Sitting of 4 March 2003

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

    Speed Limits
    Ms Julia Drown: When the new local authorities' guide for the setting of speed limits will be published. [100177]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Guidance on the setting of speed limits already exists in the form of roads circular 1/93. The Government are committed to reducing the number of casualties and those killed and seriously injured on our roads caused by excessive and inappropriate road speed. Later this year, we will develop new guidance for setting local speed limits.
    Ms Drown: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I urge him to get that new guidance to local authorities as soon as possible. Swindon parents tell me that they would like more factors to be taken into account when considering speed limits. They want speed limits to be reduced, particularly outside schools. Will the new guidance allow matters such as environmental factors, the fear of accidents and things that might encourage more people to walk their children to school to be taken into account in considering speed limits, rather than just the accidents that have taken place?
    Mr. Jamieson: I have some good news for my hon. Friend: there is no need to wait for the new guidance. Since 1999, highways authorities have been able to apply 20 mph zones without authorisation from the Secretary of State. Road safety will always be a prime concern of highways authorities when introducing speed limits. However, they can also consider environmental and quality of life issues as well. Reducing the perception of danger encourages people to walk and cycle, particularly on the school run and in the vicinity of schools, which, in turn, improves the quality of life of people, particularly in the rural areas.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: Does the Minister accept that although there is clearly a strong case to reduce speed limits in vulnerable areas, such as outside schools, it is equally important on dual carriageways
    660
    where there is no possibility of encountering pedestrians to increase too low speed limits, which bring the whole speed limit process into disrepute and can often cause speeding?
    Mr. Jamieson: The thrust of what the right hon. Gentleman says is correct. What we are talking about is speed limits that are appropriate to the circumstances, and what we need to consider, particularly in rural areas, is having appropriate speed limits for the circumstances, and ensuring that those speed limits are enforceable is very important. In particular, we need to focus our efforts on those places where there have been casualties and injuries and where people have been killed and seriously injured.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: In encouraging local authorities to determine appropriate speed limits, will my hon. Friend say that they should make that decision on what is appropriate, not on guidance from police authorities, which sometimes mistakenly give the advice, "Don't reduce this speed limit because we haven't got the resources to enforce it."?
    Mr. Jamieson: Although the resources available to local authorities have increased very substantially under our local transport plans—most authorities have had two or three times as much money in recent years—it is important, as my hon. Friend says, that those resources are used to best effect and to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads. Of course I hope that, whenever those decisions are made, the highways authorities will work in co-operation with the local police.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I welcome the Government's commitment to reduce the number of casualties on our roads and to introduce guidance on setting local speed limits, so will the Under-Secretary now agree to accept our new clause 21 to the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, setting out a rural road hierarchy and a range of speed limits as appropriate?
    Mr. Jamieson: We recognise the hierarchy that the hon. Lady first proposed in her new clause, but the proposals that we first saw would be deeply intrusive in some rural areas in the number of signs and engineering works that would be needed. Of course that would be very costly, and we would have to consider the benefits that any expenditure would achieve to ensure that the cost was reasonable. As I said in a previous reply, we must focus the resources where the need is greatest and where the problems exist. There is very substantial extra funding in local authorities to do that, and we hope that they will direct its use to where the dangers and problems are greatest.

    Railways
    Mr. Gary Streeter: What discussions he has had in recent weeks with the Strategic Rail Authority about journey times to Plymouth. [100178]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): Ministers have met the Strategic Rail Authority to discuss the Greater Western franchise. First Great Western introduced a three-hour service from London to Plymouth last year. A regular three-hour journey time from Plymouth to London would be welcome, but performance and capacity improvements are a greater priority at present.
    Mr. Streeter: I welcome the Minister's reply, but does he agree that, given the obvious difficulty of significantly improving air and road links to the far south-west, the best way to underpin the local economy is to cut journey times by train to Plymouth from London? Will he therefore put maximum pressure on the SRA to agree to a typical journey time of three hours, which has been put to the SRA in its new timetable proposals, so that business people, particularly those from Plymouth, can get to London and back for business meetings in comfort, thus underpinning and helping the local economy?
    Mr. Jamieson: I share with the hon. Gentleman the ambition not just for road and air links to be good, but for the rail service to be good, too. Our present aim is also to improve the reliability and predictability of the service. Bringing together the Wessex, the Thames and the First Great Western franchise into a Greater Western franchise in 2006 will allow for better utilisation of track capacity and will ease co-ordination between short and long journey services. I have indicated once previously that the improvements that we will make around Reading will substantially improve the journey times to and from Plymouth.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend will be aware of the contrast between the successful state railways on the continent of Europe and the privatised, fragmented mess that we have over here. Is it not time that my hon. Friend advised the Strategic Rail Authority to imitate what is done on the continent of Europe and make our railways like theirs?
    Mr. Jamieson: We are asking the SRA to make sure that the railway provides the services that we want in this country. There will be no turning back of the clock: we want to turn the clock forward to ensure that the railway delivers the high-quality service that the people in this country deserve—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are discussing journey times to Plymouth.
    Mr. Tim Collins: Will not travellers to and from Plymouth share the assessment of 28 local authorities, 13 of them run by the Labour party, that the cutbacks by the Strategic Rail Authority in rail services are resurrecting
    "the spirit of Dr Beeching"?
    Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a tiny number of services—less than 1 per cent.—that are there to improve the capacity utilisation of the railways. We must all dwell on what would happen in the very unlikely event of the hon. Gentleman and his party forming a Government. What kind of cuts would they
    662
    make to our rail service and to the amount of money available for transport, and what kind of impact would that have on services to and from Plymouth?
    Mr. Collins: Will not travellers to and from Plymouth also want to know that after two rounds of SRA cutbacks, there will not be a third? Can the Minister commit himself to that?
    Mr. Jamieson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the services to and from Plymouth and the west country have and are being secured. The policies that we are carrying out will improve the service to and from that particular area. Again, what the people of the west country will dwell on very much is the policies of all three parties in this area. The Liberal Democrats, as well as the Conservatives, are considering certain cuts, and those will be in people's minds.

    Buses
    Mr. Michael Foster: If he will make a statement on the integration of bus services with other forms of transport in Worcestershire. [100179]
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar): We encourage all local transport authorities to use their powers to promote through-ticketing, better co-ordination of services, improved accessibility, wider availability of information and improved waiting facilities. A new integrated rail-bus ticket named PlusBus has been introduced recently by the bus and rail industries. Although stations in Worcestershire are not currently participating in the scheme, it is expected that it will be extended progressively to cover all major towns.
    Mr. Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. One of the biggest obstacles to integrated transport in Worcestershire is the level of bus fares within Worcester city. It is claimed that Worcester city has the highest bus fares in Britain. Will he investigate that claim so that we can put pressure on the county council and the bus company to enable my constituents to pay the lower fares that seem to be paid in other parts of the county?
    Mr. Spellar: I am concerned to hear about that. I have been aware of previous problems with local bus services in Worcestershire following a major review of the existing network of services. In addition, Worcestershire county council had approved an additional £400,000 funding to replace some services, and was carrying out its own review of bus service provision in the county. With the additional information provided by my hon. Friend—who is as assiduous as ever on behalf of his constituents—I will investigate those points further.
    Mr. Peter Luff: I am sure that the Minister will want to pay tribute to what the private train operating companies have done to improve integration between bus and train services in Worcestershire. Does he agree that if we are to get people out of their cars and on to public transport, the integration that really matters is that between car and train? In that respect, will he join me in supporting a

    663
    Worcester parkway station to provide decent parking facilities for car users, as none of the Worcester stations has decent car parking at present?
    Mr. Spellar: I am not sure whether I am being tempted into making a planning decision. However, on the Chiltern line in Warwickshire there is an extremely successful parkway. The Chiltern line now runs well into Worcestershire and provides an increasingly popular service down to London. That shows how the innovation and enterprise of a number of companies is causing the market to grow. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about car parking facilities; but would add that integrating public transport as effectively as possible will provide people with real alternatives. We will look into that particular aspect.

    Railways
    Mr. Mark Todd: What measures he has taken to improve access to rail services for citizens of South Derbyshire. [100180]
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar): The Strategic Rail Authority is working to improve rail services across the country. We are supporting Derbyshire county council's local transport plan, which includes the setting up of a rural transport partnership to help tackle transport issues in South Derbyshire.
    Mr. Todd: The Minister will forgive my lack of enthusiasm for that modest response. I draw his attention to three projects that would certainly add to the accessibility of rail services in South Derbyshire: first, progress on the east midlands parkway, which has not so far been assisted by the SRA; secondly, the opening of the Donnington loop between Willington and Nottingham, which was commended in the M1 study but has not been proceeded with by the Government; and thirdly, the national forest line between Leicester and Burton, a line which would eventually go to Derby.
    Mr. Spellar: I understand the demand for a new parkway station. There is pressure on budgets and, with the east midlands airport parkway, there have been some difficulties in getting agreement among all the parties concerned.
    The national forest line used to be referred to as the Ivanhoe line. Strong pressure has come from Derbyshire councils on that issue, which will also require the support of Staffordshire councils. With changing travel-to-work patterns—such as those seen on the Robin Hood line—we acknowledge that the extension of services on to what have traditionally been freight lines, and the expansion of commuter services, can be of considerable advantage in helping businesses in city centres and in providing different work opportunities for people along the routes.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Last year, it was announced that a new service of 10 trains a day would operate from Matlock to Birmingham, also serving South Derbyshire. That new service has now
    664
    been cut to two trains a day within three months of coming into operation. Is that a good message to send out to encourage the use of public transport?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that expansion on a number of routes was found to be detrimental to reliability. When I considered the question of a cut in the service from Derby to Birmingham, I found that the five services an hour had gone down to four services an hour, which it had previously been. The SRA has rightly considered reliability—particularly in the Birmingham hub area— and the ability of all the rail companies to deliver their services. That was the right way to deal with the issue, because reliability is extremely important in developing the railway service. That service will undoubtedly have to be fine-tuned, and I am always prepared—as is the SRA—to consider particular services; but the principle underlying what has been done is absolutely right.

    Waterloo Station
    Mr. Andrew Turner: What steps he is taking to improve the level and quality of services into Waterloo station. [100182]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): South West Trains has ordered 785 new vehicles and Network Rail is upgrading the power supply to allow for that. The first trains should come into service in the spring. The revised South West Trains franchise requires a robust service with fewer cancellations and with more trains arriving at their destinations on time.
    Mr. Turner: We have heard about cutback after cutback after cutback but the Secretary of State seems to suggest that things are getting better. In Southampton, there has been a cut not of 1 per cent., which the Under-Secretary suggested, but of 25 per cent. in off-peak services. For well-connected services to my constituency, that represents a cut of 50 per cent. How will that get people off the road and on to rail?
    Mr. Darling: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary suggested, we have severe problems with congestion on part of the rail network. If the SRA had not taken action to remove off-peak trains, the congestion and severe problems with reliability would continue. The problem in the past, following privatisation, was that more and more trains were allowed on to a network that frankly could not take them.
    The hon. Gentleman raised a point about South West Trains, and 74 out of 1,700 services a day have been withdrawn. That will allow for greater reliability and for longer trains with increased capacity at peak times. That will provide a better service. However, if the SRA had left matters as they were, the congestion and lack of reliability would continue. That cannot be in the interests of anyone using the railways.
    Mr. James Gray: The Secretary of State knows that my constituents have recently suffered the body blow of the cancellation of the Bristol to Oxford line and the resulting cancellation of the Corsham station project. Will he confirm the rumours

    665
    that the service from Corsham through west Wiltshire and into Waterloo is also being challenged by the SRA?[Interruption.] Hon. Members are shouting, so I shall repeat my question. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the service from Corsham and west Wiltshire into Waterloo, which it is widely rumoured will be cancelled by the SRA, will not be cancelled?
    Andrew Mackinlay: Give him a map.
    Mr. Darling: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have got to Waterloo eventually if he had been given the time. However, I do not know whether that would help with congestion.
    The SRA has an obligation to do everything that it can to make trains services reliable. It is doing no one any good at all to continue with a situation in which more and more trains that were advertised did not run on time. They were subject to delays and cancellations simply because the network could not take them. As a result of the changes that are being made—there will be further changes to the timetable from time to time—the SRA is freeing up pathways to allow trains to run particularly at peak times. It is allowing for further and increased turn-around times, so that if trains lose time they can make it up.
    If the hon. Gentleman cares to listen for a moment, I shall point out to him that the situation that we inherited in which more and more trains were trying to run down track that could not take them simply resulted in there being more and more unreliability. That is totally unacceptable to the people of this country.

    Aviation Fuel
    Mr. Simon Thomas: If he will make a statement on his policy on reducing the use of aviation fuel. [100183]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): As the consultation document made clear last summer, the Government's policy is that the airline industry should meet the costs of its environmental impact and, as part of that objective, it should maximise fuel efficiency.
    Mr. Thomas: Is it not the truth that the Government's policy on aviation fuel is all over the shop? The Secretary of State rejected the report from the royal commission on environmental pollution, yet the White Paper on energy says that we must reduce the use of aviation fuel and meet the external costs on the environment of aviation use. If 15 per cent. of global warming by 2050 will be created by aviation use, as predicted by the international panel on climate change, what will the Government do to address that real disaster in the making? Is there not a lesson to be learned from road charging?
    Mr. Darling: On aviation, the Government made it clear last summer, when we published the consultation document on airport capacity, that the airline industry should meet the costs of the environmental impact that it causes. The hon. Gentleman must realise that most agreements on the taxation of aviation fuel,
    666
    for example, are international agreements. It is not open to this country to take unilateral action. Indeed, that would not be effective at all. I know that he is a Welsh nationalist, but surely even he must realise that we have obligations outside our borders. We have made it clear time and time again that the industry needs to meet its environmental costs, and we will shortly be publishing a consultation document to explore how it can better do that while we have regard to our international obligations.
    Lynne Jones: Now that congestion charging in London has been successful, will the Government consider being as bold as the Mayor and advocate the extension of congestion charging—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question should be about aviation fuel.
    Norman Baker: If the Minister wants the airline industry to meet its costs environmentally in terms of aviation fuel, will he support an EU-wide tax on aviation fuel if it is not possible to secure international agreement? Otherwise, carbon dioxide emissions will double between 1990 and 2010 and a predict and provide policy will disfigure our countryside.
    Mr. Darling: There are two points in relation to that. First, on reductions in air fares, even additional taxation would not put air fares back up to where they were. Many of the cost reductions have resulted from the low-cost airlines and others stripping out the costs of their operation. The policy that the hon. Gentleman advocates would not have the effect that he wants.
    Secondly, a Europe-wide taxation regime might help in some respects, and it is worth considering, but it would not resolve the problem that would arise in relation to longer-distance flights or aircraft that are capable of flying outside the European Union, loading up with cheaper fuel, then coming back in. That might exacerbate the situation. I would say to the hon. Gentleman, as I said to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), that the problem relates particularly to taxation and needs to be resolved as part of an international agreement. Other measures can be taken to improve aircraft engine technology to make engines more efficient and to reduce noise. There have been significant improvements over the past 30 years, and I have no doubt that more will follow. These are all matters that the Government will shortly consider and consult on. We cannot, however, ignore the fact that this is by its nature a highly international business, and it is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman seems to think to resolve the matter, even within Europe.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Secretary of State, together with you, Mr. Speaker, and the rest of us regulars on the Edinburgh and Glasgow routes, will have developed a pretty good nodding acquaintance with every cubic metre of the upper atmosphere above Watford, which is pretty expensive in fuel terms. Is part

    667
    of the problem the shortage of air traffic controllers, and would there be less hanging around over Watford if there were more skilled air traffic controllers?
    Mr. Darling: Like my hon. Friend, I, too, have a nodding acquaintance with every inch of sky between Edinburgh and London. He makes a fair point. There are fewer air traffic controllers than there should be, but their numbers are increasing. National Air Traffic Services has plans to recruit more air traffic controllers, which will result in less delay around Heathrow and other airports. I looked at the figures over the weekend, and it is encouraging that delays attributable to air traffic control are decreasing, but an awful lot more needs to be done.

    Congestion Charging
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the timetable for introducing guidelines on exemptions and concessions in relation to congestion charging. [100184]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): We will consult on a uniform minimum standard of exemptions and concessions once we have had an opportunity to consider the experience gained from road user charging schemes in London and Durham.
    Dr. Cable: Does the Secretary of State agree that although the congestion charge in London has so far been a considerable success in traffic terms, there are many unfair exemptions deriving from the blue badge scheme? Will he urgently introduce new guidance to deal with cruel anomalies such as the situation faced by 150 thalidomide victims who have been refused exemptions, despite the fact that they are not capable of using public transport?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right that the London congestion charging scheme has worked far better than many people thought that it would. However, as I have said on many occasions, it will take several months to evaluate its effect. Another point that I have often made is that it is for the Mayor to decide which exemptions he wishes to put in place. The way in which the legislation was framed made it absolutely clear that it would be for the Mayor in London, just as it is for local authorities around the country, to decide on the nature of the scheme and its exemptions. When the Government consult on minimum standards, they will be high level and generalised standards to ensure that there are no glaring inconsistencies between local authorities. I would say to the hon. Gentleman, or to anyone else who believes that the London scheme needs refinement in relation to exemptions, that that is a matter for the Mayor to resolve, as the legislation always intended.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear whether or not the Government support the extension of congestion charging?
    Mr. Darling: I made it clear to my hon. Friend's Committee, and many times to the House, that
    668
    congestion charging is one of a number of options that local authorities can use. Whether it is appropriate for particular towns and cities depends on the local authority. That is how the legislation is drafted. I have also made it clear that I know full well that many local authorities have been waiting to see what happens in London before deciding whether to proceed with congestion charging. As I said last week in relation to congestion charging and other developments, such as the tolling of the M6 when the toll road opens—probably at the beginning of next year—developments are taking place that will allow people to learn from what is actually happening rather than what might happen in theory. That will better inform local authorities and the Government on what measures are workable and acceptable in managing demand for road space.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: The Secretary of State is trying to absolve himself from responsibility for the exemption scheme. The Government took the power in legislation to impose exemptions and concessions. Why do they not use that power to ensure that the scheme does not inflict so much damage on their policy of social exclusion? The latest report from the social exclusion unit shows that householders who are car owners and in the 20 per cent. lowest range of incomes have to pay 24 per cent. of household income in car taxes. That is unjust. Why do not the Government do something about that in the name of social inclusion?
    Mr. Darling: I must say that I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman was bothered about social inclusion. There was not much sign of that when he was a Minister.
    On the specific scheme, it has always been the case that it would be up to the Mayor of London to put arrangements in place and to decide the appropriate exemptions. It is his scheme and for him to decide what exemptions are justified. On social inclusion, it is worth bearing in mind that about 90 per cent. of people who come into central London do so on public transport. Many of the remaining 10 per cent. may be in a difficult position, but it is for the Mayor to sort that out. One of the best things that can be done to help social inclusion is to invest in public transport. The hon. Gentleman and his party want to cut public investment by 20 per cent. That would be bound to have an adverse effect on social inclusion.

    Railways
    Mr Vernon Coaker: What recent assessment he has made of the plans Network Rail have to improve the signalling and track from Nottingham to London. [100185]
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar): None. I understand that the Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail are working together on a range of strategic measures to include in the midland main line route plan. This will form part of Network Rail's 2003 business plan, due to be published in April.
    Vernon Coaker: Given the billions of pounds that are being invested in St. Pancras station as part of the

    669
    channel tunnel rail link, would not it be sensible to invest a significant amount in the midland main line so that we have a fast link between Nottingham and that part of the east midlands into London? Although there is a need to invest in the west and east coast main lines, many of us in that part of the east midlands think that the midland main line is often neglected when it comes to investment decisions.
    Mr. Spellar: I know of my hon. Friend's considerable interest in the subject, which he regularly raises with us. He will be aware of the major transport interchange in the St. Pancras and King's Cross complex. We are keen to encourage development of the midland main line. As for the details, we will have to await the outcome of the work by Network Rail on, for example, signalling, which will no doubt cover the famous Trent signal box.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Speaking as an hon. Member who represents Sheffield, I add my voice to the calls for the midland main line to be a higher priority. Will the Minister consider doing something about the rolling stock on that route? It is distinctly inadequate and there are frequent cancellations simply because trains are not available.
    Mr. Spellar: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, considerable work is being done on the renewal and replacement of the high-speed train fleet. That is of particular significance to the midland main line and other routes. I must say that when I have used the midland main line, it has been remarkably reliable.

    Airport Security
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on airport security. [100186]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The terrorist threat to UK interests and UK aviation remains a very real one. Heightened aviation security measures have been in place since September 2001 at all UK airports for all airlines operating from the UK and for UK airlines overseas. These are kept under constant review and are amended or supplemented as and when required.
    Dr. Iddon: On the police service parliamentary scheme, I recently studied policing at Schiphol and Manchester airports. In the Netherlands, one security force is responsible for all aspects of security at major airports like Schiphol. However, in British airports we have the local police, special branch, the immigration and nationality directorate and Customs and Excise. Even the individual carriers and baggage handlers have their own security people. Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am that while there is a lot of good will among those individual forces, there may not be adequate consultation between them?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend raises a matter that was acknowledged by Sir John Wheeler, whom the Home Secretary and I asked to carry out a review of airport security. He identified cases in which we could improve the working relationship between the police and others, and we are in the process of doing so at the moment.
    670
    I would caution against a wholesale organisational change, as that can often lead to people taking their eye off the immediate problem. However, where there are problems concerning organisations not working together as closely as they should, we will deal with them as and when the occasion demands. However, both the Home Secretary and I are concerned that Wheeler's recommendations should be implemented as quickly as possible, and are working to do so.
    Mr. Don Foster: Can the Secretary of State confirm that following a recent new risk analysis, aeroplanes coming in from certain countries can no longer park at the main stand but must park and disembark their passengers away from the stand? If so, which countries are involved? Can the Secretary of State also explain why, 16 months on since the first occasion on which I raised the matter, it is still possible for staff to work airside—the most vulnerable part of the airport—without full security clearance, as long as they are supervised? Does he not accept that supervision can never be 100 per cent. secure? Surely action should have been taken a long time ago?
    Mr. Darling: On the first point, I am anxious to be as helpful to the hon. Gentleman and the House as possible, but it would be unwise of me to disclose what is done for operational reasons from time to time. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will accept my reasons for doing so. However, I can say that we keep the nature of the threat and the places where it may come from under review all the time. From time to time, it is necessary to do things at Heathrow and other airports to try to control or mitigate that threat. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said a short while ago in a statement to the House, it is neither possible nor wise of Ministers to provide a "running commentary" on what is happening from day to day.
    The threat at our airports is real in nature and is likely to continue for a long time. In this country, we have lived under the threat of terrorism from the IRA for some 30 years, and I am afraid that we are going to have to come to terms with living with a different, and in many ways more substantial, threat. It will be necessary for us to take appropriate action from time to time, but it would not be wise of me to maintain a running commentary in public on what we are doing.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Secretary of State comment on the illogical situation whereby some airports pay for policing while other expanding, quite large, airports do not? It is not fair competition policy, nor is it fair to the council tax payer that that disparity should endure.
    Mr. Darling: It is no doubt one of things that we will look at. My concern, and the concern of my Department, is to make sure that there is adequate policing, no matter what the source of finance. It is for the Home Office to decide the appropriate funding of police forces. I need to be satisfied that there is an adequate police service at every airport, depending on their size and the nature of the threat that may exist.
    Mr. George Osborne: In recent weeks, armed police have been deployed in my constituency to protect

    671
    the flight path from Manchester airport as a result of the recent scare. Without providing a running commentary, as the Secretary of State said, does he nevertheless agree that it is vital that airport communities be provided with clear information about what is being done, and that we should avoid alarmist statements from members of the Government and others?
    Mr. Darling: Alarmist statements, no matter where they come from, should be avoided because they are usually unhelpful. Yes, we will try and keep the public and everybody who has a direct interest informed as much as we can, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will accept that there can be occasions when information becomes available and action needs to be taken immediately. Sometimes it is overt, sometimes it is covert, but it is not always wise to make a public announcement about what is happening all the time. I should have thought it was obvious to the hon. Gentleman that to reveal what we know, and therefore possibly, by implication, what we do not know, would not help anyone at all.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: We all appreciate the need for tighter airport security, but what is being done to get more X-ray scanners operational? The number of times I have been stuck at Heathrow with huge numbers of people trying to get through one or two scanners is ridiculous. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with BAA and other airport authorities to tackle the problem?
    Mr. Darling: As it happens, I had an interesting discussion about just that matter a couple of weeks ago. The problem at Heathrow, particularly in relation to the domestic departures area, which is probably the one where my hon. Friend was held up, is not a lack of scanners, but a failure to deploy the right number of staff at specific times. It has been a problem at Heathrow since Christmas. There is a system in place to step up the numbers of staff to meet the flow, which is fairly predictable, but on a number of occasions that has not been done. We have spoken to BAA about that. People will put up with the inconvenience of being searched, but they cannot understand why the queue sometimes stretches right out across the concourse because staffing levels are inadequate. It is a staffing problem, rather than a problem with the scanners themselves.

    Metronet Bond Issue
    Mr. Richard Bacon: If he will make a statement about the public bond issue by Metronet. [100188]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The first three PPP contracts were completed with Tube Lines on 31 December. I expect the other two contracts to be completed with Metronet shortly. Metronet plans to raise part of the necessary finance through a bond offering.
    Mr. Bacon: Can the Secretary of State confirm that when the disclosure period for the Metronet bond issue starts, there will be full disclosure in line with previous practice; or will it be like the recent PFI bond issued in
    672
    connection with the upgrading of the Al in Yorkshire by Road Management Services (Finance) plc, in which important information was blacked out before the documents were deposited at the lawyers Freshfields, so that taxpayers cannot find out what is going on?
    Mr. Darling: I am sure that Metronet will comply with all the obligations incumbent upon it in relation to its bond launch. That is what it must do.

    Buses
    Laura Moffatt: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of modern, reliable bus services on reducing car usage; and if he will make a statement. [100189]
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar): Current and potential bus users consistently rate improvements to frequency, punctuality, reliability and cost as the factors most likely to encourage them to make better use of bus services. Significant increases in patronage, typically between 5 per cent. and 25 per cent., but occasionally significantly more, have followed major improvements on bus corridors. Studies suggest that about one third of new users previously made the journey by car.
    Laura Moffatt: My constituents will be greatly heartened by that. We are undergoing a huge programme to introduce the Fastway bus system, which I am glad to say my right hon. Friend visited a few weeks ago. Inevitably, there is much disruption, and my constituents need to know that that disruption will pay off in the long run, and that they will have a better environment and a better way of getting to Gatwick airport, in particular. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disruption is well worth the effort?
    Mr. Spellar: I was very impressed by the partnership between the local council, the county council and the bus company in producing a scheme that they and I believe will be of real benefit to the people of Crawley and will enable Crawley to continue to be an economically dynamic city. It has been encouraging to see that. My hon. Friend can take heart from the increases in patronage that have taken place in other areas where similar systems have been introduced—as I said, between 5 and 25 per cent. That has been a real benefit to existing bus travellers and an encouragement to those who previously went by car to consider the new system as a sensible alternative.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that in many parts of the country, particularly rural areas, there is little or no public transport, so cars are essential if people are to have an acceptable form of mobility? Does he agree that if people are to use public transport, particularly buses, there must be adequate park and ride or car parking for those who come from areas where there is no public transport to link up with bus services? What encouragement is he giving to councils throughout the

    673
    country to introduce more park and ride, so that there is adequate parking for people who have to get to a bus service before they can use it?
    Mr. Spellar: Of course, far more people in rural areas now have access to bus services than previously, not least because of various rural bus grants that have been of significant advantage. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. As I told the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), there is considerable scope for park-and-ride facilities that link with either bus or rail stations. That requires proper partnership between local authorities, bus companies and rail companies. In some areas, that is working very well, and some companies are extremely innovative, while others are not moving so fast. We are trying to encourage the average companies to come up to the level of the best. If he has a particular problem in his area that he would like me to address, I shall be more than happy to receive representations from him.
    John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in some areas where bus services have been deregulated, largely outside London, the promised increased reliability has failed to materialise. That has happened because some of the operators choose to run buses that are not properly maintained and, in some cases, not even properly cleaned. That has obvious implications for safety as well as reliability. Does that not imply that at the very best we should be considering some extension of public ownership such as that which has already been made on some routes in London, or at the very least an increase in regulation?
    Mr. Spellar: Even in London, the buses are run by private companies, although under a different regime. If my hon. Friend believes that companies are running vehicles that are unsafe or not properly maintained, or has information in that regard, the matter should be referred to the traffic commissioners, who are responsible for considering such matters. He is right to say that there are variations in performance. That is exactly why we have established between local authorities and bus companies the Bus Partnership Forum, which is considering a number of the issues that have been nagging away at those bodies for years. It is also starting to thrash out the details and new policies needed to achieve much better practice throughout the country, to the benefit of bus passengers and transport as a whole.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: May I point out to the Minister that there has been a serious reduction in bus routes in south Oxfordshire, affecting the Reading-Goring and Chinnor-Thame routes and several others? May I also invite him to explain why the 20 million rural bus challenge seems to have done very little except make life more challenging for rural bus users? Can he allay the justified suspicions of those who think that that is caused partly by money being cynically skewed away from well run councils in the shires and the south and directed towards badly run Labour councils in the north?
    Mr. Spellar: Local authorities throughout the country have had a significant increase in their moneys
    674
    for local transport plans. I shall, of course, check the increase that Oxfordshire has received. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the local authority as to how it spends its money. The rural bus challenge has had a significant effect and made a considerable improvement in many areas. I cannot instantly recall what schemes have been introduced by Oxfordshire county council and whether they have been agreed by us. However, in general, the rural bus challenge has made a significant improvement. More people have been given access to bus services, and the initiative has helped to reduce rural isolation and provide access to shops and employment, as well as health and education facilities.

    A1
    John Mann: What plans he has to upgrade the Al in Bassetlaw. [100190]
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. John Spellar): In line with the Government's policy of reducing congestion and improving safety on trunk roads, there are plans to carry out major improvements at several junctions on the Al in Bassetlaw. Those include replacement of the roundabouts at Blyth, Apleyhead and Markham Moor with flyover junctions and the provision of a new junction to provide access to Elkesley village.
    John Mann: After 30 years of procrastination, my constituents are delighted that we have a Government who are prepared to put in the investment. Indeed, my constituents will be singing and dancing alongside the traffic queues, soon to go. So enthused are they that should the Minister contemplate going further and bringing motorways in as part of that investment, there will be further support. Will he consider the enthusiasm of my constituents in terms of future motorway improvements?
    Mr. Spellar: I am sure that I will have the opportunity to do that when I visit my hon. Friend's constituency in just over a week, when the enthusiasm of his constituents will no doubt be manifest.

    CABINET OFFICE
    The Minister of State was asked—

    Ombudsman
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the Public Administration Committee's third report, on ombudsman issues, with special reference to the role of the Cabinet Office. [100197]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): We will study the Committee's report and respond in the normal way.
    Mr. Robathan: This report deals, first, with the Hinduja cover up and, secondly, a less known cover up, which was described by the ombudsman as the only

    675
    occasion on which the Government have refused to accept the ombudsman's findings on a matter of access to Government information. We hear a great deal about freedom of information from this Government, but when it comes to reality there is no freedom of information and one cannot find anything out because they are so secretive.
    The report's second recommendation is:
    "We recommend that the Government reconsider its decision to refuse to accept the Ombudsman's findings in the case of Mr Robathan and publish the required information."
    Will the Government accept the findings of the Public Administration Committee, which is dominated and chaired by Labour Members?
    Mr. Alexander: As I have made clear, the Government will consider the Committee's recommendations and respond formally in the usual way. In the first place, that will, of course, be to the Select Committee.
    Kevin Brennan: I am one of the Members who "dominates" the Public Administration Committee. Will the Minister take note of the fact that the new ombudsman is appearing before us this week? We might want to ask also about press reports that the Government are resisting releasing information on gifts to Ministers, so will he perhaps enlighten us further as to Government policy on freedom of information regarding gifts to Ministers?
    Mr. Alexander: The final decision on what is in the report is obviously a matter for the ombudsman, Ann Abraham. I should point out that I had a constructive meeting with the new ombudsman last week in which we discussed the evolving role of the ombudsman. There is the basis there for an extremely constructive relationship.

    Correspondence
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on steps that he is taking to reduce the time taken by Ministers to reply to Members' letters. [100198]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Cabinet Office issues guidance to Departments on handling correspondence from Members of Parliament. However, it is up to individual Ministers to ensure that their Department responds to all correspondence promptly and accurately.
    When that issue was raised with me last month by Members, I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary, who has in turn written to Departments reminding them to ensure that every effort is made to handle correspondence efficiently.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that informative reply. Given that the Cabinet Office guidance states that the handling of correspondence with Members of Parliament, peers and the general public is an issue to which the Government "attaches the greatest importance", can he explain to me why the letter that I sent on 7 May 2002 on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Steve Watkins of 72 Embleton Way,
    676
    Buckingham, on the national health service human resources and payroll system, did not receive a reply from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), until 16 January this year? On the assumption that the Minister regards that delay of eight months and nine days as unacceptable, when will he do something about it?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have only 10 minutes.
    Mr. Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, I am happy to take that matter up with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, I have already corresponded with him since the last Cabinet Office Question Time in relation to correspondence to the Department of Health. It is important to point out for the benefit of the House the scale of the challenge facing Departments: about 160,000 letters from Members were received across Departments in 2001 and the Prime Minister alone received more than 1 million letters from the general public in 2002.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Are Ministers encouraged to deal with letters in a number of ways? Some communications are urgent and need swift responses, while others may be more routine. Of course we do not want to wait for as long as eight months for answers to those, but should not important communications be upgraded?
    Mr. Alexander: I am sympathetic to that point. Obviously it would be wise to identify the relevant Minister in such correspondence, but the fact remains that we should try to answer all letters as expeditiously as possible. Targets are set by specific Whitehall Departments, and it is on that basis that individual Ministers are responsible, consistent with Cabinet Office guidance.
    Mr. Richard Allan: As the Minister will know, many organisations have become considerably more efficient by using electronic mail for communications of this sort, in terms of both the time taken to reply and the cost involved. Unless such systems are implemented properly, however, they are worse than useless: e-mails are diverted all over the place, or disappear into the ether. Would the Minister consider commissioning work in his Department to bring together the various players in Departments, Parliament and so on, and to establish whether an efficient system of e-mail between Members and Ministers could be devised for Members who wish to communicate electronically?
    Mr. Alexander: I know of the hon. Gentleman's expertise in this area. It is a matter of record that the House has considerably improved its facilities for electronic communications in recent years, which is all to the good, but I will give some thought to the hon. Gentleman's question and then write to him.
    Mr. Tim Collins: Will the Cabinet Office undertake to publish a league table showing how rapidly Ministers respond to correspondence? Will it introduce sanctions so that the

    677
    worst performing Ministers suffer some penalty, such as the loss of their exemption from the London congestion charge?
    Mr. Alexander: That would seem a curious sanction indeed.
    The guidance is set by the Cabinet Office, and it is then for individual Departments to set responsive targets. The average Whitehall target is 15 working days. Clearly some Ministers and Departments could do significantly better. That is why, after the most recent Cabinet Office questions, I was keen to ensure that the matter was raised with the Cabinet Secretary, who in turn has raised it with individual Departments.

    Lord Birt
    Norman Baker: If he will list the subjects on which Lord Birt has advised the strategy unit in the last six months. [100199]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Lord Birt was appointed by the Prime Minister as an unpaid adviser under paragraph 51 of the ministerial code. His role is to provide the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers with long-term internal strategic analysis and policy thinking.
    Norman Baker: We need more freedom of information. I asked which subjects Lord Birt was advising on, but the Minister did not give me the answer to that question. Why is what Lord Birt is doing such a secret? Is it that embarrassing?
    Mr. Alexander: I am well aware of the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the hon. Gentleman about this. I remind him that, in his letter to the hon. Gentleman dated 21 May 2002, the Prime Minister made it clear that Lord Birt provides private internal advice to the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers on a range of issues.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Would my hon. Friend be prepared to ask Lord Birt to advise the strategy unit on Government policy on waste? As he knows, the unit recently suggested that the Cabinet Office should conduct a review of the current
    678
    division of responsibility between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. If Lord Birt would not be the right person to conduct the review, could the Minister ask someone else to do it on behalf of the Government?
    Mr. Alexander: Two distinct issues are inherent in that question, but I will certainly consider how we can best deal with the issues relating to waste.

    Civil Service
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: What plans he has to review whether the requirement that each civil service agency undergoes a quinquennial review of its public sector status should continue. [100200]
    The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government no longer require quinquennial reviews of executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies. Because our focus is on the effectiveness of delivery of public services rather than on individual structures, Departments are now being asked to look holistically at the contribution that agencies, NDPBs and others make to achieve their delivery objectives.
    Dr. Whitehead: Now that the agency system is mature, might this not be the time to review the whole basis on which agencies work, especially smaller agencies? Could the system be refined to match more closely the size and function of an agency, rather than the focus being on the undertaking of reviews?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend will be aware that a joint review of agency policy was recently carried out by the Cabinet Office and the Treasury, and the report, "Better Government Services: Executive Agencies in the 21st Century"—copies are available in the Library was published in July 2002. On my hon. Friend's specific point about the function of the reviews of agency work, I agree that the challenge is not solely to look at individual structures, but to ensure that the structures that are in place reflect the delivery objectives of the Department. That view is shared by the Cabinet Secretary, who, through his work on advancing performance partnerships, is undertaking significant work in this area.

Points of Order
12.30 pm
Mr. Damian Green: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about the confused messages coming out of the Department for Education and Skills today on university admissions. This morning, the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education, the hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), is reported to have said that she was going to set a specific target for the percentage of children from poorer backgrounds going to university. She is reported to have said:
"I'm actually going to set a target—where we want to get to by 2010."
Several hours later, however, after the intervention of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, she was quoted as saying that
"an overall target would be inappropriate and we have no plans to introduce one."
Given that, so far, we have had one message about university admissions from the Prime Minister, a different one from the Secretary of State and two different ones from the Minister with responsibility for higher education, has the Department for Education and Skills requested the chance to make a statement to the House this afternoon, so that we can clear up this terrible confusion on one of the key areas of education policy?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had a moment to look at the lead letter in The Times today, from Professor Sir Bernard Crick, the constitutional expert, in which he compares Ministers' respect for the House of Commons somewhat less than flatteringly with the Government of Lord North's? Against the background of your own repeated statements that Ministers making important announcements should come to the House of Commons first, have you been able to reflect on the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming not here, where he surely ought to be, but to Canary Wharf, to tell us that the costs of any war against Iraq will be met, whatever they are, or on the fact that the Evening Standard can refer to the prospect of a rise of 4p in the pound in income tax? If income tax is to rise by 4p in the pound, should not the House of Commons be told first, rather than the distinguished company at Canary Wharf?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, the Father of the House, applied for an urgent question today. I am rather worried that, when he is refused urgent questions, he tries to raise points of order on the same matters. That is what he is trying to do now. He sought an urgent question to try to bring the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House, and I refused his request. I need not give any reason for doing so. It is quite improper that the hon. Gentleman should then raise a point of order and try to raise the matter in this way.

Welfare of Laying Hens (Enriched Cages)
12.33 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the keeping of laying hens in enriched cages.
First, may I pay tribute to Compassion in World Farming, whose campaign has inspired this Bill? Secondly, may I say that the Government have done much to improve the welfare of farm animals? They led the way in securing the EU protocol, which gives animals a new legal status as sentient beings rather than agricultural products, as they were previously defined. They have banned fur farming and played a key role in winning an EU-wide ban on battery cages, which is due to come into force in 2012. I am aware that the Government are in the process of consulting on whether to ban enriched cages, and I hope that they will do so. The purpose of my Bill, which has all-party support, is to give Ministers a little prod in the right direction. I was hoping that there would be a Minister from the relevant Department here today, and I am sorry that there is not.
I am sorry to say, however, that as things stand much of the egg industry plans to side-step the ban by going over to the cynically named enriched cages, which, sadly, have not been banned by the EU directive. An enriched cage will give hens just 150 cm—about the area of a postcard—more floor space than a conventional cage. It will contain the same number of hens—usually four—and provide a tiny nest box, a perch and litter for dust bathing, all of which will be woefully inadequate in the tiny space available. The hens will still be unable to turn or to flap their wings, and competition for the nest box is likely to lead to aggression. I defy anyone who has seen it to say that this represents a serious improvement in farm animal welfare.
These so-called enriched cages are little more than glorified battery cages. They have nothing to do with humane egg production, and have been designed principally as a device for getting around the EU ban. They will enrich only the egg producers, not their wretched hens. The 2012 deadline for phasing out conventional cages is, by any standards, generous. Producers have ample time to prepare for it, and what they ought to be doing is investing in perchery or free range systems; indeed, the better egg producers are already doing so.
There are, of course, those who argue that more expensive welfare systems in the EU will lead only to increased imports from countries where EU welfare standards do not apply. I understand this concern, but it need not be the case. Of course, the obvious solution would be for the EU, once its own cage ban comes into force, to ban the importing of cage-produced eggs from elsewhere. I am aware that both the Government and the EU make the pessimistic assumption that the rules of the World Trade Organisation do not allow restrictions on such imports. We should challenge this view. I note that the WTO recently ruled that an importing country may make it a condition of access to its markets that the exporting countries adopt policies of environmental protection comparable to its own. I also note that the EU, which bans cosmetic testing on animals, has recently decided that a ban on the sale of imported animal-tested cosmetics is consistent with WTO rules. I therefore see no reason why the same principle should not be extended to farm animal welfare, and I trust that Ministers will press for this.

681
Whatever the position with the WTO, however, there are other steps that we can take to prevent welfare standards in our egg industry from being undermined by imports. Supermarkets should follow the example of Marks and Spencer and Waitrose in refusing to sell battery eggs, and fast food chains should do the same. Believe it or not, UK branches of McDonald's use only free range eggs. If McDonald's can adopt this principled position, so can other food chains and manufacturers. Where the market goes, industry will follow.
In any case, the cost of change is often exaggerated. Industry figures show that barn eggs cost about 8.5p a dozen more to produce, and free range eggs about 18.5p a dozen more. Given that we consume about 180 eggs per person a year on average, this amounts to about tuppence a head per week for free range eggs, or 5p a head per week for barn eggs. That is not a high price to pay for rescuing hens from a lifetime of misery, or for injecting a little morality into factory farming.
I repeat: these so-called enriched cages are a cynical device designed to undermine the little progress that we have already made towards mitigating the worst excesses of factory farming. Germany has already undertaken to ban them, and if Germany can do without them, so can we. I note that the egg industry is arguing that the Germans can afford to take this principled stand because their industry is migrating across the border into Poland. This overlooks the fact that by the time the ban comes into force in 2012, Poland will be well inside the EU, and the rules that apply to German egg farmers will also apply to Polish ones.
I trust that Ministers will not fall for any of the special pleading coming from the egg industry. Instead of looking for ways round the ban, the industry should put its energy into ensuring that there is a level playing field and expanding the market for eggs that are humanely produced. If they were to do that, they would have the full support of the House and the public.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mullin, Ann Clwyd, Mr. Tony Banks, Sir Teddy Taylor, Bob Russell, Mr. Gwyn Prosser, Mr. John Horam, Sue Doughty, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Bill Etherington and Peter Bottomley.

WELFARE OF LAYING HENS (ENRICHED CAGES)
Mr. Mullin accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the keeping of laying hens in enriched cages: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed [Bill 65].

POLICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the programme order of 10th February in relation to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords] shall be amended by the substitution in paragraph 2 (conclusion of proceedings in standing committee) for "Tuesday 4th March" of "Thursday 6th March".—[Joan Ryan.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Communications Bill
    2ND ALLOTTED DAY
    As amended in the Committee, further considered.
    New Clause 23

      SECRETARY OF STATE GUARANTEES FOR OFCOM BORROWING
      '(1) The Secretary of State may guarantee—

      (a) the repayment of the principal of any borrowing by OFCOM;

      (b) the payment of interest on any such borrowing; and

      (c) the discharge of other financial obligations incurred by OFCOM in connection with any such borrowing.

      (2) The power of the Secretary of State to give a guarantee under this section is a power (subject to subsection (3)) to give it in such manner and on such conditions as he thinks fit.
      (3) The Secretary of State must not give a guarantee under this section if the aggregate of—

      (a) the amounts that he may be required to pay for fulfilling that guarantee, and

      (b) the amounts that he may be required to pay for fulfilling other guarantees previously given under this section and still in force,

      exceeds £5 million.
      (4) The Secretary of State may by order substitute another amount for the amount for the time being specified in subsection (3).
      (5) No order is to be made containing provision authorised by subsection (4) unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
      (6) Immediately after a guarantee is given under this section, the Secretary of State must lay a statement of the guarantee before each House of Parliament.
      (7) Where any sum is paid by the Secretary of State under a guarantee given under this section, he must lay a statement relating to that sum before each House of Parliament as soon as practicable after the end of each of the financial years—

      (a) beginning with the one in which the sum is paid; and

      (b) ending with the one in which OFCOM's liabilities under subsection (8) in respect of that sum are finally discharged.

      (8) If sums are paid by the Secretary of State in fulfilment of a guarantee given under this section OFCOM must pay him—

      (a) such amounts in or towards the repayment to him of those sums as he may direct; and

      (b) interest, at such rates as he may determine, on amounts outstanding under this subsection.

      (9) Payments to the Secretary of State under subsection (8) must be made at such times and in such manner as he may determine.'.—[Mr. Timms.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      12.42 pm
      The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 25—Power of OFCOM to retain costs of carrying out spectrum functions.
      Government amendments Nos. 241 to 243, 256.
      Mr. Timms: Clause 1(3) and (4) of the Bill will allow Ofcom to borrow money commercially. That will enable Ofcom to smooth out uneven cash flows that may arise as the result of the unevenness of receipts. New clause 23 will allow the Secretary of State to guarantee Ofcom borrowing to ensure that it is able to obtain the most advantageous terms.
      New clause 25 will enable Ofcom to retain out of its spectrum receipts an amount to cover the costs of carrying out its spectrum functions. Clause 390 of the Bill requires amounts received by Ofcom under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998 to be paid to the appropriate consolidated fund. In practice, an administrative arrangement will allow the necessary amount to meet the costs of Ofcom carrying out its spectrum functions to be netted-off from those moneys and paid to Ofcom. Under the new arrangement proposed in new clause 25, Ofcom would make a statement of principles, which would be approved by the Treasury, setting out the basis on which it would calculate the costs of carrying out its spectrum functions and retain the necessary amounts accordingly. I hope that the House will welcome that.
      Amendment No. 243 requires that Ofcom should include in the account prepared under clause 390(4) the amount retained by it in accordance with any statement of principles it may make under new clause 25, and the cost to Ofcom of carrying out the functions to be covered by that retained amount. Amendments Nos. 241 and 242 are minor consequential amendments.
      As a result of the requirements of clause 390 that some of the amounts received by Ofcom should be paid to the consolidated fund, Ofcom will be unable to comply with the duty in paragraph 8(1) of the schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002 to secure that its revenues are at least sufficient to meet its obligations. Amendment No. 256, therefore, amends paragraph 8(1) to require Ofcom to conduct its affairs so as to secure that revenues from fees and charges which do not fall to be paid to the consolidated fund are at least sufficient to cover the cost of carrying out the functions to which they relate.
      Mr. John Greenway: We welcome the new clauses, although we should prefer new clause 25 to go further. If the new clauses are accepted, the Bill will have more than 400 clauses. I hope that the House will recognise that this afternoon's debate brings to an end a lengthy process. Some of us have been engaged in it for the best part of three months, but it has been a happy time. As we progress through the afternoon, we will discover the joy of Government amendments that put into effect changes that we advocated in Committee. That shows that the Committee debate was a constructive process. The past 24 hours has been quite good, as we have seen that all our work did not come to nothing. We are grateful to the Minister for that.
      684
      However, if new clause 23 is relatively uncontroversial, new clause 25 addresses an issue that I raised with the Minister in Committee—the extent to which all the income payable to Ofcom could be used to defray some of the costs of its activities, instead of all of it being paid to the consolidated fund. I do not want to delay the House, as there is a lot of business to get through. However, the Minister will recall that I impressed on him my thought that, although I understand that Ofcom would not necessarily have an incentive to impose penalties if it could keep the money, it still seems a mistake for new clause 25(5) specifically to except the imposition of penalties and fines and some of Ofcom's enforcement powers.
      We still believe that a lot of activity will be involved in policing the provisions of the Bill and ensuring that Ofcom achieves proper enforcement. The cost of that will still fall on all the organisations that must pay fees and administration expenses to the regulator, as we discussed in Committee.
      Although there is not a complete meeting of minds between us on that matter, we are nonetheless grateful that the Government have accepted some of what we said. I hope that the Minister will recall the Opposition argument as the Bill progresses through the other place and when it receives Royal Assent. If I am right about it, we may need to return to the matter in the future.
      Mr. Timms: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the happiness of the past three months. He is right that the House has before it a number of amendments that reflect the discussions that we had in Committee. They deal with matters raised by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, which is how the process should work.
      We debated in Committee the matter that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) raises, and I think that he will welcome the change proposed in new clause 25, as far as it goes. It means that the arrangement will be much more transparent, and that people will be able to see how payments are being used to fund the work that Ofcom needs to do. We disagreed about penalties, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman set out. I am satisfied that the proposals before the House today are the right ones, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's general welcome for the changes.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 24

      GRANTS FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS AND SERVICES IN NORTHERN IRELAND
      '(1) The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment may, in accordance with this section, make payments to persons engaged in, or in commercial activities connected with—

      (a) the provision of electronic communications networks and electronic communications services in Northern Ireland; or

      (b) improving the extent, quality and reliability of such networks or services.

      (2) A payment shall not be made under this section unless in the opinion of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment—

      (a) the making of the payment is likely to achieve—

      (i) one or more of the purposes set out in subsection (1); and

      (ii) any other purposes prescribed by regulations made by that Department with the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel; and

      (b) the amount of the payment is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

      (3) Payments under this section shall—

      (a) be of such amounts, and

      (b) be made subject to such conditions (including conditions as to repayment),

      as the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment may determine.
      (4) This section extends only to Northern Ireland.'.—[Mr. Timms.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Timms: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 24 grants discretion to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment—DETI—in Northern Ireland to fund expenditure on telecommunications infrastructure and for any other purposes prescribed by regulations made with the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland. Under the terms of the clause, DETI will have discretion to support financially the development of a regional telecommunications infrastructure, specifically in respect of the provision of electronic networks and services and improving the extent, quality and reliability of those networks or services. It will enlarge the legal framework for funding such expenditure in Northern Ireland. That is important because of DETI's role in developing a regional telecommunications infrastructure as an integral part of the Government's strategy for broadband, which is being led by my Department.
      The Bill already contains a provision, which has been carried over, in part, from the Telecommunications Act 1984, for district councils in Northern Ireland to contribute to the costs of infrastructure. The new clause confers broadly similar powers on DETI and I hope that the House will welcome it.
      Mr. Greenway: Northern Ireland Members have pressing matters to address and we wish them success, but I am sure that were they here today, they would want to welcome the new clause. It appears at least to signal an opportunity for the increased roll-out of broadband in Northern Ireland.
      When we debate new clause 2 a little later in our proceedings, I hope that we shall conclude that the Government's commitment to the roll-out of broadband in the rest of the United Kingdom will be undertaken with equal enthusiasm.
      Mr. Richard Allan: I, too, welcome the new clause; it clearly makes sense for DETI to be given the powers to make such expenditure. Although I would not oppose that, I have some questions for the Minister, especially on the relationship of the provision to expenditure in the rest of the United Kingdom.
      686
      The notes that the Minister kindly distributed to accompany the Government's many amendments and new clauses stated that the new clause was part of the DTI's broadband initiative. Can he flesh out how DETI's possible expenditure in Northern Ireland would relate to expenditure elsewhere? For example, is the anticipated DTI expenditure to be across England, Scotland and Wales, or is it to be broadly equivalent to the expenditure to promote broadband infrastructure made by the regional development agencies in England and their counterparts in Wales and Scotland?
      Can the Minister clarify whether there will be comparability throughout the United Kingdom? We are all interested in the promotion of broadband networks, so it would be helpful to know where the Government imagine that the expenditure will come from. The new clause makes it clear that in the case of Northern Ireland it will come from DETI, but questions remain about the Government's intentions for their expenditure of public money in the rest of the United Kingdom.
      Secondly, I want to raise concerns that have been expressed to me about Scottish Enterprise's investment and which may also apply to expenditure in Northern Ireland. Although we all welcome funding for broadband infrastructure from various regional and national bodies, it can have a distorting effect on the market. Concerns are being expressed by some service providers in Scotland that Scottish Enterprise's investment strategy is not ideal for creating the optimal market climate. Targeted investment of that sort can distort the market to the detriment of existing providers who could supply the services that people want without additional investment.
      I am fully supportive of regional investment, but I want to put down a marker that regional and national investment within the United Kingdom must be made with the full co-operation of existing providers and complete understanding of the market or it could be counterproductive. The Scottish example suggests that conditions are being created such that internet service providers based in London, because they are being encouraged to enter the Scottish market, could end up with more favourable conditions than internet service providers based in Edinburgh. I hope that our regional investment strategies will not create such anomalies.
      Michael Fabricant: Northern Ireland is largely rural—rather like Scotland, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) pointed out. How will the provision affect rural areas of Northern Ireland? What consideration has the Minister given to the wireless and satellite provision of broadband? He will be aware of the excellent document produced by the Communication Workers Union, which shows that Britain is 20th in the world for the provision of broadband.
      I want to pursue the line of questioning taken by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. Will there be a distortion in the market? Assuming that the problems of the provision of broadband in rural areas can be overcome, will we find that Northern Ireland becomes a Mecca for the application of broadband while the rest of the United Kingdom is far from being so? The Minister will be aware, from the many hours that we spent on this subject in Committee, that many of us are concerned not only that broadband is not yet available in rural areas in

      687
      England but also that it is not available in suburban areas and even some urban areas. How will he ensure that there is no imbalance between various parts of the UK?
      Mr. Chris Mole: Will the Minister comment on the fact that although we have the second highest growth rate in Europe for broadband, some locations are still struggling to make their case for broadband to service providers? Does he welcome initiatives such as that announced last week by the regional development agency for my area, the East of England Development Agency, of investment of about £5.8 million of its funds and Government funds to identify for network providers locations where broadband could be promoted? Of the two initiatives announced last week, one was in rural Diss, in Norfolk, and the other in urban Ipswich; both are good examples of the joint initiatives undertaken by the DTI and RDAs.
      Mr. Timms: We have had a brief but interesting discussion on the roll-out of broadband and we shall come back to that subject in a later amendment.
      I accept the important points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) about the need for care in the use of public spending on telecommunications infrastructure. I am aware of the case in Scotland to which he referred. There are clear rules about state aid problems and it is essential to respect and comply with them. None of the proposals is in conflict with that.
      I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a role for public participation in some circumstances. As I said earlier, local authorities can already contribute to the costs of telecommunications infrastructure. The new clause simply allows DETI to do so as well.
      It is becoming increasingly clear that such interventions are most helpfully made regionally. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) rightly drew attention to the work of the East of England Development Agency. Last week, I visited Birmingham and held similar discussions with Advantage West Midlands. A growing number of interesting initiatives are being taken by the RDAs, using, in part, the £30 million broadband fund provided for them by my Department. Such initiatives help to extend the availability of broadband services to businesses and residential users.
      The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) asked about wireless provision. Several of the EEDA initiatives involve wireless. In rural areas, there will be an increasing use of wireless to extend broadband rapidly to places where it has not yet been possible to upgrade the existing telecommunications infrastructure.
      The hon. Gentleman also mentioned satellite provision. SEEDA—the South East England Development Agency—has done some interesting work in subsidising small businesses, so that they can use satellite-based broadband services.
      1 pm
      I agree with the hon. Member for Lichfield in his statement of admiration for the Broadband Britain campaign, run by the Communication Workers Union.
      688
      I was present at the launch of that campaign, and I very much welcome the contribution that it is making. Of course things are changing very rapidly. We reached only 1 million broadband connections last October; we are now past 1.5 million, and the number is increasing by in excess of 30,000 new connections a week. So we are certainly no longer in the position that we appeared to be in when the CWU document was published. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich suggested, we have now got the second biggest broadband network in Europe—after only the German network—so a great deal of progress has been made.
      Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister take this opportunity to praise BT for reducing the threshold at which it will enable its exchanges when people have registered an interest in it? In many areas, but not all, the threshold has dropped from 650 to 350 people. However, will he use his particular powers of persuasion to ensure that the threshold is reduced to 350 people in all areas, not just some?
      Mr. Timms: I very much welcome BT's announcement to reduce those thresholds. Of course, the level at which they are set is a commercial decision for BT. It should be recognised that the cable companies play an important part in extending access to broadband—they still have more than half the market, I believe—and there are about 200 resellers of BT services, so the industry is making a big effort, and I welcome the progress that has been made.
      The House generally welcomes the change for Northern Ireland in the new clause, but it is important to underline my agreement with the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam about ensuring that such a route does not permit inappropriate state aid, and I assure the House that that will not occur.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 25

      POWER OF OFCOM TO RETAIN COSTS OF CARRYING OUT SPECTRUM FUNCTIONS
      (1) OFCOM have power to make a statement of the principles under which they may retain any or all of the amounts paid to them in pursuance of obligations imposed by or under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998 (c. 6).
      (2) Where such a statement of principles authorises the retention of an amount, OFCOM are not required to pay it into the appropriate Consolidated Fund in accordance with section 390.
      (3) Principles contained in a statement made by OFCOM under this section must be such as appear to them to be likely to secure, on the basis of such estimates of the likely costs as it is practicable to make—

      (a) that, on a year by year basis, the aggregate amount of the amounts retained by OFCOM does not exceed the amount required by OFCOM for meeting the annual cost to OFCOM of carrying out the functions mentioned in subsection (4);

      (b) that the amounts retained by OFCOM are objectively justifiable and proportionate to the costs in respect of which they are retained; and

      689

      (c) that the relationship between meeting the cost of carrying out those functions and the amounts retained is transparent.

      (4) Those functions are—

      (a) OFCOM's functions under the enactments relating to the management of the radio spectrum except those specified in subsection (5); and

      (b) the function of taking any steps that OFCOM consider it necessary to take—

      (i) in preparation for the carrying out of any of the functions mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection; or

      (ii) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out of those functions or otherwise in connection with carrying them out.

      (5) The excepted functions of OFCOM are—

      (a) their functions under section 19(2);

      (b) their functions under subsections (1) and (2) of section 147 so far as carried out in relation to the use of the electromagnetic spectrum at places outside the United Kingdom, and their functions under subsection (5) of that section;

      (C) their functions under section 150;

      (d) their functions under section 153;

      (e) their functions under section 163;

      (f) their functions under sections 170 to 172;

      (g) any functions conferred on them under section 5 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 (c. 54); and

      (h)any function not falling within the preceding paragraphs in so far as the costs of carrying it out are met from payments made to OFCOM by virtue of section 25 or 147(8) of this Act.

      (6) A statement under this section may include provision which, for the purposes of the principles contained in the statement and of the preparation of accounts in accordance with section 390(4), requires an amount actually received in one year—

      (a) to be treated as referable to costs incurred in that year and in one or more subsequent years; and

      (b) to be brought into account, in each of those years, in accordance with an apportionment for which provision is made in the statement.

      (7) A deficit or surplus shown (after applying this subsection for all previous years) by an account prepared under section 390(4) is to be carried forward and taken into account in determining what is required by OFCOM in relation to the following year for meeting the costs of carrying out the functions mentioned in subsection (4) of this section.
      (8) A statement of principles under this section—

      (a) if it is expressed to apply for a limited period, does not apply to any amounts paid to OFCOM after the end of that period; and

      (b) in any event, does not apply to amounts paid to them after a withdrawal of the statement takes effect.

