day. I wore striped trousers and a black jacket and approached MPs as if they were superior beings".
Those days are long gone. He also speculates that with the current press we would probably have lost the First World War because Lloyd George's philanderings would certainly have found their way into the News of the World. By the same token, we would have lost the Second World War because Jeremy Paxman would have exposed Churchill's drinking habits long before he got the chance to make any of his famous speeches.
I want us to consider this matter seriously without the canard that those of us who put forward the proposal arc against press freedom. I questioned the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, after recent research by the University of Cardiff demonstrated massive public confidence in electronic news which had some statutory guidance but massive lack of confidence in the print media which did not. With great casuistry, the noble Lord was on his feet saying, "You want the same regulation for the print media as for the electronic media". That is good debating but it does not address the issue. Of course, I do not believe that newspapers can have the same responsibilities imposed upon them.
I was impressed by testimony from the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, about his father and the background in journalism. Journalists should worry about standards and freedoms. It struck me as impressive that the 275 editors of the Murdoch press came freely and independently to the same view about the Iraq war. That is the kind of worry as regards consolidation and genuine press freedom.
Clive Soley drafted the amendment. Unfortunately, because of the guillotine in another place it was not debated. He pointed out that the history of press regulation shows a pattern of press abuse, followed by threats of legislation, followed by a period of restraint before another period of abuse. He said that his recommendation is designed to provide a regular check on the effectiveness of press regulation: it is that Ofcom, as a regulator, can review and report periodically on the effectiveness of the self regulation of the press.
That is what we suggest. I do not believe that it would be an onerous duty. In carrying forward the programme he has announced, it would give Christopher Meyer some guarantee that someone was still watching. As Pat Mitchell reminded us at a meeting, democracy and a free press share the same fate. It is important that within our country and our democracy we have a press that is respected by the public and provides the public with the kind of news and opinion they deserve.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord suggested that he might be leading the Charge of the Light Brigade. Reading his new clause, I thought that it was a proposal to nationalise my old job. I think that I was probably better off out of it before that came about.
As the House will know, I was chairman of the Press Complaints Commission for over seven years. It is not my objective today to defend every action of the PCC or to talk much about that. However, even the critics of the PCC recognise that over the past 10 years standards have improved substantially both in the press and the PCC. If the House wants a good example of that, the Select Committee in another place which reported recently—it was somewhat critical, wanting a privacy law and so on—stated that it believed that standards had improved in the press and the PCC. I recognise that there is a long way to go.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, does the noble Lord apply that individually to the News of the World?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I have long since passed the day when I seek to pass judgments of that kind. I was quoting from the judgments of others. The one thing I learned when I was at the PCC was not to give condemnations of anyone without hearing the arguments on both sides. Of course, every newspaper I had to deal with had occasional lapses in standards. If there were no lapses in standards, there would be no need for a PCC. I believe that for the past 10 years standards have improved and I see no reason why they should not continue to improve. Indeed, I had to deal with a number of attempts, akin to this amendment, to deal with such issues and I always welcomed them. I took the view that they were welcome opportunities so long as people did not inhale too deeply what was being said. They were helpful to the PCC because they enabled it to show the industry that there was concern

411
about standards and it could use that publicity as a means of trying to raise standards. I certainly did that on a number of occasions during my time as chairman.
Nevertheless, my judgment remains that this proposal has many more negatives than pluses. I shall try to explain why. I draw a clear distinction, as I believe the Government do in the Bill, between the kind of regulations that one needs for radio and television— a licensing system—because of the limited spectrum, although I wonder for how much longer, in the years to come, it will be possible to maintain that distinction. At the moment, that is the position and the Bill seeks to regulate it.
On the other hand, newspapers do not need licences; they are part of a free society. On one occasion, when Home Secretary, Jack Straw referred to the freedom of the press as a manifestation of the freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act. I disagree fundamentally with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I do not believe that there is, in practice, a half-way house. Either the press is free or it is statutorily controlled. Co-regulation and accredited self-regulation are another way of controlling the press through the law. A body such as Ofcom, which, in effect, is run and financed by the state, ultimately would have to decide whether a newspaper was responsible when that newspaper might well be judging the position of people in power. Ofcom could hold that the newspaper was irresponsible. I do not believe that Ofcom should be put in that position. In my view, that is not compatible with a free press.
That is at the heart of the matter. Let us assume that it happens. What does Ofcom do about it? When it judges that the press or the PCC are irresponsible, does it intervene? Does it ask the Government to intervene? If not, it will find itself defending actions in the courts. If that happens that will be the end of a free press in this country.
On a practical level, the PCC does its job by common-sense resolution of disputes. Not everyone is happy with the outcome of such resolutions, but to create a body to which the PCC is accredited is to create an appellate body to which disgruntled complainants will run with their grievances. At one fell swoop the system becomes legal and unwieldy. The true losers will be the vast majority of citizens of this country who currently receive good and speedy redress from the system of self-regulation.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me where in the amendment it says that a disgruntled complainant can go straight to Ofcom?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, that is nowhere in the Bill. That is the point. If a complainant receives an unfavourable judgment from the Press Complaints Commission, and Ofcom, under this resolution, does not take steps to deal with that, in my view the person could go to court to seek to say that Ofcom was not carrying out the statutory responsibility that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would like it to undertake. As a result, the complainant would seek damages and Ofcom would find itself in the courts every time
412
someone was dissatisfied with an appeal. That is the danger that I see. Therefore, at one fell swoop the system would become legal and unwieldy. As I said, the true losers would be the majority of citizens who currently receive good and speedy redress from the system of self-regulation.
At the moment the PCC works, not perfectly—I have never said that it does—but pretty well because of a financial and a moral commitment of the publishers to self-regulation. If the amendment, or something similar, is part of the law of the land, and the press was brought under the ambit of statutory control, would they continue to support the whole business? I fear not. So we may find that at one fell swoop—as regards the ordinary citizen, who does not have the odd £250 million necessary to take an action in the courts—we would go from an imperfect system of self-regulation, with all its shortcomings, to a system, in practice, of no regulation. That would be a very had deal for the citizens of this country.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I oppose the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. It would confer a duty on Ofcom to provide for the enforcement of the Press Complaints Commission's code of practice. Noble Lords have already said today that last Monday the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee published its report into privacy and media intrusion. The committee was charged with the task of assessing the effectiveness of the PCC and making recommendations as to its improvement. In proposing that the Government reconsider their current position on this issue, the committee recommended that they should undertake full and wide consultation prior to any legislative change. We do not believe that legislative intervention would provide a sensible or an adequate solution.
My noble friend Lord Wakeham gave cogent reasons why the amendment would not work and why it should be resisted. It would be otiose to attempt to repeat those reasons. We do not suggest—nor did my noble friend to any extent—that the Press Complaints Commission is perfect, but we believe that self-regulation is the most effective mechanism through which our press can be scrutinised. We therefore welcome Sir Christopher Meyer's invitation to review the progress of the Press Complaints Commission in a year's time. The freedom of the press is a fundamental democratic right that should be safeguarded. We do not support legislative change in that area and, therefore, oppose the introduction of statutory control of the press through the back door.
We want, of course, effective self-regulation. I believe that that is what we all want. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, made reference to the Advertising Standards Authority. I am minded to suggest that it would be helpful if the PCC took a leaf out of the self-regulatory book of the advertising industry and of' the Advertising Standards Authority. Perhaps that is not a fair comparison; however, it is an irresistible suggestion because, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, rightly said, the Advertising Standards Authority commands respect

413
and confidence which must be what Sir Christopher Meyer seeks to achieve on behalf of the Press Complaints Commission. Let us give Sir Christopher a chance.
Lord Lipsey: I want to refer to the Advertising Standards Authority. I am a member of the council of that authority—nice things have been said about the authority for which I thank noble Lords—and I have worked most of my life in the newspaper industry which the amendment addresses.
Why does the ASA work well, and why is it viewed as working well, yet the PCC seems to convince only itself that it is absolutely perfect? The noble Lord, Lord McNally, is right to point out that the kind of rhetoric used—I do not refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, but to what was said to the Select Committee—is out of all proportion to the reality. The press does not seem to be able to look at the situation rationally. I believe that that is due partly to the different cultural situations in the two organisations. By and large, in the advertising industry the Advertising Standards Authority's verdicts are accepted. Sometimes people do not like individual verdicts because with an adverse ASA ruling one cannot win an advertising award. It is an amazingly effective sanction, which the press might like to think about.
My experience in the press is that although the top bods will pay plenty of lip service to the PCC, deep down among the practitioners at the coalface the PCC is seen not as something necessary to the press and to its furtherance but as an obstacle; as the enemy, something to be got around and ignored. On too many occasions it is ignored.
There have been so many last chances for the press on the issue that one is reluctant to provide another. But the key if the press wishes to avoid the kind of regulation proposed in the amendment is that it must try to internalise the PCC code. Journalists must not be taught that this is an adventure playground in which anything goes and one gets away with whatever one can. They must not be allowed to treat ordinary human beings as though the human soul can be disregarded by journalists, and as though they are freed from the ethical constraints on the rest of us just because they are a free press.
Of course I am in favour of a free press, as we all are. Having spent many years in the industry, I say in all seriousness that if that does not happen swiftly and Chris Meyer's initial work does not turn into something more concrete that the newspapers take on board, then if the McNally amendment does not succeed today, it will succeed in some Parliament coming soon. I would rather avoid that, but the press has its fate in its own hands.
Lord Puttnam: I strongly support and echo my noble friend Lord Lipsey, and to an extent the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. We owe a debt to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for raising the issue,
414
which needs a great deal more discussion and deserves to be raised at greater length in the House and more often, because it is at the core of civil society.
I do not think that the media in this country have served civil society well in the past 10 years. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, was good enough to mention that my father was a journalist. My father retired and died deeply disappointed with what he regarded as a noble profession. Auberon Waugh once said that legitimate journalism was whatever one could get away with. I suspect that many people's interpretation of the PCC code is precisely that. My noble friend Lord Lipsey does us all a favour in saying that the profession must internalise its code of practice, not find ways of avoiding and evading it.
I have one more point. I have listened many times to Alan Rusbridger—whom I admire greatly—talking about the development of a responsible press. One of the arguments he makes in favour of the press is how extraordinarily difficult it is to edit a daily, or indeed probably a Sunday newspaper. It is a confusing, complicated and rather chaotic business, and of course at times mistakes are made.
I have total sympathy with that position, but having spent the past six years working within the machinery of government, I have to tell Mr Rusbridger and every other editor that if they think their lives are difficult, complicated and confused, they should try being the Secretary of State of a large department. It would be a good thing if editors could internalise, but the same type of error is possible within the machinery of government as every single day of the week occurs in the production of their daily newspapers.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I would like to say a brief word in support of my noble friend Lord McNally. He made a brave speech in the circumstances, as he may find out in due course when he gets the mud treatment from the press.
In mid life I spent a number of years not as a professional working politician but as a professional regulator. I was chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority—a totally voluntary, self-regulatory non-statutory body—and then the regulator of commercial television with the Independent Broadcasting Authority. I have a few brief words of advice for the noble Lord, Lord Currie, whom we wish well in his new role, about the conclusions I drew from that episode in my life.
I am grateful for the nice things that have been said about the way in which the Advertising Standards Authority has established its reputation. The reasons are simple: first, the advertising industry faced the threat of statutory regulation if it did not mend its ways some years ago. Secondly, the arrangements it made had some crucial elements for any form of effective self-regulation that the Press Complaints Commission could usefully study.
First, it should have an automatic self-financing arrangement for its funds and should not need annually to go around the people it is to regulate with a begging bowl, which so often happens with such arrangements. The Advertising Standards Authority is

415
funded by a mechanism, the Advertising Standards Board of Finance, which is automatic in terms of a levy on display advertising. Secondly, it must have effective sanctions. The Advertising Standards Authority does have effective sanctions that bite if necessary. Thirdly, it must have a board on which the lay element is the majority element. Those were the secrets of the Advertising Standards Authority's success.
The Independent Broadcasting Authority was a statutory body because it had to be responsible to Parliament for the use of a scarce national resource: the spectrum. But as far as possible, the tradition of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, particularly on the advertising side but also on the regulating of standards, was as far as possible to be a self-regulatory arrangement with the statutory element a last resort.
I am afraid I do not share the optimistic view of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that there has been a dramatic improvement in press standards over the past decade. I am glad that the new chairman of the Press Complaints Commission is conducting a review of the way it operates. He would do well to look seriously at its internal arrangements; and some of the experience of the Advertising Standards Authority might be highly relevant in enabling it to avoid the deep distrust that now operates about the way it carries out its duties.
There is a great dilemma in a free society about the press's responsibility to the nation. The poet Humbert Wolfe made a famous remark between the wars, which might be relevant today:

"You cannot hope

to bribe or twist,

thank God! the

British journalist.

But, seeing what

the man will do

unbribed, there's

no occasion to".

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke of the events of 10 years ago. In conjunction with my noble friend Lord Wakeham I had a small walk-on part in those days. I listened to my noble friend's description of the course of events since those days and his conclusions, and I concur with both. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, made comment on the comparative number of times Mr Murdoch has visited No. 10. It might have been regarded as the sub-text of his entire speech.
No. 10's instincts for hospitality are a matter for No. 10. I will only remark that Attlee, who was so dismissive of the media that he could be persuaded by his press secretary Francis Williams to put a newstape machine into No. 10 only on the grounds that he would have up-to-date news of the cricket scores, has himself had a good press down the years from historians. Those facts may not be disconnected.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission. We also have a function not that different from the PCC in relation to
416
broadcasting. That is the work we do when we receive complaints about breaches of privacy or unfairness in television programmes. We are occasionally compared in our methods and approach to the PCC. I do not want to develop that argument too far, but it is good that the issue is back on the agenda. If I were the chairman of the PCC I would look hard at how the Advertising Standards Authority and the Broadcasting Standards Commission work to see whether any lessons might be learned. Both organisations are judged to do their job not too badly—although I speak as the chair of one of them—in relation to the PCC, which is subject to much criticism despite the robust defence of it by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham.
The PCC could look at other models. If it moved a little, that might take the heat out of the argument for statutory regulation of the press, which none of us wants. If the PCC can meet the public need voluntarily, through self-regulation, nobody would want statutory regulation, because it involves all sorts of problems.
1 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for introducing the subject. It has been below the surface for some time and there has been general concern about it. Six or seven years ago, while at the Broadcasting Standards Commission, I went to a conference organised entirely by the press. The concern expressed there by members of the press about the rapidly falling standards of their profession was extremely worrying.
One should also be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for spelling out in his amendment the strength of the additional powers that the new regulator, Ofcom, would have if there were breaches—not least the power to impose considerable fines.
Nevertheless, I join the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord Lipsey, in their approach. We have a new chairman, Chris Meyer, who is extremely able. The Press Complaints Commission has always had extremely able chairmen adapting to the times. At this stage, I would rather give the new chairman some time. He might well be making recommendations about the sort of changes debated, the codes for the advertising industry and so on. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for raising the issue.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was bold enough to align himself with those who took part in the Charge of the Light Brigade. I must remind him that they were,
"Storm'd at by shot and shell".
because they rode up the wrong valley. I think that that is what happened today.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, will in no way be surprised to learn that the Government believe that maintaining the freedom of the press and effective self-regulation is preferable to any form of statutory control. I shall discuss the effect of the amendment shortly. We cannot support the idea of giving Ofcom powers over the newspaper industry's code of practice,

417
which is overseen by the Press Complaints Commission. That would destroy the principle of press regulation and is an unnecessary means of ensuring compliance with the industry's own principles of behaviour.
There has been a lot of talk about the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee last week. But I remind the House that the Select Committee's report was about privacy and media intrusion, not specifically press intrusion. On reading the report in detail, I find that not only did the Select Committee not follow the path proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, even for the media, but its recommendations on Ofcom's involvement were almost entirely on broadcasting. The only occasion when they suggested a relationship between Ofcom and the print media was in respect of a media scrum. In a media scrum it is very difficult to distinguish between broadcast journalists and press journalists, so there is some excuse for that relationship. That is why I think that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, quoted from the evidence to the Select Committee rather than its conclusions. It is easier to find evidence that you agree with than it is to find conclusions of the report that you agree with.
We have listened carefully to noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who talked about changes in the past few years. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, was described as complacent. All of us would agree—and he did, too—that there is still a long way to go in achieving the standards in print media that many wish to see. But I pray in aid of the Press Complaints Commission the issue of witness payments, which was raised in the House recently. In March this year the Press Complaints Commission strengthened its code on witness payments. There is evidence that, perhaps for only a short time, the situation may be improving.
I shall now discuss the wording of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, seeks to convince the House that we should examine a report on the effectiveness of press regulation rather than introduce press regulation in the amendment. The amendment does more than that, as the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, indicated. Parliament considers the effectiveness of press regulation, as the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee has done, but it has not recommended a role for Ofcom in press regulation, and we agree with that.
Under the terms of the amendment, the industry's code would remain voluntary. The vast majority of newspapers sign up to the code of practice. Only a tiny percentage of small, independent publications have chosen to opt out. But the amendment provides that Ofcom would be required to enforce the code and have power to impose fines of up to £500,000. How does that square with a voluntary code? If a government-inspired organisation such as Ofcom starts to impose fines, surely the immediate reaction of the worst end of the press will be to opt out of the Press Complaints Commission. Where would Ofcom be then? I cannot think why an editor would voluntarily sign up to a code that meant to epitomise self-regulation if it were to be enforced by Ofcom, a state regulator.
418
There are many issues about the transparency of the code's operation. People fail to recognise how the Press Complaints Commission seeks to make the terms of the code more available. I welcome this debate and am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for raising the issue. We should learn from the debate that the Press Complaints Commission is under a constant obligation to itself and the people of this country to improve the code and its enforcement. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said about that. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey, Lord Dubs and Lord Puttnam, that there are lessons to be learned. I believe that Sir Christopher Meyer is learning those lessons. I think that he will learn from the debate today. Although I am grateful for the speeches made, I do not believe that the House should accept the amendment.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as I explained, the amendment is identical to that tabled by Clive Soley in the Commons, which could not be debated because of the guillotine. I half expected that the Minister might accept the amendment so that it could return to the Commons and Clive Soley could have his debate. Overcoming that disappointment, I was very pleased by the summing-up of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. All too often, I fear, Ministers have sounded like the school sneak rushing to the proprietors saying, "Look, aren't we good boys? We are against statutory regulation". The balance should involve to a much greater extent Ministers telling the press to clean up its act.
I shall comment briefly on the gypsy warning that I received from the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I can tell him that I have cancelled my subscription to Asian Babes and to my local massage parlour. I now live a life of such monogamous heterosexuality that I would qualify to be a C of E bishop. The Sun will search my dustbin in vain. The explanation could also be advancing age.
I am pleased with the tone and the contributions today. I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, a practising journalist, in particular. There is a need for the cultural change for which he called, and for the press to establish its own ethical standards. I welcome the comments made by Sir Christopher Meyer to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. He said: "Come back in a year's time and see what progress we've made". That is a good idea. Since I started with the Charge of the Light Brigade, let me finish with the Terminator—"we'll be back". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 [Obligations to be secured by universal service conditions]:
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 65 [Tariffs etc. for universal services]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 54:
Page 66, line 40, leave out from "that" to end of line 9 on page 67 and insert "the terms on which a person is provided with anything required by the universal service order do not require him—

(a) to pay for an unnecessary additional service; or

419

(b) to pay, in respect of anything required by the order, any amount that is attributable to the provision to him of such a service.

( ) The references in subsection (3), in relation, to a person, to an unnecessary additional service are references to anything the provision of which—

(a) he has to accept by reason of his being provided, at his request, with something required by the order ("the requested service"); and

(b) is not necessary for the purpose of providing him with the requested service."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 54, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 55. Concerns were raised that the wording of Clause 65, dealing with tariffs for universal services, might permit more intrusive regulation than is desirable. The possibility of "gold-plating" was referred to. We indicated in Committee that we were sympathetic to those concerns and are accordingly putting forward these amendments to address them.
The provisions of the directive which this clause transposes—I refer to Article 10.1 of the Universal Service Directive—are concerned with ensuring that a subscriber wishing to be provided with any of the universal services specified by the directive shall not be required to pay for facilities or services which are not necessary or not required for the service requested.
The amendments address directly the question of the bundling of unnecessary services or facilities with the services requested. I believe that they effectively meet the concerns that have been raised, while continuing to provide a full implementation of the intention of the directive. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we welcome the government amendments to this clause, which reflect amendments tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to which my noble friend Baroness Wilcox and I added our names. The Bill, as previously drafted, incorrectly interpreted Article 10.1 of the Universal Service Directive. Therefore, we are grateful that the Government have reconsidered the proposed provision and amended it accordingly.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we are also grateful to the Minister for doing that which was promised by his noble friend Lord McIntosh in answer to Amendment No. 102 in our names in Committee—and to see that when somebody receives anything that has to be provided under the Universal Service Directive, he is not required to pay for anything else, or to pay for anything beyond that which is strictly necessary for the provision of that service. This is a useful amendment, and we are grateful to the Government for inserting it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 67, line 15, at end insert—
"( ) References in this section to providing a person with anything include references to making it available or supplying it to him."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 55A:
Before Clause 91, insert the following new clause—
"INVESTIGATION OF CONTRAVENTION OF CONDITION
(1) Where OFCOM determine that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person may be contravening, or may have contravened, a condition set under section 42, they may undertake an investigation.
(2) Where OFCOM decide to undertake an investigation under subsection (1), they shall give the person concerned a notice in writing which—

(a) indicates the reasons for the investigation being conducted by OFCOM;

(b) specifies in sufficient detail the condition and alleged contravention in respect of which the investigation is being undertaken; and

(c) specifies the period during which the person has an opportunity to make representations about the matter.

(3) Subject to section 95(3), the period specified under subsection (2)(c) must be a period of at least one month beginning with the day on which the notice is given."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 55A, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 56 to 64. We believe that these amendments are necessary to put in place a proper three-stage process leading up to the imposition of fines on communications providers for breaches of the general and other conditions of entitlement.
If Ofcom believes that a provider is committing a breach, the proper course of action is, first, to investigate whether this is the case; secondly, to make a decision as a result of the investigation; and, thirdly, to take enforcement action—including, where appropriate, the imposition of a fine. The clause assumes that if any provider is committing a breach, he has done so knowingly, and therefore as soon as Ofcom becomes aware of this breach it only has to issue the determination and to impose whatever penalties it chooses. But there is a three-stage process in general competition law, and it is not necessarily the case that sector regulation is easier to understand. Noble Lords who have had to read this Bill will agree that the general, significant market power and access-related conditions may cause difficulties of interpretation to the wide range of new communications providers that now fall within the remit of Ofcom.
Even under the existing regime, experience has shown that many alleged breaches of conditions turn out, on investigation, not to be breaches after all. It is unreasonable to expect providers to start remedying alleged breaches before it has been established by Ofcom that such a breach has occurred. In Committee, the Minister suggested, on 20th May, at col. 707, that attempting to replace a two- stage process with a three-stage process, as we propose, would actually result in a six-stage process. That is a misleading caricature of the amendment, because two of the stages that the Minister invented were of the serving of notices. That is an operation requiring no longer than the time it takes to draft the notices, and the Minister manages to insert a further stage by treating the process of formal

421
investigation and the opportunity for representation as consecutive rather than concurrent, as they would be.
We do not accept that a three stage process need take much longer, or that it has had the dire results attributed to it under the existing regime, let alone under general competition law. There are rules and procedures for investigating breaches of the Competition Act 1998, drawn up by the Office of Fair Trading, known as the directors' rules. We see no reason why that should not read across into the Bill, and, to put it the other way round, we do see problems arising if there is a radical difference between the two regimes of this Bill and of the Competition Act.
Even more fundamentally, we say that there is a serious misinterpretation of Article 10 of the Authorisation Directive, dealing with compliance. Article 10.2 deals with the situation where a national regulatory authority "finds" that an undertaking does not comply with the conditions, while in the Bill that word is transmuted into "determine that there are reasonable grounds for believing". Secondly, the subject of this determination has to take what the Minister calls "remedial action", which may include the payment of substantial sums of money, at the same time as that person is making representations against the "determination", or he risks the payment of a substantial fine if Ofcom's belief turns out to be true. The undertaking has to accept that a breach has been committed and do whatever Ofcom may require to remedy it while at the same time arguing that Ofcom misdirected itself in making the original determination. That is a profoundly unsatisfactory and unfair process. It cannot have been the intention of the directive, because it defies natural law. Can the Minister name any other country in Europe which is using the term "finds" in Article 10.2 to mean a decision taken out of the blue, placing an undertaking under the obligation to take costly action within a month to remedy alleged breaches of the conditions which it denies.
The Minister said, in our debate on 20th May:
"It would be in breach of a person's right to a fair hearing and against natural justice to make a conclusive determination before allowing a person to make representations".—[Official Report, 20/5/03; col. 707.]
But that is exactly what the Bill does.
Ofcom determines that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a contravention has occurred. Secondly, it issues a notification. Thirdly, the undertaking makes representations, but at the same time complies with the notified conditions and remedies the consequences of the breaches. Fourthly, if at the end of a month from the date of the notice, the undertaking has not fully complied with the notice, Ofcom may issue an enforcement notification. Fifthly, Ofcom may take civil proceedings if the undertaking still fails to comply. The Government's process has five stages, as compared to the three in ours. Only at the fifth stage could the undertaking get a fair hearing if it has rejected the initial notice as unreasonable.
The Minister's argument, and the procedure for dealing with breaches in the Bill, fail to recognise that there will be situations, as there are now, where an issue is not clear cut, because the regulator has to judge whether something is "unfair", or because there has to he interpretation of an obligation. There are going to be cases where, after proper consideration of the representations made, Ofcom will reverse its original belief and decide that no breach has occurred. That surely the Government must acknowledge; if Ofcom were infallible, there would be no point in allowing representations. But where the company is exonerated after consideration, it will have incurred financial, competitive and goodwill losses, for which it has no remedy. Nor is there any penalty against the competitor whose complaint is not upheld after more thorough investigation. That will inevitably encourage the use of complaints by firms that come under legitimate competitive pressure.
We are not trying to make the enforcement of conditions unnecessarily bureaucratic or cumbersome, and we recognise that there may be cases where there is a serious risk to public health, public safety or national security, or where serious operational or economic problems may be caused to another provider or user, so we accept the urgency procedures of Clause 95. The Minister says these are "extremely limited", but we believe that they fully meet the danger of,
"substantial and possibly irreversible adverse consequences".— [Official Report. 20/5/03; col. 706.]
which the Minister ascribed to a genuine investigation of prima facie breaches of the conditions. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we support the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these are identical to the amendments tabled in Committee, and I am sorry that the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, did not like my response then. I shall try again.
In the noble Lord's closing remarks on the amendments in Committee, he raised a point of semantics as central to his position. He suggested that the use of the word "finds" in Article 10 of the Authorisation Directive meant that there had to be an investigation by Ofcom before it could justifiably take enforcement action. He said:
"One does not find something to be true out of thin air"—
or, as he now says, "out of the blue". He continued:
"Evidence must be produced. In particular, if one is examining a case that involves substantial penalties, one must allow the person who is being accused the opportunity of rebutting the allegations".—[Official Report, 20/5/03; col. 708.]
I take it that the thrust of his argument is the same now.
I quoted the noble Lord in full, because he put my own point very well. I quite agree that Ofcom should not be able to impose a penalty or require remedial action without first producing evidence of the contravention and allowing an opportunity for representations. But that is exactly what Clause 91

423
already requires. Enforcement action can be commenced in accordance with Clause 91 only where Ofcom has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is contravening or has contravened a condition. In many instances—probably the majority—prior investigation of the matter in issue will be necessary before Ofcom will be able to decide whether or not it has such "reasonable grounds".
The amendments would have the effect of mandating a formal investigation after Ofcom has already determined that it has reasonable grounds for believing that a breach has or is occurring. Thus on this basis it is very possible that Ofcom would have to carry out two investigations, one in order to determine whether it has grounds to carry out an investigation under Clause 91, and one under Clause 91 itself. We do not need, and should not have, statutory provision requiring Ofcom to carry out an investigation in order to determine whether it has reasonable grounds to believe that a contravention is occurring or has occurred, as these amendments would provide.
Ofcom will have the necessary investigatory powers, notably through the collection of information in accordance with Clause 132. Where it uses them, it must do so in accordance with the procedures in Clauses 134 and 135. However, in some cases, sufficient evidence may be presented at first instance—for example, in documents supplied by a complainant—or may have been obtained informally. To require a preliminary investigation in those circumstances, before a notification of contravention could be issued, would only add bureaucratic delay. Nor is there any question of the subject of Ofcom's enforcement actions not being informed of' the case against them and the evidence for it. The notification to be given under Clause 91 must set out the basis for the making of Ofcom's determination, and the subject of action must be allowed a period—normally, a month, as required by the directives—in which to make representations to Ofcom on it and to take any corrective or remedial action that may be necessary, if it so wishes.
Only at the end of that period will Ofcom have power to make a final determination on whether or not there has been a contravention and, if appropriate, impose penalties or other remedies. If the subject of notification takes appropriate remedial action within the period, whether or not he also makes representations against the notification, Ofcom cannot impose any financial penalty or take any other enforcement action against them, even if they subsequently find there to have been a breach. The failsafe is in the opposite direction from that claimed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Of course, in addition there is a full right of appeal to the tribunal on the merits, so there is no question of prejudice to the rights of the subject of the enforcement action under Clause 91.
I also take issue with the noble Lord on his claim, which he made last time and repeated today, that taking action on the basis of reasonable belief is contrary to the directive. Article 10 of the Authorisation Directive requires that, where the regulator finds that there is a breach, it shall notify the operators of that finding and give them a reasonable opportunity to state their views and remedy any breaches within a specified period. If
424
they do not do so, the regulator is then required to take measures to ensure compliance, including imposing financial penalties where appropriate. In our view, it would be in breach of a person's right to a fair hearing and against natural justice to make a conclusive determination before allowing a person to make representations. As the directive requires representations to be capable of being made and remedial action to be taken following the finding, we believe that it is legitimate to interpret the reference to "find" in this context as meaning that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a contravention has occurred or is occurring.
I remind noble Lords that, under the present system, in some cases, by the time effective enforcement action could be taken, those affected by the breach could already have suffered substantial, and possibly irreversible, adverse consequences. The new provisions streamline the enforcement process. But, in order to conform with the directives, normally at least a month has to elapse between Ofcom issuing a contravention notice and the issue being finally decided, before any remedial action can be taken.
The noble Lord also suggested that the provisions of Clause 95 were sufficient to allow Ofcom to deal urgently with cases where a breach of condition by an operator was causing substantial and possibly irreversible damage. He suggested that my argument that the clause was too narrow was not a strong one. However, the clause allows, among other things, for the normal period of a month for representations to be waived. Consequently, the test for applying the Clause 95 powers is very strict, as it should be. To use them, Ofcom must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the alleged breach in question creates an immediate risk of a serious threat to public health, safety or security, or serious economic or operational problems for other users or suppliers. So it would not be possible to use these powers in more routine cases.
Nevertheless, some of those cases could involve potentially significant, and possibly irreversible, detriments to the profitability and competitiveness of other operators and/or to consumers, even though they might not be so serious as to drive the victim out of business. In that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right; Clause 95 could be used in those circumstances.
Clause 91 provides for procedures that are robust enough to minimise the risk of such difficulties and to limit delay, while giving those subject to them sufficient opportunity to defend themselves and avoid penalties.
Amendment No. 64 seeks to replace the provisions of subsections (4) to (II) of the clause with a general power for Ofcom to make procedural rules by statutory instrument. Presumably the aim here is to provide more opportunity for discussion and debate on the detailed enforcement processes and to limit Ofcom's discretion to make and amend its own administrative procedures. We do not consider that such a change would be either necessary or desirable. There has already been considerable opportunity for interested parties to comment and make suggestions in the area and we have considered the points made to us.