      (9) OFCOM may revise a statement made under this section.
      (10) The consent of the Treasury is required for the making, revision or withdrawal of a statement under this section.
      (11) Where OFCOM make or revise a statement of this section they must publish so much of the statement or revised statement as appears to them necessary for demonstrating that the statement or revision complies with subsection (3).'.—[Mr. Timms.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      DETERRENCE OF PIRACY, COUNTERFEITING ETC.
      'OFCOM may, if they think fit, undertake discussions with, and seek agreement from, broadcasters, producers, service providers and telecommunications companies, in order to assist the deterrence of piracy, counterfeiting and the unauthorised digital transference of moving image material; including in such discussions the promotion of common technical standards in order to facilitate deterrence, prevention, and detection.'.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Chris Smith: That the clause be read a Second time.
      At the outset, I remind the House of my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests—I am an adviser to Disney. However, this issue spreads much wider than a single company; it concerns the serious and growing problem of the dangers of piracy, counterfeiting, illegal copying and downloading across the internet of audiovisual material. That is already widespread in relation to music, and the music industry has suffered grievously.
      The music industry is extremely important to this country. Our share of music production across the globe is about 16 per cent., and the threat to the music content industry from the illegal downloading of material is serious indeed. A recent poll in the United States found that 62 per cent. of the 18 to 29 age group—nearly two thirds of everyone in that age group—had copied or downloaded music or movies across the internet, and three quarters of those knew that it was illegal when they did so. That shows the extent of the problem that exists in relation to music.
      Equipment capable of burning pirated material permanently on to CDs is readily on sale. Of course, that is possible in a narrowband environment with music. However, we are moving into a broadband environment, the development of which makes it possible to download not just music, but moving image material across the internet. Indeed, equipment now available in the shops enables pirated moving image material to be burned permanently into DVD form.
      It may be instructive to consider what happened last year. In May 2002, "Spider-Man" and "Star Wars: Episode II" were released in the United States. Within seven days of those movies being released, 9 million attempts were made to download them across the internet from pirated copies that had been recorded at pre-release screenings. It is estimated that probably only about 2 million or 3 million of those 9 million attempts were successful in completely downloading the entire movie because in many cases the technology was not sufficiently sophisticated to enable that to happen, but that indicates the extent of the problem, the desire to download illegally and, as technology improves, the possible threat, particularly to the content industries.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman makes a persuasive case about the amount of illegal material available on the web. However, during debates on the Bill in Committee and on Report, hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly the Government, have made it clear how little control Ofcom will have over the internet. It is not a regulatory body for the internet, which will remain unregulated on

      691
      the whole. How will the new clause, or any work by Ofcom, tackle that problem, as it involves the expression of free will through a medium with which we cannot interfere?
      Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is running ahead of me; I shall come to precisely that point in a moment. I am arguing not for control over the internet by Ofcom or anyone else, but for the ability of Ofcom to draw together all parts of the industry—both the content and the servicing industries—to identify technological solutions to the problem, but I will come to that point in just a moment.
      Of course, the content industries suffer particularly from the illegal downloading of material. The obvious point to make is that, if material can be obtained for free across the internet, people are unlikely to pay for it, so less remuneration goes back into providing the content and it is much more difficult to provide content in the first place in the future.
      Mr. Allan: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concerns for the industry—I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and to speak at length on the issue later—but it is helpful to say as we are talking about movies that cinemas are doing better than ever and more money is coming into the contents sector than ever. Yes, people are ripping off stuff by downloading it, but we should not pretend that that is the death of the movie industry quite yet.
      Mr. Smith: The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is valid at the moment. The problem is that the technology is in an embryonic state at present. It is still quite difficult to download an entire movie across the internet, but that will not be so for all time, especially as broadband becomes much more readily available throughout the country, as we all hope it will. The ability to download moving image material, not just music and speech, will grow. The hon. Gentleman is right as far as things stand at the moment, but considerable potential exists for the problem to grow much more than it has done up to now.
      Mr. John Bercow: I am anxious to establish whether the right hon. Gentleman believes that his proposal is merely necessary, or whether he judges that it is also sufficient. In the light of the concern that he has expressed, and the evolution of technology, does he think that his concerns will be adequately allayed by the passage of new clause 1, or does he believe that the scale of the problem will in due course necessitate an overhaul of copyright design and patent law?
      Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the European copyright directive is on the table at the moment, and the Minister's Department is actively engaged in developing the legislation that will come before the House in due course about the implementation of that directive. These issues, particularly in the digital environment, are absolutely germane to that work on the development of copyright legislation. My new clause is by no means an entirely sufficient answer to the problem; it is an attempt to raise the issue and to develop some mechanisms for drawing together a cross-industry approach to try to find some
      692
      answers. I doubt whether we will ever address the issue 100 per cent. If we can move towards that point, however, I will be much happier.
      The new clause does not require Ofcom to do anything; it enables Ofcom. If Ofcom, in its judgment of the overall nature of television and film in this country and across the world, decides that it wants to act, under the new clause, it can. Nor does the new clause seek to enable Ofcom to impose anything on any parts of the industry: the telecoms companies, the content providers or any of the service providers. What it enables Ofcom to do is to draw all those parties together into a discussion, and, I hope, into a voluntary agreement to examine what technological standards can be introduced to try to make piracy more difficult. Although technology facilitates the activity, it also provides some of the answers to the problem, through digital signatures, watermarks, tracing the digital origin of material and so on. Those are examples of how technology can come to our assistance in combating piracy, counterfeiting and illegal downloading. To make that possible, we need common standards to be agreed across the industry as a whole. My new clause seeks to enable Ofcom to encourage that to happen.
      John Robertson: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. What would he do about companies that, in effect, make and sell the DVDs and music CDs, but also make the equipment that allows copying to be done? How do we combat that?
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A number of companies are both equipment manufacturers and content providers. I do not think that we can prohibit the manufacture of particular types of equipment. What we can do, however, is remind companies of their responsibilities in this matter. I hope that some of them will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend says.
      Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clause, which is very important, especially as technology changes. Does he think that all this is a question of hoping to have an effect? Is not the new clause an example of wish over practical application? Does not he think that it is rather wishy-washy? Does he really think that it will change anything?
      Mr. Smith: I absolutely think that it has the potential to change things. I do not believe that we bring about change on every occasion by legislating to prohibit or require something. We can bring about change by legislating to encourage things to happen, which is precisely what the new clause seeks to do.
      Mr. Bercow: A very Conservative position.
      Mr. Smith: In response to the sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), that is not simply the preserve of Conservatism.
      1.15 pm
      Pete Wishart: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on from this point, I want to congratulate him on trying to find a technological solution to the problems of counterfeiting and piracy. I suggest to him that that is a long way from coming, and we will need to go a big distance before it is achieved. Does he have any comments about the general cultural environment in which many young people do not regard this activity as a crime and are happy to be involved in it? Does he think that we must tackle that type of culture, too?
      Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is a particular problem with the younger age groups, among whom this activity is regarded as an entirely natural phenomenon, even though, as I mentioned, many of them are aware that it is illegal. It is regarded in a way that is similar to the way that some people regard speeding on a motorway: they know that they should not do it, but they do it none the less. It is absolutely essential to change the culture and to get across the message that this is not a pain-free exercise and that doing it to too great an extent will kill the goose that produces the eggs in the first place. I hope that Ofcom and others can play a role in helping to change the culture in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described.
      In proposing this new clause, I am seeking to put down a marker or two and I hope that the Government will accept that this serious issue requires a serious approach. We want as much broadband as possible, as rapidly as possible, in this country, but also want our creative industries, particularly the music and moving image industries, to thrive as they have done in the past and can do in the future. This country is very good at those industries, and long may that remain the case. To put those two things together, we need to achieve the best possible technological answers to ensure that those things can happen legitimately and that the digital reception of moving image material can be properly and legitimately done, rather than illegally done through piracy and counterfeiting.
      I want the digital environment and the advent of broadband to be an opportunity for the content and creative industries, not a threat. To turn it into an opportunity, we need to make sure that structures and standards are in place to ensure that that can happen. Ofcom can play a role in making sure that that occurs. The new clause seeks to enable Ofcom to play precisely such a role.
      Mr. John Whittingdale: I start by welcoming the overall thrust of new clause 1, which was moved by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). We sought to raise this issue several times in Committee. I moved an amendment to clause 3, on the general duties of Ofcom, the intention of which was not vastly dissimilar to that of the new clause. At that time, I expressed some reservations about Ofcom deciding the direction of technological development. I was glad, therefore, to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that his aim is not to allow Ofcom to impose a standard on the industry or decide between competing technologies. That would not be an appropriate role for Ofcom.
      694
      The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the scale of the problem will have to be made clear to Ofcom. Piracy and illegal copying are not new developments—they have been going on for a long time. Nearly 20 years ago, I was a special adviser in the Minister's Department. At that time, we wondered whether a levy should be imposed on blank tapes in recognition of the fact that the vast majority of them were being purchased to record music off the radio or off vinyl albums; almost all those purchases probably breached copyright. The industry accepted that the practice could not be stopped and a second-best solution was offered—a levy on tapes that would be redistributed to the music industry as compensation for lost sales.
      One of the limitations of copying on to blank tapes was that the quality of reproduction was not especially good. In addition, people had to buy an album before copying it. Since that time, there have been a succession of technological developments: the replacement of vinyl albums with compact discs of almost perfect quality; recordable CDs; DVDs; recordable DVDs; movies and music being made available on a massive scale through the internet; and MP3 players, which allow one to take music off the internet quickly and to keep it in a convenient format so that it can be reproduced at almost the original quality. All those developments are a huge threat to the music industry. In due course, they will be a threat to the movie industry, too.
      In the past we have wrestled with the problem of illegal copying—piracy—by factories that produce counterfeit CDs in China or other countries. The CDs are then brought to this country and sold in car boot sales and elsewhere. That remains a huge problem.
      Mr. Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman may know that the copyright directive, in its post-negotiated form, allows for different countries in the European Union to resolve this issue in different ways—in particular, in respect of video and cassette tapes. The directive allows countries to enforce a levy on blank tapes, but it also says that the levy may be a levy of nothing, because the British Government have insisted that we should maintain the system that allows individuals to copy for their own private use so as to time-shift. When the directive is eventually incorporated into United Kingdom law, would the hon. Gentleman wish us to abandon that tradition or to maintain it?
      Mr. Whittingdale: We have moved a long way from the issue of copying on to blank tapes, which is no longer the main problem. I have always regarded the levy as very much a second-best solution. In respect of the current problem, I do not think that a levy is necessarily the solution, and I want to pick up on some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury on what could provide a solution.
      In the previous Session, the House passed a Bill on copyright theft to strengthen the penalties available to tackle illegal copying. All parties supported its passage, but the problem now is finding the resources to enforce it. Local authorities do not necessarily pay enough attention to enforcing the legislation. The industry has raised that matter with the Minister's Department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which may have to get together to come up with a more co-ordinated approach.

      695
      The problem has changed from being one of mass reproduction of discs, in factories outside this country, which are imported and sold in car boot sales. The problem is now much more serious, because it goes on in children's bedrooms. Technology now allows young people, in particular, to burn CDs. They do not even have to purchase CDs in the first place; they can download music from the internet using peer-to-peer file sharing programs. That is a quick and simple procedure and it achieves a very high quality.
      The root of the problem, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, is the attitude of young people to the practice. He quoted a survey that shows that a majority of young people are now downloading and copying music and movies, and that the fact that they are in breach of the law does not stop them from doing it. Part of the problem has been the perception that taking music is somehow a right and that the only people who lose out are the big, fat record companies, which can well afford it. To some extent, that perception has grown because of the view that CDs have been priced higher in this country than elsewhere and the view that the record industry has been exploiting consumers. I have never believed that to be true. All the investigations that the Office of Fair Trading and others have conducted have shown that it is not true. However, even if that case was once arguable, it is no longer arguable. The record industry is on its back and one of the main reasons for that is the practice of copying. The really frightening thing is that the situation will get worse.
      The right hon. Gentleman referred to an American survey. I understand that the survey concluded that it may now be impossible to save the music industry and that we may have to concentrate instead on trying to protect the film industry, which will be the next to suffer. In some countries, the number of blank CDs sold now exceeds the number of pre-recorded CDs sold. Even in this country, recent figures show that 308 million blank recordable CDs were sold in Britain. The industry estimates that about 128 million of those CDs were used to copy music rather than computer programs—although copying computer programs is not necessarily any better. The figures show the scale of the problem.
      John Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman suggest some answers to the question that I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) about companies that not only make the music and CDs but make recordable CDs and the recording equipment? What should we do with those companies?
      Mr. Whittingdale: Sony is probably the best example of a company in that position, and a question does arise about the responsibilities of manufacturers. When DVDs were first launched, regional encryption was used to protect copyright. The intention was that we in this country would purchase region 2 DVDs, and that if we purchased a DVD in the United States it could not be played on equipment purchased in this country. However, Dixons on Victoria street stocks multi-region DVDs—they are everywhere. Manufacturers have
      696
      produced multi-region DVDs that are designed, I presume, to overcome the protection that the copyright owner has installed.
      Mr. Bryant: Someone who perfectly legitimately buys a copy of "The Two Towers" in the United States should have a perfect right to watch it in this country. The attempts to foil the interests of consumers are crazy.
      1.30 pm
      Mr. Whittingdale: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point. I was about to say that the technological solution will always fail. Attempts to counter the problem by trying to build in technological safeguards merely provide a challenge to the hackers and those who seek to get round the safeguards. They will always win. That has happened in a number of cases recently. For example, a court in Norway dealt with the case of someone who was 15 when he developed a computer program to overcome the technology in DVDs that prevents copying. He was taken to court by the copyright owner, but the court upheld his right to do what he wanted with the DVD. That included copying it.
      Mr. Allan: For the sake of accuracy, may I make it clear that the person accused in Norway had written the computer program to be able to play his legitimately purchased DVDs on the Linux and not the Windows operating system. That is why the court found in his favour. There was no suggestion that he was copying for resale or anything like that. He merely wanted to watch his DVDs and was smart enough to find a way of doing that.
      Mr. Whittingdale: As I understand it, however, the problem was that he made available on the internet the program that he had developed. It was then downloaded by millions of other people who used it not to watch DVDs on a different operating system but to crack the safeguards built into DVDs. That enabled them to copy them, which demonstrates the limitations of technology. Each time that someone develops a new method of trying to safeguard copyright through technology, someone else will find a way round it.
      A couple of months ago, I read that the record companies in this country were developing something called Cactus data shield to try to prevent the copying of CDs. That gives rise to the question that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) asked. Once people have made a purchase, should they not be allowed to make a copy? I suspect that it will not be long before someone overcomes this technological constraint and finds a way of making copies.
      The problem will get worse. At present, one at least has to have an original that has been purchased before one can copy it. The real danger, however, comes from the internet. At present, the copying of music is relatively simple using the normal broadband access that is available in parts of the country if not in others. We shall deal with that issue in the next debate. Even broadband is not capable of providing high-quality movie reproduction, but it is only a matter of time before it will be able to do that.
      I visited Dolphin house, which is wired by ntl. It offers much faster access than conventional ADSL technology, and I believe that 2 or 3 megabytes a second

      697
      are on offer. It is possible to log on to a site that streams DVD quality movies down the fibre direct on to the screen. It would obviously be very simple just to record that, and that constitutes the same threat to the movie industry that is currently destroying the music industry. If the practice of logging in free to sites that offer movies becomes widespread, and if those movies can be downloaded rapidly and simply on to a recordable DVD in a bedroom or an office, that will pose real dangers to the movie industry.
      Michael Fabricant: I have been following my hon. Friend's remarks with interest. Does he not realise that even now there is a danger resulting from the digital terrestrial and satellite transmission of movies and from digital audio broadcasting? In theory, there is nothing to prevent someone from burning a DVD of something taken off air with digital quality.
      Mr. Whittingdale: That is perfectly true. To some extent, it is a question of the desirability of the films involved. The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to "Spider-Man" and "Star Wars: Episode II" and it will be some time before they become available on television. Part of the attraction is having a copy on DVD before one's friends have even had a chance to see the film in the cinema. My hon. Friend is right about the threat.
      The new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is welcome in that, if nothing else, it allows us to talk about issues that are of huge importance to the industries concerned. I very much hope that Ofcom will at least be aware and take account of these issues in all its consideration of the development of technology and in its regulation of the communications sector in general. However, if an answer exists, I suspect that it does not lie in regulation by Ofcom. I do not think that it even lies in the technological solutions that we have been discussing.
      If there is a solution, it is that of the industry exploiting the internet and viewing it as a new opportunity to make material available. It should try to persuade people to purchase products from internet sites rather than accessing them illegally and downloading material without any payment being given to the copyright owner. The way to do that is by providing added value. The music industry is now examining ways of making music available with all sorts of additional bonuses that come with its purchase from an internet site. The same approach could be adopted by the movie industry.
      I have seen research from America that shows that a variety of additional items could be attached to the purchase. For example, additional material can be provided about the making of the product or concessions could be offered on theatre tickets. A variety of bonuses and attractions could be provided and they might persuade people that, rather than break the law and deprive copyright owners, artists and performers of the money to which they are entitled, they should go to a legitimate site that makes available the same product for a small payment. That is a market-based solution and the only long-term solution.
      698
      I do not decry the attempts of the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury to raise this issue and to get Ofcom to take account of it. I support those attempts, but the new clause will not solve a problem that will increase in the coming months and years. I suspect that the only answer is for the industry to adapt and to try to use the market opportunities in the way that I have suggested. If it does not do that, its future looks very bleak.
      Mr. Bryant: I, too, am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has tabled the new clause, but I am hesitant about supporting it. I am broadly sympathetic to the thrust of the issues that he has raised in relation to piracy and counterfeiting. It must be a major concern to any right-thinking person that acts of theft occur on a daily basis as the result of organised crime. My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting has been on a number of busts with the police and other organisations in the past three months, and he has tried to point out that the buying of CDs that have been manufactured deliberately to get round the copyright law is clearly wrong and immoral. However, I do not share the apocalyptic version of the future with which my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) have presented us.
      In the debate about piracy, we all too easily forget the role of consumers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) pointed out, consumers are bombarded with two messages by the same companies. The first is "Come and buy our wonderful technology, which enables you to tape pieces of music from other sources and put them on to your own CD." The second is that they are engaged in an act of piracy that is wholly illegal and immoral. That presents a difficult problem for consumers. The marketing of some organisations has been downright hypocritical. In fact, when I worked for the BBC in Brussels and I was engaged at some length on the copyright directive, it was almost impossible to find a music or film industry company that was not in some way tied to a business that manufactured some kind of copying machinery or technology.
      Pete Wishart: Can the hon. Gentleman not make a distinction between the young person sitting in his bedroom making a copy of a CD for his own use and the mass production of illegally counterfeited and copied products that one sees in marketplaces around the UK?
      Mr. Bryant: I am sorry that I am not making myself plain enough, as that is indeed the distinction that I want to draw. It is sometimes not drawn sufficiently clearly in the debate about piracy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to the 62 per cent. of young people who think that it is perfectly legitimate to download music from the internet without payment. Probably 95 per cent. of the people with whom 1 was at school at the age of 18 copied "Top of the Pops" on to a cassette on a Sunday evening so that they could listen to it at various times during the week. I see hon. Members around the Chamber nodding, including Conservative Members and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan)—who as I can remember his constituency will get into Hansard for having engaged in that illegal activity.

      699
      There is a real onus on the manufacturers, the record industry and the cinema industry to provide a new revenue stream of their own. It is simply inaccurate to say that a digital copy is a perfect copy, as there are many different qualities of digital copy. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said that the cinema is nevertheless doing well at the moment, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said yes, but that will not be the case in future. I suspect that the cinema will continue to flourish owing to the simple fact that often people go to the cinema not only to see a new film, although that is part of it, but because they have a completely different experience as part of an audience in front of a large screen with digital stereo.
      Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend is right that it is likely that people will still want to have a night out in front of a big screen at the cinema. All the evidence of the past 20 years, especially at the time when video technology was developing, confirms that, and I would not argue against it. However, he should bear in mind that the technological ability to download movies will rapidly increase, and we shall have to take that into account.
      Mr. Bryant: My right hon. Friend is right. I only wish that the capacity to download into the Rhondda valley was available rather swifter, as we seem to have no prospect of broadband technology for some years to come—2007 is the most likely date at the moment. I worry that we are perpetuating a gap between the information rich and the information poor.
      Be that as it may, one of my concerns is this: when I was first elected, one of the first things that I did was to ask the Department of Trade and Industry when the copyright directive would be incorporated into UK law. I was originally told that it would be last March, then last July, then definitely by the end of the year—and it is still not quite ready. Major issues need to be resolved if we are to achieve the balance between the rights of the consumer and the individual and the rights of the industry, including the need for competition and for a strong music and cinema industry.
      Some of the issues are recondite, but must none the less be swiftly addressed if we are to stand any chance of halting piracy. They include embedded phonograms, the time-shifting of recordings, and incidental reproductions in the many processes that are involved inside a computer of material that would otherwise be seen as copyright. The many exemptions from copyright that exist in this country—for the blind, for the hard of hearing, for libraries, and for many other public interest reasons—are still important, and we need to get the balance right. That is why the new clause is wrong and, furthermore, relates to the wrong part of the Bill. I simply do not believe that handing over such a power to Ofcom would be the right means of ensuring that there is a proper debate about piracy, that we properly strike the balance between the needs of consumers and the needs of industry—
      1.45 pm
      Mr. Smith: If my hon. Friend does not think that Ofcom is the right place, where is?
      Mr. Bryant: My right hon. Friend pre-empts me, and I know that he is not in favour of pre-emption. I would merely say that the Patent Office, which historically has responded only to complaints and to changes in the law, should have a proactive role, and it is undoubtedly where the power should remain. Of course, different elements of the law are implemented in different ways. The private Member's Bill introduced last year by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) would have ensured that certain aspects of the matter were dealt with much more robustly. That is why I do not support the new clause.
      Mr. Allan: I find myself very much in sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). I remember that a famous battle of Maldon was fought a couple of millennia ago. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not think that hardware copyright protection was the right way forward. It is in that spirit that I rise to speak, because I am concerned that the thrust of the new clause is in that direction—a direction that has been very much advanced in the United States through measures such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 and which is causing huge controversy between people in the industry. That is particularly true in relation to the internet, where people in Europe and in the US often represent different points of view.
      We discussed "Top of the Pops" in Committee, and it was bound to raise its head on repeated occasions. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for giving us another chance to talk about it. Yes, I freely confess that I was a "Top of the Pops" taper in my youth.[Interruption.] I am asked whether I drank R. White's lemonade. I was not such a slave to advertising.
      Taping represented a system of "try before you buy". The important shift that has occurred in the music context is that the trying is taking place but the buying no longer necessarily does so. In the 1970s we would tape "Top of the Pops", and if there were a couple of songs we liked, we went out and bought them. We bought the vinyl because we liked having the record sleeve to touch—that is the added value that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford talked about. We have not yet developed a comparable system in the digital world. The problem arises in trying simply to transfer what was done in the analogue world to the digital world. That is why I am sceptical about hardware protection. In the analogue world, one controlled the physical media—vinyl, compact disc or whatever—and had some way of policing them. In the digital world, there are no physical media to control. That creates a raft of problems, and the question is how to address them, not whether they need to be addressed.
      There is a particular problem in the audio and music business in that the material can be shifted around and no comparable legitimate channel has yet been established. That is a specific market problem. The industry maintains as its primary distribution channel the traditional retail system whereby CDs cost in the

      701
      range of £10 to £15, but those prices will not stand in the digital world. It is hard to maintain a system under which, effectively, one has two price ranges for the same material—one of £10 to £15 and another that perhaps reflects the real costs of distribution over the digital system, whereby the record company and the artist can still get the same amount of money, but have transferred the costs to the end consumer and taken out the distribution costs, so that the product sells more in the £3 to £5 range. It is therefore essential to develop that second digital distribution channel.
      Mr. Mole: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to shift from the ownership of a particular item of music to micro-billing or micro-payment for the rental of an item on demand, be it a video or music track? The challenge is that video-on-demand trials have not competed economically with the comparable physical space model, the video hire shop. Perhaps he would agree that when a video arrives in broadband form for the first time in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), it should be called "A Fish Called Rhondda".
      Mr. Allan: I will not follow up that last point.
      Mr. Bryant rose—
      Mr. Allan: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is about to say that he has never heard that one before.
      Different competing models may be successful, and I think we agree on the objectives of finding a successful model.
      Mr. Bryant: I just want to say that a fish and chip shop in my constituency is called "A Fish Called Rhondda".
      Mr. Allan: I am pleased to hear that.
      The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) makes an important point about different competing models. One is the micro-payment at time-of-use model by which the customer pays by usage rather than for obtaining copyright material. I do not think that that is likely to work. The more effective model is to make a reasonable payment to obtain fair use, which is the traditional method. People could then do whatever time, format and space shifting—those are the technical terms—they wanted with the material. For example, they might have an iPod device or a computer for listening to MP3s. That approach is more likely to succeed than micro-payment at the time of use.
      Pete Wishart: Surely the problem is lack of regulation of the internet. Records and movies will still be available for free if people place them on the internet. Until we have effective regulation that benefits the companies involved, such ideas and projects will fail.
      Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the internet. The valid point has been made that by encouraging broadband access we are creating the conditions in which even more piracy can occur. If the Government succeed in meeting their target of millions
      702
      of broadband users, they will create millions of potential piraters. Who would be liable for that? I fear that the new clause would steer us on the route of making internet service providers responsible for content. I am not convinced that that is right. I would be loth to tell an internet service provider that, as part of its licence condition, it must implement a particular hardware or software copyright protection, just as I would not want the Royal Mail to be prosecuted if people used it to send dodgy pirated videos. In general, the Bill establishes that internet service providers are more like the Royal Mail than a publisher, and that is the correct approach.
      The people who should be prosecuted are those who put up the sites. We should go after the publishers of the material, and we can do that under current law. As someone who enjoys music and film, I find it offensive to see people with dodgy videos at car boot sales and people on the street with dodgy CDs. I want to crack down on them. The same is true of abuses of the internet. There is a debate on whether such controls should be extended to other jurisdictions. Certainly, the EU should have a common framework as part of the copyright directive. However, if people are malicious or stupid enough to have a site that says, "Come and get illegal pirated material here", and they have a locus in our jurisdiction, we should go after them under the general law. I do not think that the best way to deal with the problem is to create specific internet law because the legal provisions already exist.
      Mr. Whittingdale: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the use of notice and take down is one of the most effective means to date of dealing with the problem? Under that approach, ISPs are made aware that materials are being downloaded from their servers which are in breach of copyright on a large scale. They then have to take some responsibility by removing the site that is making such material available illegally.
      Mr. Allan: Absolutely, and more work could be done on that. There are specific issues for internet service providers, which have a legal responsibility in both directions. The problem is more than a breach of copyright material; it also involves libellous material. ISPs do not want people to use their services to publish such things, but they have a contract with the publisher and do not want to be sued for removing material.
      The internet industry is rightly asking for greater legal certainty when it gets a request for notice and take down from a member of the music or film industry who thinks that material is illegal. The industry wants that to happen in a sensible, consistent and standardised way so that it does not get requests from every Tom, Dick or Harry. It also wants to be sure that when it responds, its position is governed by legal certainty so that it is not exposed to action by its customers. We could make considerable advances on that and allow something positive to come out of the debate. Improving the notice and take down procedures on copyright material would be welcomed by all the industries concerned. I do not know anyone in the internet industry who is keen to see their mechanisms abused in that way. They want them to be used sensibly, responsibly and legitimately.
      As hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have said, I hope that we can create a proper market for digital material in which artists and record companies

      703
      receive fair recompense. By introducing over-elaborate physical protection measures for software or hardware, we may accidentally create a bigger incentive for people to go into the illegitimate market. If people cannot have fair use of their legitimately bought material, they will go for the illegitimate material that they can move between different devices.
      I hope that we find a sensible approach. The debate is important in the context of Ofcom because the people whom it will regulate are creating the infrastructure over which the material will move. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford that Ofcom does not have a specific role for dictating what material is transmitted across the internet.
      Michael Fabricant: This is one of the rare occasions on which my opinion has been swayed by the debate. Although I welcomed the new clause, I was not keen to include it in the Bill. I now think that it should be included, although I hold by the original view that I expressed when I intervened on the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). The new clause is wishy-washy. Nevertheless, the problem needs to be addressed.
      Cable and ADSL are delivering broadband at about 1.5 megabytes per second. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) mentioned the Dolphin Square experiment, which is delivering broadband at between 2 and 2.5 megabytes per second. I have no doubt that in years to come we will be discussing the delivery of 5 to 6 megabytes per second. At that speed, it would be the same as digital terrestrial and digital satellite television, which makes even more prescient the point made by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
      People will be able to download entire film productions from the internet. There are grave dangers in trying to define a standard that would provide a block to that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said, 15-year-old hackers will always be able to work out a way to break through that block. The other problem is that the internet allows material to be originated anywhere in the world. We need international agreement because we will have a problem if an internet site originates in, say, the West Indies, where gambling sites are based, or China. The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was right to raise the problem. Although people may prefer to go to the cinema, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) pointed out, there will be a disincentive to creativity if people believe that they cannot maximise their return because their copyright can be breached by individuals downloading their material.
      2 pm
      Mr. Bryant: We are talking about restructuring the business model used by the audiovisual industry, particularly film and music. One of the expectations inherent in the decision to invest in broadband technology throughout the country is that consumers will spend significantly larger sums, perhaps £50, £60 or £70 a month, on audiovisual services. Is not the
      704
      important thing to make sure that the money that is going to cable and other forms of digital television is getting through to the creators?
      Michael Fabricant: Yes, but it is important that the provision of such audiovisual services should involve a legally or morally binding provision. There was a debate in the Chamber way back in 1900 or 1910 about the provision of books to libraries. Members debated the question of whether authors should benefit from the availability of their books in libraries. Of course they should—if everyone read books from libraries and did not buy them there would be no incentive for creativity—there would be no incentive for authors to write or publish books, unless they simply wanted the gratification of seeing their name in print. Thinking about it, that probably satisfies the desires of most authors but, nevertheless, many of them want some income from their work as well.
      I maintain that the issue has to be addressed. I was amused when the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury asked, "If Ofcom is not going to assume that responsibility, who is?" That is a good point. Ofcom, whose functions are defined in the Bill, is the ideal organisation to try to produce standards to ensure that digital piracy does not occur. It is all very well for Ofcom to perform that role, but I must enter a great caveat: if it does so in isolation, it will be pointless, as worldwide agreement is needed—[Laughter.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Rhondda is laughing from a sedentary position, if that is possible. If someone does not take the first step, there will not be worldwide agreement, so Ofcom should assume that role.
      Mr. Bryant: One can, indeed, laugh from a sedentary position.
      One problem with the new clause as currently worded is that it is an enabling power that Ofcom may choose not to use. Historically, there has been phenomenal difficulty in getting the organisations listed in the new clause to co-operate and work together. Without a robust power and a duty, Ofcom would not stand a chance of getting anywhere. If the international community has to agree as well, that is cloud cuckoo land legislation.
      Michael Fabricant: By saying that such legislation is wishy-washy, the hon. Gentleman amplifies the point that I made in an earlier intervention, but someone has to start somewhere. Of course, he is right. He alluded in his speech to the fact that organisations such as Sony produce movies and music on the one hand and the very equipment that can be used to cut DVDs and CDs on the other. I accept that there is a problem but I repeat that someone has to start somewhere. No doubt, there are organisations similar to Ofcom, such as the Federal Communications Commission in the United States, but Britain ought to have a role too.
      Mr. Mole: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. One reason why these technologies have become more pervasive is that they are the by-product of worldwide

      705
      standards groups such as the Moving Picture Experts Group which defines the MPEG standard behind the DVD format and the MP3 music format.
      Michael Fabricant: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
      Going back to the intervention of the hon. Member for Rhondda, of course standards have to be established by the G7 and, beyond that, the World Trade Organisation. The fact that China has joined the WTO is a major achievement, because it was one of the main producers of illegal CDs and DVDs. Some Members may argue, even from the Front Bench, that that is still going on. We do not know whether that is so, but now that China is part of the WTO, at least there is a disincentive against such production and an incentive to obey international copyright law. However, international standards are needed. It is remarkable to hear that there is a peculiar system in which there are regional DVDs. One of the problems with analogue television is that there are different standards. There is SECAM in France—I do not know what that stands for, but many people think that it is "Contrary to the American method". In the United States, there is NTSC, which many people think stands for "Never twice the same colour". In Britain, we have PAL—peace at last. There are different standards. It only costs £190 to go to New York city and buy from Tower Records a DVD that one may not be able to play in the United Kingdom, not because the technology is not standardised but because people have deliberately made a system that is not compatible with other systems.
      The problem needs to be addressed, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury on tabling the new clause. I am persuaded that, if not in its present form, such a provision ought to be included in the Bill. If the Minister resists its introduction, I hope that a similar provision will be included when the Bill is considered in another place.
      Mr. Mole rose
      Michael Fabricant: Before I conclude, I will be generous and give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Mole: The irony of multi-region DVDs is that most manufacturers will sell a multi-regional DVD player in this country because there was a massive market in pirated software to replace the firmware in DVD players to enable people to play DVDs from other regions.
      Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Where there is a will, there is a way, and where there is a 15-year-old hacker, he will hack through it.
      Mr. Timms: We have had an interesting discussion. The Government certainly believe that copyright theft over the internet is a serious issue for many rights holders. It is essential that those who invest in creative activity can gain a fair reward from their work, whether in movies and music, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)
      706
      said, or in other parts of the publishing industry. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for underlining the importance of the matter in new clause 1.
      The lead responsibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) said, lies with the Patent Office in consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Patent Office is responsible for intellectual property, including copyright, in the UK. The DTI and DCMS sponsor the affected industries. It is important not to confuse those responsibilities by suggesting that somebody else might share them.
      Michael Fabricant: The Minister is surely not suggesting that the DTI and more especially the Patent Office would pull groups of people together to try to agree international standards?
      Mr. Timms: I am suggesting that the Patent Office can and does bring together different parts of the industry. Indeed, the Patent Office acts as the chairman for the counterfeiting and piracy forum, which brings together the relevant interests in the public and private sectors to discuss better co-operation and co-ordination against this crime. In the past year, for example, its members have discussed closer working between affected industries and the police hi-tech crime unit. In addition, the proposals that we have made in the context of the UK implementation of the copyright directive include a new criminal offence in copyright law to apply to those who wilfully make copyright material available on the internet without a licence in the course of business proceedings or on a commercial scale. That will assist enforcers seeking to deal with piracy of digital material.
      Different approaches are needed to combat illegal private copying on the internet. The proposals for implementation of the copyright directive would strengthen the action to be taken against those who circumvent technical protection measures or provide equipment or services for doing so, which we discussed. Those are particularly important in the internet environment and provide copyright owners with statutory backing to develop their use of the technology. However, the copyright directive does not mandate the use of particular technology; that is an issue for rights holders to decide for themselves. The fact that recent pirate copies of films were reported to have been traced back to unprotected copies given pre-release to academy award judges suggests that the film industry needs to reflect on its own use of appropriate technology.
      The recitals in the copyright directive emphasise the importance of all the parties involved—rights holders, intermediaries and equipment manufacturers—reaching voluntary agreements on standards. That must be the right way forward, not least in view of the inherently international character of the net.
      Digital rights management is important for the content industries. We are already working with industry on that as part of the work of the broadband stakeholder group. It is aimed to create an inventory of current content management systems, and to spread wider knowledge about likely value chains and the major economic, legal and technical issues at different points in those chains. A framework is to be set up within which to evaluate the various elements of digital

      707
      rights management. Much work is going on in this area. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be reassured that we are taking the issue seriously.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) called for better procedures around notice and take-down for internet service providers. He has given us an example of why, the week before last, he was designated "internet hero" at the annual award ceremony of the Internet Service Providers Association. The e-commerce directive, which we have implemented in the UK, provides a defence for internet service providers as mere conduits. Officials are discussing with internet service providers whether there is a need for guidance on notice and take down—the point that the hon. Gentleman made.
      I would not favour giving Ofcom a specific remit in this field, as that would have only tangential relevance to its core remits set out in clause 3(1) or to the functions set out in the Bill or in existing legislation that the Bill will transfer to Ofcom. Of course, there is nothing to stop Ofcom conducting the kind of discussion envisaged in the new clause and proposed by my right hon. Friend. I know that those at Ofcom will read with great interest the discussion that we have just had, and what he and others said in the debate. The issue is one to which the Patent Office is fully committed, in consultation with the two Government Departments. I believe that that is the right institutional lead for policy work in this area, and on that basis I hope that my right hon. Friend will withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Chris Smith: The debate has been extremely interesting and valuable. Part of my purpose in tabling the new clause was to ensure that the House had a chance to air some of the issues around the developing problem. Every contributor to the debate recognised that the issue is real. There is a serious problem, and as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said, there is potentially a disincentive to creativity if unauthorised downloading of material takes off in a major way.
      Various solutions have been proposed by hon. Members in all parts of the House, highlighting the need to change the culture, as young people in particular see unauthorised downloading as a natural activity; the need to get a move on with the implementation of the ELI copyright directive; the need to improve the notice and take down procedures where unauthorised material has been identified; the need to make the legitimate purpose of material more valuable, more desirable, more affordable and more accessible; and the need to make the opportunity to take material legitimately more attractive than the opportunity to take material in an unauthorised way. There may well be some technological answers too, especially if global agreement can be reached. I hope that all the issues raised will be taken into account by the DTI and DCMS, and even by the Patent Office, perhaps.
      2.15 pm
      That brings me to my final point. I was a little disappointed that the Minister placed such emphasis purely on the role of the Patent Office. One of the reasons for wishing Ofcom to take an interest in this area of activity is that Ofcom has the clout vis-à-vis the parts of the industry concerned. It is Ofcom that will be
      708
      the regulator of broadcasting and telecommunications. It therefore has considerable muscle to persuade the various parts of the digital landscape to get together and find various means to tackle the problems. Ofcom has that muscle; the Patent Office does not. The Minister says there is nothing to prevent Ofcom taking an interest in this area of activity. I hope Ofcom will take note. As soon as Ofcom is up and running, I hope that it will discuss with the Patent Office how they can work together to develop the lines of attack necessary to make sure that the problem is taken seriously.
      With that hope in mind, and with the hope that the matter may be aired in another place, I believe that it will assist the progress of debate if, at this stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 2

      DUTY TO PROMOTE NEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES
      'It shall be the duty of OFCOM to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies, including broadband.'.—[Mr. Yeo.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      New clause 27—Creator consultation—
      '(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish and maintain effective arrangements for consultation about the carrying out of their functions with—

      (a) creators, including a person from the United Kingdom music creating community, in the markets for television content supply for independent producers and the public service and commercial broadcasters in relation to which OFCOM have functions; and

      (b) creators, including a person from the United Kingdom music creating community, in the markets for radio broadcasting in relation to which OFCOM have functions.

      (1) The arrangements must include the establishment and maintenance of a panel of persons (in this Act referred to as "the Creator Panel") with the function of advising both—

      (a) OFCOM; and

      (b) such other persons as the Panel think fit.

      (3) The arrangements made by OFCOM under this section must also secure that the Creator Panel are able to do each of the following—

      (a) make arrangements for the carrying out of research into matters appearing to the Panel to be relevant to the carrying out of OFCOM'S duties and the Panel's functions as they think fit;

      (b) give advice to OFCOM in relation to any matter referred to the Panel by OFCOM for advice;

      (c) publish such information as the Panel think fit about the advice they give, and about the results of research carried out by them or on their behalf.

      (4) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, in the carrying out of their functions, to consider and, to such extent as they think appropriate, to have regard to—

      709

      (a) any advice given to OFCOM by the Creator Panel; and

      (b) any results notified to OFCOM of any research undertaken by that Panel.

      (5) It shall also be the duty of OFCOM (subject to subsection (6))—

      (a) to provide the Creator Panel with all such information as, having regard, in particular, to the need to preserve commercial confidentiality, OFCOM consider appropriate to disclose to the Panel for the purpose of enabling the Panel to carry out their functions; and

      (b) to provide the Panel with all such further information as the Panel may require.

      (6) OFCOM is not required to provide information by virtue of subsection (5)(b) if, having regard to:

      (a) the need to preserve commercial confidentiality; and

      (b) any other matters that appear to OFCOM to be relevant, it is reasonable for OFCOM to refuse to disclose it to the Panel.

      (7) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, in the case of any advice or opinion received from and published by the Panel which OFCOM propose to disregard in whole or in part, or with which OFCOM disagree in whole or in part—

      (a) to ensure that the Panel know of OFCOM's reasons for disregarding or disagreeing with the advice or opinion; and

      (b) to ensure that those reasons are or have been published in such a manner as OFCOM consider appropriate for bringing them to the attention of persons who are aware of the Panel's advice or opinion.'.

      Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 4 [Clause 3], after 'markets', insert 'and the public interest'.
      Government amendment No. 215.
      Amendment No. 278, in page 3, line 33 [Clause 3], at end insert
      'and, in particular, the desirability of encouraging investment and innovation so as to secure the availability to users of electronic communications networks of services of ever greater bandwidth;'.
      Government amendment No. 216.
      Amendment No. 151, in page 3, line 39 [Clause 3], at end insert—
      '(gg) the position of employees in the industry;'.
      Amendment No. 187, in page 4, line 3 [Clause 3], at end insert—
      '(n) the impact of developments in relevant markets upon creators and performers.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 217 to 221.
      Amendment No. 188, in page 11, line 24 [Clause 11], at end insert—
      '(5A) In appointing persons to be members of the Content Board, OFCOM must also secure that certain members have experience to represent the interests of the creators and producers involved in the programme and music to be included in the services relevant to the duties of the Board.'.
      Amendment No. 189, in page 13, line 6 [Clause 12], at end insert—
      '(6A) The power of OFCOM to authorise the establishment of a Committee or Panel by the Content Board includes power to authorise the establishment of a Creators Panel, including persons from the United Kingdom music-creating community.'.
      Mr. Yeo: It is generally accepted that the rapid introduction of broadband technology in Britain is important to our country. Schools, universities, hospitals, medical practices, businesses and domestic consumers will all benefit from being able to receive and
      710
      transmit web-based information. The Government, too, have a big interest in the roll-out of the technology. As the Confederation of British Industry stated, broadband is central to the growth of the knowledge-based economy.
      Ministers have said that they are committed to a fast and efficient roll-out of broadband. The Government's target is for Britain to have the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005—a target set by the Secretary of State herself when she was the e-Minister. In pursuit of that, the Government have promised to work to ensure that broadband is accessible in all parts of the country. They claim to have developed a strategy to achieve that goal and to measure our success. Unfortunately, the strategy is not yet working as effectively as everyone would wish. As the CBI points out,
      "lack of competition in the telecommunications market has stalled investment in the required infrastructure".
      The broadband stakeholder group estimated last November that terrestrial broadband services were still unavailable to a third of Britain's 24 million households. Two out of five people living in suburban areas are still excluded. The proportion of people who can access broadband in rural areas is so small that it is simply described as "significantly lower".
      There is immense frustration that the Government are talking a good game while doing very little to deliver on their promises. The CBI states that Britain lies sixth among the G7 countries in terms of broadband connections and that few small and medium-sized enterprises are yet connected. According to the broadband stakeholder group, only one household in 25 is currently subscribing to broadband. Fewer than one household in every 30 that has a computer is hooked up to a broadband service, and in the business community, among firms employing more than 10 people, fewer than one in five has a broadband connection. In January this year, only 1.4 million households and businesses were connected to a broadband service. According to Oftel, Britain has only slightly more than half as many lines connected to broadband per head of population as Germany and just over a quarter as many as Sweden.
      Of course, broadband is not yet attractive to everyone. Some users are content with lower speed and a lower price, but broadband offers such potential to enhance knowledge and deliver competitive advantage that I believe that it will not be long before it is as much a part of national infrastructure as the road system, the railways, mains drainage and telephones—
      Mr. James Paice: And in a better state.
      Mr. Yeo: As my hon. Friend says, we hope that it will be in a better state than the roads or railways.
      It is the Government's job to create an environment in which broadband services are widely accessible. A critical part of such an environment is effective competition. The House will be aware that broadband is not synonymous with ADSL—asymmetric digital subscriber line—technology, but can be delivered by ADSL, cable, wireless or satellite. In this country, ADSL

      711
      is associated with BT, whose subsidiary, BTopenworld, has roughly 50 per cent. of the market of retail broadband services based on ADSL infrastructure.
      Technology changes and develops in unpredictable ways, so it would unwise for the Government or even the Opposition to be prescriptive about the form of broadband distribution that is used. In Britain, we are fortunate, as distribution is not confined to BT. Ntl and Telewest also provide cable modem services, although only to a minority of households.
      In spite of Oftel's optimistic comments, it is worrying that the Government's targets are still not being met. There is a lack of clarity in the institutional and competitive framework that the Government have created, and their failure to create an adequate competitive environment is damaging. Actions and legislation that seek merely to promote broadband without regard to how that should be done are insufficient. The Government should have a duty to promote competition and reduce regulation.
      Mr. Mole: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in requiring BT to carry out the local loop unbundling exercise, a framework was created for competition in the provision of broadband services in the local loop? The difficulty was that after the delay of carrying out the exercise, there was no apparent demand from other suppliers to act as competitors through the local loop.
      Mr. Yeo: The other suppliers might say that that had something to do with the terms of availability. In any event, I do not think that the speed with which BT addressed that objective is a cause for much congratulation. Different people will attribute to a variety of reasons the failure to develop a more competitive market more quickly.
      The preamble of the American Telecommunications Act 1996 sets out a purpose that the House should take to heart. I have incorporated the words of that preamble into the new clause. The promotion of competition is an essential ingredient of a successful telecoms policy, especially when one major provider is a former state monopoly. The role of the regulator is to introduce conditions for a fair, open and transparent market, particularly where there has previously been market failure. Regulators must be free from day-to-day political interference and should not form part of the central planning apparatus of government.
      Under Labour, Oftel's cutting edge has been eroded and its accountability reduced. Ministers have done that through the creation of the new and separate office of the e-envoy in the Cabinet Office—a typical prime ministerial initiative that owed more to spin and optimism than to analysis or hard work. Like many such initiatives, the e-envoy initiative is not proving conspicuously successful. The House will recall the fanfare that was given when the Small Business Service was set up in April 2000 under a chief executive whom we were told had direct access to the Prime Minister. Two years later, after heavy spending and little delivery, that privilege was quietly withdrawn.
      The House will also recall the Prime Minister's endorsement of heady recommendations of the Cabinet Office's performance and innovation unit for the ill-named Consignia. Today's reality is a shrinking post
      712
      office network, the withdrawal of cash payment benefits and a charge card that post office staff are unable to process. Similarly, the reality of the UK's broadband roll-out under the e-envoy initiative is a constricted footprint and lamentable take-up—the consequence of the Government's conviction that institutions and former state monopolies are better at delivering economic dynamism than commercial undertakings operating in liberalised markets.
      The Government's approach can be seen in their grant of £30 million for broadband to the regional development agencies. According to the Secretary of State, her largesse was given so that
      "a digital divide in high speed Internet access does not open up between urban and rural communities."
      In Cornwall, the RDA took that as a signal to launch an advertising campaign designed to steer business customers to BT. In the east midlands, the RDA blames the lack of adequate broadband services on the Government's decision to induce telecoms companies to tender large bids for third-generation mobile phone licences. It plans to use its grant on a wired-up communities competition that will take three years to come to fruition. That same RDA blames the failure to provide a broadband service to rural areas on a slowdown in the international IT industry.
      The RDAs are the last bodies that the Government should use. The futility of their efforts is illustrated in a test project named RABBIT—remote area broadband inclusion trial—that aims to tempt remote broadband users through a £700 grant to identify alternative sources of broadband supply whose prospects of success are uncertain. Instead of more rabbit stew, the Government should create a more competitive environment to encourage new entrants to the market. They should entrust the regulator with a remit to protect against market abuse until a competitive market evolves. It is for the regulator and not the e-envoy, and certainly not the RDAs, to protect users and consumers of national services and utilities and to stimulate national competitiveness. It is for the regulator to encourage progressive liberalisation of the marketplace to bring about universal access and a uniform and transparent tariff.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), whom I see in his place, has identified BT's jealousy as an impediment to progress and pressed for greater transparency. Like other former state monopolies, BT honed formidable skills for protecting its interests. It is aware that opening up consumer access to broadband services potentially opens up access to its own competitors. It focuses on how it can meet the demands of the Government and the regulator to expand the service while ensuring that that is done not only at high profit levels, but in a manner that deflects the challenge from competitors.
      I believe that the Government should restore the authority of the regulator. The regulator should impose a regime of greater transparency on BT, which should provide clear forward plans for its national ADSL footprint and reveal which exchanges are to be ADSL enabled and how many telephone connections they have. BT should explain the financial criteria and broadband targets by which such decisions are made. It should speed up the provision of unbundled loops and shared line access and the release of wholesale products, and targets should be published for those goals.

      713
      Without that transparency, the public will be disadvantaged. People cannot plan broadband investment through a cable network or alternatively through wireless or satellite. Business and individuals in rural areas and out-of-town communities are losing out. All that information would help individuals, businesses and community groups to make sensible decisions. It would help firms with competing technologies in broadband supply to fine-tune their investment criteria, attract funding and identify market openings. That information would build market confidence and stimulate competition in both ADSL itself and in respect of alternatives. It would encourage liberalisation of the market, which would lead to expanded choice and lower prices for service users throughout Britain.
      Universal broadband access will drive economic growth and reduce rural isolation, and could slow the drift of employment and population to the south-east. It will help businesses large and small nationwide and enhance Britain's competitiveness. Due to the market-distorting actions of the Government, remedial action is needed. The new clause would impose a duty on the Government to promote competition in order to secure lower prices, increase choice and higher quality services for users of broadband services in the UK. I commend it to the House.
      2.30 pm
      John Robertson: I am delighted to participate once again in the debate on the Bill, and I draw my entry in the Register of Members' Interests to the attention of the House.
      Before entering Parliament, I worked for BT for 31 years and, unlike Opposition Front Benchers, I will not try to vilify or undermine BT or the work force, as I have much to thank them for. I shall not interrupt those Members as they do so, as only they can say why they want to mount an onslaught on a company such as BT, and the BBC for that matter. I am also chair of the all-party telecommunications group, so it might be said that I have a passionate interest in the subject.
      Next year, Ofcom will replace the existing system of regulation, which dates from the last century. Telecommunications, television and radio developed more or less independently and could therefore be monitored individually. The existing regulatory framework is complex and the pace of convergence is still accelerating.
      I draw the House's attention to the Bill's endorsement of interested parties as stakeholders. I am disappointed that employees are not identified as key stakeholders whereas others, such as businesses and consumers, are highlighted as such. At the last meeting of the all-party group, my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness and Lord Currie, the new chair of Ofcom, said that they recognise that employees have a large part to play and are, of course, stakeholders in the industry, but nothing in the Bill says so. Consequently, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) and I have tabled amendment No. 151, which would close a loophole. Employees know the business from the sharp end and have much to contribute.
      714
      The communications industry has a number of endemic problems, which need not be the case as they could be addressed by the Bill, thus remedying them in the long term. The industry often fails to focus on key issues for employees—for example, skills levels, appropriate provision for training and personal development, which are not always expensive but are much needed. Those factors, among others, have resulted in difficulties in long-term retention of employees. Furthermore, some companies—in my experience, BT is one—place important emphasis on training and personal development, although perhaps not as much as they used to.
      The problem is that when the industry is buoyant, the highly trained employees are head hunted by other companies that place little value on training. The European Union high level taskforce on skills and mobility reports that 80 per cent. of today's skills will be obsolete in 10 years. When such employees, who were once highly skilled, do not undergo sufficient training, that is detrimental to the industry, as employers cannot fill vacancies and a skill shortage becomes apparent. Ultimately, that makes it harder for employees to find alternative employment should the industry slump. I do not want to come back to the House in 10 years and say, "I told you so." That, of course, assumes that I will be re-elected. I hope I am, along with a Labour Government.
      Lifelong learning is essential to tackle such shortages and mismatches, which hold back economic development and job growth. Since mid-1999, business throughout Europe has increasingly reported production constraints due to labour shortage. Although I have used these figures before, I shall do so again to illustrate the chronic skills shortage that we are set to see. According to the European Information Technology Observatory, the number of unfilled vacancies in the EU information and communications technology and e-business sectors is expected to rise from 2.23 million in 2001 to 3.67 million in 2003. That is an increase of 65 per cent. If the full economic and employment potential of the telecommunications sector is to be realised, a training responsibility for the sector's employers must be stipulated in the Bill. How else can we expect to fill those jobs in the years to come?
      Unfortunately, the amendments to clause 24 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and I were not selected, but what applies to that clause also applies to clause 3, and my points on a specific duty on Ofcom regarding the promotion of equal opportunities and training for employees are relevant to it.
      The need to recognise employees as stakeholders is obvious, but that training mandate applies only to those working in the broadcasting industry. The communications industry has a key role to play in the development of the national skill stock, but such a mandate is not in the Bill. How can we expect to have "Broadband Britain" without a well-trained and motivated work force? Although I would have liked clause 24 to be amended to extend that duty to cover employees in the telecoms industry, I am pleased that my amendment to clause 3 has been selected. I hope that we can incorporate the issue of employees as stakeholders in the Bill for the reasons that I have stated.

      715
      I am concerned that, as the focus is so firmly on competition and consumer interest, the interests of employees could be disregarded. This is an opportune time to address those issues, and I would like Ofcom to have a specific mandate in that regard.
      Nick Harvey: I shall address my remarks to amendment No. 3, which stands in my name and those of various Members from both sides of the Chamber. I shall also speak to new clause 27 and amendments Nos. 187, 188 and 189.
      Amendment No. 3 and Government amendment No. 215 consider the wider public interest beyond that simply of the consumer. An important change is being made to the Bill, which will fundamentally alter what Ofcom is and what it does. The amendments are hugely significant. Last summer, a Joint Committee of the two Houses considered the draft Bill, and one of its recommendations was that the wider public interest ought to be added to Ofcom's general duties. That issue was debated at length in Standing Committee, and I am particularly pleased that Government amendment No. 215 has been tabled. It is important for Ofcom to have a wider perspective and wider duty.
      The interests of consumers are important, and it is entirely right that Ofcom will have the duty to protect those interests, where possible through competition, but they are not the same as the interests of the wider public. Indeed, there can be circumstances in which the interests of the consumer may be contrary to those of the wider public.
      There are instances in which economic forces can apply a perverse effect, so it is therefore absolutely right that Ofcom should have a wider responsibility. I am particularly pleased that the Government have arrived at that conclusion and have introduced their own formulation, which refers to the interests of the wider community. It will have much the same effect as the wording in other amendments. I am glad also that, having not initially accepted the recommendation made by the Committee last summer, the Government have been persuaded during consideration to reach that conclusion, which will make the entirety of the regime more effective. It will also make Ofcom more effective and make the Bill altogether more successful.
      New clause 27 and amendments Nos. 187, 188 and 189 deal with interests of creators, whether they be composers, musical performers or other performers—indeed, creators of every kind. The UK's media creative industries are very strong, and are at the cutting edge of content creation in the communications revolution. Original creative input is a vital ingredient, and often serves as a stimulus for both the production of new services and the improvement of existing ones. Music, for instance, is fundamental to our existing television and radio services, and will become even more so with the arrival of multi-channel television.
      The amendments would give Ofcom specific obligations to protect the interests of the creative sector. Given the intended revolution in ownership rules and the potential for greater American ownership of British media interests, British consumers might well not accept huge quantities of American content on our television channels, but I wonder whether they would be able to tell the difference between, say, British and American
      716
      incidental music. If we are to go on giving creative industries and creators opportunities in the UK media, it will be important for Ofcom to consider their interests and future viability at all times.
      The success of individuals and companies in our music industry depends heavily on opportunities for the creation of music for—and, indeed, the broadcasting of music by—national and regional radio and television services. Any reform of the regulatory environment on the scale that we are discussing will have a direct impact on all our creative industries. Composers and music publishers' earnings from the exploitation of music by television and radio exceed £100 million a year. Amendment No. 187 would ensure that our regulatory structures support and have regard to the impact of developments on creators and performers.
      Amendment No. 188 suggests that the content board is the obvious part of Ofcom to secure the best conditions for the creation and supply of new creative content. Following the Joint Committee's recommendations last summer, the Government moved swiftly to authorise a review of programme supply, which was conducted by the ITC. That was welcome, but I do not think we should see it as a one-off: we need to keep the issues of programme and content under constant review.
      Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the creators panel would be part of the content board. As the content board has no real control over or responsibility for the content of the BBC's output, should the panel apply to the BBC? Or is this yet another Liberal Democrat proposal to micro-manage commercial broadcasting but not the BBC?
      Nick Harvey: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. He and his colleagues are preoccupied with the idea that Ofcom has no responsibility for examining the BBC's activities, but that is not the reality that confronts us in the Bill. Of course I think that the content board's creators panel should look at creative issues in the widest possible sense—including, certainly, what goes on at the BBC. The board is the obvious body to look at such issues, which is why I suggest the inclusion of a creators' representative, preferably one with working experience of the creative industries. That would ensure that their interests were not just understood but taken into account in decisions that would have a direct impact on them.
      2.45 pm
      John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, advancing an excellent argument. Does he agree that the content board should also consider issues involving the various regions and nations?
      Nick Harvey: Certainly we should consider creative input in the widest possible sense, which would involve a good deal of national and regional diversity.
      Amendment No. 189 suggests that the content board form and convene a panel whose chairman would be on the content board. The Bill would provide for the panel to take account of the creative contribution to broadcasting, and to ensure that the UK maintained its pre-eminent position. The new clause has the same aim.