425
Ofcom needs to be allowed a certain amount of discretion and flexibility in regard to its administration of the various powers and duties which Parliament will be giving it in order to be able to respond quickly to new developments and as its experience of operating the new system increases. It will be under various obligations to ensure that its processes and the means by which those are drawn up are fair and transparent. The obligations are set out in Clauses 3, 6, 142 and 385. It is unnecessary to add to them in this way.
I wish to make a final point about the word "finds". The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me whether any other country in Europe is interpreting the word "finds" as a decision out of the blue. This is not a question of Ofcom making a decision out of the blue: it must make a determination that it has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a contravention of a condition. That is the theme that I would like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to take back to British Telecom as a result of our debate today.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, obviously we shall discuss the Minister's careful and thorough reply with those who have advised us on these amendments, but at first sight I must say that I am wholly dissatisfied with what he has said. First, the noble Lord has not shown that there is anywhere else in Europe where the term "finds" is being used in the way envisaged in this Bill. The word suggests a process that does not require any previous investigation, which in the normal English use of the term "finds"—as in "the court finds"—means that some process of investigation has been undertaken and that that process has led to the conclusion being reached.
Furthermore, the noble Lord did not address the argument that I presented about the consequences for the person who has to take remedial action so as to avoid the possibility of a fine. The undertaking may consider that it has a very good response to the allegation. It then puts in its representations, but to avoid the possibility that the regulator may impose a fine amounting to as much as 10 per cent of turnover at the conclusion of the one-month delay, the undertaking is forced to take this remedial action which may, as I have said, be extremely costly and against which, if the regulator finds that it is not guilty of the breach as was first claimed, the undertaking has no remedy whatsoever. The operator will have paid over money, it will have taken steps which may have damaged its market position, but at the end of one month, if the regulator finds that it has not been guilty of a breach of a condition, it has no remedy whatsoever.
However, in light of the fairly thorough argument put to us by the noble Lord, we shall now take the matter back to those who advise us and consider whether we must return to the matter at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 [Notification of contravention of conditions]:
[Amendments Nos. 56 to 64 not moved.]
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, this may be a convenient moment to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned until after Starred Questions.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.35 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking a ministerial visit to the Isle of Man on Monday 7th July? I will also be attending an all-day Cabinet meeting on Thursday 10th July. Accordingly, I trust the House will grant me leave of absence on both these occasions.

United States: Extradition Treaty
3.1 p.m.
Lord Goodhartasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have agreed to an extradition treaty with the United States which, on a non-reciprocal basis, authorises extradition of a person to the United States without the need to produce supporting information which would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person committed the offence for which extradition is requested.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords. US extradition law does not allow the United States to abolish the prima facie evidential requirement. We are not in the same position. We see no reason why a lack of reciprocity should prevent us from removing the prima facie evidential requirement for incoming requests when it is to our mutual advantage to do so.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, do the Government understand that there is very great concern about abolishing the prima facie evidence rule except on a fully reciprocal basis? Do the Government understand that there is also great concern about abolishing that requirement at all in relation to the USA given the unacceptably low standards of criminal justice in some states such as Texas?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says, but it is right that we recognise

427
that the United States of America is still one of the greatest democracies in the world. We currently do not require prima facie evidence in countries such as Turkey, Azerbaijan and Albania, or, indeed, any of the signatories to the European Convention on Extradition, of whom there are more than 40. That has not given rise to any problems. That being so, we see no reason why we should impose a more stringent requirement on an established democracy such as the United States.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that all the countries that she mentioned are governed by the broad principles of European Union conventions and those of the Council of Europe? Can she comment on whether, given the significance of the extradition treaty which raises serious issues, the case is not strengthened for this House to have a Select Committee on treaties in line with the position of the United States Senate which has the right to advise and consent on treaty issues? Does the Minister recall that Members of this House as distinguished as the noble Lords, Lord Alexander and Lord Wakeham, and, indeed, other senior Members of this House, have on occasion over the years pleaded for a Select Committee? Would she herself support such an initiative?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is always open to the House to decide whether it is appropriate to have a Select Committee. The noble Baroness rightly identifies many of the very distinguished Members of this House. Indeed, not one Member sits on these Benches without sharing that distinction. Both Houses of Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise the treaty in due course as the matter will come before the House. At the moment that appears to be the most appropriate way of dealing with the matter. If there are other matters that the House wishes to consider in due course, that is something for the future.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that she did not see why we should insist on reciprocity when that was to our mutual advantage. Can she explain to the House why it is to our mutual advantage to concede this measure to the Americans when they have not conceded it to us? Surely by conceding it to them unilaterally we remove any power or pressure we have to persuade them to modify their law if we give it up empty-handed?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have negotiated a very good treaty with our American partners without there being a need to impose the reciprocal arrangements. We have been able to do that—it is advantageous to us—because they are the major partners with whom we operate and have operated historically. The provision that we have established with our American partners is better than
428
the provisions that currently operate between the EU generally and the Americans. That is advantageous to this country.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a number of Members of your Lordships' House have been, and still are, engaged in the discussion of the Extradition Bill related to the European Union? We are endeavouring to ensure through a series of amendments that human rights are adequately protected. Will we have a similar opportunity in relation to the extradition treaty with the United States?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I have already said, both Houses will have an opportunity to debate the matter when it comes before them. We shall have an opportunity to consider the specific provision.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in the light of the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, the noble Baroness said that we had gained significant advantages by ceding this particular concession. Can she say what they are?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it relates to the way in which the returns will take place. Your Lordships will know, as I say, that the USA is the UK's largest single extradition partner. In 2002, we surrendered 12 people to the United States and have had three returned from there. Noble Lords will know that in the past this has been a difficult, complex and long drawn out procedure. The new procedure that we have in place will enable us to have exchanges with the United States far quicker than we would otherwise have done. That is a real advantage to us.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Select Committee of the European Union's subcommittee, of which I am a member, has expressed great concern about the EU/US extradition arrangements in terms of human rights and civil liberties? Can the Minister explain why the bilateral treaty with the United States has far fewer safeguards of human rights, except in relation to the death penalty, than even the EU/US treaty which at least protects the constitutional principles of European states in relation to extradition to the United States for what is an offence punishable only by one year's imprisonment?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we do not accept that the current bilateral treaty with the United States is less advantageous than the EU—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, that was not my question. I refer to the treaty that we are now debating— the future treaty that has not yet been ratified, not the existing treaty. Why does that not contain at least the same safeguards as the EU treaty?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, of course—the noble Lord will know this very well—we

429
are still a member of the EU and therefore have the benefit of that treaty. In addition, we have the benefit of the bilateral treaty. We argue that the bilateral treaty that we have now engaged in will bring additional benefits over and above that which the EU has signed.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that while the United States may be one of the greatest democracies in the world, some of the methods it uses in relation to people in prison, particularly in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, cause many of us a great deal of worry? Can she say how this treaty will be discussed within the House of Commons and this House? Will it be on the basis of an Order in Council or will we need primary legislation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it will be an Order in Council.

Victims of Torture
3.9 p.m.
Lord Hyltonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will increase their contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture and ask the European Union and the United States to do the same.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, tackling the scourge of torture is a priority for the Government reflected in the anti-torture initiative we began in 1998. Our funding of projects and organisations varies from year to year. We support the UN Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture although we decreased our funding last year while increasing funding on human rights projects overall by E 1 million. Decisions on next year's funding are under consideration.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Is she aware—I expect that she is—that torture has recently been used in some 60 countries, with the result that about half a million torture victims are living in the United States of America? The United States Government are keen to increase funds for rehabilitation.
The noble Baroness is very persuasive. Can she convince the European Union to restore its cut of 7.5 million dollars, which has left 30 medical centres without support in places where they are often the only source of help?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware that torture is a terrible scourge. It is important not only to support the victims of torture, but to try to deal with the whole problem by preventing torture
430
from happening in the first place. The European Union does not fund the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. Instead, it funds individual rehabilitation centres, both inside and outside the EU, through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights. The United Kingdom pays 17 per cent of the funding for that European initiative. Much of its efforts are directed not only to victims of torture, but to dealing with the problem before it can get a hold.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a number of NGOs that provide direct assistance to the victims of torture all over the world recently wrote to the head of the human rights commission, Mr Sergio Vieira de Mello, opposing any suggestion that the fund be amalgamated with other trust funds under the control of the UN? Will she assure the House that the Government will uphold the political independence of the UN Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture, which has been its most valuable asset?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the independence is enormously important, so I take the noble Lord's point, but I stress that there are a number of different ways to tackle the terrible problem. That is what I hoped that my initial Answer implied. After all, there is the OSCE's anti-torture programme, the African Commission on Human Rights, and also our own projects in the United Kingdom. Another way to tackle the problem is being undertaken today by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. With the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, he is launching a new handbook entitled Combating Torture.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, following the noble Baroness's very clear answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and given that some of the rehabilitation centres may have to close, what are the Government doing to replace them? Will victims of torture he left without support?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I will look very carefully at the numbers of the centres that may close. I assure the noble Baroness that I take the point very seriously. There are number of different ways in which we are trying to tackle the problem. I absolutely agree with the implication of her point—that people should not be left high and dry—which is important. However, my central argument is that it is enormously important to tackle the causes of torture. I have been able to specify the booklet launched today, and I hope that noble Lords will also be pleased to know that today we are signing up to the optional protocol to the convention against torture. That is another very important step in developing our armoury.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned our own domestic programme. Does that refer to the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture? If so, would she consider, either in

431
her own department or elsewhere, extending some funding to that organisation, which does invaluable work and is very short of funds?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord whether our domestic programme comprehends that. I have details of six or seven projects that the department has told me are covered by the programme, but that project is not mentioned. I shall ask the department for further details and write to the noble Lord.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to deal with the increased demand for diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the Government's 2001 sexual health and HIV strategy contains a number of measures to improve access to diagnosis and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. We have already committed £47.5 million to support strategy implementation and will invest an additional £40 million over the next two years, including investment in genito-urinary medicine clinics to improve capacity and reduce waiting times. To improve the quality of services, we are developing recommended standards for the treatment of HIV and STIs.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but the situation is far from satisfactory. People wish to remain anonymous when they go to seek advice as to whether they are suffering from a sexually transmitted disease. For that reason, the drop-in clinics have proved good, because there is no priority funding from the PCTs for sexual clinics. At present, drop-in clinics are having to close their doors within half an hour of opening, Because the demand is so great. People are being turned away. Those who wait often have to wait three to four hours. There is underfunding for trained consultants in the subject.
Will the Minister either see that more drop-in clinics are funded specifically to deal with this enormous public health crisis, or consider supra-regional funding so that there could be a number of special centres?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we anticipate that by 2004 there will be an increase of around 35 trained specialists in genito-urinary medicine. That will make some contribution to the position on waiting times in those clinics. So far as concerns PCTs and the primary care sector, we are trying to shift the balance of power to emphasise much more local decision-making, with the majority of health resources being distributed to
432
PCTs. The spending review settlement provides for a significant new investment for PCTs, and enables them to plan for the next three years. However, it is unrealistic to expect sexual health to be funded differently from other NHS programmes.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the recent report of the Select Committee on Health was a damning indictment of the Government's lack of priority towards sexual health policy. That is only evidenced by the delay in 2001 of the publication of the national strategy for sexual health, the delay in the introduction of accurate nation-wide chlamydia screening, and the delay in the national awareness campaign. When will the Government respond to what the Health Committee rightly called a crisis, by making the problem a much higher priority and adding much greater resources to it?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we have said that we welcome the report by the Select Committee on Health. However, it is worth bearing in mind, as I said in my Answer, that we laid out in 2001 a sexual health and HIV strategy. A 27-point action plan was published in 2002 that highlighted what developments would be made, and recommended standards for HIV treatment and care, treatment of STIs, psycho-sexual services and reproductive health services. The HIV standards will be published shortly, and work is under way on other areas.
We do not accept that nothing is being done. The issue is difficult. We have a 10-year strategy, and a very effective campaign— the sex lottery campaign—is being worked on and launched at the moment, aiming to change sexual behaviour among younger people. The key to much of the success in the area is changing that behaviour.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on 6th February I asked whether a national service framework could be set up for sexually transmitted diseases and other infections? I hope that he will consider that. Will he tell the House why there is such an explosion of the conditions? Is he aware that syphilis rose 500 per cent within the year?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we must all be very worried about the rise in these conditions. That is why we have the strategy that do we have, and that is why we are engaged in the sex lottery campaign. Noble Lords may smile, but we are trying to engage in a serious issue with young people, who are in many cases the leading group in terms of the rise in these diseases. We have to engage with young people where they are, and with their value sets and their behaviour.
The lifetime number of heterosexual partners is increasing—which is a major contribution in this regard. In the past year there has been an increase in concurrent partnerships. Although there has been an increase in consistent condom use, the benefits of greater condom use have been offset by the increase in the number of reported partners. We are also seeing

433
some figures reflecting the fact that we are getting better and faster at diagnosing such infections, and are therefore able to produce a treatment response.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, first, I must declare an interest as the chair of the independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV, whose responsibility it is to try to ensure that the 27-point action plan referred to by my noble friend is carried out. Perhaps I may pursue a little further the question of resources. I appreciate the points that my noble friend made about the budget that the Government have already spent. But that would not even cover half the cost of rolling out a chlamydia campaign. I know that there will be a further 10 pilots, but it is important that the chlamydia campaign is rolled out throughout the country.
What inducements will there be for PCTs, in order to make sure that they prioritise the question of sexual health and are given adequate resources to deal with it? My noble friend mentioned the sex lottery campaign. It is a good campaign—I do not want to take away from that—but there is the question of whether we need a much more hard-hitting national campaign in order to make sure that the young in particular understand the consequences of unprotected sex.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the department is rolling out a chlamydia screening programme. Ten areas, covering 30 PCTs and over 400 individual testing sites, are involved in the first phase of the programme. Expressions of interest will shortly be sought from a further 10 areas covering a similar number of primary care trusts. Apart from Sweden, England is the only European country currently introducing a nationwide programme of this particular kind. An extra £8.5 million will be spent on chlamydia screening during 2004–05.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the real question the Government have to answer is why it has taken those in the department so long to turn their attention to this problem from yet more reorganisation of the health service and a seeming total concentration on waiting-lists. Is not the time well overdue to have a health promotion campaign stressing the need for abstinence in cohabitation and to use sex education in schools to point out the dangers as well as the joy of sex?
Lord Warner: My Lords, work is continuing on strengthening sex education in schools. I do not think the noble Lord can say that we have been sitting on our hands. The strategy was published over two years ago, in 2001. I have already given the House a lot of details of the kind of results that are being produced. All I would observe is that calls for abstinence come, critically at this time, from people of an older disposition rather than from those who are younger.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, which age group is most affected by these diseases?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the age groups most affected are younger people, between the ages of 18 and 30—that
434
is why we are concentrating the sex lottery campaign on that particular age group. Many of the infections, particularly among women, are found in younger women, under the age of 20.

Genetically Modified Crops
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Byfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
What research is being done into the effect which genetically modified crops might have on human health.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the GM science review is currently examining the considerable research already available on the health impact of GM crops and is expected to report next month. On the food side, the Food Standards Agency spends about £2 million a year on research into GM food safety. Each individual GM crop and each individual GM food must be rigorously researched and tested, including for any potential toxicity or allergenicity, before approval can be given.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that his former colleague, Michael Meacher, accused Tony Blair's spin doctors and Ministers of systematically ignoring and rubbishing the evidence that genetically modified crops could be a health hazard. He said that many of the health tests carried out were scientifically vacuous. If that is so, and if, as the Minister has indicated, the current research will not be available until next month, is it not ridiculous that the Government are going ahead with their GM consultation when the evidence on which we should be basing our decisions is not yet available to the general public?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I have explained to the House on several occasions, the GM consultation is covering a whole range of aspects relating to the use of genetic modification techniques. It is not related to any particular decision on commercialisation. Two other strands of that examination of the issue are the science review, to which I have referred, and the economic review. Both pieces of evidence will be available next month. The totality of the public consultation and those pieces of research will form part of the background for future decisions. So it all fits together. I refute completely the noble Baroness's interpretation of my former colleague's remarks. He was in fact pointing out that there are areas of research that need further consideration. That is indeed what the Food Standards Agency is engaged in.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain whether the Government's view on genetically

435
modified crops is that they are all right until they are proved wrong, or that they are unacceptable until they are proved right?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government's view is that the case for GM crops has yet to be proved and the case against GM crops has yet to be proved. That is why we require this information. That is why the science review is so important. That is why, on every individual application for an individual commercialisation of a GM product, we have laid down, both at British and at European level, rigorous tests of its safety and its effect on the environment. We have yet to take decisions on new individual applications.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is some danger in the kind of confusion that has been reflected in terms of the issues of food safety and human health and the desirability of commercial cultivation and environmental effects? Can he confirm that every novel food—including, but not exclusively, food based on GM crops—has undergone a rigorous safety assessment and been approved, and that the Food Standards Agency agrees with that? Does he further agree that it is important to look at health benefits in the round? Perhaps non-food crops. such as GM cotton, which are saving the lives of agricultural workers in China because of the reduced effects of pesticides, should also be considered.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, to take my noble friend's final point, that is why the debate has to be very rounded. We need to examine the economics in development situations as well as in the UK and European situations, and the benefits or otherwise of GM crops in the round. As regards the first part of her question, I think that there is some confusion between the growing of crops—which raises issues of potential environment problems, and therefore issues of regulation for the co-existence of GM crops and other crops—and the issue of food safety, which, as my noble friend indicates, is thoroughly researched before any permission for commercialisation is given.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the implications for human health may not relate only to GM crops themselves? The herbicides used on such crops, because they are herbicide tolerant crops, are extremely strong and extremely toxic, and can end up in water courses. I believe that the United States Environmental Protection Agency is beginning to have severe doubts about the use of such herbicides. Do we really want such herbicides used to that degree in England?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the method of production that includes the use of herbicides, and the relative use of herbicides on potential GM crops, will be part of the assessment of the environmental impact of giving
436
approval to commercialised crops in this country. The noble Baroness is right that it is not just the crops themselves, but the total production effect.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government's approach to this general area is fairly complacent, to say the least? I say that simply on the back of the fact that these crops are now in fairly widespread use across many countries, without apparent harm so far.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that the first half and the second half of the noble Lord's question stand together well. I deny that the Government have shown any complacency. There is widespread concern about the impact of the crops; and there are widespread claims for the benefits of these crops. What we intend to do—and engage the public in—is carry out an assessment of the balance of those arguments, based on sound science. That is what we are involved in now.
It is not an issue of complacency, nor is the fact that crops have been successfully cultivated in other countries necessarily a sufficient criterion for us taking that decision in Britain and Europe. Our decision will involve the public view and will meet the public's concerns, but will be based on sound science.

Business of the House: Recess Dates
3.32 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, before the Statements I should like to say a few words about recess dates. Back on 6th May, I told the House that the date on which the Summer Recess would begin, subject to the progress of business, would be Thursday 17th July. Since then, progress has been slower than expected. Therefore, with regret, I must tell your Lordships that my target date for rising has had to he revised by one day. The usual channels currently envisage the House sitting on Friday 18th July, and rising for the recess on that date.
I should add, as ever, that this is always subject to the progress of business. On 17th July, Starred Questions will be at 11 o'clock; the usual channels have discussed this. With regard to the September sitting, it remains our intention that the House will sit from Monday 8th September to Thursday 18th September. Finally, I can tell the House that, again subject to the progress of business between now and the Summer Recess, and during the September sitting, the spillover will start on Monday 6th October.
I cannot rule out the possibility that we may need to come back before that date, but I can assure the House that all of us in the usual channels fervently hope that that will not be the case.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that statement. We have had great diligence in the usual channels in the last few days

437
in arriving at the business. Like him, I regret and deplore the proposal that we need to sit on Friday 18th July, after a long succession of successive Friday sittings. The cause is the volume and complexity of the Government's legislative programme, which has been compounded by important additions to it, such as fluoride to the Water Bill.
On the question of the recess, I regret that the noble Lord is proposing to sit from 6th October. I draw attention to the fact that contrary to what was published last summer, this means that we will be sitting during the Conservative Party conference. I suggest that, if this kind of thing should be necessary in future years, the other parties should take on some of the problems that this causes. We should therefore, in successive years in turn, sit during the Labour Party conference and the Liberal Democrat Party conference.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am glad to see that there is a wide measure of agreement to that suggestion on the Labour Benches. Finally, I say to noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms that the recess starting on 18th September is called, in some parts of this House, the conference recess. What does the Chief Whip call it?
Lord Roper: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that statement. A great deal of work has been done in the last few days to ensure that we do not stray into the following week, which I am sure would not have been popular in any part of the House. I am grateful to the Government for finding ways in which we have been able to avoid that.
It would be convenient in the future if the Attendants' Office did not send out a note about recess mail arrangements until the dates for the recesses are finally known. This has caused a great deal of confusion in all parts of the House in the last few days. We must make sure that this does not occur in the future.
I support what the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said about Friday sittings. We need to have a better strategy, looking at the parliamentary year as a whole, so that we can have a more even spread of Friday sittings through the year, rather than having bunching during this period.
Finally, I heard what was said about the great regret on the Official Opposition Benches about the recall on 6th October. On these Benches, we are glad that time will be available for us to attend the Liberal Democrat conference, and we are not prepared to see any change in those arrangements in the future.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am grateful to my colleagues—conspirators—in the usual channels, for some of the comments that they have made. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, referred to the complexity of the Government's legislative programme. I want to
438
put on record, for the benefit of the House, the size of this year's legislative programme compared to one or two other years.
So far this year, 34 government Bills have been introduced. I can compare that to, for example, the Session 1980–81—which, if my memory serves me, was not one when my party was in power—when some 57 Bills were introduced. Also, in 1981–82, some 46 Bills were introduced and in 1984–85, some 54 Bills were introduced. Some complaints therefore should perhaps have been addressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, during that period. I was not here at the time, so I am not sure whether there were complaints. Therefore, this is not an unusual legislative programme.
I have sympathy with the points that both the noble Lords, Lord Roper and Lord Cope of Berkeley, made about Friday sittings. A great deal of the work that we do on Fridays, as the House knows, consists of Private Members' legislation. for one, having been a Private Member for a long time, attach importance to that. I would love to find better ways of managing the business, and all suggestions will be gratefully received. However, we need to bear that in mind when we complain about Friday sittings.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, referred to the proposal that the House should sit during the Conservative Party conference. I know that Members opposite are anxious to get away at that time. I point out again that when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was in charge, during the Session 1989–90 the House sat during the Conservative Party conference; in 1985–86 the House sat during the Conservative Party conference; in 1980–81 the House sat during the Conservative Party conference; and in 1979–80 the House sat during the Conservative Party conference. Those dates were under a Conservative government. So it is not an uncommon decision to be made. Whether complaints were made in the House, I do not know because I was not here.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, asked me how I describe the period that he calls the "conference recess" between the September sitting and the sitting at the beginning of October. I do not know what to call the recess, but, as far as I am concerned, any recess has the characteristic of being a blessed relief. That fortnight is no different from any other period.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, for acknowledging that it is difficult to manage this programme. I hope that the House appreciates that we do work hard, in as much agreement as we can, but it is surely far better to sit on that Friday than to sit in the following week.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that 6th October is also Yom Kippur? For the many Jewish Members of this House, it is quite impossible to attend, whether one is pious or not. I ask him to think again about that date.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I say to my noble friend that this is not by any means the first time that the House has sat at that time of year. I recognise that almost any date can have particular difficulties. I do not in any way

439
dismiss his point. All that we in the usual channels can do is to try and please most of the people most of the time. Whether we succeed or not is for the House to judge.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the number of government Bills per Session is not the only relevant criterion for measuring government business? In this Session, the Government have produced an absurdly large number of very long Bills, including, for example, the Criminal Justice Bill, which is already 374 pages long and has 307 clauses and 32 schedules; moreover, the clauses and schedules may be added to. That is not the only Bill that has an excessive amount of detail. Will the Government persuade Ministers, civil servants and parliamentary counsel in the next Session of Parliament to be more in favour of statements of principle rather than masses of detail?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that, yes, there are long and complex Bills but this is not the first government who have introduced long and complex Bills. He mentioned the Criminal Justice Bill; I remind him that the public outside this House are waiting for Parliament to enact that Bill and the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, which is not quite so long or complicated, because they contain many aspects that respond to the public's requests and demands. That is particularly the case with the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill. I know that we should not be too partisan in this place but there have been two general elections and on each occasion the government were returned by a massive majority. The Government have a right to have their legislation considered in this House. I agree that legislation gets rather complex and I very much agree that the shorter and sharper the Bill, the better. However, I repeat that this is not the first time that governments have introduced complex pieces of legislation.
Lord Carter: My Lords, my noble friend gave some interesting figures but can he tell us the year in which a government had the House sitting until 11 th August? Why they did not sit on 12th August, I cannot imagine. I believe that the same government required us to sit in September, unusually, because the programme was out of control.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, my noble friend did not give me notice of that question so I do not happen to have the answer to hand. However, I am absolutely confident that, because he asked the question, the answer to both will be that that occurred under a Conservative government.
Lord Carter: Yes.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as this debate continues, it only confirms what we on
440
these Benches have known right from the beginning: that both parties make an incredible mess of the programme in the run up to every recess?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I can only assure the House that there is one person who would dearly like to move smoothly towards an early recess more than anyone else, and that is me.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, is the problem not the size of the Government's majority but that the other place is no longer doing its job properly and that it is sending huge volumes of legislation up here that has not been looked at? The Government's so-called modernisation programme is resulting in the House of Commons, which contains full-time paid Members, sitting fewer hours, while this House, with part-time Members, is expected to do more and more to make up for the job that they are not doing?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that that is not a bad idea in a bicameral system. As someone with long experience of another place, I wonder whether he accepts the criticism that while he was a senior Minister and his government were in office, the other place was doing too much, or did something miraculously change on lst May 1997?
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I accept that it changed, and I believe that it did so for the better. It is important that both Houses exercise their scrutiny responsibilities properly. However, when the system is working properly, there should be a complementary system between the two Houses. I see nothing at all untoward in this House having a particular expertise in a particular area and spending longer on that matter than the other House, and vice versa. I return to the idea that we are being less than precise with each other when we suggest that all of those difficulties happen to have occurred since 1st May 1997 and that nothing similar happened during the previous 18 years.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, "subject to the progress of business" is a phrase that has been used down the years by Chief Whips of all parties on many occasions. It is not a trite phrase; it means what it says. The Government are entitled to try to get their business through by agreement.
I am struck by the fact that every word that has been said in this debate, with the exception of the Chief Whips, must be studied. However, I am heartened by the fact that the two Chief Whips who spoke, besides the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, recognised that, in a very difficult situation, the best has been made of what one might call a bad job. That is not to say that they agree with it, but in the end they have had to agree to the proposition of the Government Chief Whip. I am heartened that that is their relationship; that is a good thing.
The Government Chief Whip would be well advised to try to take a longer look at the business, if possible. Since we returned from the Whit break until now, days

441
were set down for progress. The problem occurred because we collectively decided to take matters late into the night and forced business on to a Friday. I regret the fact that the Government Chief Whip has extended the Session. However, I very much hope that he will take note of the fact that although that is to the dislike of the House, we give him our support.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to my noble friend for the friendly way in which he spelt that out. I shall give one more statistic; it is the last one that I will give to the House. There is no mystery about the job; it is simply a question of trying to fit the demands into the time available. I ask the House to reflect on this statistic if on nothing else: the slowest Bill in the previous Session on the Floor of the House—the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill—took 21 minutes per group of amendments. In this Session, the Licensing Bill took 21 minutes per group, the Community Care (Delayed Discharges Etc) Bill took 21 minutes, the Courts Bill took 23 minutes, the Sexual Offences Bill took 24 minutes, the Communications Bill took 24 minutes and the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill took 30 minutes. The simple fact—I do nothing other than report it to the House—is that Bills are taking longer in Committee in the Chamber than they did in the previous Session. I simply put those figures to the House. If anyone wishes to suggest anything different about those statistics, I shall be grateful for any suggestions. Clearly—any government must acknowledge this—Bills that take an average of 30 minutes per group of amendments on the Floor of the House will inevitably slow down the programme. I make no more bold a statement than that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Chief Whip said that we have spent Friday after Friday on Private Members' Bills. That is really a terrible waste of time—I speak as one who has moved a Private Member's Bill. We are able to air issues very well in this House, but there is no hope whatever of those issues getting a fair hearing when they reach the other place because they go at the end of the queue. Can the Government look at the procedures between the two Houses? If a Private Member's Bill goes through the Commons, we give it a very fair hearing in this House.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I do not disagree at all with the thrust of that suggestion. The system is not the most efficient. However, those who speak for governments are necessarily diffident about giving advice on the way in which the Private Member's procedure should be considered. I agree that there is frequently wasteful time between the two Houses.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I support my noble friend and congratulate him on the skill with which he has explained the difficult situation in which the Government find themselves: their programme is somewhat gridlocked and there have been many complaints about the intrusions on noble Lords' time.
442
Does the prospect of a long, complex and controversial Bill to ban hunting help the Government and my noble friend in this situation or is it unhelpful?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I discovered in this job that, the longer one goes on, the less one is concerned about content and the more one is concerned about getting the machine going on the rails. I know my noble friend's views on this matter and I know the answer that he wants me to give. But I simply say to him that these Bills are in the Government's legislative programme. So far as it is within my power, I shall ensure that the House has reasonable time to consider them all.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, does the Chief Whip accept that it is one thing for a government to invite their own supporters not to go to a party conference but it is quite another for them to prevent the supporters of another party attending their party conference? Does he also recognise that there is a distinction? If a party conference takes place in Brighton or Bournemouth, it is possible for people to attend and also to take some part in the business of this House during that week. The next party conference of the Conservative Party will be in Blackpool, which will make it virtually impossible for Members to combine attendance at both. Therefore, will he confirm that, if that is the direction he is following, every effort will be made to ensure that there is no controversial business and that the least controversial business is taken during that week?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I can certainly say to the noble Lord, Lord King, that, whatever business is or is not taken, as ever we shall try to secure agreement through the usual channels. I do not know whether it helps or hinders my colleagues to say this, but we make every effort to reach agreement and I can make absolutely no promises about what the business will be during that period. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will make his views known very clearly.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I acknowledge the immense difficulty of the task, but can the noble Lord give the House an assurance that, in so far as is possible, the usual channels will attempt to ensure that our putative 10 o'clock cut-off time is breached as infrequently as possible?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I say a wholehearted "yes" to that. I am a passionate supporter of the intention of the House normally to secure the conclusion of business by 10 o'clock. I freely admit that on a number of occasions during this Session—although not as many as in the same period during the previous Session—that 10 o'clock rule has been severely breached.
However, I have to say to the House—again, there are no tricks or smoking mirrors in this—that if, in some respects, marginal changes could be made to the conduct of business here, then it would be possible to

443
meet many more demands. For example, if—I should not say "if" because it is history now—the Sexual Offences Bill had been considered in Grand Committee rather than on the Floor of the House, I should have been coming to the House now to say, "Can we rise for the summer Recess a little earlier than anticipated?" Whenever I say anything such as that, I am told, "Oh, you are threatening the House". I hope that noble Lords will believe me when I say that I am not threatening the House; I am simply presenting the dilemma that I have to work daily to resolve.
I simply urge the House to give some consideration to the fact that there are many demands on the precious prime time spent on the Floor of the Chamber. This is half our Parliament. Perhaps we should consider carefully whether major debates on Select Committee reports and other issues of that kind are better held on the Floor of the House and whether it would be possible to move more Bills into Grand Committee. However, I am getting into deep waters and shall keep quiet.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I have the impression that we have now discussed these issues sufficiently.

CAP Reform
3.54 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the outcome of the final negotiations on the reform of the common agricultural policy, which concluded in Luxembourg at 6.35 this morning, UK time.
"We approached the negotiations with two clear objectives: first, to get the best settlement we could for UK farmers, consumers, taxpayers and the environment; and, secondly, to get an agreement which could lay the foundations for a successful outcome at the WTO negotiations in Mexico later this year.
"In pursuit of these objectives, we set negotiating goals: to simplify the CAP, reducing the burden on farmers; to provide for a substantial shift of support from production to a wider range of rural and environmental activities; and to give the EU a strong negotiating stance in the WTO negotiations that reach a key point in Cancun in September. I am happy to say that the agreement today delivers what we wanted—real change.
"The key points are: breaking the link between farm subsidies and production in order to reconnect farmers to their markets, reduce damaging environmental impacts and reduce bureaucracy—this is at the heart of our approach to sustainable food and farming; cross-compliance to make
444
subsidies dependent on meeting standards in key areas, such as environment and animal health and welfare; support prices for butter and rice are reduced, bringing them closer to world prices to the benefit of consumers; and there is a new financial discipline, which will trigger action to reduce subsidies if CAP expenditure looks to be in danger of exceeding the agreed ceilings.
"Today's settlement includes elements that were not even in the January package and therefore, in some respects, it goes beyond the initial proposals. The first is national envelopes, which will allow us to develop targeted schemes to promote sustainable and environmentally friendly farming. Secondly, we have secured a further switch of resources to the second pillar and an earlier start date for modulation. The second pillar package that we have secured is more than a third larger than was available in the January proposal. For the first time, modulation applies on an EU-wide basis, switching support from production subsidies to targeted support for environmental and rural development objectives across the European Union. Thirdly, we have succeeded in protecting UK farmers from the immediate threat of an unfair settlement as part of the financial discipline process. I will be placing a detailed summary of the agreement in the Library of the House, and I wish Members happy reading.
"The most radical and most important element in the package is the new single farm payment, which we can use to replace the plethora of existing direct payment schemes, such as arable aid, suckler cow premium, beef special premium, slaughter premium, extensification premium and sheep annual payment premium, to name but a few. This will greatly simplify the bureaucracy associated with all those schemes. But, more importantly, because that payment is no longer linked to production, farmers will be free to produce for the market rather than the subsidy.
"Farming, consumer and environmental interests have all strongly supported a move of this kind. We will, of course, consult on the detail of how to proceed, especially with use of the national envelopes and the important new provisions for cross-compliance.
"Decoupling is also particularly important in the WTO context. This deal enables the EU not only to meet but to better the domestic support targets that have been proposed in the WTO negotiations. These reforms will reduce the distortions in world markets that the CAP has caused and will accordingly contribute to a successful conclusion of the Doha development round. I hope our trading partners will recognise the scale and importance of this change and respond positively to it.
"Reaching this agreement has taken an immense and united effort, and I want especially to thank our dedicated team of officials, my many Cabinet colleagues who have actively engaged in support of our discussions, and of course our colleagues in the devolved administrations, who have been closely

445
involved throughout. It shows what we can achieve by working constructively with colleagues in the Agriculture Council. In particular, I want to pay tribute to Franz Fischler, who showed considerable courage and tenacity in piloting through this agreement.
"It is hard to over-state the importance of this morning's agreement in transferring the core elements of the CAP and laying down a new direction for its future evolution. Giorgios Drys, who has done an excellent job piloting the council through these negotiations, said that we needed to get agreement for a new CAP—and we have".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made this afternoon. I should like to record our gratitude to Mrs Beckett for so quickly returning to the House after the agreement was reached.
The agreement, while welcome, falls short of some of the original proposals. Three weeks of wrangling have ended up in a fudged compromise. I ask that government time be allocated to enable the House a full debate on the details and the implications of the agreement, once the details are fully known. As the Statement has shown, it really is a skeleton at this stage; I do not accuse the Minister of that—it is a fact. We must wait to see the further details which will arrive in the Library later.
We welcome the move on decoupling, which should reduce market distortion—although I understand that up to one-fifth of the modulation money may return to the European pool to be used as the Commission decides. I ask the Minister whether objections were raised to this. This would surely favour smaller, continental farmers and disadvantage UK farmers. That cannot be right; we must look closely at what is proposed.
As regards the environment, the receipts from the EU-wide modulation may be insufficient to put in place the recommendations made in the Currie report. Does the Minister accept that this is a possibility? If so, how will the Currie recommendations be achieved?
I am concerned that the implementation of the whole package has been delayed until 2005 and that some countries have the option to delay it further, until 2007. I trust that the Government fought strongly against this, but we on the Conservative Benches find it unacceptable. Does not the Minister accept that the compromise which gives other countries options to maintain links, at least in part, with production, could lead to market distortion? Might it not also disadvantage UK agriculture and—more importantly—developing countries?
Does the Minister accept that it is likely that the UK will lead the reformers? Will he ensure that we will not be losers as well, should the Government not ensure a fair deal for UK farmers?
446
We welcome in the Statement the aim to simplify CAP and reduce the burden—especially that of regulation—on farmers. We also look to see where the EU will give a strong stance in the WTO negotiations. I believe that that has been half achieved, although if we had managed a full swing of all countries at the same time, we would have had a stronger stance in Cancun in September.
The Statement defines clearly that,
"there is a new financial discipline which will trigger action to reduce subsidies if CAP expenditure looks to be in danger of exceeding the agreed ceilings".
I ask the Minister what is anticipated, and how that will be achieved.
The Statement also deals with the question of national envelopes. Is the Minister content that the national envelope scheme envisaged will in fact allow fair competition between existing EU countries and those who will shortly join us?
As regards farming, consumer and environmental interests, the Minister said,
"We will, of course, consult on the detail of how to proceed, especially with the use of national envelopes and the important new provisions for cross compliance".
Could the Minister give us some steer as to the timetable envisaged?
Further on in the Statement, the Minister declares that,
"I hope our trading partners will recognise the scale and importance of this change and respond to it positively".
We do too, because it is hugely important that at the WTO talks, we get the EU's move recognised and taken into consideration.
In placing the detailed summary of the agreement in the House of Lords, will the Minister remember our desire to fully debate it in parliamentary time. Instead of debating the Hunting Bill, 17th July might be an appropriate time to do so.
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the news of success on CAP reform. I congratulate Mrs Beckett and her team, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, too—not only for the outcome, but for their tenacity and hard work. I also record our gratitude to Franz Fischler, because he in particular should take great credit for having stuck with what must at times have seemed a thankless task.
We have as good an outcome as could be expected at this stage. We especially welcome decoupling. Future success depends heavily on how we choose to implement this at national level. An early debate in the House would be helpful, but I would also welcome comment from the Minister today as to the time-scale and extent of the consultation.
I especially welcome the greater-than-expected success in switching resources to the second pillar. Rural communities in Britain will be extremely thankful for that. One area that concerns me and which we should get right, given that we have

447
discretion for them, involves young entrants to farming and young farmers who will inherit their families' farms. We must make sure that whatever system we devise is truly encouraging to them. It is no good to look to the future for a vibrant farming sector if no one really wants to go into it.
We should look also to the processing and marketing chapters. I particularly welcome what I understand to be a much-enhanced food quality and national assurance scheme effort and that producer groups will be able to make progress in promoting their products.
I would like the opportunity to debate all that detail in the House—especially in the light of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, to our countryside debate the other day. While I am sure that he will be able to streamline rural delivery, it cast a slight chill into my heart to hear that he is; still looking at too great a scale of farm, and that his vision of our future is not based on the small, family farms that are so crucial, not least to our management of landscape. All noble Lords will remember, as I do, the importance of that link between farming landscape and tourism, and the contribution of tourism to our national economy.
I welcome this progress; it gives us a brighter future to work towards. I feel much more optimistic now that we can go to the Cancun round of the WTO with our heads held higher because Europe has kept faith with the rest of the developing world. It is now clearly incumbent upon the United States to review their farm subsidy system, which is out of line with the rest of us, and to do something about it.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses for what is on balance a substantial welcome for what has been achieved in Luxembourg—not just overnight, but over months of bilateral, multinational negotiation.
I was slightly taken aback by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, calling this "a fudged compromise" at the beginning of her remarks which ended up by being extremely welcoming and welcome.
A fudged compromise is the last thing this is. It is a clear, strategic shift after 50 years of CAP away from wasteful and often environmentally damaging production subsidies towards a system that sustains our countryside and allows farmers to produce for the market and not for the subsidy. This is a dramatic and historic change and one which should not be underestimated.
There are a few compromises at the edges. We needed to make them in order to reach the deal. That was always going to be the case. But in many respects, we have a better deal not only than anyone expected but than appeared to be the case in terms of Commissioner Fischler's proposals in January. Much of that is down to the good working between ourselves, the Commission and the agriculture Ministers of those countries which supported reform.
448
It is also important to note that throughout the process we have received the support of the major farming unions within the United Kingdom. That was a great strength to us and, if I may say so without disparaging continental counterparts, a great example to some of them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked a number of questions. She asked about the modulation and the 80 per cent. Clearly, there is some skewing towards the protection of smaller farms. That was always going to be inevitable and it is much less than appeared to be the case at one point. And we get at least 80 per cent of that money back, which is considerably more than looked guaranteed. We can get more than that, but we are guaranteed to get 80 per cent back as compared with the current situation. Under the existing second pillar, under which we got back only 3.5 per cent of the money spent, the United Kingdom will get back a minimum of 11 per cent. That is an extremely substantial improvement for us.
The noble Baroness also asked about the date of 2005 as distinct to 2004. When we set out on the negotiations it was intended that we start in 2004 but, as they have taken somewhat longer than originally hoped, it is sensible to allow enough time. We do not yet have the legal regulations laid and we need to set up the new administrative systems for the operation. The sensible date seems to be 2005, and the United Kingdom ultimately supported that.
We were not happy about some countries having the opt-out to 2007, but that, too, was part of the final compromise. Far from that being to the disadvantage of UK farmers, it will mean that UK farmers are into the new system ahead of those countries which foolishly choose to delay the implementation of the new system for another two years. We will be operating in a more market-oriented and environmentally effective system before what I believe will be a minority of countries which used to take advantage of that delay. In so far as there are market distortions, their effect will benefit UK farmers who will be operating more as commercial farmers as against the minority of continental country farmers who operate differently.
In terms of the WTO effects, we believe that this puts the European Union in a strong position in relation to our trading partners and, far from the EU delaying the opening up of trade to developing countries, a successful outcome to the Doha round is a major and significant shift of the EU position which should make those talks a success. Part of that success, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, indicated, will be that the United States moves in the same direction. The United States, as distinct from Europe, has been moving in the wrong direction over the past few years in relation to domestic farm subsidy. It now needs dramatically to reverse that position to make its contribution to a positive outcome and Cancun.
Financial discipline relates to digressivity and the fact that we now have ceilings on the total expenditure. The arrangements from 2007 will be introduced and once expenditure gets within £300 million of that ceiling there will be a cap on particular forms of

449
expenditure. Therefore, we cannot have a repeat of the situation we occasionally experienced with the CAP, where expenditure gets out of hand.
The national envelope is beneficial to us and we can use that flexibility and subsidiarity to the advantage of the UK countryside for our particular purposes. It provides the flexibility we are seeking and does not disadvantage the UK, as some are suggesting. There will be consultation on that and on many other aspects of the agreement, beginning almost immediately and intensively once we have tabled the regulations from the Commission. We have some time to get this right and I am sure that the farming organisations, rural interests, the environmental organisations and others will wish to be involved in those discussions.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, one of the most important aspects of this is the increased importance of the second pillar. It is significantly larger than appeared likely at the beginning of this year. It will enable us to expend what have previously been production subsidies in a way which benefits the whole countryside and its environment.
The noble Baroness was right in saying that part of the agreement needs to be directed at making farming attractive as a commercial and profitable enterprise. Some of the provisions under the second pillar will help government to do that, but the UK Government are already committed under the post-Curry strategy, to support the industry in developing assurance schemes, processing and marketing, the development of producer groups and so forth. This move at EU level will help sustain that position, too.
Both noble Baronesses referred to the question of debating the matter in this House. I could not possibly comment on the specific suggestion that the noble Baroness made in relation to a certain date in July. Clearly, the usual channels will need to consider that. We have had a recent important debate on CAP in this House and we will have to consider whether we should do so again and at what point that would be appropriate.
I thank the noble Baronesses for their comments and underline the unity of purpose across not only government and the farming organisations, but also environmental bodies and industry at large because of its interest in the wider trade round. The United Kingdom has acted as a collective entity on this occasion and the comments in this House reflect that.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I want to take my cap off to this CAP reform and in so doing to thank two individuals in particular. First, I thank EU Commissioner Franz Fischler, who to my certain knowledge has attempted to resolve the issue for some six, seven or eight years. Secondly, I thank our own Secretary of State, Margaret Beckett, and her team who have tirelessly worked to ensure this success in the face of criticism from the press and "Farming Today" and others who despaired of her achieving this wonderful outcome. It will be a good outcome for
450
farmers, for the environment and for developing countries because it enables us to hold our head high in the WTO round.
Will my noble friend accept that one other huge benefit accrues from this agreement? It is that for those of us who want to support the Government in their pro-European stance, which was announced by the Prime Minister and so proselytised, the biggest blot on the landscape for too many years has been a failure to reform the CAP. That is now being done and it is a tremendous plus for Britain and Europe.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I gratefully accept the congratulations on behalf of Margaret Beckett, who will pass them on to Franz Fischler. Both have made a significant contribution to the agreement. It shows that when the Commission shows leadership on behalf of Europe as a whole and when leadership is shown in this country, we can achieve a positive outcome. During the whole period of our membership of the Common Market, as it was, and the European Union, as it now is, successive governments have attempted to change the CAP and the distortions that it causes within Europe to the environment, the markets and international trade. The fact that we have been able to change it in a significant way this week is a historic turning point which will benefit farmers, consumers and the environment alike.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Statement mentions distortions in trade. Can the Minister comment on export subsidies paid by the EU and say whether the full text covers that point? Does he agree that dumping—for example, milk powder—has had the effect of destroying local markets for farmers in developing countries? Is any timetable built into the agreement for ending export subsidies?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this agreement does not specifically cover export subsidies. The position of the EU going into the Doha round of WTO talks envisaged a phasing out of export subsidies. The exact detail will be negotiated with our trading partners. The timescale for that will be negotiated with our trading partners in Cancun.
I agree with the noble Lord that some of the effects of the existing and past export subsidies have been hugely damaging to some developing countries. It is part of this Government's intention to ensure that they are phased out as a result of agreements to be reached in the WTO.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I congratulate the Government and the team for the work they have done and am glad of the agreement reached. However, the Minister mentioned that there were certain compromises. Before I read all the papers he has accumulated for me in the Library, perhaps the noble Lord can tell me what constitutes a small farm. In this country, our family farms are rather larger than on the continent. That will be important. On decoupling, can the noble Lord also say whether the subsidy—the joined-up payment, whatever one calls it—will go with

451
the land and not the person? Finally, can the Minister say something about milk quotas? Is that one of the compromises?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may take those questions in reverse order. The milk regime is one of the more disappointing parts of the deal. The milk proposals came slightly later than the rest of the package; we were working on a different timetable. But we are not happy with the outcome relating to milk either on the extension of quotas in time—although not as much as was proposed in terms of numbers, which would have been helpful—or on price reduction. So milk is one sector which we would have liked to have been more decoupled than the proposals allow. However, I believe that we shall move in that direction. Certainly the commissioner has that in mind.
The decoupled single payment will go in the first instance to the producer who was producing as of 31st May this year. The quantum will be based on an earlier reference period. It will be the person who was the producer on the land, whether landlord or tenant, at 31st May this year. The full details of that are partly in the document but much of it will be spelt out later in, no doubt, a hugely complex legal form.
The payment is attached not to the land, but to the producer. If it is transferred it has to be transferred to other land which will be subject to the same cross-compliance rules. Therefore there can be no loss of land to which the subsidy and cross-compliance rules apply.
The noble Lord is right about small farms. The relatively small part of the package which is geared to small farms—the franchise from the modulation payment—will, by and large, benefit very small farms and not the average-sized British farm. However, the average-sized effective British family farm should benefit from the other freedoms that the package produces.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is correct to say that the shift of production support away from price support began in 1990 with MacSharry. It has taken 13 years to get to the point we are at now, which is a very substantial shift in policy.
It is hard to judge the value of the outcome. Perhaps the easiest way to do so would be for my noble friend to compare the final outcome with the British opening position and, say, the French opening position to see what has shifted in negotiations.
The issue of land is extremely complicated. I believe that my noble friend gave the date of 1st May. Does he agree that it would be wise for any deals in land between 1st May and perhaps the autumn—we may then know how the regulations will look—to include some legal arrangement so that if things change from what those who are doing the deal think, they can be protected?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the latter point, I would very much hesitate to be a Minister advising anyone on
452
how to deal in land now or at any other point. The date is 31st May. The person who is producing on the land and had the old, historic subsidies would be entitled to it at that point. The full legal text will be available in a few months' time. No doubt people will make their decisions in that light.
While I always hesitate in any way to criticise our French colleagues, they have their position to take and have taken it fairly robustly through this process, and we are all agreed on this outcome. It is right to say that the French have moved dramatically. They moved from a position of total opposition to any decoupling of any payment whatever to a position where the principle is decoupling of everything and there are some options on some of the regimes for them partially to recouple back—for example, 25 per cent of arable payments. But the balance is clearly much closer to the UK Government's opening position, on which we were largely supported by the Germans, the Danes, the Swedes and the Dutch, than to the position of that group of countries led by the French.
I do not wish to become triumphalist about this, but a significant shift to what has been the historic British position over the past years has been achieved over the weeks and months of negotiations.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say that he should be a little triumphalist. It is a matter of tremendous congratulations.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, all right. Just a bit.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that my father, Conor O'Neill, negotiated our original entry into the common market. It was his greatest regret that these concessions had to be made and his judgment that at that time there was no way in, apart from making this concession. I wish that he were alive to hear this announcement.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, those of us who followed those negotiations at the time recognise what a difficult task the noble Baroness's father had at that point; and how we gained an awful lot from the rest of his negotiations. This may well have been a price worth paying for that. But it is also true that he and political parties on all sides at that time recognised the need for reform of the CAP. Regrettably, it has taken us this long to get there; but we are a very significant way there now.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those of us who have been severe critics of the common agricultural policy—as it has developed it has been bad for producers, bad for consumers, bad for the taxpayer and bad for the environment—unreservedly welcome the Statement? It marks a major change in the future of agricultural support in Europe. It also justifies totally the Government's policy of engaging positively with our European partners. I do not think that we would have been able to have what is a triumph if we

453
had not had that positive engagement with our European partners which has marked our relationship over recent years.
The Statement clearly has major benefits in that the movement away from production subsidies, bringing agriculture closer to its markets, is wholly to be welcomed. Does the Minister agree that as we move forward there are two tests: first, how Europe is able to contribute positively to the WTO round and further developments there, in particular in relation to the still restrictive protectionist policies of the United States; and, secondly, perhaps internally, that a movement away from agriculture support per se to rural developments in the broader sense is the greatest challenge we face in relation to our rural areas?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, I agree entirely that that reflects a great deal of co-operation bilaterally and multilaterally with our European counterparts. The Government's engagement in that has led to us being able to deliver this significant change. The noble Lord is also right that we now face an even bigger challenge in terms of making a success of the WTO talks and ensuring that the Europeans have a constructive effect on those talks. We are starting from a platform that is very positive, whereas a few months ago it looked as though Europe may be going into that discussion with a negative stance.
The noble Lord is also right that we are moving away from a rural policy that is related to subsidising certain parts of food production to one that is of benefit to the rural economy and to rural communities as a whole, including fanning. That is a strong and beneficial development.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister has said that we are moving away from a system of subsidising food production. Are subsidies to be reduced also in relation to tobacco production?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. The position on tobacco, sugar and various other commodities was not covered by this package because the timescale of review of those changes is different. We are expecting further proposals from the Commission on sugar, tobacco and other products later this year. I expect that the same principles will begin to apply in those sectors as well.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the Government on having achieved a prize which, until recently, seemed almost entirely beyond reach. What will be the effect of the proposals on the budget? Can my noble friend say a little more about the effect that they will have on the situation when 10 new countries join the EU?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly those two questions are connected. The negotiations redistribute, rather than alter, the ceiling on the CAP budget, although there is a small element of degressivity built in to the direct payments. Of course, that budget will have to
454
apply to 25 countries, rather than to 15. Therefore, the cost of the budgets per country will be significantly less as a result of that. This, of itself, does not alter the total financial perspective because the ceiling was set at the end of last year in Brussels.
Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, I welcome the deal and join in the congratulations. It is a major step forward. As someone who has spent 30 years on the Labour Benches arguing that we need to move subsidies to farmers from production to environmental and other friendly matters, this is perhaps a red-letter day. First, what does this mean for the consumer? Secondly—I declare an interest as chair of the Forestry Commission—does part of the deal relating to the second pillar mean that farm woodland support will be eligible for support under the CAP?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the second question, woodland support in certain forms is available under the current Pillar 2 system. This significantly increases the total amount of funds under the Pillar 2 system; therefore, that and other schemes under the system would potentially benefit.
On the benefit to the consumer, that will mean that the European fanner—the British fanner in particular—will produce what the consumers want and not what the subsidy provides for. That should mean that the value to consumers and the ability of consumers to choose high value products that are also profitable to the farmer will significantly increase and the trading applications also mean that in the longer run the cost for any given value should also decrease. Of course, consumers are also taxpayers, so taxpayers will pay for something that is beneficial and not for something that leads to distorted production. Therefore, in many ways consumers will benefit.

Communications Bill
4.34 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 101 [Civil liability for breach of conditions or enforcement notification]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 97, line 1, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when the Bill was first published, the UK mobile phone operators had two objections to Clause 101(1)(a), which gives third parties the right to sue for breaches of general conditions regardless of any ruling by Ofcom: first, that this right undermines the authority of Ofcom and UK regulatory policy could be developed through case law rather than through Ofcom's own channels for policy development, including consultation with consumers and industry; and secondly, that the right opens up an unnecessary source of regulatory risk (and therefore cost) for the communications providers, a cost that tends to get passed on to consumers.
At Report stage in the House of Commons, the Government brought forward an amendment to the Bill (now part of the Bill in Clause 101(4) and (5)) that provides that a third party will need the consent of Ofcom prior to the bringing of proceedings. That may address the first objection and we therefore welcome the development. It may be that the amendment will, in practice, deal with the second objection too but it still does not entirely eliminate the possibility of being sued for breaching Ofcom's rules without the regulator intervening in the process.
At Committee stage in your Lordships' House, the Government argued against the amendment using, in our view, an incorrect argument. In col. 710 of Hansard on 20th May, the Government stated that a third party had no right of redress against a first breach, even when Oftael had confirmed that a breach had taken place and that that effectively gave an operator a free strike. That is not the case. The third party can sue for damages on the first occasion after Oftel's determination.
It is not expected that this power will be widely used, particularly as complainants have the option of having a complaint resolved by Ofcom (or for small claims some other independent resolution procedure such as the Ombudsman) for free. The main concern is that a very large multinational company may use this right to ride a coach and horses through the carefully drafted policies of Ofcom by going straight to a court, albeit with Ofcom's consent.
While acknowledging that the need to obtain Ofcom's consent reduces the risk that regulatory policy could develop independently of Ofcom, the new wording in the Bill raises some other issues. First, there is no indication of the basis on which Ofcom would decide whether to consent to such proceedings or the procedures the regulator would follow in taking such a decision, for example, allowing the litigants to make representations. Secondly, if Ofcom had not previously investigated the matter, it might feel compelled to conduct a full investigation before deciding whether to consent. However, if the breach complained about is in the past, then that would be just a waste of Ofcom's resources. Thirdly, if Ofcom gives its consent to the action being brought, could that actually prejudice a defendant's position? The implication of Ofcom's consent would be, rightly or wrongly, that Ofcom considers a licence breach to have occurred, or at least that it is happy for the court to conclude that such a breach occurred. It would therefore be preferable to delete Clause 101(1)(a) as the amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we agree entirely with the argument that has been advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I shall not repeat what she has said about the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in Committee, except to say that we entirely agree with her analysis. The Minister got it wrong when he said that a third party could not sue for damages on the basis of the harm caused by the breach
456
that led to Oftel's determination. As the noble Baroness said, that was said on 20th May at col. 710 of Hansard.
I have one point to add to what the noble Baroness has said. We see this provision as being a new departure in the regulation of communications networks and that there is no requirement in the new directive for it. There is no evidence of harm being caused by the lack of the provisions in the existing regime. So we support entirely what the noble Baroness has said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, although this is exactly the same amendment as in Committee the arguments now being advanced for it are rather different. Virtually the only point of contact which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in particular brought forward last time is the right of third parties to sue on the first occasion.
In the light of the fact that I have only just heard the arguments from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and some of the arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I will take the matter away and discuss it further with both of them before Third Reading. I would wish the amendment to be withdrawn, but I do not wish to resist it on the same basis as last time.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response. Perhaps I have taken him a little by surprise with my arguments today. I am extremely grateful to him for the opportunity and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would concur that we would be grateful for that meeting and discussion. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 103 [Application of the electronic communications code]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 98, line 41, at end insert—
"( ) In this section persons to whom the electronic communications code may be applied shall not be restricted to telecommunications operators."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since we discussed the matter in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has written to me, drawing attention to the consultation paper, The Granting of the Electronic Communications Code by Oftel, issued by the Director General of Telecommunications on 2nd April. In particular, he drew attention to paragraph 1.12, which states:
"the Telecommunications Code applies only to telecommunications system providers. The Electronic Communications Code will apply to all electronic communication network providers, including broadcast transmission providers".
The noble Lord says that he does not think anything could be clearer than that. It is true that the intention is plain, but I suggest to your Lordships that words in a consultation document do not have the force of law, which I pointed out on the previous occasion. I quoted paragraphs 2.12 and 2.13 of the consultation paper and I said that the words gave encouragement to the

457
owners of towers and masts, whose efforts have already led to extensive sharing of facilities, reducing the number of sites needed.
Annex A, which deals with the criteria for granting code powers, implies at paragraph 7 that broadcast transmission providers will not receive them automatically. Our amendment is modest and only embodies the sense of Annex A in the Bill, so we hope that it will commend itself to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, Amendment No. 66 is designed to allow Ofcom to apply the electronic communications code to persons other than telecommunications operators. Under the new regime there will no longer be "telecommunications operators", as I said in Committee; instead there will be providers of electronic communications networks and providers of electronic communications services.
A person who has the electronic communications code applied receives substantial rights and has substantial obligations imposed. The Bill is currently drafted under Clause 103(4) to allow Ofcom to apply the code to both those who will provide electronic communications networks directly and those who will make available conduit systems to providers of electronic communications networks.
I assure you that the code can apply to providers of electronic communications networks other than the existing telecommunications providers and the providers of broadcasting networks such as Crown Castle will, like any other provider, be able to provide for code powers under the new arrangements. Indeed, the consultation paper already mentioned issued on 2nd April by the Director General of Telecommunications on The Granting of the Electronic Communications Code by Oftel makes it clear at paragraph 1.12 that,
"the Telecommunications Code applies only to telecommunications system providers. The Electronic Communications Code will apply to all electronic communication network providers, including broadcast transmission providers".
I do not think that that could be clearer, or that anything else could be achieved by an amendment to the Bill.
We believe that the code should be available only to those who either have infrastructure or are providing conduits. Furthermore, extending it beyond those limits would upset the code's delicate balance. The proposed amendment would widen excessively the range of potential applicants for the benefits it provides and so undermine the balance.
In Committee we understood that the amendment was intended to relate to a concern expressed by Crown Castle about the current procedures for the control of rent for space on shared transmitter masts. The code is not the applicable instrument for that concern. The market review of broadcasting transmissions services will determine what regime is applied in the future.
458
All secondary legislation, including the general development orders, will, wherever we consider it necessary, be amended by an order made under Clause 399, so I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, It is helpful to have that assurance on the record, even though I would have preferred to have a provision in the Bill, because something written down in a code does not have the force of law. But having the Minister's assurances on the record goes some way to what we were asking for. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Clauses 104 to 116 agreed to.
Clause 117 [Conditions regulating premium rate services]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 111, line 13, leave out "or (11)" and insert", (11) or (11A)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 68, 69, 71 and 72. It may be convenient to the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 69A and 70.
We had a rough ride with comparable amendments in Committee, which we introduced in response to concerns from ICSTIS on premium rate services. Government Amendments Nos. 67, 68, 69, 71 and 72 deal with the issues we discussed in Committee in connection with what were then Amendments Nos. 122A to 122D. They sought to respond to the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton during Second Reading about regulating certain premium rate services emanating from abroad.
As I agreed in Committee, officials have discussed the matters further with the operators and with ICSTIS, and I understand that these amendments meet the operators' concerns articulated during the debate, as well as those of ICSTIS.
Amendment No. 68 is aimed at ensuring that even when a premium rate service provider is located abroad and the arrangements for the use of the electronic communications network for the provision of the premium rate service in this country is via an intermediary, there is still a person who is subject to regulation.
Amendment No. 69, like the previous Amendment No. 122D, defines what is meant by an intermediary service provider for the purpose of these provisions. It is expanded slightly from the previous version to deal with situations in which there might be chains of intermediaries through which premium rate services might be delivered. Amendment No. 67 is consequential on those two amendments.
Amendment No. 71 is new. It restricts the obligations that a code approved by Ofcom could place on a communications provider falling within subsection 117(11A). In accordance with this