      717
      I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) wants to say something about broadband. I hope the Government will look sympathetically on what I have said.
      Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I am glad of the opportunity to speak on the Floor of the House after three months of debate in Committee. I begin by declaring an interest: like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), I have a strong link with Connect, the union for professionals in communications. It helps to fund my researcher, who helps me by researching all aspects of the communications industry.
      The Bill covers a wide range of issues, but I want to concentrate on amendment No. 151. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland and I tabled it as a result of ongoing investigations of, in particular, the position of employees in telecommunications. We discussed some of them in Committee.
      Last year, when I spoke in a debate on Ofcom and declared my support for the creation of a unified regulator, we discussed traditional distinctions between telephony, radio, the internet and television. Those distinctions, which were still evident only a few years ago, have become increasingly blurred. We have seen that one type of equipment can offer the consumer multiple functions. Telecoms companies are exploring the possibilities of broadcasting, while broadcasters are moving into e-commerce and internet service providers are also providing television channels.
      I accept all that, but I am worried that telecommunications employees are not mentioned in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland and I tabled two amendments to clause 24, which were not selected but which sought to establish a clear requirement for Ofcom to provide training and equal opportunities for employees. The Bill already makes such provision for broadcasting employees, but it does not extend to those in telecommunications.
      I know from meetings with the Minister and our debates in Committee that the decision to provide for training for broadcasting employees was historical. Such training has existed for many years, but telecommunications employees were excluded because there was no historical provision for training. The fact that I understand that does not necessarily make it right.
      The entire Bill was designed to look forward to the convergence of the industry but, in failing to address this particular point, we are missing out by looking backwards at the tradition in broadcasting, rather than to the future. We must ensure that we get the Bill absolutely right. The paving Bill was important because it created Ofcom, but this Bill is all the more crucial because it represents our chance to ensure that the design of Ofcom is absolutely right and that its duties are stipulated in the Bill.
      I share the Government's goal to make Britain the most dynamic broadband market in the G7, but we will not achieve our goals without a highly motivated work force. That is the key thrust of the amendment. Regulatory regimes should take account of the interests of employees as stakeholders in the industry. Ofcom
      718
      should be given specific responsibilities to provide an overview of the employment resource in general, and, in particular, of the health and safety, skill levels, personal development and training of people working in the industry, quality of service provision and of emergency cover.
      I speak in support of the overwhelming number of clauses in the Bill, and of the Bill generally, but I am keen to tighten up the areas that could improve it still further. The consultation that took place has given us a good Bill but, to paraphrase the Joint Committee's statement, we can always make a good Bill even better.
      Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda). Like him and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), I used to work in the telecommunications industry. That was some 30 years ago, in the Post Office—as it was then called—and the challenges that confronted us then were to remove the electro-mechanical exchanges and to move over to System X. I tried to join a trade union—I think it was ASTMS—but I was drummed out by Clive Jenkins, who described me as a "pin-striped bovver boy".
      New clause 2, which was ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), covers a wide range of issues. I want to focus on the last two words in the new clause—"including broadband"—and particularly on broadband in rural areas, which is now emerging as a major political issue. Although I have been critical of BT, it is also right to pay tribute to what it has been able to do over the past 12 months. It has reduced the wholesale price of broadband, introduced a rolling programme of enabling exchanges, and set targets where it has been able to do so. So, although I have been critical, I recognise that BT has been doing what it can.
      I recently received a letter from BT's director of public affairs, from which it is worth quoting to illustrate how the company views the issue. It is not "wholly uncritical" of the Government. The letter states:
      "Ovum has calculated that less than $5 per head has been spent by the UK government on supporting broadband infrastructure, compared with $25 in France and $90 in Japan. On that basis, BT's performance in already delivering a wider ADSL footprint in the UK than has been achieved in the USA looks reasonably creditable."
      BT therefore has its own dialogue to pursue in relation to its objective to roll out broadband.
      I suspect that about 50 per cent. of my constituents cannot get broadband. It is available in Andover and Tadley, and villages such as Oakley and Highclere have recently hit the target and will be enabled in due course. However, some fairly significant small towns and large villages—Whitchurch and Overton, for example—have no hope as yet.
      Brian White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many people who cannot get broadband even where exchanges are enabled, because of old technologies and various other technical problems? Does he agree that it is incumbent on BT to resolve those problems—whether through wireless, broadband or whatever—as soon as possible?
      Sir George Young: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, whose energy and initiative in this area I applaud. BT also told me:
      "The average reach for each exchange is 94 per cent. of the population served by that exchange."
      The hon. Gentleman is therefore right. Even when an exchange is enabled, some people remain outwith its reach. The advertising campaign has irritated a large number of my constituents. It has urged them to register and sign up for broadband, but they cannot do so. Although I would not describe myself as socially excluded, neither I nor the chairman of BT, who lives quite close to me, can access broadband in north-west Hampshire.
      What is the position for people who cannot access broadband? A wide range of opportunities is, in theory, available to them. These people are, however, quite busy, and they take the view that broadband should be available without their having to ring up the South East England Development Agency or contact RABBIT, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) referred. They are not sure that it is really their job to risk their own personal capital by investing in a system for their village. They do not want to take the risk of investing in communication masts. What they really mind about, however, is the uncertainty. If they knew that there was no prospect whatever of getting broadband, they might well consider some of the alternatives, but not knowing whether their exchange might be enabled at some point in the future acts as a disincentive and an understandable deterrent to looking at some of the other options.
      Pete Wishart: The right hon. Gentleman might be aware that no rural exchanges are enabled in Scotland. There are none in my North Tayside constituency. May I suggest that what is wrong is the trigger policy that BT has employed to enable exchanges? The trigger level has been set far too high for towns and villages in rural areas. In my constituency, for example, 350 people would be required to sign up in a town of 5,000 to 6,000 people. How can we ever get people enabled when the trigger is set so high?
      Sir George Young: My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk mentioned transparency and openness. One thing that would help this debate would be to have in the public domain more figures showing the actual costs, so that some of the estimates might be challenged and we could see whether the costs were really as high as BT has asserted.
      I want to raise with the Minister an issue about which I have written to him twice. I commend his enthusiasm for this subject. He kindly wrote back to me a few days ago in response to a question about the Prime Minister's commitment, made in November, that every school and GP's surgery would be on broadband by the beginning of 2006. I welcome that commitment and I am prepared to believe that the Prime Minister means to adhere to it. I have tried to find out from the Minister how that commitment is to be delivered. What is the mechanism by which the small village schools and the medical centres in the more remote villages in my constituency will be plugged into broadband? Will the Minister direct BT to enable the nearest exchange? Will there be some alternative delivery mechanism, such as fibre optics, wireless or satellite?
      720
      This is important because the solution for schools and medical centres is hugely relevant to everyone else in the area, and their not knowing exactly how that commitment will be delivered could result in an obstruction to some of the alternatives that might otherwise be considered. Will the Minister answer the specific question of how he can give a cast-iron guarantee that Overton primary school, for example, will get the service that the Prime Minister has promised it by the end of 2005? Once we have an answer to that question, some of the other questions can be answered. If the solution is to use one particular form of technology, it can be piggy-backed by everyone else in the village, and they, too, can get access to the services that they need. I hope that the Minister will be able to shed some light on that matter.
      It would also be helpful if the Minister could commit himself to removing any regulatory obstacles that might confront Ofcom or Oftel in the roll-out of broadband. We do not want unnecessary regulatory hurdles to have to be cleared before we can realise our shared ambition of making this country internationally competitive by having more widely available access to broadband.
      Dr. John Pugh: I am speaking broadly out of sympathy with new clause 2, which calls for a decreased role for regulation, and in support of amendment No. 3, which asks us to take on board a wider public interest. I shall be brief, because I have only one specific concern. I shall then leave the Floor to those who are more expert than I in the ways of the Communications Bill.
      I shall concentrate on one specific consumer concern, and on the role of Ofcom and Oftel in addressing it. I have already raised the issue in an early-day motion; it relates to call waiting and telephone queueing systems. We all have experience of being kept waiting, at our own expense, for an answer that never actually comes, and with ringing off in frustration. I have taken up this matter with Oftel, which assures me that it has no powers to address the problem. It looks forward to the Bill's resulting in some codes of practice that will help it to do so.
      3 pm
      Telephone filtering creates some minor difficulties, but I want to distinguish that issue from call queuing, because although they are related, they create different problems. There are problems with disabled or old people using call-filtering systems when the timing is wrong for them, and there are also problems of access and clarity. I do not want to focus on filtering. Both filtering and queueing are aspects of modern call centres, which were initially introduced as a means of being efficient. Nowadays, they are run predominantly as a way of making a cost saving. We all accept that call centres are the modern sweatshops. We are all familiar with being kept waiting in queues, with endless piped music, with the spurious promise that one's call will be answered quite soon, with the irritating and increasingly common plugs for products that people do not want in the first place, and with the frankly dishonest messages saying that one's call is valued—but never valued enough to be actually answered.
      The net effect on the nation is quite appreciable. It is bad for the blood pressure and it leads, I am afraid, to rudeness from us as consumers when we finally get

      721
      through to someone who cannot answer the question that we have been waiting for a long time to have answered. There is a massive and unquantifiable cost across the country to individual firms and to individuals themselves. There is also an enormous opportunity cost, in terms of time wasted for individuals and businesses. Apparently, 30 per cent. of calls made to such institutions are futile, with people simply ringing off at a cost purely to themselves.
      Mr. Mole: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is impossible to generalise about call centres across the piece. It is surely down to the business that wants to provide access for its customers to define the standard of customer relationship management that it wants to buy from a call centre or other provider, regardless of which facilities manager is offering the service. An excellent example is the company 24seven, which experienced an overload of calls to its call centre during November's poor weather. The essential question must be: what standard of customer relationship management did it purchase from its provider?
      Dr. Pugh: The question is probably simpler than that: what standards should we, as consumers, demand, and how should they be enforced? I recognise that good and bad practice exist, but the latter is currently predominant, and the public expect legislators to do something about it. There is wholesale abuse of the call centre system not simply by the centres themselves, but by people such as ourselves—heaven forbid—who sometimes need to make very long and expensive calls, and who do so on somebody else's telephone. A net effect of all this is substantial profits for the telecoms companies themselves. I should point out that some of these companies number among the serial offenders that profit from such misdemeanours. People are kept waiting, and they pay to be kept waiting.
      Everyone recognises this abuse, and they regard it as a big consumer issue. The question is: what precisely is the solution? We need a measure of regulation, and I do not know whether current or foreseen legislation will accommodate it. There are alternative solutions. One could suggest the free market solution, whereby firms that provide a rotten service eventually lose out, but I do not think that that fully addresses the issue. Although firms that keep people hanging on get a bad reputation for call handling, they also make a substantial saving in terms of employee costs.
      Secondly, telephone call queues are slightly different from other sorts of queues. One can see a queue in a supermarket and choose to go to another supermarket. One can see a queue at a taxi rank and choose to get the bus home. However, once one is in a call queue, a way out cannot be seen, and to withdraw from it involves a sheer loss.
      Thirdly, the telecommunications industry involves a system of dishonest trading. In many cases, people are told that their call will be answered shortly, but in fact it will not be. That is misrepresentation, and at the moment it is not covered by legislation. The fourth reason why a free market solution will not work is because a lot of the calls that one makes are not of a routine character. One has little reason—hopefully—to
      722
      telephone an insurance line frequently, so one cannot punish such a call centre by not phoning again, given that the reasons for ringing in the first place are far from routine.
      The legislation appears to encompass a degree of self-regulation—a code of good practice. I have looked at such codes in this area, and they are wholly inadequate in terms of satisfying consumers that this problem will be dealt with. In any case, a code of good practice would be followed only by good firms; it would not be binding on bad ones.
      A third way to resolve this problem—it has been alluded to—is an alternative to the regulation that most of us do not want unless it is really necessary: to hope that technology will so develop that the bad practices that have grown with it will eventually disappear through better technology. Since tabling the early-day motion to which I referred, several organisations that I have contacted have made that suggestion. They suggested that speech-recognition technology might be the way forward and that, some day, we will be able to converse with a mechanised voice at the end of the phone with as much satisfaction as we currently experience when dealing with human operators. A character such as Holly, from the programme "Red Dwarf", will speak to us, and everybody will be able to save money without in any way impairing the service provided to the consumer.
      Some people suggest the use of ring-back technology. It is true that, should firms wish to implement it, such technology could be used to enable people to put down the phone yet keep their place in the queue, and to be phoned back at the appropriate moment. That could sharpen up the market, and good firms would undoubtedly adopt such practices. However, I believe that there is a case for regulation. High-volume call centres should, by law, have to advertise their average call waiting times, and they should do so when contact is first made and the phone is picked up. The consumer should have a right to complain to Ofcom and Oftel when those times are routinely exceeded, and Oftel should have the power to warn, and ultimately to penalise, firms that abuse the system. If, after investigation, the problem persists, there should be the potential for Oftel to take action. Such light-touch legislation—for that is all it need be—would save time, money and the nation's blood pressure. I want the Minister to clarify whether current legislation has the potential to incorporate a regulation as solid as this.
      Finally, I should like the Minister to clarify a specific point. The winners in all this are the telecoms industry and the telephone companies, and as I said, some of their lines are the principal serial offenders. Is it currently permissible for a call centre firm and a telecoms firm to establish a profit-sharing contract whereby, in return for a discount, the call centre has a real incentive not to answer calls immediately, to mutual profit? That may be the case under current legislation, and I should like the Minister to clarify that point.
      Mr. Paice: I am sure that the House is very grateful for an exposition on why the Liberal Democrats do not believe in the market economy. I agreed with little of what the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said, but I want to address my remarks to new clause 2, which was admirably moved by my hon. Friend the Member

      723
      for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). Although it is common to say so in this place—indeed, it can be construed as a trite statement—I cannot for the life of me see why the Government should not accept the new clause. It is a perfectly reasonable provision, which would simply require Ofcom to ensure the operation of competition. The Government assure us that they believe in competition, but not in too much regulation; however, the reality seems to belie that. Of course, they also believe in broadband, so it seems perfectly reasonable to expect that they will accept the new clause.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) illustrated more ably than I can the problems of accessing broadband in rural areas. He said that perhaps 50 per cent. of his constituents could access broadband, but I suspect that in my area the figure is more like 15 per cent., if that.
      I have spent quite a lot of time over the past few months trying to ascertain how people throughout my constituency can access broadband. The problems are not unique to us, however, but are commonplace throughout rural areas. Extremely remote rural areas are affected, but so are areas such as mine, which abuts Cambridge city.
      The Cambridge science park is in the parish of Milton in my constituency, not in the city of Cambridge. It is connected to the Cambridge exchange and is able to access broadband. Absurdly, however, the rest of Milton parish is connected to a different exchange and is not broadband enabled. Milton is only one of the villages—I use the word advisedly, as we are talking about settlements of several thousand people—so affected. Those villages are full of small businesses, many of them at the leading edge of the knowledge revolution and the knowledge-based economy, yet they are not able to access broadband, and many have no prospect of being able to.
      Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, I shall not be too critical of BT. It has made some progress in the past year, and has reduced the threshold targets in some exchanges in my constituency, which I welcome. It has introduced thresholds in a couple of exchanges that did not previously have them, and that is a step in the right direction. It is also considering the idea of aggregating different exchanges.
      One problem is that many consumers do not know what their exchange is. Many people confuse their exchanges with their STD codes. They do not understand why some people who share their dialling code are able to access broadband when they cannot.
      As a result of the inability to access broadband via BT and the fact that there is no prospect of that being possible, businesses and individuals with specialist knowledge are trying to devise their own ways to access the facility, using one of the various systems. In some cases, the villages in my area are partly cabled. The work was done by the Cambridge Cable Co., now part of ntl. That makes the threshold problem harder. If part of a village can access broadband via cable, it reduces the scope for other providers to meet the threshold laid down by BT. However, cable facilities are usually confined tightly to the centre of the villages, and it is highly unlikely that they could be extended.
      724
      The upshot is that, in the village of Bottisham—not more than half a dozen miles from Cambridge—a group of people have put together a radio-based system. They lease a single copper line from Cambridge, and their system, which uses radio antennae, now operates through six parishes. These very advanced individuals have achieved this without recourse to a grant from the East of England Development Agency, mainly because in this matter they were ahead of the agency, which had not managed to get a grip. The agency now advocates all sorts of grants, but the people about whom I am talking had already got the system up and running and so received no grant money.
      The group did get a small grant from the Countryside Agency, which was very helpful, but parishes now approach the group and ask to join the local network, and no grant money is available to facilitate that. Neither the EEDA nor the Countryside Agency will assist them, because the system already exists. The parish of Little Wilbraham in my constituency wants to join in the system that I have described, but the costs will now be huge, and that seems incredibly perverse.
      The Bottisham entrepreneurs put the system together more than a year ago. I arranged for them to meet the then e-envoy, to discuss the problems involved. I hoped that they could pass their experiences on to the Government as an aid to policy. The envoy arranged an appointment at which he could meet my constituents and me, but the Minister, whom I am pleased to see in his place, wrote to me and said that he had taken over the envoy's responsibilities. He was not able to keep the appointment, which was a shame: my constituents were blazing a trail but were unable to present their case to the Minister.
      3.15 pm
      John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point, but he is describing what happens when there is competition. People can go against each other, and those in business must compete. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should consider the solution that he has outlined? Deutsche Telecom has not had the competition problems that we in this country have encountered. It has done quite well in making broadband access available.
      Mr. Paice: I am afraid that I know nothing about the Deutsche Telecom system, so I cannot comment. However, I was not suggesting anything that is anti-competition. I was trying to draw the House's attention to the holes in the Government's policy for promoting broadband. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire said when introducing the new clause, the development agencies are acting differently in different regions. My right hon. Friend said that the agency in Cornwall is getting on the back of BT, while other agencies are riding different horses. In the east of England, some people and businesses in my constituency are ahead, as the Bottisham example shows.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire referred to the problem as it affects schools, other public facilities, GPs' surgeries, and so on. The point cannot be over-emphasised. The Prime Minister made his undertaking—although some of us have

      725
      become sceptical about such things—but if he is to fulfil the undertaking, broadband will have to be extended to the very large number of villages that have a primary school. However, there is no present prospect that broadband access will reach those villages. Like my right hon. Friend, I am fascinated to know how the Prime Minister envisages that that will happen.
      Mr. Mole: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the east of England broadband project E2B? For some time it has been placing contracts, with the result that schools in Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire have broadband access.
      Mr. Paice: I am very much aware of the project. To the best of my knowledge it has not delivered anything to my constituency, although I stand to be corrected on that. My point is that if the primary school can access broadband, the technology needs to be in the village, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire said. Logic implies, therefore, that at least some other members of the community could piggyback on that system. However, that is not yet happening.
      I certainly do not want to get into arguments about technology; I am the first to accept that my knowledge is extremely limited. I am primarily concerned about many residents of villages in my constituency who are at the leading edge of the knowledge revolution. Currently, they have to travel to Cambridge, London or elsewhere to work, yet many of them could, and indeed would, work from home at least part of the time. If they could do so, it would comply with many of the objectives not only of the Government but of the House: it would reduce travel, congestion and so on. However, unless those people have access to broadband, they will have to continue to travel to areas where it is provided.
      The new clause would enable the Government, through Ofcom, to roll out the provision of broadband far more effectively.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: I agree with my hon. Friend; villages in my constituency, too, could piggy-back and take advantage of the provision of broadband in schools if it was undertaken correctly.
      Recent surveys have shown that children—especially younger children—still prefer using books to using the internet. Although we want to ensure that broadband is provided, does my hon. Friend agree that we must also ensure that schools do not completely abandon traditional learning methods?
      Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend tempts me to go down a wholly improper path, so I shall resist. However, I am sure that he will understand that I have some sympathy with his point. I am delighted that the sale of books has riot been as seriously affected by the development of the internet as many people prophesied.
      I have taken enough of the House's time. I wholly support the new clause. Ofcom should have a specific responsibility to accelerate the roll-out of broadband so that a large geographic area and a significant proportion of the population, such as my constituents, can access
      726
      the latest technology and continue to play their part—as we do in Cambridgeshire—in driving forward the economy of our country.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: This is an interesting and important debate. I have three brief comments.
      With the support of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), I tabled a reasoned amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill. I did so because I believed that the Bill made insufficient provision for the public interest and that it would, over time, so support the principle of competition in the marketplace that it would seriously penalise a great many consumers and citizens. We have heard examples of that in various parts of the country.
      Conservative Members may disagree, but I think that competition is failing to deliver what is required by our communities and what the Government say they want to deliver. The Government must address the fact that they are failing to miss their targets for the delivery of broadband and e-technology because the existing competition set-up will not permit them to achieve the necessary roll-out.
      I very much welcome the import of Government amendment No. 215 and look forward to the Minister's comments on it. Although I am not yet fully convinced, I think that it has taken on board the questions raised in both the Joint Committee and the Standing Committee about addressing the needs of citizens. Many of us believe that "citizen" is the correct word in this context and that as citizens of the nations of the United Kingdom we benefit from ownership of those things that are done in the spirit of the public interest.
      In Committee, we were told that "citizenship" had a particular meaning and that it applied only to nationality and immigration requirements. I am not convinced by that argument. After all, we have education for citizenship in our schools and so on, so surely it is relevant in a Bill dealing with communications. The words "to further the interests of the community as a whole", however, are a significant acceptance by the Government of the points made in the Committee, although I am not sure why the provision continues with the words "in relation to communications matters". In a Communications Bill, why do we have to specify that? It seems a little otiose. However, I shall wait for the Minister to explain.
      My second point is related to my first. Members on both sides of the House support the Government in their targets for the roll-out of broadband, but how are we to achieve them? The new clause moved by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo)—
      Mr. Yeo: Is very good.
      Mr. Thomas: I agree. The clause is good and it is important. Strangely, however, in arguing for the hon. Gentleman's clause, his hon. Friends argued against pure competition. That is what it boils down to.
      New clause 2 is important because it would put a duty on Ofcom to achieve something that, as is accepted, competition itself will not achieve. We will not roll out broadband to every part of these islands purely by using competition alone. We need to ensure that Ofcom works with those competitive providers with the spirit and

      727
      intention of achieving that roll-out, and that where gaps exist, they will need to be plugged, probably by public investment.
      The hon. Member for South Suffolk rightly said that such things are as important as rolling out this country's road, rail, gas and electricity infrastructures. This is our great infrastructure project for the beginning of the 21st century. We need to take it on board in the way that people faced development of the railways in the 1830s and 1840s, although we do not want to replicate the problems with the railways that we inherited from that time.
      We need to have more of a sense of national purpose about how we achieve that infrastructure roll-out. For example, it did not take purely private, commercial or competitive companies to provide electricity connections; it took national investment. I want to make the point to the Government that national investment is needed to achieve broadband roll-out, working in cooperation, of course, with the public companies that can achieve it.
      John Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) hit the nail on the head with his stories about having too much competition
      Mr. Thomas: I am not sure about the phrase "too much competition", but I accept what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say. We have a market that is very attractive to the companies, albeit that it tends to be in the towns, cities and larger conurbations, where they can chase the same customers and play one customer off against the other. We see adverts in the papers, advertising broadband for £29.99, and the next company's price is £27.99. That is frustrating for my constituents, who cannot get broadband at all.
      Aberystwyth is the only town in my constituency that is broadband enabled, but there is just one exchange. The important point has been made that broadband is not the same as the standard trunk dialling codes. Those who walk into the town on a market day expecting to be able to buy into broadband when they walk into Currys on the high street simply do not get what they deserve. It is the same as walking into Dixons or Currys and finding digital radio on sale, which people can do in Aberystwyth. Digital radio is a wonderful thing, but it does not come within 50 miles of Aberystwyth. I am not sure what those companies are trying to achieve by putting those products on their shelves. It is very frustrating for the consumer.
      BT is still the major provider of telecommunications in Wales. Outside Cardiff and some of the south Wales valleys that have been cable enabled, there is no choice but BT, so I am trying to get the exchange in Cardigan enabled, as it is next biggest town in my constituency, although only 3,000 or 4,000 people live there. I am pleased that BT has agreed that that exchange should be enabled next.
      Moreover, after several meetings, BT has decreased the threshold requirement—it is now down to 300 people for that exchange—but we have 71 signed up at the moment, so the gap is still fairly significant. Persuading SMEs to sign up to something when they cannot see the benefits is very difficult indeed.
      728
      Cardigan is facing 400 redundancies in two industries over the next year, although we have had an injection of finance from the National Assembly. I should like that money to be used to bridge the digital gap, so that we can invest in things such as broadband. I want Ofcom to be involved in such a public interest consideration, in conjunction with local communities, or with the regional development agencies in England or, in Wales and Scotland, with the Governments of those countries.
      We can achieve broadband roll-out in other ways in rural areas—radio is an obvious one and satellite might be brought into play. The National Assembly for Wales has published the Welsh Development Agency's Ubiquity report on achieving broadband roll-out in Wales and, as hon. Members might expect, the targets are very similar to those of the UK Government. Again, delivering services to every school is part of that process.
      One of the difficulties, however, is that the 3.8 GHz radio spectrum is about to be auctioned in Wales, as it was not auctioned last time round. The repackaging that has happened has split Wales into three parts, and has placed north, mid and south Wales with significant parts of England. That may not be a bad thing if it means that we can get things moving, but it creates the rather worrying prospect that one part will be successfully sold and auctioned, whereas another part will not.
      3.30 pm
      The Minister should be in receipt of a letter from Christine Gwyther, the Labour AM who chairs the Economic Development Committee of the National Assembly. The letter outlines the Committee's deep unhappiness about the way in which radio spectrum has been auctioned in Wales, as it is seen as an important weapon in achieving broadband roll-out in Wales. I hope that the Minister will carefully examine the situation in Wales, and that he will look again at how we can assist wireless provision, which will be one of the key aspects of achieving broadband roll-out in rural areas.
      I welcome the progress that has been made on this Bill, but I very much hope that Members on both sides of the House will support those who are trying to secure broadband access for some of the most remote parts of the United Kingdom and will acknowledge the need to act in the public interest. We must be aware that competition does not yet show signs that it will achieve that. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind as they try to meet their targets.
      Mr. Greenway: While we have been debating these important matters, I understand that Nasser Hussain, the England cricket captain, has resigned following a no result in the Zimbabwe-Pakistan cricket match, and that England are eliminated from the world cup. I hope that, on some future occasion, we might have the opportunity in Government time to debate the issue.
      First, I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on new clause 2. I suggest to the Minister that nothing in the new clause is in any way at odds with Ofcom's duties under the Bill. On the contrary, all the key elements of new clause 2 are enshrined in the provisions of clauses 3 and 6, which relate to Ofcom's duties. Our new clause has four key elements.
      Mr. Timms: I welcome the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Will he tell us why the new clause is necessary, because, as he rightly says, the point is already well covered in the Bill?
      Mr. Greenway: I cannot tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, how grateful I am for the Minister's intervention, as that is precisely what I intend to do. He so clearly grasps the point that I need not dwell on it too much.
      To explain the point briefly, clause 6 requires Ofcom to reduce regulatory burdens and clause 3(1)(a) requires it to promote competition and to further the interests of consumers—there is no better way of doing that than bearing down on prices and the provision of high-quality services. Clause 3(1)(b) on securing the optimum use of wireless telegraphy must surely include the deployment of new telecommunications technologies.
      The Minister might argue, as he did in his intervention, that we do not need the new clause. However, new clause 2 adds something that is distinctly absent from the Bill: the two words that were pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—"including broadband". This debate has shown not only that all Members on both sides of the House regard this as a crucial issue for their constituents—I can certainly reflect what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said about his constituency, which is precisely the position in my constituency of Ryedale. The real point, however, is that there is no specific reference to broadband in the Bill. We hammered away on that issue in Committee because it is a serious omission. The new clause gives the House the opportunity to correct that omission.
      Mr. Mole: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider broadband to be a telecommunications technology?
      Mr. Greenway: Many of the definitions in the Bill include or omit certain phraseology. We spent a lot of time on Report last Tuesday discussing whether music formed part of local material.
      John Robertson: That is an important issue.
      Mr. Greenway: It is important, as the hon. Gentleman says.
      This debate has shown a growing sense among members of all parties that the provision of broadband is riot being taken seriously enough. It is therefore important to make a specific reference to it in the Bill as part of Ofcom's general duties. I will say no more than that, suffice it to say that anyone listening to this important part of our deliberations cannot have failed to notice that, no matter which constituency hon. Members represent or to which political party they belong, there is a sense that not enough is being done to ensure that broadband is made available to more and more of our constituents. The importance that hon. Members have put on this issue makes it inconceivable that the Government would want to resist such a new clause.
      I want to deal with the issues raised by the Government's amendments—in particular Government amendment No. 215 to clause 3. Clause 3 sets out
      730
      Ofcom's general duties, and the Government amendment alters the structure and emphasis of the clause in three important ways. I want to probe the Minister on the Government's thinking, and I would also like him to clarify some points.
      The amendment will for the first time impose a principal duty on Ofcom. There were once four duties of equal weight, as given in clause 3(1). However, under the amendment, in addition to Ofcom's duty, in carrying out its functions,
      "to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition",
      Ofcom must now
      "further the interests of the community as whole in relation to communications matters."
      The new wording replaces three of the four duties in clause 3(1). Those duties were:
      "to secure the optimal use for wireless telegraphy of the electromagnetic spectrum",
      "to secure the availability … of a wide range of television and radio services"
      and to secure the application of standards. Those three duties have been relegated to a proposed new subsection (1 A), which sets out the things that Ofcom is required to secure in carrying out its principal duty. That is a significant departure from the Government's policy up to today, which has been to resist the introduction of a principal duty.
      In Committee, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting reminded us that the Government's response to the Joint Committee's report stated:
      "'We are sure that the Committee will recognise how important it is that the duties properly reflect the breadth of all OFCOM's responsibilities, both economic and cultural, and follow the proposition set out in the White Paper that each duty is of equal weight."
      He also said:
      "I strongly believe that we should give a clear signal that no single duty under subsection (1) is more important than another; they are all equally important."
      He added:
      "Subsection (6) expressly enables Ofcom to resolve the conflict between duties in the way that it believes to be the best. That leaves it in control of the situation."
      He went on to say:
      "The Government have looked long and hard at clause 3, because, like other hon. Members, we recognised that we needed to get it right, and I believe that we have."
      Well, there we are—not any more. He has changed his mind. He continued:
      "It covers the breadth of Ofcom's responsibilities and reflects its role as an economic and cultural regulator. I believe that, in respect of the principles on which it is based and its drafting, the clause works for Ofcom and its stakeholders."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 10 December 2002; c. 74–81.]
      As we can see, the Government have radically changed their mind. The phrase
      "the community as a whole in relation to communications matters"
      adds a new and somewhat wider perspective to the principal duty than the reference only to consumers and competition. It is considerably different from the present wording of clause 3(1) and relegates certain specific considerations in relation to others that the

      731
      Government have hitherto insisted were an integral part of their range of equal duties. Perhaps it is now a case of all duties being equal but some being more equal than others.
      Mr. Hawkins: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has alluded to Orwell, because the Government have very much introduced a piece of Orwellian newspeak. Does my hon. Friend have any suspicion about the reason for this sudden volte-face from equal duties to one primary duty? Does he think by any chance that there has been huge influence from Europe and that the Minister's officials did not agree with what he said in Committee and have tried to change the Bill at the last minute in the House?
      Mr. Greenway: On this occasion, I cannot go with my hon. Friend's conspiracy theory. The matter was debated at length in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) sadly cannot be here for this debate, but he made several comments about the issues that we are discussing. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) agrees with the rest of my hon. Friends to judge by their reaction to my remarks. They have grasped that this change at this very late stage radically alters the architecture of Ofcom's duties in a way that has far-reaching implications for the rest of the Bill.
      The second issue that I want to raise is the new duty to maintain a plurality of providers of television and radio. We need clarification from the Minister of the words in Government amendment No. 251 that refer to
      "the maintenance of a plurality of different television and radio services".
      That concept has hitherto been excluded from the Bill, but the provision may have a considerable impact on the way in which Ofcom deals with proposed mergers and acquisitions in the sector. The Minister owes us a detailed explanation about how the duty relates to the Government's newly revised framework for media ownership and control.
      In Committee, Conservative Members argued that there should be a greater reliance on competition and less reliance on rigid restrictions and limitations. Until today—I am assuming that the amendment will be accepted by the House—we had an underlying move towards greater reliance on competition but with specific limitations and restrictions in place. However, plurality and competition now conflict with the specific restrictions and limitations in the Bill.
      We know that the Government have decided that Channel 3 will be allowed to merge into a single company subject to general competition law, and that is a big qualification particularly in respect of television advertising. However, subject to that, the company will be allowed to merge into a single company that is owned by a single person or single organisation. Strictly speaking, that will represent a reduction in the plurality of Channel 3 providers from two main providers, Carlton and Granada, to one, with the smaller providers—Ulster, Scottish Media Group, Channel Television and others—perhaps being subsumed. Who knows whether that will happen even if it is not the proposal now? The Minister must tell us what the proposed new duty for Ofcom would mean for such a
      732
      process. Is it possible that such a merger would be, after investigation, acceptable in the eyes of the Office of Fair Trading, but then rejected by Ofcom under clause 1(3) on the basis that it reduces the plurality of television providers? That is an extremely important question.
      3.45 pm
      Other broadcasters have raised similar concerns. The Commercial Radio Association has asked what impact the provision will have on the three-year ownership review process by which the Government have placed such great store. What if a merger were to reduce plurality—that is, the number of different providers of radio and television services—but improve the quantity, quality or range of programme content? The inclusion of the new duty may encourage Ofcom to value plurality for its own sake and to temper the priority that it previously would have given to the availability throughout the UK of a wide range of television and radio services which, taken as a whole, are of high quality and calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests, irrespective of the number of different providers.
      Similar questions apply to other scenarios. A purchase by a channel 3 owner or Channel 5, as permitted under the Government's liberalisation and subject of course to competition law scrutiny, would further reduce plurality, as would mergers or purchases involving other providers such as Disney, Viacom or BSkyB. In all instances, even if concerns under competition law were satisfied, the new duty will mean that residual doubts and uncertainties remain. It could give Ofcom the power to veto an acquisition by adding another layer of regulation to an area in which the Government have decided to introduce a more liberal regime. That appears to be taking away with one hand what they have given with the other.
      Thirdly, I turn to the new duty to secure the availability of a wide range of electronic communication services—another addition. It would be helpful if the Government could explain why they have seen fit, again at this late stage, to introduce that concept into this part of the Bill. Electronic communication services are one important element in a wide range of matters that Ofcom must deal with, but it is unclear why those services have been singled out for particular attention. To anticipate the kind of intervention that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath might have made had he not left the Chamber, where did that idea come from? I do not remember discussing it in Committee. It comes as a surprise to us that the Government have made these serious changes, which fundamentally alter the architecture of Ofcom's powers. The explanation in the Minster's letter fails to acknowledge the far-reaching nature of the amendments.
      I want briefly to mention two or three other Government amendments. Amendment No. 217 deals with Ofcom's annual report, enabling Ofcom to explain how it has resolved any conflicts between its duties. We discussed that extensively in Committee, and the amendment is welcome.
      Amendments Nos. 219 and 220 address matters that we raised in Committee. Amendment No. 219 deals with the problem that we identified concerning wording of the Bill that gold-plates some elements of the directive.

      733
      Amendment No. 221 is one that I proposed in Committee to help to ensure that there is a real opportunity for self-regulation in advertising. I warmly welcome the fact that the Minister has on consideration accepted that amendment and proposes to include it in the Bill.
      Mr. Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) for giving us the opportunity to discuss broadband. This is the best chance that we have had to deal specifically with Ofcom's role in relation to broadband. I want to pick up on some of the comments made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who conveniently covered all points of the compass between them, and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). They raised important points about the way in which broadband is being rolled out. There is broad agreement on the general thrust of the new clause. However, I add a note of caution about the way in which the market mechanism and the regulation mechanism will work. The experience to date has been that the biggest advance in broadband roll-out occurred with BT's significant price drop on the wholesale cost of broadband services. That was in some doubt. Regulation rightly sets out that BT has a duty not to be involved in loss leading or to use its telephone customers to cross-subsidise its broadband customers. We could have a public policy objective of getting cheaper broadband services and a regulatory framework that dictates that the regulator must prevent that from happening. We have to be aware of the limits of the regulatory framework when it is applied in such a mechanistic way to determine what aspects of a service come from which pot.
      The hon. Member for South Suffolk made some good suggestions and was right to mention the transparency of costs. It is important that we understand the cost issues on which Ofcom will make the rulings that were carried out by Oftel. The hon. Gentleman suggested that BT should publish advance plans on its roll-out scheme for enabling ADSL exchanges. It would help to have a public debate on those instead of micro-decisions in individual areas.
      It seems that BT has realised that it is better to have 5 million wholesale broadband customers who buy their retail service from the likes of AOL and Freeserve, which have the reach to sell broadband nationally, rather than 500,000 broadband customers who buy both retail and wholesale from BT. Under the old model, BT wanted to maintain the complete value chain by offering retail broadband services. However, there has been a change in leadership and BT is trying to increase its wholesale customers. It has accepted that AOL and Freeserve, as retail customer-facing organisations, may leap over it in terms of numbers, but that is not a problem because BT will make money on the wholesale service.
      A specific problem remains, however, with the two products that BT offers: BT Openworld, which is its ISP, and the BT broadband only service, commonly called the bare-wire service. I am sure that all hon. Members have received complaints about the confusion that that causes. There is a genuine consumer issue about BT
      734
      selling two products that are both called broadband from BT. One is an ISP-based service that is comparable to a service provided by Demon, Freeserve or AOL; the other is not. We need to tidy that up. There are also concerns about the possibility of cross-promotion by BT. People who choose to take their broadband services from another supplier still have a BT line, and I question the appropriateness of BT making a hard sell for its own retail broadband service via the billing mechanism, for instance. I accept that there are regulations that are intended to prevent that from happening, but the industry still raises concerns about the possibility of cross-selling.
      The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire mentioned the concerns of constituents who live just outside the footprint of the ADSL-enabled exchanges. There was a proposal to roll out broadband primarily by local loop unbundling in which other companies would be responsible for the infrastructure that would deliver the service the last few miles to people's houses. That fell down the list of priorities as the investment climate worsened and the ISPs did not have the cash to deliver the infrastructure. Many of them would now prefer BT to be responsible for all the infrastructure while they concentrate on retail services. However, local loop bypassing, which has a huge potential, is starting to take place, as we have heard, in the village of Bottisham. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred to the village of Milton outside Cambridge and the fact that Cambridge science park is located there. A large broadband pipe goes into the science park, so it is perfectly possible, as the hon. Gentleman started to say, for it to be made available to other people using wireless technologies. There are some great experiments going on. The Minister was at the ISPs' awards ceremony, where West Dorset Internet, a tiny ISP set up by Tim Snape, won an award as a broadband supplier. The company is extremely imaginative, and has come up with solutions using wireless technology to extend reach. In many areas, such solutions will be more attractive than satellite and other proposals.
      However, there are questions about regulation that need to be answered. Do we create a climate that encourages or discourages experimentation? If somebody has a broadband connection in their premises, under their contract they are not allowed to extend it outside those premises. We may need new forms of contract that encourage community groups to enter a community broadband contract. They would pay a fair price for the pipe that goes into the community system, but they would be able to do imaginative community outreach work. The hon. Member for Ceredigion talked about the radio spectrum and later, if we have time, we will talk about recognised spectrum access. A key question about such access is whether people will want a wireless local network and whether it will interfere with satellite systems.
      There are also questions about the spectrum sale, auctioning and licensing at the end of the spectrum, where people want to roll out local networks. Ofcom could have a significant role in creating the conditions for people to do more wireless networking or preventing them from doing so.
      Mr. Mole: Can I just explore with the hon. Gentleman the difficulty associated with his proposal to aggregate

      735
      demand at the end of a broadband connection? Such connections are supplied by telecommunications operators based on the nature of expected traffic. It is not expected that users will constantly demand data at the full rate capability of the link. Such traffic will come in bursts. As more users are hooked to the end of a single link, demand is aggregated and traffic becomes continuous, so there are more implications for telecommunications operators' back systems. They can offer product at £29.99 because most of us will demand data, perhaps in large volumes, only for short periods.
      Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about the technical aspects, with which he is familiar. I am not suggesting that everyone who has a £30 a month connection should link their village into that single connection. I was trying to suggest that there is a role for new forms of fairly priced contract that allow 10, 15 or 20 users to hang off the end of a connection. Ofcom has a role in encouraging, rather than discouraging, the rollout of the technology. We should applaud the experimentalism of the DIY approach taken by some people such as the Bottisham villagers. We should not encourage people to breach contracts, but we should encourage new uses of the technology and the imaginative search for forms of contract that allow such uses.
      However, if people come up with solutions, I fear that they may be knocked back and told by a telecommunications company, "You have to wait two years until we enable your exchange." If a solution is available today, people should be able to have it, because in the meantime they are missing out on huge opportunities. That is particularly true of local companies. The time taken by a local architect's business to upload and download technical drawings is a critical factor in its viability and competitiveness. If it can get quick access today, we should find a way of making that work, instead of being unimaginative and slowing things down.
      4 pm
      Finally, it is helpful that one of the amendments proposes that broadband should be written into the Bill. However, much of the work being done on broadband is taking place at a community level. The magazine Computing has set up a group with which I know the Minister is familiar and which is doing much good work. The broadband stakeholders group has been mentioned. The fact that a huge number of hon. Members have become engaged with technology issues through broadband because the public are asking us to be engaged in such issues means that the debate is far wider.
      I hope that as well as thinking about the Ofcom context, the Minister will assure us that he is considering the wider context. I hope that he will continue the dialogue, which has been constructive to date, with the wider industry and will respond positively to imaginative solutions that will enable broadband rollout to occur much more quickly than would otherwise be the case.
      Mr. Timms: I shall begin by speaking to the Government amendments. The Bill is a complex piece of
      736
      legislation addressing individuals as citizens and as consumers. It is about Ofcom taking responsibility for economic and cultural matters. Ofcom's general duties are crucial to its work, so we have studied particularly carefully the wording of clause 3, how that works with other provisions in the Bill and how it will shape Ofcom's decision making. There was much discussion about that in Committee, there has been discussion in public consultation and it was a major theme of the pre-legislative scrutiny work. We have therefore decided to change the way in which clause 3 is structured to make the position clearer.
      Amendment No. 215 and the consequential amendments Nos. 216 and 218 are intended to remove any lingering doubt that the Bill will deliver our policy commitment to safeguard and further the interests of consumers and of citizens. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and for North Devon (Nick Harvey) who welcomed that change, which makes the position entirely clear.
      The amendment uses the expression "community as a whole" rather than "citizens'. There was some suspicion among Opposition Members that the terminology had come from Europe, but I can assure them that that is not the case. We have used the expression "community as a whole" because the word "citizens" in legislation has connotations of nationality, which is not what we want in this context. The new wording meets the concerns expressed by a number of people in the debate over the past few months.
      The public policy interests are embedded in the legislation—for example, through the provisions on media literacy and the public service obligations. They are also inherent in the current drafting of clause 3, but we wanted to make the position more explicit. We have now achieved that. We want to be certain that in any circumstance Ofcom will be able to consider the interests of consumers and the wider community without being open to challenge.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) commented on the plurality duty in subsection (1A). The media ownership rules in the Bill will ensure that there are a number of different providers of TV and radio services. The amendment will mean that Ofcom will take plurality as well as diversity into account in carrying out its functions, including reviewing the media ownership rules. That is the key significance of the amendment: it ensures that Ofcom will be able to consider plurality in reviewing the rules. The rules are clear, but because of the change, Ofcom will be able to take plurality into account. Those are significant changes. We already have a good Bill, but the amendments improve it.
      Amendment No. 217 follows one proposed by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). We said in Committee that we would respond with an appropriate amendment and we have done so. Ofcom will have to make some complex decisions and reconcile tensions between its general duties. The amendment will require Ofcom to include in its annual report a summary of such cases where they are important. That will provide observers with a valuable understanding of how Ofcom's decision making has developed. It will not be unduly bureaucratic for Ofcom but it will help to ensure that it is open and transparent.

      737
      Amendments Nos. 219 and 220 to clause 4 again follow amendments proposed by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire in Committee. We accepted the principle of those amendments, which bring the sixth of the community obligations set out in the clause—the obligation to encourage standardisation—more precisely into line with the directive.
      The hon. Member for Ryedale has already correctly claimed credit for inspiring Government amendment No. 221. I am glad that he has acknowledged that it meets his objectives.
      The hon. Member for North Devon spoke to amendment No. 3 and welcomed Government amendment No. 215, which deals with the concern that underpinned that amendment.
      On amendment No. 151, the creativity and innovation drive of individuals in the communications industry must be one of the reasons for its success. In telecommunications, television and radio, very able people are working in the UK. That is why we have some world-class businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) pointed out, the Bill contains provisions relating to employment in broadcasting. Clauses 24 and 327 require Ofcom to promote training, equality of opportunity between men and women and persons of different racial groups and the fair treatment of disabled persons in relation to employment with broadcasters. Those provisions are important in terms of the particular structure of public service broadcasting and in supporting greater diversity in programme making. A particularly large number of freelancers work in the broadcasting industry and there is a need to sustain the level of necessary skills development.
      Those are the particular circumstances in broadcasting that have led us to include those provisions in the Bill. We cannot extend them to the telecoms industry, not least because, under the regulatory regime permitted by the communications directives, Ofcom will not have power to impose any such obligations on communications providers. I am not suggesting that the position of telecommunications employees is not one of the most important issues for the industry—it clearly is. However, the responsibilities for employment rights and skills will rest not with Ofcom, but with other agencies and bodies.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland and for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) for drawing attention to those concerns. I point out that e-skills UK, which covers IT, telecommunications and call centres, is in the final stages of its development phase to become a new sector skills council. A decision on its application will be considered very soon. It will be an employer-led body that will bring together employers, trade unions and professional bodies in working with the Government to develop the skills that UK business needs to drive productivity and competitiveness in this sector. The Government are very active in that area and my hon. Friends were right to draw attention to its importance. However, the solution rests not with Ofcom, but elsewhere.
      For rather different reasons, I also oppose amendment No. 187, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Devon. I do so not because I do not
      738
      recognise the essential contribution of creators and performers in producing quality content—I certainly do—but because I believe that requiring Ofcom to consider them in carrying out all its functions would place their interests above the general public interest in high-quality content. That would be a mistake. Regulating for the quality of content will draw on the work of creators and performers for the benefit of viewers and listeners, whose interests must be to the fore.
      Clause 257 requires Ofcom to review public service broadcasting, including the quality of programme making and the professional skill applied in making programmes. We are also safeguarding the amount of original production in UK television and strengthening the contribution of the independent productions sector. Those and other specific measures will be more effective and better targeted than the approach taken in amendment No. 187.
      New clause 27 and amendments Nos. 188 and 189 propose to give creators a statutory role within Ofcom. Hon. Members who followed the debates in Committee will be aware that the Government are committed to giving Ofcom flexibility to organise itself in the way that best allows it to deliver the objectives that we are setting out in the Bill. We know from experience elsewhere that that flexibility is essential. We need to be careful not to over-specify the way in which Ofcom is organised.
      The content board—xthe only element of the internal structure of Ofcom that is required under the Bill—isthere to represent the public interest in the content of broadcasting services. It is not there to represent the interests of any particular group in the industry. That is an important safeguard.
      Amendment No. 189 specifies that Ofcom may authorise the establishment of a creators panel, but Ofcom already has the power to authorise the establishment of any committee to advise the content board, so the amendment is unnecessary, as is new clause 27, for the same reason.
      Much of this interesting debate has been about new clause 2, which was moved by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). The hon. Member for Ryedale assisted the House by pointing out that there is nothing in that new clause that is not already in the Bill, except for the specific reference to broadband. The Bill refers to promoting innovation and encouraging investment—broadband will certainly be the beneficiary of that—but it is important for it not only to address what is undoubtedly one of the most important topics that we face, but to make sense in 10, 20 or 30 years.
      Extending the availability of broadband is one of our top priorities, and I welcome the fact that there has been so much interest in that during the debate. I also welcome the growing political pressure on broadband availability. Availability continues to grow, and the point has been made that about 67 per cent. of UK households can access a terrestrial broadband service. That was right about three months ago, but the figure had reached 71 per cent. and rising at the end of last year. It is clear that it will reach 80 per cent. over the next year or two, but the big challenge will be how to get from 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. and over. We are working on that energetically. The point was also made that there

      739
      are 1.4 million broadband connections in the UK, but that number is increasing at more than 30,000 a week, so we are well beyond it now.
      The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) asked me some particular questions, and he has been corresponding with me on how public service broadband capability will be achieved. There is the commitment that every school in the country will have broadband by 2006. The capacity will be at least 2 megabytes per second for every primary school and 8 megabytes per second for secondary schools. Those rates will be available symmetrically, which means that the discussion goes beyond what ADSL can deliver at present.
      It would not be sensible, however, for me to announce from the Dispatch Box precisely how that will be determined—how Overton primary school, for example, should be connected up. Equally, it would not be right for us to say to Overton primary school, "Go away and work it out for yourself." It is increasingly clear that we can make such decisions and plan a strategy for achieving public sector broadband connectivity right across a region.
      There are already regional broadband consortiums in education and we are considering how to bring the health service into the aggregation arrangements at regional level. Although scepticism has regrettably been expressed from the Conservative Benches about the effectiveness of the regional development agencies, we are seeing in a growing number of RDAs some imaginative and effective initiatives that will deliver broadband connectivity in every area that we are considering.
      Mr. Allan: The Government have the strategy of aggregation of Government broadband demand and a lot of faith is being placed in the fact that they have made the clear commitment that they will achieve a connection for Overton primary school, or wherever else, in the expectation that other people can work from it. Is the Minister confident that the combination of Treasury rules and the way in which Government have to tender for services will allow them to draw up contracts with added public benefit, or will the Government end up with tight contacts saying, "If you want the cheapest price, to Overton primary school and no further."?
      Mr. Timms: I am confident that we will be able to achieve suitable contracts. There is work to be done, but we are doing that work and I am confident that we can deliver. Of course, the Prime Minister also articulated a commitment that every school would have internet access. We have delivered that commitment, and we will deliver this one as well.
      The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire made some interesting points about Bottisham, about which I have heard a good deal in the past couple of months. I regret that it was not possible to have the meeting envisaged—if I remember rightly, the e-envoy was due to visit in the autumn—but I welcome further discussion of what is happening there. Perhaps there might be a visit as well, at some point.
      740
      4.15 pm
      There is much to be done, but I do not think we need to amend the Bill. I agree with what has been said about the importance of competition: we need competition to drive broadband into every part of the country, just as it has driven mobile communications into every part of the country. That is, of course, the basis of the Bill. The regulator will have all the powers that the hon. Gentleman advocated, as his colleagues who sat through the Committee stage will tell him: but we want the legislation to last, and I therefore think our current formula is right.
      The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) mentioned the severe problem of call centre queueing. Clause 124 allows Ofcom to act against any person who persistently misuses a network service to cause annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety, or increased blood pressure. The measure is aimed principally at those who make calls, but I suppose that in an extreme case consideration could be given to its use against a recipient such as a call centre. The hon. Gentleman's aspirations could be met by the Bill, although whether that will indeed be possible may be debated elsewhere.
      Mr. Yeo: This has been an excellent debate, whose breadth reflects that of the Bill itself.
      I join my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) in acknowledging the efforts made by BT over the last year to speed up access to broadband. Perhaps I did not make that clear earlier. My right hon. Friend spoke of the difficulties experienced by rural communities, and mentioned the Prime Minister's proposal to connect schools. The Minister seems unwilling, or possibly unable, to explain exactly how that will happen. I only hope that his confidence will be borne out in practice.
      The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) is not unlike my own. Its problems are typical of those in rural areas, and the prospects of any real progress are bleak for some of his constituents in the more remote villages.
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), with whom I had the pleasure of visiting Caernarfon recently, described his frustration at the inadequate access to broadband in his constituency. I welcome his recognition that broadband is part of the infrastructure. I dare say his constituency is about as well served as mine by some of the transport infrastructure as well. Let us hope that broadband will not follow that model.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) explained, I thought rather eloquently, why the new clause was necessary. I am sorry that the Minister did not entirely accept what he said. My hon. Friend made a number of powerful points about other issues, on which I will not comment except to say that I did not think all of them were dealt with adequately by the Minister.
      I welcomed the support of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) for the new clause. I hope it will be reflected in the Lobby shortly. I particularly welcomed his recognition of the need for more transparency.

      741
      The Minister spoke of the continuing progress in extending broadband. I acknowledge that the figures are increasing more quickly than they were, but for many people that is not enough. Not even the promise of a visit from the Minister will satisfy all broadband users.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 288.

      Division No. 98]

      [4:18 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

      George, Andrew(St. Ives)

      Allan, Richard

      Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

      Amess, David

      Gidley, Sandra

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Goodman, Paul

      Bacon, Richard

      Gray, James(N Wilts)

      Baker, Norman

      Grayling, Chris

      Baldry, Tony

      Green, Damian(Ashford)

      Barker, Gregory

      Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

      Baron, John(Billericay)

      Greenway, John

      Barrett, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Gummer, rh John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hammond, Philip

      Bercow, John

      Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Blunt, Crispin

      Harvey, Nick

      Boswell, Tim

      Hawkins, Nick

      Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

      Hayes, John(S Holland)

      Brady, Graham

      Heald, Oliver

      Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

      Heath, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Hendry, Charles

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Burnett, John

      Holmes, Paul

      Burns, Simon

      Horam, John(Orpington)

      Burnside, David

      Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

      Burstow, Paul

      Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Hunter, Andrew

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Jack, rh Michael

      Cameron, David

      Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cash, William

      Johnson, Boris(Henley)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Chidgey, David

      Key, Robert(Salisbury)

      Chope, Christopher

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Clappison, James

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Collins, Tim

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Lamb, Norman

      Cotter, Brian

      Laws, David(Yeovil)

      Cran, James(Beverley)

      Leigh, Edward

      Davey, Edward(Kingston)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

      Loughton, Tim

      Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

      Doughty, Sue

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Duncan Smith, rh lain

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Evans, Nigel

      Malins, Humfrey

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Maples, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Fallon, Michael

      Mercer, Patrick

      Field, Mark(Cities of London &

      Moore, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Flight, Howard

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Flook, Adrian

      Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

      Forth, rh Eric

      O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

      Foster, Don(Bath)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Osborne, George(Tatton)

      Francois, Mark

      Page, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Paice, James

      742

      Paterson, Owen

      Syms, Robert

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Taylor, Ian(Esher)

      Taylor, John(Sollhull)

      Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

      Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

      Randall, John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Redwood, rh John

      Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

      Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

      Thurso, John

      Rendel, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

      Robertson, Angus(Moray)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

      Walter, Robert

      Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Webb, Steve(Northavon)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Weir, Michael

      Ruffley, David

      Whittingdale, John

      Salmond, Alex

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wiggin, Bill

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

      Selous, Andrew

      Williams, Roger(Brecon)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Willis, Phil

      Simmonds, Mark

      Wilshire, David

      Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

      Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Soames, Nicholas

      (Macclesfield)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wishart, Pete

      Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

      Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

      Spring, Richard

      Young, rh Sir George

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Steen, Anthony

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Streeter, Gary

      Mr. Mark Hoban and

      Swayne, Desmond

      Angela Watkinson

      NOES

      Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

      Caton, Martin

      Ainger, Nick

      Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

      Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

      Challen, Colin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

      Allen, Graham

      Chaytor, David

      Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburghn Pentlands)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

      Austin, John

      Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Baird, Vera

      Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

      Banks, Tony

      Clelland, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Coaker, Vernon

      Battle, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Beard, Nigel

      Cohen, Harry

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Coleman, Iain

      Benn, Hilary

      Colman, Tony

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

      Benton, Joe(Bootle)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Berry, Roger

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Best, Harold

      Corston, Jean

      Blackman, Liz

      Cousins, Jim

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Crausby, David

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

      Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

      Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

      Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cummings, John

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

      Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

      Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

      Bryant, Chris

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

      Burden, Richard

      David, Wayne

      Burnham, Andy

      Davidson, Ian

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Davies, rh Denzil(Uanelli)

      Cairns, David

      Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

      Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

      Davis, rh Terry(B'ham Hodge H)

      Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Casale, Roger

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      743

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

      Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Doran, Frank

      Keen, Alan(Feltham)

      Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

      Keen, Ann(Brentford)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Kelly, Ruth(Bolton W)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kemp, Fraser

      Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Edwards, Huw

      King, Andy(Rugby)

      Efford, Clive

      Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

      Lammy, David

      Farrelly, Paul

      Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

      Fisher, Mark

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

      Foster, Michael(Worcester)

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

      Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

      Love, Andrew

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

      Galloway, George

      Luke, Iain(Dundee E)

      Gardiner, Barry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Gerrard, Neil

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      MacDonald, Calum

      Gilroy, Linda

      McDonnell, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      MacDougall, John

      Goggins, Paul

      McFall, John

      Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Grogan, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

      McWilliam, John

      Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

      Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

      Healey, John

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

      Martlew, Eric

      Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hendrick, Mark

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Miliband, David

      Heppell, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Hesford, Stephen

      Moffatt, Laura

      Heyes, David

      Mole, Chris

      Hill, Keith(Streatham)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hodge, Margaret

      Morgan, Julie

      Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Mudie, George

      Hope, Phil(Corby)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

      Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

      Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

      Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      O'Hara, Edward

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Olner, Bill

      Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

      Owen, Albert

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

      Picking, Anne

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

      Plaskitt, James

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Pollard, Kerry

      Illsley, Eric

      Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

      Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

      Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jamieson, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

      Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      744

      Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

      Tami, Mark(Alyn)

      Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

      Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

      Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

      Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

      Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Timms, Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

      Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

      Trickett, Jon

      Ruane, Chris

      Truswell, Paul

      Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

      Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Turner, Neil(Wigan)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Twigg, Derek(Halton)

      Sawford, Phil

      Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Ward, Claire

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Watts, David

      Singh, Marsha

      White, Brian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

      Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

      Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

      Smith, John(Glamorgan)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

      Woolas, Phil

      Soley, Clive

      Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

      Southworth, Helen

      Spellar, rh John

      Wright, David(Telford)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wright, Tony(Cannock)

      Stevenson, George

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and

      Stringer, Graham

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 12

      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 or a supplier of such services, or

      (b) 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 be unreasonably withheld.

      (3) Subsections (5) to (7) of section 130 shall apply in relation to a restriction falling within subsection (2) of this section as those subsections apply in relation to a prohibition or restriction falling within subsection (1) or (2) of section 130.
      (4) Section 392 applies to the powers of OFCOM to make orders under this section.'.—[Mr. Whittingdale.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Whittingdale: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal):With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 103, in page 119, line 14 [Clause 130], leave out
      'for a year or more'.
      No. 104, in page 119, line 18 [Clause 130], leave out
      'for a year or more'.
      No. 105, in page 119, line 27 [Clause 130], leave out subsection (4) and insert—
      '(4) A provision falling within subsection (2)(a) or (b) —

      (a) if it requires (expressly or otherwise) the consent of any person to be obtained before anything to which the provision relates is done, shall have effect as if it required that consent not to be unreasonably withheld;

      (b) in any other case, shall have the effect as if it required the consent of the lessor, licensor or other party to the agreement to the doing of anything to which the provision relates not to be unreasonably withheld.'.