459
amendment, such obligations are permitted only if three tests are met: first, the provider concerned is the only person against whom it is practicable to take regulatory action; secondly, the obligation arises only after notice has been given by the code enforcer of the premium rate service and the manner in which it is alleged to have breached the code; and thirdly, the obligation is solely to secure that the network does not deliver the premium rate service to persons in the United Kingdom.
I understand that that restriction removes the concerns of the operators expressed during Committee without jeopardising the effectiveness of the regulatory regime. Amendment No. 72 places the corresponding restriction on an order that might be made by Ofcom in the absence of a code.
We have no desire to place undue burdens on providers of electronic communications services. In Clauses 117 to 121 we are providing a regulatory regime which enables the code-making body in conjunction with Ofcom to ensure that consumers are not disadvantaged by the less scrupulous PRS providers—which will be the primary target of the regulatory regime.
But experience shows that there are times when the normal operation of the code is insufficient, and ICSTIS or Oftel has needed to ask—and, if necessary, to compel—the operator of an electronic communications service or network carrying the PRS service to act. It would be a matter of last resort that a network provider falling within Clause 117(11A) would be required to take action. But without that power of last resort, we would be leaving a great loophole in the arrangements, which I gather all interests agree should be plugged in the way that we now propose.
The amendments would ensure that the PRS regime operates effectively but without placing undue burdens on the operators.
Amendment No. 69A is at first sight very seductive. Nobody would argue that the interests of premium rate service providers—some of which have sadly shown themselves to be not terribly scrupulous—should be placed above the interests of the man, woman and child in the street. But it is too simplistic to say that we should include in the statute book a requirement that the new premium rate service regime places the interests of consumers above those of premium rate service providers. Taken literally, that could mean that consumers should pay next to nothing for the services, and providers should be deprived of a reasonable profit.
The risk of following the approach in the amendment would be that ordinary, decent premium rate service providers would be unable to offer commercially viable services and the customer would be deprived of many services to which they have shown they want to subscribe. We know that there are lots of complaints about some premium rate services, especially those pandering to people's baser instincts. But that overshadows the fact that premium rate services are much in demand by consumers across a wider spectrum: information about news, weather,
460
financial services and sport; product helplines and entertainment such as quizzes, competitions and voting on television shows. It is now a billion pound industry with above-average growth because consumers want to use it and there are providers to supply the public with what they want.
In the premium rate service regulatory regime we need a continuation of the existing arrangements that seek to ensure that, among other things, consumers know that they are being charged a premium and the rate of the premium. There are arrangements for reducing the risk of inappropriate services reaching children and to enable the rogue elements in the industry to be dealt with effectively. The regime that we are providing for gives that assurance, so there is no need for the amendment.
Clause 118(2)(b) provides that Ofcom must not approve a code unless the code-making and enforcing body is independent of the providers of premium rate services. There is therefore no need to fear that the code will lean unduly in favour of suppliers. The amendment is not only unnecessary, it could be positively harmful to the provision of services that consumers have shown that they want.
We covered some of the ground on Amendment No. 70 in Committee, but I am happy to re-emphasise our agreement that we should not place unnecessary barriers in the way of innovation and investment in new services. That is particularly important in the sphere of premium rate services, in which there has been considerable growth in recent years with every prospect of it continuing.
However, with the growth of new services, there are always dangers of abuse. While most premium rate service providers are perfectly honourable and provide good, useful services, some would use them to fleece the unsuspecting public, including, I am afraid, children. We must therefore be wary of what we do.
I know that there are concerns about the current limit in the ICSTIS code of £20 before online services must be terminated by forced release. That limit related to only certain kinds of calls, notably online services, pay-for-product services and sexual entertainment services. In each of those categories, the code provides that the limit does not apply if ICSTIS gives prior consent. If business-to-business video conferencing were arranged in such a way that it fell within the provisions of the code applying for online services, it is likely that ICSTIS would give prior permission for the limits not to apply.
Apart from that, the amendment is unnecessary. Ofcom is already constrained as regards approving a code for regulating premium rate services. In accordance with Clause 118(2)(d) to (g) it cannot approve a code unless it is satisfied that: it is objectively justifiable, it does not discriminate unduly, it is proportionate to the intended effect and it is transparent. Those are significant constraints on the actions of Ofcom. In my view, they are adequate to provide the right balance to ensure that any code does not unnecessarily constrain innovation and investment.
Given the scope for abuse in this area, I do not think that we should feel comfortable with sacrificing customers on the altar of innovation and investment to new ways of ripping them off. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 69A, which stands in my name. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving me the Government's attitude to the amendment before I speak to it. It will shorten my comments. I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lady Buscombe for moving my amendment in Committee and for the Minister's extremely helpful reply.
We agree that the current system is well catered for in the Bill as drafted, and that the current situation can continue under the Bill as it is. My difficulty is that I am not at all happy with things as they are now. I would like the Bill to strengthen ICSTIS's mettle when dealing with certain current abuses. I find two such abuses particularly offensive.
The first is scratch cards that drop out of magazines regularly with the promise of a large prize. Of course, everybody has won. You then phone a premium rate number to find out what you have won. The card states that the call will cost seven quid or whatever. Although it lists many prizes, what almost everybody has won is the right to pay more money—about ninety quid this time—to the company promoting the competition to learn more about the holiday that you might win if you pay yet more money.
That is as close to fraud as anything. Not only is the whole business rotten, but there are glaring inadequacies in the wording that ICSTIS has permitted on the cards. First, no identifiable company or person is involved in promoting the competitions. Usually there is an accommodation but no proper name or means of contact. Secondly, no proper information is given on the chances of winning any of the other prizes or the real value of those prizes. So far as I can work out, the chance of winning the monetary prize—that is what hooks you—of £15,000, for example, is around 140 million to one, which is 10 times lower than the national lottery. But that is nowhere stated on the card. You must read the very small print of associated papers to discover that the prizes are on offer over a very long period and apply to only one card that may not have been received, let alone posted. There is no easy way of finding out who has won in the past or what their bona fides are.
From many points of view, the business is clearly run on the basis that those funding it pay less than the person providing the service—a great deal less, because there is much wastage in the system. It is clearly a bad deal for people, but that is not disclosed. ICSTIS is allowing that to happen and intends to allow it to continue. I would like to see something stronger in the Bill to deal with it.
My other problem is competitions promoted on radio and television in which you must ring a premium rate number for a chance to win a prize. Again, you are given no information on your chances of winning. You
462
may have an estimation of the prize value—a Centre Court ticket for the finals at Wimbledon, or something nice—but you are not told the chances of winning, so you have no idea whether it is worthwhile shelling out a quid. Indeed, the reason that the competitions are so frequent is that it is not worthwhile. People ring in enormous numbers, and businesses can garner a great deal of money from offering such competitions on premium rate services. I do not object to the practice, but the consumer should be offered a proper level of information. Again, ICSTIS appears to have no plans to change that. I should like to see something in the Bill that focused the attention of ICSTIS on the interests of the consumer, and not for it to say that there is only a limited space on the ticket and one cannot include everything—or to say that there are some uncertainties over how many people will ring in response to a radio appeal, so that one cannot give any information. It is not acceptable that one cannot do anything because the matter is difficult. There are barriers that we have overcome in many other areas of consumer businesses—not least the education service—and I would be delighted if the Bill added an extra tooth or two to bite on the shameful laxity of ICSTIS in not dealing with these abuses of the system.
5 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in the points that he has just made. The Minister might be right in the phrasing of the amendment, but could we have more detail of exactly what the circumstances are in these types of competitions? People do them once, maybe they do them more than once. If they do them once, then caveat emptor, theoretically. But, as we all know, there are some people who are rather more gambling-orientated than others.
The matter that needs addressing, although it might not be possible in this Bill, is the extent to which one should be told the benefits up front, and who has won—if anyone. All the details should be there. At the moment, either they are not, or they are in such small print that it becomes a complete fraud. The matter is not just about things that fall out of magazines, although that does happen. Magazines such as Reader's Digest also go in for this sort of thing, which surprises and horrifies me. It would be interesting to know from the Minister whether this Bill is an appropriate place to take action, or whether there is some other way in which we can grapple with this question.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I intend to make a long and boring speech on this matter—particularly as everybody else has said they shall make short and snappy speeches. However, it might turn out to be the other way round—that those who say that they shall make short speeches go on at great length. My speech, which starts with the opposite undertaking, will not detain your Lordships for long.
I agree with the thought that lies behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Might the matter not be better dealt with by the use of the code? ICSTIS has just published, in draft, what it calls the

463
Communications Bill version of the code of practice and sought comments by 16th June. That date has only just passed, so if the noble Lord sends ICSTIS a copy of his speech, it might be able to think about the matter and see whether it would be possible to cope with the kind of annoyance and sharp practice that he has outlined. He gave a specific example that is nowhere near the general grounds that he attempts to deal with in Amendment No. 69A.
The current ICSTIS code does not mention 3G—the third generation mobile phone networks—which are likely to offer services of the kind that were described by the Minister, such as video conferencing over the Internet. That would cost much more than the£20 limit, which leads to automatic cut-off under the present code. It would be useful for the suppliers of 3G and other advanced networks to have read the comments of the Minister about the likelihood that business-to-business video conferencing would be given prior approval. They will be reassured by his reaffirmation that the code would not discourage innovation and investment in new forms of content-based communications.
I was not certain how to interpret the Minister's comment that such a provision in the Bill would inhibit the regulator from dealing with many of the matters that are counter-productive in the present habits of some of the fringe operators in the PRS system. Incidentally, the draft code has to be approved by Ofcom, under Clause 118. Will the Minister give the earliest date that this would happen? What rules would apply to services offered by 3G networks at the moment?
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, we welcome the Government bringing forward these amendments on premium rate services in response to oar debate in Committee. I was rising to speak to my Amendment No. 70, but the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made my case for me. I take some comfort from the Minister's comments. He has picked up on the area to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, and to which I intended to speak. I shall not repeat that again. I shall take the opportunity to say that we support Amendment No. 69A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas. We sympathise with it, and hope that the Government take it seriously.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I take very seriously the points that have been raised, and I understand the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about scratch cards and competitions promoted on radio and television—and the lack of information and identification that leads to the risk of serious exploitation. He will not be surprised if I say that his amendment would penalise many more reputable people, rather than providing a remedy for the matter that he describes. Nevertheless, he makes important points on enforcement—because that is the issue—and they deserve attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, should send his comments to ICSTIS. He does not need to—I shall. I shall also draw the attention of ICSTIS to the debate. In fairness to ICSTIS,
464
some of the points that he has made are for the criminal law. They go beyond the scope of the powers of ICSTIS. Even for an independent regulator such as ICSTIS—perhaps especially for an independent regulator—it would be difficult to deal with some of the abuses without going to law.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the fact that there are other services than video conferencing which would benefit from the prior approval regime that I have described. I agree with him that 3G is likely to be among those. I assure him that ISCTIS would deal with them by prior approval, in the same way as they would for video conferencing. He asked me about the date of approval of the code. Oftel is consulting on the conditions that might be set under Clause 117. That consultation is likely to be very brief before the code is approved, because we have been over this ground. There will be no unnecessary delay in approving the code. I agree with him and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, in supporting the principles behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. However, there is general agreement that these amendments and Amendment No. 70 ought not to be added to the Government amendments, the welcome for which I am grateful for.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the Minister before he sits down, because I am not sure that I followed his logic. He seemed to be immensely encouraging to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but only up to the point of saying that nothing could be done. Did I understand the Minister correctly that ISCTS could do things, but it is not doing them, and that the moment that he writes to ICSTIS it will take action? Is he saying that ICSTIS could institute the criminal law among its possible actions? I regard myself as streetwise and am used to going down Petticoat Lane and seeing the hucksters there. Unlike the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, there one ends up paying more or less the right price for the product. The whole point is to make one buy it. The point of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is that you really are being ripped off to an enormous degree. Those of us who are sitting and watching that happen are asking the usual question: "How can it be going on?" I also follow the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in saying that people who would otherwise regard themselves as reputable are doing this. Is my noble friend the Minister confident that, without anything else happening, the relevant bodies can do something about that—or will it just go on?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these things are going on, they are undesirable and ways must be found of stopping them. However, ICSTIS is developing a code that Oftel and, in future, Ofcom, will have to approve. We look to that code for protection for consumers. Although the code will not be long delayed, it is not available yet. However, there is the backstop of the criminal law, which is available to everybody.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 68 and 69:
Page 111, line 28, at end insert—
"(11 A) A person falls within this subsection if—

(a) he is the provider of an electronic communications network used for the provision of the relevant service; and

(b) the use of that network for the provision of premium rate services, or of services that include or may include premium rate services, is authorised by an agreement subsisting between that person and either an intermediary service provider or a person who is a provider of the relevant service by virtue of subsection (10) or (11)."

Page 111, line 41, at end insert "and—
"intermediary service provider" means a person who—

(a) provides an electronic communications service used for the provision of the relevant service or an electronic communications network so used; and

(b) is a party to an agreement with—

(i) a provider of the relevant service falling within subsection (9)(a) to (d), or

(ii) another intermediary service provider,

which relates to the use of that electronic communications service or network for the provision of premium rate services, or of services that include or may include premium rate services."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 69A and 70 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments No. 71:
Page 112, line 22. at end insert—
"( ) OFCOM are not for those purposes to approve so much of a code as imposes an obligation as respects a premium rate service on a person who is a provider of the service by virtue only of section 117(11A) ("the relevant provider") unless they are satisfied that the obligation—

(a) arises only if there is no one who is a provider of the service otherwise than by virtue of section 117(11A) against whom it is practicable to take action;

(b) arises only after a notice identifying the service and setting out respects in which requirements of the code have been contravened in relation to it has been given to the relevant provider by the person responsible for enforcing the code; and

(c) is confined to an obligation to secure that electronic communications networks provided by the relevant provider are not used for making the service available to persons who are in the United Kingdom."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 119 [Orders by OFCOM in the absence of a code under s.118]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 113, line 41, at end insert—
"( ) An order under this section is not to impose an obligation as respects a premium rate service on a person who is a provider of the service by virtue only of section 117(11A) ("the relevant provider") unless the obligation—
466

(a) arises only if there is no one who is a provider of the service otherwise than by virtue of section 117(11A) against whom it is practicable to take action;

(b) arises only after a notice identifying the service and setting out respects in which requirements of the order have been contravened in relation to it has been given to the relevant provider by OFCOM; and

(c) is confined to an obligation to secure that electronic communications networks provided by the relevant provider are not used for making the service available to persons who are in the United Kingdom."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 73:
After Clause 131, insert the following new clause—
"RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AFFECTING FREEHOLD PROPERTY
(1) This section applies where by virtue of a restrictive covenant, the owner of any premises is restricted, either absolutely or to any extent—

(a) in choosing electronic communications services,

(b) in choosing a supplier of such services, or

(c) with respect to any other electronic communications matter.

(2) Where this section applies, the covenant, to the extent that it restricts the owner of premises as mentioned in subsection (1)—

(a) if it requires (expressly or otherwise) the consent of any person to be obtained before anything to which the restriction relates is done, shall have effect as if it required that consent not to be unreasonably withheld; and

(b) in any other case, shall have effect as if it required the consent of the person entitled to the benefit of the restrictive covenant to the doing of anything to which the restriction relates not to be unreasonably withheld.

(3) Subsections (5) to (7) of section 131 shall apply in relation to a restriction falling within subsection (2) above as those subsections apply in relation to a prohibition or restriction falling within subsection (1) or (2) of section 131.
(4) Section 396 applies to the powers of OFCOM to make orders under this section."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 243.
The new clause was debated in Committee and rejected by the Government. The Minister made a number of points at that time that merit further discussion at this stage. As I explained in Committee, the issue in general concerns many occupiers of leased and rented properties as well as many freehold property owners who are prevented from obtaining television and telephony services from the provider of their choice because of restrictions in their leases or tenancy agreements or, in the case of freehold property owners, a restricted covenant.
The Government have to an extent recognised the problem. Clause 131 provides that a lessee's request for the lifting of any relevant restriction can be refused by the lessor only on reasonable grounds. That would seem to be an appropriate balance between the rights of lessors and lessees. As I said in Committee, however, Clause 131 does not go far enough. In particular, it does not address the issue of restricted covenants in freehold property. That is the purpose of my amendment.
In Committee, the Minister indicated that the Government are not opposed in principle to taking an approach on freehold covenants comparable to that for leasehold agreements in Clause 131. That is a welcome statement. However, he went on to explain that the new clause and amendment could not be accepted because the Government were riot convinced that any problems were being experienced, as they had not heard any evidence to that effect. In any case, he suggested, it would be improper to issue new legislative requirements on such a matter, affecting the law on property, without full consultation. I wish to press him further on those two arguments.
First, it is my understanding from discussions with industry that a problem exists and that it can affect the installations of terrestrial aerials as well as satellite dishes. That is why the industry has asked me to press the issue. If there were no problem, I doubt that they would expend resources in trying to get it addressed. Therefore, will the Minister explain the basis on which he has become unconvinced? It does not mean that a problem does not exist simply because he is unaware of any evidence. Is that lack of awareness the only basis for the Government's position? Surely, it would be better to say simply that the Government do not know.
That brings me on to the second issue—that of a wider consultation. Amendment No. 243 would require the Secretary of State to consult Ofcom and such other persons as appear appropriate before bringing the clause into force. The Government have argued in Committee that the need for full consultation on the substance of the issue might not fit easily with the provision. I agree that consultation on the substance is required—and the intention of the amendment is to make that possible.
If the Government persist with their view, perhaps the Minister could provide clarification of the Government's plans to consult further on the issue, in order that they understand the extent of the problem and necessary actions as well as the views of those affected prior to any action being taken. I presume that the Minister is not going to wait until analogue switch-off to discover that freehold covenants represent a barrier to access to digital television, when it is too late to do anything about it. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we had this amendment in Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe has adequately represented my response to it. I am a little surprised, because the noble Baroness has not really raised any new issues about the two difficulties that I had with the amendment.
I said that I would need evidence that there is actually a problem. After all, a very small minority of freehold properties have covenants on them. I have explained to the House before now that I have a freehold property with a covenant on it from the early 1920s, which prohibits not only the selling but also the consumption of alcohol on the premises. Needless to say, we assured ourselves that the covenant was not enforceable before we bought the house.
468
It is not up to the Government to go out searching for evidence. If Sky, or anyone else interested in dishes or aerials, has examples of difficulties that have arisen, it is up to them to come to us and we will consider what should be done.
My second problem, which I had thought that the noble Baroness recognised, is that property law is always complicated. She, as a lawyer, should recognise that. The precise form of any change should be considered in consultation with the relevant interest groups and professional interest in property law. As I understand it, and as I remember from the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, it is a principle that normally covenants are not enforceable over freehold property. There are wider issues here, and we should not be dabbling in property law ill a communications Bill any more than we should dabble in communications law in a property Bill.
Our principle objection to the amendment is that no evidence has been produced that there is a problem, and without such evidence we find it very difficult to understand how we should embark on a piecemeal reform of property law. Those are the same points as I made in Committee, and 1 am unable to indicate any change in the Government's position on them.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I accept what he says, to some extent, about the difficulty of changing property law when addressing a communications Bill. However, a problem clearly exists. It is difficult for me to suggest to the Minister that the industry has made representations when he does not believe that has taken place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am saying not that there were no representations, but that we have not been given adequate evidence of significant problems.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clarity on that point.
I shall go back to the industry and put it to them that the way forward might be for them to provide the Government with the necessary examples. Clearly, I can do no more than that. I accept what the Minister said in relation to property law. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 134 [Restrictions on imposing information requirements]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 73A:
Page 126, line 26, at end insert—
"(7) In a case where a requirement for information under section 132 or 133 includes a requirement for any person to answer a question, make a statement, provide an opinion or otherwise to provide information, whether orally or in writing, such answer, statement, opinion or other provision of information shall riot be used by OFCOM in relation to any action to be taken against that person under any of sections 34, 38, 93, 109 or 136 without the consent in writing of that person."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we debated this amendment in Committee on 20th May, I withdrew it on the basis of the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, to the effect that since the Human Rights Act 1998 came fully into force on 2nd October 2000, it is no longer necessary to include an express protection for the privilege against self-incrimination in order to ensure that that privilege is properly protected.
We believe that the Minister may have been wrong in that assertion because we are dealing here with protection against self-incrimination in relation to a civil matter, to which Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not apply. I think that the Minister's response was based on the incorrect assumption, which he repeated several times, that the Human Rights Act, which incorporated the convention into UK law, affords protection against self-incrimination in civil cases. I shall not weary noble Lords with other quotations from the noble Lord in which he made that assertion.
We assert that where penalties are available to Ofcom—they range up to 10 per cent of relevant turnover—while they may be civil sanctions, because of their severity they are in fact akin to criminal penalties. The Government's response, as well as their response to the joint scrutiny committee, completely misses that point. In stating that as a result of the Human Rights Act it is no longer necessary to include a specific provision to ensure that the privilege is properly protected, they are plainly wrong. The penalty is a civil sanction and so no privilege is available under UK law. That is why it is necessary in the case of these civil penalties, which are potentially extremely severe and therefore equivalent to criminal penalties whose purpose is to punish, to include a specific protection in the Bill.
In Committee I drew the attention of noble Lords to the precedent for providing such a protection in relation to civil penalties. It was contained in the draft Bill considered by a joint scrutiny committee, which then became the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The committee recommended the insertion of a provision, which became Section 174(2) of that Act, preventing the use of compulsory statements obtained under Section 123 as a result of which civil penalties might be imposed for market abuse.
The circumstances here are directly comparable, in that the Financial Services Authority has—as this Bill proposes that Ofcom should have—the power to impose such significant penalties. So Parliament did accept the principle that, in such circumstances, protection should be provided against self-incrimination analogous to Article 6 of the convention. In saying that it is not necessary to put anything in the Bill because the protection already exists, the Government imply that they accept that it is right for such a protection to exist, in which case they ought to be sympathetic to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, it is clear that there is a disagreement between the Government
470
and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; not a disagreement between us personally, but on the legal advice that we have received. I ought to make it clear that the relevant protections relating to self-incrimination relate to criminal proceedings. The extent to which, for example, enforcement action against an operator for breach of a condition of entitlement under Part 2 may be regarded as a criminal matter from the human rights perspective remains to be clarified by case law. So in applying these provisions, Ofcom, like any other enforcement agency, will have to act in accordance with the law as it evolves.
However, having made those comments, because of the matter of our disagreement, I shall take away the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, read the detail in Hansard and come back to him. It is clear that this matter must be resolved. We are determined to do that when we return to the Bill next week. I thank the noble Lord.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister has been extremely helpful because, as he says, there must be a disagreement between the legal advice that is available to the Government and that which has been offered to us. We hope that this issue can be resolved by discussion before we reach the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 153 [Directions with respect to the radio spectrum]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 73B:
Page 141, line 33, leave out "3A" and insert "3"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and those grouped with it relate to recognised spectrum access, a subject which we covered in some detail in Committee. Noble Lords will recall that the Government did not accept our argument that the cost of RSA would be passed on to consumers.
The satellite operators say that they are already using the spectrum as efficiently as it is possible to do and that there is no scope for efficiency savings to be made upon the introduction of RSA. Therefore the additional cost burden that RSA is bound to generate will necessarily have to be passed on to the users of the satellite platform and, ultimately, to the consumers of the services.
As was pointed out in Committee, the operators also say that RSA may compromise the take-up of digital television and, as a result, the Government's switchover target. I am bound to accept that the advice from the operators of the satellite services is of some significance in this regard. If the technical advice they are giving asserts that the adoption of these technologies will be delayed, they are in the best position to know and, with respect, I think that their opinion ought to prevail over that of the Government's advisers. At any rate, if the matter remains unresolved in the discussions between the industry and the Government, we can say that there has been a gap in communications between the two

471
which needs to be closed during the Report stage of the Bill, rather than to allow the subject to be left unsolved and to take its place on the statute book.
In pursuing the arguments put by the satellite industry, we also assert that recognised spectrum access is likely to stifle emerging broadband services, which require a greater use of spectrum than does broadcasting. The application of RSA will constitute a significant and damaging disincentive to innovation and the development of new broadband satellite services. Again, this is likely to affect disproportionately rural consumers, about whom we heard on the last occasion during the discussion on the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. It may also reduce competitiveness in the broadband market by making the further development of broadband interactive satellite services prohibitively expensive. So it will certainly compromise the Government's objective of having in place the most competitive and extensive broadband market in the G7 by 2005.
I ask the Government to think again about the whole question of recognised spectrum access. If they cannot accept these amendments, I hope that they will say that they are at the least open to further discussions before this extensive provision is included in the Bill without any additional consideration. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I shall not even attempt to say that I will be brief on this matter. Recognised spectrum access is a very important area. We had a considerable debate in Committee and I return to that discussion with our Amendments Nos. 74 to 99.
I am grateful to the Minister for the time that he has put into addressing the concerns I have raised. Moreover, I received a detailed letter, for which I am grateful. However, I am still unhappy that the Government have failed to provide sufficiently clear answers to these concerns. I now return to the issues to seek further clarification.
I shall start with the question of consultation, and my Amendment No. 74. RSAs are of huge concern to the satellite industry. If nothing else, the level of representations received, and the amount of time given over to this subject in debates in this Chamber and another place, stand testament to that. As the Minister also indicated in his letter to me, the majority of responses to last year's consultation were from organisations against RSA. I believe that it is vitally important for them at least to be clear that their concerns are to be taken into account, and are seen to be taken into account, in the implementation of this new system.
I do not think that the Government's reassurances on this matter have been convincing. As we have discussed previously, Clause 156 does, indeed, refer to Clause 396, which includes a requirement to consult and take account of the representations received. But Clause 396 relates only to Ofcom's powers to make regulations,
472
orders and schemes, requiring consultation on these prior to their being put to Parliament—a "statutory longstop", as the Minister puts it in his letter. This is rather late in the day, however, and the real concern remains that there is an absence of any provision for extensive and detailed consultation on fundamental RSA principles, which should take place well before any statutory instruments come to be drawn up.
I should like to take a moment to contrast the Government's position on my proposal for consultation here and that which they took on the proposal for consultation on the implementation of my proposed new clause on restrictive covenants affecting freehold. There I proposed an amendment which would have required consultation before the bringing into force of the provisions of the new clause. In rejecting the new clause and amendment, the Minister replied that there is a difference between consulting on the substance of a provision and consulting on bringing into force a provision that has already been made. That is precisely the point that I am putting to the Minister today, yet, unfortunately, he appears not to accept its validity. Perhaps the Minister could explain this difference in approach, or preferably accept my amendment for the purposes of consistency.
Furthermore, the duty to carry out and consult on impact assessments under Clause 7 is entirely down to Ofcom's own discretion on what is important and, as we previously discussed, the better regulation principles may—unless the Minister changes his mind, and I am hopeful that he will—unfortunately be disregarded by Ofcom, also whenever it chooses to do so.
These are concerns that rest heavy with the industry. What the industry wants is a clear and guaranteed opportunity to make its concerns heard at an appropriate and timely stage of the decision-making process, not a vague commitment to consult at the convenience of the regulator which could in theory decide not to consult at all until the eleventh hour.
Moving on to a more positive outcome from our discussions I should like to thank the Minister for his expression of personal sympathy with the arguments that I put forward in favour of "grandfathering" the RSA proposals to pre-existing satellite transponder agreements which have not factored in the possibility of RSA. It is—as I think he acknowledges—important not to discriminate in providing such protection to terrestrial broadcasters' licensing agreements and satellite transponder agreements. I should like to press him a little further on that, however, and in particular on the difference between his personal views and his views as the Minister responsible for broadcasting.
In his letter he indicates that the timing of the introduction of charges for RSA will be a matter for Ofcom to judge. Yet, as I indicated in Committee, in the Government's own response to the review of radio spectrum management they indicated that spectrum trading and pricing as regards terrestrial broadcasters is not to take effect while they have existing licences which did not anticipate such pricing. If the

473
Government are able to make such a clear policy statement as regards terrestrial frequencies, I should like to ask the Minister what is stopping him now from making an equivalent policy statement today on satellite transponder agreements rather than simply expressing a personal view.
I should like now to turn to Clause 158(3), which provides for the auctioning of RSAs, and my Amendment No. 85, which seeks to delete this provision. As I argued in Committee, while it makes sense to auction an actual scarce frequency, it does not make sense to auction an RSA, which is merely protection against a particular terrestrial frequency being deployed to create interference. Surely if there is a risk of interference to a number of satellite broadcasters from the deployment of a terrestrial fixed link, all of them should be able to obtain protection against interference and not just one.
I put a number of questions on that issue to the Minister in Committee. How, for example, will the winner of the auction ensure that those who did not bid do not benefit from the protection which RSA granted to him provides? What happens to the loser who was prepared to pay but valued the protection less highly? Does he have to do without the protection? Unfortunately, the Minister appeared unwilling to engage in debate on these difficult questions in Committee and has not attempted to answer them in the letter either. Instead the arguments in favour of auctioning remain simplistic and generalised; that there is widespread support in principle both for auctions and for spectrum pricing, and charging makes the use of spectrum more efficient. Support in principle is all very well but auctioning is quite inappropriate in the case of RSAs.
I am afraid that I must ask the Minister again, therefore, if he will take this opportunity to outline the circumstances where an auction of RSA would be appropriate, and how it would be unaffected by the considerable flaws I have already outlined. As the Minister observed in Committee, Amendments Nos. 75 to 84 and 86 to 98 all relate to the way in which Ofcom will grant and regulate RSA. This is, I believe, an important and legitimate source of concern for those who stand to be regulated in this way. The Government should not simply dismiss it as predictable special pleading on the part of commercial operators. First, I believe there are outstanding questions to be answered in relation to Ofcom's ability to impose wide-ranging conditions on an RSA under Clause 156(5), for example, on the signal or what is broadcast on it.
The Minister indicated in his response in Committee that there may be a need to impose technical terms and conditions, for example, standards that equipment should meet,
"to obtain a desired quality of service, or to deal with extraneous symptoms that may be received, or to deal with restrictions on the frequency limits or on geographical boundaries".—[Official Report, 20/5/03; col. 750.]
He has also added in his subsequent letter that,
474
"It may be considered desirable to limit the uses to which spectrum benefiting from RSA may be put in a particular frequency band, for example in the interests of promoting a particular service such as broadband".
I remain concerned at this clear broadening of the policy intention behind RSA, which my Amendment No. 75 seeks to address. The purpose of RSA is to protect the holder against interference to his satellite signal—nothing more. Surely, therefore, it runs wholly counter to this rationale that positive conditions are imposed on the RSA holder relating to his signal or what he broadcasts on it. The Minister has said that the provisions are needed to manage the spectrum but this should only mean providing protection against terrestrial interference. Other policy objectives such as the promotion of one particular type of service over another should not form part of the RSA rationale.
On a related matter, Clause 161 allows Ofcom to limit spectrum use by specifying frequencies for which it will grant or make available only a limited number of RSAs or specifying uses for which on specified frequencies Ofcom will grant or make available only a limited number of RSAs.
Amendments Nos. 86 to 91 seek to address the concern that in effect these provisions enable Ofcom to ration the protection which is to be afforded by RSA and to impose restrictions on the use of satellite frequencies which are already subject to international co-ordination and agreement. If RSAs are to be made available, they must be available to all satellite operators and broadcasters. After all, RSAs are simply intended to enable satellite broadcasters to guard against terrestrial interference. Therefore, the number of RSAs granted should be determined wholly by the demand for them and nothing else. This is clearly not the Government's intention, however. Instead they regard RSA as a tool with which to shape the use of satellite spectrum rather than a simple protection from interference. As the Minister explained in Committee:
"Radio spectrum is a scarce resource. In some frequency bands, the need to protect one service from interference can constrain the deployment of other services in bands shared by satellite downlinks and terrestrial point-to-point fixed links. It is necessary to limit the grant of RSA, to prevent other services from being unduly restricted".—[Official Report, 20/5/03; col. 750.]
I move on to Ofcom's powers to revoke the grant of an RSA or modify the restrictions or conditions to which a grant is subject. In particular, I remain concerned that there is no constraint on the grounds on which Ofcom may modify or revoke a grant, other than when it includes in an RSA the self-denying ordinances in paragraph 7 of Schedule 5.
In his letter, the Minister argued that it may be necessary through modification or revocation to re-farm spectrum to make room for a new service. He said that RSA holders,
"will have a considerable degree of security in relation to revocation or modification",
in that they will have a right of appeal and that Ofcom will be required to act reasonably and give an appropriate period of notice, depending on certain circumstances. It is difficult to see how any holder of an RSA would feel secure in the light of such weak assurances. The Minister has already indicated that he

475
believes it reasonable for a licence to be revoked in certain circumstances, so I cannot imagine that Ofcom will find it too difficult to negotiate that particular hurdle. A longer period of notice is unlikely to sweeten the pill.
I believe that it is contrary to the legitimate rights of an RSA holder for Ofcom to have such unfettered power to amend or remove, albeit after the RSA holder has been able to make representations, an RSA during the period for which it has been granted. What is the value of an RSA that in theory protects against the possibility of signal interference, while at the same time provides a mechanism for greater regulatory intervention that would allow the protection to be withdrawn at the behest of Ofcom? Once granted, RSAs should not be revocable and should last their full term. Amendments Nos. 76 to 84 seek to ensure that that is the case.
Finally, I should like to address the issue of spectrum trading. My concern remains that Clause 165 would allow Ofcom to alter the conditions of an RSA, and require further payments to be made or financial security to be given, before giving its consent to any transfer. Such provisions could alter fundamentally the rights and values of the RSA originally granted, and are inconsistent with the underlying principles of property and human rights. The effect is that, on a sub-licensing of transponder capacity, it may not be possible to transfer any associated RSA protection. That will create problems for secondary trading in transponder capacity. As noted in Committee, the European Commission has been keen to see that flourish.
We believe that the Government have failed to justify the provisions. In Committee, they said that the amendments would he "unhelpful", without giving any reasons other than that they would dilute Ofcom's powers. The Minister's letter goes a little further, indicating that transfers of RSA could lead to "undesirable outcomes" and raise issues of,
"competition or compliance with international obligations".
However, it again fails to expand on those policy reasons.
With such significant powers of intervention handed to Ofcom on the matter, I urge the Government to be more forthcoming in their explanations. If they are unable to do so, I urge them to accept Amendments Nos. 92 to 99. They would not remove RSAs from the trading provisions, but would reduce significantly the ability of Ofcom to alter conditions requiring further payment or require its consent to be given.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I also have a very long speech. I shall have to give the parts of it that refer to the amendments that have been spoken to. Fortunately, a number of amendments in the group have not been spoken to at all. I hope that the House will be glad to hear that I do not think it necessary for me to respond to them. I am glad that I was able to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and to place my letter in the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of both Houses.
476
I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has more general concerns such as the belief of some people in the industry, although by no means everyone, that RSA could compromise switchover or stifle emerging broadband. Those are general complaints about recognised spectrum access, and I do not think that I am in a position to do anything other than respond to the amendments in the Marshalled List. If he wants to discuss the wider issues, of course I am always happy to do so.
The principle of RSA has already been extensively discussed. The powers in the Bill are broad enabling powers. It is up to Ofcom to decide in which frequency band RSA should apply, the timing of its introduction and the level of charges. Decisions on that have not been made yet.
Before I go into the individual amendments, I should tell the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that I listened closely to what she said and have some sympathy with her arguments on Amendments Nos. 75 and 76. I am happy to look again at the scope of Ofcom's powers on the restrictions and conditions to which the grant of RSA can be made subject. I want to see whether we can table an amendment at Third Reading to narrow those restrictions and conditions without compromising the effective management of the radio spectrum.
Auctions are referred to in Amendments Nos. 73B, 73C and 85 and in the linked Amendment No. 226A, which would prevent Ofcom from charging fees for RSA in excess of its costs. The underlying thought seems to be that it is wrong to charge for RSA on the same basis as licences. That is what the Trade and Industry Committee of the House of Commons said, and we have already published our response to that which goes into the issue in some detail.
Businesses such as Sky that currently benefit from satellite's free access to spectrum in frequency bands shared with terrestrial services are concerned about the prospect of paying for their use of that valuable resource. Understandably, they would rather pay nothing at all or limit their payment to cover Ofcom's costs. We have repeatedly said that we have included strong and effective safeguards in the Bill to meet those concerns about the level of fees. The amendments, which would limit the fees to costs recovery, go too far. They would deprive Ofcom of an effective spectrum management tool and perpetuate the present inequity in some frequency bands. But terrestrial users pay a fair price for spectrum, whereas satellite operators do not. That does not seem to me to be a defensible stance.
I am trying not to make points that are unnecessary in the light of the debate, but in dealing with the issue of auctions and pricing I have to say that I valued the principled position taken by the Conservative Party in debates on the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998. It said that the spectrum pricing principles should be extended to satellite. That is what we are doing in the Bill. The amendments would depart from that principle, and I really do not understand why the Opposition wish to depart from it now. There is no basis for distinguishing between RSA and licences in respect of administrative incentive pricing or auctions.

477
By "administrative incentive pricing" I mean setting fees in accordance with spectrum management considerations, having regard to factors such as congestion which are specified in Clause 151(2) rather than by reference to the cost of managing the spectrum. These fees are levied to promote a more efficient use of the radio spectrum, not to maximise revenue. It is important to be clear on that point. Both the RSA and licences give the holder access to a specified quantum of spectrum of a defined quality, and the charging principles are exactly the same.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said in Committee that RSA should not be auctioned because it is "merely protection". Indeed, the Trade and Industry Select Committee went further and called it a protection racket. This is of the essence. Permission to transmit is of little value unless there is the facility to receive free from interference. That facility underpins the value of spectrum of a communications medium. What the noble Baroness describes as "merely protection" is as valuable as a licence, and should, in fairness, be charged for on the same basis. Indeed, the Trade and Industry Committee endorsed those principles for spectrum licences.
In the end, decisions on auctions for RSA will be a matter for Ofcom. I cannot anticipate how Ofcom will use the auctions, but it will be required to act in accordance with the spectrum duty in Clause 151, taking account in particular of spectrum management considerations, and it will consult, as required by Clause 396. I appreciate the concern expressed by satellite operators about the level of fees. I am happy to repeat the assurance that RSA charges will be no higher than necessary for spectrum management purposes. Clause 151 gives that assurance statutory force.
Amendment No. 74 would require Ofcom to consult all interested parties before making regulations to apply RSA and to consider whether they are appropriate and proportionate. I have no problem with the principle behind the amendment and we have given repeated assurances that there will be full and detailed consultation before decisions are reached. But the amendment is not necessary, because Ofcom's general duty is to regulate in a way that is proportionate and appropriate. That will apply to RSA as to other aspects of Ofcom's functions. We do not need to repeat that requirement specifically for RSA.
There are provisions in the Bill requiring Ofcom to consult before introducing RSA. Clause 76(6) requires Ofcom to consult about major regulatory changes or changes with a significant impact. Clause 396 requires Ofcom to consult and take representations into account before making RSA regulations. There is nothing to prevent Ofcom from consulting more extensively if it wants to do so. The framework for consultation applies to, and is sufficient for, other Ofcom regulations. There is no need to have a special regime for RSA.
478
I have referred to our sympathy for Amendments Nos. 75 and 76. It is not possible to anticipate exactly what restrictions or conditions Ofcom may need to impose. It is prudent to give Ofcom similar flexibility as for licences. RSA could be for a wide range of services, not just satellite. Restrictions and conditions will have to be tailored to the circumstances, so we need to give Ofcom a margin of flexibility, for example—and this comes back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—to promote broadband by restricting the services that benefit from RSA, or to impose conditions on sharing spectrum in the interests of spectrum efficiency.
In exercising this power, Ofcom will be bound by Clause 3 to have regard to the principle of good regulation, and by Clause 6 not to impose unnecessary burdens. However, we will look again at the scope of the powers to see if we can narrow them. I hope that that will give some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
The noble Baroness referred to the issue of revocation and modification, which is in Amendments Nos. 74 to 77. The amendments would limit the circumstances in which Ofcom may revoke or modify RSA to cases in which the holder has consented or there has been a contravention or restriction of the condition of the grant. This is too inflexible: Ofcom may need to revoke or modify RSA for a number of reasons. It may be in the best interests of consumers to free up spectrum that is subject to RSA for a new service to be established.
The amendment would not allow Ofcom to use the accelerated procedure in subsection (6) in urgent cases including those involving a serious threat to public safety, public health or national security. We must make provision for such a threat, should it arise, and for Ofcom to act swiftly. For example, in the terms of RSA, reserving frequencies for holders' exclusive use could prevent spectrum being made available for some application needed urgently to counter a serious threat. We need to have the power to act quickly.
Amendments Nos. 86 to 91 would remove references to RSA from Clause 161. That requires Ofcom, in imposing limitations on the use of particular frequencies, to make an order. It is difficult to predict exactly how the order could be used, but one can see in general terms why it is needed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, acknowledged that radio spectrum is a scarce resource. In some frequency bands there is a need to protect one service from interference that can constrain the deployment of other services, for example, in bands shared by satellite links and terrestrial point-to-point fixed links. If we grant RSA and a shared band, that effectively reduces the spectrum available for other applications. In these circumstances, it is necessary to limit the grant of RSA to prevent other services from being unduly constrained to the detriment of the economy and of consumers.

479
Amendments Nos. 94 to 99 are about trading. They would prevent Ofcom from restricting the circumstances or manner of trading and imposing conditions. Amendment No. 99 would remove the sanction in subsection (4) that underpins Ofcom's regulation of trading of RSA. Transfers of RSA will give rise to similar considerations and similar regulations as transfers of licences. Ofcom will therefore need similar powers.
We cannot anticipate what use they will make of the powers in Clause 165, but they will be required by Clauses 3, 6 and 151 to be proportionate, appropriate and in accordance with the general principles of administrative law to act reasonably. They will be required to consult before making orders, and there will be rights of appeal against their orders.
I am sorry to have gone on so long, but this is a complicated group of amendments. I hope that I have given answers that address the problems raised by these amendments.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and thorough response. These are complicated issues, but they are tremendously important. I am grateful that the noble Lord has taken the time that is necessary to respond to the concerns that I have raised today. I do not want to detain your Lordships' House. There is much to consider, and I want to re-read what the Minister said in Hansard. I extend my grateful thanks for his agreement to reconsider the scope of Ofcom's powers, which addressed our concerns expressed in Amendments No. 75 and 76. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness was in fact intervening before the Minister concluded. I moved the amendment and the noble Baroness was speaking to it. It is unfortunate that although the vast majority of amendments in this grouping were in the name of the noble Baroness, I must withdraw the amendment, which I will be happy to do in a moment.
The Minister made only one concession in his lengthy exposition, although that was quite useful. He acknowledged that the unfettered power to impose restrictions on the grants of RSA might need to be modified and that he might come back to noble Lords with suggestions that would replace those that the noble Baroness made in Amendments Nos. 75 and 76. That concession was useful.
The whole complicated question of RSA has not been thoroughly explored. Part of the reason for that involves the nature of the process that we undergo between successive stages of the Bill. I went into the Library to ask for copies of all of the letters that the Minister had sent to various speakers on different amendments. They threw up their hands in horror and said that no fewer than 60 such letters had been lodged in the Library and, presumably, in the Printed Paper
480
Office. The problem is that the advisers helping us with the amendments do not necessarily see those letters because, unless we remember to send them out—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is the noble Lord's job.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord says that but he has vast resources in his department. Unfortunately, I have only me. People sometimes ring me up and say, "Could I speak to Lord Avebury's private secretary or his research assistant?", and I always have to tell them that that there is me and no one else.
With great respect, there is another solution to this matter, which is of more general interest than simply the amendment. Is there any reason why important letters such as the one that the noble Lord sent us about RSA—which was put in the Printed Paper Office and the Libraries of the two Houses—should not be put on the department's website? I am glad to see the noble Lord nodding at that suggestion. That would enable people in the industry to see what was happening in discussions between the Government and noble Lords, and it would help them to advise us more cogently between Committee and Report stages.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no reason at all why that should not go on the website. However, I can make a suggestion that is perhaps rather unorthodox: the noble Lord could tell us who his advisers are and we will send them copies of the letters.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, that might be almost as much trouble as making copies and sending them out. We do not always know who in the industry would benefit from knowing what the noble Lord said in a lengthy five-page letter about the various aspects of RSA that we discussed in Committee. I leave that thought with the Minister.
After discussions between the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and ourselves, there may he some issues to which we may wish to return at a later stage. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 73C not moved.]
Clause 156 [Grant of recognised spectrum access]:
[Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Procedure for grants of recognised spectrum access]:
[Amendments Nos. 76 to 84 not moved.]
Clause 158 [Charges in respect of grants of recognised spectrum access]:
[Amendment No. 85 not moved]
Clause 159 [Conversion into and from wireless telegraphy licences]:
[Amendment No. 85 A not moved.]
Clause 161 [Limitations on authorised spectrum use]:
[Amendments Nos. 86 to 91 not moved.]
Clause 165 [Spectrum trading]:
[Amendments Nos. 92 to 99 not moved.]
Clause 195 [Functions of OFCOM in relation to the BBC]:
6 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane Lord Gordon of Strathblane moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 175, line 11, leave out from "OFCOM" to end of line 15 and insert—

"(a) to approve or amend all BBC Statements of Programme Policy and to satisfy themselves that the Governors of the BBC have ensured adherence to them;

(b) to advise the Secretary of State as to whether the BBC should be permitted to introduce new television or radio services, alter the character of existing services or cease to provide them;

(c) to satisfy themselves that the BBC has followed best practice in its expenditure of funds raised by the licence fee and from other sources;

(d) to ensure that any cross promotion by the BBC does not unduly distort any market; and

(e) "

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this subject was raised in Committee, albeit at a very late hour, on 20th May. I am sure that noble Lords will be grateful to me at least for being brief on this matter tonight and for giving my argument in bullet-point form rather than rehearsing the whole issue.
If we are to have a Bill which brings together broadcasting and telecommunications, it would appear to the man on the street somewhat strange to leave out the principal player in both television and radio. For that reason, I believe that the onus is firmly on the Government to prove that it is a good idea rather than for people such as me to prove our side of the case.
My argument is, first, that having the BBC fully under Ofcom would improve the public service broadcasting regulatory role of Ofcom. It would strengthen that aspect of Ofcom against the simple competition regulation. I suspect that many noble Lords will at least agree with that point, although I suspect that they will disagree with some other points that I make.
Another point is that if the BBC does not come under Ofcom, there is the danger of a rival regulator in the key area of subjective assessment where the public service broadcasting objectives are being discharged. There is a danger of conflict and chaos, and that will strengthen the argument of people who say, "This regulation is just chaotic. Leave it to the market because they can't make up their own minds whether it is a good idea or a bad one". An independent producer could take a programme to the BBC, which the BBC screens and regards as acceptable. It might then transpire that Ofcom had ruled it unacceptable in the independent sector, or vice versa. That does not make sense.
My other argument for putting the BBC under Ofcom is not that that would take power away from the BBC governors; it would impose a buffer authority between the BBC governors and the Secretary of State. I shall not quote it in full but noble Lords may recall that on Second Reading I quoted the somewhat disingenuous brief from the DCMS saying that this is being fair to all in that it puts everyone on the same footing, where everyone is self-regulatory, at tier 3.
As the Secretary of State pointed out, the fact is that if the independent sector does not live up to its obligations, Ofcom can intervene. But the Secretary of State went on to insist that if the BBC does not live up to its obligations, we want politicians to intervene. I do not like politicians interfering in broadcasting: I like the British tradition of buffer authorities. I believe that the BBC is better off with a buffer authority between it and a Secretary of State rather than a Secretary of State being the judge on matters of impartiality and everything else and where, frankly, he is frequently parti pris.
The third argument is: in future, how can a Secretary of State decide whether the BBC should introduce new services if he cannot be given advice from a single source on what the broadcasting ecology is looking like at that moment? If the BBC remains outside Ofcom, presumably it will have to turn to the DCMS for advice on the BBC and to Ofcom for advice on everything else. Advice is required from a single source looking at the whole broadcasting landscape.
I address my third point, in particular, to my noble friend Lord Sheldon, who spoke eloquently and passionately about the role of the BBC governors. I concede that there have been great governors of the BBC. I simply remind them that they are human beings appointed by politicians, as is the board of Ofcom. If politicians can get the appointment of governors of the BBC right, the assumption must be that they will get right the appointment of the board of Ofcom.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, which would my noble friend sooner be—a governor of the BBC or on the board of Ofcom? I do not believe there is any doubt that any Member of this House would say that being a governor is a great position to hold. with its long tradition and its great certainties during the long period that the post is occupied. Does it compare with being on the board of Ofcom?
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, once Ofcom is up and running, I would argue that the answer is yes. But, in the light of his remarks in Committee, I should have expected my noble friend to make that point, and I understand where he is coming from on it.
However, I think so highly of the BBC governors that I would give them the whole thing. Why bother with Ofcom? Let us simply put the whole lot under the BBC governors. I suspect that noble Lords will say, "Hold on, but they run the BBC. They would be partial". That is not the theory. The theory is that they are not partial to the BBC but are wholly independent public regulators. It is precisely that duality of role that, in my view, creates an unresolvable conflict for a

483
governor of the BBC—one which has been addressed in White Paper after White Paper. How can the top board of a company somehow be independent of that company and stand back in the public interest? I shall not stand back too far in case I topple over.
It is very easy to convince oneself, as politicians do regularly, to do the popular thing before an election on the basis that only if one is in power will one do good. Similarly, the governors of the BBC will decide to make more popular programmes, because as long as they have the licence fee they can continue to provide public service broadcasting. Meanwhile, they go further down the slippery slope, competing against what is—regrettably—increasingly tawdry competition from more and more television channels; and standards continue to fall.
In passing, if the BBC governors are not the top board of the corporation, who are its non-executive directors? What would Mr Higgs have to say about a body with a turnover of £2·5 billion a year, with no non-executive directors at the top? Of course the BBC governors are the top board of the BBC. However, it is very difficult to exercise both roles at once.
The arguments in favour of putting the BBC wholly under Ofcom are conclusive. If we do not do that, we will subject ourselves to two lots of debates each time: parallel debates about Ofcom and the BBC. If noble Lords want to subject themselves to two lots of debates rather than one, by all means keep the BBC outside and presumably we will have these arguments about the BBC as little as one year ahead of the same arguments about Ofcom. It is much more sensible, and much better for both organisations to have the BBC inside from the beginning.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, although I see the force of the arguments made by my noble friend Lord Gordon, which we discussed for many hours during the Davis inquiry, I think that this is really best considered at Charter renewal, when we can look at the whole spectrum of considerations on the BBC, rather than taken in isolation on this occasion.
My noble friend wants one giant leap, but I want one nudge before then. It is set out in Amendment No. 112; namely that Ofcom should have powers to follow up the BBC's fair trading rules—not the rules themselves, but their implementation in practice.
I moved that amendment in Committee. Indeed, when the first Marshalled List came out, my heart gave a mighty leap, because I found that conjoined with my name was that of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who when I first moved this had been rather critical of it. However, his name has since disappeared and been replaced by a name of equal quality—that of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I have not got the ally—indeed, the convert—I originally had, but the argument is as powerful as it ever was.
The basic divide—and why this should be done now— is as to when the BBC is under Ofcom and when it is not; namely, whether it is engaging in commercial or public service activities. Public service is outwith Ofcom, in the province of the governors; commercial activity falls
484
under Ofcom's competition responsibilities. Therefore, it seems perfectly sensible that when the fair trading obligations are to be monitored, Ofcom should play a powerful role. I said that at Committee stage.
The amendment is down again today because the noble Lord, Lord McNally, made a much better job of finding problems with it than did the Minister, who gave what I can only describe as a perfunctory and ill-informed reply. We have a different Minister this evening, so I hope for better.
The Minister then referred to the Whish report, not knowing that Professor Whish was actually debarred by his terms of reference from considering what this amendment covers, and what Ministers were exciting him in support of. The Government seemed blissfully happy to allow the BBC to act as referee in the matter, when it is also a player on the field—a principle which rarely applies with great effect in public life.
I hope that the Minister will expand on this. There is an area of doubt in my mind—and for all I know many other noble Lords' minds—and in the minds of those who have to run Ofcom. How strong and far-reaching are the powers of Ofcom with regard to competition law? If they are strong and far-reaching, the amendment may be otiose. It follows from those powers that if in practice the BBC breaks its trading obligations Ofcom can intervene. However, if, as others think, the powers are somewhat weak, then it is not so placed and we are left with the Government refereeing and playing simultaneously—and these days the BBC plays pretty hard and one needs, therefore, a strong referee to keep it under control.
It is a clear and simple case. I hope that we receive a strong and more considered ministerial response than previously; otherwise the temptation to divide the House will be powerful if not irresistible.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I speak to Amendments Nos. 104A, 105A and 105B in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and myself.
Amendment No. 105A relates to subsection (3), which gives powers to Ofcom to regulate BBC services and impose penalties in respect of contraventions of those regulations. Subsection (5) proposes penalties of £250,000. I find that astonishing. We are threatening to fine the BBC as though it were a bunch of crooks. To my mind, it is the greatest public service that we have seen in the past 100 years. To start dealing with it in this way is an insult.
The purpose of the amendment is to make people realise what the Bill proposes. The governors have to submit to Ofcom's views. As I said in an intervention, would any of us prefer to be on Ofcom rather than a BBC governor? I should not have thought that that was so for the majority of the Members of this House. They would be subordinate to Ofcom's views. These are people of principle and standing; they are people of great merit. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, my noble friend Lord Barnett and the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg. In the past, there have been many other great people. It is proposed that Ofcom will decide what they should be doing rather than those who have

485
at heart the public interest. We do not know who the members of the Ofcom board will be. But we do know the standing of the governors of the BBC. That is a most important aspect.
The suggested penalties are ludicrous. It is a matter we shall need to deal with. We should be chastising not the BBC, but the way in which some of these matters are dealt with. Ofcom has a very distinguished chairman but I do not think that it will have the same level of distinction among the ordinary members of the board.
Over the past many years, the standards of public service broadcasting have undoubtedly been set by the BBC. It has had an enormous effect on the whole of public service broadcasting. If any of the other channels or stations deviate too strongly, the comparison is made. Others cannot stray too far. That has had an effect on the broadcasting system in this country.
Regulations can provide a number of loopholes. The United States is a good example. In the United States people are exploiting all kinds of loopholes in a way that I hope we shall not see in this country.
Amendment No. 111 deals with the National Audit Office. I am considering its effectiveness. What does the National Audit Office do?
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Sheldon, will forgive me, Amendment No. 111 is not in this group of amendments.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for pointing that out. I shall speak to those other matters later.
There are those who feel that the principled actions of the BBC and the way in which it operates curtail its opportunities in this area. Of course, the BBC has been the great defender of our standards. It has earned the envy of many countries and many broadcasting systems in the world and the appreciation and gratitude of many others. I look forward to seeing some qualitative contribution from my noble friend who is to respond on such matters and I look forward to a considered reply in answer to my points.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as ever, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, on these matters. He has a vast experience of public service and public sector management. In an earlier debate I mentioned that this morning I had the great pleasure of listening to Pat Mitchell, the president and chief executive officer of Public Broadcast Service (PBS) in the United States. I came away renewed in my determination that in our deliberations on this Bill we should ensure that the great tradition of public service broadcasting, of which the BBC is the iron pole, should be retained when our deliberations are over.
I cannot support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon. I am not as worried as he appears to be about rival regulators. There may have been a
486
time when there was genuine concern about piling such a wide range of responsibilities on a single regulator, particularly when the regulator on whom one is to pile the responsibilities is as yet totally untried. As many people say, we have a great national asset, a world asset, in the BBC. It is one of the strongest brand names in the world. It seems to me to be extraordinary that with such an asset we should contemplate moving it lock, stock and barrel to a regulator whose prime responsibility is not the defence of public service broadcasting but regulation of a commercial sector. The main merits of those chosen for Ofcom are their understanding and skills in managing and regulating a private sector.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. In the light of that, does he agree that if the BBC is ever to come under Ofcom, it is much better for it to come under Ofcom at the beginning rather than later on?
Lord McNally: My Lords, quite the contrary. I want to see some performance from Ofcom. I shall need much persuading when we come to charter review. I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, that from time to time the governors come in for a fair amount of criticism, but for over 80 years the system has not served this country too badly. I have said at various times during the course of the Bill that if hospitals and transport performed half as well as the BBC, the Government would have no problems in defending public services or the public sector.
So I am not persuaded. We must await the charter review. I am worried that even then we will get from the commercial sector a kind of "whine of the week" about the activities of a too-successful BBC. I am worried about placing limits on what the BBC should do. Imagine if this measure had been in place with the BBC and colour television or the BBC and digital. The BBC has been over the years an admirable innovator. As we heard earlier, it has an outstanding record in research, development and training.
I want to see those assets well protected. I want to see a little track record from Ofcom before I even contemplate handing over to an untried regulator a public body that is working extremely efficiently and with considerable public approval. I also think—perhaps we saw it again yesterday in the little spat in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in another place—that we must be careful to retain what has been one of the pieces of genius in the structure of the BBC: the buffer between the BBC as a public service broadcaster and the politicians of the day in power. We must defend that buffer carefully.
With his usual skill, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has enticed me a little along the way, because I want to see the BBC constrain itself in its commercial operations. There was a tendency for a while in the BBC to be beguiled by the idea of its entrepreneurial zeal and its commercial activities. It is better that it stands its credibility on its public service commitment.
But as I said before, there is a catch-22 for the BBC. Let us not forget that the settlement negotiated with the Government asked the BBC to maximise its

487
commercial operations. Therefore it is a little harsh, when the BBC does maximise its commercial operations, to say, "Oh well, now we're going to restrict you because you're doing that too well".
We find the government amendments acceptable, but we have reservations about trying to jump the gun and make decisions too early on matters that are best left to charter review.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, I have a few brief observations. I think that finally, whether it is in three, five or six years, the BBC will be under Ofcom and the people who run Ofcom will be every bit as distinguished as those who run the BBC. I suspect that they will be the same sort of people, from the same sort of background and with the same sort of experience. The logic goes in that direction if Ofcom is to achieve what everyone in the House wants it to.
But not yet, as was said on a more dramatic occasion. The time to do that is at the BBC Charter review, when a great deal of scrutiny should rightly be brought to bear on the BBC, and the idea of it being in Ofcom would be appropriately considered there—I agree with my noble friend Lord Lipsey. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that by that time we will be able to see the colour of Ofcom's coat and how it has matched up, because the BBC governors on the whole have done a very good job and everyone in the House who supports the BBC—as I do—wants to ensure that it is going into good hands.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Lipsey on commercial interest. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, is absolutely right: the BBC was enjoined to carry on more commercial activities. It has done so very well—people think it has done so too well—but it is in areas that overlap with other areas of legitimate commercial activity. There are legitimate complaints of infringement and of the BBC being unduly favoured in market after market. We cannot walk away from that.
Although I am friends with many of the people who run the BBC—Greg Dyke the director general is one of my best friends, I am pleased to say—they cannot walk away from the fact that it is hitting other organisations hard, from publishers to other broadcasters, some of which have just as much public service responsibility. I am sorry to keep hammering the point, but they have just as much public service responsibility and public service grit as the BBC does. Channel 4 and ITV often outmatch the BBC in their public service devotion. We agree that they took their lead from the BBC. But, although the BBC sets, and is, the standard, it is not the only one. The others have continued in many areas when the BBC has stepped out of its public responsibility for a while.
Commercial overspill into other areas, which my noble friend Lord Lipsey discussed, should be examined and Ofcom is the place to do that. I fail to see how the governors can possibly be in a position to regulate it. They will follow what the Government have enjoined them to do—to commercialise their activities as much as possible—and they will let the hounds loose to do so. The BBC has developed some lean whippets over the past few years for that purpose.
488
But they must be reined in differently. Things change, and the kaleidoscope comes up with colours that we do not always want. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lipsey on that point.
The governors have done a very line job. They are principled, intelligent and dedicated. Nevertheless, as my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane said, it is extremely difficult to be responsible for the organisation as overseer and executive. Without casting any blame—it is a matter of human conduct and not blame—the governors get on very well with the executives and back them to the hilt time and again. How many times have the BBC governors backed the executive? Five thousand? How many times have they publicly said, "No, the executives were wrong. We object"? Two, three or four? That is how it is bound to be when people work together so closely. In the increasingly expansive, difficult, complicated and internationalising world of television and radio such togetherness—almost collusion—will no be more acceptable—
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that there are many occasions where one does not publicise ones disagreement because it might cause more difficulty than if one did so behind the scenes.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, I am very aware of that. I am sure it has happened, but not that often. I am not here to blame the governors. For instance, it was the Governor-General of the BBC, Gavyn Davies, who suggested—perhaps in stronger terms—that the BBC return to arts programme. I am very glad that he did, and I am very glad that they are there. BBC governors can be very effective. But, in the new dispensation of television, I do not think that they will be able to play the role that noble Lords describe so finely and that traditionally governors have played. We are in a different universe.
The great thing about the Communications Bill is that it is trying to chart the future sensibly. In many ways it is getting it right—cross fingers and touch wood. The idea of Ofcom looking across the board and being independent of all the existing transmission possibilities, which will increase, is very tine. Eventually, the BBC will subscribe to Ofcom willingly and make it far better than it would be without the BBC. In return, the BBC will be strengthened by the association.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I am afraid that I disagree with my noble friend Lord Gordon and commend the Government for their line on the issue—a novelty in this day and age. I do so precisely for the reason that the noble Lord mentioned. As an independent producer, I actually like the concept that if Ofcom does not like my programme editorially I can go somewhere else. It is fundamental to free speech and a good democratic society. No one person makes the final decision about what is published in the arena of television. It is a novel aspect of the debate, but it is one to which I wish to return when the debate opens again in a few years time or when there is charter renewal. We risk great error by allowing

489
a single regulator to have single-voice control of our most powerful media. For that reason alone I do not want the BBC to come to Ofcom.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on two points. First, I share his determination to do everything possible to protect public service broadcasting. That has been a consistent theme of everything that I have said in these debates. I, too, was tempted by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, when he talked about some kind of regulation of these commercial activities. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Astor may tempt me in a similar way, but I failed to prevail on him to make his speech first. I admit to temptation, and perhaps I might be persuaded on that narrow field.
More generally, there were two possible ways for the Government to have approached the issue. From the outset they could have said that they would include the BBC under Ofcom, and we could have approached this complicated Bill on that basis. The Government decided otherwise—to wait until charter renewal, and consider the matter then. Once that decision had been taken, we were, certainly on the Joint Committee, forced into the position that there was little point in our going into great detail about the future. When I look at the amendments this evening, I am reinforced in that view. Whatever the merits of the argument, to think that at the Report stage of this large and complicated Bill we can decide in a short debate what regulation of the BBC shall be included and what shall be left out is an impossible proposition.
I indicated in Committee to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, why I could not support his amendment. He has now put down exactly the same amendment, so I do not propose to repeat the points that I made then. The central point that I made on that occasion was that we need to future-proof the Bill, so that when charter renewal approaches, when we have the revised agreement, it is consistent with the Bill. That was the case that I put. I was grateful to the Minister who replied on that occasion. She said that the Government would consider the point carefully and that they might come forward with amendments that adopted the principle that was included in my amendment at the time. I now thank the Minister who is now in charge that he has fulfilled that obligation. He has come forward with amendments to make sure that there is future-proofing, that the charter and the agreement are covered in the way that I proposed. Having done that, it would be churlish of me to turn on the Minister to say that I support these amendments.
Once the decision has been taken, as long as we can future-proof the Bill, this is a sensible way to proceed. However, my noble friend on the Front Bench might say that we must have an adequate opportunity, when the time comes to consider charter renewal and the agreement, for proper consideration and debate by Parliament—I would share that view. My noble friend
490
Lord Astor pointed out in Committee that in the past we would often be landed with a done deal. The negotiations had all been put together in advance, we had a short debate and no proper opportunity for Parliament to comment. The Government should give firm commitments about their willingness to give Parliament a proper opportunity when the time comes for full consideration of these matters.
Now that I have achieved from the Government that which I asked for in Committee, again it would be churlish if I did not at least answer a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon. Once again, the Government, in introducing the clauses that he criticised, were responding to the Joint Committee, of which I was a member.
The Joint Committee received a great deal of evidence on the question of fines. Arguments were put on both sides, including the kind of arguments that noble Lords have advanced this evening. Incidentally, as we pointed out, the ITC, BSC and the Radio Authority all considered that financial sanctions ought to apply to the BBC, not least in fairness to other broadcasters. We recommended that the Government should act as they have. Paragraph 375 of our report stated:
"Extensive and repeated payment of fines by the BBC would be a waste of licence payers' money, for which the BBC and its Governors would be held publicly accountable. This seems to us a reason for the BBC to so arrange its activities as to ensure that it does not incur such penalties, and not an argument for immunity from such penalties. We recommend that the proposed Agreement empower OFCOM to fine the BBC in respect of breaches of tier one and tier two obligations (other than those relating to impartiality) in the same way and to the same extent as other broadcasters".
Having made that recommendation. I am bound to support the Government if they seek to keep in the Bill the clauses as they stand, despite the amendments that have been moved.
I am grateful to the Government for having accepted the suggestions that we made on that occasion about future-proofing. As they have done that, I for one am content to wait until the licence renewal debate to continue the argument, subject to some kind of undertaking—a pretty firm undertaking—that they really will allow Parliament when the time comes adequate opportunities to review the terms and conditions that are proposed.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, while I am persuaded by the arguments of my noble friend Lord Gordon, I hope that he deploys them with equal effectiveness when we come to charter renewal. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is absolutely right. The issue of bringing the BBC under Ofcom and the consequent changes that will be required in the role of the governors and other aspects of the BBC make this matter too big to deal with as one amendment on this occasion. I am persuaded hut, as my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, charter renewal is the appropriate time at which to engage in the whole range of issues relating to the BBC—for which all of us have the most enormous respect and affection, without saying that nothing should ever change.