      No. 106, in page 119, line 30 [Clause 130], leave out from 'with' to end of line 31 and insert 'an electronic communications matter'.
      No. 107, in page 119, line 38 [Clause 130], leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
      'with respect to any matter by virtue of which it falls within subsection (1) of (2).'.
      No. 108, in page 119, line 44, [Clause 130] at end insert
      'of his choice (so that he is not confined to selecting a person with an interest in any premises or to a person selected by such a person).
      (5A) The question whether consent has been unreasonably withheld in any case falling to be determined in accordance with subsection (5) shall be determined by OFCOM.
      (5B) Where OFCOM has made such a determination, proceedings for breach of any provision of a lease or other agreement falling within subsection (2), which consists of or includes failure to obtain consent before doing anything to which that provision relates, shall not be instituted or continued in any court.'.
      No. 109, in page 119, line 45, [Clause 130], leave out subsection (6).
      Government amendment No. 234.
      Amendment No. 110, in page 120, line 23, [Clause 130], leave out subsection (9).
      Amendment No. 102, in page 347, line 15 [Clause 399], at end insert—
      '(13A) Before making an order under subsection (2) appointing a day for the coming into force of section [restrictive covenants affecting freehold property], the Secretary of State shall consult OFCOM and such other persons as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate'.
      Mr. Whittingdale: New clause 12 and the associated amendments relate to the provisions dealing with restrictions in leases and licences. In the main, they are covered by clause 130, which we have not discussed yet because of the Government's timetable motion in Committee.
      The new clause and the amendments would extend choice to people who cannot put up satellite dishes or aerials on their properties. At present, many people in leased and rented properties are prevented from
      746
      obtaining television and telephony services from the provider of their choice because of restrictions in their leases or tenancy agreements. Owners of freehold properties caught by restrictive covenants also suffer from the same problem.
      For example, I understand that people living in Milton Keynes cannot put an aerial or satellite dish on their houses, whether they own or rent them. In essence, they are forced to get their television from ntl, the cable company. Milton Keynes residents are thereby denied a choice that they might want to make, and are dependent on one provider. As illustrated by the demise of Aberdeen Cable, when people were left without telephony, that can lead to unfortunate consequences.
      Landlords, landowners and property developers sometimes impose the restrictions that I have described, for a variety of reasons. They may consider that installing a satellite dish could damage the fabric of a building, or make that building a less desirable place to live. In other cases, however, the imposition of such conditions may merely be force of habit. Restrictive covenants often find their way into standard leases and other freehold agreements and are put forward by the lessor or vendor, or his solicitors, with no real consideration as to their necessity, only the desire to retain control over the premises.
      Obviously, lessees and owners can try to have such restrictions removed, but unless the landlord, or those with an interest in the covenant, willingly agree—in which case, why were the restrictions imposed in the first place?—the process of removing them can be extremely slow, expensive and cumbersome, and might even involve the Lands Tribunal and arcane bits of law.
      Michael Fabricant: For the exclusion of doubt, will my hon. Friend confirm that the new clause does not apply to conservation areas, such as those in Lichfield and other parts of the country, where, due to the antiquity of the buildings, a satellite dish would be undesirable on the main elevation?
      Mr. Whittingdale: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall deal later with circumstances in which it might be deemed reasonable to apply such restrictions. If it was reasonable, we should certainly not argue for their removal. I hope that provides my hon. Friend with some reassurance.
      In general, lessees and owners will want to continue to live in their accommodation so they are not likely to want to upset their neighbours or irritate their landlord by breaching leases or covenants. Given the risks and bureaucracy involved, and the wish not to cause too much trouble, lessees and owners are often denied a choice of supplier for television or telephony due to such restrictions. Indeed, in future that might lead to a challenge under article 10 of the European convention on human rights. That has not yet happened, but it is possible to envisage circumstances in which it might.
      Such restrictions could be extremely unhelpful in respect of the Government's declared objective of digital switchover—the time when it will be possible to switch off analogue television. They could also affect another Government objective, which we have just spent considerable time debating, of achieving higher levels of broadband penetration and internet access. For

      747
      example, if a householder was unable to receive digital terrestrial television and there was no cable in the street, he would be unable to switch over to digital television unless he was allowed to erect a satellite dish.
      Although clause 130 deals with those restrictions and it certainly has good intentions, it does not go far enough to give lessees and tenants true freedom, in practice, to choose their television or telephony supplier and to make it easier for them to exercise that choice. In particular, it does not address the issue of restrictive covenants in freehold property. That is the purpose of the new clause.
      I also want to speak to amendments Nos. 103 to 110, which relate to the position of lessees. Clause 130 permits lessors not to grant the occupier's request to consent regarding any relevant restriction, provided that the lessor does not act unreasonably. That point deals with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). It seems an appropriate balance between the rights of lessors and lessees, but how can we determine whether the lessor is acting unreasonably? Subsection (5) addresses that question, but it does not actually specify who should make the determination. The assumption must be that the matter would be for the courts, even though the clause does not specify that. So the result may well be that it is necessary to undertake fairly protracted and perhaps expensive judicial proceedings to secure the lifting of a restriction.
      Clause 130 therefore maintains a situation in which the onus is placed on the lessee or tenant to request the lessor's waiver of a restriction. However, it turns an absolute restriction into only a qualified one, the contractual effect of which is that if the lessor withholds his consent unreasonably, it puts him in breach of contract. That does not give the lessee carte blanche to proceed as though the restriction were not there. Instead, the lessee would need to take action against the lessor for breach of contract via judicial proceedings, which, as I have said, could well be protracted and costly. As a result, many lessees may decide that such action is too troublesome to pursue.
      We therefore suggest that a simpler and less daunting process is needed, and amendment No. 108 would amend clause 130(5), so that the question whether or not something is unreasonable is determined by Ofcom in accordance with that subsection and, where Ofcom acts, proceedings should not need to take place in the courts. So if Ofcom decided that a lessor has unreasonably withheld his consent, the lessee may proceed as though the consent had been given and that would not put the lessee in breach of his contract with the lessor.
      Amendment No. 108 would also amend clause 130(5) to introduce the element of choice of supplier in line with subsection (1). Without that amendment, the lessee could not be denied access to an electronic communications network or service, but he may have no choice at all as to his supplier.
      Amendment No. 105 would simplify clause 130(4) in relation to subsection (2) and, in particular, tie subsection (4) to the concept of electronic communication matters. Amendment No. 106 is rather more limited, but it is designed for the same purpose. It would ensure that subsection (4) used the same wording as subsection (2), to which it relates. As I have said,
      748
      subsection (4) refers to "an electronic communications service", whereas subsection (2) refers to "an electronic communications matter".
      I understand that, in subsection (2), it is envisaged that restrictions may apply to a broader range of matters than the choice of service provider, which is dealt with in subsections (1) and (3). Electronics communications matters are defined in subsection (7) and include, for example, the installation of aerials or satellite dishes and associated cabling. In some cases, that will affect parts of a property that are not occupied by a lessee—an issue that is dealt with in subsection (4). So clause 130(4)(b) has to be amended to give practical effect to subsection (2).
      Amendment No. 107 would simplify subsection (5), by deleting the duplicating references to electronic communications matters and electronic communications services in paragraph (a) and (b) and tying that subsection to the relevant paragraphs in subsections (1) and (2).
      Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 remove the references to "a year or more" in subsection (2). Given that subsection (1) contains no equivalent minimum requirement on the length of the lease in respect of restrictions relating to services, it is difficult to understand why such a requirement should be imposed under subsection (2), which deals with electronic communications matters. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the rationale for that discrepancy between the two subsections.
      As I said at the start, restrictive convenants are often imposed in freehold agreements, and there is no justification in our view to treat them differently from leases. That is the purpose of new clause 12, which would introduce similar arrangements to those in clause 130 to prohibit restrictions in covenants affecting freehold property.
      Finally, amendment No. 102 would place on the Secretary of State a requirement to consult those people who appear to be appropriate before clause 130 comes into force. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look kindly on those suggestions.
      Mr. Timms: First, I wish to say that Government amendment No. 234 will amend the Bill to take account of Scots law, by adding the Scots law terminology in relation to the definition of a lease contained in clause 130.
      4.45 pm
      In relation to the other amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), I shall start by outlining briefly the purpose of the clause. Essentially, it re-enacts, with some updating and improvement, section 96 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, which was aimed at stopping landlords using restrictive terms in leases unreasonably in relation to the running of telecommunications systems or access to telecommunications services by lessees. That provision has now been extended to include restrictions that limit a lessee's choice of electronic communications service provider to their landlord or a person selected by their landlord. It is intended to follow, as far as possible, what is currently provided for under existing

      749
      telecommunications licences, which will, of course, cease under the new general authorisation arrangements in the Bill.
      In relation to tenants' access to electronic communications services, clause 130(4)(a) and (b) deal with restrictive provisions in leases or premises arrangements, as they apply to things done inside a building, or for purposes connected with a provision to the lessee of such services. It is drawn widely to make it unlikely that any kind of electronic communications matter of any relevance to the lessee could fail to be caught by one or other of those subsections. With the amendment to the definition of electronic communications apparatus that I propose to move today, that would include restrictions relating to the installation of apparatus such as satellite dishes when such installation was connected with the provision of an electronic communications service to a lessee. I believe that the clause in its current form is sufficient to ensure that tenants' right of access to electronic communications services, and their freedom of choice in relation to their supplier, is not unreasonably curtailed by their landlord.
      Let me deal in a little more detail with the amendments one by one. Amendments Nos. 103 and 104, as the hon. Gentleman explained, would apply the clause to leases or premises-related agreements running for any period of time, as opposed to only those of a year or more. The restriction of a year or more follows section 96 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, which is a reasonable threshold at which the clause should bite. It is consistent with what was on the statute book previously. Under amendment No. 108, the key principle, as the hon. Gentleman explained, would become not just freedom to secure access but freedom of choice of supplier. I am not against the substance of that broader principle, but I am not certain that a change in the principle is needed. The removal of unnecessary restrictions on a lessee's choice of supplier is already adequately addressed in the clause. If I am missing something in that regard, I would be interested to see a little more detail on the issue. The two new subsections added by the rest of the amendment would make a significant change in assigning to Ofcom a role that would otherwise fall to the courts in considering the test of reasonableness. My view is that the courts should consider the test, and that that is not an appropriate role for Ofcom.
      Amendment No. 109 directly addresses the concern raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). It would remove the power that Ofcom has under subsection (6) to exclude any kind of restrictive provision from the scope of the clause. That would be wrong for the reason that he suggested: there could be occasions when restrictions are reasonable, such as preserving the character of a conservation area. No previous experience exists of how these provisions will work, because the provision of the Telecommunications Act on which the proposal is based was never brought into force. Perhaps it would therefore be wise to retain the current flexibility to make exemptions, for the reason that the hon. Gentleman stated, and to see how that works.
      750
      Amendment No. 110, by deleting subsection (9), would apply the clause automatically to any lease or agreement granted or entered into before the commencement of the section, as well as to new ones. It is an important safeguard that Ofcom has the discretion to determine whether the section should have effect in relation to any pre-existing leases. I therefore suggest that the power needs to be retained.
      I can understand why the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford has proposed new clause 12. It would extend clause 130, which applies to leasehold and similar tenures, to cover any restrictive covenants affecting freehold property. There would certainly be logic in extending the arrangements in that way, but we have to be cautious. Making changes in property law is a hazardous undertaking, affecting the rights of property owners—possibly significantly. Changes made with the best of intentions may have quite unintended consequences. I can understand the argument for making changes, but I am not sure how serious and pressing the issue is in practice. However, if we were to make changes, they would need to be carefully and fully considered and consulted on. The hon. Gentleman may accept that that would take significantly longer than the time that will be available to us during the passage of this Bill.
      The hon. Gentleman raises interesting points and there is potential for extension in future. The best reassurance I can give him is that we will review this issue in our review of the working of the new provisions in the Bill.
      Mr. Whittingdale: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Of course, I accept that tinkering with property law should be approached with some trepidation—although clause 130 does, in fact, tinker with some property law. If there are problems to do with freeholds and restricted covenants, the Minister may reconsider the issue if we are able to supply specific instances. That also applies to some of the other points in our amendments to which the Minister responded.
      I am disappointed that the Minister does not want to streamline the procedure by giving the responsibility to Ofcom rather than the courts. I can understand why he prefers the courts, but there is no doubt that that will act as a disincentive in some ways. Nevertheless, the Minister's remarks have been helpful in clarifying the Government's intentions. At this stage, we will not press this new clause and the other amendments in the group. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 19

      NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES
      (1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish and maintain National Advisory Committees for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
      (2) The Chairman and membership of these committees shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
      (3) In making such appointments in respect of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State shall seek nomination from the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively.
      (4) The National Advisory Committees may consider and advise on all aspect of OFCOM's work in respect of their individual territories.
      (5) The National Advisory committees may issue such recommendations to OFCOM or the Secretary of State with respect to their territories as they see fit.
      (6) The National Advisory Committees shall produce an annual report on their activities.'.—[Pete Wishart.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Pete Wishart: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Amendment No. 206, in page 3, line 48 [Clause 3], at end insert
      "Including through representations made by the devolved administrations of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland'.
      Amendment No. 207, in page 4, line 24 [Clause 3], at end insert—
      '(6) In performing their duties under this section OFCOM shall have a duty to consult with the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly over matters of specific concern to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.'.
      Pete Wishart: We consider new clause 19 and amendments Nos. 206 and 207 to be modest and reasonable. They would ensure one thing—that the devolved institutions are fully engaged in the new environment that will be established once the Bill is enacted. We were disappointed that the devolved institutions were, in effect, locked out when the Bill was published. The new clause and the amendments seek to address that deficit, but they fall way short of our ideals and ambitions for broadcasting in Scotland—the full devolution of broadcasting powers to the Scottish Parliament, as initially envisaged in the Scotland Act 1998. Of course, we realise that we will not achieve that; what we want to achieve with the new clause and the amendments is that the distinct broadcasting and media environment in Scotland is addressed.
      After all the consideration of this Bill—whether in discussions of the draft Bill, in pre-legislative scrutiny, or in the Standing Committee—this is our last opportunity to ensure that the devolved institutions have a voice in the new broadcasting regime. We were immensely disappointed that, when the Ofcom board was established, it contained no representatives from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. We could not secure a place at the top table. if broadcasting could not be devolved, we should have been given the second-best option: a place at the top table for all the nations of the United Kingdom.
      The establishment of the new Ofcom board has resulted in a diminution in our influence in the broadcasting regime. Previously, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland had a place on the Independent Television Commission, just as we had a place on most of the regulatory bodies. We were confident of progress on this issue, because we had powerful and influential friends who supported us. First among them was Scotland's First Minister, Jack McConnell. He was rightly concerned that the "cultural and democratic dimension" of Scottish broadcasting be protected under the new regime. He was so concerned that he wrote twice to the Secretary of State for Scotland, but he did not even get a reply on either occasion. When he eventually
      752
      received a reply, he was fobbed with the offer of places on the content board and the consumer panel, and with a vague pledge to establish Ofcom offices in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
      Like us, the First Minister agreed that Scottish listeners and viewers should be represented at the highest possible level to defend aspects that are peculiar to Scotland, such as devolved and regional television programmes, our national and regional news coverage as well as the Gaelic service and our dynamic media sector. He was convinced that they needed protecting, and rightly so. However, is it not a pity that his London-based colleagues could not be convinced? Is it not a pity that Scotland's champion in the Cabinet could not be convinced and was working not for the Scottish interests but against them? More than anything, that convinces us that the Scotland Office and the Secretary of State's post should be abolished and that the money secured should be put into front-line services in Scotland.
      I read the transcript of the Committee proceedings, and I do not know whether it was better to be involved in the Committee or to read the report. However, I saw that six Labour Members were on the Committee and none of them supported the case for an enhanced role for Scotland in the new broadcasting environment. All of them supported a diminished role for Scotland.
      Given that we shall experience a diminishment in our influence in the new regime, we tabled the new clause and amendments to try to get not the best solution for Scotland and not even the best solution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom context; we seek a very poor third choice, which is simply that the devolved institutions have a role in the workings of Ofcom. Instead of being enabled to, Ofcom should be compelled to establish national advisory committees in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We want better integration between Ofcom and the devolved institutions.
      As a matter of good practice, Ofcom should consult the devolved bodies anyway, and I understand that David Currie has had communications with the devolved Assemblies. However, the Bill should make it clear that that should happen and Ofcom should receive direction on the type of consultation that it should have with the devolved Governments. Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 try to deal with that point.
      Amendment No. 207 states:
      "Ofcom shall have a duty to consult with the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly over matters of specific concern to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland."
      What on earth is wrong with that? It is not as though we are asking the Scottish Parliament to compel Ofcom to do anything in particular. We do not even say that Ofcom must agree with the Scottish Parliament. The amendment merely asks for Ofcom to consult the Scottish Parliament. I do not see the problem with such a demand.
      New clause 19(1) states:
      "It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish and maintain National Advisory Committees for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."
      The committees would assist Ofcom with its work in the devolved institutions. They would review its work and suggest ways forward in the nations of the United

      753
      Kingdom. We also ask Ofcom to produce an annual report for consideration by the devolved Governments. The committees would be independent of Government and would be appointed by the relevant Secretary of State. That would introduce an element of citizenship—an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) constantly raises—in Ofcom's working, and that must be welcome.
      Our proposals are sensible and reasonable. As I have said, Scotland has a distinctive broadcasting environment, so it is sensible to have a distinct body that could communicate and advise about the distinct issues that will arise within the nations of the United Kingdom. The new clause and amendments simply seek to establish that Ofcom would operate under the Bill in ways that would replicate or extend the pattern of representation that we had in the past.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: My hon. Friend has support from an unexpected quarter. I have with me the Welsh Assembly Government's current position on the Bill that was dated January 2003. The Welsh Assembly Government are, of course, a Labour-Liberal Democrat Assembly Government, but the document states:
      "Along with the Scottish and Northern Ireland Executives, the Assembly Government asked for a designated member for Wales on Ofcom's central board. This was rejected. The lack of a designated member for Wales effectively reduces Wales's voice at the UK level and denies Wales an all-important part in the strategic leadership role of the board."
      Surely, if an Assembly Government asks for something from a Government in Westminster with the same political complexion, we should expect some leeway and an agreement to be hammered out. Why has that not happened?
      Pete Wishart: I wish that I could answer my hon. Friend's question. Perhaps the Welsh Assembly Government were desperate to fall in line with what was requested from Scotland, which was almost identical. I understand that a similar request was made from Northern Ireland. What I do not understand—I share my hon. Friend's exasperation—is why it was rejected here. Why did Labour members of the Committee object? That baffles me entirely.
      5 pm
      Mr. Alan Reid: I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend to the fact that the Governments in Scotland and Wales are of a different political complexion from the Government here. There are Liberal Democrat Members in those Governments, which is why they are better.
      Pete Wishart: I wish that I could concur with the hon. Gentleman, but he will excuse me if I do not endorse that view.
      All we are asking is to be given the level of representation that we have under the existing regime. These modest amendments attempt to address the rebalancing between the nations of the United Kingdom and the establishment of the Ofcom board. It is neither the best solution nor the second best—it is a poor third
      754
      solution, but at least it would do something to ensure that the nations of the United Kingdom have a voice in the new communications regime.
      John Robertson: I had intended not to take part in this debate, but merely to make interventions, but the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) threw out a line and I bit.[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is not being very friendly given that I am about to support much of what he said. The fact that there were so many Scottish Labour Members on the Committee meant that Scotland was well represented. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) will testify to the fact that we spoke together on many clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion spoke about Gaelic and Welsh language matters. It is therefore somewhat disingenuous to say that we did not do our bit for Scotland or, for that matter, Wales or Northern Ireland—I spoke about Northern Ireland myself.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: It was a pleasure to have the hon. Gentleman on the Committee, but it would be fair to say that altogether the six Scottish Members probably spoke for about one hundredth of the time. As the Committee had only 26 members, they should have spoken for 25 or 20 per cent. of the time.
      John Robertson: After an intervention like that, it is probably not surprising that we did not speak for longer, unlike Conservative Front Benchers, who overdid it by repeatedly labouring the point on many occasions.
      I accept the basic argument that it is important that the regions, not only Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, are represented as nations. In Committee, we had the argument about regions and nations. It is important to have such recognition. Opposition Members may remember, however, that we also argued in Committee about the size of Ofcom. Ofcom is a completely different kind of body from previous bodies such as Oftel. If it represented everything in terms of regions and nations, as well as every single aspect of communications in the tier 1 hierarchy, its size would be unworkable, to say the least.
      The hon. Member for North Tayside is right that David Currie said that he would look favourably upon Scotland and the other two nations when he considered the makeup of committees for the regions, and he has stated that he will consult the Scottish Executive on that matter. That answers some of the hon. Gentleman's questions. He will not get everything that he wants, but the Ofcom chairman is making the right noises. It is not fair to say that there is a diminished role for Scotland within Ofcom, given that five bodies have been incorporated into the one. I should like a Scot and someone from each region to serve on the board, but that cannot happen. It is not right to claim that because Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland are not represented, the system is unfair. We account for only one ninth of the population, so if there are fewer than nine people on the board, someone has to suffer.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. However, in the Standing Committee on the Office of Communications Act 2002, which established

      755
      Ofcom, I tabled an amendment to increase Ofcom's membership from nine to a figure to be determined by the Secretary of State. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about the relationship between the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales and Whitehall? It is a much-vaunted relationship and we are told that a Labour Executive in both places leads to a better working relationship. So when those Executives say not once, not twice, but three times that they want such changes to be included in the framework of this Bill, does he not think that we, as UK MPs who legislate for the UK as a whole, should listen to them?
      John Robertson: As I said, not everyone can be included on the Ofcom board. It is for Ofcom to decide whether to appoint a Scot, a Welshman or an Irishman. The board would have to be bigger if the devolved Parliaments were to be represented. We had a long discussion about Ofcom's size in Committee. It was originally going to have only three members. We cannot continue to increase it because it will become cumbersome and will not work. We want less regulation, not more. A bigger board would mean more people to put forward ideas and a greater number of arguments. That would stop it reaching a reasonable decision. A regional board could deal with local decisions. David Currie was happy to have that arrangement. In fact, he insisted that it was important and it is being considered.
      Scotland has diverse communication and entertainment needs. It is important that we are represented at a certain level, but if a Scot, a Welshman and an Irishman serve on Ofcom, eight ninths of the country would be represented by only two people who could also be Scottish, Welsh or Irish. It is not the nationality that counts; what matters is that Ofcom works and the interests of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and all the regions of England are well looked after. That is the most important thing.
      Mr. Alan Reid: I support new clause 19 and amendments Nos. 206 and 207. It is correct that Ofcom is a UK-wide regulatory body, because it is self-evident that broadcasting and communication affects the whole of the UK. However, some aspects of broadcasting affect Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland differently from England, so it is also correct that the system of advisory bodies, consultation and representation proposed in the amendments should be included in the Bill. For example, the political and news coverage in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is different because of the presence of the devolved Parliaments and Administrations in those countries. In addition, Scotland will have the Gaelic media service and Wales will have various Welsh language services. We need to take care of those different concerns in Scotland and Wales.
      Rural issues affect Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland much more than they affect England. I accept that the difficulty of accessing broadband is also a problem for rural areas of England, but the low population density in Scotland means that the problem is more prominent there. The sparsity of population in the highlands makes it difficult to persuade BT to enable exchanges for broadband. The threat of the analogue switch-off affects far more people in the highlands of
      756
      Scotland than elsewhere, as many villages in highland glens surrounded by high mountains rely on self-help relay schemes to receive television signals.
      Because of those issues and similar ones, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have different needs, and I hope that the Government accept the amendments. I do not see how they can possibly oppose the system of advisory bodies, representations and consultations that they propose. Surely, that is good Government practice, so I hope that the Government will accept them.
      Mr. Timms: In Committee, a similar amendment to new clause 19 was eloquently moved by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and debated, but he could not persuade us of its merits. My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting pointed out to hon. Members at the time that it is essential to bear in mind the fact that the vast majority of Ofcom's functions and responsibilities do not relate to devolved matters. I appreciate that there are areas of overlap with devolved matters, but measures are in place to ensure that the interests of the nations and regions are taken into account. There is therefore no need for committees such as those proposed in the new clause.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I should like to make two points. First, there is a material difference between these amendments and those that I tabled in Committee, where I proposed that those bodies review Ofcom's work. The Minister will note that my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) is not making such a proposal—the committees would be advisory and would not deal with statutory legislation.
      Secondly, how would the Minister react if the Welsh and the Scottish Executives set up their own bodies, as they are perfectly entitled to do, to provide advice on Ofcom's work in Wales and Scotland? That would be—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is getting rather lengthy for an intervention. I think that the Minister has got the point.
      Mr. Timms: The matter is entirely for those Executives. However, the House should acknowledge the fact that the Bill specifically addresses those concerns. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) spoke about the devolved Administrations having a diminished role, but that is not the case at all, and is a mistaken characterisation of the Bill. We have included a specific provision, clause 1, which requires Ofcom to establish and maintain offices in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. The hon. Gentleman referred to a vague provision; clearly, he has not read clause 1, which includes specific requirements. The content board and the consumer panel will have designated members who can represent the interests of people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as set out in clause 11. Ofcom has started to look for people to fill those positions.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) referred to the fact that we are exploring consultative arrangements to support the national representatives on the content board and the consumer panel, and there will be discussions between officials, devolved Administrations and Ofcom.

      757
      Ofcom will also agree memorandums of understanding with the relevant Secretaries of State on issues such as consultation on national appointments; the holding of regular meetings with the devolved Administrations; and the production of an account in Ofcom's annual report of its activities in the nations. The Bill now fully addresses the concerns that the hon. Member for North Tayside and others have expressed in debate.
      On amendment No. 206, Ofcom is already required under clause 331 to have regard to the different interests of the various parts of the UK in carrying out its duties. The clause ensures that Ofcom will bear those interests in mind throughout its deliberations. The Bill does not specify how those interests may be expressed, but it will be possible for the devolved Administrations, along with others, to make representations in their chosen form and for Ofcom to take them into account. There is no need to include in the Bill the specific provision proposed in amendment No. 206. Of course it is tempting to believe that Ofcom should be expanded to include a person to address each of the concerns specifically. In reality, Ofcom as a whole should address those concerns, and the Bill provides for that.
      5.15 pm
      Pete Wishart: There seems to be a general misunderstanding about what we are trying to secure through the amendments. We want to improve the relationship between the devolved institutions and the Ofcom board. We are not asking for anything more than that. It is reasonable to suggest that for good governance there should be a proper relationship between the devolved institutions and the Ofcom board, and I do not see why there should be any objection to that.
      With regard to the number on the Ofcom board, I do not find the argument of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) convincing. Perhaps we should further reduce the number of Scottish MPs—I am sure that that would go some way towards improving the representation of Scotland. It is a ridiculous argument that representation would be improved by making a smaller body that does not take account of the interests of the different nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
      To suggest, as the Minister did, that we do not have a diminished role is utter nonsense. We had a place on the ITC board; we had a place on the other national regulatory boards; we do not have a place on the Ofcom board. That represents a diminution of our role and our influence in the new broadcasting regime. The Minister shakes his head, but how can he say—
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. When the Minister summed up his case, he said that the matters in question were not devolved, so why should there be representation for Wales? The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) pointed out that we had such representation. If it was okay pre-devolution for Wales and Scotland to be represented on those bodies, why is it not okay post-devolution?
      Pete Wishart: As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Minister will have to consider that.
      758
      We had a place pre-devolution. Now, somehow, because we have a Parliament and national assemblies, our role is diminished. I do not understand the Minister's argument. All the amendments seek to do is establish a proper relationship between the devolved institutions and the Ofcom board. I am disappointed that the Minister cannot accept that, so unfortunately we shall press the matter to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 415.

      Division No. 99]

      [5:17 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Barrett, John

      Moore, Michael

      Berth, rh A. J.

      Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Burnett, John

      Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

      Burnham, Andy

      Öpik, Lembit

      Burns, Simon

      Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Burnside, David

      Burstow, Paul

      Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Rendel, David

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Robertson, Angus(Moray)

      Chidgey, David

      Salmond, Alex

      Cotter, Brian

      Sanders, Adrian

      Cummings, John

      Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

      Davey, Edward(Kingston)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Doughty, Sue

      Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

      Etherington, Bill

      Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Thurso, John

      Foster, Don(Bath)

      Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

      Garnier, Edward

      Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      George, Andrew(St. Ives)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Turner, Neil(Wigan)

      Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

      Viggers, Peter

      Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Webb, Steve(Northavon)

      Harvey, Nick

      Weir, Michael

      Heath, David

      Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Williams, Roger(Brecon)

      Holmes, Paul

      Willis, Phil

      Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      (Macclesfield)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

      Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Woodward, Shaun

      Lamb, Norman

      Worthington, Tony

      Laws, David(Yeovil)

      Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      MacShane, Denis

      Pete Wishart and

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Mr. Simon Thomas

      NOES

      Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

      Baird, Vera

      Ainger, Nick

      Baldry, Tony

      Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

      Banks, Tony

      Alexander, Douglas

      Barker, Gregory

      Allen, Graham

      Barnes, Harry

      Amess, David

      Baron, John(Billericay)

      Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

      Battle, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Beard, Nigel

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bellingham, Henry

      Austin, John

      Benn, Hilary

      Bacon, Richard

      Bennett, Andrew

      Bailey, Adrian

      Benton, Joe(Bootle)

      759

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

      Berry, Roger

      Best, Harold

      Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

      Blackman, Liz

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blunt, Crispin

      Denham, rh John

      Boswell, Tim

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

      Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

      Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Brady, Graham

      Doran, Frank

      Brazier, Julian

      Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

      Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Bryant, Chris

      Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Eagle, Maria(L'poolGarston)

      Burden, Richard

      Edwards, Huw

      Burnett, John

      Efford, Clive

      Burnham, Andy

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Burns, Simon

      Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

      Burt, Alistair

      Evans, Nigel

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Cairns, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Cameron, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

      Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Casale, Roger

      Fisher, Mark

      Cash, William

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Caton, Martin

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

      Flight, Howard

      Challen, Colin

      Flook, Adrian

      Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

      Forth, rh Eric

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Foster, Michael(Worcester)

      Chaytor, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

      Chope, Christopher

      Clapham, Michael

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Clappison, James

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

      Francois, Mark

      Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Garnier, Edward

      Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

      George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

      Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

      Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Clelland, David

      Gilroy, Linda

      Coaker, Vernon

      Godsiff, Roger

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Goggins, Paul

      Cohen, Harry

      Goodman, Paul

      Coleman, Iain

      Gray, James(N Wilts)

      Collins, Tim

      Grayling, Chris

      Colman, Tony

      Green, Damian(Ashford)

      Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

      Greenway, John

      Cooper, Yvette

      Grieve, Dominic

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

      Cran, James(Beverley)

      Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

      Crausby, David

      Grogan, John

      Cruddas, Jon

      Gummer, rh John

      Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

      Hague, rh William

      Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Cummings, John

      Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

      Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

      (Copeland)

      Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

      Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

      Hammond, Philip

      Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Dalyell, Tam

      Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

      Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

      Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      David, Wayne

      Davidson, Ian

      Hawkins, Nick

      Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

      Hayes, John(S Holland)

      Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

      Healey, John

      760

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Luke, Iain(Dundee E)

      Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Hendrick, Mark

      McCafferty, Chris

      Hendry, Charles

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hepburn, Stephen

      MacDonald, Calum

      Heppell, John

      McDonnell, John

      Hesford, Stephen

      MacDougall, John

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      McFall, John

      Heyes, David

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hill, Keith(Streatham)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

      McKechin, Ann

      Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hope, Phil(Corby)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Horam, John(Orpington)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

      McNulty, Tony

      Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      MacShane, Denis

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

      McWilliam, John

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Malins, Humfrey

      Hunter, Andrew

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

      Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

      Hutton, rh John

      Maples, John

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Illsley, Eric

      Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Martlew, Eric

      Jack, rh Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Mercer, Patrick

      Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Jamieson, David

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Miliband, David

      Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

      Miller, Andrew

      Johnson, Boris(Henley)

      Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Mole, Chris

      Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

      Morgan, Julie

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Morley, Elliot

      Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Moss, Malcolm

      Keen, Alan(Feltham)

      Mountford, Kali

      Keen, Ann(Brentford)

      Mudie, George

      Kelly, Ruth(Bolton W)

      Mullin, Chris

      Key, Robert(Salisbury)

      Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Murphy, rh Paul(Torfaen)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      King, Andy(Rugby)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      O'Hara, Edward

      Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

      Olner, Bill

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Osborne, George(Tatton)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

      Lammy, David

      Page, Richard

      Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

      Paice, James

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Leigh, Edward

      Picking, Anne

      Leslie, Christopher

      Pickthall, Colin

      Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

      Plaskitt, James

      Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

      Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Pound, Stephen

      Linton, Martin

      Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

      Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

      Loughton, Tim

      Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

      Love, Andrew

      Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

      Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

      Purchase, Ken

      761

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Stringer, Graham

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Rammell, Bill

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Randall, John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

      Syms, Robert

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Tami, Mark(Alyn)

      Redwood, rh John

      Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

      Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

      Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

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

      Taylor, Ian(Esher)

      Taylor, John(Solihull)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

      Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

      Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

      Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

      Timms, Stephen

      Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

      Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

      Tredinnick, David

      Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

      Trickett, Jon

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Truswell, Paul

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

      Rooney, Terry

      Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      Ruane, Chris

      Ruffley, David

      Turner, Neil(Wigan)

      Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

      Twigg, Derek(Halton)

      Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

      Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sawford, Phil

      Walter, Robert

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Ward, Claire

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Selous, Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Watkinson, Angela

      Sheerman, Barry

      Watts, David

      Shepherd, Richard

      White, Brian

      Sheridan, Jim

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Whittingdale, John

      Simmonds, Mark

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Singh, Marsha

      Wiggin, Bill

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

      Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

      Wilshire, David

      Wilson, Brian

      Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

      Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Smith, John(Glamorgan)

      (Macclesfield)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

      Soley, Clive

      Southworth, Helen

      Woodward, Shaun

      Spellar, rh John

      Woolas, Phil

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wright, Anthony D.(Gt

      Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

      Yarmouth)

      Spring, Richard

      Wright, David(Telford)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Wright, Tony(Cannock)

      Steen, Anthony

      Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Young, rh Sir George

      Stevenson, George

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Gillian Merron and

      Streeter, Gary

      Mr. Fraser Kemp)

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 20

      DUTY RELATING TO DISABLED USERS
      'It shall be the duty of OFCOM to encourage electronic communications network operators and terminal equipment manufacturers to cooperate in order to facilitate access by disabled users to electronic communications services.'.—[Mr. Mr. Simon Thomas.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Amendment No. 209, in page 61, line 44 [Clause 61], at end insert—
      '(e)apparatus for endusers with disabilities, which is capable of being used in connection with an electronic communications service.'.
      Amendment No. 70, in page 136, line 23 [Clause 149], at end insert—
      '(d) the need to ensure sufficient spectrum is available for the transmission of audiodescription, a textbased teletext service and other services designed to meet the needs of disabled people.'.
      Amendment No. 71, in page 137, line 35 [Clause 151], at end insert—
      '(6) In exercising his powers under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to ensure sufficient spectrum is made available for the transmission of audiodescription, a textbased teletext service and other services designed to meet the needs of disabled people.'.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Thomas: New clause 20 is intended to ensure the implementation of a key facet of the European Union framework directive—the importance of regulators encouraging network operators and terminal equipment manufacturers to co-operate in order to facilitate disabled users' access to electronic communication services. We need to bridge the gap so that disabled people are not denied access to mobile phones, digital radio or digital television simply because the equipment does not meet their needs.
      Electronic networks and services that cannot be accessed because the equipment at the user end fails to meet the user's needs is a bit like a train that, although fully accessible, cannot be boarded by disabled people unless steps are provided at the station. Deaf and deaf-blind people cannot gain access to emergency services if no usable text terminal is available, or if the equipment is available but prohibitively expensive. All of us who use mobile phones regularly should consider how difficult it would be for us to use them, or to use digital radios, if we could not read the visual display and there was no audio alternative. It is now possible for visual displays to be read out in audio form by computer software, but we have not been able to extend that to more portable IT products such as mobile phones.
      Amendment No. 209 is intended to give the Secretary of State power to consider terminal equipment for people with disabilities in determining the scope of universal service. It goes to the heart of the Bill. We have a universal service provision, and it is important for that to include such equipment. Ofcom would have a duty to promote inclusive design, and to take account of the small number of people who may not ever be reached by a completely liberalised telecommunications market because of their disabilities.
      This is not the first time that we have considered these matters. Until the 1990s, BT was obliged to ensure that its telephones met the needs of, for instance, people with hearing impairments with inductive coupling. I understand that in Denmark text phones are readily

      763
      available to deaf, deaf-blind and speech-impaired people through Danish Telecom at subsidised prices. Last month the Government acknowledged the importance of that principle when they backed the establishment of an advisory committee on disability access by the European Commission's communications committee. It will consider the whole issue of terminal equipment, along with other aspects of access for disabled people.
      The new clause and the amendment tabled in my name are important, as are the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). I am sure that he will wish to speak to those amendments. It is important, even at this fag-end of our discussion of the Bill, that we take the opportunity once again to ensure that the needs of disabled people are debated on the Floor of the House of Commons and that we properly consider the matter. I hope that the Minister's response will be as positive as possible, so that we do not need to divide the House on this issue, and so that we will know that the Government have listened to the lobbying by people with disabilities of us, as Members of Parliament and, more importantly, of the Minister as the representative of the Government here tonight.
      Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of new clause 20. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) will recall that, as early as our third sitting in Committee, I was the first to raise the concerns of the disabled, the blind, the partially sighted and the hard of hearing. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that I was trying to make in Committee, which is that it is all very well for the Government to rely on clause 3(3)(i), which places a duty on Ofcom to have regard to the needs of disabled persons and those on low incomes, but many elderly people—let alone those who are partially sighted—find telecommunications equipment extremely difficult to use. We had an interesting discussion in Committee about how we could better encourage equipment manufacturers to have regard to the needs of the disabled—and, especially, of the elderly—when designing items such as the zappers that help us to get the maximum use from our television sets, videos and so on.
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion has hit on a good point in his amendment, in that it would require Ofcom merely
      "to encourage electronic communications network operators and terminal equipment manufacturers to co-operate".
      There would be no intense obligation. Having discussed this issue on a number of occasions in Committee, and notwithstanding the direct reference to the needs of the disabled, the elderly and those on low incomes in the Bill, there remains the overwhelming sense that a little more needs to be done. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will be able to say something in his reply to the hon. Gentleman that will encourage us to feel that Ministers might decide, if not here today but in the other place, to go a little further. The organisations that represent the people about whom we are concerned feel that more needs to be done, and their voice needs to be heard. I hope that the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman has suggested will commend itself to the Minister.
      Nick Harvey: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 70 and 71. The future provision of audio-description,
      764
      accessible teletext services and other services for disabled people will depend entirely on an adequate spectrum allocation. If that does not happen, any provisions that might be put into the Bill, now or subsequently, risk being made redundant simply by the lack of a joined-up spectrum policy. We are not talking about a vast amount of spectrum. Audio-description, for example, can be delivered very efficiently. It would not do to have the delivery of key services jeopardised by a lack of adequate foresight. The amendments would tackle this issue by ensuring that the Secretary of State and Ofcom had such issues at the forefront of their mind. Rejecting the amendments out of hand, however, would send the very negative signal to disabled people that their rights and needs were not being given adequate priority.
      Michael Fabricant: I rise in broad support of all of the amendments, but I want briefly to raise one specific point. In the light of the comments of the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), the Minister will be aware that clear audio can and ought to be provided, as long as sufficient spectrum is made available. However, we in the United Kingdom have a specific problem with our type of television equipment, which can make reception of cable and digital terrestrial clear audio impossible, partly because of the way in which Nicam is transmitted. Again, Ofcom could be made to knock heads together on this issue, and I hope that the Minister will be fairly active in that regard.
      Mr. Timms: I welcome the close interest that has been taken in this Bill by people with disabilities and their representatives—the Royal National Institute of the Blind has been particularly active—through the recent lobby and through letters and calls to Members of the House, who have passed on those concerns to us. We are committed to an inclusive society in which everybody can play a part, and we have honoured that commitment in the Bill and in the framework that we are setting for Ofcom.
      At the heart of everything that Ofcom will do are its general duties, which are set out in clause 3. Clause 3(3)(i) requires Ofcom to have regard to
      "the needs of persons with disabilities, of the elderly and of those on low incomes".
      That central duty places the needs of people with disabilities at the heart of the Bill, and of Ofcom's responsibilities.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Timms: I will give way very briefly.
      Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister. He has just mentioned the current content of the Bill, but how will Government amendment No. 215—which we passed earlier, and which imposes on Ofcom a duty in terms of the community as a whole—impact on disabled people?
      Mr. Timms: The real comfort for people with disabilities is the specific reference in clause 3(3)(i), rather than the changes that we discussed earlier.
      The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make an order setting out the universal services to be provided throughout the UK. We have already launched a

      765
      consultation on a draft order, which requires that all reasonable steps be taken to ensure that special measures are widely publicised, taking into consideration the needs of disabled users. We are extremely keen that people with sensory impairments be able to take advantage of all the benefits of digital television through improved access to services. The provision of subtitling, signing and audio description greatly enhances their opportunities, and allows them to benefit from the advances being made in television.
      Clause 295 requires Ofcom to draw up, publish and maintain a code that gives guidance on the extent to which television services should promote the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by people who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted. The clause establishes targets for at least 90 per cent. of Channel 3 and Channel 4 programmes to be subtitled, for 80 per cent. of programmes on other channels to be subtitled, for 10 per cent. of programmes to be audio-described, and for 5 per cent. to be translated into sign language. I heard what the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said about clear audio, which is also an important point.
      On new clause 20, we have supported the work of the regulatory committee—set up under RATTE, the telecommunications terminal equipment directive—in investigating ways of improving access to equipment for the disabled, and we will continue to support that work. There could be further technical issues relating to network standards and specifications that would touch on Ofcom's responsibilities. Where such issues arise and, where Ofcom can play a useful role by encouraging such co-operation, I am confident that its existing duties will ensure that it does play such a role. I hope that hon. Members will gain some reassurance from that.
      Amendment No. 209 seeks to add to the matters that could be covered by the Secretary of State's order under clause 61 by including apparatus for users with disabilities. However, adding terminal equipment to that list would be outside the scope of the universal services mandated by the directives. The Secretary of State would have no power to require equipment to be provided as part of those services, so we cannot accept that amendment.
      Amendment No. 70 is not needed to achieve its desired effect. The mechanism to ensure that Ofcom will have regard to the needs of persons with disabilities—and in particular to the benefits that they will get from the provision of audio-description, signing, subtitling and text services—is already in place.
      I have drawn the widespread concern about these matters to the attention of the chairman of Ofcom, the noble Lord Currie. He has emphasised to me how seriously Ofcom will treat these concerns, and that it will organise in order to deliver effectively on its very important responsibilities to disabled people. That intention is ground for considerable encouragement among the many people who have raised concerns about this issue in recent weeks.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I welcome the Minister's comments about the present chair of Ofcom and the way in which that body has been charged with a social responsibility towards people with disabilities. Provision of the equipment is useful not only for disabled people but for a wide range of people, including the elderly, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) suggested. It is important that we put pressure on manufacturers, as new clause 20 suggested, to encourage them to improve their practice.
      I am sure that the Minister will remember discussing similar amendments in Committee. We were told that a conference had been held, but nothing happened. Blame can be laid at all doors, but we must ensure that the matter does not stagnate for years simply because nothing has changed so far. The Minister has confirmed that Ofcom should continue to knock heads together to ensure that progress is made. The DTI and the DCMS do not always have their eye on the ball on this issue, but Ofcom can concentrate on it so that the needs of disabled people are considered at all times.
      In the light of what the Minister has said, and the fact that we need to progress to another set of important amendments that would affect people with disabilities, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 22

      LIMITS ON OWNERSHIP OF NATIONAL DAILY AND SUNDAY NEWSPAPERS
      '.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Office of Fair Trading to exercise their powers under this section to secure that, within a period of one year after the coming into force of this section, no person runs more than one national daily newspaper and no person runs more than one national Sunday newspaper.
      (2) In pursuance of the duty specified in subsection (1) the Office of Fair Trading may issue an enforcement order which may provide for—

      (a) the division of any business (whether by the sale of any part of the undertaking or assets or otherwise);

      (b) the division of any group of interconnected bodies corporate;

      (3) The provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40) shall apply to an enforcement order under subsection (2) as if that order were an order under section 86 of that Act.
      (4) In this section the expression "runs a newspaper" shall be construed in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 2 to this Act:.—[Mr. Mullin.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Chris Mullin:I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      New clause 26—Reviews and report by OFCOM on compliance with Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice in context of newspaper mergers—
      'After section 44A of the Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40) (additional investigation and report by OFCOM: newspaper mergers) there shall be inserted—
      "44B Further investigation and report by OFCOM on compliance with Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice

      767
      (1) This section applies where—

      (a) the Secretary of State has given an intervention notice in relation to a relevant merger situation; and

      (b) the intervention notice mentions any newspaper public interest consideration.

      (2) OFCOM may, within the period required by the Secretary for a report under section 44A, give a report to the Secretary of State on the compliance of newspapers affected by the relevant merger situation with the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice.
      (3) Any report given under subsection (2) shall contain OFCOM's advice on the relevance of any information about the compliance of newspapers affected by the relevant merger situation with the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice to any newspaper public interest consideration mentioned in the intervention notice concerned and which is or may be relevant to the Secretary of State's decision as to whether to make a reference under section 45.
      (4) For the purposes of carrying out their functions under subsections (2) and (3), OFCOM shall, from time to time, review the operation of the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice.
      (5) In this section—
      "the Press Complaints Commission" means the body first established in 1991, and
      "the Code of Practice" means 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 Code after the coming into force of this section).".'.
      Amendment No. 163, in page 319, line 33, leave out Clause 365.
      Amendment No. 73, in page 320, line 6, at end insert—
      '(2C) The need for transparency in the capital and control structures of businesses that run a local or national newspaper is specified in this section.".'.
      Amendment No. 164, in page 320, line 7, leave out Clause 366.
      Amendment No. 74, in page 320, line 23, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert ', (2B) or (2C)'.
      Amendment No. 165, in page 320, line 30, leave out Clause 367.
      Amendment No. 166, in page 321, line 11, leave out Clause 368.
      Government amendments Nos. 279 to 289.
      Amendment No. 167, in page 322, line 40, leave out Clause 369.
      Amendment No. 75, in page 322, line 46, leave out 'or (2B))' and insert', (2B) or (2C))'.
      Amendment No. 76, in page 323, line 8, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert', (2B) or (2C)'.
      Amendment No. 168, in page 323, line 11, leave out Clause 370.
      Amendment No. 77, in page 323, line 21, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert', (2B) or (2C)'.
      Amendment No. 78, in page 323, line 29, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert',(2B) or (2C)'.
      Amendment No. 169, in page 323, line 38, leave out Clause 371.
      Amendment No. 79, in page 324, line 7, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert', (2B) or (2C)'.
      Amendment No. 170, in page 324, line 17, leave out Clause 372.
      768
      Amendment No. 171, in page 325, line 30, leave out Clause 373.
      Amendment No. 80, in page 325, line 34, leave out 'and (2B)' and insert 'to 2(C)'.
      Amendment No. 81, in page 325, line 40, leave out 'and (2B)' and insert 'to 2(C)'.
      Amendment No. 172, in page 326, line 7, leave out Clause 374.
      Amendment No. 173, in page 326, line 25, leave out Clause 375.
      Amendment No. 174, in page 327, line 1, leave out Clause 376.
      Amendment No. 82, in page 327, line 7, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert', (2B) or 2(C)'.
      Amendment No. 175, in page 327, line 16, leave out Clause 377.
      Amendment No. 83, in page 327, line 25, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert', (2B) or 2(C)'.
      Amendment No. 176, in page 328, line 3, leave out Clause 378.
      Amendment No. 177, in page 328, line 12, leave out Clause 379.
      Amendment No. 178, in page 473, line 1, leave out Schedule 16.
      Government amendment No. 290.
      Mr. Mullin: New clause 22 is a simple clause that invites the Office of Fair Trading to specify, within a year, that a national newspaper corporation or individual proprietor shall be permitted to own only one daily and one Sunday newspaper, and should put all other newspapers on the market. It should appeal to anyone who agrees with me that the free flow of information is the lifeblood of democracy.
      Both the main political parties, when in government, have—I was going to say paid lip service to—expressed their support for the principle of pluralism and democracy. The Labour Government's consultation on media ownership stated in 2001:
      "We want a plurality of voices giving the citizen access to a variety of views."
      It ruled out a dependence on the marketplace or competition to deliver that principle, continuing:
      Competition law is not designed to deliver diversity and plurality in the media."
      Amen to that. The Conservative Government, in their consultation on media ownership in 1995, stated:
      "A free and diverse media are an indispensable part of the democratic process. Special media ownership rules are needed therefore to provide safeguards necessary to maintain diversity and plurality."
      By some inexplicable oversight, the Bill contains nothing that gives expression to those lofty principles, at least as far as newspapers are concerned. The purpose of the new clause is to make good that omission. The proprietor most affected—although not the only one—would be Mr. Murdoch, who owns about a third of our national newspapers, as well as a satellite television company. He would be required, under new clause 22, to choose between The Times and The Sun, and between The Sunday Times and the News of the World. Everything else would have to go on the market.

      769
      I do not want to exaggerate: the new clause would result in only a modest gain, given the long queue of unsavoury characters that forms whenever a national newspaper comes on the market, but it is right in principle. If we wanted to go further, we could lay down a few ground rules that applicants for the ownership of a national newspaper might have to live up to. The new clause is just a way to start the ball rolling. It has the merit of simplicity, and I commend it to the House.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) will get a chance to say a few words about new clause 26, which I strongly support. It would require Ofcom to report on whether newspapers involved in mergers have complied with the Press Complaints Commission's code of conduct. Like my new clause, it is very modest. I know—because he tabled amendments to that effect that were not selected for debate—that my hon. Friend wanted to go a wee bit further, and require Ofcom to report from time to time on the newspaper industry's compliance with its own code of practice.
      The House should be aware that the code of practice is the industry's own; it was not laid down by the House or someone else. That shows how very modest new clause 26 is. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House went a bit further the other day when he suggested that the industry's code of practice should be entrenched in law, with penalties for breach. I thought that that was very interesting. Given that it comes from such a senior member of the Government, I have no doubt that it will be taken very seriously.
      However, all that is beyond the modest scope of new clause 26, which is in keeping with the modest ambitions possible in the short time available. I have no doubt that, if it ever came to pass, it would trigger all the usual hypocrisy about the threat to freedom of the press. As we all know, however, we do not have a free press in this country; it is owned by a handful of corporations and rich men. On the whole, they are shameless in their abuse of the power that they have.
      I shall end what I have to say in respect of new clause 26 with something that I hope will help my hon. Friend the Minister. I have dug out of the excellent account by Mr. Max Hastings of his life and times at The Daily Telegraph a passage relating to the PCC. I know that the Minister will find it of interest. Mr. Hastings wrote that some British newspapers flourish on habitual indifference as to whether what they print might be true or not. He went on to name the editor of the People as one of the editors of the titles to which he was referring, I think because the latter was an adjudicator on the PCC. Mr. Hastings said that those editors were invited to take their turns as members of the PCC, but that the commission was diminished by the participation of journalists, who should be perceived as being beyond the pale. Perhaps he had in mind Mr. Paul Dacre, who plays a major part in the Harmsworth lie machine and who also sits on the PCC, impartially arbitrating on complaints.
      Brian White: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Mullin: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I want to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush time to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.
      770
      Mr. Hastings goes on to say that the PCC will never deserve much regard from the public as long as it appears willing to justify obvious excesses by some of the newspapers which pay its bills. There we are. All that is grist to the mill of new clause 26. I support new clause 26, and I invite the House to support new clause 22 as well.
      Mr. Whittingdale: In respect of new clause 22, I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that we need plurality and diversity, but our newspaper industry already has those qualities. We certainly have diversity and plurality of voices: almost every conceivable opinion is represented somewhere in the British press.
      The hon. Gentleman singled out Rupert Murdoch and News International. He is right: the new clause would require News International to divest itself of either The Times or The Sun and of either The Sunday Times or the News of the World. However, the effects would not be restricted to that. The proprietors of the Daily Express would have to choose between the Daily Express or the Daily Star and between the Sunday Express or the Daily Star Sunday. The proprietors of the Daily Mirror would have to divest themselves of either the Sunday Mirror or the Sunday People; and if the Daily Record is, as it believes, a daily newspaper, they would have to choose between the Daily Mirror and the Daily Record. It is arguable that the Evening Standard is a national newspaper, so the proprietors of the Daily Mail would have to divest themselves of one or the other.
      That may all come as welcome news to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, but I suspect that there would not be a vast queue of people who wanted to acquire newspapers and that his proposals would be likely to lead to fewer newspapers and thus less diversity and plurality—the very objectives that he wants to promote. If every proprietor were allowed to own only one paper, the result could be that they would all move roughly towards the sector where they would attract most readers and the hon. Gentleman might end up with a dozen or so versions of the Daily Mail. I cannot believe that he wants that.
      The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) is clearly intended to bring the Press Complaints Commission under some form of statutory control. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the desirability of that in the past. The new clause is clearly a backdoor method for giving Ofcom, which is a Government regulator, a say over the regulation of the press.
      I do not defend the PCC in every instance. It has made mistakes, but I have always believed that self-regulation of the press is infinitely more desirable than Government intervention or control. The new clause would be a slippery slope; it would be a move towards Government intervention and statutory interference in the freedom of the press. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is now present because she made it clear in the newspapers this morning that she was opposed to statutory press regulation. She will thus be opposed to the proposals made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush.
      We remain concerned about provisions that give Ofcom some say over newspaper mergers. Our amendments would remove from Ofcom any advisory

      771
      role to the Secretary of State over newspaper mergers. The Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission have had a long-standing role in advising the Secretary of State on whether mergers are likely to lead to a substantial lessening of competition. Their considerations cover, in large part, a number of the matters on which it is proposed that Ofcom would advise the Secretary of State. Involving Ofcom in that process is thus unnecessary. In fact, it is more than unnecessary; it is dangerous. Ofcom would be given the role of advising the Secretary of State on the accuracy of news presentation and freedom of expression. For the first time, a Government body would have a role in examining the content of newspapers.
      I accept the fact that the Government have assured us that the provisions do not represent a first step towards Government intervention in the content of the press, but that is not how the industry views them. The issue has brought together interests right across the spectrum. Last week, Mr. Andrew Neil wrote:
      "Give Ofcom this power and it will be the end of British press freedom as we know it."
      Although I do not always share Mr. Neil's rather colourful descriptions, and that statement goes a little further than I might want, he raises genuine concern that the measure would allow a Government body to begin to adjudicate on questions of newspaper content and editorial freedom of expression. That is a dangerous step, so we believe that it would be far better if the clauses on newspaper mergers were removed from the Bill. Ofcom is a body established to regulate the electronic communications industries—
      It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER,pursuant to order [10 February], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question accordingly negatived.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Amendment proposed: No. 163, in page 319, line 33, leave out Clause 365.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 335.

      Division No. 100]

      [6:01 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

      Burt, Alistair

      Amess, David

      Cameron, David

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Cash, William

      Bacon, Richard

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Baldry, Tony

      Barker, Gregory

      Chope, Christopher

      Baron, John(Billericay)

      Clappison, James

      Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Bellingham, Henry

      Collins, Tim

      Bercow, John

      Conway Derek

      Blunt, Crispin

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Boswell, Tim

      Cran, James(Beverley)

      Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

      Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW Surrey)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Brady, Graham

      Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

      Brazier, Julian

      Evans Nigel

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fabricant, Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Fallon, Michael

      Burnside, David

      Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

      772

      Flight, Howard

      Page, Richard

      Flook, Adrian

      Paice, James

      Forth, rh Eric

      Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Randall, John

      Francois, Mark

      Redwood, rh John

      Garnier, Edward

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

      Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

      Goodman, Paul

      Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

      Gray, James(N Wilts)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Grayling, Chris

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Green, Damian(Ashford)

      Ruffley, David

      Greenway, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Grieve, Dominic

      Selous, Andrew

      Hammond, Philip

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Simmonds, Mark

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Smyth, Rec. Martin(Belfast S)

      Hendty, Charles

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

      Horam, John(Orpington)

      Spring, Richard

      Howard, rh Michael

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

      Steen, Anthony

      Hunter, Andrew

      Streeter, Gary

      Jack, rh Michael

      Swayne, Desmond

      Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

      Syms, Robert

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Taylor, Ian(Esher)

      Johnson, Boris(Henley)

      Taylor, John(Solihull)

      Key, Robert(Salisbury)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Tredinnick, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Turner Andrew(Isle of Wight)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

      Tyrie Andrew

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Viggers, peter

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Waterson, Nigel

      Loughton, Tim

      Whittingdale, John

      Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Wiggin, Bill

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Wilshire, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

      Mates, Michael

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Mercer, Patrick

      Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Young, rh Sir George

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      O' Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

      Mr. Mark Hoban and

      Osborne, George(Tatton)

      Angela Watkinson

      NOES

      Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ainger, Nick

      Blizzard, Bob

      Alexander, Douglas

      Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

      Allan, Richard

      Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

      Allen, Graham

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Bryant, Chris

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Austin, John

      Burden, Richard

      Bailey, Adrian

      Burnett, John

      Baird, Vera

      Burnham, Andy

      Baker, Norman

      Burstow, Paul

      Banks, Tony

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Barnes, Harry

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Barrett, John

      Cairns, David

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Battle, John

      Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

      Beard, Nigel

      Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Caplin, Ivor

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Benn, Hilary

      Casale, Roger

      Bennett, Andrew

      Caton, Martin

      Benton, Joe(Bootle)

      Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

      Berry, Roger

      Challen, Colin

      Best, Harold

      Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

      Blackman, Liz

      Chaytor, David

      773

      Chidgey, David

      Grogan, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hain, rh Peter

      Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

      Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

      Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

      Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

      Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

      Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

      Clelland, David

      Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

      Harvey, Nick

      Coaker, Vernon

      Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Cohen, Harry

      Healey, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Heath, David

      Colman, Tony

      Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

      Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

      Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hendrick, Mark

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Corston, Jean

      Heppell, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cousins, Jim

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Crausby, David

      Heyes, David

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hill, Keith(Streatham)

      Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

      Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

      Cummings, John

      Holmes, Paul

      Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

      Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

      Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

      Hope, Phil(Corby)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Davey, Edward(Kingston)

      Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

      Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

      Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      David, Wayne

      Davidson, Ian

      Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

      Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

      Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

      Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

      Denham, rh John

      Hutton, rh John

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Dismore, Andrew

      Illsley, Eric

      Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Doran, Frank

      Jamieson, David

      Doughty, Sue

      Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

      Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

      Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

      Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

      Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

      Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Edwards, Huw

      Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

      Efford, Clive

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Keen, Alan(Feltham)

      Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

      Keen, Ann(Brentford)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Kelly, Ruth(Bolton W)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fisher, Mark

      King, Andy(Rugby)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

      Foster, Don(Bath)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Foster, Michael(Worcester)

      Lamb, Norman

      Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

      Lammy, David

      Laws, David(Yeovil)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      George, Andrew(St. Ives)

      Leslie, Christopher

      George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

      Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Gidley, Sandra

      Linton, Martin

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

      Love, Andrew

      Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

      Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

      Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

      Luke, Iain(Dundee E)

      Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      774

      McCabe, Stephen

      Sanders, Adrian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      MacDonald, Calum

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McDonnell, John

      Sawford, Phil

      MacDougall, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McFall, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sheerman, Barry

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sheridan, Jim

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Singh, Marsha

      McNulty, Tony

      Skinner, Dennis

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

      McWilliam, John

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

      Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

      Smith, John(Glamorgan)

      Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

      Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

      Soley, Clive

      Martlew, Eric

      Southworth, Helen

      Miliband, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Miller, Andrew

      Stevenson, George

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mole, Chris

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Stringer, Graham

      Moore, Michael

      Stuart Ms Gisela

      Morgan, Julie

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mudie, George

      Taml Mark(Alyn)

      Mullin, Chris

      Taylor rh Ann(Dewsbury)

      Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

      Taylor Dari(Stockton S)

      Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

      Taylor Matthew(Truro)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Tnomas Gareth(Clwyd w)

      Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

      Thomas Gareth(Harrow W)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Thomas Simon(Ceredigion)

      Olner, Bill

      Thurso, John

      Öpik, Lembit

      Timms, Stephen

      Owen, Albert

      Todd Mark(s Derbyshire)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Touhig Don(Islwyn)

      Picking, Anne

      Trickett, Jon

      Pickthall Colin

      Truswell Paul

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pollaro, Kerry

      Turner Dr Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

      Pope Greg(Hyndburn)

      Turner, Neil(Wigan)

      Pound, Stephen

      Twigg, Derek(Halton)

      Prentice, Ms Birdget(Lewisham E)

      Twigg, Stephen(Enfield

      Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

      Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Ward, Claire

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Watts, David

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Webb, Steve(Northavon)

      Purchase, Ken

      Weir, Michael

      Quin, rh Joyce

      White, Brian

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Rammell, Bill

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

      Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

      Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

      Williams, Roger(Brecon)

      Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

      Willis, Phil

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

      Wilson, Brian

      Winnick, David

      Rendel, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

      Robertson, Angus(Moray)

      Wishart, Pete

      Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Woolas, Phil

      Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Woolas, Phil

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Worthington, Tony

      Rooney, Terry

      Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

      Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

      Ruane, Chris

      Wright, David(Telford)

      Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

      Wright, Tony(Cannock)

      Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Salmond, Alex

      Mr. Fraser kemp and

      Salter, Martin

      Gillian Merron

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
      Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
      Mr. Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is written on the Order Paper, and you have just said, that the Queen's and the Prince of Wales's consent is to be signified on Third Reading. I am still finding my way round this place; I know that the Queen's consent is needed for primary legislation, but I did not know that the Prince of Wales's consent was needed, too. I would appreciate an explanation of why that is needed on Third Reading of this Bill.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Public Bill Office will be able to give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer. I believe that it pertains to the Duchy of Cornwall.
      6.15 pm
      The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.
      All of us in the House care passionately about the health of our country's communications and media. The media industry is unique. Its products, if we can call them that, tell the world who we are. Its outputs help to shape our culture, our identity and our values. It is vital to our democracy and the preservation of a free society.
      However, the communications and media sector is also changing extraordinarily fast. It took 38 years for radio to reach just 50 million people; it took 13 years for television to reach the same number; it took just five years for the internet to get to that stage. No doubt, it will be even less for the next development. As technology advances, we are all bombarded with smarter, faster ways of keeping in touch and accessing services and content. The combination of creativity, innovation, technology and entrepreneurial flair is a driving force in our economy. The creative economy and the creative industries are sectors in which the United Kingdom is in the lead. We are determined to keep it that way.
      This is a strong Bill. It has undergone extensive consultation and scrutiny and I have been greatly encouraged by the consensus that exists on so much of what it proposes. The Joint Committee chaired by Lord Puttnam, which reported last summer, made an excellent contribution to our work. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I said when the report was published, the Committee took a good Bill and made it better. The scrutiny and debate that we have had in the House have made it better still.
      Mr. Mullin: With all due respect to my right hon. Friend, does she not think that it is a rather large omission that at no stage in Committee or on Report has there been any discussion of the ownership changes that the Bill will make to ITV? Furthermore, there has been only the barest minimum of discussion on the changes to Channel Five. Are they not major omissions?
      Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That very issue was set to be debated in
      776
      Committee, but I regret to say that Liberal Democrat Members did not get up in time. They were not there in Committee first thing in the morning to move their amendments. Last week, we had more than five hours for the first day of Report, but the amendments on that subject were not reached, simply because other Opposition Members chose—as was their prerogative—to use the time to debate the BBC.
      As my hon. Friend is aware, there have also been extensive opportunities outside the House—in numerous conferences in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I have taken part—for all the issues to be aired. It is a pity that they were not dealt with in Committee or on Report, but that was not my choice.
      David Winnick: Although I recognise all the reasons that my right hon. Friend has outlined, will she accept, as I have said on a previous occasion, that there is anxiety among Labour Members—I do not know how many—about the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)? That anxiety will not go away. Although there may have been plenty of debate and discussion outside, it does not alter the fact that it should have taken place here in the Chamber of the House of Commons.
      Ms Hewitt: As I have said, Opposition Members were between them responsible for the fact that the issue was not debated in the Chamber. I have no doubt at all that it will be debated extensively in another place. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I have said on numerous occasions, I also have no doubt that it will be debated inside and outside the House. By opening our media sector further to foreign investment, we will strengthen it. I am very much bearing in mind the fact that, among other things, we would not have Classic FM in this country were it not for the foreign investment that was made available when the City of London and other investors would not provide it.
      I am grateful for the constructive approach that Opposition Members have generally taken. I hope that for the most part they feel in their turn that the Government have listened to their views and have taken action on many of the issues that they raised.
      The Bill is founded on solid principles. It is about ensuring quality in broadcasting and safeguarding the wider interests of the whole community at a time when new technology is changing very fast. It is about delivering real benefits to consumers through competition and safeguarding their interests through an independent panel to advise Ofcom. And, of course, it is about developing a dynamic, competitive communications sector in which our businesses flourish.
      The Bill contains provisions over which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) reminded us, there has been disagreement and about which there will be further debate. We shall continue to listen to that debate and to welcome improvements.
      Mr. Mullin: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a paper by Professor Michael Tracey that was prepared for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust?

      777
      Michael Tracey is an American professor at the University of Colorado who, having studied what has happened to American television since the market was allowed to let rip under Ronald Reagan, describes what we are proposing as
      "as wrong-headed as it's possible to be without being totally insane".
      Ms Hewitt: I have not had the pleasure of reading that paper; I look forward to receiving it from my hon. Friend. What we are doing is opening our market to greater investment, but at the same time, and based on the review of content that we commissioned, strengthening content regulation. I believe that we will have the best of both worlds, with both programme quality and investment increasing.
      Let me mention some of the improvements that we have made to the Bill during its passage through this House. Ofcom's general duties are crucial in determining how it will operate, so they need to be right. I am pleased that we have tabled and agreed amendments that give greater certainty and clarity to Ofcom and its stakeholders and make it clear that Ofcom has a duty to further the interests of the wider community, as well as those of consumers. In response to the Independent Television Commission's review of the programme supply market, we have toughened up the powers that we had already proposed for Ofcom on content regulation, and we have put in place production quotas to ensure that we keep the vitality of our independent and our regional production industry.
      We have tightened the definition of television licensable content so that it only covers, and can only cover, services that consist of radio and television programmes that are available for reception by the general public—in other words, so-called push technology. In that way, we exclude the internet—a point about which several hon. Members were particularly concerned, because it is pull, rather than push, technology. We also exclude the press, because obviously newspapers are not television or radio.
      We are keen to go on listening and to continue to improve the Bill in line with the core principles that my right hon. Friend and I have set out, but there are some areas where we believe that the Bill is already right.
      Mr. Robathan: Perfect?
      Ms Hewitt: Perfectly formed, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
      Mr. Robathan: The Secretary of State may recall—I am not sure whether she was here at the time—that on Second Reading, when we were told that the Bill was already perfect, I offered hon. Members a wager that at least 100 amendments would be tabled.[Interruption.] I am told that there have been more than 200. Indeed, I was poised to speak on 81 before the guillotine came down—those are 81 Government amendments that have not even been discussed.[Interruption.]
      >Ms Hewitt: I am being reminded that the hon. Gentleman is not a licensed bookie, so he is treading in
      778
      dangerous waters. I am sure that he would not want to criticise us for taking serious account of comments that have been made by Conservative Members and by the Joint Committee. We have been happy to table amendments to ensure that improvements are made, but it is clearly impossible to propose changes to the merger regime as it affects newspapers without attracting not only criticism, but extraordinary accusations of censorship and control freakery. We have had overblown remarks from some commentators and suggestions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I are divided—a bad cop, good cop act. That is rubbish. My right hon. Friend and I, and our ministerial and official colleagues, have been at one throughout our deliberations on the Bill. Indeed, it is the product of a unique piece of team work between two Departments. I welcome that and we are both proud of it. Unfortunately, accusations of censorship and control freakery will always gain column space. So let me set the record straight.
      My right hon. Friend and I have taken every opportunity, publicly and privately, to give assurances that nothing in the Bill is designed to allow censorship of the press or could allow censorship of the press by the front or back door. Nothing in the Bill would extend content regulation to newspapers. On the contrary, and in distinction to some of my hon. Friends, we are committed to the self-regulation of the press by the Press Complaints Commission.
      Mr. Clive Soley: I urge my right hon. Friend not to spend too long on that subject because she has no one to argue against. The vast majority of people accept that no one is attempting to suppress the press. The only exception to that is the press themselves. Let us not spend too much time on that, because we might give credence to their argument.
      Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but given the misinformation that has been circulating in authoritative sections of the press, it is worth spelling out our case again.
      The clauses on newspaper mergers will protect the public interest when newspaper titles change hands. There is nothing new in that. Ministers have been taking decisions on newspaper mergers for more than 30 years. The only role for Ofcom will be to give open and honest advice to help Ministers make those decisions. Ofcom itself will not make any of the decisions. Similarly, there has been considerable debate in the House, most notably last week, on the BBC. Again, our position on the BBC within Ofcom is equally clear. The BBC is a charter body. It has a special relationship with Parliament because of the licence fee. Our policy in the Bill is properly balanced. It ensures that the BBC maintains its independence and unique relationship with Parliament while bringing it within the overall regulatory structure and ensuring that it fulfils its responsibilities as the major public service broadcaster in our country.
      For many hon. Members, the Bill is like an old friend, but we should not allow our familiarity with it to detract from the impact that it will have on the sector and, for reasons that we all understand, our public and democratic life. In Ofcom we have created a new organisation with a new vision and remit that will ensure

      779
      that the digital future in the extraordinarily fast-changing world of communications and media brings benefits to us all as citizens, consumers and members of the business community. The Bill is in excellent shape and I commend it to the House.
      6.29 pm
      Mr. Yeo: May I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to the Chamber? I think that it is the first time that we have enticed her to the House during the lengthy proceedings on the Bill and, indeed, the preceding paving Bill. I am not sure of the reason for her coyness, unless there was a wafer-thin difference between her and her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which she is now eager to deny. I had hoped for an earlier opportunity to have a debate with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and I regret that, even at this late stage, she could not fill many of the gaps that arose in our proceedings.
      I shall reiterate our procedural concerns. The Bill is wide-ranging and comprehensive, and contains about 400 clauses. [HoN. MEMBERS: "More now."] That is true—the Bill has considerably more clauses now than it did before Second Reading. The Secretary of State said that scrutiny has made a strong Bill better—a sentiment that would make a strong man weep. The Government have prevented much scrutiny from taking place, as the timetable for consideration of the Bill was grossly inadequate. More than a quarter of the clauses were not debated at all in Committee. At a time when the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny is frequently criticised for its inadequacy, it is extremely unsatisfactory that much of the Bill has not been properly examined in the House. I hope that the business managers will take note when timetables for future Bills are considered.
      Mr. Mullin: We could have got on better if the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had not frittered away several hours the other day talking about the BBC and matters that the Bill does not touch on.
      Mr. Yeo: That intervention ill behoves the hon. Gentleman, who voted for the programme motion in the House.
      Mr. Mullin: But we could have made better use of the time.
      Mr. YeoOn the contrary. I shall come to the BBC in a moment, but there can be few more important issues to debate in relation to the Bill than one to which the Opposition responsibly devoted a significant amount of time.
      I hope that there will be an opportunity in another place to examine some of the 100 or so clauses that were untouched in the Commons, including clauses on nominated news providers and the content of licensed providers. Regrettably, the issue of foreign ownership was not considered in Committee, but we broadly support the Government's position, which is why we did not consider it a priority to initiate such a debate. However, the Secretary of State rightly pointed out that the inattention of Liberal Democrat Members prevented those provisions from being scrutinised, and
      780
      I am sure that that will be noted in constituencies that the Liberal Democrats will be struggling in two years' time to defend. This is an issue that attracts much attention outside the House, and it would have been interesting to hear the debate had it occurred. The extent to which the Bill as originally presented needed improvement is reflected in the colossal number of amendments tabled by the Government. I dare say that that saga has not ended, and that more amendments will be tabled in another place.
      Turning to the substance of the Bill, we have supported its provisions throughout. We believe that it is right to establish a new regulator, Ofcom, and support the general liberalisation of the communications and media industries. We certainly do not underestimate the scale of the challenge facing Ofcom. It must maintain a light touch; it must be accountable and transparent; it needs to be flexible in responding to a rapidly changing market, as the Secretary of State said; and it must not act as a gold-plater of European Union directives. The media and communications industries represent two of the greatest businesses of the 21st century, and are businesses in which Britain has many natural advantages, including a good record of innovation; a large pool of entrepreneurial and creative talent; the English language; a country in which people like to live and work—
      Mr. Bryant: The BBC.
      Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is a former BBC employee, so it is not surprising that he is pushing its interests. He does so on many occasions in the House.
      Mr. Robathan: Pension?
      Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend has raised the issue of the BBC pension fund, and I hope that if he contributes to the debate later he will go into more detail, as he is clearly an authority on the subject. I have not heard that the BBC pension fund has closed to new entrants, or attempted to revise benefits for existing members, but I may have missed that in the papers.
      In this country, we could and should excel in the media and communications industries, but if we are to do so, Ofcom must not over-regulate. There remain a couple of issues of concern. We support the moves that the Government have made to relax media ownership rules, though we believe that Ministers should be bolder and sweep away all the remaining vestiges of the special restrictive regime that has hitherto applied to the industry. The existing competition laws are sufficient to address any concerns that may arise and to protect any interests that need to be looked after. I remind the House that when the Broadcasting Act 1996 was debated, Labour Members on the then Opposition Benches supported my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) in his efforts to remove unnecessary restrictions on cross-media ownership. What a pity that, so far from seeing the light in the intervening six years, the blinkers are on and hon. Members are reverting to a more traditional Labour position.
      The relaxation of the ownership rules should extend to ITN, so that ITV could if it wished own its own news provider, just as the BBC and Sky do. I favour a

      781
      situation where there are three competing news providers in the market. I recognise that ITN has regional strengths to which Sky does not aspire, and I hope all three organisations will flourish, but I do not believe that special controls will help that. Indeed, special ownership controls could jeopardise that desirable objective.
      I turn briefly to the issue of newspapers, which was covered so eloquently and forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford in the previous debate. I reiterate that we do not believe there is a role for Ofcom in relation to newspaper mergers. We share many of the concerns expressed by the newspaper industry and we hope that those will be considered carefully in another place.
      Another substantial flaw in the Bill is that, despite extensive argument, the Government remain obdurate in their attitude as regards the BBC. There is no justification for separating the BBC from the rest of the industry, as the Bill continues to do. To say that is not to criticise the BBC governors, who performed a unique and valuable role in the past. It is a recognition of the change in the industry. The BBC governors should still have a role in the future, but it is a new and different one, analogous in some respects to the role—
      Mr. Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman consulted some of his colleagues, he might find that those who have worked for the BBC in the past did not necessarily always argue the BBC's cause in Committee. Does he accept that the governors have a considerable way to go to prove their independence, but that the best way of conducting that debate is through the process of charter renewal, not in the context of the Bill?
      Mr. Yeo: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not impugn the independence of everyone who previously worked for the BBC—only a proportion of them. On the charter, it would be wrong to wait until charter renewal and the debate that is just starting up to decide the matter—wrong because we are unlikely to have the chance of primary legislation on this scale in the House within that period. I understand why people may think that the concern overlaps with the debate about charter renewal, the way to deal with it is to introduce provisions into the Bill that come into force at the time of the new BBC charter. That would be a simple solution that would command widespread support.
      The crucial need is to bring the BBC into line with other broadcasting organisations with effect from the earliest possible date and certainly not later than the date of the new charter. That would leave the BBC governors with an important role, in some respects analogous to that performed by non-executive directors at Channel 4.
      The success of Ofcom and the effectiveness of the Bill will be judged by whether the Government's claim to favour a light regulatory touch is borne out in practice. Competition between providers supplying well-informed consumers with goods and services in a liberalised market is the best form of regulation. I hope that in 10 years' time, Ofcom will be a smaller body than it will be when the Bill becomes law. In this context, the example of another super-regulator, the Financial Services Authority, is not entirely encouraging.
      782
      New technology, if applied properly, can empower consumers. It can promote markets where none have previously existed. Digital switchover makes it possible for television to be priced differently in the 21st century than hitherto. In charting a course for the future of the industry, bearing in mind that Parliament is unlikely to have the chance to legislate again on this scale in the near future, we must not be prisoners of the past. Almost two decades have passed since the Peacock report held out the eventual prospect of progress towards a full broadcasting market. I hope that nothing that Ofcom does will impede the progress that could now be made.
      Another criterion for assessing the success of the new regulator will be whether the way in which consumers access television 10 years from now is more like what occurs in the marketplace that exists for books or magazines—a marketplace in which viewers pay for what they watch when they want to watch it and not for much else. I hope that Ofcom will facilitate a move away from a present position, in which all television viewers pay a highly regressive tax to a single and very privileged broadcaster, regardless of whether they consume any of that broadcaster's output.
      In conclusion, the Opposition still have significant reservations about aspects of the Bill. We hope that further improvements will be made in another place. In particular, I look forward to the Government accepting proposals to allow the National Audit Office immediate opportunities to scrutinise the BBC. I hope that that will not be long delayed. However, we have no substantial quarrel with the main principles of the Bill and will continue to support it on Third Reading, as we did on Second Reading.
      6.41 pm
      Nick Harvey: The Government are right to say that the Bill has improved during its long gestation in terms of public consultation and the scrutiny that it received in the House both last summer through the Joint Committee and in the Standing Committee proceedings that we have just completed. Nevertheless, nobody should take the view that the Bill is perfect. Parliament should be realistic about how near to perfection we can make a Bill that deals with a sector like this.
      The genesis of the Bill was the speed with which technologies in the various markets that the new regime will cover were converging. Of course, since that time, there has been a significant change in market conditions and some of the progress towards technological advances that was occurring has slowed considerably. The climate now is very different from the climate a relatively small number of years ago. However, we do not know at what speed things will change, including in other markets elsewhere in the world, which will also impact on developments here in the UK.
      When we started out on the paving Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked on Second Reading what such regulation of the sector was for and why Ofcom would carry out its role. The amendment to which the Government agreed today that put into Ofcom's remit consideration of the wider public interest rather than the more narrow focus on consumer interest provided through competition changes significantly the answer to the question that he asked on

      783
      that occasion. I believe that Ofcom will be significantly better equipped to set about defending the interests of the public as a whole as a result of that amendment.
      It will not be Ofcom that determines the speed with which broadband rolls out—and neither will it be the Government or the House. It will largely be the market that will deliver on the aspirations, which I think are probably shared across the House, for broadband technologies to spread as quickly as possible. Certainly, hon. Members in all parts of the House have spoken up on behalf of rural areas and other areas that are not enticing economic prospects for those who are rolling out the technology. It is to be hoped that, during the passage of the Bill, we have given that development the best chance and the fairest wind that we can. How Ofcom now takes on its role will determine how successful that is.
      Ofcom will have a very demanding task—of that there is no doubt. The initial task of bringing together the five regulators will be a challenging one, but the real work will begin once that initial process of absorption has taken place. A great deal is expected of Ofcom and it will be doing its work with relatively new legislation. That is why it may be premature for the Government to have organised or facilitated at the same time a revolution in the ownership regulations that would more naturally have followed on the occasion of the first three-year review. Nevertheless, it seems that the Government are determined to head down that path.
      There are still particular aspects that I hope will be examined in another place, because although we have made significant progress in improving the Bill, I firmly believe that we could make further improvements. I especially hope that the ITN question, which the Conservative spokesman has just touched on, will be addressed. ITN is hampered by the regime in which it operates, and it needs to be set free as a matter of certainty from the shackles that prevent it from operating as effectively as it could if we are to safeguard the existence of three competitive news networks.
      I hope that we have the rules for the future of commercial radio about right, although I am not entirely confident of that. A lot of ground has been given to the commercial radio lobby, which protested too much when seeking more ground than it has been given. I also hope that the safeguards that have been built into the legislation prove adequate to prevent local radio from being sacrificed so that it becomes proxy national radio, as we have seen in other countries.
      We must hope that Ofcom uses the considerable powers that we are putting at its disposal and that it shows more relish for picking them up and applying them than did some of its predecessor bodies. Expecting the legislation to be perfect it is not a reasonable aspirational benchmark to set ourselves, but its slow evolution means that it is as good as we are likely to get. I hope that the House of Lords goes over those crucial issues and puts right a few anomalies that remain. That having been said, the Bill is necessary and worthwhile, so we shall support it on Third Reading.
      6.46 pm
      Mr. Mole: I am pleased to participate in the debate, even though perhaps I come late to it, although not at the fag end, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion
      784
      (Mr. Thomas) said. I declare my interest: before entering Parliament, I worked for BT for 17 years and I am a member of Connect, the union for professionals in communications. I add my voice to those who have been struggling to make it clear that the Bill is about more than just broadcast and print media issues. Indeed, over time, those issues will become less important.
      Although the Bill talks a good talk about convergence of different strands of electronic communication, it addresses the broadcast and telecommunications streams separately. It is, of course, welcome that the Bill enacts the operation of Ofcom—a regulator that will span the whole sector—as that will allow markets to be regulated with a common approach as technologies continue to converge. An example might be appropriate.
      For many years, I have enjoyed the occasional bit of jazz. Jazz FM is an excellent easy-listening jazz station that operates in the London area. However, I can now receive it at home not just through conventional FM radio broadcasts, but on the Freeview digital television platform and by webcast over a broadband ADSL telecommunications network. Better than that, I can access 91 different jazz radio stations via the internet. Indeed, via that route I can access 2,000 radio stations across all genres. The critical issue here is that different elements of the regulation regimes, and none, will apply to all three delivery routes.
      Therein lies the dilemma for the Government. As the technology increasingly shifts from push to pull—I welcome the Secretary of State's comments, although I struggle entirely to understand how some of those separations can be maintained into the future—individual consumer choice grows and content regulation becomes less appropriate. Why should programming be regulated across the watershed if it is available by video on demand or, indeed, at the video rental shop, 24 hours a day? As the Government seek to negotiate with the industry on self-regulation of video on demand, I just observe that the comparative economic model for video on demand is not broadcast TV, but Blockbuster or similar video retailers.
      Let us suppose that I am watching interactive television involving two media. Some content may be received via broadcast digital television, and some via a telecommunications network. Which regulation will apply? The dividing lines become increasingly blurred. What can be guaranteed is that many of the problems that must be addressed by the Bill, and indeed by Ofcom, have not yet been thought of. It would therefore be entirely inappropriate for the Bill to be too prescriptive.
      The examples I have given tell us something about the pace of change in these markets, and should also tell us something about the framework that the Bill seeks to operate. If our economy is to benefit from the potential that technological development can offer, regulation must be as light as possible. I should like to know whether the Government have accepted the Joint Committee's view that a "light touch" approach should not be commended to Ofcom. I am a natural sceptic when it comes to the effectiveness and accountability of regulators, and the history of Oftel's operation features, in many instances, an attempt to micro-manage

      785
      individual businesses rather than providing a comprehensive framework offering a level playing field to all operators.
      In the past I have been concerned about the regulator's intervention in telephone apparatus supply, and I fear that the new framework may feature the same style. Given that such apparatus has been available in every high-street store for many years, and given that safety and connection standards issues are covered by statutory instruments, what interest should the regulator take? That looks like the heavy hand rather than the light touch. If the light touch is not possible, however, proportional intervention should be the order of the day.
      I welcome the Government's wish to see the open and transparent operation of Ofcom, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), I welcomed David Currie's appearance at the meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on telecommunications the week before last. I hope that the Government will listen to those who suggest that the "significant market provider" approach could be further enhanced. Given the speed at which products and services are developing, Ofcom should be required to review that approach at least once every two years. There should be standards of promptness, requiring the regulator to ensure that reviews and investigations do not unnecessarily delay the introduction of new services.
      The regulator must also be robust in dealing with spurious allegations from competing service suppliers. All too frequently, Oftel allowed itself to become embroiled in litigious warfare between operators. That did nothing more than delay the conferring of benefits to consumers in the form of innovations and new service developments.
      This is a difficult area in which to regulate—and, because of its global nature, the internet will remain impossible to regulate. The Government have done well to consult widely and to tackle the issues realistically, and, despite my fear that the pace of change may return us to them sooner rather than later, I commend the Bill.
      6.53 pm
      Michael Fabricant: They say that familiarity breeds contempt, but I cannot say that I have contempt for this Bill, although we all served three months in Committee, some of us served about a month on the Committee dealing with the paving Bill, and still others served on the Committee dealing with the scrutiny Bill—although I do not have that claim to fame. It cannot be said that the Bill has not received a huge amount of consideration.
      Along with my Front-Bench colleagues, I support a Bill that was driven strongly by changes in technology. Digital developments have brought about the convergence of technologies, and it is right for the various institutions that currently govern broadcasting and other bodies to converge into one overriding body, the Office of Communications.
      Nevertheless, I have a few caveats. Members will know, because I have reminded them on several occasions, that I used to work in broadcasting, mostly radio, before I came here. When I first applied for a
      786
      licence—in Brighton, back in the 1980s—it became apparent—[Interruption.] Some Members heard this during the Committee stage, but it is worth repeating.[Interruption.] I do not want to delay matters because other hon. Members want to speak. It is worth repeating that radio took a minor role in the old Independent Broadcasting Authority, and it is extremely important that—as when the IBA was broken up and become the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority—radio does not now become a small part of the Office of Communications. It is important that radio should be allowed to thrive.
      My second point, which has been discussed at great length and is very important, relates to the BBC. The Government like to claim that they are at the heart of Europe and that the European Union always listens to Governments, yet, time and again, Chirac and Schröder seem to be putting up two metaphorical fingers to the Prime Minister. A similar degree of negotiating skill seems to be apparent when it comes to the Government negotiating with the BBC because, once again, the BBC has got its way. It will not fall under the auspices of the Office of Communications, and I think that that is wrong. Even though the BBC often makes the right judgment when people complain about it, it is right and proper that it should not be seen as its own judge and jury. As I said in Committee—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that such remarks were probably better made in Committee. The new clauses concerning the BBC have not been added to the Bill, and this is a Third Reading debate in which we should concentrate on what is in the Bill.
      Michael Fabricant: The Office of Communications will have responsibility for the BBC under tiers 1 and 2. In that respect, the BBC will have protection but, oh dear, what a shame that it will not have protection under tier 3!
      The Secretary of State spoke about the encouragement of the independent broadcast sector, and she was absolutely right to do so because there is still a quota in BBC television for independent production. Sadly, however, BBC radio will not be controlled by such a quota. That is an anomaly, and I hope that it will be addressed when the Bill goes to another place.
      The issue of disabilities has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Secretary of State herself said that she wished to see people with disabilities involved in the broadcast media, both as broadcasters and—if they can be—as listeners and viewers of radio and television stations. The Secretary of State was right to point that out, but there is more to be done in that area. I would like to commend the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who has consistently pressed this point, both on the Office of Communications Bill and the paving Bill. The Government should take on board more of those arguments and include them when the Bill goes to another place.
      John Robertson: Just to help the hon. Gentleman get to the end of his speech, would he agree that one thing that is missing from the Bill is music? I have spoken

      787
      about this on many occasions, and I know that the matter will be dear to his heart. Does he agree that it should be considered in another place and that we should get the word "music" into the Bill?
      Michael Fabricant: I would like to agree with the hon. Gentleman but I would be ruled out of order. I cannot talk about music on Third Reading because it is not in the Bill.
      This is an important Bill, and it will be good for the future of the United Kingdom. However, it is not a perfect Bill. There is still room for improvement, and I hope that such improvement—including full control of the BBC—will occur when it goes to the other place.
      6.59 pm
      Mr. Soley: We have little time left on this Bill, but I wanted to speak now, if I may. One of the major things missing from it—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I feel that I must almost apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
      It being Seven o' Clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER,put the Question, pursuant to Order [10 February].
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

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

      PROTECTING THE FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITIES
      That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. OJ C295, Vol. 45, European Court of Auditors' 2001 Annual Report, and No. 10625/1/02, the Commission's 2001 Annual Report on protecting the financial interests of the Communities; and supports the Government's continuing efforts to promote measures to improve financial management and combat fraud against the European Community's financial interests.—[Derek Twigg.]
      Question agreed to.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118 (6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE
      That the draft Code of Guidance on Sites of Special Scientific Interest: Encouraging Positive Partnerships, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved. —[Derek Twigg.]
      Question agreed to.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118 (6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
      That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 112) on Special Grants for the Local e-Government Programme, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
      Question agreed to.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      ECCLESIASTICAL LAW
      That the draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.—[Derek Twiggi.]
      Question agreed to.

  PETITIONS

    A120 Trunk Road Improvements
    7.1 pm
    Mr. Ivan Henderson: I should like to congratulate the East Anglian Daily Times on organising this petition, and on its ongoing campaign to support the dualling of the A120. I should also like to thank the more than 2,000 members of the public who signed the petition.
    The petition states:
    The Petition of the East Anglian Daily Times and of the residents of the Harwich constituency declares
    That improvements to the A120 trunk road between Harwich and Little Bromley should be a priority, and that this work is imperative for the safety of road users, for the region's economy, and for the status of Harwich as a prime gateway to Europe.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to prioritise improvements to the A120 international trunk road between Harwich and Little Bromley.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Community Pharmacies
    7.3 pm
    Bob Spink: Community pharmacies are part of the very fabric of our society. They are the front line of primary care, and they do much—and can do much more—to take the burden off general practitioners. They are not retailers; they are health care professionals. The proposals of the Office of Fair Trading would damage the most vulnerable people. Deregulation would hurt, not help, the consumer, and set back the pharmacy service by 10 years. Pharmacies should be planned at local level by primary care trusts.

    789
    The petition states:
    To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
    The Humble Petition of Ms Tracy Trevillion, Mrs. Dorothy Best and others of like disposition sheweth
    That local communities are best served by local, community-based pharmacies, and that the OFT's recommendations to abolish the "control of entry" regulations would seriously damage local pharmacies.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions, and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continuing provision of services to local communities.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Transmission Masts
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
    7.3 pm
    Mr. Richard Spring: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to introduce this evening's debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for being here to reply. The debate concerns mobile telecommunication masts—a subject that is of concern to many hon. Members. It is certainly of concern to a number of my constituents, who have written to me on numerous occasions relaying their fears that those masts have a detrimental effect on their heath. It is becoming an issue of such importance that Mast Sanity, a pressure group that pushes for further regulation on the erection of masts, has organised a demonstration for this coming Saturday against what it calls the
    "continued widespread abuse of Planning and Insensitive siting of Mobile Phone Masts too close to homes and communities across the UK."
    I note that we have had several Adjournment debates on the subject in the past. I do not want simply to reiterate all the old arguments, as much of the scientific data is well summarised in the Stewart report, which remains the standard work on the subject. Nevertheless, following the report's recommendation for further research, a research programme, called the Link mobile telecommunications and health research programme, was set up to look into the possible health impact of mobile telecommunications. Following calls for research applications, I understand that the programme is to undertake research into the possible health impact of mobile phone base stations and masts. That new area of research will be unique as it will be a series of human volunteer studies. The volunteer group is to consist of individuals who attribute symptoms of acute ill health to their exposure to emissions from base stations.
    According to industry figures, more than two thirds of the total population of the UK use a mobile phone. The growth in the mobile communications sector in the past 15 years has been remarkable and is set to continue. That creates pressure because of the demand for mobile phone services. I fully appreciate the somewhat schizoid view of many people, which is to find mobile phones indispensable in their lives, but to dislike the often intrusive communications structures.
    Mobile phones will simply not work without the supporting infrastructure of the masts. There has been a huge increase in the number of masts being erected across the country, and my constituency has not escaped that trend. Their siting causes genuine problems, on which I wish to focus my comments. I want to ensure that my constituents are able to enjoy the benefits that flow from a greater choice of service providers and a broader range of services, but not at a price of risking the health of those who live near transmission masts.
    The Government have something of a dilemma of their own. In view of the popular hostility towards mobile phone masts, further regulation is demanded by the public and by local councils, but the Government are also committed to encouraging the development of new technologies such as mobile phones, and have sold the licences for radio spectrum for third generation mobile phones for £22.5 billion.

    791
    My interest in the issue has been prompted by constituents' very real concerns. One concern is the siting of a telecommunications base station and relevant equipment on and around a water tower in a residential area in the town of Haverhill. Such has been the negative impact that the area has seen a resulting loss of property values. Another concern arises in an area of high population density, close to three schools. Since the transmission mast was erected, close to a number of neighbouring properties, residents within a large circumference around the mast have experienced unexplained headaches, tiredness and a general feeling of ill health. A constituent of mine, Mr. Mark Wheal, has lived at the same address for 30 years, but since the erection of the transmission mast he has suffered from some of the symptoms that I have just described and has even had—I am appalled to say—an epileptic seizure. Mr. Wheal tells me that he has never suffered from such health problems before.
    There have been masts on the aforementioned water tower since 1995. Another constituent of mine, Mr. John Insole, who has been a distinguished Haverhill citizen, has suffered from a number of health problems and has told me the remarkable story of his aunt, Mrs. Doris Barnes. She came to live with Mr. Insole for four years, right next to the water tower. After being diagnosed as suffering from a series of small strokes, she became housebound, needed 24-hour care, and was given just three months to live. That of course became an intolerable strain on Mr. Insole and his wife, and Mrs. Barnes went to live in a nursing home outside the town. Incredibly, within a fortnight, she was well, could cope with everyday tasks, and lived for another four years.
    All of those distressing problems have been ascribed by local residents to the erection of transmission masts nearby. Additionally, there are now clear instances of interference in radio and television programmes. They are, to say the least, highly irritating. In those circumstances, it would have been inconceivable for me, as the local Member of Parliament, not to respond.
    Although the Stewart report has been discussed endlessly, and although it represents the current conventional wisdom, I wish briefly to comment on it. It is fair to say that its conclusions are subtle, complex and rather confusing for many people. Simply quoting the report's conclusions will do nothing to allay the fears of residents living near the masts in Haverhill that have caused so much controversy.
    In my experience, telecommunications companies have always tended to quote the basic conclusion of the expert group in the report. It states:
    "We conclude that the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines. However, there can be indirect effects on their well being in some cases."
    Later, though, the report states:
    There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests there may be biological…effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines…We conclude that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach."
    792
    Professor Stewart concluded that the evidence was not decisive either way. As a result, he recommended the use of the precautionary principle in the siting of transmission masts. In particular, he recommended that the masts be situated away from schools and other places where young people, who may be more susceptible to the signals emitted by masts, might gather.
    I therefore very much welcome the new study, as it will focus entirely on base stations. There is a great deal of research into the use of handsets, but there is a clear need to look at health risks from mobile phone base stations. It is my understanding that this is the first study to look at people who think that they are ill, and at the masts themselves. Until now, there has been a struggle to research the effects of masts on health, because so many devices produce electromagnetic fields—including electricity cables and household equipment—which makes it hard to separate one device from another.
    By using volunteers who specifically cite masts as the cause of their illnesses, the new research will avoid that. Even so, for the spirit of the Stewart report to be applied, there needs to be much greater local accountability, and more stringent controls on the siting of masts.
    I acknowledge that there has been a partial movement in that direction since the Stewart report was published. Masts up to 15 m high are now subject to longer periods of consultation, so that they are exactly the same as applications for planning permission. Even so, the prior approval procedures still apply. They are not subject to a full planning clearance procedure. There is a narrow requirement that schools should be consulted, but there is no obligation to meet the requests of schools if they choose to make them. Therein lies a paradox.
    Crucially, however, the law does not allow local authorities to adopt a precautionary principle approach of their own. Ultimately, what will happen is that, if authorities defend the interests of local residents and reject the application, they will do so knowing that it is highly likely that, under the current guidelines, the mobile phone companies will ultimately win on appeal. That appeal will include the award of costs against the local authority. Alternatively, the authority could choose to give in, even though that might be very much against the wishes of the people who elected councillors to represent them.
    Both district councils that embrace my constituency, St. Edmundsbury borough council and Forest Heath district council, support me in bringing this matter to Parliament. I have received letters to that effect from the leader of St. Edmundsbury borough council and the chief executive of Forest Heath district council. The concerns apply in the whole area covered by those councils and beyond. They both favour, as I do, new powers being given to local authorities that are more directive as to where masts may or may not be placed. A mechanism whereby broad grounds of public anxiety are accepted as a legitimate reason for turning down an application needs to be considered, and the effective loophole currently provided by the 15 m height cut-off should be addressed.

    793
    In a letter to me, the chief executive of Forest Heath district council very much supported the line of thinking that I have outlined and expressed that view in the following terms:
    "In the context of this summary of the current position, I am able to confirm on behalf of Forest Heath District Council that we would welcome your proposed change to the existing arrangements. This would ensure that local planning authorities have a discretionary power to oversee/control such development for the benefit of their residents.
    In seeking to bring about this important amendment, my council would also like to consider the possibility of revising PPG8 to allow LPAs to regard health issues as a material consideration when addressing any proposal to install a telecommunications mast." I should add in passing that this has been a very live issue among the residents of Newmarket, also in my constituency. Similarly, the leader of St. Edmundsbury borough council indicated his preference for the location of transmission antennae in the non-residential parts of Haverhill.
    I hope that the Government will consider such moves, especially given the results of the study. They would give local authorities more flexibility and give councillors the right to balance the arguments about the location of transmission masts. With all the attendant concerns about health and other risks, the time has come to move on. If, through the debate, I can help to do that, I know how much it will be appreciated by so many of my concerned constituents and their elected local councillors.
    7.17 pm
    The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on his initiative in raising these matters with the House.
    There are many different uses for radio communications, most of which need some kind of transmission mast: television and radio, business communications, the utilities, the emergency services, point-to-point links for the fixed telephone network and the ubiquitous mobile phone network, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. All those uses are vital to our way of life and are important for our economy.
    Due to the enormous and ever-increasing demand for mobile communications, their transmission masts most often cause public concern. The UK has nearly 50 million subscribers, approaching 80 per cent. of the population, making us the third biggest mobile market in Europe. More than 30 million UK subscribers use a pre-paid mobile package. That means that the benefits of mobile phones are available to all and reach every sector of society. The technology is inclusive, which was not envisaged when the developments were originally introduced. It is convenient and adds to our safety and comfort.
    The technology is of vital importance for the whole economy. Industries depend on communication on the move; transport, haulage and distribution would stop without it. M-commerce—mobile commerce—is an increasingly important element of the economy.
    In terms of value added, the Office for National Statistics estimates that the mobile sector contributes £18 billion, or about 2 per cent. of gross domestic product. To put that in perspective, that contribution is
    794
    about the same as that made by the entire automotive sector. Furthermore, it is growing by 10 per cent. a year—in an industry that started only 15 years ago.
    The industry is competitive. In addition to the five mobile operators, 250 licensed companies offer national or international services. The UK is certainly Europe's most competitive communications market.
    The world's major telecoms operators, service providers and equipment manufacturers are almost all resident in the United Kingdom. They are attracted by our strengths in technology, innovation and design, the highly deregulated marketplace and the attractive business environment. A lot of them have their worldwide research and development headquarters in the UK as well. We are a world leader in technological development in mobile telecoms, particularly in new wireless technologies, but if we want to have communications, as the vast majority of people do, we must have the infrastructure to support them.
    To ensure usable national coverage, there needs to be a national network of base stations and masts. Steps are being taken to minimise the number of masts to cover any area. Buildings or other physical features will block or deflect radio waves, so by placing a mast on a tall building it is possible to cover a wider area than a mast at street level. However, there is another limit: every base station can handle only a certain number of calls at a time. The more the usage, the greater the number of base stations needed to cover a given area, so masts are most common in urban areas.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the desirability of locating masts in non-residential areas, but, as coverage in urban areas is desired, masts have to be sited there as well. Network sharing makes a valuable contribution to minimising the number of masts needed because different operators can use the same mast, but it has limitations.
    Yesterday was a significant milestone in the development of mobile communications. Along with Italy, the UK became the first major market in Europe to roll out a third generation service with the launch of 3 by Hutchison 3G—one of the companies that bought a licence after the licence auction. I am certain that many hon. Members will soon he sporting their 3G phones and that one of the first things that they will wish to do is download the video message of welcome that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has recorded.
    The 3G network operates at a higher frequency than the current 2G network, so although it can carry large amounts of data, its range is shorter than that of 2G. Operators are reusing 2G sites for 3G, but some extra masts are inevitably required to fill in gaps in the coverage. As the new entrant to the market, 3 has taken all the available opportunities to share mast sites with other operators and to use existing structures whenever it can, but it has had to build up its network from scratch.
    Some people may ask why it was felt necessary to bring in an additional mobile operator, with all its extra masts, when we already had four operators. The advantage of our policy in encouraging a new entrant is an increase in competition. We are already seeing the positive benefits of that policy, despite the problems in

    795
    the mobile communications market caused by the high-tech downturn. Strong competitive pressure has ensured that all five UK operators are committed to rolling out next-generation networks in this country.
    The new entrant, 3, has to ensure that its launch is a success; it does not have an existing 2G network to fall back on. That puts huge pressure on the other four operators to follow suit or suffer damage to their competitive positions. Roll-outs of 3G throughout Europe have been delayed, but by less in the UK than elsewhere. One of the other operators has publicly announced that its 3G roll-out elsewhere in Europe is on hold, but it is pushing ahead in the UK; it cannot afford to delay because of the UK market's competitiveness. The economic benefit of mobile communications is widely recognised and would not be disputed, but the hon. Gentleman has raised a fair concern about health issues, and I want to say a little about that.
    In 1999, my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Public Health, who is now the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, set up the independent expert group, chaired by Sir William Stewart, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The group called for written evidence and held a number of public meetings. The Stewart report was published on 11 May 2000. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it is the definitive work on this subject. It contained recommendations based on a thorough review of the available scientific data on the health effects, and it took into account the evidence that was received.
    The report's key conclusions have been referred to and read by the hon. Gentleman. It concluded that the balance of evidence indicated that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of the levels in the guidelines. It recommended a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available. It went on to recommend that an independent research programme should be carried out, along with an audit of emissions at locations close to the most sensitive sites, such as schools and hospitals.
    The Government welcomed the Stewart report and we accepted the advice on the need for a precautionary approach and on the establishment of a research programme. The mobile telecommunications health research programme was established in 2001, and about 18 research projects are now running. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a new piece of work that is being conducted. As new results emerge, we will pay very close attention to them. If any evidence exists, beyond the anecdotal, of problems in this area, we will pay particularly close attention to it.
    The Stewart report recommended an independent audit of base stations, which is being taken forward by the Radiocommunications Agency. That has focused initially on schools in particular, and will be looking at some other sensitive sites, too. The results of its second year of surveys were released last month, and are available on the Radiocommunications Agency's website at www.radio.gov.uk. The findings are reassuring. The study has so far examined mobile phone masts at 200 sites across the UK, looking at school and hospital sites. The readings showed emission levels ranging from hundreds to million of times below
    796
    international guideline levels, which are set independently by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, usually abbreviated to ICNIRP. Even the highest reading was only one two-hundred-and-seventy ninth of that limit. Undertaking health-based research on exposures from mobile phone masts is not straightforward, because, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, levels of exposure are difficult to isolate from other exposures. Drawing together the advice of the Stewart report and the measurements in the audit programme, however, shows conclusively that there are certainly no grounds for any kind of moratorium on base station installations.
    We also take environmental concerns very seriously. Our policy is to facilitate the growth of new and existing telecommunications systems while keeping the environmental impact to a minimum. Site sharing, as I have mentioned, is one way of doing that. Camouflage or otherwise making the mast less obtrusive is another. Two thirds of masts are located on existing buildings, on street furniture, or in rooftops and the like. The mobile operators are working with the Council for National Parks on developing ways of ensuring that masts and equipment fit in with the landscape in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, for example, through use of local materials in construction. After a slightly uncertain start, I am told that masts disguised as trees are now very convincing.
    Network sharing has been successful on a limited basis. For the Hebrides in Scotland, funded by a European Union grant, O2 and Vodafone agreed jointly to provide the islands with mobile coverage by sharing their networks. Fewer base stations were needed as a result, but each operator had to compromise on its coverage plans. Sharing on a larger scale could reduce competition between networks and could be against the interests of the consumer. O2 and T-Mobile are planning a degree of network sharing in rural areas for their 3G networks, although that is subject to approval by competition authorities. In urban areas, the technical limitations to which I referred mean that more antennae are needed to provide enough capacity to meet the demand of people in those areas. Network sharing therefore looks unlikely to be practicable.
    That is not to say that mobile operators can do what they like or site masts where they please. They have a voluntary code of practice, while our planning guidance note on telecommunications sets out the framework for local planning authorities and for operators. The code of practice was adopted in 2001 with the "Ten Commitments to best siting practice". The key elements are: improved consultation with communities and planners; better information on sites and on use of sites through, for example, site sharing; compliance with internationally recognised guidelines on emissions; and financial support for more independent research.
    The initiative has three aims: improving transparency in the process of building mobile networks; providing more information to the public; and increasing the role of the public in the siting of base stations. Those commitments are being put into practice in consultation with local government and community stakeholders to ensure that they are fully workable. The industry is taking this issue seriously—reflecting the level of public concern that the hon. Member for West Suffolk spoke about.

    797
    The code is the operators' commitment to greater transparency and consultation. In addition, my Department's Radiocommunications Agency, in cooperation with the operators, has developed the "Sitefinder" database of mobile phone base stations. It is on the internet and gives members of the public the opportunity to get details of the location and operating characteristics of all outdoor mobile phone base stations in the United Kingdom. It is well worth a visit; its address is www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk.
    Dealing with planning applications and the location of telecommunications equipment is a matter for the local planning authority. The hon. Gentleman referred to policy planning guidance note No. 8, which sets out the policy on different aspects of planning with regard to telecommunications developments, including masts and other equipment. PPG8 was updated in 2002. The main changes were: to update guidance to take account of developments in telecommunications technology and the growth of the telecommunications industry; to update guidance to take account of changes to the permitted development rights that apply to telecommunications code system operators; and, in particular, to provide advice about taking account of health considerations in making planning decisions on telecommunications development.
    Transparency and consultation are key to the guidance note. It strongly encourages operators and local planning authorities to participate in annual discussions about roll-out plans for an area; it calls for pre-applications discussions with the authority and
    798
    other local and national interested bodies; and it stresses the importance of discussions with schools or colleges that are near to a proposed development. The aim is that there should be no surprises.
    The guidance note recognises the environmental concerns and it encourages operators to adopt innovative design solutions to help telecommunications blend as much as possible into the local landscape. It also encourages them to share sites where appropriate. A key element is the expectation that masts and installations should be kept to the minimum consistent with the effective operation of the network.
    I will end by quoting PPG8 on planning and health. It says that
    "it is the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central Government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Government's view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them."
    There are also another two paragraphs on the subject.
    We acknowledge the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, which are reflected widely in our communities. We have made a number of changes to take account of those concerns, and a programme of research is in place. We will consider very carefully any new information that emerges as a result of that work.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eight o'clock.

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

Civil Defence
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
9.30 am
Sir John Stanley: Since the end of the second world war, except during the early years of the cold war, civil defence has been regarded by successive governments as a Cinderella policy issue, perhaps more so since the Berlin wall came down. Emphatically, that must change, and it must change with dramatic speed and intensity and with resources to match.
Throughout the whole of the cold war, even when a nuclear threat hung over the people of this country, I do not recall a single senior politician or security person saying that they considered that an attack with mass fatalities was inevitable. It is a very different situation today. Last year, the Director of Europol said that it was no longer a question of whether there would be a terrorist attack in Europe but, simply, a question of when. In a recent interview on the BBC's "Breakfast with Frost" programme, Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, was asked whether he thought that a terrorist attack on the UK was inevitable. He replied:
"I am afraid I think it probably is, but that doesn't mean we aren't doing all we can to prevent it."
In a meeting of the Liaison Committee on 21 January, the Prime Minister was asked by the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) whether he believed
"that an al-Qaeda attack on the United Kingdom is inevitable?"
The Prime Minister replied:
"I believe it is inevitable that they will try in some form or other."
In the immediate aftermath of the 11 September attack, the Prime Minister gave the starkest warning as to the forms that an al-Qaeda attack might take. He said in the House on 14 September 2001:
"We know that these groups are fanatics, capable of killing without discrimination. The limits on the numbers that they kill and their methods of killing are not governed by any sense of morality. The limits are only practical and technical. We know, that they would, if they could, go further and use chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons of mass destruction."—[Official Report, 14 September 2001; Vol. 372, c. 606.]
I do not for a moment suggest that the Government have been inactive on civil defence, but I seriously question whether their priorities are right and whether they have acted with sufficient intensity. Undoubtedly, they have been preparing for the worst case, which is their responsibility. We read in the newspapers that body bags are being stockpiled.The Sunday Times of 17 November stated:
"Officials involved have revealed that planners are considering the extreme case of hundreds of thousands of deaths being caused by a biological attack involving plague or smallpox."
186WH
The same article reported the establishment of a United Kingdom mass fatalities working group and the creation of a strategic disaster mortuaries working group for London, with consideration being given to mobile and modular mortuaries and with the possibility of RAF Northolt being designated to provide, in the delicate phrase of The Sunday Times, an "overflow capacity".
I do not criticise the Government for preparing for mass deaths; that is their unmistakable responsibility and duty. However, I am interested to know what the Government are doing to engage in mass life-saving, if the worst should happen and, in particular, if there is a terrorist attack on the UK involving weapons of mass destruction. I spent four years at the Ministry of Defence and in my experience the military have a particularly accurate way of coining terms of remarkable brutality. I read in another press article that, as a result of their planning and the exercises carried out to prepare for a biological attack on the UK, the armed forces will divide the luckless civilians caught in the vicinity of an attack into three categories: walkers, floppers and goners. Little prospect of survival is held out for the floppers and goners.
I, like any number of Members of Parliament with constituencies in London or its vicinity, have countless thousands of constituents who travel into the city each day in the confident expectation that they will return safely at night to their families. I, for one, want to be satisfied—in detail and by the Government—that should my constituents should be so unfortunate as to find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time when the worst happens, they will not be consigned to the ranks of the floppers and goners and doomed to die.
There are four issues relating to life-saving that I want to raise with the Minister. First, there is the issue of resources and money. The most successful civil defence is a civil defence plan that never has to be employed for real, and that means prevention. Preventing terrorism is linked to a very simple, even primitive, equation: either we get the terrorists first, or they get us. From my time in Northern Ireland, I remember the resources that are required to put just one person under 24-hour, seven-day-a-week surveillance. How many suspects or potential suspects are there in the UK who may represent al-Qaeda secreted cells? Is it hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands? Are there perhaps over 100,000 people who need to be found and eliminated as potential suspects?
Yesterday in the House, we debated an Intelligence and Security Committee special report on Bali. I very much welcome the fact that the Committee produced the report in quick time. I hope that, right now, the Committee is examining other matters equally quickly and will also be making a special report to the House, as fast as possible, on whether the resources being made available to the intelligence services, the anti-terrorist branch and special branches up and down the country are adequate to the task of finding the terrorist cells that are undoubtedly still secreted in this country.
I have said in the House that, in dealing with terrorism, intelligence is the first, and probably the last, line of defence. In the judgment of those in a position to know, such as the Prime Minister and the head of the Metropolitan police, an attack on the United Kingdom is inevitable. That could result in loss of life far greater

187WH
than that on 11 September, and I say to the Government that resources must be provided to the intelligence services, the police and the anti-terrorist branch to enable them to do the job that they have to do, while there is still time.
My second life-saving issue is the Government structure for effective counter-terrorism and civil defence. The Home Secretary is the Cabinet Minister in the lead, but does he have sufficient authority to deal with all the other Departments whose co-operation and involvement in civil defence is essential? Is he in a position to take an effective lead in, and charge of, the whole of civil defence planning, preparation and organisation in this country? I doubt it. At least six separate Departments and Cabinet Ministers are involved, including the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister. It might be of passing interest to the Chamber to know that when this debate was announced, the first Government Department to get on to my office to ask what I was going to say was not the Home Office but the Cabinet Office. The Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are involved, as is the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which has responsibilities for the regions and local authorities. The Department of Health and the Department for Transport are involved, as are the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I may be wrong, but it appears to me that the structure that we have leaves a great deal to be desired if we are to have truly effective and authoritative civil defence planning and organisation in this country. I am not necessarily advocating that we go down the same route as the United States and create a separate Government Department to deal with the issue, although I have been briefed in the United States on its new Department of Homeland Security and I believe that it will prove a very effective answer to that country's civil defence needs. I ask the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, to consider one fundamental question. If the worst should happen and there were a terrorist attack on this country involving mass civilian casualties, would the civil defence governmental structure in place today continue unchanged? If the answer is emphatically no, and it would be changed radically, then I put it to the Government and the Prime Minister that that change should be made now, before that loss of life occurs.
My third life-saving issue is the need to ensure that emergency personnel are put in the very best position to provide their life-saving services if the worst should happen. I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement yesterday that there will be a major civil defence exercise on the ground in London. It is high time—18 months after 11 September. That exercise should surely have taken place already, and there should be such exercises in other cities and local authorities up and down the country.
I am aware from what I have read in the press that there have been many exercises in COBRA. I spent many happy hours in COBRA as Minister for the Armed Forces, and as the security Minister of State in Northern Ireland. I do not suggest that COBRA exercises are without value, but that value is limited.
188WH
They are command and control and communications exercises. The only way to get real value is through undertaking exercises on the ground.
The basic principle of exercises is, and has always been, that the closer that one can approximate the exercise to reality, the greater the value of the exercise. In that case, as elsewhere, the United States is well ahead of us. A few months ago, in my hotel room in the United States, I turned on the television and saw a full-scale exercise taking place in the local county based on a simulated anthrax attack. It was played out on the ground, in the streets and throughout the county. At the end, the emergency chiefs were interviewed on television about the lessons learned. One wonders whether any such thing could happen on television in the UK. Mercifully, the United States is a more open society.
One lesson learned, for example, was that the anthrax antibiotic was available only in bulk and that vital lifesaving time would be lost in breaking it down into small amounts that could be quickly and easily made available to victims of the attack. I put it to the Minister that one learns such lessons only by means of exercises on the ground.
There is plenty of evidence for thinking that the level of exercises is seriously inadequate in the UK. Last November, the National Audit Office produced a report that examined the preparedness of health authorities. The report demonstrated that one third of health authorities had not tested their plans under the category:
"Testing of plans—chemical, biological and mass casualty incidents".
When it came to the testing of plans for radiological or nuclear incidents, four fifths of the health authorities had not tested their plans. Only last night, on the BBC television news, Professor Michael Clarke of King's college, London said that at the local health authority level the lack of preparedness was as shambolic as it was two years ago.
I hope that hon. Members will make inquiries in their constituencies about the exercises that have been carried out by emergency services and accident and emergency departments in their areas. They should make the results of their inquiries known to the Minister. There needs to be a dramatic improvement in the level of exercising and training of the emergency personnel on whom the lives of those who may be caught up in a terrorist attack will ultimately depend.
The final issue in my saving of life agenda is the adequacy of the medical treatment policy that the Government are adopting, with reference to an attack with weapons of mass destruction on the United Kingdom. I warmly welcome the decision of the Science and Technology Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) to conduct an inquiry into the scientific response to the terrorist threat. As I have said personally to the hon. Gentleman, the inquiry being carried out by his Committee is the single most important Select Committee inquiry being carried out in this House, and

189WH
I say that as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I hope that that Committee will make all possible speed with its inquiry and will make the earliest possible report, or series of reports, to the House. I hope that it will cover in its report the medical and scientific response to nuclear and radiological attack, toxic chemical attack and biological attack.
The most urgent medical policy issue is protection of the public against a smallpox attack. It is of the utmost urgency for evident reasons. It is the area where there is the greatest potential to save life because a vaccine is available. In the United States recently, I received a confidential briefing on its worst-case scenario of a smallpox attack in the United States. The results were horrific. I am not able to disclose the details, but I shall refer to one assumption that is common and accepted medical knowledge. In the event of a smallpox attack, every person infected with smallpox is likely to infect a further 10. Smallpox will spread like wildfire, and, as we know, its consequences are normally fatal unless vaccination can be provided.
I, like other hon. Members, was interested to hear the person who was described as a senior Government adviser being interviewed on the "Today" programme yesterday. Sadly, owing to the culture of fear that seems to exist in the public sector, he had to remain anonymous because he expressed views that were critical of the Government's policy. He had grave doubts about the adequacy of the Government's policy for dealing with a smallpox attack; indeed, he said that the Departments involved were displaying a lethargic approach to this vital issue.
There is no doubt that the position that the British Government are taking is different from that of others. In the United States and in France, the Governments have already announced that they will procure sufficient smallpox vaccine to vaccinate the entire population. In the UK, the Government treat as confidential how much vaccine is being procured for reasons that I wholly fail to understand or conceive to be justified. The Government have indicated that the amount of vaccine being procured is less than one per head of population in the UK, which is an extraordinary decision given that in the event of a smallpox attack people are likely to disperse and carry the infection with them. They could disperse to any part of the United Kingdom, even to some of the remote islands in Scotland.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the culture of secrecy owes a lot to the cold war, and that the Government ought to grow up? As he rightly implied, the United States has a far more open approach to this kind of thing. Although it is important for security reasons to keep things under wraps when facing down an aggressor such as the Soviet Union, that does not apply, in particular in reference to our preparations for biological attack, to terrorist organisations.
Sir John Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend. I see no security reason why information should not be disclosed. It is information that the public, whose lives are at risk, are entitled to have.
190WH
The all-important computer programme—which is crucial for the emergency services—to simulate how smallpox would spread in the United States is available and up and running. The Government's anonymous senior adviser told us yesterday that that computer programme had still not been completed and was not available for exercises by the emergency planning authorities here.
Lastly—this is not inconsequential—the United States President has, rightly, gone public and said that he will have a smallpox vaccination. In this country, the Prime Minister considers the information about whether he will take that precaution to be highly classified, and No. 10 yesterday made the ludicrous suggestion that it is a personal matter for the Prime Minister. It is a matter of utmost public importance and interest to know whether the Prime Minister is taking all necessary steps to ensure his survival in the event of a smallpox attack. He should have a smallpox jab, but the Government are inhibited because they think that if people know that the Prime Minister has been vaccinated, millions of them will ask why they cannot also be vaccinated. That is a reasonable question for people to ask and the Government should answer it.
Dr. Murrison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that after the MMR debacle, the Prime Minister might be forgiven for being queasy about getting involved with jabs?
Sir John Stanley: I take my hon. Friend's point, but this is a different issue. The Prime Minister should ensure that he is able to survive a smallpox attack.
I hope that the Government are prepared to take on a public debate—I welcome the fact that it has started in the media —on what their policy should be on preventive smallpox vaccination.
On the "Today" programme yesterday two different views were expressed. Professor Alastair Geddes of the Public Health Laboratory said that the advantages of preventive smallpox vaccination of the civilian population outweighed the disadvantages. We also heard the reported views of the chief medical officer that such vaccination is unnecessary and that the Government's policy of waiting until a smallpox attack has happened and then following a programme of ring vaccination would suffice. I question that view. Ring vaccination is uncomfortably redolent of the foot and mouth fiasco and I hope that the Government are not assuming that British civilians caught up in a smallpox attack would conduct themselves in the same way as cattle and meekly stand around waiting to see whether they are culled by smallpox.
There is no doubt in my mind that if such an attack took place, people would do everything possible to break out of the cordons, whatever the so-called quarantine cordons that the Government intend to erect, surrounded by police and armed servicemen apparently equipped with baton rounds. There will be infected people among those who escape, and the infection will spread to all parts of the United Kingdom. Against that background, it is incumbent on the Government to consider very seriously the possibility of enabling the people of this country to have smallpox vaccinations on a voluntary basis.
Mr. James Paice: On the question of the Prime Minister, but going beyond him as an individual, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Home Secretary's words in the House of Commons yesterday? He said:
"Given that politicians are not held in high esteem and trust is not readily given, politicians, including me, will not seek vaccination against smallpox unless the vaccine is made generally available to the population."—[Official Report, 3 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 591.]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that although that might explain Government policy, it clearly implies that the vaccine is not to be made available to the population?
Sir John Stanley: That was the policy view expressed on behalf of the Government by their chief medical officer on the "Today" programme yesterday. That policy should be subject to detailed scrutiny. I question it strongly, and I hope that it will be one of the issues immediately dealt with by the Science and Technology Committee, and the subject of a report to the House.
On all the evidence available, the UK civilian population is at more serious risk of large-scale fatalities than at any time since the end of the second world war, including the worst period of threat to this country from the IRA. Civil defence should be at the very top of the Government's agenda. It should be on the desk not only of the Home Secretary but of the Prime Minister, and it should be on his desk repeatedly. I fear, however, that civil defence in this country is still under-resourced, under-prepared and under-led. I urge the Government to ensure, with the utmost immediacy, that civil defence has the resources, the preparedness and the leadership required before for some—perhaps a horrendous number—it is simply too late.
10.2 am
Dr. Andrew Murrison: I am surprised by the relatively poor attendance at this debate. I think that our constituents are most exercised by this issue, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on bringing it to the attention of the House.
The Library has put together an interesting collection of newspaper clippings which reflects the importance of the subject to the fourth estate and the people whom we represent. I shall touch on one or two important issues, and I draw the Chamber's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I am a reservist and could therefore be involved in the contingencies that the Government may put in place to deal with a terrorist attack on this country.
When I was serving, I came across some interesting characters called emergency planning officers. They are usually middle-grade ex-servicemen, tasked by local authorities with drawing up plans for emergencies in their localities. It is probably true to say that at that time, they were grossly under-resourced and usually a bolt-on added extra—put away by local authorities in a side room until they came out for their yearly exercise, if that. I remember thinking that the sector needed to be developed and properly resourced. In my area, the south coast of England, they were perhaps better resourced than they otherwise would have been because of the
192WH
close proximity of the military and the problems that could arise from a nuclear accident. I suspect that, across the country, those resources were even thinner than those that I experienced in the south of England.
In recent weeks, we have seen the Government give a little more attention to emergency planning, which I welcome. However, I am left wondering whether it is too little too late and whether we need a culture change, similar to the one that the Americans have had, to protect our civil population.
I was recently in correspondence with a hospital in the south of England, which wishes to remain anonymous, in which we discussed the preparations that it had made for the possibility of a terrorist attack. It is probably true to say that any preparations were centrally driven, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on what direction has been given to health authorities to protect their people and to assist the civil population for which trusts are responsible in the event of an attack.
From what I was told, it seems that provision is fairly inadequate and, in particular, the protective suits with which personnel in the casualty department have been provided are second rate and liable to fall apart with minimal usage. Inadequate thought has been given centrally to what NHS trusts may need in the event of an attack. I fully appreciate that the Minister is not directly responsible for that, and I shall go on to explain why we may need an overarching method of pulling together the various strands to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling referred. I would appreciate some comment from the Minister on the preparedness of the NHS to deal with the issues that we have been discussing.
A chemical attack on the population of this country would be tragically and devastatingly obvious. An attack with biological agents would not be so obvious because there is an incubation period and it would take considerable time for the ill effects to become apparent. There are ways of detecting agents before they become clinically apparent, so it would be interesting to hear from the Minister what preparation he has made for early warning of the presence in the atmosphere of novel biological agents.
We shall rely in general on a pick-up by general practitioners and epidemiologists, so the problem will be one for public health. It would be useful to know and to be assured that everything is being done to pick up cases early. If we could do that, it would, as the chief medical officer said, be possible to vaccinate exposed populations and provide prophylactic antibiotics, which would reduce the toll.
It would be wrong of me to pre-empt the forthcoming report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the scientific response to terrorism, but it is probably true that the creation of a department for homeland defence is one of the topics that will be discussed. The United States, in its inimitable fashion, has pre-empted us and created such a department. It clearly feels that the threat to its population justifies that. It will be interesting to hear whether we shall proceed down that route. The problem is multi-departmental, and I have every sympathy for the Minister having to come here to discuss the issue, when he is probably ill placed to speak on behalf of the multifarious Departments that touch on civil defence.

193WH
There is a danger that Departments will pull in different directions without co-ordination, and in this situation, that is precisely what is not required.
We are told that our reserve forces have embarked on something called a civil contingencies reaction force that will augment civil powers in the event of an attack on this country by a terrorist organisation. We know little about that, so it would be useful if the Minister gave us a few words of wisdom on the subject. How will the force be constituted? What will be its size and its functions, and, crucially, what training will it receive? It would be useful to know, for example, whether it will take part in the exercise planned for London in a few days.
That exercise will be a worthwhile use of our reserve forces. We hear that members of the reserve forces are having difficulties with the concept of an attack on Iraq. Such an attack is not homeland defence, nor is it territorial in the usual sense of the word, and a homeland task would be more in tune with the usual tasks of the Territorial Army. It would be useful if the Minister explained the function that he anticipates for the civil contingencies reaction force. Will he reassure us that no one in the reserve forces will be asked to carry out tasks for which they are not adequately trained?
10.10 am
Simon Hughes: I thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) for introducing the debate, and speaking authoritatively and clearly on what he sees as the priorities.
I was reflecting on how much the issue had become the subject of public discussion in a way that we could not have anticipated two years ago. The right hon. Gentleman made that point very well. Five or 10 years ago, civil defence and emergency planning was seen mainly as a response to unusual meteorological events, such as floods, hurricanes and drought. The people involved in civil defence were regarded as minor players. They were regarded as Cinderellas, and not taken seriously. They were perceived as a dad's army adjunct that existed in shadowy form giving a few drugs to a few people that one did not need to know much about.
As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, things have changed fundamentally. It is important that Parliament ensures that the country puts a structure in place as quickly as possible to respond to the sorts of attack that are possible today that were not possible 50 years ago.
This is the third recent debate on the subject of which I am aware. A debate on emergency planning was initiated in the House of Lords by my noble friend Lord Roper on 4 December. Lord Filkin provided a response on behalf of the Home Office. On 12 February, a debate was initiated in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who had a particular interest and concern about transport security. That debate was answered by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office. During today's debate, a Home Office Minister is present. I am happy that he is here, but it reflects the fact that the Government are still undergoing a journey of development on accountability. Of course, the issue cuts across a range of departmental responsibilities. I accept that the Home Secretary has principal Government responsibility on the matter and the Government have made that clear, but there is still some uncertainty about who fits in where.
194WH
I do not want to repeat things said by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing; I want to add two or three matters of concern. I speak as a London Member of Parliament, and one in a team of people in my party who shadow the Home Office. I declare a third interest. My hat is in the ring for our party's selection for mayoral candidate. Later this week, I may have that additional responsibility. In that capacity, I will be ready and willing to participate in the debate about such issues.
Yesterday's written statement by the Home Secretary was welcome, but I was surprised that it was not an oral statement. The statement is significant, and because it was so important there were references to it, and the Home Secretary commented on it, in the debate about the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in force of sections 21 to 23) Order 2003, which is a linked but separate issue. There would have been considerable interest in an oral statement. I know that there will be other opportunities, but I ask the Minister of State to take back to the Home Secretary a request that such a statement be the basis of an early opportunity to question the Home Secretary and Ministers, and to have on the Government Front Bench other available Ministers as well.
Sir John Stanley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was particularly regrettable that there was no oral statement, not merely in view of the importance of the issue and the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who might have wished to put questions to the Home Secretary on it, but as the business of the House finished early last night and there was, therefore, no shortage of time yesterday for an oral statement?
Simon Hughes: That is certainly true. As somebody who participated in the first of the debates, I reflected that it would have been sensible and logical to take the three issues together. We had the anti-terrorism renewal order debate and the debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee's report on the Bali bombings. The logic would have been to take this debate with those. I regret that that was not done. It means that we have not had an opportunity to probe important issues, some of which have been raised today.
In addition to the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, I want first to mention the question of resources. I have not done the arithmetic, but I am reliably informed by colleagues who have, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), that local authorities' budgets for the coming year do not show an increase in real terms for civil defence and emergency planning. If that is the case, it is extraordinary, given the extra demand for those matters and interest in them and the extra expectations that will be placed on them. We must be clear, and the public must be clear, how much money in the national budget is allocated to those matters, how much is in the regional budgets—London is an obvious example, because the Greater London authority has responsibility for these matters, among others—and what the local budget is? Our constituents would be reassured to know that money was allocated for these matters and would be properly deployed and spent. There would not be any criticism if money were raised and spent on that area of public protection.

195WH
In that context, I ask the Minister formally to give me an answer today to the proposal that I put to the Minister of State in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister who has responsibility for London planning and chairs the Cabinet Sub-Committee. I asked whether, not just in London but throughout the country, people could receive with the mailing that is about to go through their letterboxes, containing their local government precept, charges and information, the maximum information about what they should do if there is an emergency and a civil response is needed.
On one key issue I reflect the point made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing about the fact that ours is a secretive society compared with, say, the United States. The public are asked to go to all sorts of different places to find different pieces of information. The more central the location of the information and the more clearly the public can be pointed towards it, the better. To his credit, the Minister of State said that he would reflect on that idea, which he thought was a good one. I had the impression that public dissemination of that kind might be made through the letterboxes in the next few weeks.
Dr. Murrison: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, particularly about the simplicity of including that information in mailshots that are going out anyway. However, does he not agree that it is important to do a risk assessment first, particularly as people may be alarmed by the material? We should perhaps target the advice on conurbations, where the risk is larger, and spare people in parts of the country where the risk is low from receiving what might be quite disturbing information.
Simon Hughes: I understand that. It is a difficult judgment. I think that the best advice can be given by those elected to represent people in the local authorities and areas in question—the leaders of the local authorities and Members of Parliament. Different types of information may be given. I am not arguing that the only place where people can look for information is in a brown envelope that comes with their council tax bill, but that seems a way of giving them authoritative, up-to-date information. There are other ways, of course. The Government have made it clear that they expect the media to be the prime source of information, and that is understandable.
However, taking as an example the smallpox case, there still seems to be an expectation that GPs will inform themselves by going up the line to the local health authority, local trust or public health laboratory service, rather than that such information will come down the line to them in advance. It is confusing for people to have to go to various website addresses for information about health issues, protective clothing or the person to whom they should turn for instructions. Such information should be in one place, regardless of whether the police, health service or reserve forces are responsible.
A national police service, which is led by the special branch of the Metropolitan police, deals with such matters. The Minister has heard me say before that it
196WH
would be reassuring, rather than the opposite, to the public to know that even though, technically, the Metropolitan police special branch is leading—I understand that the police are the lead authority among the emergency services—an umbrella of cover is provided nationally in order to achieve maximum integration and minimum waste and duplication of resources. It would be useful if the specialism of the police were seen as available throughout the country. The Minister might be kind enough to discuss the arrangement between the different forces and the Met, which has taken the lead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about maximising the improvement of security at our ports and airports. The matter was discussed by Lord Carlile in his report. He pointed out that small airports and ports are much less well protected than the public would wish. It would be helpful if the Minister would tell us whether a response has been made to Lord Carlile's recommendations and whether there is a plan to recruit more people for the border force, thereby making controls at our major airports more effective. I have previously mentioned that desks are unstaffed other than at core hours, and that checks are not made, for example, on behalf of the Customs and Excise because no one is available.
It is still possible for a temporary member of staff who has not had proper security vetting to go air side, even at Heathrow. We must resolve that issue, because everyone who works in a vulnerable location—ports and airports must count as such, as well as places such as the London underground—should be subject to security vetting.
In an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) discussed the need to ensure that our information systems had the capacity to deal with the demand that will be placed on them in the case of a terrorist threat. In old-style military attacks, one would seek to take over the airport, control tower and radio station. It is no secret that someone who wanted to disable society now would try to interfere with radio and computer communications. We all know what happens periodically with mobile phones and similar technologies. Can the Minister reassure the public that arrangements are in hand, if not yet in place, to ensure that such systems are better protected so that, if suddenly there is mass use, the systems will not go down just when everyone most needs to use them?
Lastly, I wish to pick up on the topical issue of vaccinations and link with it that of the provision of protective clothing. 1 do not pretend to be an expert and I understand the concerns, but it seems to me that there should be a policy of having enough vaccine for everybody. I am not advocating that we should vaccinate everybody now. I know that contingency planning has taken place and that supplies have been pushed out through the national health service. However, the public would be reassured if they knew two things: first, there is, or soon will be, vaccine available for everybody, should it be needed, and secondly, there is, or soon will be, protective clothing available. To pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), perhaps such clothing should be available in conurbations first, rather than generally. Those things would mean that there would be personal protection in the event of a terrible chemical, biological or nuclear attack.