491
The only regulator that has any say over the BBC at the moment is the Broadcasting Standards Commission, of which I am the chair, and of which the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, was an illustrious predecessor in the chair some years ago. Certainly there has been no difficulty in our day-to-day work in dealing with the BBC, as with all the other bodies. It works perfectly well, and I see no problems. We have no sanctions such as fining the BBC; our only sanctions are to uphold complaints and to publish when we uphold complaints, when they apply to the BBC or any other broadcaster. On certain occasions, in relation to fairness and privacy, we have the power to have on-air or newspaper publication of complaints.
In my experience, the BBC and the other broadcasters are very unwilling to have complaints held against them, and that serves as an adequate sanction. Therefore, although I see that the prospect of fining the BBC is in the Bill. I hope that the sanction will never be used. I am confident that it is unlikely to be used.
My noble friend Lord Sheldon, in defending the BBC, made a point on which I must take issue, in so far as I understood it. He said that when the governors as regulators of the BBC have an issue, it is sometimes inappropriate that the issue should come out in the open, as it is better dealt with within the walls of the BBC. I hope that I have got him right; that is my wording but, I believe, his sentiments.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, my noble friend is fairly close, but not exactly right. The point I sought to make is that that is how it has happened; how it should happen is closer to what my noble friend suggests.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the correction because I think that where the Governors of the BBC fall down is that there is not the transparency which I would want to see associated with a regulator when it is acting on behalf of the public vis-à-vis the management of the BBC, in so far as the governors can put themselves in that position. I understand that that is one of their functions and that they have to represent the public as regulators.
I believe that any regulator should be open and transparent. Everyone should be able to see what are the issues on which the regulator has had to take action, whether that regulator be the existing ITC, the BSC or the Radio Authority at the moment, or Ofcom in the future. I should like the BBC to demonstrate an equivalent transparency when the governors are acting in a regulatory capacity. That has to be the bottom line in parliamentary regulation.
I am very much in favour of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. The arguments put forward about the BBC not becoming involved in some of these issues do not apply to new ventures in the commercial sector, where they go head to head with the commercial broadcasters. There I think it appropriate that Ofcom should be able to exercise the power.
492
Finally, when we consider charter renewal, which is some way ahead, I certainly am concerned to keep the BBC out of politics; that is to say, the fewer arguments the BBC has with any Secretary of State, the better for its independence. I shall look at the way in which the BBC should relate to Ofcom influenced by my wish to avoid the BBC becoming too entangled with any Secretary of State of the day.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, since my noble friend Lord Crickhowell was kind enough to refer to what I said in Committee, I rise to echo and agree with much of what he has said. One day the BBC will come under Ofcom. We have yet to persuade the BBC that it would be beneficial for it so to do.
I think that it would be extremely beneficial because I agree with what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We do not want too much interference from a Secretary of State. I hope that, when we come to charter renewal, the BBC can he persuaded that it will be strengthened and that it will be given more power, as it were, to resist interference from politicians of any colour.
I recognise that the Government have moved on this in producing their amendments, which go a long way to satisfy the concerns that were expressed in Committee.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I wish to intervene only briefly in the debate. Almost exactly the same arguments in support of one side or the other were advanced when we considered this matter in Committee. All those arguments were important and were put with the aim of achieving the best possible outcome both for our nation and, indeed, for the BBC'. I belong to the group which says, "Not yet, and perhaps never". However, in my view, now is the time to wait until the charter review and until Ofcom is up and running and able to appreciate just how huge its task is.
The BBC is a huge asset: "A piece of genius", was how the noble Lord, Lord McNally, put it. It has set standards not only in this country, but throughout the world.
I shall not take up much of the time of noble Lords, but I want to say not only, "Not yet" or "When the time is right", but also, "Let us reach the right decision when we come to consider the whole issue again". As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, pointed out, now that we have in place the requirements for future-proofing that he sought, once those have settled in, let us see whether the arguments are as convincing then as some would think.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, although the amendment before us may have much to commend it at the stage of charter renewal, there is one element in it which I hope that no friend of the BBC or public service broadcasting, or even of freedom of speech, would wish to see continued; that is, giving a regulator the power to approve or amend all BBC statements of' programme policy. Noble Lords have hardly referred

493
to this aspect, but I think that it is, as it were, an intrusion too far. For that reason alone we should probably not support this amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, perhaps noble Lords will allow me now to speak to my amendments in this grouping.
I begin by saying to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell that certainly for my part, once the Bill has been fully scrutinised, I shall certainly harry both the Government and the BBC to ensure that we in Parliament have full opportunity to debate and discuss charter renewal. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that that was some way away yet but we are half-way through 2003 and charter renewal will take place in 2006. As we know, these Sessions go by so quickly. We must get on to that debate early in the next Session. The more that we can build relationships with the BBC on that issue, the better. I certainly intend, as Shadow Minister, to do that.
In speaking to Amendment No. 188, I also wish to speak in support of Amendment No. 112, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. I would also like to reiterate the wholehearted support that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, in Committee on Amendment No. 100. In addition, I commend the Government for responding to my amendment—I stress that it was my amendment—to future proof the Bill by facilitating the future incorporation of Ofcom's functions into the Royal Charter. With the imminent onset of the BBC Charter renewal process, it is imperative that the dominant broadcaster is not partially exempted from external regulation before the issue has been extensively debated by Parliament. We therefore welcome the Government's reference to the BBC Charter rather than the agreement alone in the relevant provisions of the Bill.
Amendment No. 188 seeks to ensure parity between the BBC and commercial operators in the matter of cross-promotion. It seeks to confer a duty on the BBC to make arrangements to secure that any rules made by Ofcom regarding the regulation of promotion of programmes, channels and related services are observed. This would ensure that any rules set by Ofcom which apply to commercial broadcasters apply equally to the BBC. Let me be absolutely clear that the intention of the amendment is not to attack the BBC or to prevent legitimate promotional activity, but simply to bring the BBC into line with the accepted standards to which all other broadcasters are required to adhere.
Having carefully considered the comments made by the former Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on this issue during Committee, I remain of the view that this is an important issue where existing rules and regulations covering the BBC do not give sufficient comfort and the Government's response was therefore inadequate.
First, the Minister said that Ofcom will have concurrent powers under the Competition Act which will apply to the BBC as they do to other
494
organisations. It strikes me as highly damaging to the Government's own stated aims and objectives, at a time when we are trying to get the industry to work together to promote the benefits of digital TV, to suggest that the only recourse available for those who object to unfair cross-promotions is to pursue the matter through the courts under the Competition Act. This is hardly likely to engender a spirit of co-operation.
In any case, the issue of cross-promotion involves wider public policy objectives than simply ensuring fair competition. The ITC's code is underpinned both by its competition and content functions, and the code is intended not just to prevent unfair competition but also to engender clear and accurate consumer information. There is surely an even stronger case for the BBC's cross-promotional activities to be assessed against such a consumer information test, given that it is public money which is being used to fund these promotions.
Secondly, the Minister highlighted that the BBC fair trading commitment goes beyond competition law, and is subject to annual audit. But the fair trading commitment is virtually silent on the issue of cross-promotion and contains nothing like the detailed requirements imposed on the private sector through the ITC code, which I set out in some detail at the Committee stage.
Thirdly, the Minister referred to the BBC published commercial policy guidelines. Again, we can see nothing in those guidelines which provides anything like the detailed commitments contained in the ITC code. Indeed, the proof that no such internal constraints currently exist can be found in the heavy promotional activity that the BBC is currently conducting. I referred during Committee to the ITC rules including prohibitions on excessive promotion of a particular channel, service or suite of channels or services; and restrictions on the promotion of a specific digital platform. It is self-evident to anyone who has seen the BBC's promotions for Freeview and its own digital channels that these promotions would breach the ITC guidelines or any equivalent guidelines in place within the BBC if they existed.
The Minister said that my amendment would place the BBC under the scrutiny of Ofcom, contrary to agreed policy. Even if I accepted that policy outcome, two important points need to be made. First, as I have already noted, the ITC's code is underpinned by both the ITC's competition functions and its functions in relation to content. As far as the latter is concerned, it is agreed that the BBC will fall within Ofcom's remit, so to that extent compliance with the cross-promotional code is already agreed government policy. Secondly, many in the industry might accept the BBC's remaining outside Ofcom's remit in the area if there was any sign of the BBC taking the issue seriously and moving to provide detailed internal rules on cross-promotion. But, as we have seen, existing rules are silent on the issue and the BBC's promotions would clearly breach the ITC code.

495
We accept that the BBC has a major role to play in promoting the benefits of digital television and dispelling customer confusion about the new technology. That its existing approach is manifestly not working was highlighted by a recent press article. Media Week reported the finding of a poll in which 60 per cent said that Freeview was the name for new BBC channels and services rather than a new free-to-air broadcast platform. Half thought Freeview was available via a BBC set-top box. I strongly believe that, to allay such confusion, the BBC should be required to adhere to accepted standards for cross-promotions.
I briefly wish to speak in support of Amendment No. 112, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to which my name was added. It ensures that Ofcom could monitor compliance by BBC companies with any guidelines published by the BBC to which subsidiaries were required to adhere when performing commercial activities. I do not wish to repeat what was said in Committee. However, I believe that it is imperative that all commercial broadcasters, including the commercial arm of the BBC, compete on a level playing field.
I have one final point. In Committee, I addressed a question to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, concerning the draft amendments to the BBC agreement. I do not recall receiving a reply. Simply put, will Parliament have the opportunity to debate those draft amendments to the BBC agreement and, if so, when?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, so far as the broadcasting aspects of the Bill are concerned, we have to make a judgment about how best to preserve the essential character and quality of public service broadcasting in this country. I am bound to say that I continue with the belief that it is a safeguard of that unique feature of British achievement that one should have two regulatory centres. There is something to be said for having Ofcom regulating more directly the commercially funded sector, while continuing regulatory arrangements with the BBC.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, in believing that there is such a great difference between the two methods of regulating the quality and character of public service broadcasting. It is true that the BBC has a problem with its board of governors being close and proud about their programme-makers. Therefore, there is a closeness between governors and management. I am glad to see that the BBC is taking steps to produce more of an arm's-length relationship there, which is important.
I am bound to say that equally, in the days when I was chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, I was sometimes accused of being rather proud of the unique British achievements—as unique as the BBC—of having a commercially funded public service broadcasting system. I was sometimes accused
496
of what I think was called, in the jargon, regulatory capture. There are problems for regulators in such situations, and the distinction between the BBC regulatory arrangements and those of Ofcom is not so vast. There is public advantage in having, in a sense, a bit of constructive tension between them.
From a purely pragmatic point of view, I shall repeat what I said in Committee and what others have said today: there is much to be said for letting Ofcom settle in, and for us to look at the future of the BBC when the charter comes up for renewal. I think that it was Mark Twain who once mentioned that the most difficult thing about prophecy was to prophesy the future. I do not feel so sure that, when that happens, we shall all end up with a great single regulator of all such matters in this country. I rather suspect that, in one way or another, the duality of broadcasting regulation trying to preserve quality and character in public service broadcasting will be maintained at that stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this debate, which began with a clash between my noble friends Lord Gordon and Lord Sheldon, seems to have settled into a degree of consensus. I find that rather encouraging.
First, perhaps I may introduce—I nearly said "very briefly" again; when I hear those words I reach for my stop-watch. That is a warning to anyone who wants to use the phrase in future.
Amendment No. 101, coupled with a new definition of the BBC Charter and agreement in Amendment No. 219, enables the BBC charter to be capable of conferring functions on Ofcom to the same extent as the BBC agreement. The remaining amendments are consequential and ensure that the policy is applied consistently throughout the Bill. These amendments respond to an Opposition amendment moved in Committee by the noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady Wilcox, which was accepted in principle by my noble friend Lady Blackstone.
I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the Opposition on this issue, and we felt able to accept the principle that it would be right to keep open the possibility of Ofcom's regulatory functions in respect of the BBC, other than those contained in the Bill, being placed in the BBC Charter and not solely in the BBC agreement as the Bill currently provides.
Before leaving this point, let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that, as we come up to consideration of the BBC charter, there will be full consultation and a full opportunity for parliamentary debate. I cannot be so encouraging about the BBC agreement. For some reason that I have never understood but which goes back a very long way, approval of the BBC

497
agreement is after debate in the House of Commons and not in this House. Anyone who wants to explore that is welcome to do so.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I may be able to help the Minister. It is because there is an element in the agreement relating to wireless which necessarily requires a Motion to be passed in another place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it sounds like a Ways and Means Motion or something of that kind. I am glad to have that explanation.
I turn now to the other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 100 in the name of my noble friend Lord Gordon replaces the general facilitative function for Ofcom to be given functions by the BBC agreement with a list of specific powers relating to statements of programme policy and others. I seem to have a page missing from my briefing; I may have to return to Amendment No. 100 when I have a fuller speaking note—no, I am being handed the notes; now I have three of them. This is overkill.
Trying to set out Ofcom's relationship with the BBC in the Bill rather than in the agreement conflicts with our basic approach to the BBC. I think that our basic approach has received a good deal of assent during the course of this debate. The Government's aim is for the BBC to be regulated by Ofcom on a basis that takes account of the corporation's distinctive role and constitution, particularly its special relationship with Parliament. The BBC's obligations are to be set out primarily in its agreement with the Secretary of State rather than in the Bill in order to maintain the BBC's accountability to Parliament. Here, it is clear that I part company from my noble friend Lord Gordon, who seems to think that the opposite is the case.
Amendment No. 112 would give Ofcom responsibility for monitoring compliance with any guidelines published by the BBC for BBC companies undertaking any commercial activities in the United Kingdom. This would only be in relation to the making, acquisition or selling of programmes. This would effectively give Ofcom the function of enforcing aspects of the BBC's fair trading commitment. UK and European competition law applies to the BBC as it does to any other broadcasting organisation. Ofcom will have powers to apply UK competition law to broadcasting and related activities if the BBC acts anti-competitively.
I turn now to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon. I will start with Amendment No. 104A, which removes the express power for the BBC agreement to provide for penalties to be imposed on the BBC for breaches of the agreement or the Bill. It was the Joint Scrutiny Committee, as we have been reminded, which came down in favour of giving Ofcom the power to fine the BBC, and the Government accepted the committee's view.
It is true that a fine can reduce funding for programmes and penalise the licence fee payer. Equally, it can be argued, as the Joint Scrutiny Committee did, that a fine imposed on a commercial
498
broadcaster will ultimately work to the disadvantage of viewers or listeners. The important part is for the BBC to ensure that it does not incur fines. There is no reason to exclude the BBC from the fining procedure.
The ability to fine the BBC ensures that it is treated in the same way as other broadcasters, and this completes the level playing field between the BBC and other public service broadcasters. Ofcom must be able to impose sanctions as the ultimate deterrent to the BBC's breaching its obligations. The Government recognised that the issue of fines was not straightforward, and they specifically invited comments on this issue during the draft Bill consultation. On balance, given the principle of parity of treatment between the BBC and other broadcasters, whenever appropriate we think that it is right that Ofcom should be able to fine the BBC.
Amendment No. 112 would give Ofcom responsibility for monitoring compliance with any guidelines published by the BBC for BBC companies undertaking any commercial activities in the UK. This would only be in relation to the making, acquisition or selling of programmes. This would effectively give Ofcom the function of enforcing the BBC's fair trading commitment. UK and EU competition law applies to the BBC as it does to other broadcasting organisations. As I said, Ofcom will have powers to apply UK competition law to broadcasting and related activities if the BBC acts anti-competitively.
I was asked about Ofcom's competition powers; they are strong competition powers. The powers of investigation in terms of their concurrent powers are the same for the BBC as they are for other broadcasters. The BBC Fair Trading Commitment and Commercial Policy Guidelines are published internal documents—such as those used by many large companies—which go over and above the requirements of competition law. They have been drawn up by the BBC governors and are enforced by them.
The guidelines are designed to ensure that the BBC complies with competition law in carrying out its activities, and that all those activities are consistent with, and supportive of, the BBC's core purpose as a public service broadcaster. The guidelines underpin compliance with the law, but are not a substitute for it. The BBC's fair trading framework is also subject to annual audit by independent auditors, and their opinion is published in the BBC's annual report and accounts. It seems right and proper that the enforcement of these guidelines should continue to be a matter primarily for the BBC's board of governors rather than for an external regulator.
7 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister said and has confirmed about Ofcom's powers. In view of the great concern out there in the real world about whether the BBC is following its internal guidelines and in view of the fact that the Whish Report looked at the actual rules and said that they were right, would the Minister consider asking Professor Whish to follow up his report by looking at how the guidelines are applied in practice, or some

499
other method of achieving the same objective? That might help to get us out of the difficulty in which we find ourselves.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not convinced that there is a difficulty but I am always receptive to suggestions to look for up-to-date evidence. I shall take that suggestion away, think about it and respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, accordingly.
Amendment No. 188 would make the BBC subject—in the fullest and most analogous way practicable—to any rules drawn up by Ofcom to regulate the promotion of programmes, channels and related services that are provided by licensed television service broadcasters. The amendment is probably designed to address the fact that, since Ofcom will not licence the BBC's public service channels, those channels will not he subject to Ofcom's cross-promotion rules. The BBC's promotional activities are covered by competition law, which will be enforced concurrently by Ofcom and the OFT.
The BBC's own commercial policy guidelines contain commitments that the BBC's core public services will not be used unfairly to promote BBC commercial activities and that there will be no promotion of BBC commercial products and services within BBC' programmes on the public services. If there are any suggestions that that is not being adhered to, the matter should be addressed to the BBC.
The promotion of licence fee funded services is in the interest of licence payers, because it informs them about the range of services for which they are paying. For example, licence fee payers have been informed about Freeview, the new digital terrestrial channel—I appreciate the lack of understanding on the part of many people about what it actually contains and where it comes from—along with the cable and satellite platforms, as a means of viewing the new BBC digital channels.
On balance, we believe that the current approach is the right one; that is, that the BBC's position is best handled on the basis of clear commitments by the BBC itself, set firmly within the overall framework of UK and EU competition law, and enforced by the governors.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, this has been a very diverse debate, which is not surprising because noble Lords have spoken to very diverse amendments. On my amendment, which is all that I can really speak to, I am conscious that I will never convince some noble Lords. That distresses me because I should like them to be assured that I fully share their respect and admiration for the BBC. However, we at least begin from the same point.
The noble Lord, Lord Alli, advanced a rather individual argument, and I was surprised that it was backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, said that the more regulators that there were, the better, so that independent producers like himself can play one against the other. That is a perfectly
500
legitimate argument but, frankly, it is a good argument against Ofcom altogether. We should be much better off with Channel 4 and Channel 5 and, if one was beaten by three of them, one could go to the fourth. The overwhelming undertone that I take from the debate is that this is not felt to be the right time for such an approach. To that extent, I shall withdraw the amendment and I shall not return to it at Third Reading.
Some people feel that charter renewal is the relevant time. I point out that we will probably debate charter renewal at some time in the next Session; that debate is not that long away. Moreover, the BBC is such an important organisation that it could well affect the very structure, let alone the staffing, of Ofcom and it would be much better to do that up front. I have not been able to convince the House of that and. to that extent, I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 101 to 104:
Page 175, line 13, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) the BBC Charter and Agreement, and"
Page 175, line 19, leave out "an agreement falling within subsection (1)(a)" and insert "or under the BBC Charter and Agreement"
Page 175, line 22, leave out "the agreement" and insert "that Charter and Agreement"
Page 175, line 23, leave out "such an agreement" and insert "that Charter and Agreement"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 104A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey Amendment No. 105:
Page 175, line 24, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) The BBC must pay OFCOM such penalties in respect of contraventions by the BBC of provision made by or under—

(a) this Part, or

(b) the BBC Charter and Agreement,

as are imposed by OFCOM in exercise of powers conferred on them by that Charter and Agreement."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 105A and 105B not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 175, line 32, leave out "by virtue of subsection (3)" and insert "by OFCOM in exercise of a power conferred by virtue of the BBC Charter and Agreement"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 176, line 4, at end insert—

"(10) It shall be the function of OFCOM to oversee the terms of trade between the producers of independent radio and the BBC.

(11) In subsection (10), a reference to the producers of independent radio is a reference to such producers as the Secretary of State may by order specify."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the BBC is required to commission at least 25 per cent of its television programming from the independent sector, yet there is no quota for radio. In Committee, I argued that quotas should be extended to BBC radio because the licence fee is, in part, designed to nurture Britain's creative base, and that includes radio as well as television. The Government opposed such a move, and I accept much of the argument that the Minister put forward in Committee about quotas. Therefore, I have returned on Report with this amendment, which I believe is a compromise and which I very much hope the Government will be able to accept.
My amendment would not only help the independent radio production sector grow without the imposition of a statutory quota; it would also clear up an anomaly in the Bill. As currently drafted, the Bill gives Ofcom the power to oversee the terms of trade between the BBC and independent television producers but not between the BBC and independent radio producers. That is particularly odd as the BBC is far more powerful in radio, where it controls more than 50 per cent of the market.
Effectively, independent radio producers are faced with a single buyer of their services—the BBC. What is more, the buyer—the BBC—is able to source product internally. That gives the BBC an enormous power, which means that effectively it can determine the terms on which it trades. Independent scrutiny by Ofcom would ensure that the BBC did not abuse its dominant position.
It has been said that the live nature of most radio programming means that the independent radio production sector can never grow in the same way as its television counterpart has done. However, independent radio producers dispute that, pointing to the huge amount of live programming that they already do. Greater transparency over the way that the BBC deals with independent radio producers would be of real benefit to the industry, enabling it to grow and prosper. I hope that this compromise amendment will find favour with the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. In Committee, I myself moved an amendment which dealt with the quota system for BBC radio. I decided not to move it on Report as I had a conversation with the head of BBC radio during which she assured me that the BBC operated a 10 per cent voluntary quota and was very keen to see that quota being built on. She also reassured me on the terms of trade issue between independent producers and the BBC.
Therefore, if the amendment were accepted by the Government, that would be a further reassurance. But if my noble friend on the Front Bench is inclined not to accept it, I wonder whether he might follow up the offer of the head of BBC radio to write to my right
502
honourable friend the Secretary of State giving her commitment and assurance that the informal quota will continue to be adhered to and, indeed, that she will safeguard the terms and conditions of independent radio producers. If he is willing to do that, I suspect that we may achieve the same result but via a different means.
Baroness BuscombeMy Lords, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Astor. As noble Lords have already said, the amendment would allow Ofcom to oversee the terms of trade between the BBC and independent radio producers. I spoke on this matter at some length in Committee and I do not propose to repeat what was said. However, I should like to reiterate my support for the independent radio sector. That said, I am more comfortable with this amendment than the one proposed by my noble friend in Committee because it is less prescriptive and it does not allow for a statutory quota. I believe it is important that the dominant broadcaster does not benefit unjustly from its position and that the terms of trade under which the parties operate are subject to a level of external scrutiny.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree that this amendment amends very reasonably the one moved in Committee and that it avoids some of the difficulties which arose from that amendment. The paradox is that this is about the commissioning of independent radio productions, and despite the fears of noble Lords, which lead them to wish to impose terms of trade or for Ofcom to oversee terms of trade between independent radio producers and the BBC, the BBC is virtually the only commissioner of independent radio productions. That does not mean that it is a monopsonist; rather it is an oligopsonist in the sense that there are many bodies within the BBC that commission radio productions.
However, they are hound together by a commissioning code of practice for independent producers which is produced by BBC network radio, and of which I have a copy. I would like to send a copy of this very extensive code to the noble Baroness. It goes far beyond the issue of quotas and into the detail of the commercial relationship between independent radio producers and the BBC. I have scanned it rapidly, and it seems a very fair portrayal of a good commercial, intellectual and creative relationship between the BBC and its suppliers.
I do not know whether I can persuade BBC network radio to guarantee that this will continue, as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, suggested. However, the code has been agreed with the Office of Fair Trading; it has been in operation for the past six years; it has recently been updated to extend to all BBC radio services; and I have no reason to believe that the BBC intends to depart from it. With the combination of the BBC's code of conduct and the arguments that UK and EU competition law apply to the BBC as to other broadcasting organisations, and that Ofcom will have the power to apply UK competition law to broadcasting and related activities if the BBC acts anti-competitively, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response and for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Alli.
The Minister has gone some way to satisfy my concern. There is a code which governs the terms of trade between independent television producers, and its advantage is that if an independent television producer feels for some reason that they have been done down or have not had an opportunity to do what they like, they can read the code and appeal through it. The BBC has kept that, and it works well.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said as a response to the code governing the terms of trade with independent television producers:
"The code was developed in response to concerns raised by the Joint Scrutiny Committee and the ITC in its programme supply review report. We are not persuaded that there is a case for applying a similar requirement, and one which applies only to the BBC in the radio context—[Official Report, 22/5/03; co1.957.]
It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the difference. Is he saying that there is a code? Previously, he said that the code did not apply.
I hope the Minister will consider this issue. If he cannot answer me now about the difference between the two replies, I would be happy to discuss this between now and Third Reading to come to a satisfactory conclusion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my door is always open.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 195, insert the following new clause—
"INVESTIGATION OF THE BBC BY THE NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE
In Part 2 of Schedule 4 to the National Audit Act 1983 (c. 44) (nationalised industries and other public authorities) "the British Broadcasting Corporation" is omitted."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this I shall speak to Amendment No. 111. We reach now the important issue of the National Audit Office.
I believe that we have come a long way since Second Reading when I set out a case, supported by other noble Lords, for the need to enable the Comptroller and Auditor-General to have full value-for-money access rights to the BBC, thus opening it up to the same scrutiny on Parliament's behalf as all other bodies that are funded by tax. On Second Reading and in Committee I made the point that there is total consensus on the issue among members of the Commons Public Accounts Committee. In our view, this scrutiny would not impinge in any way on the editorial independence of the BBC but would give some measure of accountability and transparency. We believe that what we seek is in the best interests of the BBC.
504
I am pleased to report that I believe that we have now reached a happy agreement. We have moved on from the debate in Committee which addressed what we referred to as the Sharman compromise. Sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, has had to leave. I had wished to pay tribute to the noble Lord for his assistance in bringing together the Government, the BBC and the National Audit Office through his suggested arrangement. In Committee I stated that I was uncomfortable with some aspects of the noble Lord's proposal. It did not go quite far enough and lacked some clarity and certainty, in particular with regard to the important imperative if agreement were to be reached that any review carried out by the National Audit Office should be laid before Parliament and then reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee.
Since that debate, I have been in discussion with the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Minister. I am grateful to the Minister for those discussions. I have also been in discussion with my honourable friend in another place, Mr Edward Leigh, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and the BBC through my noble friend Lady Hogg, who is a very able governor of the BBC. I am extremely pleased to be able to say that I believe that an agreement has been reached. The Minister wrote a letter to me on 19th June—it was placed in the Library—entitled, Ensuring the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of the BBC's operations. I do not intend to repeat it verbatim. However, one or two aspects worried me and the Shadow Secretary of State, my honourable friend in another place, John Whittingdale, MP. We have talked to the Comptroller and Auditor-General and others involved in the agreement and we are now comfortable with withdrawing the amendment tabled. We would have liked the Government to have accepted the amendments. However, we appreciate that we have come a long way and that the BBC has been extremely helpful, as has the Comptroller and Auditor-General, in reaching this consensus.
I have given prior notice to the Minister that I wish to seek his assurance on a matter. I know that it is difficult because the Minister is not the governors of the BBC so, in a sense, I am making these points for the benefit of Hansard and for the benefit of all beyond your Lordships' House so that they can understand where we are. I wish to seek his assurance that the governors of the BBC understand the unspoken framework within which the agreement is intended to work. We seek to achieve greater accountability and greater transparency. The expectation of your Lordships' House is, we believe, set upon the agreement facilitating a number of reviews and the National Audit Office would be conducting some of those.
We want assurance, which I believe is reasonable, that the audit committee of the BBC is committed to holding dialogue with the Comptroller and Auditor General. We also want to ensure that the audit committee will be both committed and supportive of providing the Comptroller and Auditor General with sufficient access to the BBC to enable the Comptroller and Auditor General to do a good job and to have the requisite understanding of the BBC's business. That is extremely important. The audit committee of the BBC

505
will decide which programme of review it wishes to undertake, in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General, but that would be in the expectation that some of those reviews would be carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General. So I am saying that the audit committee will decide which reviews it undertakes, but it is expected that some of those reviews will be carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Once reports are produced by the Comptroller and Auditor General, they will be laid, in their entirety, in a timely manner, before Parliament. The publication of the BBC's annual report will act as a backstop date, we suggest, when the Comptroller and Auditor General will lay the reports before Parliament, before the House of Commons. Then it will be open to Parliament to decide how to review those reports and how they will be taken, discussed and considered within the House of Commons.
It is reasonable to suggest and to encourage the Comptroller and Auditor General to report on behalf of the National Audit Office within, I suggest, a period of two years from now, to Parliament to inform Parliament as to how the arrangement is proceeding. I believe that it is accepted by all those party to this three-way agreement between the BBC, the National Audit Office and the Government, that this will be a trial process. It is important that we accept that the parties, in particular the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General, should be left to pursue that arrangement. Of course, on Her Majesty's Opposition Benches we see it as a process that will continue pending charter renewal. We are extremely grateful to all the parties concerned.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I have been listening with great interest and I congratulate my noble friend. Perhaps she can enlighten me on one point because she knows about the agreement and I do not. Am I right—I hope that I am—in assuming that the Comptroller and Auditor General will deal directly only with the BBC and that there will be no involvement of the finance officer of the department because that, to me, is absolutely fundamental. If this is an arrangement in which the National Audit Office deals with the BBC, that is fine, but I was concerned that we would have the kind of arrangement that normally happens with public bodies where the poor old public body is left stranded and the principal finance officer or the permanent secretary becomes involved in the exchanges with the National Audit Office.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I am pleased to confirm that what he asks is the case: this is an arrangement. Notwithstanding that we have obviously looked to the Government for their support for the agreement, it is our understanding—which I believe is contained precisely and accurately in the
506
letter addressed to myself from the Minister—that this is an arrangement between the NAO and the BBC governors, in terms of carrying it out.
My noble friend is right to raise the issue because it was proving a sticking point on the part of the BBC and rightly so. One of the points I made on Second Reading and again in Committee is that it is terribly important that the BBC governors and the NAO can act independently of government. I urge noble Lords to read this letter of 19th June to reassure themselves that that is the case. Indeed it states that the Government do not envisage a role for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport or its accounting officers in the process and that such a role would infringe the independence of the BBC in its day-to-day operations. I hope that that reassures my noble friend. I beg to move.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, the noble Baroness urges noble Lords to read the letter. I went to the Library today and they could not find the letter. It is a great pity that we are discussing a letter that is supposed to be in the Library but which was not there—they could not find it anyhow. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made the useful, but rather limited, point that the finance officers should not be involved.
As well as my long period of service as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I spent eight to 10 years as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Over that period I looked at the BBC. In my later years as chairman we considered whether the BBC's role should be investigated by the Public Accounts Committee. When I look at the new clause in Amendment No. 111, 1 see that subsection (3)(a) makes it,
"an obligation to carry out an examination into efficiency, economy and effectiveness of the BBC's services".
That is value for money.
Economy is not difficult to understand: one obtains at the cheapest price available.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I said at some length that I do not propose to pursue these amendments because I believe we have reached a good and helpful consensus?
Lord Sheldon: My Lords. I understand that, but I have not seen anything of it. Surely the noble Baroness cannot just say that she has come to an agreement and an understanding when most of us have not seen the letter. I went deliberately to the Library and asked to see it. I might have agreed with what it said, but I have not seen it. If it is not here, I must speak to what is here, which is the matter before us in the amendment.
When we look at economy, we can see that that is easy to handle. When we look at efficiency it is not too difficult to understand that we try to obtain the best possible deal for the lowest possible price. When we look at effectiveness, on the other hand, it becomes much more difficult. How do we deal with effectiveness in the televisual medium? What is effectiveness? Is it a popular programme; one that

507
instructs people; or one that receives a great deal of admiration from the literary people concerned, or from whatever bodies might be involved?
I am very uneasy about the matter. I was incremental in securing John Bourn as the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He is an admirable man, and I have no doubt whatever that I would place my complete confidence in him. But I have to take into account the position as it may apply to some future Comptroller and Auditor-General who may not have the same degree of understanding.
As a result, we need to be careful about letting accountants look at the working of effectiveness when they cannot even define it properly. I wanted the National Audit Office to be in all sorts of areas, which it was over a long period of time. I never sought to limit inquiries. But there are a few areas where value for money is hardest to apply. I believe that that is one of them.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I am sorry that, inadvertently, the letter that my noble friend intended to place in the Library went astray. If the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon. wants a copy I have one.
The noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, spoke with great passion about the BBC. I agree with all that he said about the wonders of the institution. The BBC has signed up to the agreement. We can take it that the very real concerns that he expressed will have been taken into account by the BBC before signing the agreement. I hope that he will set his mind at further rest by reading the agreement.
The agreement was sent to me. It is a very good deal. I wish to deal with one point that is not concrete in the agreement. It states that the audit committee of the BBC will lay its report before Parliament "probably" once a year at the time of the annual report. That is not terribly satisfactory. It means that in some cases they will sit around for a long time. The PAC will have difficulty organising its programme, which is organised a year in advance around that. I hope that the Minister and the BBC might look again at the inclusion of "probably". It is not a point of principle but a question of efficient and effective management. I do not think that the proposed approach is the most efficient and effective one.
I shall pause for a minute for rosettes, as this is a remarkable item of business. With the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, we have moved from a situation where some people at one extreme said that the NAO must have full power over everything and others said that the proposals were a disgraceful attack on the BBC's editorial independence. It has been a very good process where everyone has come together and signed up. I pay tribute to the flexibility of the chairman and governors of the BBC, who took some persuading but are now persuaded. They have given the absolute assurance that they will do it properly. I pay great tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, who endorsed the agreement.
508
Finally, I give a rosette to someone who might otherwise lack it, not being on the Government Front Bench: the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I know that this has been a difficult issue in her party also. It is terribly important and significant that in Parliament all sides—subject to anything the noble Lord, Lord McNally, might say—have said that they will give the agreement a go and have another look at it during the charter review, hoping that it will not he controversial. They have said that they are prepared not to hang on to principled speeches and will work towards getting a practical agreement to work. A very large rosette goes to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I am very glad that the issue has been resolved so satisfactorily.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, received the letter. It also went to Shirley Williams, Colin Sharman, Edward Leigh, Gavyn Davies, Sir John Bourn and, for all I know, uncle Tom Cobbleigh. I did not receive it. I got it from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I shall be extremely succinct.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall set my stopwatch.
Lord McNally: My Lords, when the great divergence to which the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, refers, became apparent, I thought it was a good idea and one of the great boons of this House to ask someone who knew about such matters to look at it. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. What became known as the Sharman compromise is embodied in the letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is right; the noble Baroness has used considerable skill in persuading her colleagues along the corridor that the proposal is sensible.
My message is very simple. In 2001, at the request of the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, conducted a review of public accountability of public sector bodies. Unfortunately, the noble Lord has had to attend another engagement, but he asked me to say that he believes that the agreement—which I saw second-hand and that the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, has yet to see—falls four-square within the recommendations of the report. I share some of the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, about leaping straight into full NAO coverage. However, this is a great step forward in transparency and accountability in the BBC. From all that I have heard it will be approached with the constructive spirit for which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked, and therefore it is rosettes all round.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, first. I apologise to anybody who failed to receive a letter. I assure the House that the letter was laid in the Library by my department on 20th June. Of course, laying letters in the Library does not mean that people know that they are there. That is not the ideal way of communicating with people, but we do not always

509
know who to communicate with. On reflection, we should have sent copies of the letter to all those who took part in comparable debates in Committee.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, it is surprising that I gave the Library two hours to find the letter, and they could not find it. However, it is obvious that my interest was observed. I still do not know, and I am going to hear for the first time from my noble friend what this is all about. It is rather late in the day.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree. We shall have to think about how to put together a proper mailing list for announcements of this kind—and whether letters from one person to another are the right way to deal with these matters. This needs some thought.
There has been much heated debate throughout the passage of the Bill on this issue, both in the Commons and here. But that should not obscure the common ground that exists and has always existed. We all want to ensure BBC accountability to Parliament and to television licence fee payers. We also want to safeguard the BBC's independence, which is central to its role as our principal public service broadcaster.
However, there are very different views on how this should be achieved. Those who want statutory National Audit Office access argue that it would pose no threat to the BBC's independence, since the Comptroller and Auditor-General is prevented by statute from commenting on the merits of policy objectives; and Amendment No. 111 includes specific provision to that effect. Others, including the BBC, feel that statutory access would inevitably compromise the corporation's position, because the nature of the BBC's operations means that it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate editorial from expenditure decisions. There seemed little prospect of finding any common ground between those opposing views. So I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, for the proposal that he brought forward in Committee to resolve this issue.
My noble friend Lady Blackstone undertook to consider the Sharman proposal and report back to the House before Report. Following discussions between DCMS officials and—primarily—the BBC and the NAO, the Government are satisfied that the proposal offers a workable basis for strengthening BBC accountability to Parliament and licence fee payers while preserving the corporation's independence. I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on 19th June to set out how we envisage the new arrangements operating. Detailed discussions are required before the necessary amendments to the BBC agreement can be drafted, but I shall set out the basic structure.
A dialogue between the BBC audit committee and the Comptroller and Auditor-General will be the basis for establishing a programme of reviews. On the basis of the dialogue, the audit committee will settle a programme of reviews and allocate individual reviews to organisations including the NAO. The Comptroller
510
and Auditor-General would not seek payment for any reviews undertaken by the NAO. The dialogue will need to identify those studies which would be particularly suitable for the NAO to carry out, taking this into account. Reports by the NAO, or contractors, will be submitted to the BBC audit committee. The factual content of the reports will be agreed with BBC officials before submission, but the NAO or contractor will retain full discretion over the report's conclusions and recommendations. Reports, whether by the NAO or contractors, will be presented in full to Parliament by the BBC governors, together with the corporation's response, in a timely manner but probably at the same time as the publication of the BBC's annual report and accounts. For those who are worried about the phrase,
"probably at the same time as the publication of the BBC's annual report and accounts",
the phrase, "in a timely manner", is some consolation.
Once reports have been presented to Parliament, it is of course a matter for Parliament to decide how they should be considered. The Government do not envisage a role for the DCMS or its accounting officer in the process. Such a role would infringe the independence of the BBC in its day-to-day operations. As I indicated, our discussions with the BBC and the NAO have satisfied us that the Sharman proposal can work effectively on the basis that I have set out. There will be an opportunity to judge the effectiveness of the new arrangements in the forthcoming review of the BBC charter. Indeed, I can confirm for the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, although it is not for me to tell the NAO what to do, that if it wishes to review the operation of any agreement and make representations during the charter review, we would listen to it as we would to any representation made by the BBC governors.
The BBC has a clear incentive to ensure that it is a success. BBC governors are aware that Parliament and the Government will want to have sufficient evidence to judge the effectiveness of the new arrangements by the time the current Royal Charter expires. The Government expect that the first reports prepared under the new arrangements by the NAO or others will be presented to Parliament within the next two years.
I read that statement out word for word because it has been a hard-fought agreement and I do not want to depart from it in any way. I have been asked questions that are really not for me but for the BBC governors and the NAO. My understanding is that the governors want to make the agreement work and are committed to it, and that the NAO feels the same—although that is not a matter for the Government. On that basis, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for indicating that she is prepared to withdraw the amendments—
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, can the Minister say something about the nature of the reviews? I am still mystified as to what the reviews will entail. Are they purely financial? What else are they?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have set out the basis on which they will be agreed between the

511
BBC and the NAO. It is not for the Government to speculate in advance as to what the NAO would believe it appropriate to seek to review or what the BBC governors would seek to offer as subjects for review, either for the NAO or anyone else. If I were to do that, I would be intervening in art agreement between two public bodies not controlled by the Government in an inappropriate way.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, what if they disagree and do not come to an agreement? What happens then?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have set the matter out as far as I am able. These matters have of course been considered—the possibility of disagreement has been considered. If my noble friend reads what I have said in Hansard, he will see that that is as far as I am able to go.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for all that lie has said. I have great pleasure in saying that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Cuba
7.50 p.m.
Lord Moynihanrose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they view the state of the United Kingdom's relations with Cuba.
The noble Lord said My Lords, I am grateful for this timely opportunity to discuss United Kingdom relations with Cuba and I thank noble Lords in advance for their decision to contribute. However, I note with sadness that my noble friend Lady Hooper is regrettably unable to participate owing to an unavoidable prior commitment.
I should first declare an interest. In December last year I became chair of the Cuba Initiative, which continues to be ably co-chaired in Havana by Ricardo Cabrisas, Minister of State in the Presidency. As noble Lords will be aware, I have the enormous honour of following in the most distinguished footsteps of the late Baroness Young, whose expert knowledge and understanding of Cuba was second to none. She built a firm foundation of friendship, trust and respect at all levels of Cuban society. She was a great ambassador for this country and for constructive engagement and dialogue, the twin pillars which underpin the work the work of the Cuba Initiative.
I have since visited Cuba on two occasions, in January and May of this year, and I have had the opportunity to meet and exchange views with many people, both those in Cuba's leadership and in civil society. As the only country in the western hemisphere to,
512
"swim against the tide of global capitalism",
as it has been described, there is no doubt that the conundrum of how to deal with Cuba has long exercised the minds of policy-makers across the globe.
Earlier this year, the dilemma worsened as Cuba faced widespread condemnation and anger for its crackdown on human rights activists, causing a deterioration in the island's relations with both North America and Europe. Whatever Cuba's reasons, the recent wave of arrests of over 70 leading dissidents accused by the authorities of being,
"mercenaries collaborating with the US government",
the severity of the prison sentences handed down to many, and the executions of the three ferry hijackers, met with nothing but censure from the outside world and risked setting in motion a merry-go-round of tit-for-tat repercussions and further mutual provocations between Cuba and its mighty neighbour. Although the US response to date has been more muted than many expected, there has been an inevitable escalation of tension between Havana and Washington.
The low point in US-Cuba relations has been mirrored on this side of the Atlantic and there is now a worrying rift between the European Union and Cuba. On 5th June, the EU presidency issued a statement announcing that it was,
"deeply concerned about the continuing flagrant violation of human rights"
in Cuba and that the EU had unanimously decided to limit bilateral high-level governmental visits; to reduce the profile of member states' participation in cultural events; to invite Cuban dissidents to celebrations of EU national days and to proceed to an overall reconsideration of policy and the EU common position.
The announcement came close on the heels of a decision by the EU that it would postpone indefinitely its evaluation of Cuba's request for admission to the Cotonou Convention, the treaty which governs trade, aid and political relations between Europe and the 73 ACP group of nations. Havana has since responded by withdrawing its request altogether on the grounds that Europe's behaviour is "treacherous" and,
"replete with hypocrisy and double moral standards",
according to a statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
There are now reports that a number of EU countries are "rethinking" their position regarding aid to Cuba. There seems to be some confusion over the position. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that there are no proposals to cut off EU aid, a step which I would strongly oppose.
I regret to say that the reaction in the UK has been predictable. It is no surprise that we have been at the forefront of orchestrating the EU's new approach. It is the default tendency of some in government to shadow America's unreasonable lead on Cuba policy and thus to turn this country's back on constructive engagement and dialogue. Recent events have only

513
reinforced this sentiment and, for some in government, their worst prejudices about Cuba have been confirmed.
Now that the EU has signalled its intention to proceed to a re-evaluation of the EU common position, it seems likely that a toughening of present policy is imminent. Can the Minister comment on these points? The Government have already effectively ceased all ministerial exchanges for the time being, with concomitant implications for the UK-Cuba relationship. To what extent does the Minister believe that the new EU position will further constrain Britain in its dialogue and engagement with Cuba?
Yet, my Lords, is there an alternative? While the present situation is a serious setback and is extremely unhelpful to efforts to improve relations between Cuba and the UK, I believe that there is. We must ask ourselves what would best achieve our objective of easing the process of peaceful political change in Cuba and securing the normalisation of relations. Is it by reaching out to the Cuban people through enlarged economic and personal exchanges, or is it by trying to force the regime to comply through isolation and coercion?
On my recent visit to Cuba, as chair of the Cuba Initiative, I led a trade mission to Havana. I did so because I believe in constructive engagement and I believe that expanded trade leads to economic openness and market-based reforms, which are two of the best ways to encourage change and to bolster civil society. The key role of trading links in promoting openness and improvements in human rights has long been accepted and understood. In this respect, we are lagging far behind our European and international counterparts.
There are significant opportunities for the UK to develop trade with Cuba, especially in the key sectors of energy, tourism, biotechnology, IT and agriculture. The importance of cultural and other exchanges should not be underestimated. In particular. I pay tribute to the important work of Save the Children in Cuba. It is important to realise that not only do the UK and Cuba have much to offer each other by working together but we can make a difference in other regions of the world as well. Given the superb primary healthcare levels in Cuba and the exceptionally strong emphasis on the importance of education, a number of opportunities exist to work alongside Cuban experts on projects in third countries to combat HIV/AIDS and to promote primary healthcare through mother and child immunisation programmes, for example. I hope that the Minister will confirm that those opportunities will not be overlooked or put on hold.
Engagement and dialogue wherever possible have always been the British approach to achieving our foreign policy goals and to encouraging improved standards, or else we would not have diplomatic missions in a number of countries such as North Korea, Sudan, Iran, Zimbabwe, even China, to name but a few. Tough messages are easier to send and more likely to be heeded within the context of a relationship based on mutual respect and co-operation than one
514
based on exclusion and distrust. Such a relationship is unlikely to achieve any positive results. The US economic sanctions are a case in point. For over four decades the embargo has failed to deliver any of its goals. Nor are the most recent moves by the US administration to internationalise Cuban policy likely to meet with success. At the Organisation of American States annual general assembly two weeks ago the US Secretary of State indicated a desire for a more multilateral approach to Cuba, including the possibility of pursuing joint EU/US action towards Cuba. Will the Minister confirm that there will be no change in EU policy to allow co-operation with the US on Cuba policy while the unilateral American embargo remains in place?
It is clear that a further plunge into the icy waters of diplomatic isolation will not bring the goal of crafting a stable and prosperous future for the island any closer. Moreover, it would be a grave mistake to formulate policy towards Cuba in isolation of its neighbours. Policy must be developed within the context of Caribbean nations, and their response is critical. For that reason I believe that it is time for a radical new approach to Cuba, one in which our hands are not tied by the inconsistencies of the EU common position, which itself was a compromise to avoid conflict with the unreasonable Helms-Burton Act. Instead Britain should be in the vanguard of encouraging constructive engagement and dialogue with Cuba. Increased co-operation through business activity offers us the opportunity to encourage Cuba to take its relationship with the UK and the EU more seriously, and in that context the Cotonou convention would have offered a positive way forward, linking as it does political and human rights conditionalities with trade and aid advantages on a mutually agreed basis.
The withdrawal of Cuba's application represents a serious reversal in EU/Cuba relations since March when the positive step of opening a European Commission office in Havana was taken. That should be a cause for concern yet instead there is a sense in many capitals that the present Cuban government are in their twilight years and it is only a matter of biding time.
Policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic need to rid themselves of the misguided notion that Cuba policy is locked in a holding pattern until Fidel Castro is no more, at which time the Cuban people will rise up as one and embrace American culture and influence. It is naive in the extreme to think that in the post-Castro era Cuba will effectively become the 51st state of the Union, but that is precisely what many in the US administration, and, indeed, on this side of the Atlantic, appear to believe. In fact, the very opposite is likely to happen. Cuban history is marked by a strong and deep-rooted desire for independence and in the post-Castro era resistance to US influence and the drug and money laundering culture, which has sadly infected so many Latin and Caribbean nations, is likely to strengthen. Fidel Castro's demise will be a psychological loss to the Cuban people, most of whom have known no other leader. It is likely that his successor will usher in change, probably through

515
further economic reform, but the early transition will be witness to authority being maintained. Ultimately, however, it will be the Cuban people who will determine the island's future and UK, European and US policy must be formulated in view of that reality.
This is a critical time for Cuba. A knee-jerk policy of shadowing US policy will threaten to seal up the window of opportunity just at the very time when Cuba is beginning to recognise the need for further economic reform and a stable, long-term political transition to a younger leadership. Four decades on, we must detach ourselves from a failed US policy that owes more to the determinant of domestic politics and the votes of Cuban-American exiles in Florida, many of whom have been impervious to reasonable opinions and have demanded a hard-line approach.
Even that is changing. The anti-Castro exiles based in Miami no longer represent the sole centre of gravity for reform in Cuba. As the Cuban-American leadership undergoes its own generational change, many in the Cuban-American community have come to realise that Cuba's future will be determined in Cuba, not by Cuban-American exiles and certainly not by Washington policy-makers. There are alternative voices, and whether or not the Bush administration listen, we cannot afford to be deaf to them. It is in all our interests to integrate Cuba into the western hemisphere as a central part of our Caribbean policy. I look forward to hearing a positive vision from the Minister of how that goal might be achieved.
8 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I think it is very appropriate of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to have raised the Question today. I thank him for that, and for his extremely well-informed and well-argued speech. I speak as one who has followed the Cuban socialist experiment with interest over the years. I do not claim to be an expert, particularly as I have only very primitive Spanish, unlike some speakers tonight, particularly one who I am afraid will not be with us after all.
I have twice visited Cuba. The first time was in 1997 at my own expense, and the second time was in 1998 as a member of the IPU outward delegation to Cuba. Naturally, I have been particularly interested in the unique Cuban health system, which has been able to achieve virtually first-world levels of life expectancy and infant mortality with virtually third-world resources. I am a member of the Cuba Initiative, founded by the late and much lamented Baroness Janet Young—now succeeded ably by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, as he has told us—to promote trade and cultural relations between Britain and Cuba. As a result, I have developed very good relations with the Cuban ambassador and his predecessor, and their excellent officials.
The amazing thing about Cuba is that the political and economic changes resulting from the revolution of 1959 still survive. As all noble Lords are aware, that is not for want of strenuous efforts by the United States to destabilise Fidel Castro's government. It is
516
interesting that, since the Bay of Pigs fiasco more than 40 years ago, overt military force has not been used. That is all the more surprising, perhaps, since the United States has never been reluctant to use its military muscle whenever it wished in many countries well beyond its own back yard.
There is no doubt that in a war with Cuba the USA would eventually prevail, but the destruction and carnage would be heavy and would be unacceptable to world and most US opinion, being so close to home. The USA would be left facing smouldering guerrilla resistance, probably to a greater degree than it—and we—are facing in Afghanistan and particularly Iraq. However, the hawks in the United States are in the ascendant, and military action is more likely now than at any time for the past 40 years since the Cuban missile crisis. Although Cuba was not originally included in the "Axis of Evil" speech, statements by members of the US Government have indicated that it is and always has been one of the countries due for regime change.
Towards that end there has recently been a sharpening of destabilising activities. In particular, the head of the US Interests Section in Havana, James Cason, appointed last September, has been openly inviting dissidents to meetings at his residence where discussions have been held encouraging them to be more active. He has given them substantial financial and material support including radios and computers. He has also toured the country visiting the homes of known dissidents. The Cuban Government have reacted, understandably but perhaps too strongly, by arresting, trying and imposing long sentences on 65 of those dissidents. Of course, that has given ammunition to those—and there are many—who would make much of breaches of human rights and constraints on political freedom in Cuba. They include, of course, the more hawkish elements of the US Government. It should be said, however, that the dissidents have been allowed to appeal against their conviction and sentencing, so we have not heard the last of this issue. It should be pointed out that Mr Cason was appointed by Otto Reich, the very Right-wing Cuban American adviser to President Bush on Latin American affairs, who is known to favour a "military solution" to the Cuba problem.
It is important to note that some of the activities of Mr Cason—for example, supporting and extending the Cuban opposition movement financially and materially—breach his diplomatic status under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. With regard to the sentences imposed on the "oppositionists", it is worth looking at the US legal code, which can result in criminal prosecution and a 10-year prison sentence for anyone who:
"agrees to operate within the United States subject to the direction or control of a foreign government or official".
Mr Cason had apparently repeatedly been warned by the Cuban Government of the consequences of his actions before the arrests were made but these activities continued. It looks very much as though he was deliberately provoking the reaction by the Cuban Government that finally took place. The international

517
critical response, even from many friends of Cuba, that then occurred must have given him and his government great satisfaction.
The serious consequence of this is, of course, that although in itself it could hardly be held to be a casus belli, it is part of the denigration process that may be used in the build-up to a "military solution". The repeated high-jackings of aircraft and ships that eventually drove the Cubans to end their four-year moratorium on capital punishment, again with international protests, were also encouraged by the United States—by not fully implementing the arrangement made with President Clinton that 20,000 Cubans who wished to emigrate to the United States should be granted visas. This increased the temptation to high-jack; and this temptation was increased when the high-jackers were not prosecuted in the USA—in fact, they were treated as heroes. Incidentally, the aircraft and ships were not returned to Cuba, reportedly being held against the value of property in Cuba formerly belonging to Americans or Cuban Americans which had been nationalised many years previously. It has been said in the United States that a mass emigration of Cubans to Florida would be regarded as a hostile act "tantamount to aggression". The cutting down on visas might be held to be encouraging that, and therefore to be a casus belli.
My position is one of regret that Cuba has made these arrests and has resorted to the death penalty. I would have liked to see a more subtle response. But I also think that there was clear and almost certainly deliberate provocation on the part of the US Government. It would be counter-productive for the British Government to reduce or end any trade or cultural links with Cuba as a result of these recent acts. To respond as the Right-wing Spanish and Italian Governments—and now, unfortunately, the whole EU—have done or plan to do by cutting funding for cultural or trade links would amount to playing into the hands of those in the United States who wish to raise the temperature of the ongoing dispute that they have with Cuba.
I have some specific questions for my noble friend Lady Crawley. Can she tell us the current position and what the European reaction would be if Cuba were to re-think its application to join the Cotonou agreement—an application that it has temporarily withdrawn? My noble friend will know that all the recipient nations, in Africa, in the Pacific and the rest of the Caribbean, want Cuba to join. Cuba has much to offer as well as to receive. The hold-up in joining the Cotonou agreement was for many years Cuba's poor record on human rights. But there are other countries in the Cotonou agreement with far worse records on human rights. Recently, Zimbabwe and Nigeria had been suspended from Cotonou, but there are many other countries in Africa with abominable human rights records which are in the agreement.
Until the recent example, Cuba had, in fact, been sparing with the death penalty, compared even with the United States. Is the real reason for not including Cuba in Cotonou that it has an economy that is not
518
open to foreign capital and remains largely outside the world market economy, although that is not altogether by choice?
The people of Cuba and Britain have much to gain by keeping up and increasing the cultural and economic links that have recently been established partly as a result of the work of Janet Young, and also through the productive discussions between a number of British Ministers in the last five to 10 years, starting with Brian Wilson, when he was Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us an optimistic, and not a gloomy, response.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, we owe a debt to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for bringing this subject up. Cuba was much in the news for all the wrong reasons some 40 years ago. It has only just started to be back in the news again, and again for rather sad reasons. It is a country of which we should be taking much more notice.
I visited Cuba much less recently than the previous two speakers; I was there some 30 years ago. At that time in Hong Kong we were repairing ships for the Cuban merchant navy, and I was invited to go to Cuba. It was a difficult journey in those days. I went from Hong Kong to Los Angeles, then to Mexico and then to Havana. Once I got to Los Angeles and they found out that I was going on to Cuba, I was put in a little cage well away from everyone else, as I appeared to have some virulent disease.
It has been a sad 40 years of mistrust between Cuba and the United States. When I mentioned 30-odd years ago that I had had this difficult journey, my Cuban friends told me that I should have told them what plane I was going to be on, and they would have arranged to hijack it. That was their preferred way of doing things in those days; it is now much different.
Even in those days, there was a great deal of hypocrisy. Even though relations between Cuba and the United States had been taken away, a Pan Am plane flew daily from Havana to Miami. If you had mentioned that to Americans, they would have had no idea that such a thing was happening.
Of course then there were problems with the Bay of Pigs and the missile crisis, and things went from bad to worse. However, one felt, until just recently, that things were looking better. One should look back a bit to see the start of the Castro regime. Was he a Communist, or was he pushed into it? He took over from the most awful, corrupt, Batista regime. He perhaps did not get it right with the United States, and that problem has sadly continued to this day.
The Cuban economy has always been shaky. Sugar is the main export, which was helped for many years by the Russians, when they were close friends with Cuba. That has now become difficult. Other exports, such as cigars, are one of the biggest export markets in the world. More recently, their medical facilities have rightly attracted people from all over the world.