197WH
There is a huge set of issues. The debate is welcome, because it will take those issues further. The knowledge that there will be a civil contingencies and civil defence Bill in the summer, which was firmed up by the statement yesterday, is also welcome. I hope that, using that as a backdrop, there will be an opportunity in the near future for the Home Secretary to come to the House to answer questions; that there can be other, informal occasions when parliamentarians can have a discussion and be briefed, and, most important, that the public can have clear and simple routes of access to the maximum amount of information, as soon as possible.
10.26 am
Mr. James Paice: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) on securing the debate. He brought to his very considerable speech his immense experience and stature within the area of defence and security. He made some of the issues that beset us starkly real. He started by reminding us of the public statements made by the Prime Minister and others about the very real possibility of this country being subject to some form of terrorist attack. He did not say so, but the possibility of that happening is considerably higher than the possibility of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) becoming Mayor of London.
My right hon. Friend also reminded us of the importance of ensuring that all local authorities and health authorities have sufficient resources to fulfil not only their obligations under the present legislation, but the greater responsibilities that they will have as a result of the Bill that we will have later in the year. I venture to suggest, bearing in mind the risks to which my right hon. Friend referred, that regardless of whether authorities have the responsibilities, the resources should be there already. That would enable authorities to take discretionary action, even if they are not obliged to so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) spoke wisely on health issues. He referred to his sadness about the attendance, but, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, this is the second debate on the subject in a month. However, I share the view that more hon. Members should perhaps have taken an interest. It is interesting that in the three weeks since the previous debate a number of new issues have arisen, on which I want to touch.
As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey pointed out, a different Minister is replying to today's debate. I am delighted about that, but it raises the issue of overall responsibility. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing quite rightly and properly said that he was not sure that we needed a whole Department, akin to the Department of Homeland Security in the United States. However, I am concerned that we do not have a single Minister who is ultimately responsible for the issues. The Minister of State, Cabinet Office, who replied to the previous debate, rightly said:
"The Home Secretary has overall responsibility for the safety and security of the citizens of the United Kingdom. He is in charge of security and also supervises all current counter-terrorist and resilience work by Departments".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 12 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 305WH.]
198WH
That is an important job, but the Home Secretary is also responsible for the asylum chaos, our passport system and our police and law enforcement mechanisms. The amount of time that he can devote to this important matter must be extremely limited, which is why we retain the view that a Cabinet Minister should be responsible only for considering and co-ordinating home and security.
Yesterday, the Minister appeared as the Minister for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear coordination, as he was described in a document published by the Home Secretary on civil contingency planning to deal with a terrorist attack. He said that he had been in the job since the turn of the year, which is fine. Having worked with him for around 18 months, I have huge respect for him and I am not criticising him, but it demonstrates yet again that another Minister with an important responsibility—
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety(Mr. John Denham): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that yesterday was not the first time that it was stated on the parliamentary record that I hold those responsibilities. I held them when, among other occasions, I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Defence last year. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) may have overlooked that, but other parliamentarians may not have done.
Mr. Paice: That is interesting and I am happy to accept the Minister's word, but the statement yesterday was certainly the first time that a number of us had heard of that.
The issue concerns co-ordination and whether it is possible for a disparate group of Ministers, each with different responsibilities, to co-ordinate. At least two of us in the Room have been in the same sort of position as the Minister. He will say that there are committees to do that, but those of us who have sat on Cabinet Committees and Sub-Committees know that it is easy to convince oneself that one is doing a grand job when hindsight often shows that matters of urgency and priority are never top of the agenda.
I shall not repeat all the issues that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey reminded us about, but I hope that the Minister will address airport security in his reply.
Much of this morning's debate has concerned public information. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury suggested that we should worry only about areas of dense population, which is a reasonable and valid proposition. My view is that the biggest cause of fear is lack of knowledge of the issues. We should be less patronising in the way in which we treat the public concerning threats and the actions that can be taken against those threats.
There has been much jocularity about the old "Protect and Survive" leaflet of the 1970s and 1980s, which, with hindsight, we might say was absurd, but at that time it provided an element of information to the public and we should not throw out the principle because, with hindsight 20 or 30 years later, we can rubbish that document. Perhaps nowhere is that more important than with vaccination, although that will arise in other matters that I want to raise.

199WH
As my right hon. Friend said during his opening speech, vaccination, particularly smallpox vaccination, is important. The statement published by the Home Secretary yesterday referred to the establishment of a United Kingdom reserve of a national stock of vaccines and antibiotics. Last night, the BBC news said that 20 million doses were available, but I am not aware of any public statement on that, so perhaps the Minister will confirm it. The Home Secretary said in the debate in the Chamber that Ministers will not seek vaccination against smallpox unless that is made generally available to the population. When he was then challenged at the Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the Home Secretary said:
"I do not believe that there is a problem with people approaching their general practitioner for the smallpox vaccination."—[Official Report, 3 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 596.]
Those two different statements, made by the Home Secretary in the space of a few minutes, are misleading and could give rise to considerable confusion. Of course, anyone is entitled to go and ask their GP for a vaccination, but whether the facilities are available for them to have it is another matter. I hope that the Minister can clarify that point. I argue strongly that anyone should be able to have a smallpox vaccination if they feel that that is necessary for their and their families' safety. We definitely do not want the sort of confusion that, I suggest, has now arisen.
Sir John Stanley: My hon. Friend referred to the lack of public information leaflets put out by the Government to help people to deal with civil defence and emergency issues. Is he aware that the Australian Government have already put out an interesting and comprehensive leaflet entitled "Preparing for the Unexpected"? If the Australian Government have concluded that it is necessary to put out such information in their very large country, surely we should be doing likewise, with great speed, in this tightly packed country where the risk of mass fatalities is that much greater.
Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend introduces the next page of my speech perfectly, and saves me from making some of my points.
I turn to the websites referred to by the Home Secretary in yesterday's published statement. He mentioned ukresilience.info and the forthcoming Home Office site on terrorism. I do not think that anyone would describe the UK resilience site, which I spent some time studying yesterday evening, as user-friendly. It is very much a technocrats' website and does not provide large quantities of helpful public information from UK sources. For example, I searched for the word "smallpox", which I should have thought was reasonable on such a site, and four items came up. Three were simply extracts from newspapers and the fourth was on the medical effects of smallpox. None gave information about the terrorist implications, or about measures that people can take to minimise their personal risk from smallpox.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary said in the House that he would not produce guidelines along the lines of the "Protect and Survive" leaflet, but that the Home Office
200WH
was developing a terrorist website to provide information. If one goes into the UK resilience site, as my right hon. Friend has, one finds links. Like him, I found the link to the Australian Government document "Preparing for the Unexpected". With the slight proviso that that is designed for an entirely different type of country, it is an extremely helpful, clearly written, explanatory document. It is not written in technical language, nor is it scaremongering. It provides the general public with a straightforward series of fairly simple advice.
There is some confusion here. On the one hand, the Government have said that they will not publish a leaflet in the form that has been seen before, but on the other, their own websites provide access to other countries' similar leaflets, which are helpful, but not designed for British circumstances. That seems highly contradictory. It is also worth making the point that one can access similar sites in the United States, Canada, France and New Zealand, all of which are far more helpful than the UK site.
Nowhere is that point more starkly illustrated than in an article that appeared in The Sunday Times. I am not a great one for quoting the press because we all know that accuracy cannot be vouched for, but that article raised particular issues so I shall end by quoting from it and challenging the Minister to say exactly what is going on. The article, which was published on 23 February, stated:
"HOUSEHOLDERS are to be given guidance on how to survive in the face of a catastrophic terrorist attack. The guidance, which Ministers intend to reach all 24m homes in Britain, will include a shopping list of items that should be bought before a possible biological, chemical or nuclear strike".
The Cabinet Office said:
"It is not clear yet how advice will be issued nationally. In the meantime, local authorities are entitled to adapt the Australian guidance."
It goes on to describe the Australian guidance entitled "Preparing for the Unexpected", to which we have referred.
There is confusion. Westminster Hall is, by convention, a less antagonistic Chamber than the House, but I want to draw to the Minister's attention the widespread confusion about what the Government are planning to do about informing the public. I say with sincerity that the public are entitled to have information similar to that being provided in other countries that face similar threats. It is patronising to suggest that the public will be panicked into an absurd reaction. That may be true of certain individuals, but that should not affect the wider issue. At the end of the day, the British people are a sober and realistic people who will take the information at face value, and they should be trusted.
I hope that the Minister will answer some of our questions—we have given him a lot of time so he has no excuse for not answering all of them. We should like him to answer those questions that his colleague did not answer at the end of the previous debate, and those that have arisen today. The debate has been useful and constructive, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend once more on securing it.
10.42 am
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety(Mr. John Denham): I start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Tonbridge

201WH
and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) on securing this Adjournment debate. It has been a useful debate, and the right hon. Gentleman was able to bring to it his considerable experience, not only as a former Minister, but as a Minister who dealt with a relevant Department. I am grateful to him and to the other Members who spoke.
A wide range of issues has been raised. I shall attempt to deal with them as fully as I can, but in 17 minutes I may overlook some, in which case I shall endeavour to write to hon. Members and follow up issues outside this debate.
Civil defence is an important topic; the Government take it seriously and have recognised it. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a written statement on civil contingency planning to address terrorist attack. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). among others, asked whether an oral statement would not have been better. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, difficult judgments have to be made on a lot of issues. In the current climate, there tends to be the belief that there must be a reason for choosing the particular date on which an oral statement is given, and the event may be given a significance that is out of proportion to the event itself. The intention of the written statement was to update the House. I ask the Chamber to accept that it is difficult to judge whether an oral statement will be interpreted by some sections of the media as meaning that the Government know something. Those are the judgments that we are wrestling with all the time in trying to get our communications right.
Simon Hughes: I completely understand. As we now know that there will be legislation later in the parliamentary year, it might be helpful if there were a periodic opportunity to speak on the matter so that it would not look like a panic response. We could all prepare for that, and the public would expect it, as a matter of regular updating.
Mr. Denham: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I note that we are discussing the matter for the second time in three weeks. Perhaps we are getting used to the idea of such debates.
I shall deal first with the question of structures and accountability, and then go on to some of the more specific issues. It is worth mentioning that the Government moved to strengthen the arrangements for emergency planning and civil protection immediately after the 2001 general election before the events of 11 September. In August 2001, the Government published a comprehensive discussion document on the future of emergency planning arrangements. At that time we concluded that the Civil Defence Act 1948 no longer provided an adequate framework for modern emergency planning. Its provisions relate to the organisation and protection of the civil population at a local level in response to a hostile attack by a foreign power.
The immediate concern was that since the 1980s, emergency planning had effectively concerned itself with preparations for responding to a wide variety of peacetime hazards in accordance with the policy of
202WH
integrated emergency management. Since the mid-1980s, assumptions about the nature of potential threats to this country have changed dramatically, and the attacks of 11 September 2001 certainly brought that home to us. Planning began before 11 September and we have sought a clear structure for civil contingency planning overall, as well as the specific responses that have to be made to the threat of terrorist attacks, including the possibility of CBRN attacks.
The Home Secretary has overall responsibility for the safety and security of the citizens of the UK. He is in charge of security with direct responsibility for the main elements of the work to counter the current threat from terrorism: the intelligence work of the security service, counter-terrorist policy and building resilience against the terrorist threat. He supervises all current counter-terrorist and resilience work by Departments in his capacity as a member of three relevant Cabinet Committees. One oversees the work to strengthen our defences against terrorism, the second works to build the UK's resilience and ability to manage the consequences of major emergencies and the third meets to oversee lead Department management of major emergencies once they have taken place.
I was appointed Minister for CBRN co-ordination, reporting to the Home Secretary, at the end of 2001. We are supported in this work by Sir David Omand, who was appointed the Government's security and intelligence co-ordinator and permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office last summer. That new post was created to enhance the capacity at the centre of government to co-ordinate security, intelligence and consequence management matters and to deal with risks and major emergencies, should they arise. He is supported, as is the Home Secretary, by the civil contingencies secretariat in the Cabinet Office.
In reply to the argument that one person should be in charge of the whole response, I would argue that it is essential that, in their usual work, the major Departments of State have ownership of, and responsibility for, those aspects of our response and resilience to terrorism that come under their responsibilities. It is tempting to feel that, for example, airport security should be taken away from the Department for Transport and given to someone else, but in practice it is essential that those who are responsible for our airlines, airports, railways and the underground actually build into their day-to-day responsibilities an understanding of what is needed in the running of those major services so that we can respond to emergencies. We expect them to be able to do so should there be, for example, as unfortunately there have been, major, catastrophic train crashes. We cannot separate events that might be the consequences of terrorist action from those that happen by simple accident or act of God.
We have sought to create a structure supported by a strong central secretariat, in which individual Departments and Ministers are fully aware of their responsibilities in the overall picture, but in which the Home Secretary and the senior ministerial committee that he chairs ensure that there is an overall strategy and that people are held to account for their contribution to it. That is the essence of the structure that we have evolved.

203WH
One sometimes has to anticipate debates of this kind, so, depending on the issue that is likely to be the subject of such debates, there is no contradiction in the fact that the Minister who appears may be different. If the debate were to concentrate on, say, airport security, a Minister with responsibility for transport might respond. If the debate were considering our general structure for contingency planning against a variety of civil and terrorist emergencies, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office might respond. In anticipation of the likely thrust of today's debate and given my responsibilities for CBRN, I am answering on behalf of the Government. It is an illustration of strength rather than weakness that a number of different Ministers can respond to hon. Members on this matter.
Mr. Paice: I want to make it absolutely clear to the Minister, and to put it on the record, that he is countering an argument that no one has put. No one—certainly not me or my party—is suggesting that all those responsibilities should be extracted from individual Departments. The point that I have made repeatedly is that co-ordination is such a major issue that it should be the responsibility of a single Minister.
Mr. Denham: Co-ordination lies within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, supported in CBRN, the current issue of concern, by me. We are supported in that both by the specialist teams in the Home Office and, in terms of coordination across the Government, by the civil contingencies secretariat. However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts at least I think he does—that it is not as odd for different Ministers sometimes to answer different debates as he suggested earlier.
I had hoped to touch on developments that are taking place in those structures, and particularly to make two points. I shall do so only briefly now. First, we recognise that, to support activities locally, we need a strengthened regional tier for emergency planning and resilience building. The development of that is under way as we speak. Secondly, I confirm that we intend to publish the proposals for a civil contingencies Bill in the summer during this parliamentary Session, so that it can be subjected to further scrutiny. It is important to stress that the development of that Bill has not delayed essential work on emergency planning structures at local and regional level, but a new legal framework is necessary.
Resources were mentioned a couple of times. Last year there was a 30 per cent. increase in the dedicated central Government resource to emergency planning, a rather narrow and limited area. That is an increase that we wish to maintain. However, that £19 million represents only a small part of the resources devoted to emergency planning. Overall, the spending review of 2002 has resulted in additional spending on prevention, including a 6.4 per cent. increase in real terms on national security and intelligence agencies. We are expanding our investment in health, police and other major agencies. The statement issued by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary yesterday indicated some but not all of the areas of additional procurement of equipment and training carried out since 11 September.
204WH
For obvious reasons, the question of smallpox was raised a number of times during the debate. While we are always criticised for not giving information to the public, when we do give out information, no one reads it or acts as if we had made it available. It is worth stressing that we published our interim plan for smallpox in December 2002. It had input from the national health service, the Public Health Laboratory Service and other specialist agencies. We set out the three components in the Department of Health's preparation for a response to a possible smallpox emergency—improved vaccine stocks, a plan of action and a cohort of immunised staff who can deal safely with any potential smallpox cases. All those components are being developed as part of the Government's preparedness to respond to a deliberate release of a biological agent.
It is worth stressing that we are the only nation other than the United States and Canada to have published a smallpox plan. We are also, however, working with the European global health security action group on preparedness for smallpox and we hosted an international modelling workshop in November that examined the models underpinning the action group's planning requirements. It is always interesting and entertaining to listen to people on the "Today" programme who will not speak in their own voice and who say they are senior Government advisers. I stand to be corrected, but I am not aware of anybody who could be described as a senior Government adviser having made representations to Ministers that were reflected on "Today" yesterday morning. If I am wrong about that, I shall inform the hon. Gentleman and the House.
It is important to stress that the strategy of containment and ring vaccination first, which is at the heart of the Government's smallpox strategy, is consistent with World Health Organisation advice. If there were more time, I would read out some supporting quotes, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the strategy has been drawn up in line with WHO advice.
Sir John Stanley: Time is running out. Does the Minister really believe that, given the length of time that it will take to vaccinate people inside the ring and for the vaccine to be effective, ring vaccination is a medically viable answer to a significant smallpox attack on the United Kingdom?
Mr. Denham: When I and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health are advised by the chief medical officer and the World Health Organisation that our approach is the correct one, unless we have detailed scientific knowledge ourselves, I would rather not second-guess that.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) raised some related questions. In the debate yesterday my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned the figure of 20 million full vaccine doses. We are not—this needs to be stressed and it is also on the chief medical officer's advice—encouraging mass vaccination. Of course people should go to general practitioners if they want advice, but because of the risks associated with the vaccine, which can produce a severe reaction in one in 600 people, the CMO is not advising a mass vaccination campaign, nor are we proposing to

205WH
launch such a campaign. However, the overall strategy has been set out in the interim plan for smallpox, which has been published.
I have two minutes in which to try to respond to a number of other issues, which I shall struggle to do.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked about the policing arrangements. Clearly the role played by the police in responding to an emergency situation through the gold, silver and bronze command is different from that of, say, the special branch or the specialist terrorism services led by the Metropolitan police, but the overarching body is a sub-committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which looks at all policing activities in relation to counter-terrorism.
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), who raised some important points. Towards the end of the year the Territorial Army reserve forces should be in place and able to offer military assistance and civil power under the normal rule. I shall write to him about the other points that he raised.

Property Law (Mr. Tony Martin)
11 am
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I shall refer initially to some of the background to the Tony Martin case. As the Minister will be aware, it is a sad and tragic case. It is tragic that someone died in the break-in to Tony Martin's farmhouse, Bleak house. It is sad that a Norfolk farmer who is a man of honour, integrity and decency ended up going to prison, having had absolutely no previous convictions or examples of bad character in the past.
I want to consider the laws of burglary, in particular those governing self- defence. Before doing so, however, I want to refer to Tony Martin's application for parole. I note that the original Minister who was to deal with the matter cannot be here today because he is ill, but I am glad that the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety can respond to the debate. I spoke to his office about an hour and a half ago and informed his staff of the broad outline of what I am about to say, so I hope that he has been briefed on that. I am grateful to him for stepping in at the last moment.
The Minister will be aware that Tony Martin was convicted originally of murdering Fred Barras and was sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the conviction for murder was quashed on appeal and a conviction for manslaughter was substituted. The sentence was commuted to five years in prison. The first available date for parole was about five weeks ago. Everyone was led to believe that Tony Martin would be given parole and that that would not be a problem. As we know, parole was refused. That was a staggering decision. Tony Martin will challenge the Parole Board's decision through to judicial review, so obviously the matter is sub judice.
Will the Minister comment on the award of parole? I am talking in general terms; I note that the Clerk is looking a little apprehensive. I will not say anything that is sub judice. It is most important for the Minister to consider the matter from a general perspective. The two key criteria that matter most are the behaviour of the prisoner and the likelihood of his reoffending. I have a meeting lined up with the chairman of the Norfolk probation service in about two weeks. It would seem from press reports—they have not been denied—that the probation officer in question took a subjective view. For example, he is quoted as saying that Tony Martin showed no remorse. He is also quoted as having said that Tony Martin lived in the 19th century and believed that an Englishman's home was his castle. There is nothing dramatic in that. As for remorse—there has been much discussion about that in the local media—surely that is a private matter. I should not have thought that it was for a probation officer to take a subjective view. It is up to him to be dispassionate and professional and to make a judgment on the facts.
I draw attention to the contrasting case of Brendan Fearon, which is in the public domain. He was one of the burglars who broke into Tony Martin's home. He had a string of convictions as long as my arm and was a serial offender. He was convicted of burglary and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. After 18 months, he was granted parole. Many people took the view, and said, that it was wrong for him to be granted

207WH
parole in such circumstances, because if anyone was likely to reoffend it would almost certainly be Brendan Fearon. A few weeks ago he did reoffend and he is now back in prison serving a sentence for supplying heroin, yet he is an example of a person whom the probation service said should be granted parole. It is staggering that Brendan Fearon was granted parole but my constituent, Tony Martin, was not.
Will the Minister examine the role of the Prison Service? It submits reports to the Home Secretary but it also puts together a package of papers for the Minister to examine.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am listening extremely carefully to the hon. Gentleman. The subject of the debate is the operation of the law relating to property and how the case of Mr. Tony Martin affects that. The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about the case of Mr. Tony Martin rather than the law relating to property. I do not think that he has yet stepped out of order, but he is not strictly addressing the terms of the debate, as I understand it.
Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that slight rap over the knuckles. I shall come on to the law relating to burglary in a moment, but I am sure that you will agree that if one is making a strong case for reforming that law and trying to put something in context, it is important to use individual cases because they bring home to people how deficient the law might be.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. As he knows, Mr. Martin's home community of Emneth is in my constituency although Mr. Martin is my hon. Friend's constituent. As hon. Members will know, my hon. Friend was sadly absent from the House between 1997 and 2001, which was when the incident occurred, and during that period I took on responsibility for Mr. Martin and his community.
One of the most distressing aspects of the whole affair is a general aspect that affects not only Emneth, judging from my postbag, and no doubt that of my hon. Friend, and that is the loss of people's confidence in the criminal justice system, especially in relation to the invasion of privacy by burglars. That is enormously important, and if the law regarding people's security and safety in their homes is brought into disrepute by what people felt four years ago to be unfair treatment of an individual, it is right for the law to be examined. That is the background of my hon. Friend's case.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was rather a long, but very helpful, intervention. It certainly described the scope of the debate, as I understand it.
Mr. Bellingham: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) who summed up succinctly the feelings of many of our constituents. She was right to point out that Tony Martin, whose house is the last house in my constituency, is a constituent of North-West Norfolk, but the community of which he is part, Emneth, is in my right hon. Friend's constituency.
208WH
My right hon. Friend's point brings me neatly to the law of burglary. I shall address a point about the Parole Board in a moment, but you are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because we are nine minutes into the debate and it is time that we examined burglary and the law relating to it in more detail. I see that the Clerk is cheering up a bit, which is obviously good.
Rural police forces up and down the country are overstretched. Burglars know that because they are targeting, more and more, homes in the more rural and sparsely populated parts of my constituency and the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson).
People in rural areas feel particularly vulnerable, which is not helped by the recent confusing comments of Lord Chief Justice Woolf and the Lord Chancellor. They appear to be completely out of touch. Burglary is not a victimless crime. It often involves the threat or the fact of physical attack, and many of its victims are permanently traumatised. When Lord Chief Justice Woolf and the Lord Chancellor suggest that first-time burglars should not be given custodial sentences they send out quite the wrong signal.
People in rural areas feel especially vulnerable, and many of them think that they should be able to use reasonable force to protect themselves. However, recent cases have resulted in total confusion. The Tony Martin case is well documented and everyone knows the facts. He shot a burglar who broke into his house, was charged and convicted. Another man was recently convicted for repeatedly stabbing a burglar who had broken into the flat where he believed that his children were sleeping. However, when another householder stabbed to death one intruder and seriously wounded another, the Crown Prosecution Service found that the force used was reasonable and did not prosecute. Clearly the CPS cannot decide where the boundary between reasonable and unreasonable force lies and what the law is. How can it be right to prosecute people when the law is confused and contradictory?
If lawyers, safe in their offices, cannot work out what is right, how can a householder be expected to weigh up the pros and cons in the middle of a violent struggle in the dark? Is it reasonable to expect a householder, during a few fearful seconds at the top of the stairs, when he is being menaced and perhaps threatened with a broken bottle or a knife, to guess what the law would say when lawyers do not know?
I do not want new over-prescriptive laws, and I certainly do not want a firearms free-for-all. We do not want here the situation found in parts of the United States where if one so much as enters someone's garden one is likely to be shot at. In a case in Florida, a Japanese tourist knocked on someone's door and was shot through the letterbox. That is the gun culture gone mad and we do not want that. However, I think—the Minister might comment on this—that we need a much more sympathetic approach by the police and the CPS towards householders who defend themselves. All too often, those householders, who have perhaps had to react in a split second, are made to feel the No. I criminal. There should be a presumption in favour of their innocence, rather than the other way round, which appears to be the case at present.

209WH
I am not suggesting that the Government should immediately change the law, but we should have a report from the Law Commission, which should be tasked with examining whether we need a new law where the relevant test is not the reasonable man test but a new, subjective test of what the householder believes to be appropriate at the time. At the moment, under the reasonable man test, many months after an incident, the CPS and lawyers will be sitting in their comfy chairs deciding what the reasonable man would do in those circumstances. How can they put themselves into the shoes of the householder who had to take a decision in a split second? If we bring in a new, subjective test, that would allow for the fact that every case is different and every set of circumstances quite unique. Householders would not then be prosecuted unless they were launching what I would describe as revenge attacks on burglars. They would not be prosecuted for any action that they took in the heat of the circumstances, on the spur of the moment. They might be prosecuted if, for example, they apprehended the burglar, held them at bay, and then launched a revenge attack on them. That would obviously be very different.
I urge the Minister to consider my suggestion. I do not say that the law should be changed immediately, but there is a strong tide of opinion in Norfolk and in many other rural areas that the law is completely confused. The Government should accept that and try to do something about it. My suggestion that the Law Commission should examine the issue and produce a report makes the most sense.
I also want to make a point about burglars and other intruders who break into properties and end up getting injured or, in this case, shot. I strongly believe that those burglars—those criminals—who have often committed wicked crimes should not have any civil rights with regard to any incident that takes place in that property. There is a great deal of support in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend for the suggestion that when burglars break into a property, and it is manifestly obvious to them that they are committing a crime, they should leave their civil rights outside that building or home. I am thinking especially of the case of Brendon Fearon who is trying to sue Tony Martin for, we are told, £150,000, on the basis that he suffered injury and other problems when he broke into Tony Martin's house.
It would make much more sense if a rule were introduced whereby all civil rights are extinguished the moment that a crime is committed. It offends many people when it becomes apparent that burglars and other criminals can profit from a crime. The Minister must respond to the tide of public opinion and revulsion at some of the incidents that have taken place throughout the country. The Government must focus on these two points. I do not advocate American-style laws under which people can shoot whom they want. However, it is high time that householders know exactly where they stand. The Government must seize my point about people who commit crimes being able to profit from them.
The Parole Board apparently ignored its own guidelines when it made its decision in the Tony Martin case. Those guidelines demand that it considers any psychiatric reports in any review. I understand that it did not study the report by forensic psychiatrist Dr
210WH
Philip Joseph, who made it clear that he had examined Tony Martin and concluded that he was not prone to losing his self-control and was no more volatile than the average person. He recommended that Tony Martin should receive parole, but it appears that that crucial psychiatrist's report was not included in the key papers that the Prison Service presented to the Parole Board. The Minister must consider that.
I am unclear whether the Parole Board is an independent body over which Ministers have no control. Will the Minister say whether that is the case, and will he examine any possible discrepancies in the Parole Board's decision-making process? Will he ask questions and discover why a key report was not presented? Will he ask the Prison Service for an explanation, and will he speak to the relevant prison governor? Will the Minister obtain a copy of the probation officer's report? If I write to him and ask for a copy of the probation officer's report that went to the Parole Board, will he supply it? Could I write to the chairman of the Norfolk probation service and ask for a copy, or will those reports always be confidential? In a case where there has been substantial publicity about what was in that probation officer's report—information that has not been denied—would it make sense for such a report to be published? Will the Minister explain to the House what he can and cannot do in such a case?
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me that leeway. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions on the way that Tony Martin's application for parole was handled. Would he also consider setting up a Law Commission inquiry into how the burglary law works and what householders can and cannot do? If he could do that, many of us would be extremely grateful.
11.20 am
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety(Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham)) on securing the debate. As he appreciates, I have stepped in at the last moment to respond to it and I hope to address several of the issues that he raised. He introduced the debate in a measured way. I am sure that he would join me in regretting the fact that some of the coverage of the case has focused on individual people with some role in the decision-making process, drawing attention to where they live and their identity in a way that is not fair to people working in the service of the public.
With regard to the Parole Board's decision, we cannot comment on the circumstances of a particular case. I shall, however, set out the process for considering whether a prisoner serving a sentence of four years and over should be granted early release on parole licence. It is important to say that that is the approach that we expect the Parole Board, as an independent body, to follow.
Prisoners serving a sentence of four years or more are entitled to be considered for early release on parole at the halfway point of their sentence. It is for the Parole Board to determine whether to award early release on parole. When considering whether or not to release, the board is obliged to take into account the directions set down by the Secretary of State, pursuant to Section 32(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

211WH
Those directions clearly state that the Parole Board shall consider primarily the risk to the public of a further offence being committed at a time when the prisoner would otherwise be in prison and whether any such risk is acceptable. This risk is then balanced against the benefit, both to the public and to the offender, of early release back into the community under a degree of supervision. However, I must stress that when carrying out that balancing exercise, the board's overriding concern must be the protection of the public. That is all the more so when the offender concerned has committed either a violent or sexual offence.
The Parole Board will also want to satisfy itself that the prisoner concerned is likely to comply with the conditions of their licence. It will want to be satisfied that there is a sound release plan, which will assist the offender's rehabilitation and which has adequate safeguards that will enable the probation service safely to manage risk while the prisoner is in the community. In short, a significant part of the consideration that the Parole Board is required to undertake when considering an application for release on parole focuses on the risk to the public of further offending during the parole period. In general, if someone presented no risk of reoffending, it would follow that the Parole Board would be bound to recommend that person's release.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the availability of reports to the Parole Board. I shall look into that matter and write to him about it. From the briefing that I have, I have no reason to believe that all available reports and material were not considered by the Parole Board. The current position is that Mr. Martin will be released automatically at the two-thirds point of his sentence, and supervised on licence until the three-quarter point.
On the question of the law on self-defence, it is well-established in law—I am not talking about an individual case—that a person may use "reasonable force" in self-defence or in the defence of his or her family or property. The key elements of what amounts to reasonable force in self-defence may be summarised as necessity and proportionality. The force that it is reasonable to use in any given situation will depend on the nature of the threat that a person is facing—for example, the level of force that he can use to defend his life is greater than that to defend his property.
What constitutes reasonable force will depend upon the circumstances of each case and is a matter solely for the courts to decide. That does not mean that if a person inflicts injury on a criminal in the course of defending himself or his property he will necessarily face criminal charges. However, if a complaint is made that excessive force has been used, the police are duty bound to investigate. If charges are brought, the court takes account of what was reasonable in the circumstances for someone in the defendant's shoes. For example, some allowances are made for panic in the heat of the moment or the fact that the defendant is small and frail and the criminal is large and threatening.
Some sort of codification of what level of force is permissible is likely to be of only academic interest to people who suddenly find themselves under attack. Such a code is not likely to be the sort of thing one carries round in one's mind in case it is needed. I am not sure
212WH
whether it would help to resolve the situation. When a case is brought to court, it is best left to the jury to decide, in the light of the circumstances, whether the action taken in self-defence was necessary and proportionate. The law allows a jury to take into account the fact that people defending themselves may not be able to judge to a nicety what level of force to use. Generally, juries are able to come to sensible conclusions that are on the side of the law-abiding public and the victim.
Although it is quite reasonable to ask for a proper approach by the police and the prosecuting authorities, many of the judgments in cases that are brought to court must be put in the hands of juries, which must play the role that they have traditionally played. We need to keep a careful balance between upholding an individual's right to self-defence and maintaining the general rule that people should not take the law into their own hands. It follows that changes to the existing law should not be made on the hoof as a response to a particular case. At this stage, we are not convinced that a change to the law on self-defence is required.
Mrs. Shephard: I congratulate the Minister on his grasp of the matter. When a case has the kind of reception that this case had, it brings the law and people's respect for it into some doubt. The reaction to a case is something that Ministers should take into account when they are reviewing possible changes in the law.
Mr. Denham: Both the points that the right hon. Lady makes are correct. High-profile cases raise public concerns about the way in which the system operates and Ministers are duty bound to reflect on the issues that are raised, but they are also duty bound not to commit themselves to rewriting an entire piece of legislation on the back of an individual case, if, on reflection, the principles seem to be sound.
Mr. Keith Simpson: This is not in the same category, but it relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). The impression among the public is that the balance has shifted towards the criminal, rather than the victim. I was told recently by the head of the Norfolk Archaeological Trust that a person had broken into an archaeological site, climbed over a fence, fallen into a ditch and injured themselves and was now seeking legal advice about suing the trust because it had not put up a notice saying that there was a ditch. We can smile about that kind of thing, but it contributes to many people's perception of the balance. I know that the Minister cannot necessarily take the place of a judge, but he must have a view on the matter.
Mr. Denham: There is a slight difference between the issue of the law on the reasonable use of self-defence, which has been in place for some time, and the interpretation of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, which involves considering what was in the mind of the Government who introduced it. I suspect that the 1984 Act was much more to do with children going into their neighbour's garden to retrieve a ball and falling into a dangerous pond, than it was to do with climbing over fences belonging to the Norfolk Archaeological Trust.

213WH
I can add little further today, other than to say that there was an interesting exchange—not in the House, but on "Any Questions" last Friday night—between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), which appeared to point to a consensus that some revision of the 1984 Act might be in order. I understand that that was due to be discussed in the Committee that is considering the Criminal Justice Bill this morning. I cannot commit the Government on this matter, but there does seem to be something in the ether surrounding the issue, so perhaps we should watch this space.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

EU Enlargement
2 pm
Mr. Wayne David: Just over a year ago, I was able to initiate a similar debate on European Union enlargement in Westminster Hall. A year later, it is remarkable how much things have changed. Most important is the fact that we had the Copenhagen summit last December. The summit was historic in many ways, not least because it was agreed at the summit that 10 applicant countries should be able to join the European Union in 2004. Those countries—as all hon. Members know—are the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Malta and Cyprus. The summit also agreed that Romania and Bulgaria should be able to join the EU in 2007; and, significantly, the European hand of friendship was extended to Turkey's possible future membership.
It is amazing how much things have changed in so many of the countries involved in the enlargement process, not only in the past 12 months but in the past decade. If we pause for thought, we will remember that 10 years ago six of those 10 countries did not exist as nation states. Now, they are in the process of transforming their societies and economies, developing new political structures and once again engaging with the international community. The progress in all those states is epitomised by the example of Poland.
In 1989, the situation in Poland was dire in the extreme. Inflation was 600 per cent., consumer goods were virtually non-existent, travel was almost unheard of and the private sector was minuscule. Today, twice as many Poles go to university than went in 1989. Poles travel extensively and, although unemployment is still unacceptably high, 3 million businesses now create new jobs for Polish people every day, and inflation is only 1 per cent. There is an optimism and upbeat character throughout the country that shows how far it has progressed and is likely to progress in future.
The enlargement process is not over simply because we had a successful summit in December. Copenhagen was only the end of the beginning. Referendums have yet to be held in all the accession countries—the first will be in Malta on 8 March and the last in Latvia on 20 September. Those referendums are critical, and the debate in those countries will be intense.
We should also remember that the process of change must continue in the countries of central Europe. Political democracy must be strengthened and reinforced, market economies must progress and administrative capacity must be developed. For example, when the states receive structural funds from the EU, they will have to ensure that those funds are spent in the best possible way and that programmes have been introduced to maximise their value. That task should not be underestimated.
One issue relating to the accession treaty is still outstanding—it must be ratified by the European Parliament and by each of the current member states of the EU. In that respect, I must express my grave concern about the recent comments of President Chirac. He said that the many countries of central Europe that support the position of the United States on Iraq are childish, badly brought up and irresponsible. Such comments are

215WH
totally unacceptable and absolutely outrageous. France, like every other member state, must ratify the treaty, and it may decide to hold a referendum. To issue veiled threats against the applicant states—the accession countries—is the worst possible way for France to develop a relationship with them. I believe that President Chirac's comments will prove to be counter-productive.
Cyprus was debated at length at Copenhagen. There is no doubt that the Greek-speaking southern part of Cyprus will join the European Union, but I am sure that we all want the whole island to join. I was very pleased to learn in the past few days that a third revised version of the plan for unification is under consideration. Extra time has been given to President Papadopoulos, who is the new President of Cyprus. It is said that he is more opposed to unification of the island than his predecessor, but I did not find that to be the case in my discussions with him when the European Scrutiny Committee was in Cyprus. He might surprise many people by being more in favour of unity than they think.
The new deadline for reaching agreement is 10 March, and a draft agreement is to be put to a referendum on 30 March. I hope that the process will be successful. If it is, we must pay tribute to the British involvement in it, not least that of Sir David Hannay, who has done an excellent job in ensuring that progress has taken place.
It was also agreed at Copenhagen that Romania and Bulgaria should not be forgotten, and 2007 was mentioned as the date for their accession, but I question whether those two countries should automatically be linked together, as the two are very different, as is their progress towards EU membership. For example, as of December, Bulgaria had closed in negotiations 23 of the 30 chapters, but Romania had closed only 13 of 30.
Recently, Commissioner Verheugen was in Romania. He made it absolutely clear that a lot of work had to be done, and done speedily, in that country. He was very blunt, as he often is, in saying that corruption had to be tackled and genuine attempts had to be made to create an independent judiciary. However, there is much work to be done in Bulgaria, too. I was in Bulgaria just a couple of weeks ago, and I heard from business people as well as politicians that there was still a great deal of corruption in the police force and that the judiciary was anything but impartial and independent.
Croatia has recently submitted an application to the EU—there is a debate to be had on that—and I understand that Macedonia has just submitted one as well. Personally, I feel that it would be helpful if the Government of Croatia were more co-operative in relation to the war crimes tribunal in The Hague. That would certainly enhance the country's application. I would be interested to know the Minister's position on the enlargement process as far as those countries and other Balkan states are concerned.
Finally, I shall refer to Turkey—I say "finally", but although I refer to it last, it is by no means least. An agreement at Copenhagen was of tremendous importance to Turkey. For the first time in some 40 years of sometimes heated debate, the European Council proposed a potential start date for accession
216WH
talks in December 2004. That is of enormous significance, but there is a debate about Turkey's membership in principle and whether it should ever be admitted to the European Union.
Turkey is a Muslim country of 70 million people. It is situated predominantly in Asia Minor but it is also in NATO. Some people have said that Turkey should not be admitted to the European Union, most notably Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, although he accepts that progress has been made and that progress is planned for the future. His argument comes down to the fact that, in his view, Turkey is not a European country.
I fundamentally disagree with that point of view. For me Europe is an idea. It is about values, not about dotted lines on maps, religious beliefs, tribal loyalties or ethnic pedigrees. Countries that sign up to core values such as democracy and freedom of speech and of association should be eligible to join the EU whether their populations are Slays or Muslims. That to me is irrelevant.
Obviously, the laws of economics mean that no economic association, whether the EU or any other body, can keep on growing without limits, but that limit has not been reached in respect of Turkey. Since 1999, Turkey has responded positively to the challenges that face it. Its Parliament has passed measures to abolish the death penalty. Turkey has extended key rights to the Kurdish people and it has begun to reform its judiciary. Importantly, we have recently seen the election of a new democratic Government who have Islamic beliefs firmly rooted in the Islamic community, but who are also committed to progressive socio-economic reforms.
That is not to say that not much more needs to be done in Turkey—a heck of a lot more needs to be done. The Turkish economy still needs to be liberalised. Dissidents, ethnic minorities and ordinary prisoners need to be treated far better than they are at present. There needs to be genuine freedom of worship and far more rights should be accorded to the Kurdish people. Above all else, let us not forget that the military must have far less influence than it currently exercises in the Turkish state, albeit behind the scenes.
None the less, I stress my belief that things are changing significantly. By giving Turkey a provisional start date for negotiations, the Copenhagen summit has given us an historic chance to bring together two traditions and two civilisations. We should welcome that fact and understand its true implications.
The case for EU enlargement rests on two basic facts. The first is that the best interests of the United Kingdom and the European Union as a whole are served well by the process of enlargement. Let us not forget that some 14,000 British firms currently trade with the countries of central and eastern Europe, and their number is increasing all the time. Let us not forget that accession is relatively more important to countries such as Germany, which are much closer to the accession states.
However, let us not minimise the advantages of joining the European Union to those countries that we hope will enter in 2004 and beyond. For them, Europe offers hope, freedom and a chance of real prosperity. It offers them hope because the European Union with its liberal democracies is something to which they aspired for many years during the dark days of the communists. It offers them a real chance of developing a market

217WH
economy in a socially responsible way. The European Union, alongside NATO, reinforces their prospects of genuine peace and stability well into the future. That is why enlargement is a win-win process that offers benefits to everyone. I hope that the House will achieve real consensus on the importance of enlargement and that there will be cross-party support for the treaty of accession when it comes before Parliament.
My final point is this: it is all very well politicians and Governments talking about the importance of enlargement—the case for it is overwhelming—but the important challenge is to convince the people of Europe that enlargement is critical. The other day, I was reading an article in E!Sharp magazine dated October 2002. It gave a comprehensive analysis of various European barometer polls. It stated the following chilling words:
"Not only do the vast majority of EU citizens have no idea which countries are candidates to join the Union, but many of them do not even want to know".
All of us in the House and beyond who believe in Europe and the values of the European Union and see enlargement as intrinsically worth while have a moral responsibility to take the message out beyond the House and to convince people of the worth of the European enlargement project. I hope that in some small way, at least, this debate will reinforce our determination to make enlargement work. It gives a chance to demonstrate that we must take all the people with us in this great project.
2.17 pm
Keith Vaz (: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and congratulate him on obtaining this debate. He says that it has become an annual feature of the House of Commons and I look forward to his applying for a debate next year, when we shall be only a couple of months from the completed enlargement process.
There will be no dissent in the Chamber this afternoon. All hon. Members, on both sides of the House, support enlargement for the reasons made clear by my hon. Friend. There was a time when the Opposition were against enlargement—they wanted a referendum on the Nice treaty and to block the enlargement process.
Mr. Richard Spring: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has adverted immediately from his statement that we are all in favour of enlargement to the idea that the Conservatives were against it. We have never been against it, but we believed that the way in which Nice was handled ultimately had precious little to do with enlargement. However, Nice has happened, and we want to get on with things as they are.
Keith Vaz: I am delighted by the Conservatives' retrospective change of policy that has been announced in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly can take comfort from that. I am glad that we all now speak with one voice.
It is right that Britain should take pride in its role in the process, particularly because the speeches and initiatives of our Prime Minister during the past few years gave the enlargement process in Europe impetus and enthusiasm. My hon. Friend the Minister for
218WH
Europe should be congratulated. From the moment that he became the Minister for Europe, he made it a feature to visit as many applicant countries as possible to keep those positive links going. He came here today from chairing a major Foreign Office seminar on enlargement.
That is why Britain has a right to be proud of what we have achieved in the enlargement process, and it is why, when we talk about creating a new Europe, we do not mean dividing up the countries between the so-called old Europe and the so-called new Europe. A new Europe will be created when the enlargement process is completed. That new Europe will consist of a group of countries that are determined to achieve the reunification of Europe and to create the largest single market anywhere in the world, covering 500 million people and bringing peace and prosperity to the continent. That process has taken place only because of the enormous amount of work done by so many.
I pay tribute to Gunter Verheugen, the Commissioner on enlargement, who I know has worked extremely hard. It is not easy to go through the acquis communautaire, but we should commend the speed with which the countries and their chief negotiators have tackled the subject. I am glad that only two of the original applicants are not joining in the first wave. I know that there was discussion about how big the wave should be, but the European Council was right to decide that as many countries as possible should join.
I will raise only three or four points in the short time available, because I know that a number of my colleagues want to take part in the debate. I see at least two former members of the European Parliament to whom Westminster has granted asylum. I know that they will want to speak, so I shall be brief.
First, I wish to flag up the issue of reform. Of course we welcome the new countries that are joining the European Union, but it is essential that the reform process that the Prime Minister and Chancellor Schroder began with their now famous letter of 25 February 2002 be completed. Once all the new countries are in Europe, unless the way in which the European Council operates is fundamentally reformed, there will be gridlock—the decision-making process will come to a halt. One of the practical suggestions in the practical letter sent by the two leaders to the Prime Minister of Spain was that, for example, the round-table discussions that take place when each country sets out its stated position, and the entire day is taken up in deliberations, must end.
We must ensure that the paperwork does not bury the bright officials from the United Kingdom who speak on our behalf and on behalf of other countries, but is put to one side, so that we can get on with making practical decisions. Therefore, we must look at the reform agenda for the way in which the European Council operates. I should be interested to hear from the Minister how many of the points in the letter of 25 February 2002 can be ticked off. I know that he is as keen as all Members of Parliament to make sure that the reform process is continued.
My second point is that, once the enlargement process is completed, we must not stop doing the good things that we are doing. Let the Minister continue his bilateral visits, and let there be more visits between

219WH
parliamentarians at Westminster and those in the new European Union countries. The taxpayer pays for us to make three visits to European Union institutions, and that has recently been expanded to include the enlargement countries. Every Member of Parliament should decide to visit one of the member-designate countries to build up the relationship so solidly built at ministerial level by the Minister for Europe, the Foreign Secretary and others.
We must also enhance business opportunities in the eastern European member-designate countries. We have a lot of companies out there. Let it not be only Tesco that has a supermarket in downtown Bratislava. Let us make sure that other British companies go to those countries and, by investing in them, contribute to the development of their economies.
My third point relates to the euro. A number of EU enlargement countries will watch with interest to see what happens by June. Some of those countries might be in a position to join the euro before us. While I do not wish to turn this into a debate on the euro, I hope that the Minister will try to persuade the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to release a timetable so that new members-designate will have an understanding of what we intend to do once the assessments are completed by 7 June. If we are not going to have a referendum, we should know about that, and we should know if we are to have one. I am sure that Warsaw, Riga, Bratislava and Prague are all watching with interest to see what we do. It would be tragic if we were to join the euro after all those countries had joined.
My fourth point relates to a practical move that we could support in order to show that the members-designate are really part of the EU. I propose that we should support the moving of an EU institution or agency headquarters to one of the member-designate states after 1 May. I do not mind which it is, as long as one is moved. I am not suggesting that the European Parliament should move, but something should. We should show practical support for the new member-designate countries to ensure that they feel that they are part of Europe.
After I May, the centre of Europe will not be Brussels. It will probably be Prague, although I will not get out my measuring tape to find out how big the countries are. Perhaps the Minister and the bright young things from the Europe team will tell me if I am wrong. The fact is that the centre of Europe will shift, and if we accept the cogent arguments on Turkey advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, it will move even further away from Brussels. It is important that we consider my proposal, because through it we would be able to demonstrate our support.
My hon. Friend ended with Turkey and I, too, shall end with a brief note on that country. It is right that we continue to give Turkey hope, but we should not raise its expectations to such an extent that we cannot deliver on the promises that we make to it. To be frank, it is not for George Bush to champion Turkey's membership of the EU; it is a matter for our country—we have done it in the past and for other EU countries. We must step up our bilateral links with Turkey to ensure that when we
220WH
talk genuinely about getting it into the EU, along with Romania and Bulgaria, we can back that up with examples of work that we have done.
The debate is important. I hope that it will become an annual debate. That will provide us with an opportunity next year to be on the doorstep of history preparing for that huge enlargement that will transform Europe for ever.
2.28 pm
Mr. Mark Hendrick: The Copenhagen summit was an historic achievement. Apart from allowing the accession of 10 applicant states into the EU, it put forward an excellent financial package for those countries. Some £25 billion will be given over the period 2004 to 2006 but, while that will help those applicant countries, that sum is only 0.1 per cent. of Europe's GDP. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) said earlier, more than a decade ago six of the 10 applicant states did not exist. Since breaking away from communist rule, those countries have integrated themselves into world and European markets, something that many of us could not have imagined 15 years ago when they were still part of the Soviet empire.
The previous century witnessed wars across Europe; not only the two world wars, but 50 years of cold war and conflict over Cyprus. It seems that the prospect of Cyprus entering the European Union has united the country; it is a fantastic opportunity. If we can secure agreement on the Kofi Annan plan before the accession takes place, a united Cyprus will exist within the EU and the path will be clearer for Turkey to join later.
For European countries, the first 50 years of the last century were about survival. Governments had to deal with unemployment, ill health, poor housing and insecurity. The second 50 years, for western Europe at least, were about consumerism, from the sale of music records in the 1950s to the CDs and computers that we enjoy today.
For about 40 of those years, applicant countries experienced direct communist rule from Moscow. The changes in those countries over the past 10 to 15 years have been amazing. NATO will guarantee those countries security and peace for the foreseeable future and the European Union will provide them with economic prosperity and security. Relationships with neighbouring countries that were hostile in the past should now be secure.
Membership of the European Union will bring many advantages. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said, we are now in a win-win position. The GDP of new members will increase by approximately 19 per cent. in the medium term. As I said earlier, six of the member states did not even exist in the past and none of the countries sharing a border with communist Poland now exists in the same form. The change has been entirely peaceful with no borders affected and no populations expelled in the process.
In the past year, the European Union spent?40 million helping Slovenia to prepare for membership, and?440 million on reconstructing Kosovo. Those figures cannot begin to convey the tragedy of what Mr. Milosevic did to Yugoslavia. If the enlargement of the European Union can prevent such a tragedy from ever

221WH
happening again, it will be a testament to the European future. Co-operation on trafficking in people and drugs will take place on a scale never before seen, which is welcomed by all member states.
Some people in this country are worried about migration into the UK from these applicant countries, but let us examine the examples of Spain and Portugal. When Spain joined the EU in 1986, 109,000 Spanish workers were based in France. By 1994, the figure had fallen to 35,000. The sort of economic migration that happens through desperation will be inhibited by the development of these applicant countries, which will feel more secure and provide their people with more opportunities.
If we can bring Europe together under the EU, we shall be able to work much more closely with the United States and present a common force for good to the world. We do not want an inward-looking EU of just 25 members, or even an EU that is aligned to the United States of America and just looks after its own economic problems. There are pressing problems in today's world. We need to develop Africa, a continent that is going backwards and has suffered from famine and underdevelopment for hundreds of years. We can begin to deal seriously with the HIV epidemic in southern Africa that will bring death and destruction in many communities. We can begin to look at stabilising the middle east, as the United States and Europe together have the political will and economic might to ensure that that is done in a way that we have never seen before. Most importantly, especially given the problems that we face in Iraq, we can strengthen the United Nations.
The Convention on the Future of Europe will determine the architecture for a Europe of 25. If that Europe can get an architecture of government and method of multinational decision and law making that is far superior to anything that any continent in the world has seen, we can look towards reforming the United Nations. We can work out how it can adopt EU best practice in order to work with organisations such as the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to create world order that provides stability for places such as Africa and Asia and make the world a much better place.
An EU of 25 will give the United Kingdom far more influence. Many applicant countries are Anglo-centric and look to the UK, and the USA, for support and cooperation; militarily in the past and economically, I believe, in the future. The Franco-German axis will decline, and some of Mr. Chirac's recent comments seem like the scream of a dying baby. There will be new dynamics in the decision-making processes as a result of the change in the composition of the Council of Ministers and in the European Parliament. The family of Europe will be reunited.
We look forward to a Europe of peace, prosperity and influence. I welcome the changes that are taking place.
2.37 pm
Mr. John MacDougall: I, too, offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on securing the debate. I will not take too much time, but I am grateful to make a contribution to an important debate.
222WH
I recognise the importance of the decisions that were taken in Copenhagen on 12 and 13 December and the significant challenges, and benefits, that they bring. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly identified each country by name, including Poland, and I want to make some comments on my interests in Poland. They go far beyond the fact that my wife comes from a Polish family or that I heard many stories from my late father-in-law about the challenges that Poland faced over the years and the benefits seen in a much-rejuvenated Poland, which my hon. Friend also noted.
In recent informal discussions with the Polish ambassador Stanislaw Komorowski, who has now become a good friend, he told me that he did not see the process of Poland joining the EU as one in which only Poland and the Polish people received the benefits. He saw it as an opportunity for Poland to give something back to the EU, which is an important message. It made me think about the other countries that will join the EU, which, with their individual styles and opportunities, will make their contributions to a much stronger and more stable Europe.
I can mention one obvious opportunity that will arise from Poland's membership. We are all aware of the fact that Poland has large agricultural potential. The development of that potential would release great benefits to the European Union. Everyone accepts, and has commented at one stage or another, that it is hardly acceptable that just over 50 per cent. of the total European budget is spent inefficiently through the common agricultural policy. With Poland becoming a member of the EU, the contribution of its agricultural capability should be seen as an opportunity, not a threat. That is one example of a benefit of membership.
I should like to refer to stability, which other Members have mentioned, and to history. The European challenge of recent times is vastly different from that posed by the Europe that we knew; everyone recognises that. Not too long ago, the shape of the European Union was entirely different. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly referred to the number of countries that emerged at the end of the cold war. The break up of the USSR and the situation that arose after Germany became a unified country again all presented different challenges and threats to Europe's shape. The 10 countries in the process of accession will give a strong and good message to other countries in Europe.
When East and West Germany were merged, the hopes of the East Germans were raised considerably during the merger, but were difficult to meet. There is a danger that if a merger is not made quickly, aspiration will quickly turn to disillusionment and to the feeling of being unsettled, which can cause further problems to a Europe that is already experiencing instability. The opportunity for stability offered by enlargement should not be understated.
The fact that we have a larger Europe today gives us greater opportunity to see the benefits of working together; rather than the alternative, which is a referral to the power base of military control. I agree that enlargement gives us the opportunity to tackle challenges differently.
I welcome today's discussion. Much has been said, and the problems facing Africa have been referred to. Opportunities will arise from a strong message being

223WH
sent from the 10 accession countries, including Bulgaria, Romania, Cyprus and Turkey, the challenges of which have yet to be addressed. With a good success rate for those 10 countries, other challenges can be taken on board.
A dear friend, Bruce Millan, who was a well-respected Commissioner in Europe, once said to me, "If the only reason that you are in Europe, John, is to put £5 in and take £5 out, you are wasting your time. It is much more sophisticated than that." I hope that we get that message out to the public, and debates such as this one and publicity from them are essential. During a surgery that I held last Friday in my constituency, I met 34 constituents in an hour and a half. Not one of them mentioned Turkey, or the fact that Cyprus and Poland were about to become members of the EU. That is significant. The subject is not high on the public agenda, so we must promote the importance of a stable Europe to each and every one of us; not just in the UK, but throughout the world.
I look forward to the annual event that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has inaugurated in the hope that, next year, the situation will be much more progressive than it is at present and that we can meet many of the challenges that lie ahead. I also look forward very much to my hon. Friend the Minister's response at the end of the debate.
2.45 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall). He highlighted the fact that the applicant countries see the process as being not simply about taking something from Europe or getting their share of Europe, but about how they can contribute to the process as well. Before I go any further, I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David), who has made something of a specialty out of EU enlargement. He has raised it in this Chamber before, and I commend him for doing so again, particularly at this important time.
As has been mentioned, the debate follows on from the seminar that the Minister hosted at the Foreign Office this morning. That welcome initiative reinforces his credentials as one who is keen for the enlargement debate not simply to be dealt with by Ministers and officials, but to be engaged in by Parliament and, indeed, the whole country. As the hon. Member for Central Fife remarked, people do not come to surgeries to complain about EU enlargement. I fear that people in this country know very little about it, so we all have a duty to ensure that that is corrected and that people face some of the big changes that will occur as a result of enlargement in just over a year's time.
The Liberal Democrats, like the other parties represented here, have supported enlargement throughout the process. We believe that the principles that have applied to successive enlargements over the past 50 years also apply to this one. In the past, we have debated quite regularly the underpinning that the EU gives to the security of Europe. For those countries that are about to join and which have, like us, clear and long memories of what war in Europe was all about and the
224WH
dangers associated with the cold war settlement afterwards, this is a huge breakthrough—a major development for them and us. Often, we run the risk of forgetting just how important keeping the peace in Europe is and the role that the EU as a collection of nation states plays in that endeavour.
For many of the countries about to join the EU, the importance of joining is what it says about the state of their democracy and the opportunity that they have further to enhance their democracies and to instil the values that go with it in the modern form of their countries. Perhaps the most often cited and important aspect of enlargement in most people's eyes, however, is the economic benefits that will flow from it. There are many different estimates of the impact that enlargement will have, but recent ones raise the possibility of 300,000 additional jobs throughout the EU and a substantial boost of some £2 billion to overall GDP. At the seminar that the Minister hosted this morning, the director-general of the CBI, Digby Jones, talked about the enlargement giving Europe more clout. That is always welcome in the world, particularly in the era of the WTO and developments in trade that are so important to all our communities.
Since we had a chance to debate this topic here last year, much has changed. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly pointed out, huge progress was made at the Copenhagen summit just before the end of the year. The European Parliament will soon consider the accession treaties, which each member state will then consider. Referendums in each of the applicant countries are due to be held by September. There was considerable concern about what had to be achieved when we debated the issue 12 months ago, and we must not underestimate what has been covered since then. However, it would be equally remiss of us to ignore some of the key issues that remain to be resolved in the next year or so.
Internally, enlargement presents a great challenge to existing member states. Some 10 days ago, I was in Brussels holding discussions with various officials and Commission departments and directorates. It is clear that the issue is focusing minds like nothing else. There are huge issues to be resolved in key areas such as the CAP and regional policy before 2004—the 10 new states should come on board in May, the European Parliament elections are due in June, and the new Commission will be announced later that year.
The officials whom I met in Brussels talked a very confident game about sorting out the details of the reform of the CAP in time for the June Agriculture Council. I would be interested to know the Minister's opinion, because if those details are sorted out, we will have to make substantial progress in a very short space of time on key issues such as decoupling, modulation and degressivity, all of which remain unresolved issues of concern in the United Kingdom.
The same is true of regional policy. The third cohesion report is due later in the year, as are the recommendations on the development of the policy. I understand that recommendations and contributions to that process are due by the summer break, and I hope that the Minister and his colleagues in other Departments will ensure that they and each interested body throughout the UK participate fully in that debate. The emphasis will shift with enlargement in a

225WH
year's time, but it is clear that regional policy has an important relevance to this country, especially to peripheral areas. Will the Minister state the Government's policy stance as the negotiations head towards their conclusion?
The focus may be inward for existing members, but there is plenty for the applicant countries to be getting on with. Commissioner Verheugen recently pointed out that there is still a great deal of work to be done to build administrative capacity and to ensure that all the key parts of the Government machinery are in place to deal with issues such as corruption and the integration of minorities in some applicant countries. Much progress has been made on those issues in the course of the enlargement process. All that work must now come together.
Several contributors to today's debate highlighted issues relating to particular applicant countries. It is right that we spend time considering Cyprus, where affairs are very delicately balanced. We should pay tribute to the work of Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, who has invested a considerable amount of his own time and prestige to the creation and development of the proposals currently before the two communities in Cyprus. His initiative is important and we now await the response from the two parts of the island. As has been mentioned, 10 March is an important new deadline for those developments. We must hope that the prize of enlargement is strong enough, and is on sufficiently good terms, to resolve many difficulties that beset that beautiful place.
However, we cannot ignore the fact that there are issues in countries other than Cyprus that, although less fraught, could also cause problems. The Minister has a great fondness for Poland, which I know is shared by many in the Chamber. We cannot ignore the difficulties facing the Polish Government with the departure of the Polish Peasant party from government. Poland's Prime Minister remains confident that that will not cause any problems for the accession process. I hope that he is right. We wish that country every success.
In other key players, such as the Czech Republic and, in particular, Hungary, there is some nervousness and evidence in opinion polls that support for enlargement is not quite what it once was. I do not believe that the outcome in those countries is seriously in doubt but we, as well as their Governments, must send strong signals from outside to say that we look forward to welcoming them into a larger family of nations in Europe and that we hope that that can be achieved on time.
My final point on individual countries has already been mentioned this afternoon. It is not on applicant countries, but on France. This is not a debate on Iraq, but just as I would deplore efforts by the United States to twist arms and bully people into supporting a particular line, I find it reprehensible that France should attempt to skew the debate and blackmail particular countries on their prospects of joining the EU on account of their position on developments in Iraq. Each of those countries has earned its position in Europe: each has met the tests and criteria and is making strenuous efforts to come to terms with the new Europe of which they will he part. Bullying by one of the oldest members is surely inappropriate, and we must resist attempts to do that.
226WH
The enlargement process has often travelled a bumpy road, but we should reflect on the fact that in the past few years—and the past 12 months in particular—the European Union has made fantastic process. We still need to get our own house in order and we must support the applicants. Then, together, we can look forward to seeing a revolutionised European Union in just over a year's time.
2.58 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: I, too, warmly congratulate the lion. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on securing and introducing this debate. He is a passionate advocate of enlargement and enjoys the respect of all hon. Members for that commitment and for his profound knowledge of the subject. Of course, his concerns are shared not only by the House but by the 70 million citizens of the accession countries.
We have had a good debate and I congratulate the hon. Members for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) and for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) and the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), on their thoughtful contributions. It was a particular joy to hear from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). I remember seeing him selling the attractions of the EU by travelling the country in a bus, which greatly added to the country's political scene, even though, if I remember correctly, his attempts to sell the euro to the British people during that campaign resulted in the greatest quantum leap in lack of support for the euro among the British people seen in the past five years. Nevertheless, it is always a great pleasure to hear from him.
Enlargement is of huge importance, as everyone has said. We hope that it will extend stability and prosperity to many millions of our fellow Europeans. We welcome the outcome at Copenhagen and congratulate the Danish presidency on orchestrating that summit. The process of enlargement has been too long and complicated, and Turkey's membership, which we support, has not been universally encouraged, but Copenhagen was an historic achievement. We hope that next year we shall see the division of Europe that has lasted since Yalta healed. Speaking personally, I believe not only that that is politically and economically desirable, but that it is a moral imperative.
The accession countries have made great strides on their own since the fall of the Berlin wall, but enlargement opens further prospects. Participation will offer the countries full access to a single market and structural funds. Although I am not always an admirer of regional funding from the EU, my discussions with many eastern European politicians, civil servants and business men leave me in no doubt that structural funding offers hope for progress in developing eastern Europe's infrastructure, which needs to be updated in some respects. For example, the hon. Member for Caerphilly will know that Poland's roads are notoriously poor. How much more productive and efficient would Poland's economy be if businesses had access to improved roads?
Enlargement does not only hold out the promise of great economic prosperity for the accession countries: it must be admitted that one of the EU's great successes

227WH
has been its ability to stabilise young democracies and root them in the ways of a free society. We only need consider the way in which, over time, Greece, Spain and Portugal have succeeded in that respect, and I hope that that will happen for the accession countries as well. Success after enlargement is not assured. All European countries must be in a position to generate wealth, and that will not happen while the EU remains a zone strangled with mounting red tape, afraid of the economic flexibility that creates jobs.
The atypical workers directive is typical of the sort of EU legislation that can only hurt employment creation in the long-term. The EU's high-cost employment practices are the last thing that prospective EU members need. Those countries need to use their currently lower-cost labour forces to build prosperity, and we must let them do so. Regrettably, it is universally recognised throughout the EU that the process that the Prime Minister set in train in Lisbon is stuttering. We must ensure that the EU is fit to meet the challenges posed by enlargement. Otherwise, the accession countries may find that EU membership is more of an economic prison than a liberating market, and heaven forbid that they should ever think that.
The CAP must be fundamentally reformed—something that the Government have lamentably been unable to drive forward. Nothing has made the negotiations on enlargement more bitter than the need to shoehorn the accession states into the failing CAP. Likewise, it has been said to me abroad that the former communist countries do not want to see control from Moscow replaced by control from Brussels. Countries that have only recently regained their independence do not want to use it to enter some sort of supranational state. However, as we saw in the draft constitution, the supranational structures that are being prepared in the Convention on the Future of Europe clearly point to that. I am aware that the final version might look rather different at the intergovernmental conference, but the overall tendency is fundamentally integrationist. That is not the sort of EU in which the new states will feel comfortable.
Indeed, one may question the wisdom of transforming the EU just as the new states arrive. No one should question the need for fundamental reform in the EU—that is widely recognised—but the new states should be full participants in the process. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. I, too, found France's bullying, implied threats that it might veto the accession countries' EU membership unless they toed the French line absolutely disgraceful. Does the Minister agree with Chris Patten that the EU
"is not the Warsaw pact. It is a club for equals and everyone has to be listened to"?
President Chirac's remarks make it harder for the accession states to participate in the debate on Europe's future as equals. That is an important point.
The president of the Convention on the Future of Europe has said that he wants the Convention treaty to provide the EU's framework for the next 50 years. If the new countries are to live in the house that Giscard and the Convention have built, they have as much right to
228WH
determine its design as anyone else. For that reason, it is urgent that the IGC agrees that the new treaty should not be decided on until accession countries are full members of the EU. It would certainly be totally unacceptable if the IGC were to take place this December, when full accession was still some months off; that would be inequitable. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that point and respond to it in his winding-up speech.
We have extraordinarily close links with Cyprus. I salute President Clerides and his efforts over many years, and I welcome Tassos Papadopoulos's presidency. I have had the pleasure of meeting him and discussing the reunification of the island with him. That much hoped-for reunification is in danger, even though one of the great hopes of accession was that it would prove a vehicle and stimulus for the island's reunification. We all want the united island to enter the EU.
I hope that the Minister will tell us more about what the Government are doing to assist reunification, particularly at this crucial time. At the very least, the Government have not kept Parliament properly informed about their offer to hand over almost half of the sovereign base areas' territory to a reunited Cyprus. Whatever the Government's motives, the handover of British sovereign territory is serious, and the Government have failed to tell the House all that they should.
Why did the announcement of the offer of British territory come through the UN, when it could have been made in Parliament the next day? Why, in the written answer that the Minister gave me on 27 January, was no hint given that the offer might be made. even though the open nature of the question gave ample opportunity to do so? Was the offer under consideration when the answer was given? Why, when my noble Friend Lord Howell asked on 14 January whether the UN peace plan would affect arrangements for the bases, did the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Baroness Symons, deny that it would? Was she aware of the offer, and if not, how much time was given to considering the offer before it was made?
What assessment has been made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence of the effect that the offer will have on their operational capability, particularly at this crucial time, knowing the strategic importance of Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean? It was apparent that there was inadequate consultation between the two Departments about Gibraltar, and the Minister for Europe must tell us what consultation the Foreign Office has had with the Ministry of Defence on this matter. Parliament deserves answers, and I hope that the Minister can provide some enlightenment.
My party wants enlargement to succeed. We want an EU that is fit for enlargement and the challenges of the 21st century. It must be flexible enough to accommodate its diversities and must be a union for its peoples, and not its leaders. People must feel a sense of ownership of the EU and its institutions and architecture. The Convention was meant to bring the EU closer to its peoples, but it seems to be doing the contrary, and the Government now seem to be taken aback about their position. All countries should have a referendum on the

229WH
constitution, and that includes the accession states. That would help to ensure that those states can participate in the debate as equals.
If we can successfully reform Europe's economies, transform the common agricultural policy into something enduring, and—this is crucial—build Europe from the bottom up, not the top down, enlargement will do great things for our continent. I want an enlarged European Union to be a success. To achieve that, we must deal with the problems of today, not the challenges of yesterday.
3.9 pm
The Minister for Europe(Mr. Denis MacShane): This has been a very good debate. It is appropriate that it follows an excellent seminar and conference on enlargement at the Foreign Office this morning. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on securing the debate and hon. Members on the quality of their speeches.
I shall start with the last speech, by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who I believe was in favour of enlargement but did not seem to be terribly much in favour of the European Union. Therein lies the eternal contradiction in Conservative thinking on this great issue.
The remark of President Chirac, whose position is held by many in France, including some of his Ministers, that has most upset people in east Europe is that there should be a referendum on the next stage of European construction. Countries in east Europe are rightly concerned that if the existing nations of the European Union were to hold referendums on the matter—referendums which are not called for under their constitutions—all the anti-Europeans could combine to produce a no vote and enlargement would not take place. I merely caution the hon. Gentleman before he starts running with the referendum line that is put forward by people in this country who are not normally associated with a pro-European position, that he might do a serious disservice to the process of enlargement and the successful working of an enlarged European Union, which are the tasks of the Convention and the intergovernmental conference.
The hon. Gentleman seems to be unaware that a commitment was given at the Copenhagen Council that the incoming member states will be full participants in the intergovernmental conference. They are not voting members of the Convention, but they have observer status there and we look forward to working with them as voting members in the intergovernmental conference.
To return to the main subject of the debate, we had a very powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, who made the case for enlargement and stressed that it is a win-win process. We really must break free of the mentality that it is in some way a zero sum game, in which Britain and other member countries will lose.
That point was also very powerfully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall), who, like me, has a Polish family connection. It has been remarkable to see the Polish community in Great Britain turn with enthusiasm to the leadership offered by the Prime Minister. They realise that the enlargement of the European Union for which he has fought so
230WH
valiantly is good for their native country. Last Friday, the Polish ambassador, who is one of the most dynamic and effective ambassadors in London, and I had the pleasure of opening Sheffield's Europe week at the Dom Kombatanta ex-servicemen's club for Polish veterans. It was a very lively and positive occasion.
We had a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), whom I had the honour to serve as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in two of the more interesting, ebullient and, at times, turbulent years in the office of the Minister for Europe during this or any previous Administration. Yes, he boldly went into the countryside with buses, certificates, flare and fun and challenged the British people to think seriously about Europe. With his inside knowledge, he was able to describe the immense complexities of day-to-day business. I long for the time when speeches are not read out by rote and when our very bright officials who work for the Foreign Office and, though British nationals, as European civil servants for the European Commission and Council are not buried under paper.
Keith Vaz: The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) mentioned the campaign bus. Of course, the bus went to Rotherham. Was he upset that it did not go to Bury St. Edmunds?
Mr. Spring: That is not in my constituency.
Mr. MacShane: The first roadshow took place in my constituency, Rotherham, and I think that I can safely say that it was downhill all the way after that.
Some important points were made about the need for parliamentarians to build networks and links. I have been holding talks with the British Council and have asked about arranging seminars that involve parliamentarians of all parties—this is not a party-political issue building links with their opposite numbers in the incoming countries. It was also suggested that an EU agency or institution might be moved to east Europe or one of the incoming member states. I am sure that they will be the first in the queue when the new agencies are allocated.
If, as we hope, Malta and Cyprus come into the EU after their referendums—and how much we long for a united Cyprus to do that—two Commonwealth countries will be added to the membership. Their accession will re-orient some of the focus of the EU towards the Mediterranean. In recent years, there has—rightly—been an obsession with east and central Europe, but the EU also has a great role to play in the Mediterranean.
As I have plenty of time in which to speak, I would like to commend a book that I have just received called "Orient Express", Published by Oxford Brookes university. It was edited by Fiona Sampson, who writes:
"as Europe shifts on her axis again, the critical mass of the E.U. Enlargement Countries is what engenders this shift. And resists the forces of globalisation by its insistence on the particular, on the coloured-in detail of what is characteristic."
The book is a collection of novels, short stories, poems and essays and shows the immense cultural contribution that will be made by the enlargement countries and to which we can look forward. The advantage for us is that, on the whole, if people from those countries have a

231WH
second language, it is likely to be English, which will provide a further set of bridges between our great European country and the new, but at the same time very old, European countries and cultures that are about to join us.
As always, my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) made a very positive speech. I hope that the Foreign Office will shortly announce further work to promote the value of enlargement and the need for Britain not only to be the champion of enlargement, but to build enduring economic and political links—we are also talking about local government—with the incoming countries. I hope that hon. Members from all parties will want to play a part in that policy.
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) had some rather harsh words to say about the President of the French Republic. I invite him to come to the annual general meeting of the Franco-British Council, which will take place in two hours at the Foreign Office. Some four or five months ago, I accepted an invitation to give the keynote speech under the heading "France and Britain: towards a new era of co-operation in international and foreign policy", which just goes to show that my speech this afternoon is merely a curtain-raiser to what is, in some ways, a more interesting challenge lying ahead.
Judging from the position adopted by the Liberal Democrats and certainly their leader, I rather thought that the hon. Gentleman was lining up with President Chirac in not supporting the view of Her Majesty's Government that firm action must be taken against the dictator, terrorist and tyrant of Baghdad.
Mr. Spring: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Moore: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. MacShane: I will take the intervention from the representative of the biggest Opposition party.
Mr. Spring: I want to take up a point that I thought was legitimately made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who talked about moving some of the European Union's institutions to a base further from its western side. Could the Minister suggest to our French partners this afternoon that European taxpayers could save themselves a vast amount of money by closing down Strasbourg and moving it further east?
Mr. MacShane: The notion that I have the power to close down any city is flattering but, alas, it is beyond my capability to do so. The plain answer is no. Strasbourg is the seat of European reconciliation. It was agreed in the treaty signed by the hon. Gentleman's former boss, the former right hon. Member for Huntingdon, when he was Prime Minister that 12 plenary sessions would take place in Strasbourg. Therefore, once again, the Government are stuck with treaties signed by the Conservative party in a fit of pro-Strasbourg passion.
232WH
The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale is right: both centres need to be reformed, and both will be under huge pressure to reform. I warn him only that it cannot be assumed that all the incoming members will automatically be on the side of reform, especially of the CAP. When the cheques arrive from Brussels, that immediately becomes a seductive inducement to favour the CAP. That is why I have always said that it is no use this country and this House endlessly condemning the CAP—we are all in agreement on that. Instead, we must find ways of building alliances with our sister parties, our national farmers' unions must find ways of discussing the matter with other countries' farmers' organisations, and the Churches, Oxfam and other non-governmental organisations must find ways of talking in French and Spanish with their opposite numbers to build a coalition for effective reform.
The same is true of regional funds. Clearly, the incoming members will reduce average GDP per capita of the EU as a whole. Many of the regions of the UK that have become eligible for forms of regional funds will lose that eligibility. We must now have a serious discussion about funding and support for the regional development that we as a country want, and how we factor those ideas into the wider European question.
We should welcome enlargement. I was impressed by the speech of Digby Jones, the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry, at this morning's seminar when he talked movingly about his visit to east and central Europe. He said that, although those with whom he spoke were pro-trade and pro-business, they also saw the European Union in terms of peace and democracy. We should not lose sight of that idealism and those values. The EU is founded on the principle of establishing peace in our continent. At a time when there is much talk of war, it is no bad thing to remind ourselves of the dictatorship and terror that Europe has seen in our lifetime, and the wars that it saw in our parents' lifetime.
Mr. Hendrick: Was my hon. Friend, like me, impressed by what Digby Jones said about the harmonisation of technical standards and regulations across Europe and the way in which that, together with the work that has gone on at the European institutions, had made the European single market successful?
Mr. MacShane: Indeed, and reference was made this morning to an article in, I think, today'sFinancial Times by two American Republican spokespersons, who said that the argument is not for or against regulation the primitive caricature that we heard in one closing speech today—but about the type of regulation that is introduced. There are times when regulation is necessary. For example, to guarantee safety in aviation is the only way to liberalise air markets.
We do not want to go back to each country in Europe erecting its own norms and standards and refusing to admit commerce and trade in goods, services and economic exchange unless they correspond to purely nationally defined norms. It costs Europe far less financially, politically and socially to support its neighbours' transitions to stable democracies and open economies than to rebuild them after conflict. Compare how much money we had to spend after the Milosevic

233WH
savagery in the former Yugoslavia with the relatively painless and much less costly entry of Slovenia into the European Union.
I was asked about Croatia. Both Croatia and Macedonia have recently made applications to be considered as applicant countries. They will be treated in the same way as other applicant countries, but I believe that in the case of Croatia, the road to Europe lies through The Hague. In my judgment, strong compliance with the demand that those in Croatia who are alleged to have committed war crimes be sent to The Hague would undoubtedly speed up Croatia's being taken seriously as an applicant for formal EU accession.
Membership of' the EU will bring immediate economic benefits to the new member states. It will create a single market of 450 million people and there will be new markets for UK business. UK exports to central Europe increased by 19 per cent. between 1999 and 2000, and by 25 per cent. with the Czech Republic and Hungary in the same period. There are 15,000 British companies exporting to or investing in the region.
However, the preparations for enlargement are already obliging all those in the existing and the incoming member states to raise our standards so that we can tackle jointly the problems that cross borders, including pollution, drug smuggling and people trafficking. Candidates are making major improvements to air and water quality to meet EU standards. Beaches around Cyprus, where nearly 1.5 million UK tourists go each year, are being brought up to EU standards. Thanks to co-operation between UK and Czech officials, a major drugs-related money-laundering operation was closed down a couple of years ago. We need to keep working to maintain those levels of cooperation.
I conclude by turning to the important matter of Cyprus. I will seek to address the points raised by the hon. Member for West Suffolk. who sneaked the issue of
234WH
sovereign base areas into the debate. I am happy to write to him in detail. I would have been happy to make a statement in the House had I been asked to. I am content that the decisions taken late in the day when I replied to the question to which he referred, I knew nothing of the proposal were made in good faith to show British willingness to contribute to arriving at an agreement that will be supported by both the Turkish and the Greek-Cypriot communities on the island.
Our policy is that we want a united Cyprus to join the European Union. We think that the Annan proposals, for which the jargon term is "Annan 3", deserve support. We hope that Mr. Denktash and President Papadopoulos will support them and that their colleagues and friends in Athens and Ankara will also make it clear that Cyprus is going to enter the European Union under any conditions—
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. O'Hara): Order. I was thinking that the reference made by the Minister to British policy towards Cyprus is only relevant to the debate in that it contributes to a solution to the Cyprus problem, which means that a united Cyprus can enter the enlarged Europe. Will the Minister bear that in mind?
Mr. MacShane: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No one has greater knowledge of the Hellenic aspects of the Cypriot question than you. It is important to stress—as Commissioner Verheugen did this morning—that we want a united Cyprus to enter the European Union, but if for any reason Mr. Denktash or others fail to agree to the Annan proposals, Cyprus will still enter the European Union. That is an important point that is worth putting clearly on the record. It is one aspect of European Union enlargement that I hope is contributing to a more secure east Mediterranean.
The Government will work to support enlargement. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly on securing this important debate.

Asylum seekers (Leeds)
3.30 pm
Mr. Fabian Hamilton: I am grateful for the chance to debate this issue of great humanitarian importance and current controversy. The debate centres on section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which reads:
"(1) The Secretary of State may not provide or arrange for the provision of support to a person under a provision mentioned in subsection (2) if
(a) the person makes a claim for asylum which is recorded by the Secretary of State, and
(b) the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after the person's arrival in the United Kingdom."
I want to concentrate on the phrase
"as soon as reasonably practicable"
this afternoon. Before going any further I want to stress that the debate is not intended to be a swipe at or indeed a criticism of the Government. My aim is to be helpful by pointing out that that phrase has had unintended consequences on genuine refuges fleeing persecution in their native countries.
I represent a highly multicultural constituency, as my hon. Friend the Minister will know. In the eight advice surgeries that I hold each month around north-east Leeds, I see many asylum and immigration cases. From time to time I come across cases where the asylum system has been abused by those who fail to have visas extended or, as the Home Secretary has said, have tried to use the asylum system to gain financial support when they have run out of other options. I support the principle that Parliament should discourage those who seek to exploit this country's hitherto generous support for asylum seekers for their own dishonest purposes. I know that that was the intention of the Act.
However, the reality has been somewhat different. I believe that that is because the phrase
"as soon as reasonably practicable"
has sometimes been unreasonably interpreted by officials in immigration centres throughout the country, and especially in Leeds where my sample cases are based and where I am a parliamentary representative.
The immigration centre to which I refer is in Waterside, Kirkstall road, west Leeds, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). In that centre, as in many others throughout the country, the interpretation of section 55 of the 2002 Act, since it came into force on 8 January this year, has forced destitute new asylum seekers on to the streets of Leeds. Were it not for the generosity and humanity of church members who are involved in the refugee education, training and advice service in Leeds, many more people fleeing persecution in their own countries would be homeless and freezing on the streets of Leeds. As of yesterday, 73 such persons were destitute without support from the National Asylum Support Service.
I understand that there has been a temporary relaxation since Mr. Justice Collins gave his judgment on 19 February and that many of those who were destitute are now in official centres. However, there is deep concern about what would happen if the Home
236WH
Secretary won his appeal and those people had to be ejected from their accommodation. The judgment was on the cases of six asylum seekers who had been refused support under the 2002 Act and who made a claim under the European convention on human rights. The judgment angered the Home Secretary who, not unreasonably, felt that it was the job of Parliament to make the laws of the land and to debate those laws and that it was not the job of the courts to undermine that legislation. The Home Secretary appealed and we await the outcome of that appeal, which was heard yesterday.
Section 55 was introduced as a Government amendment to the Bill in the House of Lords and was not mentioned in the preceding White Paper. Introducing the Government amendment, Lord Filkin said:
"The new clause ends the presumption of support for those who apply for asylum in country unless they can give a truthful and credible account of their circumstances and how they arrived here and can therefore demonstrate that they are claiming asylum at the earliest possible opportunity."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 17 October 2002: Vol. 639, c. 978.]
On 5 November, the Home Secretary said:
"The question is how reasonable we are regarding the people who come here but do not claim asylum at the port of entry. We need to be reasonable and to take into account the trauma that people experience. We need therefore to allow a reasonable period before we presume that people have come into the country for another reason and have been sustaining themselves and that when they could no longer do so they decided that the asylum system would sustain them, being far more generous than the equivalent something-for-something, welfare-to-work system."—[Official Report, 5 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 199.]
Following Royal Assent on 7 November 2002, my hon. Friend the Minister made a written statement to the High Court about section 55, in which she said that it would come into force on 8 January 2003. She said:
"It will not be acceptable for an asylum seeker wanting NASS support to postpone making an asylum claim unless there is a very good reason for doing so. Even if there is a good reason for not claiming asylum immediately on arrival at the port, the person must then claim asylum as soon as possible thereafter."
She went on to say that the Secretary of State must be satisfied
"that the person claiming support has made the asylum claim as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival in the United Kingdom."
I now want to demonstrate that a number of individuals who, for one reason or another arrived in the city of Leeds, made their asylum claim as soon as was reasonably practical after their arrival in the UK and yet were denied any support under the 2002 Act.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, often the only way for someone suffering extreme persecution to flee their country is to use what we would call people traffickers; men and women who make a living out of supplying forged documents and enabling those desperate to leave their countries to go to places where they will be safe and can find refuge. Historically, Britain has offered refuge to so many people who have suffered persecution, yet the problem is reaching an unmanageable proportion and the Prime Minister has pledged that the numbers of applicants will be halved by the end of the year.

237WH
I will not give the real names of the individuals whose cases I recount. Marie is a 33-year-old French-speaking woman from Cameroon, which is officially listed as a safe country. She was held in prison for 12 years as an opposition activist, along with her husband, who has now disappeared. While in prison she was tortured; she was finally released in autumn 2002. She believes that her husband is probably now dead but has no way of finding out what happened to him.
Shortly after her release, she received a police summons ordering her to appear at the local police station. Not unnaturally, she was very frightened and her mother advised her to leave the country as soon as she could. She sold her family home and paid the money to a trafficker—often called an agent by refugees—to get her to French-speaking Quebec in Canada. Although she is not Muslim, she was told by the Libyan agent to dress as a Muslim woman and wear a burqa, and she was brought to London via Algeria. She was told that she had arrived in Montreal and was not allowed to keep her false passport. She was virtually imprisoned in London for two weeks by the agent's wife, after which she was brought to Leeds on a train.
While they were walking through the station concourse in Leeds, the agent told her that he had left his wallet on the train and ran back to fetch it. He said he would be a few minutes but, surprise, surprise, he never returned, leaving the woman stranded in Leeds city station without even knowing what country she was in. Marie cannot read or write; she speaks no English. After two hours she found some French-speaking people who told her she was in the north of England. She was taken to the refugee council in Leeds and then to Waterside, where she registered her application for asylum. Support was refused; either because officials did not believe her story or because she had not registered "as soon as was reasonably practicable". Currently, church members in Leeds are looking her after.
I would argue that Marie could not have been expected to claim asylum any earlier. She had genuinely believed she was in Canada until her arrival in Leeds. She had been told that she would not reach Quebec if she left the house in London, which she thought was in Montreal. I do not believe that her delay was unreasonable.
Rezgar is an Iraqi Kurd who has a serious speech impediment and is illiterate. He finds it hard to communicate, even in his own language, because many Kurds think that he is mentally ill when they hear him speak. He was deposited in Leeds from the lorry that brought him illegally to the United Kingdom, without being told where he was.
Rezgar spent three days sleeping rough on the streets of the city before finding a road sweeper who was a Kurdish speaker and took him to the police station, from where he was able to report to Waterside. It took him more than three hours to give the most basic information, after which he was told that he was applying too late to receive NASS support. I am glad to say that that decision was reversed three weeks later and Rezgar now receives that support but, in the meantime, he had to rely on the charity of local people. Was his delay really unreasonable?
238WH
My third case is that of Camille, who came to Leeds from the Democratic Republic of Congo—formerly Zaire—to find her mother, who had last been heard of in Leeds. Again, she came illegally on forged documents, because she was being persecuted for her political opposition to the regime in the Democratic Republic of Congo. That regime is known for its cruelty and persecution of the opposition. She was accompanied through immigration at Heathrow by her so-called agent, and then taken on the underground to central London, where she was put on a coach to Leeds.
Camille is educated, articulate and intelligent. I met her three weeks ago and heard her story at first hand. I speak French; she speaks no English. On arrival in Leeds, she asked for directions to Waterside. It took two hours for her to walk there, and once she had registered for asylum she was told that she had registered too late to be given any support. She was told how to find St. George's crypt, a church project for the homeless and destitute in central Leeds. She walked there, only to find that there were no beds available that night. She was given some food and a sleeping bag, and told to sleep on a park bench. It was a Friday night.
After three nights outdoors and being fed by the St. George's crypt project during the day, Camille managed to contact the refugee education, training and advice service, whose volunteers took her in and looked after her. The story has a happy ending, because her new friends managed to locate her mother in Coventry, where she now lives, having been given refugee status herself. However, I would argue that Camille's delay in registering was not unreasonable.
The response of the church network of volunteers to the growing number of asylum seekers on the streets of Leeds is, "We will do better than our Government." If people with genuine stories such as those are made destitute by section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, it is frustrating that a measure designed, quite reasonably in my view, to deter those who attempt to exploit our system, is forcing refugees with the most harrowing histories to become beggars on our streets, whether in Leeds or any other major city in the United Kingdom.
My reason for this debate is to ask the Minister to reexamine the guidance given to NASS officials. The guidance already says that each case must be considered on its merits, although none of the cases of which I have spoken appears to have been so considered. It also says that a person's circumstances must be taken into account.
Christopher Mace, the deputy director general of the immigration and nationality directorate of the Home Office, said in his statement, submitted by the Home Secretary to the High Court last month:
"If those arriving at ports know that they must apply for asylum at the port then it will deter facilitators [so-called 'agents] from bringing asylum seekers to the UK and thereby significantly reduce the incidence of this serious offence."
He said that the most frequent reason for failing to claim asylum at a port is obedience to the facilitator's instructions. However, as we have seen from the three cases that I mentioned, such a measure has made no difference to the people traffickers. As for the refugees themselves, how can they know what the rules are, if many cannot read, write or speak English?

239WH
My contention is that the Act, designed, rightly, to deter dishonest asylum seekers, is being unreasonably interpreted so that it ensures the complete destitution of many genuine asylum seekers. Even if a case subsequently fails, surely the UK can be more humane in the way in which it treats such people? The most important issue is to ensure the speedy processing of claims, rather than starving successful and failed asylum seekers alike or aiming to prevent them from coming here in the first place.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will be able to issue new guidance to officials, requesting that an interpretation of the phrase
"as soon as reasonably practicable"
is not made unreasonably.
3.44 pm
Mr. John Battle: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) for introducing this sensitive subject and inviting me to say a few words in support. I also thank the Minister for her close attention to this complex and difficult issue. I hope that my remarks and those of my hon. Friend will help her to move forward rather than be obstructive.
Waterside is in my constituency, as are Leeds' main reception centre and a significant number of NASS agency houses for asylum seekers. I deal with individual cases every weekend, but the circumstances are much more difficult to manage if those who arrive by any means—many do not enter via our ports—are cut off from the customary systems with no options, no income, no home, no resources and no real friends, and forced out on the streets in the city centre at precisely the time that the Government and Leeds city council have done so well in tackling and reducing street homelessness.
During the Christmas recess, my hon. Friend and I spent a night out with the police, examining rough sleepers in the city centre. We found young people with homes to go to—many, tragically, drug addicts—out on the streets to acquire drugs or just for company. However, one city centre church voluntary project, which has provided a crypt facility with night hospitality for nearly 70 years, was recently refurbished and relaunched to tackle the problem of those remaining on the streets. The aim is to connect people back to the support systems to enable them to restart their lives.
The services of the St. George's crypt voluntary project are now overwhelmed by homeless asylum seekers who are sleeping rough and completely locked out from access to other support systems. Such people, if they are deemed not to have applied immediately, cannot be referred to social services or receive the income assistance of social security. The project now feels undermined in its objectives. It needs to be able to tell these people where they can go and who will be expected to support them, but it cannot.
Good-willed individuals, desperate to help the excluded asylum seekers, are put into an incredibly difficult position, receiving no assistance in the task of deciding whom to help by taking them into their homes, or, subsequently, how to help people on to the support
240WH
systems. Adhering hard and fast to the rules causes problems; there seems to be no way out for anyone in this position.
I appreciate that we need a fair and firmly applied rule system with rules that are clearly understood by all parties, but I wholly support my hon. Friend and gently ask the Minister whether we can re-examine the unintended consequences that are so clearly undermining other social objectives and social inclusion in our cities.
3.48 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration(Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) on securing the debate and on the way in which he expressed his concerns this afternoon. Before I respond, I pay tribute to his diverse constituency work, and I want to assure him that I understand his problems; I am a constituency Member, too. My hon. Friend raised legitimate concerns that he is wholly free to express.
I should also like to thank the Yorkshire and Humberside consortium, which works in a strong partnership with us in trying to provide services and coordinate the work that we do together with the immigration and nationality directorate. This strong consortium does a great deal of good work.
As my hon. Friend said, the interpretation of section 55 is currently under consideration by the Court of Appeal, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on the way that we have operated the policy since it came into force on 8 January. Notwithstanding that, I hope that I can respond to some of the important points that he raised today.
I remind the Chamber that when Mr. Justice Collins handed down his judgment in the High Court on 19 February, he did not find that section 55 was unlawful or incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 or with any of our obligations under international law. His findings were that the circumstances of each case should be investigated in greater depth than he understood had been the case so far and that there should be more detailed questioning to give the claimant the opportunity to explain himself convincingly if he could. On the challenges to section 55 under the ECHR, he found that inquiries should be made to try to establish whether any support was likely to exist. Otherwise, there will normally be the risk that to leave someone destitute would violate articles 3 and 8.1 of the convention. Of course, all findings are subject to the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
I should like to explain briefly some of the background to the Government's decision to introduce section 55 during the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. It is one of several measures in that Act designed to overhaul fundamentally the immigration and asylum system. The aim was to tighten the process by getting claims considered and decisions made at a much earlier stage, and to ensure that support goes to those who need it. The real point of section 55 is to try to change people's behaviour so that asylum seekers make a claim immediately on arrival in the UK and, partly through that, to try to crack the power and control that some of the traffickers—to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East referred—have over people.

241WH
There is a clear difference between economic migrants and those fleeing persecution, and I am grateful that my hon. Friend acknowledged that it is not acceptable for people to claim asylum after being in the United Kingdom for some weeks or months simply as a way of staying here at the taxpayers' expense or of delaying removal. It is reasonable for us to expect people who flee persecution to claim asylum as soon as they get to the UK as a safe country, so section 55 prevents the Home Secretary from providing support to asylum seekers who have not made their claim when they arrive at a port in the UK or, if that is not possible for any good reason, as soon as possible afterwards. The provision is not retrospective, so those who applied for asylum before 8 January are not affected, but it applies to those who arrived in the United Kingdom before 8 January but did not make a claim by then.
My hon. Friend referred to my written statement of 28 November, which attempted to clarify the way in which section 55 would be implemented. I will not say that it is not a tough policy; it is a tough policy, and is meant to be. However, it has been applied fairly and there are important safeguards. Families with children are exempt, as are those who can show that they suffered treatment contrary to the European convention on human rights. Those with special needs continue to be supported by local authorities under the National Assistance Act 1948.
Before I turn to the specific points raised by my hon. Friend, it might help to explain briefly the way in which section 55 decisions on the timeliness of asylum claims have been made by caseworkers since 8 January. That is at the crux of his concern. Each case has been considered on its own merits, and decisions have been based on a thorough assessment of the individual circumstances and the credibility of the case as presented by the applicant during the screening interview. I accept that that involves caseworkers making a judgment on credibility, but there is no way around that. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, some people make up stories while others tell the truth, but we have to make a judgment about that credibility to take a decision. However, all section 55 decisions to refuse support are referred to the central NASS team in Croydon to ensure fairness and consistency in the decision-taking process. All decisions taken by caseworkers are reviewed at a senior level before they are confirmed. I stress that it is open to individuals to ask for their case to be reconsidered if there is further evidence, a change of circumstances or information that they believe has not been taken into account.
I do not know the identity of the people involved in the cases to which my hon. Friend referred, so I have not been able to review the immigration and nationality directorate's records to examine the caseworker's reasoning. I cannot comment easily on the individual decisions taken, even if it were appropriate to do so in this forum.
242WH
My hon. Friend made a compelling case for the French-speaking woman from Cameroon, but it is not easy to accept at face value how someone capable of finding an agent to get her to French-speaking Quebec in Canada, who then got to the United Kingdom, spent a fortnight in a house in London, and travelled by train to Leeds can end up having no idea that she was in Leeds, not in Montreal. I am not making a judgment, but it is unsurprising that, in the circumstances that my hon. Friend described and in the absence of any corroboration, the conclusion was that her story did not add up. That is why support was refused.
Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the main ways in which traffickers do their business is to take the identity documents away from the person who has paid them to bring them to the country in the first place? The individual is unable to produce the evidence that he might have to present to an immigration officer.
Beverley Hughes: I accept that that is the norm, but identity is not crucial to the case. The caseworker would have tried to obtain information about the details of the journey—its course and what had happened—to corroborate the story. I am saying simply that it does not surprise me that the caseworker found that the story did not add up in the absence of any corroborative information to try to verify that journey and the point at which the person entered the country.
I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point about the second case of the Iraqi Kurd. Although the process seems to have taken three weeks, a positive point to make is that the decision was reversed once additional evidence had been presented. I am comforted by the fact that the system that we put in place, which would be amenable to a change of decision, has operated successfully. However, I take his point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made a very important point about the impact of failed asylum seekers and others in our communities, and how that cuts across some of our other important objectives for community relations and cohesions. It is difficult to resolve. Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides for accommodation-only support, especially for people whose application failed but who cannot return because there is no route through to, say, northern Iraq. People are often offered accommodation, but they do not take it because it is not exactly where they want it. However, I am happy to reconsider his point if there is anything that we can do to help the voluntary organisations dealing with this problem.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked me to re-examine the guidance given to NASS. We must wait for the judgment in order to do that but, subject to that judgment, we may well have to do it.

Education Funding (Leicestershire)
4 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: This is an extremely timely debate, given the beginning of the financial year and the education funding settlement that will kick in within some three and a half weeks for Leicestershire and elsewhere. I welcome in particular my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), because they, too, can testify to the enormous groundswell of opinion against the Government's funding for Leicestershire.
"Education, education, education"; that was the old mantra. On 13 February, the Minister for School Standards, who is here today, said:
"I remind the House that the Government have put their money where their mouth is with the most sustained increases in funding for a century…There will be £1,000 extra for the average school pupil by 2005-06".—[Official Report, 13 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 1074-5.]
I do not know who the average school pupil is, but he or she is not in Leicestershire.
The voters—parents, teachers and governors —believed the Government's mantras. Naive as I may be, I, too, at least believed up to a point that more money was going into education. After all, we have paid an enormous amount of tax, so we would at least expect that education funding would increase and that our children in Leicestershire would receive a better education. However, the Government obviously believe that if they say something often enough, people will believe it.
A report on the BBC website on 28 February stated:
"A spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills said local education authorities had been guaranteed a minimum increase of 3.2 per cent. per pupil."
I have also heard it said that no schools will be worse off. However, that is not true in Leicestershire. People may have believed what was said, but in fact they are worse off. They are getting less than 3.2 per cent. per pupil and they are very cross.
Leicestershire has the lowest funding settlement in the country. It is not 3.2 per cent., as we were promised, but 2.5 per cent. I have gone into this in some detail, because the Minister should know about it. This has to do with the way in which the base was calculated. It was calculated on the extra money for post-16 education, which the area is not getting in the coming financial year. That will end up, throughout the county, in a 1 per cent. cut in real terms to education funding in schools.
The background is worth considering briefly. Leicestershire used to be the second worst funded education authority for primary education and the fourth worst funded for secondary education. The saga of the standard spending assessment and the F40 group, of which I and, I think, my hon. Friends were members, is also worth remembering. I went to various meetings with Ministers, mostly before the present Minister got into the House. We finally heard that the SSA for education was to be changed, and a good job, too. We were to have instead the education formula spending share; the FSS. Leicestershire has 80,000 pupils, and the number in education is growing, because it is a vibrant and prosperous area. It also gets good results. I believe that we are right at the top for key stage 3.
244WH
There has been a long campaign in Leicestershire in this respect, both before the SSA was scrapped and since the formula started to be introduced. I have had innumerable letters from parents, governors and teachers throughout the county. In January, there was a meeting, which I did not attend, with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). The meeting was attended by two head teachers, including the head teacher of Lutterworth grammar school in my constituency, the leader of the county council, Mr. Harry Barber, and, I think, Mr. Ivan Ould, who is responsible for education at the county council. I am told that they had a "courteous hearing". The concern is not new. There has been a long campaign and still, after some 10 years, one gets a courteous hearing.
I have been raising this subject since 1992, when there was a Conservative Government. The situation was bad enough then, but it has got markedly worse since 1997.
Mr. David Tredinnick: I congratulate my hon. Friend on pressing for this debate. Is he aware that, since 1997, when Labour came to power, schools in Leicestershire have lost 9 per cent. of their funding? Does he not think that that is disgraceful?
Mr. Robathan: Indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The average funding per pupil throughout the county has fallen by 9 per cent. against the average.
Since the announcement of the recent settlement, I have received letters from all over my constituency. I shall not list all the schools and places from which people have come—that is a Liberal Democrat trick—but I shall refer to some of them later. I want to give the Minister and the Chamber a flavour of the settlement. The figures for the education FSS are derived by taking a basic amount per pupil with top-ups for deprivation, area costs and sparsity. That seems relatively sensible, but in Leicestershire, the increase is the lowest in the country. The proposed settlement gives an increase in total education FSS of 6.6 per cent. compared with the national average of 6.5 per cent. That sounds jolly good, but that is because we had a large increase in pupil numbers, mainly three-year-olds. In terms of the FSS per pupil, we have the minimum increase. The floor is supposed to be 3.2 per cent., but it becomes 2.5 per cent. in Leicestershire. The Education Authority is passporting the whole of the 2.5 per cent. increase. That does not meet spending pressures or represent real-terms protection as promised.
The response to the F40 parent and teacher campaign has been ignored. The disparity between the best and worst standard authorities is widening, not narrowing, and we believe, as does the education authority, that the basic entitlement per pupil should be higher to maintain and improve attainment across the board.
In Leicestershire, we educate 4,100 city children who—day in, day out—cross the border into Leicestershire because they receive a better education there but do not bring the money with them. If they did, there would be an extra £500-plus per pupil as they cross the border. The figure for Leicestershire is £2,932 per pupil; the figure for Leicester city, which is just across

245WH
the Braunstone lane from my constituency, is £3,476 per pupil, a difference of £543. If every pupil in Leicestershire were funded as pupils in the city are funded, there would be almost £52 million extra for education in Leicestershire.
What possible justification can there be for that? I understand that area cost adjustments take account of the cost of housing. The cost of housing is certainly not lower in Leicestershire than across the border in Northamptonshire or Warwickshire. The cost of employing a teacher is exactly the same, the cost of buying a computer is exactly the same and the cost of maintaining a school is exactly the same, so how does the disparity arise?
I want to turn to Winstanley high school where I am going to a meeting on Friday that has been called by the governors. The governors from 30-odd schools in Blaby district have been asked to attend, which is a daunting prospect for me. In Winstanley high school, 20 per cent. of the pupils come from the city and the head teacher told me—I want to be fair to the Government where fairness is due—that they have received targeting funding and capital funding. That is great, but they do not receive core funding; the proper budget. What does that mean for schools such as Winstanley high school?
In every school, teacher pay is rising by 2.9 per cent. under a national agreement. The Minister and I both welcome that, because teachers are not overpaid, even with the 2.9 per cent. increase. Pensions are rising and I also welcome that. However, national insurance is rising from 1 April, as every school knows because schools, as well as teachers, must pay the increase. That tax, with superannuation and increased pay, means that there will be on-costs related to pay. Swinford primary school, which is in the south of my constituency, calculated that after the increase in pay, the on-costs, which used to be 14 per cent. of teachers' pay, will rise to 23 per cent. That is a hell of a lot of money for a small primary school to find, and it is concerned that it may have reduce the number of classes from four to three. However, there cannot be more than 30 pupils in a class, as that would be against the law.
At the same time, there are plans for out-of-class assistance so that teachers can spend more time out of class. Again, that is laudable. It should allow teachers to spend more time on preparation, but where is the money coming from? I am afraid that schools in Leicestershire will not be able to employ the much-heralded support staff. From Braunstone town, Swinford, Lutterworth Sherrier primary school, Brockington high school and Countesthorpe Greenfield primary school, governors and parents are writing to me, and there is real bewilderment. I assure the Minister that many of them will have voted Labour, but they are upset and are becoming angry.
This is the worst settlement for the whole country. It is bad enough this year with school funding on the floor; they would have received even less if there had not been a floor. What will happen next year? That is cause for concern. Are there any grounds for hope?
During the summer there was the fiasco over the Criminal Records Bureau. Leicestershire county council asked at the beginning of the autumn term for £25,000 to meet costs. It has yet to receive a response from the Minister's Department. As my hon. Friend the Member
246WH
for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) said, since May 1997—I say this just in case the Conservatives are accused, as we usually are, of doing everything wrong—Leicestershire schools have become 9 per cent. worse off than the national average for funding. The Minister looks dismissive of that figure; perhaps he can tell me how it is wrong.
We want the Government to listen, and I am glad to see the Minister here. We want them to listen to the reality of Leicestershire schools, which need money this coming financial year. They say that the situation has become impossible. We need assurances that things will not get worse next year and in future. I assure the Minister that Leicestershire MPs are angry, be they Labour or Conservative. Parents, teachers and governors are angry. I was told about one governor this morning who thought that there would be no more problems or financial wranglings. He had had enough of trying to balance the budget and he knew that lots of money was coming, so all would be well. When he heard about the funding settlement, he said that it was the one thing that made him want walk away from the job, a job that he does, as do all governors, voluntarily.
Finally, I shall quote from a letter from the headmaster of South Wigston high school. The school is in the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, but is on the border and acts as a polling station for my constituency. The school takes a large number of children from Glen Parva and Blaby. This man, who is an excellent headmaster—I have met him several times—says in a letter to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills:
"My school is oversubscribed, taking 30% of our pupils from out of catchment…The school roll…hows us as being one of the most deprived Leicestershire schools… am not looking forward to planning a 2003–04 budget. Classes are already full to bursting, so cutting staffing is out of the question. The most likely situation will be to stop all of the proactive developmental work we do here in teaching and learning linked to social inclusion and use such funds to prop up the budget.
This is no way to run a school. As a Headteacher I need to know that I can plan into the future, and not have the rug pulled from beneath my feet. I had thought that this government had really grasped the need to invest in our children's future and provide schools with the finance to develop properly. It seems completely unfair, both as a parent and a Headteacher, to look only a few miles up the road and see schools where"
pupils are doing a great deal better from the settlement.
4.14 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing the debate. I thank him and the Minister for allowing me to make a brief contribution to this Adjournment debate. I am glad to see the Minister for School Standards here because I believe him to be a bright and intelligent man who is capable of dealing with complicated ideas. However, he is as much a prisoner of the Treasury as he is a free spirit in his Department. I forgive him, up to a point, with regard to the difficulties that he faces in dealing with a debate such as this. Every Member of Parliament has no doubt been knocking on his door and on that of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, asking for his share of the pork barrel for his constituency. That is a given in debates such as this.

247WH
When the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), announced the figures for our respective local education authorities in a statement some two or three weeks ago, I was shocked to find that Leicestershire LEA was at the bottom of the pile. I thought that there must have been something wrong with the printing of the tables when I found Leicestershire so far down the list.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby cited the example of Mr. Gary Toward, the headmaster of South Wigston high school, which is on the boundary of my constituency and his. The point that my hon. Friend made is exemplified by the fact that that school has to accept a proportion of its pupils from the city of Leicester. Because the city of Leicester is a unitary authority, it has its own education spending budget from central Government. The problems facing South Wigston high school are the same as those facing schools in the borough of Oadby and Wigston in my constituency, right next door to the city of Leicester, and schools in the rural part of my constituency, which stretches right down to the boundary of Northamptonshire. Central Government require them to do more and more and to follow more and more instructions but they are given less and less money to do that with. If the Minister is going to ignore the F40 campaign—of which my hon. Friend, several Labour Members and I were active members—and the pork-barrel pleas from Members of Parliament, I urge him to come and see for himself the effect of his Government's policies on the schools in our constituencies.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby, I have had letters from primary school heads, high school heads, senior school heads, governors, teachers and parents. They are, in effect, holding up their hands in shock and concern at the way in which their schools have to go on. It is now impossible for a chairman of governors or a head to plan ahead for the future development of a school because of the financial regime that has got hold of the system in our constituencies. We need more and better-funded schools in Leicestershire. We must be able to assure our constituents that our schools can plan a bright future for our bright children. I look to the Minister not to wave a magic wand, but to show that he has some kind of intellectual understanding of the terrible problems that his Government have dumped on Leicestershire's people.
4.17 pm
The Minister for School Standards(Mr. David Miliband): I am pleased to have the chance to discuss these important issues with the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby on securing the debate, and I congratulate them both on the passion with which they argued for higher funding levels in Leicestershire. I share their passion to see greater funding across the country, and I look forward to the day when all political parties have in their manifestos a commitment to raise the share of national income devoted to education. That would benefit from a cross-party approach.
248WH
In a debate on funding, it is important to start by congratulating the teachers and pupils in Leicestershire on the outstanding work that is going on in their schools. I am pleased that there are more than 200 more teachers in Leicestershire schools than there were five years ago. Some of the primary school statistics are striking. The percentage of young people reading, writing and counting well has risen from 66 per cent. to 78 per cent. during the past five years. I think that hon. Members on both sides are pleased at that. There is significant improvement in maths and science at key stage 3 and the percentage of pupils getting five good GCSEs has risen from 45 per cent. to 52 per cent. during the past four years. That is a real testimony to the professionalism and dedication of the teachers and pupils.
4.19 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.34 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Miliband: It is also important to point out the increases in funding that have taken place in Leicestershire in the last five or six years, before I address the points raised by the hon. Member for Blaby.
The hon. Gentleman referred to core funding. He will be pleased to know that the education standard spending assessment for Leicester has increased by over 36 per cent. over the past five years. He also raised the matter of non-core funding, which is an important part of the picture. The standards fund has increased from £3.5 million in 1997 to more than £21 million this year. The school standards direct grant was £3.7 million in 2001, and is £8.2 million this year. Because that grant is not delivered through the formula spending system, it gives extra benefit to Leicester compared with that system. A typical 250-pupil primary school can expect £10,000 more next year, and a typical 1,000-pupil secondary school can expect £50,000 more. Obviously, there have also been major increases in capital spending, which are not under debate today but are important in relation to the schooling infrastructure.
I want to address the points made by the hon. Member for Blaby. I do not know if I shall justify the praise of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough; he may change his mind after listening to me for 10 minutes. The development of a new funding system for local government is a complex enterprise and depends on close working with those in local government. We are very grateful for the work of the education funding group, which was brought together with representatives from the F40 authorities. There was a serious discussion of a whole range of issues.
Having come to the process as a new Minister half way through, I do not think that it is fair to say that anyone was ignored. Everyone really did have their say. When it came to the final reckoning, some F40 authorities did well, others less so; some unitary authorities did well, and others did not. There was a serious amount of discussion.

249WH
We tried to base our development of the new system on simple principles. First, there should be a basic entitlement for all pupils; £2,000 in a primary school, £2,600 in a secondary. Secondly. there had to be recognition of additional educational needs. Thirdly, there had to be recognition of additional costs. I shall run through those briefly and address the points that the hon. Member for Blaby made. Our aim is to ensure that similar pupils in different parts of the country have a similar amount of money attached to them. In the end, the reason that Leicestershire is 150th out of 150 local educational authorities for its funding derives from the statistics on pupil need and area cost.
I am pleased that we have been able to raise the amount of money that has gone into Leicestershire schools during the past five years. I am confident that with more money Leicestershire schools could do more. That is why the overall increases in spending are important.
Let me run through the important points raised by the hon. Gentleman. He talked about the area cost adjustment and housing. Although two of the options in the consultation did use housing as a basis for the final settlement of area costs, that was not the final basis used. The final basis of the area cost adjustment was the level of wages to recognise the different costs of recruitment and retention in different parts of the country. We have a national pay scale, but in different parts of the country the costs of recruitment and retention can be higher, and are driven by turnover, above all. About 50 out of 150 local education authorities benefited from the old area cost adjustment system. That meant that there were a significant number of cliff edges in the system, and a degree of rough justice. I am pleased that under the new system we have a much more focused and carefully calibrated approach to the area cost adjustment, so that 99 authorities benefit from it.
Sad to say, that is of little comfort to MPs from Leicestershire of all parties, because Leicestershire LEA is not one of them. In refining the area cost adjustment, we had to target the allowance at those authorities with the highest wage rates. Those do not include Leicestershire. The hon. Member for Blaby also raised the question of additional educational needs. We want to ensure that similar pupils in different parts of the country have a similar amount of money attached to them. The national average percentage of pupils from deprived backgrounds is about 20 per cent. That is the primary driver of the additional educational needs funding. In Leicestershire, that figure stands at about 13 per cent., which is why the recognition of additional educational needs in Leicestershire is lower than elsewhere.
Mr. Garnier: On the question of additional education needs and deprived backgrounds, border schools on the boundary of the city of Leicester are drawing in children from deprived areas—we are delighted to have them—who are sucking away educational resources from the children of our constituencies. The picture is much more complicated than the Minister paints, on a national scale.
Mr. Miliband: I accept that the picture is far from straightforward. Deprivation accounts for about 80 per cent. of additional educational needs, and about 20 per
250WH
cent. is reserved for the additional costs associated with speaking English as a second language and related issues. There are cross-border questions. We considered carefully whether we should account for mobility in the final formula. We decided not to do so, because the evidence was that it would not change the final distribution of resources much. We have 150 LEAs, which means that there are cross-border issues. I hope that pupils from Leicester are not seen simply as a burden. As the hon. Gentleman says, they are part of the school community in Leicestershire.
I want to say a little more about how the additional educational needs component was developed, because part of it is important and benefits Leicestershire. Under the old system the definition of poverty was based on income support. Two of the options in the consultation paper last autumn repeated that basis, but two others included families in low-wage work and families who were not unemployed but benefited from the working families tax credit. That helps Leicestershire, because the number of families in receipt of working families tax credit is just below the national average, although the number of families receiving income support is far below. Leicestershire will benefit not only from a sounder system but from our recognition of families who are not unemployed but in low-wage work.
In relation to ethnicity, Leicestershire benefits less than many other authorities, because it has between 4 and 5 per cent. of pupils with English as an additional language. That compares to a national average of about 9 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned sparsity in passing. It would be a pity not to recognise that the Government have taken an important step forward with the proposal that a sparsity element be inserted in the new formula to reflect the cost of home-to-school transport in rural areas and to help rural primary schools. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that part of the new formula. We considered in detail whether to introduce a sparsity element for secondary schools, but we found no evidence of a connection between secondary school size and sparsity. Small schools are as likely to be found in densely populated metropolitan areas—perhaps unexpectedly—as in shires such as Leicestershire.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the gap between the highest and the lowest-funded authority. I can understand that. He also quoted some figures about the relationship between the lowest-funded authority and the average, which I did not recognise. The figure that I have is that the gap between the lowest-funded authority and the median has hardly changed. There has been a difference of about 10 per cent. in the two periods. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about the figure that he quoted, I can certainly look into it. He or the hon. and learned Member for Harborough also referred to a letter that they had written to the Department that had not been answered. I shall follow that up.
Mr. Robathan: The letter concerned the Criminal Records Bureau.
Mr. Miliband: I certainly undertake to find out what has happened to the reply to that letter.

251WH
The hon. Gentleman did not say much about the floors and ceilings in the new system, but it is important to recognise the 3.2 per cent. floor this time and, significantly, the impact of that in future years. Because Leicestershire is quite close to the floor, it will do better in years two and three of the spending review. We want to make sure that there is as much certainty as possible in the medium term, so that schools and local authorities can plan. We have not yet been able to announce the floors for future years—we want to see how the system works—but because Leicestershire is quite close to the floor this year, the transition will be relatively short. I think that it can look forward to significantly improved funding by years two and three of the spending review—financial years 2004–05 and 2005–06.
252WH
Finally, no one should deny—certainly no Government Member does that difficult decisions remain about how to spend money in our education system. Those difficult decisions are made by governors and heads. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to continuing to increase the quantum of funding that goes into education. That will benefit Leicestershire to the extent of its needs. I want to see funds growing across the country, and the best route to that is to continue to raise the overall spend on education and to distribute it as fairly as possible. That is what we have sought to do in the new funding system.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Five o'clock.

DEFENCE

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed progress on the European Security and Defence Policy with the German defence minister. [100061]

  Mr. Hoon
  I last discussed progress on European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) with my German counterpart on 5 November 2002 in Berlin.

  ESDP was also discussed extensively at the last General Affairs and External Relations Council meeting on 18 and 19 November 2002 at which Defence Ministers from all member states were present.

  Export Licence (Sudan)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Alenia Marconi System used the F680 procedure to receive preliminary Government advice on the likely prospects for approval on their export licence application to export an air traffic control system to Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [99304]

  Mr. Ingram
  Details of F680 applications from companies are normally commercially confidential and exempt from disclosure under Exemptions 13 and 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Any F680 application received in respect of Sudan would be rigorously assessed on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria and the EU arms embargo.

  Honours and Decorations
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he received the recommendations of the Sub-Committee of the Honours and Decorations Committee, on the issue of a medal for UK servicemen who were in Egypt between 1951 and 1954; whether he will accept the recommendations of this sub-committee; and if he will make a statement. [100249]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have not received the recommendations of the sub-committee. They passed their recommendations directly to the HD Committee for its consideration. The Ministry of Defence awaits the publication of the result of their deliberations and will accept their decision.

  Procurement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the MOD expects to award the contract for the Future Infantry Soldier Technology Programme; what capabilities the new equipment will have; when the technology will come into full service; what the length of the contract is; and if he will make a statement. [98349]
  886W
  Mr. Ingram
  An announcement on the Prime Contractor for the Assessment Phase (AP) of the Future Integrated Soldier Technology (FIST) programme will be made shortly. Contract award will take place soon thereafter. The contract will last for a little under three years, and will be followed by a Demonstration and Manufacture Phase which will be the subject of separate contractual arrangements. The FIST programme will bring the benefits of technology improvements to the infantry soldier by providing an integrated suite of equipment which will enhance mission effectiveness in dismounted close combat. This will be defined more closely during the AP. An In-Service Date will not be set until the main investment decision, but current estimates are around the end of this decade.

  Separated Service Allowance
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances unmarried service personnel deployed to the Gulf receive longer separated service allowance. [100624]

  Dr. Moonie
  Longer separated service allowance (LSSA) compensates for longer separated service regardless of marital status. From 1 March 2003, following changes recommended by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB), it is paid to all eligible personnel who have completed 12 months' initial qualifying service. LSSA is paid on a daily basis for separation of 10 days or more, at three rates (basic, middle and higher) dependent upon periods of accumulated separation. Bonuses are available for those who experience very high levels of accumulated separation.

  Regularly reviewed by the AFPRB, their 2003 report reduced the initial qualifying period from 18 months' service to 12 to target the allowance at junior personnel to ensure that they do not commence a second operational tour without compensation for separation.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which categories of service personnel are eligible for longer separated service allowance; and under what circumstances it is awarded. [100625]

  Dr. Moonie
  Regardless of marital status, all regular service personnel can receive longer separated service allowance (LSSA) provided that they meet the qualifying criteria. Reservists who have been called out on permanent service or who undertake full-time reserve service are eligible for the allowance; members of non-regular permanent staff of the TA and reservists who are undertaking part-time reserve service can also qualify for LSSA.

  LSSA compensates personnel for the effects of longer separated service regardless of marital category or rank. Following recommendations by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB), the initial qualifying period was reduced from 18 months' service to 12 months from 1 March 2003. The allowance is paid at three daily rates to eligible personnel who spend 10 days or more on temporary duty away from their permanent duty station. The basic rate is paid once 12 months' service has been completed. After 300 accrued days of

  887W
  separation at the basic rate, the middle rate applies and after a further 300 accrued days of separation at the middle rate, the higher rate applies. Bonuses are available for those who experience very high levels of accumulated separation.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the(a) number and (b) percentage of (i) single males, (ii) single females and (iii) couples (A) over 60 and (B) over 75 who will be eligible for (1) any amount of council tax benefit and (2) full council tax benefit (x) at present, (y) in April 2003 and (z) in October 2003. [96369]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  Estimated numbers of pensioners eligible for Council Tax Benefit (CTB) in 2002–03

  All pensioners

  Pensioners aged over 75

  Any CTB

  Full CTB only

  Any CTB

  Full CTB only

  2002–03

  Single males

  630,000

  310,000

  270,000

  120,000

  Single females

  1,960,000

  1,170,000

  1,080,000

  710,000

  Couples

  1,300,000

  510,000

  430,000

  170,000

  Total

  3,890,000

  1,990,000

  1,780,000

  1,000,000

  2003–04

  Single males

  700,000

  320,000

  310,000

  120,000

  Single females

  2,080,000

  1,210,000

  1,140,000

  730,000

  Couples

  1,470,000

  540,000

  480,000

  180,000

  Total

  4,240,000

  2,060,000

  1,930,000

  1,030,000

  Notes:

  1. The Policy Simulation Model is only available for each financial year and estimates can be interpreted as relating to the mid-year point. It is therefore, not possible to provide estimates for the points in time requested. Estimates for 2003–04 include the effects of the Pension Credit.

  2. Pensioners are defined to be households where the benefit recipient or their partner is aged 60 or over. The over 75 group includes cases where either the benefit recipient or their partner is 75 or over.

  3. The estimates are rounded to the nearest 10,000 and totals may not sum due to rounding.

  4. Although it is possible to infer estimates of take-up by comparing these figures with forecast caseloads, it should be noted that these figures may not be consistent with those published in the take-up statistics, which are estimated on a different basis.

  Source:

  Estimates have been produced using the DWP Policy Simulation Model, which is based on the 2000–01 Family Resources Survey with prices and benefits uprated to the year in question.

  File Stores
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost was of operating his Department's filestores in each year since 1997. [98845]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the following table. Because the availability of data is not uniform across the period, the figures are non-comparable.
  888W

  £

  Year

  Operating costs

  1997–98

  21,078,728

  1998–99

  21,142,259

  1999–2000

  21,783,791

  2000–01

  27,714,146

  2001–02

  28,470,915

  Notes:

  1. Operating costs shown include staff salaries and estates costs but not running costs such as those for utilities.

  2. Where filestores are operated by external contractors then contract costs have been used.

  3. Most smaller DWP filestores are managed within DWP core business and separate operating costs for these stores are therefore not available prior to the current review of records storage and retrieval.

  4. 1997–98 figures include staff data from 13 stores and estates data from 60 stores.

  5. 1998–99 figures include staff data from 14 stores and estates data from 60 stores.

  6. 1999–2000 figures include staff data from 20 stores and estates data from 60 stores.

  7. 2000–01 figures include staff data from 44 stores and estates data from 60 stores.

  8. 2001–02 figures include data from 62 stores.

  Housing Benefit (Rent Restrictions)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of total housing benefit expenditure on private accommodation used for housing families in temporary accommodation in 2001–02. [91691]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The March 2002 report, "More than a roof" and the Government's response to it set out a challenging new approach to tackling homelessness. Specific measures include changes to Housing Benefit (HB) rules worth around £10 million to boost incentives for private sector leasing by local authorities.

  HB expenditure for temporary accommodation is recorded where the accommodation is arranged by or through the Council. However, expenditure is not identified separately where a homeless person finds his/her board and lodging accommodation or where the council has no licensed or short-term lease accommodation available. Therefore it is not possible to reliably estimate total HB expenditure on private accommodation used for housing families in temporary accommodation in 2001–02.