519
Nevertheless, they still have a shaky economy, and the recent bayonet-shaking by the Americans has not helped, and nor will it do so.
Americans have a problem in that they have many Cuban refugees in Florida. We know what happened in the last American presidential election, where Florida became a key state. It would be a brave American politician who started to try to improve relationships at the minute, although of course this should be done.
So where do we go from a British point of view? There are enormous opportunities for us to trade with Cuba, if only for the wrong reason that the Americans are not involved with trade with Cuba—not that doing business with Cuba is easy. Any Communist or neo-Communist nation has bureaucracy up to its chin and it is very difficult to know what to do. Moreover, they do not have very much money.
I should know this but I must ask the Minister what the position with ECGD is with Cuba. For a long time, we were not allowed to sell them stuff with ECGD backing. I believe that that may still be the problem, which would be a pity. We have opportunities and we should try to do what we can. More visits to Cuba would be useful for people to understand what goes on. It is a beautiful place. Tourism is a wonderful way of getting to know the country.
The problem that we now face with America—the EU has rather foolishly gone a bit too aggressively against Cuba— is very sad. We must hope to God that the Americans do not use that as an excuse to invade on some pretext of overcoming the last of Communist interests in the Caribbean.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I felt an obligation to intervene in this debate because I spent most of the 1960s writing a history of Cuba. It is a long book. I believe that it has the distinction of being the longest single volume on the open shelves in the House of Lords Library. I have never seen it out, although I once met a bishop many years ago who—more, I believe, out of charitable feeling than truth—told me that he had read it. That book is not easy to find in Cuba, and that is not, I believe, entirely because of its length. I believe that that is because it was critical of the harsh policies imposed on Cuba by Dr Castro in the 1960s.
Even so—although the book is not available—I have recently been to Cuba several times. I must say that the regime of Dr Castro does not seem to me to have much affected the charm of the Cuban people or the beauty of the Cuban cities—above all, Havana. Without question, it is still the most beautiful city of the Caribbean. It is being well recuperated and embellished by an inspired historian of the city, Dr Eusebio Leal, to whom all historians and historical tourists will always be grateful.
What is Cuba like today? At one level, it certainly seems as if very little has changed. Dr Castro is still in power; he is the dictator of all policies, as he has been for 40 or more years. His brother, Ran] Castro, is the
520
Minister of Defence, and has been for 40 or more years. He is still, as he was in 1960, the heir to his brother. What a remarkable indication of endurance on their part. If one thinks of who was in power when Dr Castro came to power in 1959, one realises that all of his contemporaries have disappeared into the shade: President Eisenhower and Kruschev, Mr Macmillan and General de Gaulle, and Mao and Nasser. Castro, however, remains.
Furthermore, the fact that Dr Castro recently imprisoned so many opponents of the regime (let us not call them "dissidents"; let us call them, honestly, "opponents") and the fact that he executed those who seized a boat in order to escape from the island—something which one would have thought was a normal desire on the part of people living in difficult circumstances—reminds us that not very much has changed in terms of the political management of the country.
Yet, some things have changed. First and foremost, I believe, Cuba is now in a position in which it has never been in its history: it is on its own. After nearly 400 years of rule by Spain; after 60 years of subservience—cultural, economic and political—to the United States; and 30-odd years of a similar subjection to the Soviet Union, Cuba in the 1990s has been its own master. I am sure that, whatever happens to the regime of Dr Castro, that will seem the most remarkable characteristic of our time.
Secondly, as was mentioned earlier in the debate, there has been another change. Cuba was for generations—since the early 19th century—known as the great world exporter of sugar. It was not only an exporter; indeed, it was the biggest exporter of sugar for many generations. That brought great wealth in the 19th century and created great fortunes. That has now changed and tourism has taken the place of sugar. That has been largely managed—partly by Spanish entrepreneurs—with style and good taste.
Thirdly, Cuba is no longer—I am sure that most Cubans must secretly be happy about this—the motor of world revolution, either on its own, making the Andes the sierra maestro of Latin America. or as surrogate forces for the Soviet Union. There have also been some concessions to our world of free enterprise. Perhaps there have not been enough and perhaps most have been made in the context of tourist needs. Nevertheless, it has happened. There are mixed companies which combine foreign investment and foreign coal management with Cuban national investment. That must surely be an important sign of the future.
Given those changes and interesting possibilities— the surviving attraction of the island—what should British policy be? First, I entirely agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, when he said that we should have nothing to do with the failed United States policy of an economic embargo. To support such an embargo, which has not worked in over 40 years, seems to me to be a very mistaken policy.
I do not really know, and I do not know whether anyone has speculated, whether the Cuban Government really desire an end to the policy of

521
economic embargo by the United States. Certainly, an end to it would cause a great transformation in Cuba. But I believe that we should argue for its conclusion in the hope that free enterprise in business could have an effect in the long run—perhaps in the short run—by helping the development of a free political society.
In addition, I am sure that Her Majesty's Government should support an intelligent, open policy of commerce in collaboration with their European partners. They should hope, too, that, in arguing with Cuban officials the benefits of private enterprise, some of the magic which has characterised development in all ex-Communist countries would rub off on Cuba as well.
I remind noble Lords that Britain has had a long experience of involvement with Cuban national life. At least three noble Lords led an expedition in 1762 to capture Havana from the Spaniards. Many believe that that was a turning-point in Cuban economic history, helping the Cubans to develop a sugar industry on a far more substantial scale than before.
In the mid-19th century, a British consul, David Turnbull, sided vigorously with the Cuban opposition against Spain, taking the lead in a battle against slavery of a most undiplomatic nature. Over the years I spent writing my book, and since, I have developed a real love of Cuba and Cubans. I hope that Cubans can devise some way in which their originality—which no one doubts—can be combined effectively in future with the content which seems always to have escaped them.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it is, as always, a great pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and it is with great regret that I did not take that book out of the Library.
Instead I had to rely on a schoolfriend, Andrew Palmer, who helped me with my work at the age of six. I always thought he was one of our best ambassadors to Cuba. He was kind enough to brief me today.
I would like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that last year was the 140th anniversary of the year when Cuba was British. After the Seven Years' War and the treaty, Cuba was British for about three years. Then, we swapped Cuba with Spain—for Florida. Florida was British. It is interesting to reflect, as did the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, that if Clinton had not sent back that small boy to Cuba, Bush would probably not have got in, and we would not be at war with Iraq.
In 1898, at the end of the Spanish/American war, Cuba was briefly an independent territory when the United States suddenly decided to intervene. A couple of years later, that led to the granting of the lease on Guantanamo Bay. I am told that this is therefore US territory. Whether it is sovereign US territory, I am not certain. However, a UK parallel might be Hong Kong or Gibraltar. Fidel refused to take rent from the United States for that arrangement.
522
I ask the Minister whether the people imprisoned there now are imprisoned on US territory and bound under US law—or does the territory belong to someone else. We have British subjects there; what is the position?
In this intrigue, and over time, I always tried to predict significant changes in the world—possibly because I was a young upstart. When I was out there and I saw the first cracks appear in the Soviet Union, I thought it might be an idea to look at where its influence was, and came up with Cuba. I had an old friend from my days in the Council of Europe—most of us must have a Socialist Minister as a friend—Lord Walston, an ex-Etonian, who was a Minister of State in the Foreign Office.
Harry advised me that Cuba was a good place to go and have a look at, but when I asked him to come with me, he told me that he had had a little difficulty with the Foreign Office. When he became a Minister, he thought it right and proper that he should visit all his territories. The Foreign Office cautioned him that it would not be a good idea to go to Cuba; but he wished to, so the Foreign Office contrived the wonderful suggestion that he visit Cuba—informally—on the way to his plantations on St Lucia, where he owned a small chunk of the island. That was what was agreed.
So we decided to go to Cuba. I thought it would he easy; but the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, knows that it was not easy. We looked at the possibility of going to Moscow, taking the plane to Cape Verde islands and then flying on to Cuba. Finally, we gained entry via Panama. The next time, I found that if we went to Jamaica, where I was also working, a small Russian 125 plane, which was known to have the best coffee in the world, flew from Kingston to Havana, so I took that.
When I was seeing Ministers and others, I said, "Surely we could find a quicker way of having direct relations". They said to me, "Why don't you ring a British trading company?". In London, I rang a man I know and he said, "Oh, yes, we could probably arrange that". I have raised the matter previously in this House, but that gives me a feeling of how remarkable and flexible Cuba is and what a lovely sense of humour its people have.
I took the plane. It was not Pan Am: it was a regular Thursday afternoon plane from Miami to Havana but it was not quick enough. They said, "You know, you can go a bit quicker". This was 20 years or so ago and I said, "I'll come as quick as I can". I received a telephone call and they asked, "Why don't you come immediately?". I am happy to let your Lordships know that I hold the world record for London/Havana/ London. I took Concord to Miami; went down to Terminal J; pressed 1234; spoke to Daisy because Maria was pregnant; was given a Cessner 125 with red burgundy stripes on it; said goodbye to Miami; and left Miami airspace.
We then had to ring Havana. I was given the radio and told to do so. I was told that Havana was open 24 hours a day and gave the name of the plane. We landed and I had to pay an enormous landing fee. We

523
ended up signing a trade agreement there where we financed quite a bit of trade based upon their back cover.
I took several missions there and came to like the place. At one point we asked what we could do to help because Havana was rather dirty. I still loved Hemingway and I wanted to have a Daiquiri in the Floridita and a Mohita in the Bodegita, which I did. To my horror, I found that my young cousin, who was a Left-wing extremist, was out there working as a Russian technician preaching the downfall of the Conservative government on Prince A La Taina. She is now working perfectly respectably with the ODA.
Some time after we discovered that the Americans had invaded Grenada, when the ODA was working on the runway out there and we could not understand how and why. It was these pesky Cubans who were going to do everything else. That upset some of my friends in Cadbury Schweppes because Grenada was the only place which grew limes of equal size which were suitable for Rose's Lime Juice. The one thing we did was to paint the town red, as it was called. ICI agreed to come out and set up a small paint plant and we repainted part of Havana.
During that time I came to love the Cubans. We could discuss how they received 32 cents a pound for sugar when the world price was 5 cents under the barter agreement. That obviously came to an end when the Soviet Union broke up. We could discuss how they obtained the oil from Algeria in order to pay for the troops who were in Angola and how they could sell their cigars when they did not want the Americans to get hold of them and break the trade agreement. We looked at many issues, including nickel which is a strategic material.
Four points have since come to mind. I believe that Cuba has one of the best health services in the world. It is far, far better than ours. Cuba has a life expectancy per person in excess of that of the United States. That is quite remarkable. Those are the legacies of Fidel. It has a level of literacy which is above ours and it has an integrated racial society which I find fascinating.
Throughout all that time, we would receive the monologue about the United States and the dangers America was causing in the world. Sometimes I would have the privilege of seeing the position from the USSR. In the Ukraine one day, they said, "We don't think for one moment that the first missiles that went to Cuba went as deck cargo on one of our bulk carriers. We could have fitted them below and you might assume that they went below but that the Americans didn't want to make a fuss about it. And it was perhaps some of our own satellite photographs that blew the whistle because we wanted to have the point made that if there were missiles within 90 miles of our borders, we should have missiles within 90 miles of America's borders". We all know the sabre rattling that went on and the smashing of the boots. It was so tense. I cannot understand why the United States should be so aggressive at this time. I do not see what it has to gain. It is so restrictive that tourism is limited. We know that
524
France, Italy and Spain have a real booming tourist industry there, as does Canada and to some extent the United Kingdom.
Trade is difficult because sugar prices have failed. Nickel works to some extent. Cuba's natural resources are perhaps its people. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will remember from his sugar days that Jamaica was down to almost 200,000 tonnes of sugar a year; Cuba 8 million.
I cannot understand where the next step comes. Thinking of some of the relationships in Africa, I should like to suggest that the Minister considers inviting Cuba to join the Commonwealth. It might appeal to their amusement. It is a form of paternalistic, fraternalistic communism. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, Fidel is the second longest-serving head of state in the world after Her Majesty the Queen. Until recently, Kim II Sung and King Hussein were the only other two. He is a wise man; he is no fool. I think that he is genuinely respected and loved by his people. If attempts were made, and there were an open election, I believe that he would get in extremely well.
His number two at the time, Carlos Rafael Rodriguez, once said to me, "Why do you keep talking about the revolution? You must remember that great king in France at the time of the storming of the Bastille who turned to one of his courtiers and said, 'Excellence, is it a revolt?' 'No, Majesty, only a revolution'. They tried to explain to me that revolution is not an absolute event; it is a slow moving event, as quick or as fast as is necessary to meet the needs of the people.
I learnt, too, an Irish quotation: that man does not manufacture life, his job is to improve it. I believe that to a certain extent the Cubans have tried. They have had their hands tied. There has been the battle with the United States. Were it to be a state one day, I always think of Interstate 95 which runs from Boston down to the end of Florida; and there the ferries would be.
I hope that the Cubans remain Cubans. I am privileged to have spoken in the debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. My experience is now somewhat elderly, perhaps almost as elderly as some of my Cuban friends but I wish them well.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for initiating the debate and congratulate him on his new responsibilities, which I am sure he will pursue with his customary energy and efficiency.
Many of us speaking in the debate have a real affection for Cuba. But it does us no good to romanticise Cuban society under President Castro. In particular, its human rights record has been extremely unattractive for almost the whole of the time Castro has been in power. We should not forget that.
Nevertheless, Cuba is not an insignificant place. It is larger than Hungary or Portugal. Its population is over 11 million, larger than Belgium, Greece or New Zealand. That does not include the million and a half

525
Cuban exiles. As the noble Lords, Lord Selsdon and Lord Thomas, said, its achievements since the revolution have been considerable, with literacy, infant mortality rates, life expectancy and access to electricity and clean water at a highly developed nation status. An excellent AIDS programme has been very successful within Cuba, which I should have thought offered a good deal of hope to other developing countries.
The tragedy is that at the time of the Cuban revolution, both Castro and the then US administration made a catastrophic error of mutual incomprehension, leading to the ferocious US trade embargo against Cuba and the dependence of Cuba upon the Soviet Union. Castro himself recognised the gravity of that mistake when, in agreeing to help the Nicaraguan revolutionaries years later, he made it one of his conditions for so doing that they should not break off relations with the United States.
In the intervening years, the United Kingdom has maintained a policy of constructive engagement towards Cuba while being critical of the trade embargo. Other countries have pursued a similar approach, with the Canadians and Spanish being among the most successfully committed to maintaining good relations, providing tourists and selling goods.
When I lived there in the early 1980s as the wife of the British Ambassador—this is the day for reminiscences, but mine is quite brief—my husband and I were invited to see one of the longest-lasting fruits of that constructive policy. At the time of the revolution the Cubans had what one might describe as American milk-drinking habits. Due to the embargo, the supply was cut off and for many years the UK and Canada supplied not only milk powder for reconstitution into liquid milk but also the semen for breeding the local Brahmin cows, a new race of hybrid cattle which could produce significant quantities of milk using tropical grass. It would be interesting to know whether that initiative, of so much importance to other tropical countries, has been continued.
Nevertheless, with the events of the past few months the British policy of constructive engagement must at the very least be a good deal more difficult to maintain. The attempt by Cuban citizens to hijack a ferry to escape to the United States, the summary execution of the ringleaders, and the arrest and subsequent very severe sentencing of 78 dissidents—I am sorry to use a phrase to which objection has already been made—are distressing events in their own right. They have also thrown diplomatic relations with Cuba into disarray. There have been suggestions that the senior UK diplomat in Cuba, Mr Cason, contributed to the crisis by too warmly and too frequently welcoming those dissidents—many of them people of real distinction—into his palatial residence.
But that may have been only the last straw as far as Castro, always an unpredictable leader, was concerned. After the tragedy of 9/11, Castro immediately denounced its perpetrators and indeed the whole phenomenon of terrorism. But the US administration under President Bush have nevertheless persisted in
526
listing Cuba among the axis of evil countries which they are committed to dealing with. In that way, the administration continue to give added emphasis to the special status of state supporter of terrorism given to Cuba by President Reagan.
Of course, Castro has, for many years—not entirely without justification given the history of Cuba—justified his less popular actions or his country's greatest deprivation by pointing to the danger of a US invasion. Perhaps with a weakened economy, without the support of a major power and with US diplomats flaunting their support for dissidents, he really felt threatened.
Recently I was asked by my noble friend Lord Roper to join him in welcoming a group of Cuban churchmen and women. Certainly they felt alarmed enough to ask us whether we felt that the US really would attack Cuba because of what the administration had said about the axis of evil. We did our best to reassure them. The sadness is that at the same time as the Bush administration maintain their extremely rigid anti-Cuban, anti-Castro attitude, other people in the United States do not. On 30th April this year the veteran Cuba watcher, Dr Wayne Smith, head of the Washington-based Center for International Policy's Cuba Project, wrote:
"Recent events prove once again that our policy of isolating Cuba—economically and diplomatically—strips the United States of our ability to influence events at critical moments; this policy has been a notorious failure for 44 years".
At that time a Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives to end the banning of travel by Americans to Cuba, so there are people within the United States who do not take the same rigid line as the Bush administration.
Nevertheless, there now exists within Cuba an extremely unfortunate situation with serious human rights implications. At the same time the whole issue of the flight of over a million Cubans, mostly to the United States, has come to the fore again. Given that most of them live in Florida and have Republican sympathies, that can do nothing to reduce the friction between the American and Cuban presidents.
In those circumstances, will the Minister tell us how the traditional UK policy of constructive engagement is being pursued? I hope that the Government still maintain their opposition to the US embargo. But what pressure have the Government been able to bring to bear on the Cuban Government with respect to the hard treatment of the dissident prisoners? Do the Government have any fears that the recent relative tolerance of the Cuban Government of religious expression is under threat at this difficult time? Is trade with Cuba being given the full support of Her Majesty's Government?
My understanding is that the UK now has only a minor programme of direct assistance to Cuba. Will the Minister clarify the progress of existing EU programmes and of their likely extension in the future? Did the recent negotiations within the European Union on CAP reform have any implications for the market for sugar? I must confess to a feeling that with

527
some countries—not just Cuba—depending so much on the production of sugar, it seems wicked to continue to subsidise its production within the EU.
Cuba is a fascinating and in some ways impressive country. Its fate for nearly 50 years has been bound up in the hands of a charismatic leader and a series of largely antagonistic US Administrations. That situation is not helpful to the Cuban people, nor to the cause of peace in the wider world. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue to do their best to assist mutual understanding between the two combatants, even in the present circumstances, and to maintain Anglo-Cuban relations in a way that benefits both us and the Cuban people.
8.46 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Moynihan on initiating such a timely debate on Britain's relationship with Cuba. I am delighted that it has attracted the distinguished and knowledgeable noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, to contribute.
Alas, unlike all the speakers so far, I have never had the pleasure of visiting Cuba. But I have always heard—from my parents, friends, and noble Lords this evening—that it is a most beautiful and interesting country, with charming people. All I can say is that through my many Cuban friends I learned Spanish many years ago.
We have noted with sadness, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned, the recent political developments in the country when the Cuban authorities broke a moratorium on the death penalty. We on this side of the House join the Government and the European Union in condemning the deplorable action of the Cuban authorities in carrying out the summary execution of three men who had hijacked a ferry in an attempt to escape the island.
The situation was compounded by the Cuban authorities handing down prison terms totalling many hundreds of years to 75 political activists. Britain has an international obligation to bring all diplomatic pressure to hear on the Cuban regime in relation to human rights abuses. The Government and the European Union must continue to urge Cuba to release its political prisoners and to press for the immediate improvement of the conditions in which they are being held.
There is an important role for the international community to play in encouraging both the political and the economic development of Cuba. It is a country with the potential to develop in both spheres. However, it is important that when we discuss the role that Britain and the wider international community can play in encouraging change in Cuba, we must also consider the work going on in Cuba itself. Many groups have campaigned for reform in Cuba over a number of years.
Most recently, we have seen the Varela project, which has called for a referendum on political reform with free and fair elections. I am sure that all noble Lords on all sides will join me in praising the bravery
528
of the project's founder, Oswaldo Paya, given the treatment of political campaigners I outlined earlier, in submitting the project for consideration. We urge the Government and the European Union to continue to press the Cuban Government for a response to Varela.
However, reform should not necessarily be pressed too fast, as, although it is desirable, the risk of subsequent criminal involvement, as in other ex-communist countries, could destroy the future security and prosperity of the Cuban people. After all, the natural and human resources available in Cuba present a clear opportunity for it to become one of the more prosperous economies in South America. Unfortunately, as we have heard, the political and economic systems that exist in the country have prevented its accession to the world economic stage.
We share the view of the British Government, the European Union and the United States that there will be a peaceful transition in Cuba, democratically and economically, to enable the country to reach its full potential. That is best achieved through a combination of dialogue, trade and co-operation—culturally, through aid and research.
There is huge potential for Britain to build on its bilateral involvement with Cuba. In 2001–02, assistance from DfID totalled just £346,000. A further £1 million was contributed to the European Union's programme of aid for Cuba. That was in line with the contributions made by the rest of the EU, which gave a total of 15 million euros in the same year. Indeed, Cuba remains the only country in the region with which the EU has no formal agreement on economic co-operation.
However, we support the Government's position that for diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba to develop further there must first be significant progress in respect of human rights. That position is strengthened at European level through the common position of the European Union that full co-operation will not be possible until Cuba commits itself to international human rights standards.
One potential route for the Cuban authorities is to develop further trade and development links. That would be through the Cotonou agreement, which several noble Lords mentioned. Indeed, only in January this year the Cuban Government made a formal application to assent to the agreement. Unfortunately, while the issues concerning the abuse of human rights in the country remain, it is difficult to see how that application can succeed. That is yet another example of Cuba failing to achieve its economic potential purely because of the political situation in the country.
I shall now discuss the role that NGOs can play in forging stronger relationships between the two countries. Britain's relationship with Cuba has been furthered to some degree through co-operation on some recent ventures. In the past couple of years, for example, a meningitis vaccine was developed in Cuba in partnership with a British pharmaceutical company. The two countries have recently agreed on a programme of bilateral action in the fight against AIDS in Africa.

529
The British Council has also played a role in promoting scientific co-operation between the two countries through the UK-Cuba Science Links programme, designed to promote joint research between groups in the United Kingdom and Cuba. It currently involves eight projects, and a further five have been approved to start this year.
I pay particular tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who has taken a significant interest in the country. In December, as we heard, he was appointed chairman of the UK Cuba Initiative, which aims to reinforce non-governmental links, particularly through trade, investment and cultural cooperation. I know that he will do it brilliantly, as with anything to which he turns his hand. The valuable work of the initiative not only helps to improve our relationship with the Cuban Government, but also has the potential to benefit the Cuban people.
My noble friend is quite right when he argues that the events of the past few months, to which I referred earlier, should encourage more, not less engagement. He was also right when he suggested that operating through trade and constructive dialogue is an important way of assisting the average Cuban.
The case for reform in Cuba is clear. The role that the British Government have to play in that process is also becoming clearer. With over 100 years of diplomatic relations with Cuba, an expanding trade relationship, co-operation in scientific research and the potential for further direct aid, we are in a relatively sound position to influence change in the country. The prospect of further trade and economic development should offer the Cuban authorities a clear incentive to move towards political democratisation and join the world economy.
We hope that in the years to come, the opportunities that I have outlined above, along with the continued pressure of the international community, and the valuable work of the NGOs in encouraging further trade and development, will bring about improved relations with Cuba and much needed democratic reform.
8.56 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, your Lordships have once again raised an important and topical issue. We have had the benefit of great expertise on this subject from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, through to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, and his fascinating historical perspective on the subject.
I pay particular tribute to the input and commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who opened this evening's debate from his standpoint as co-chair of the Cuba Initiative. I am happy to record the Government's appreciation of the excellent work done by his predecessor the late Lady Young. I am glad to see her work is being taken forward by the noble Lord.
We view the current situation in Cuba with sorrow, rather than anger. The UK has enjoyed unbroken diplomatic links with Cuba since it gained
530
independence in 1902, although it has not always been possible for us to have entirely normal relations with the Communist regime. Our relations with Cuba have been framed since 1996 by the EU common position. This is a clear policy of constructive engagement with Cuba, conditional on human rights improvements. We wish to work in partnership with the Cuban Government and all sectors of Cuban society.
However, recent events in Cuba illustrate with shocking clarity the repressive side of the one-party system there. With a population of 11 million, it now holds a world record for holding prisoners of conscience. This repression, and the reaction to it by many people in Britain and Europe, has rightly resulted in a cooling of relations. We note, with sadness, the disregard with which the Cuban Government hold the opinion of the international community. Until we see Cuba uphold its commitment to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and demonstrate respect for the fundamental rights of its own people, co-operation and dialogue will be problematic.
I shall put the debate into perspective. Regarding UK engagement with Cuba. the UK has modest but growing interests in Cuba. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, is right—the Cuban tourist industry has grown rapidly over the last decade, and 100,000 British tourists visit each year. Alas, both the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and I have not yet been among them. Direct UK trade and investment in Cuba is, as yet, fairly small at £20 million a year. But there are at least 15 joint ventures involving UK companies manufacturing or providing services in Cuba. Despite being situated in the Americans' backyard, Cuba's largest trading partner is the EU. Her Majesty's Government, like the Cuba Initiative, seek to facilitate UK businesses through the complex Cuban bureaucracy to develop our market share. We continue to pursue bilateral programmes in science, medicine and biotechnology—areas in which there is high mutual regard. A major biotech mission went to Glasgow in May, and UK Sport recently signed a memorandum of understanding with Cuba—one of only five world-wide.
Collaborative operations and joint training projects in law enforcement are viewed positively on both sides. UK drugs liaison officers have also established excellent working relations with the Cubans. The Department for International Development funds development projects through its small grants scheme, and has funded specific public health projects in Cuba. We sponsor five Cuban graduates each year to study in the UK under the Chevening scholarship scheme, and our embassy actively promotes cultural exchanges.
More broadly, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is pursuing an initiative to fund Cuban doctors to work on an HIV/AIDS project in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is right, as are the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. Cuba is well advanced in health and in science. We hope to see that model for trilateral co-operation extended.

531
We were dismayed to hear Cuban accusations on 6th June that EU embassies, including our own, are solely engaged with the opposition. That is far from the truth, as the examples that I have given show. But Cuba's potential, as thoughtfully advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, will remain unfulfilled and the initiative of the Cuban people stifled until its political and economic systems are reformed. It is our duty to speak out against such restrictions on individual freedoms and state-sponsored human rights violations. Our goal is to see a peaceful transition to a pluralist democracy. Along with our EU partners, we continue to follow a policy of constructive engagement in Cuba.
So where do we stand now? We have left the Cuban government in no doubt as to the strength of feeling shared by EU partners towards the March crackdown. We also expressed concern at the summary trial and execution of three ferry hijackers, which marked the ending of Cuba's three-year de facto moratorium on the death penalty. Those events in themselves are a slap in the face for those countries that wish to work as Cuba's friends, and they compound a record on human rights that is recognised worldwide as seriously deficient. The EU has co-sponsored a resolution on Cuba at the UN Commission on Human Rights for the past 10 years, voicing international concern at the systematic denial of civil and political rights. It also focuses frustrations felt at Cuba's lack of co-operation with UN human rights mechanisms. Cuba continues to deny access to monitors mandated by the UN Commission on Human Rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, spoke with her own expertise on Cuba's human rights record.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, effectively described the measures adopted by the EU partners on 5th June, so I shall not go into that. Bilaterally, the then UK Minister for Energy, Brian Wilson, suspended a visit planned in May to Cuba, and our ambassador in Havana invited opposition figures, alongside Cuban government representatives, to the Queen's birthday party in April. EU partners also agreed unanimously to an extraordinary re-evaluation of the EU common position. Full co-operation will not be possible until the Cuban Government commit themselves to international human rights standards. We wish to demonstrate to the Cuban authorities that, although we remain committed to a policy of constructive engagement, we are not prepared to continue with business as usual. The EU calls for freedom of assembly and expression, free media and economy and freedom for all political parties. We urge an end to arbitrary detention, intimidation and imprisonment on political grounds.
Cuba's response has been vitriolic and disturbing. President Castro himself appeared on television to denounce the EU. Mass demonstrations were orchestrated outside the embassies of Spain and Italy in Havana. Castro has hurled personal insults at Prime Ministers Aznar and Berlusconi, portraying them as Hitler and Mussolini respectively. The EU as a whole have been labelled "moral dwarves" and "economic conmen". The Cuban Government's retrospective
532
attempts to justify the crackdown have been entirely unconvincing. The arrest and imprisonment of 75 peaceful political opposition people has been explained as a necessary reaction to growing subversive forces funded by external powers. In short, the Cubans are suggesting that librarians, economists and grass-roots community leaders are all paid agents of the CIA working to overthrow Castro's government. I shall not waste the time of noble Lords in discrediting those conspiracy theories.
Several noble Lords referred to the US-Cuba relationship. In that context, the role of the US in Cuba's political stasis is worthy of mention. The US trade embargo and serious travel restrictions on US visitors are intended to challenge Castro's regime. The embargo prevents US companies from trading in Cuba and further measures extend that remit extra-territorially. I can assure my noble friend Lord Rea and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, and others that the UK does not agree with the embargo. Each year we vote against it at the UN General Assembly.
Castro has long used the embargo as a scapegoat for all Cuba's imperfections. It provides a convenient distraction from domestic ills. We believe that, were the US embargo to he lifted—assuming Cuba's own economic policy permits—and travel restrictions eased, Cuba would open up to increased trade and competition, and political reforms would follow. But the existence of the embargo is not an acceptable reason for curtailing human rights and fundamental freedoms.
A number of questions were asked. I shall gallop through as many as I can in the time afforded to me, while I shall ensure that responses to those that I miss are sent to noble Lords in writing. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about the EU-Cuba rift. I would not describe it in those terms. We are condemning human rights violations and hope to see these rectified so that we can continue to pursue engagement of mutual interest. The crackdown and executions have been condemned not only by the EU and the US, as the noble Lord mentioned, but also by CARICOM, Canada and the Vatican, among others. However, we remain committed to our policy of constructive engagement.
The noble Lord also asked about aid, as did other noble Lords. He is right to say that the EU has agreed to re-evaluate its position. The Italian, French and German Governments have already announced a review of economic co-operation and the EU member states will discuss this issue. The UK's bilateral assistance to Cuba is minimal at present. We shall look at this, along with our European partners, with an open mind. We shall certainly also bear in mind the potential effects mentioned by the noble Lord on ordinary Cubans. I agree that we would not wish to see the general population of Cuba targeted.
The noble Lord also asked me about trade. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord had to say on this: that is, that it has a key role to play. If we are lagging behind our EU counterparts, it is not because of any

533
lack of enthusiasm on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I wish the noble Lord every good fortune in his efforts to promote trade with Cuba.
On US policy, what Cuba has done may encourage an apparent convergence of EU-US policies on Cuba. The truth is that we are all shocked and appalled, but our policies remain distinct. On the embargo, I believe that I have made clear the position of Her Majesty's Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked about the Cotonou agreement. The debate within the EU would have focused on the relative merits of aligning Cuba with an agreement that stipulates minimum standards of human rights and the fear that the Cubans would take the benefits of Cotonou membership without implementing any reforms. But Cuba's withdrawal of its application means that this debate has been aborted for the present.
My noble friend Lord Rea and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, asked about the US interests section and certain activities. It is not Her Majesty's Government's place to comment on US/Cuba diplomatic practices, but we should like to see proper diplomatic behaviour in all countries where we have missions. Whereas the Cuban ambassador is free
534
to engage with whomever he chooses in the UK, our embassy in Havana is firmly encouraged not to do so in Cuba.
My noble friend Lord Rea also asked about the current EU position if Cuba was to think of reapplying to Cotonou. I would say to him that if Cuba was to apply to Cotonou now, I fear that the EU response would be "Tough". We need to see movement from Cuba on human rights first.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, asked about the ECGD's position as regards Cuba. We have recently signed a new memorandum of understanding on Cuban debt repayments. Continuing regular repayments will revive the appetite for new export credit guarantee projects from Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, in a very interesting contribution asked about Guantanamo Bay and its status. Guantanamo Bay falls under the remit of our relations with the US rather than under UK policy on Cuba. I do not wish to get into a detailed discussion here but I can assure the noble Lord that we are monitoring the situation closely. We continue to voice our concern about respect for human rights and we have been pushing the US Government to come to a conclusion on the future of the detainees.
As regards milk powder, perhaps I can write to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past nine o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Sewerage Arrangement, Portrush, County Antrim
  Northern Ireland: Sewerage Arrangement, Portrush, County Antrim
  Cabinet Ministerial Committees
  Cabinet Ministerial Committees
  Consul General, San Francisco: Residence
  Consul General, San Francisco: Residence
  United Nations Human Rights Commission
  United Nations Human Rights Commission
  European Legislation: Compatibility with ECHR and ECFR
  European Legislation: Compatibility with ECHR and ECFR
  Parkhurst and Wandsworth Prisons: Inspection Reports
  Parkhurst and Wandsworth Prisons: Inspection Reports
  Home Office: Strategic Framework
  Home Office: Strategic Framework
  Independent Police Complaints Commission
  Independent Police Complaints Commission
  Referendums
  Referendums
  Lord Chancellor's Advisory Council on Public Records
  Lord Chancellor's Advisory Council on Public Records
  RAF Menwith Hill
  RAF Menwith Hill
  South Africa: Military Aircraft and Warships Imports
  South Africa: Military Aircraft and Warships Imports
  NATO: Command Structure
  NATO: Command Structure
  NHS: Performance Ratings
  NHS: Performance Ratings
  Water Fluoridation
  Water Fluoridation
  Cochlear Implants
  Cochlear Implants
  Medicines for Human Use: Draft Regulations on Clinical Trials
  Medicines for Human Use: Draft Regulations on Clinical Trials
  Non-residential Property: Scotland
  Non-residential Property: Scotland
  Nuclear Science and Engineering: University Courses
  Nuclear Science and Engineering: University Courses
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Genetically Modified Crops
  Genetically Modified Crops
  Grey Squirrels
  Grey Squirrels
  Batteries
  Batteries
  Agricultural Products: Export Subsidies
  Agricultural Products: Export Subsidies