  Local Housing Allowance
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the Government's plans are to introduce a standard local housing allowance to replace housing benefit; when the plan's changes will be introduced throughout the UK; and in which areas the reforms are being piloted. [97318]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Standard Local Housing Allowances (SLHA) will provide a better, quicker service based on simpler, clearer rules. It will allow people to know in advance what housing benefit support they will receive, promote choice and personal responsibility, and bridge the gap between benefit and work by allowing tenants to budget for their own rent.
  889W
  Details of our proposals are in the prospectus, "Building Choice and Responsibility: a radical agenda for Housing Benefit", a copy of which is in the Library.

  We will be piloting the SLHA in 10 pathfinder local authorities (Blackpool, Brighton and Hove, Conwy, Coventry, Edinburgh, Leeds, Lewisham, Middlesbrough, North East Lincolnshire and Teignbridge). All 10 local authorities have accepted our invitation to participate in the pilot, based on our commitment to meet all reasonable costs. The scheme will be based on local reference rents and these local authorities were selected to reflect a wide range of housing market conditions, including areas with high value rented properties.

  Extension of SLHA throughout the rest of the country will depend on the results of our evaluation of the pilot scheme.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to provide an alternative method to people to drawing their pension in person, when they suffer from sudden illness, from April. [100564]

  Malcolm Wicks
  If someone cannot get out to collect their state pension which is paid into an account then they can give authority for someone they trust to do this. The precise arrangements will depend on the type of account they have. If the customer could not make alternative arrangements to draw their state pension, the Department currently has arrangements in place to ensure vulnerable customers do not suffer hardship.

  Pensions (Casual Agents)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people draw their pensions through post offices using casual agents. [100563]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the number of people who draw their pensions through post offices using casual agents is not available.

  There is a facility available for all benefit and pension recipients to allow an individual to complete the reverse of a giro cheque or payment foil from their order book, which gives authorisation to someone to act as their agent on a one-off or temporary basis, without notifying the Department.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he will take to advertise the benefit of the post office card accounts to those recipients of(a) war pensions and (b)M child benefit who have already been contacted about changes in the method of benefits payments, prior to the start-up of the Post Office card account. [100565]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Those people who have already been contacted about the move to direct payment received a mailing with information which clearly set out the account options. The information material set out the key features of the various accounts and explained how people can access their money at the Post Office, if they wish to do so and what to do if they wanted a Post Office card account. War pension and child benefit customers 890W
  who have already opted for a Post Office card account after receiving the mailing will be contacted after April when the account becomes available.

  University Students (Work Placements)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many university students his Department and associated agencies have supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what his policy is on work placements; what plans he has to develop such schemes; and what his policy is on paying their university fees. [98531]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Department for Work and Pensions supports certain students with work placements via a combination of local and centrally-run arrangements. Figures for the former are not available centrally. For the latter, the Department supported 14 students on work placements in 2002, with the aim of attracting high-calibre undergraduates who are interested in a career in the Civil Service. The Department plans to continue to offer paid work placements to undergraduates during their breaks. Payment of university fees is not therefore an issue.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many abandoned vehicles there were in the UK in each year since 1992; and how many are projected for the next five years(a) in total and (b) in each region. [99226]

  Mr. Meacher
  Information on the number of abandoned vehicles in England and Wales is as follows:

  Wales

  In 2000–01 local authorities notified the National Assembly that there were 7,700 abandoned vehicles in Wales. This was the first year that this question was included in the National Assembly's Local Authority Municipal Waste Survey. No figures are available for earlier years.

  England

  Information on the numbers of abandoned vehicles was requested for the first time from local authorities as part of the Municipal Waste Management Survey 2000–01. Regional results from the survey, which include estimates for those local authorities that did not respond to the survey, are listed in the table. Results from the 2001–02 survey are currently being collected and initial estimates should be available in April.

  Government region

  Abandoned vehicles (thousands)

  North East

  2.5

  North West

  9.2

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  7.7

  East Midlands

  11.9

  West Midlands

  20.7

  East of England

  28.9

  London

  83.6

  891W

  Government region

  Abandoned vehicles (thousands)

  South East

  44.7

  South West

  17.2

  Estimated England Total

  226.4

  It is not possible to provide projected figures for England or Wales as there is only one year's data to work with. Although costs of disposal will increase as a result of the depollution and dismantling requirements of the end-of-life vehicles directive, the impact on the number of abandoned vehicles is difficult to predict— much will depend upon future values of scrap metal and the effectiveness of the various initiatives which are being taken to tackle the abandoned vehicle problem.

  The information requested is not held centrally in either Scotland or Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps she is taking to ensure that(a) abandoned and (b) end of life vehicles are disposed of in a sustainable manner; [99335]

  (2) what the cost to local authorities of (a) disposing of and (b) administering schemes to dispose of abandoned vehicles was in each of the last 10 financial years. [99336]

  (3) what plans she has to ensure that abandoned vehicles are appropriately dismantled and recycled. [99357]

  (4) what steps she is taking to co-ordinate the collection and disposal of abandoned vehicles. [99355]

  (5) what the average cost is of disposing of abandoned vehicles, including the costs of administration. [99356]

  Mr. Meacher
  Waste collection authorities are required under section 3(1) of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 to remove a vehicle which is abandoned in their area on any land in the open air or on any other land forming part of a highway. Section 4 of the 1978 Act enables waste disposal authorities to dispose of vehicles in their custody which have been removed because they were abandoned. Such vehicles are normally disposed of through either dismantlers or scrap yards.

  The dismantling and recycling of End of Life Vehicles (ELVs) must be carried out in compliance with the conditions of a waste management licence or under a registered exemption from licensing and in a manner which does not pollute the environment and harm human health.

  The End-of-Life Vehicles Directive requires that all ELVs, including those abandoned vehicles which are ELVs, are depolluted and dismantled to specified environmental standards by appropriately-permitted facilities. The permits will replace registered exemptions (unless a site is only carrying out recovery operations on de-polluted vehicles). Draft regulations to transpose this aspect of the Directive will be published shortly for consultation with a view to their coming into effect later this year. The Directive also requires that 85 per cent. by weight of ELVs are recovered and recycled by 1 January
  892W
  2006, and 95 per cent. by 1 January 2015. The Government is currently considering its preferred approach to achieving these targets.

  We estimate that disposal costs for abandoned vehicles under the 1978 Act arrangements are between £30 and £50 per vehicle. Under the ELV Directive additional costs for the takeback and treatment of ELVs are estimated to be £50 depending on the age, condition and type of the vehicle and the price of scrap metal at the time. The increase is largely due to the costs of depolluting the ELVs to the standard required by the Directive.

  Information on the cost to local authorities of disposing of and administering schemes to dispose of abandoned vehicles is not held centrally.

  Illegal Bush Meat
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department is taking to tackle the illegal importation of bush meat [100395]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  Bush meat is generally taken to refer to meat from wild animals hunted for food. Controls on its import arise from both the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and from controls imposed to protect animal health.

  Customs are responsible for the enforcement of CITES restrictions and they take action to target, intercept, seize and where appropriate prosecute offenders.

  In controls to protect animal health Customs' role is to support the lead enforcement authorities, port health authorities and Defra. In 2002, Customs deployed additional resources in this role. A Cabinet Office study has recommended that the anti-smuggling role is transferred to Customs is actively working with Defra to implement this change as soon as practicable.

  Domestic Waste
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what investigations she has carried out into the amount of household domestic waste which has been separated for recycling by the householder but has ended up in landfill(a) by Project Integra and (b) in England. [100033]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 28 February 2003]: We do not collect this information. Under the best value performance indicators the information collected is household waste sent for recycling; this would not distinguish any amount subsequently sent to landfill because it was not recycled.

  Environment Agency (Fines)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment has been made or is planned of the effectiveness of fines levied by the Environment Agency on polluters in preventing(a) further incidences of pollution by the polluters and (b) incidences of

  893W
  pollution from others who have not previously polluted; what changes are planned; and if she will make a statement; [99240]

  (2) how much has been levied in fines by the Environment Agency against (a) companies, (b) local authorities and (c) individuals with regard to incidences of pollution, broken down by type of pollution incidence (i) in total, (ii) in each region and (iii) per fine in each year since 1995. [99239]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency does not have the legal capacity to impose fines, which are a matter for the courts. The role of the Environment Agency is to present cases where they consider environmental damage to have been inflicted, and to maximise the chance of conviction by ensuring that all relevant information is made available to the court.

  No assessment has yet been made of the preventive effect of fines levied against environmental offenders. The Department shares the Agency's view that the level of fines being imposed for pollution offences is generally too low. We are now working together and with others, especially the Magistrates Association, to ensure that magistrates are trained and have an increased awareness of the implications of polluting activity and consequently impose more realistic fines. To this end, the Association recently circulated relevant training material to all its 28,000 members. The Government are also exploring the possibility of developing general guidelines on sentencing for environmental offences.

  The Agency does not hold statistical information on fines that predates the computerisation of their system in 1999. However, they produced the tables which address the question for convictions from 1999, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Exercise Action Pilots
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what local exercise action pilots have been introduced by the Countryside Agency in collaboration with Sport England and the Department of Health to tackle obesity and increase physical activity. [100424]

  Alun Michael
  The Local Exercise Action Pilots Programme is a joint initiative funded by the Department of Health, Sport England and the Countryside Agency, with support from the Local Government Association, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Department for Education and Skills and Department for Transport. Nine local pilots led by Primary Care Trust are being developed to test effective approaches to increasing access to, and levels of, physical activity. The pilot sites will be announced in March.

  Fly Tipping
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimated total volume of waste she estimates was illegally flytipped in each year since 1992, broken down by the nature of this waste. [99269]
  894W
  Mr. Meacher
  Fly tipped waste is collected by both local authorities and the Environment Agency. Data on the volume of fly tipped waste are not collected centrally and so estimates cannot be provided. However, a recent report looking at fly tipped waste on agricultural land estimated that 0.6 million tonnes of waste was deposited on agricultural land in England and Wales in 2001. This is broken down as follows.

  Waste type

  Grossed up weights for England and Wales (tonnes)

  White goods

  2,900

  Furniture

  5,600

  Green waste

  94,000

  General household waste

  8,500

  C and D waste

  380,000

  Cars

  118,000

  Tyres

  8,700

  Total 2

  0.6 million 2

  The Government is currently discussing with the Environment Agency the potential for setting up a national recording system for fly tipping which would record these type of data from both the Agency and local authorities in England.

  GM Crops
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role the Minister of State for the Environment and Agri-Environment has in the Government's consideration of policy towards GM crops. [99286]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: I contribute to all aspects of the Government's policy thinking on GM crops.

  Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the industries and activities which have moved(a) from a Part B process to a Part A process and (b) from a Part A to a Part B process, under the IPPC Regulations since the Climate Change Levy was introduced, providing reasons for changes which have taken place. [99237]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, came into force on 1 April 2001, the same date as the Climate Change Levy. The Amendment Regulations provided for certain activities listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 to be moved from one section or part of a section to another in order to ensure that they were subjected to appropriate regulation.

  The Amendment Regulations transferred three industry sectors from Part B to
  Part A(2):

  (i) composite wood-based board manufacture: plant manufacturing wood particleboard, oriented strand board, wood fibreboard, plywood, and any other composite wood-based board, as well as the manufacture of cellulose fibre reinforced calcium silicate board using unbleached pulp;

  895W

  (ii) grinding of metallurgical slag (where not part of an A(1) installation) and where the installation has an annual grinding capacity of more than 250,000 tonnes; and

  (iii) large plant manufacturing new rubber tyres: installations which use, in any 12-month period, 50,000 tonnes or more of natural rubber, synthetic elastomers, and other substances mixed with them.

  The intention of these transfers was to secure environmental benefits from the control of a wider range of environmental impacts, compared with control of only air emissions under Part B.

  There have been no transfers of activities from Part A(2) to Part B.

  Mobile Recycling Plants
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many mobile recycling plants there are in operation in the UK; and what their total weekly capacity is, broken down by region. [99227]

  Mr. Meacher
  The most up to date information indicates that the Agency has issued 116 mobile plant licences for the treatment of waste soil. The typical annual licensed capacity (per plant) is up to 75,000 tonnes per annum. This would equate to a theoretical maximum annual treatment capacity of 8,700,000 tonnes per annum, or 167,308 tonnes per week of waste soil.

  The plants can operate anywhere in the UK and it is not possible to provide a breakdown of the capacity by region.

  One mobile plant licence has been issued for the treatment of waste refrigerationequipment. It has a weekly capacity of around 3000 fridges.

  Nappies
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many disposable nappies she estimates were(a) used and (b) disposed of by (i) landfill, (ii) incineration and (iii) other means in the last year for which figures are available. [99247]

  Mr. Meacher
  The last national study on disposable nappies was in 1993. Local authorities have carried out more recent studies, and the results suggest that nappies constitute approximately 4–5 per cent. of the municipal waste stream.

  The most recent figures show that 78 per cent. of municipal waste goes to landfill, 12 per cent. is recycled and 9 per cent. disposed of through thermal treatment. As disposable nappies cannot be recycled, using these figures we can estimate that approximately 90 per cent. are sent to landfill and 10 per cent. undergo thermal treatment.

  New work on a new compositional analysis of the municipal waste stream is being started at the beginning of the next financial year, with figures expected in December 2004. Nappies will be identified separately in this work.

  Pollution
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the annual emission was of(a) NOx, (b) SOx, (c) particulates and (d) CO2 at (i) London Gatwick Airport and (ii) London Stansted Airport in the last year for which figures are available. [100399]

  Alun Michael
  The following table shows estimated emissions of Nox, Sox, particulates (PM10), and CO2 for Gatwick and Stansted Airports in 2000 (the latest year for which figures are available).

  Gatwick(tonnes)

  Stansted(tonnes)

  NOx(as nitrogen dioxide)

  3,670

  867

  SOx(as sulphur dioxide)

  137

  61

  CO2(carbon dioxide)

  422,489

  184,932

  Particles (as PM 10)

  41

  16

  Source:

  National Environment Technology Centre. These cover emissions from aircraft and airside vehicles within the perimeter of the airport. These cover emissions from aircraft and airside vehicles within the perimeter of the airport. Emissions are calculated from aircraft movement data for the airports in 2000. Aircraft emissions during complete take off and landing cycle up to 1,000m are allocated to the airport. Consequently a proportion of the emissions are emitted at some height and horizontal distance from the boundaries of the airport.

  Refrigerators
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when proposed new recycling plants related to the recycling of refrigerators will come online; and what their capacity will be, broken down by region. [99229]

  Mr. Meacher
  10 fixed plants have already come online in Oldham, Willesden, Wallasey, Knighton, Bromsfield, Bradford, St Helens, Cradley Heath, Newport and Billingham. Each has a capacity of around 300k units per year. Plans are advanced for a further six plants in Chesterfield, Hertford, Wolverhampton, Sheffield, Birmingham and Kettering. One mobile plant, with a capacity of around 150k units per year, has been licensed to operate in Lewes, South Wales and Swindon.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many refrigerators and freezers are being stored by each local authority pending disposal or recycling. [99230]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are no figures on the numbers of refrigerators and freezers being stored by local authority area. Most local authorities have already let contracts with fridge treatment companies so their backlog will have been removed. To monitor the disposal of refrigerators, we have asked local authorities to report on the number of fridges they have dealt with as part of the national waste monitoring questionnaire.

  Tyres
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many tyres were(a) purchased, (b) reused and (c) disposed of by (i) landfill, (ii) incineration, (iii) illegal fly tipping and (iv) other means in each year since 1992. [99271]
  897W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Used Tyre Working Group, which comprises representatives from the tyre industry and officials from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Environment Agency, has compiled statistics on

  Replacement tyre sales

  Tyres on new vehicles

  Total

  Units (m)

  Tonnes (000s)

  Units (m)

  Tonnes (000s)

  Units (m)

  Tonnes (000s)

  1995

  27.9

  382

  11.2

  94

  39.1

  476

  1996

  27.2

  359

  11.6

  96

  38.8

  456

  1997

  26.6

  369

  12.4

  100

  39

  468

  1998

  27.8

  370

  12.9

  106

  40.7

  476

  19991

  26.3

  275

  12.7

  103

  38.9

  378

  2000

  25

  260

  12.8

  105

  37.8

  365

  2001

  26.9

  284

  14.1

  114

  41.0

  398

  1From 1999 onwards, the method of calculating replacement tyre sales tonnage from unit information changed to better reflect the spread of commercial vehicle tyre sizes and weights.

  Tonnes (000s)1

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Reused2

  72

  87

  93

  110

  92

  99

  94

  Retreaded

  124

  116

  110

  86

  66

  56

  49

  Recycled

  41

  41

  34

  49

  83

  75

  107

  Energy recovery3

  80

  102

  117

  84

  70

  54

  40

  Total recovery

  317

  346

  354

  328

  311

  283

  290

  Other (inc. landfill)4

  166

  138

  136

  139

  123

  167

  191

  Used tyre arisings5

  483

  484

  490

  468

  427

  450

  481

  1Units not separately identified, since recovery generally reported in tonnage terms.

  2Category includes part-worn tyres, tyres used for silage clamps and landfill engineering purposes and exports of used tyres.

  3Includes the former Elm Energy/Sita Tyre Recycling tyres to energy plant which closed in 2000.

  4The figure for landfill, as reported in the table, is effectively the balance between used tyre arisings and used tyre recovery. As well as covering the disposal of both whole and shredded tyres to landfill, it also includes those tyres which are disposed of to landfill as automotive shredder residue.

  5From 1999, total used tyre arisings have been based on the number of replacement tyre sales, numbers of vehicles scrapped and imports of used tyres as well as a proportion of tyres re-entering the waste stream after temporary re-use.

  The level of tyre fly-tipping is not separately identified. However, the Environment Agency responded to over 1,300 incidents involving tyres in 2002. The actual total is likely to be substantially higher since many incidents are reported directly to local authorities and do not feature in Environment Agency statistics.

  Government, through the Department of Trade and Industry, are shortly to issue a follow-up paper to its 2002 consultation on a possible statutory producer responsibility mechanism for used tyres. This follow-up paper invites views on the introduction of statutory reporting requirements through both the new tyre supply and used tyre disposal chains with the aim of improving the information base, promoting responsible tyre recovery and disposal practices while at the same time making it increasingly difficult for those fly-tipping tyres. The paper will also seek views on the introduction of a single point for the reporting of tyre fly-tipping incidents.

  Municipal waste 2000–01

  Government Region

  Municipal waste (000 tonnes)

  Landfill disposal (percentage)

  Incineration (percentage)

  Other methods (percentage)

  East Midlands

  2,290

  78

  7

  15

  East of England

  2,918

  82

  2

  16

  London

  4,463

  71

  21

  8

  North East

  1,452

  75

  19

  6

  North West

  4,155

  90

  1

  9

  South East

  4,344

  81

  0

  19

  South West

  2,678

  82

  0

  18

  Wales

  1,642

  93

  0

  7

  898W
  used tyres since 1995. The statistics, which are based on information supplied to the UTWG on a voluntary basis, are indicative in nature since the quality of the source data varies.

  Waste Disposal
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total volume of(a) domestic, (b) commercial and (c) other waste was in each region in each year since 2000 and projected to 2005, broken down by the proportion of waste (i) sent to landfill, (ii) incinerated and (iii) disposed of by other means. [99234]

  Mr. Meacher
  The available information is shown in the tables below. The latest available data for municipal waste are from the 2000/01 Municipal Waste Management Survey, by Defra and the National Assembly for Wales. In 2000–01 some 89 per cent of all municipal waste was domestic (household) waste. The latest available data for commercial and industrial waste are taken from the Environment Agency's National Waste Production Survey for 1999. Projections are not available.
  899W

  Municipal waste 2000–01

  Government Region

  Municipal waste (000 tonnes)

  Landfill disposal (percentage)

  Incineration (percentage)

  Other methods (percentage)

  West Midlands

  2,895

  58

  31

  10

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  2,959

  85

  3

  12

  Total:

  2,959

  79

  8

  13

  Commercial Waste 2000–01

  Government Region

  Commercial waste 2000–01 (000 tonnes)

  Landfill disposal (percentage)

  Incineration (percentage)

  Other methods (percentage)

  East Midlands

  1,787

  49

  5

  46

  East of England

  2,487

  63

  1

  36

  London

  4,350

  56

  1

  43

  North East

  996

  45

  8

  47

  North West

  3,104

  57

  1

  42

  South East

  4,043

  56

  1

  43

  South West

  2,322

  52

  1

  48

  Wales

  1,141

  68

  0

  32

  West Midlands

  2,340

  45

  9

  46

  Yorkshire & the Humber

  2,231

  48

  3

  49

  Total:

  24,802

  54

  3

  43

  Industrial Waste 1999

  Government Region

  Industrial waste (000 tonnes)

  Landfill disposal (percentage)

  Incineration (percentage)

  Other methods (percentage)

  East Midlands

  5,919

  49

  2

  49

  East of England

  3,652

  46

  2

  52

  London

  2,740

  40

  4

  56

  North East

  3,761

  46

  2

  51

  North West

  6,475

  45

  1

  54

  South East

  4,958

  46

  1

  53

  South West

  2,914

  40

  3

  57

  Wales

  4,989

  33

  1

  66

  West Midlands

  5,219

  41

  4

  55

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  9,465

  37

  1

  62

  Total:

  50,090

  42

  2

  56

  Notes:

  1. Percentages for tables may not add due to founding.

  2. 'Other Methods' for municipal waste will include recycled and composted waste and waste sent for refuse derived fuel.

  3. 'Other Methods' for commercial and industrial waste will include land recovery, re-used and recycled and a proportion of waste sent for treatment or transfer station.

  4. Industrial waste excludes construction and demolition, agriculture, mining and quarrying.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Central America
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to his United States counterpart in respect of United States involvement in the democratic process in countries of Central America. [100040]

  Mr. Rammell
  FCO Officials are in regular consultation with the US Administration on a wide range of issues including Central American affairs. FCO Ministers have not made direct representations to US counterparts on the subject in question.

  Cote d'Ivoire
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department is taking to prevent violence between forces of the Government of Cote d'Ivoire and Liberian refugees. [99295]
  900W
  Mr. Rammell
  We are not aware of any confirmed reports of violence between forces of the Government of Cote d'Ivoire and Liberian refugees. However, the UK is concerned that Liberians may be involved in the Cote d'Ivoire conflict.

  The UK fully supported UN Security Council Resolution 1464 which urged all parties including the Cote d'Ivoire Government to implement the Linas-Marcoussis Peace Agreement and to take all necessary steps to avoid further violations of human rights and international law, particularly against civilians and regardless of their origin; and called upon the neighbour states of Cote d'Ivoire, including Liberia, to prevent any action that might undermine the security of Cote d'Ivoire. UNSCR 1464 also authorised French and ECOWAS troops to ensure 'the protection of civilians immediately threatened with physical violence within their zones of operation, using the means available to them'.

  We have raised our concern for Liberian refugees in Cote d'Ivoire in the UN Security Council.
  901W
  We have provided £1 million in humanitarian assistance. This has included the provision of emergency health services, water services and food supplies to civilians, internally displaced people and refugees in both government and rebel controlled areas. Many Liberian refugees have benefited from this assistance, particularly in the worst affected west of the country. We are also contributing £600,000 towards a UNHCR camp refurbishment programme for Liberian and Ivorian refugees who have crossed into Guinea.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to promote a settlement in Cyprus. [98417]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written Ministerial Statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 25 February 2003,Official Report, column 14WS, and to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 25 February 2003, Official Report, column 427W.

  EU Accession
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communication he has had with the governments of the EU applicant countries regarding their accession to the European Union. [99738]

  Mr. MacShane
  Her Majesty's Government has close relations with all the candidate countries for EU accession. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I, have met with representatives of incoming EU member states on a number of occasions both in London and on mainland Europe. I intend to visit several of the applicant countries.

  EU Candidate Countries
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps remain to be taken before candidate countries become members of the EU. [100519]

  Mr. MacShane
  The European Commission gave a positive opinion on 19 February to the accession of the 10 new members. The draft Accession Treaty is now being considered by the European Parliament, which is expected to give its assent on 9 April. The Council of Ministers will take a formal decision on 14/15 April to admit the new members. Heads of State and Government will meet in Athens on 16 April to sign the Accession Treaty. All 25 parties to the treaty will have until 30 April 2004 to ratify it according to their respective constitutional requirements. Subject to ratification of the treaty, the new members will accede to the Union on 1 May 2004.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with European counterparts regarding the Turkish application to join the EU; and what talks he has had with(a) Greek and (b) Cypriot representatives on the issue. [100520]
  902W
  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regularly discussed Turkey's EU candidacy at meetings of EU foreign ministers in Brussels in the General Affairs and External Relations Council and in bilateral discussions. The EU is committed to opening accession negotiations with Turkey without delay if the European Council decides that it fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria. We look forward to working with the new Cypriot government to that end.

  Foreign Agreements
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many agreements were reached between the UK Government and foreign powers in 2001; and of those, how many were agreed without Parliament being informed. [99917]

  Mr. Rammell
  The negotiation and conclusion of international legally-binding agreements is a function of the executive. Such agreements are subsequently laid before Parliament as a Command Paper and, where the Ponsonby Rule applies, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum.

  Thirty five such agreements were signed by the United Kingdom in 2001, of which nine are yet to be published.

  Funding
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) environment, (b) education and (c) human resources grants funded by his Department for which individual members of the public and organisations may apply; how much funding has been provided in the last financial year in each case; how many awards were made; and what their administrative cost was. [99963]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has three environment funds to which members of the public and organisations can apply. In the financial year 2001–02, The Climate Change Challenge Fund had an allocation of £800,000 and made six awards to organisations/members of the public totalling £151,650. The Environment Project Fund had an allocation of £1,750,000 in that year, and made 49 awards to organisations/members of the public totalling £295,000. The Environment Fund for Overseas Territories had an allocation of £500,000 and made 15 awards to organisations/members of the public. These funds are administered by officials in London and at overseas posts, and separate information about the administration costs specifically for these funds is not held centrally. It cannot therefore be compiled without disproportionate effort and cost.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth office holds funds for educational scholarships for which non-British members of the public can apply. In the financial year 2001–02 there were 2,366 Chevening Scholarship awards, the total cost of which was £40.1 million. Of this the FCO paid £31.5 million, other government departments £1.8 million, UK universities £2 million and the private sector £4.7 million. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office also funded 85 Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan scholarships at a cost of £2 million and 87 Marshall Scholarships at a cost of £1,800,186. The British Council's management fee for

  903W
  administering the Chevening scheme was £4.25 million. The cost of the British Council's, the Association of Commonwealth Universities' and Commonwealth Scholarships Commission's administration of the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan scholarships was approximately £200,000. The Marshalls Commission administered the Marshall scholarships at a cost of £181,519. Additionally, all these schemes were administered in co-operation with a large number of officials in London and at overseas posts, but separate information on the time spent by these staff on this particular work is not held centrally and could not be compiled without disproportionate effort and cost.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office also provides financial assistance to educational institutions to fund joint seminars, conferences and workshops of FCO interest. These are not formal grants; the funding usually covers speakers' travel and accommodation expenses. In the financial year 2001–02 seven such events took place at a cost of £18,850. Administrative costs (mainly staff time) associated with these events are estimated to total 450.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no human resource grants for which members of the public and organisations can apply.

  General Affairs and External Relations Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs and External Relations Council held on 24–25 February; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [100141]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary represented the UK at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Brussels on 24 and 25 February. No formal votes were taken. Conclusions were agreed by consensus.

  External Relations Session

  Wider Europe: New Neighbourhood

  The Council continued its discussion of the 'Wider Europe; New neighbourhood'initiative, originally proposed by the UK. A Commission Communication on 'Wider Europe' would be available for the next GAERC meeting. There would be further discussion at the enlarged meeting of the European Conference in Athens on 17 April. In discussion, Ministers noted the need to develop new policy instruments in addition to EU membership to influence its relations with other countries.

  Western Balkans

  The Presidency, High Representative Solana and Commissioner Patten gave presentations to the Council on the morning's political dialogue meetings with Croatia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Ministers noted Croatia's application to join the EU, for which some member states expressed their support, and noted the process for its consideration.
  904W
  The Council agreed conclusions on Serbia and Montenegro, Kosovo, Republic of Macedonia and return of refugees and internally displaced persons. In a brief discussion, Ministers urged Belgrade and Pristina to refrain from any unilateral initiatives which were incompatible with the objectives of a multi-ethnic and democratic Kosovo.

  Iraq and the Middle East

  Ministers discussed the Middle East and Iraq in the presence of the President of the Arab League, Mr. Hammoud, and of the Secretary General of the Arab League, Mr. Moussa.

  The Foreign Secretary explained in general terms plans for tabling a second resolution on Iraq, and stressed the need for a tough and clear message to Saddam that Iraq had to comply with relevant UNSCRs, in particular 1441. The Arab League representatives argued for more time for inspections. Ministers reaffirmed that full co-operation by Iraq on disarmament in accordance with UNSCR 1441 was an urgent objective shared by all.

  Ministers reaffirmed the importance of reinvigorating the Middle East Peace Process and supported early publication of the roadmap endorsed by the Quartet.

  ESDP

  High Representative Solana gave a presentation to the Council, including on the envisaged EU take-over of the international military presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The UK Permanent Representative commended joint proposals tabled by France and the UK on this subject, emphasising the need for careful and thorough planning. Other Ministers joined the UK in stressing the importance of a robust mandate and close co-operation with NATO.

  The Council took stock of implementation of the 'Berlin plus' permanent arrangements between the EU and NATO. It noted that the three main elements (assured access to NATO planning, presumption of availability of pre-identified NATO common assets and capabilities, and European command options including the role of DSACEUR) had been concluded. The Council also noted progress achieved in preparations for the EU's take-over of military operations in Macedonia.

  EU-Russia Relations

  EU-Russia relations were discussed ahead of the EU-Russia Summit on 31 May, in St. Petersburg, and in the context of the EU Common Strategy on Russia, which is coming up for review next June. The Presidency underlined the importance of making EU-Russia relations more effective and results-orientated and the need to focus on this at the Summit. The upcoming entry into force of the PCA (partnership and Co-operation Agreement)'s dispute settlement mechanism, was a step in the right direction.

  AOB: EU-OSCE Co-operation

  The Presidency underlined the importance it attached to EU-OSCE co-operation and referred to the EUOSCE Ministerial meeting held in the morning.
  905W
  General Affairs Session

  Progress of work in the Convention

  Jean-Luc Dehaene, Vice Chairman of the European Convention, gave a progress report on work in the Convention on the Future of Europe. The Convention has now reached a decisive phase in its work, as it begins to flesh out a Constitutional Treaty. The first 16 draft articles (covering Titles on Establishment of the Union, Values, Objectives, Legal Personality, Fundamental Rights and Competencies), were circulated to the Convention at the plenary on 6 February. A large number of written comments have been received on these and will be the subject of a full debate at the plenary on 27–28 February. At the same time, a second batch of articles (on the Union's instruments and procedures) will be circulated.

  The President of the Convention, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, will make a further report to the European Council at its meeting of 20–21 March 2003. The Convention will present a final document later this year.

  Progress of work in other Council configurations

  The Council noted a Presidency report on work under way in the Council's other configurations. The report draw's particular attention to: the Economic/Financial Affairs Council meeting on 18 February, where a first exchange of views was held on the economic reform strategy set at Lisbon in March 2000; the conclusions adopted by the Education, Youth and Culture Council meeting on 6 February on activities aimed at creating coherence in education and training in Europe; and the conclusions adopted by the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on January 27–28 on the integration of environmental protection requirements in the Common Fisheries Policy and on the sustainable development of European aquaculture.

  Preparation of the European Council in March

  The Council examined a draft annotated agenda for the European Council prepared by the Presidency, in advance of substantive preparation at its next meeting on 18–19 March. At this stage the Presidency intends to limit the agenda to the Lisbon strategy of social and economic reform. The Government welcome this as the focus for discussion.

  The annotated draft agenda sets out the main items that the European Council is due to address in connection with the economic reform strategy that it laid down at Lisbon in March 2000, including how the strategy can be used to support the Union's enlargement. The agenda draws on the Commission's "Spring Report" on progress made on the Lisbon strategy and suggested policy orientations.

  At this stage the Presidency intends to limit the agenda to the Lisbon strategy, although there may be discussion of the international situation. The European Council will also hear a progress report on work of the European Convention from its President, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, and will hold an exchange of views with the President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox.
  906W
  Economic and Social cohesion in the run-up to enlargement

  The Council took note of a Commission presentation on its second interim report on economic and social cohesion in the Union. It requested the Permanent Representatives Committee to examine this document further and to report back at its meeting on 17 and 18 of June 2003. The Commission's third full cohesion report is due in autumn and will emphasise the unprecedented challenge for cohesion policy that enlargement will bring. It will also examine the conditions for implementation of a new generation of structural fund programmes for the 2007–13 period.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to celebrate the 300th anniversary of British sovereignty over Gibraltar; and what representations he has received from(a) the Gibraltar Government and (b) Spain concerning the anniversary. [100312]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 26 February 2003,Official Report, column 595W. We have not received any representations.

  Human Rights Convention
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with non-governmental human rights groups in preparation for the forthcoming UN Human Rights Convention, which opens on 17 March 2003 in Geneva. [100511]

  Mr. Rammell
  I attended a pre-Commission on Human Rights (CHR) briefing session with NGO human rights groups on 13 February this year. The aim of the meeting was to brief the human rights community on the UK's approach towards the CHR and to give them the opportunity to feed in their views. The Forum is a key part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's dialogue with NGOs. Among a total number of 26 NGOs, representatives from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the All Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group attended the meeting.

  The UK delegation to the CHR in Geneva will keep in regular contact with British and International NGO representatives during this year's session of the CHR.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who the United Kingdom representatives will be at the United Nations Human Rights Conventions to be held in Geneva from 17 March 2003. [100517]

  Mr. Rammell
  I will attend part of this year's session, and, as is customary, will address the Commission in plenary. Mrs. Audrey Glover CMG will head the United Kingdom delegation to the UN Commission on Human Rights as she has done since 1998. The delegation will include officials from the UK Representation to the EU in Brussels, UK Missions to the United Nations in Geneva and New York, as well as London-based officials from the Human Rights Policy Department and Global Issues
  907W
  Research Group of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and a representative from the Department for International Development

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United States Government in respect of the United States registered companies shown to be suppliers to Iraq of military equipment and technology in the dossier provided by Iraq to the United Nations Security Council in December 2002. [100076]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government has made no representations to the Government of the United States on this issue. It is a matter for the Government of the United States to take any action against US-registered companies alleged to have been involved in the supply of military equipment and technology to Iraq.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure the widest possible support for the UK sponsored draft resolution on Iraq at the UN; and if he will make a statement. [100276]

  Mr. Rammell
  We made it clear in tabling the draft Security Council Resolution on 24 February 2003 that it will not be put to a vote immediately. We are in active discussion with other members of the Security Council and key allies to build support for the tabled draft.

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence there is to support his statement, 26 February 2003,Official Report, column 270, that the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 authorises the use of force against Iraq. [100819]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The statements to which my hon. Friend refers concern the provision in United Nations Security Council resolution 1441(2002) which recalls that the Council has warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violation of its obligations. As the Government have made clear, that means consequences up to and including the use of force.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European colleagues on the final status of Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [100013]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I are in close and regular contact with European colleagues. On 24 February 2003, Foreign Ministers issued a statement at the European Union General Affairs and External Relations Council which reiterated the importance of full respect for UNSCR 1244, and urged all parties, both in Belgrade and in Pristina, to refrain from any unilateral initiatives which were incompatible with the objective of a multi-ethnic and democratic Kosovo, and which may jeopardise stability and the normalisation process not only in Kosovo but in the entire region

  Moroccan Prisoners
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations his Department has made to the Algerian Government on the condition of Moroccan prisoners in Algerian detention camps. [99992]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Officials regularly meet with representatives of the Algerian Government. They often raise the subject of the Moroccan prisoners of war held by the Polisario Front in camps in South Western Algeria, particularly when discussing the dispute over Western Sahara.

  Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a written statement in the Official Report following each(a) ministerial meeting and (b) meeting of the Permanent Representatives of the OSCE. [99442]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have no plans to make a written statement in the Official Report following each ministerial unless there is an issue of sufficient interest to report. I do not propose to make a written statement following weekly meetings of the Permanent Representatives. The OSCE website: www.osce.org carries reports of key OSCE business and decisions.

  Palestinian Refugees
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to press Israel to implement United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 of 1948 on the right of return for Palestinian refugees. [100042]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The issue of the right of return of Palestinian refugees forms part of the final status negotiations. As with the other final status issues, the details of a solution are a matter for negotiation between the parties. We continually impress upon all parties the importance of returning to negotiations, and taking account of the relevant UN Resolutions

  Spain
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs since her appointment. [99953]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Foreign Minister Palacio have spoken frequently since her appointment as Foreign Minister in July last year. I also have spoken regularly to my Spanish counterpart, Ramon de Miguel. Discussion has covered international, European and bilateral issues.

  Sudan
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received regarding the civil war in Sudan, with specific reference to the bombing campaign of the Sudanese Government in southern Sudan; and if he will place a copy of these reports in the Library. [100737]
  909W
  Mr. Rammell
  We have received a copy of the US-led Civilian Protection Monitoring Team's report into the incident at Mundri (Lui), south Sudan. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what end-use monitoring agreements relating to the export of military products are in place with Sudan; and what end-use monitoring mechanisms exist in each case. [96241]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 7 February 2003]: All export licences to Sudan are assessed against the Consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, including the EU arms embargo and Military End Use Control.

  Western Sahara
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with UN officials concerning the date of a referendum on the future of the Western Sahara; and if he will make a statement. [100510]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave him and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 358W.

TREASURY

  Animal Welfare
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many animals are used by customs and excise authorities in the UK, broken down by species. [100368]

  John Healey
  As at 28 February 2003, HM Customs and Excise had a total of 56 animals of the species canis familiaris (dogs), including those in service, training and planned replacements. No other species of animal is used.

  Climate Change Levy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 7 January 2003, Official Report, column 195W, on the Climate Change Levy, why no estimate is available of levy receipts the Exchequer anticipates to receive during 2002–03 from those companies covered by negotiated climate change agreements; and if he will make a statement. [100081]

  John Healey
  It is not possible to estimate climate change levy receipts at a sufficient level of detail to allow tax receipts expected from those businesses covered by negotiated climate change agreements to be identified separately. The negotiated agreements and sector fuel data, which serve as a basis for the estimating revenue, do not map exactly onto one another. Also, businesses in a specific sector and/or covered by an agreement can claim for more than one relief under the levy.

  It is also not possible for Customs to use data from levy receipts, since they collect the levy from fuel suppliers, while it is their customers that enter into the agreements.

  Departmental Policies (Northampton)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of his Department's measures to tackle income inequality in Northampton. [100801]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have taken a range of measures to tackle income inequality since 1997, including supporting families with increases in Child Benefit and the introduction of the Children's Tax Credit; supporting low income people in and into work through introduction of the National Minimum Wage, the 10 per cent. starting rate of Income Tax, reductions in National Insurance contributions for the low paid, and the Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC) and Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC); and supporting pensioners with increases in the basic State Pension, provision of the winter fuel payment, and for the poorest pensioners through the Minimum Income Guarantee(MIG).

  As an indication of the coverage of some of the measures designed to tackle income inequality, 4,800 families with children in Northampton were receiving the WFTC and DPTC in August 2002, while there were 4,600 pensioner households in Northampton claiming the MIG in November 2002.

  Home Insurance
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to stop mortgage lenders charging fees when customers switch their home insurance. [100742]

  Ruth Kelly
  None.

  Insurance Mediation Directive
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received on the decision that the Insurance Mediation Directive will be administered by the Financial Services Authority under a statutory regime; [100678]

  (2) what estimates he has made of the cost to (a) insurance brokers and (b) the insurance industry of complying with the Insurance Mediation Directive; and if he will make a statement. [100679]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government published a consultation document, "Regulating Insurance Mediation" on 21 October 2002 that set out its proposals on implementing the Insurance Mediation Directive. Consultation closed on 31 January 2003 and the Government received around 400 responses. Representations were received from trade bodies, insurance providers and insurance intermediaries as well as from travel agents and consumer organisations. A draft regulatory impact assessment (RIA), setting out the proposals in the consultation document, was published as annex E to the consultation document. The Government will be revising the draft RIA in the light of wider consultation responses.

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the value of manufacturing export from companies within the Dumfries and Galloway region in the last 10 years. [100160]
  911W
  Ruth Kelly
  The estimate for value of manufacturing exports as declared by companies within the Dumfries and Galloway region is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Exports value

  1996

  69

  1997

  57

  1998

  64

  1999

  56

  2000

  78

  2001

  73

  2002

  65

  Note:

  Regional trade statistics are not available prior to 1996.

  The value of all exports (including manufacturing but excluding services) from this region has been approximately £90 million per year on average.

  Middle East
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to allow tax concessions for Britons who have been advised to leave the middle east because of the political situation in the region. [100089]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Under a long standing Inland Revenue practice, days spent in the UK due to exceptional circumstances beyond an individual's control may, in certain cases, be disregarded in deciding whether the individual is resident here for tax purposes.

  This practice was applied on a case by case basis after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and its application to the current situation is being kept under close review.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will meet the hon. Member for Nottingham, North to discuss the Strelley/Broxtowe Sure Start and its loss of underspends caused by building delays. [94519]

  Maria Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Officials will meet with the Broxtowe and Strelley Sure Start programme on 4 March. Pending the outcome of this meeting Baroness Ashton, the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Sure Start, would be pleased to meet with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North.

  Taliban
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the Taliban assets in the UK which(a) are frozen and (b) were frozen in October 2001; when assets were frozen of the Afghan National Credit and Finance and the National Trading Company of Afghanistan; and what was the value of frozen assets. [100617]

  Ruth Kelly
  The al-Qaeda and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1390 allowed for the release of Taliban funds to the legitimate Government of Afghanistan. As a result, UK financial institutions have made such funds available to the Afghan Government and no Taliban (as distinct from al-Qaeda) funds remain frozen. As I indicated in my written answer of 16 October 2001, to the hon. Member 912W
  (at column 1212W), no funds belonging to Afghan National Credit and Finance have been frozen in the UK. The assets of the National Trading Company of Afghanistan were frozen on 5 October 2001 as a temporary measure but were then unfrozen since they were not covered by UN sanctions. As my written answer explained, some £63 million sterling in 33 accounts had been frozen as at 15 October 2001. Regrettably, the sterling value of the frozen account of Khalid A1 Fawwaz was incorrectly printed in the Official Report as £23.19 million; the correct figure, as stated in my written answer and as reflected in the total figure, was £23.19.

  Tax (Non-residents)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals were considered to be non-domiciled for tax purposes in the UK in each year from 1980–81 to 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [99900]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not available.

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if trust ports classified as public corporations are required to remit an annual dividend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [100699]

  Ruth Kelly
  It is for the Department for Transport to determine whether any trust ports classified as public corporations should be required to remit an annual dividend. Any dividend would be payable to the Department for Transport.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 597W, if he will place in the Library the information held by the Office of National Statistics concerning the retrospective classification of trust ports as public corporations. [100702]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Christopher Chope, dated 4 March 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding information held by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) concerning the retrospective classification of Trust Ports as public corporations. I am replying in his absence. (100702)The ONS has been working on the basis of published Annual Accounts and legislation on individual Trust Ports supplied by the Department for Transport. ONS does not hold any information of its own on Trust Ports. As stated in earlier replies, major Trust Ports have been reclassified as public corporations in National Accounts. We are continuing to examine the information about smaller ports to identify whether they should be private and public corporations.

  Unpaid Tax
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the amount of unpaid tax in each year since 1993–94, broken down by(a) income tax, (b) VAT, (c) customs duties, (d) corporation tax and (e) other taxes; and if he will make a statement. [95431]
  913W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Inland Revenue

  The Inland Revenue's accounting for tax runs to the end of October each year. The table below shows the amounts of unpaid assessed and unassessed taxes at the end of each accounting year. The figures for uncollected tax represent net tax charged but not paid at the accounting date, and are a snapshot of the position at that date. Amounts of tax unpaid at the accounting date have, over the period covered in the table, approximately halved as a proportion of the tax collected during the year.

  (£)million

  Position at end of year to 31 October

  Income tax other than PAYE

  Corporate tax

  Other tax1

  Total

  1993

  2,401.8

  631.4

  184.1

  3,217.3

  1994

  2,249.9

  719.7

  155.9

  3,125.5

  1995

  2,201.2

  576.0

  131.4

  2,908.6

  1996

  2,326.8

  1,287.4

  141.4

  3,755.6

  1997

  2,270.4

  682.7

  136.3

  3,089.4

  1998

  2,278.9

  710.0

  177.6

  3,166.5

  1999

  2,492.2

  606.4

  57.4

  3,156.0

  2000

  2,350.8

  571.01

  49.9

  2,971.7

  2001

  2,348.7

  566.61

  33.6

  2,948.9

  1These figures include estimates for the amount of unpaid self assessed corporate tax.

  Customs and Excise

  An analysis fo Customs' debt management performance, covering VAT, Customs duties and other indirect taxes, for years from 1998 is available in their annual report and accounts 2001–2002 which was published December 2002, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The figures for "debt" represent a snapshot of liabilities established and reported for collection as at the financial year-end and include assessed liabilities subject to dispute, and so not immediately available for recovery, and assessed liabilities generated through anti-fraud activity.

  For both Departments, much of the tax uncollected at the balance of each account is subsequently collected, and most of the amount outstanding attracts either an interest charge or default surcharge.

  VAT Exemption
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he has estimated the net change in value added tax revenue which would result from the proposed VAT exemption for welfare services provided by state-regulated private welfare agencies; [100099]

  (2) what discussions officials from his Department have had with representatives of state-regulated private welfare agencies concerning the proposed VAT exemption for welfare services provided by state-regulated private welfare agencies; [100098]

  (3) when the proposed VAT exemption for welfare services provided by state-regulated private welfare agencies will come into force. [100100]

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the net revenue implications of changes to VAT treatment of 914W
  services connected with the care and protection of children and young people by independent fostering agencies; [100833]

  (2) what notice was given to independent fostering agencies about changes to VAT treatment of services connected with the care and protection of children and young people and reclamation of VAT on inputs purchased. [100780]

  John Healey
  The Government's decision at the end of last year to abolish VAT on essential care in the home will cut the cost of home care for many of the 60,000 people who currently buy in these services. Someone previously paying £400 a month for care could see a reduction of £40 in their bill as a result of these VAT changes, which have been discussed between officials and a wide range of organisations.

  The changes will cost an estimated £30 million per year, of which a negligible amount relates to services connected with the care and protection of children and young people by independent fostering agencies.

  Welfare services provided by state-regulated private welfare agencies can be exempt from 31 January. Independent fostering agencies, whose supplies are to local authorities, may choose to postpone changing the VAT treatment of their supplies until 1 April while they make the contractual and financial arrangements that are necessary for them to implement the change. This was announced in Customs and Excise business brief 01/03, issued on 20 January, and Customs additionally wrote to agencies on 24 and 30 January.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Social and Environmental Reporting
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to make social and environmental reporting mandatory for medium and large companies. [99263]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's plans for a revised reporting regime for all companies were contained in the White Paper "Modernising Company Law" (Cm 5553), published in July 2002. This included the proposal that economically significant companies should be required to prepare an Operating and Financial Review as part of their annual financial statements and reports. The Review would include information on social and environmental matters where those were relevant to an informed assessment of the company. We intend to bring forward legislation as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

  Accountancy
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from bodies representing the accountancy profession on the use of the term Accountant. [100027]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 28 February 2003]: None, excepting in their response to the Department's recent consultation on the Review of the Regulatory Regime of the Accountancy Profession, the

  915W
  Irish Institute of Chartered Accountants raised a point about defining the term "accountant" in Irish and in UK legislation.

  Age Diversity
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Department completed its diagnostic review for compliance with the Government's Code of Practice for Age Diversity in Employment; and what changes her Department plans to make following the review. [99424]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI has taken a number of steps to embed the provisions of the Code of Practice, produced in 1999. This has led to the removal of all obvious and unjustifiable age discrimination including in DTI job advertisements and in selection criteria. The Code has been superseded by the Cabinet Office's Winning the Generation Game report and we have adopted, or have already met, its recommendations for Departments. This includes from August 2002 giving all staff in the DTI below the Senior Civil Service the option of continuing to work to age 65.

  Bottled Water
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many incidences and what total volume of bottled water has been withdrawn from sale in the United Kingdom since 1992, broken down by reasons for withdrawal; and what prosecutions have resulted. [99216]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) only has reliable data on national withdrawals of bottled water following FSA advice in a food hazard warning.

  Since April 2000, when the FSA was formed, there has been only one withdrawal of bottled water as a result of a food hazard warning and the FSA has no information on the volume of water withdrawn. The reason for withdrawal was microbial contamination.

  Formal action in the case of this withdrawal, which took place in October 2002, is a matter for the relevant local authority. The FSA does not collate information on withdrawals instigated by local authorities, or on withdrawals initiated by the water bottler.

  Employment Tribunals Service
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Employment Tribunals Service makes payment and administers the arrangements for the provision for a sign language interpreter or other forms of communication support when requested by a deaf person coming before a tribunal. [92812]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 27 January 2003]: The Employment Tribunals Service (ETS) pays reasonable fees and costs for the provision of a professional interpreter, palantypist, lip-speaker, or other professional form of communication support when requested by a deaf person coming before a tribunal.
  916W
  While there are no limits on interpreters' fees, the ETS uses the rates for interpreters charged by the major agencies as a guide. The Tribunal may permit a friend or relative to act as an interpreter and he or she may claim the same travel and other expenses (but not a fee) as the deaf person.

  The ETS is able to put deaf people in touch with appropriately qualified interpreters via a national register but it does not administer the provision. Such matters are left to the individual concerned because of differing personal requirements.

  Fur Labelling
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans her Department has to enforce the(a) accurate and (b) specific labelling of fur used in consumer goods; and if she will make a statement. [98876]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 makes it a criminal offence, if a trader applies a false trade description to any goods or, supplies or offers to supply any goods to which a false description is applied. This legislation is enforced by local authority trading standards departments.

  I also refer the answer given to the hon. Member on 25 February 2003, Official Report, column 421W, about the difficulties of identifying certain fur types and the steps that this Department is taking to address this matter.

  Newspapers (Carriage Costs)
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the progress being made by the Office of Fair Trading investigation into the carriage costs charged by newspaper wholesalers to independent newsagents; and if she will make a statement. [98082]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is currently reviewing the undertakings given by newspaper wholesalers, introduced following the then Monopolies and Mergers Commission report in 1993, on the supply of national newspapers in England and Wales.

  The Office of Fair Trading published its findings and provisional recommendation on 12 December 2002. The OFT found that carriage and service charges have risen faster than costs (which in turn have risen significantly faster than retail price inflation). The provisional recommendation, to liberalise selling-on within exclusive territories, is open to public consultation until 14 March 2003. The OFT will then finalise its recommendations and report to DTI.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure that part-time workers receive(a) the minimum wage and (b) appropriate levels of paid leave. [100481]

  Alan Johnson
  Annual publicity campaigns have ensured that awareness of the minimum wage is at almost universal levels. Enforcement of the minimum
  917W
  wage is carried out by the Inland Revenue. If any worker—whether part or full-time—is not receiving the minimum wage, they should phone the helpline on 0845 6000 678. All complaints are followed up by Inland Revenue enforcement teams and workers' details remain confidential.

  The Working Time Regulations give all workers the right to four weeks paid leave per year. Part-timers receive this pro-rata depending on the hours they normally work. This was publicised following the introduction of the Regulations and again in 2001. It is enforced through the Employment Tribunals.

CABINET OFFICE

  E-Government
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on progress with the introduction of e-government. [100201]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government's target is to make all government services available electronically by 2005 with key services achieving high levels of use. The last survey of e-government services showed that 54 per cent. of services are available electronically.

  Civil Service (Ethnic Diversity)
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent progress has been made in improving ethnic minority recruitment into the civil service. [100202]

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on ethnic diversity within the civil service. [100767]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government remain strongly committed to a civil service that is fully representative of the community it serves.

  Ethnic minorities make up 7.9 per cent. of the civil service as a whole and 2.8 per cent. at senior civil service level, up from 5.7 per cent. and 1.6 per cent. respectively in April 1998. Our target for senior civil service level staff is 3.2 per cent. by 2004–5.

  Civil Service Legislation
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made on proposals for civil service legislation. [100203]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Public Administration Select Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, and the Committee on Standards in Public Life are looking at this issue. We will want to consider the work of these two important committees.

  Health Sector Targets
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what discussions he has had in recent weeks with the Delivery Unit about Government targets in the health sector. [100204]
  918W
  Mr. Alexander
  There are regular meetings with the Delivery Unit to discuss a range of delivery issues, including health.

  Government Websites
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many Government websites comply with W3C standards. [100693]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government Interoperability Framework and the Guidelines for UK Government Websites require that all Government websites that employ hypertext markup languages comply with published W3C's standards. Responsibility for adopting the W3C standards rests with those in charge of individual websites and is not centrally monitored.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many Government websites have a PCIS rating. [100696]

  Mr. Alexander
  PICS labels are registered through a third-party organisation, the Internet Content Rating Association, and I have asked them to check for the latest figures. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman when these figures are available.

  Online Nation Campaign
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the Government plans to launch the Online Nation campaign. [100695]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Prime Minister announced at the e-Summit in November 2002 that the Government would run the Online Nation campaign in spring 2003. The campaign will encourage people, particularly those from socially excluded groups, to experience the benefits of the internet. A pilot campaign will run in Newcastle from 5–31 March.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  CAFCASS
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what her estimate is of the efficiency savings that will be made by CAFCASS over the next 10 financial years. [99546]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  CAFCASS is committed to making effective and efficient use of public resources, as stated in its Corporate Plan 2002–06. For 2003–04 Ministers will set targets regarding CAFCASS' performance, including the development of efficiency measures. The expected efficiency savings will be published in CAFCASS Corporate Plans.

  Constituency Boundaries
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects the boundary commission to complete its review of constituency boundaries; and when the review will be implemented. [100808]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.
  919W
  At the outset of their fifth general review of parliamentary constituencies in February 2000, it was the intention of the Boundary Commission for England to conclude the review by the end of December 2005. That target date remains although it is possible it may change in the future. The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 requires the Secretary of State to lay the report with a draft of an Order in Council giving effect to the recommendations, with or without modifications, as soon as possible after the report is received.

  Jury Service
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason payment for jury service increases after five days' service. [99876]

  Yvette Cooper
  Jurors are not paid for jury service but can claim financial loss allowances to cover loss of earnings or benefits, or increased expenses, incurred as a result of jury service. The maximum daily allowance of £52.63 increases to £105.28 where service exceeds 10 days. This increase acknowledges that jurors might incur additional expenses when they are required to serve for a longer period.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of the effect on net government spending on the Public Records Office of introducing additional charging for access to records; and if she will make a statement. [99824]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Most of the services provided by the PRO are free of charge. This includes access to original records and microforms at Kew and the Family Records Centre; consultation of PROCAT, the online catalogue relating to the PRO's own holdings, and the Access to Archives virtual catalogue for England; the award-winning Learning Curve gallery which provides online material for schools relating to the history national curriculum; and selected digital record images, including those which have featured in recent press coverage.

  The PRO has introduced charges for online access to electronic copies of paper records. These same paper records are accessible free of charge onsite at the PRO. This new electronic internet service, which is over and above the PRO's statutory service, is charged at full cost recovery and hence has no effect on the PRO's net government spending.

  The PRO's 1901 census online service is provided by QinetiQ. The rates are fixed by Statutory Instrument and are based on the principle of full cost recovery. Until QinetiQ has recovered its full investment from the project from the income it receives, the PRO will not receive any income and hence this service has no effect on the PRO's net government spending.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what reasons underlie the change in total public spending on the Public Record Office between 1998–99 and 2003–04; and if she will make a statement. [99825]
  920W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The changing pattern of the PRO's expenditure in this period is mainly explained by the progressive introduction of new services, which collectively make a significant contribution to the e-government agenda.

  The PRO website usage has grown from 738,977 in 1998–99 to a projected figure of 70 million in 2002–03 and is now regularly one of the top five government websites consulted by online users in the United Kingdom. The website includes a detailed electronic catalogue of the PRO's records and many digital record images of strong interest to educational users at all levels and to family historians.

  It is also offering detailed guidance and increased support to other Government Departments, as they make plans to meet the target of introducing Electronic Records Management (ERM) by 2004. The PRO is itself on course to implement ERM in full in the business year 2003–04.

  In the area of digital preservation, it is currently making arrangements for long-term archiving by setting up a secure repository at Kew, which can store selected electronic records transferred from other Government Departments. In this way a crucial part of the nation's memory will be made available to present and future generations. In the forthcoming year the PRO will secure new storage for its offsite records, thereby ensuring that all of its accessioned material is kept in conditions which comply with the relevant British Standard.

  Further details about the PRO's programmes and expenditure are to be found in the Keeper's annual reports from 1998–99 to 2001–02, copies of which are available in the Library. Information about its latest achievements can be obtained from the website at www.pro.gov.uk.

  Work Placements
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many university students her Department and associated agencies have supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what her policy is on work placements; what plans she has to develop such schemes; and what her policy is on paying their university fees. [98536]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In 2002 we offered 19 under graduates paid work experience broadly at executive officer level. This consisted of the following schemes that are run each year.

  We have given 10 students work experience through the departmental summer placement scheme advertised via the Cabinet Office. The scheme aims to encourage students to consider the department or civil service overall as a career option.

  In addition, seven students were placed on the Cabinet Office summer development programme. The purpose of the programme is to encourage ethnic minority students to join the civil service through the fast stream programme.
  921W
  We support the Windsor Fellowship scheme and offer two fellows work experience each year. This is a structured outreach training and development programme for ethnic minority students.

  It is our intention to offer placements under all of these schemes during summer 2003 and thereafter.

  The Department does not have a policy to pay university fees, but has provisions to fund degrees for staff.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Audit Commission (Inspectors)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many inspection staff have been employed by the Audit Commission responsible for inspecting local authorities in each year since 1997. [100509]

  Mr. Leslie
  The number of staff employed in the Audit Commission's inspection directorate, including inspectors and direct support staff, by Audit Commission financial year (1 November—31 October), is as follows:

  Number of stuff employed

  1996–1997

  Nil

  1997–1998

  4

  1998–1999

  18

  1999–2000

  73

  2000–2001

  324

  2001–2002

  438

  2002–2003

  400 (budget)

  Community Empowerment Fund
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding Leeds city Council has received from the Community Empowerment Fund; which organisations manage the fund; what projects have been developed; and which communities benefit. [96962]

  Mrs. Roche
  Leeds city council receives no Community Empowerment Fund (CEF) money. CEF is always provided directly to a community or voluntary sector organisation in each of the 88 most deprived local authority areas in England (which receive Neighbourhood Renewal Fund) to build the local community's capacity to engage effectively on Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs).

  CEF does not fund 'projects' as such. It is used to develop and support a fully inclusive Community Empowerment Network (CEN) and helping to facilitate community and voluntary sector involvement in the LSP, especially the most deprived neighbourhoods and hard-to-reach groups.

  Leeds Voice is the organisation administering CEF in Leeds. It is also the CEN. The grant allocation for Leeds is £501,898 over three years (2001–04). 2002–03 is the second year of the programme.

  Leeds Voice Community Link teams work to engage `hard to reach' and disadvantaged groups. Their Forum team facilitates 'forums of interest'—e.g. community
  922W
  groups addressing issues of learning, health, environment, faith and Connexions—and 'area based forums' for the community and voluntary sector—e.g. in South Leeds and Chapeltown/University.

  External Finance/Council Tax (Increases)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list for each local authority the percentage increase in(a) aggregate external finance and (b) council tax from (i) 1997–98 to 2002–03 and (ii) 2002–03 to 2003–04. [100573]

  Mr. Raynsford
  (a) Aggregate external finance (AEF) can be defined either on a gross or net basis. The net definition comprises revenue support grant and redistributed national non-domestic rates; the gross definition additionally includes police grant and special and specific grants.

  (i) Figures for AEF for each local authority on a like-for-like basis for years between 1997–98 and 2002–03 are not held centrally on either gross or net bases, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For England as a whole, the comparable increase in gross AEF in that period is £11.6 million or 30 per cent. and the increase in net AEF is £6.6 million or 20 per cent.

  (ii) Figures for gross AEF for 2003–04 are not yet available for each local authority. Figures for the percentage increase in net AEF between 2002–03 and 2003–04 are, however, available and have been placed in the Library of the House. For England as a whole, the comparable increase in gross AEF is £3.8 million or 8 per cent. and the increase in net AEF is £2.2 million or 5.8 per cent.

  (b)(i) Figures for the percentage increase in council tax for each local authority between 1997–98 and 2002–03 have been placed in the Library of the House.

  (ii) Council taxes for 2003–04 are still being set, and figures are therefore still being collected by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. They will not be available until validated information has been received from each local authority.

  Fire Services
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what figure for the percentage increase in fire service productivity over the past 10 years was submitted to the Bain Inquiry by the Fire Service employers. [99632]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The evidence given by the fire brigades' national employers to the independent review of the fire service is a matter for the employers. Their evidence to the review is available on their website (www.lg-emplovers.gov.uk).

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Fire Brigades have introduced an integrated personal development system with the agreement of the FBU(a) as a pilot scheme and (b) in full. [99655]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not aware of any Brigades which have introduced an integrated personal development system
  923W
  either as a pilot scheme or in full. The eight components which support the Integrated Personal Development System (IPDS) are still under development.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost would be to the fire service employers of the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Bain review. [100122]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Independent Review of the Fire Service have said that the costs and savings of their proposals will balance over the next three years, the period of the Spending Review 2002. Chapter 12 of the Independent Review's report sets out in detail the costs and benefits of the reforms they propose. The Independent Review's final report is available on their website at www.irfs.org.uk, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what overtime hours were worked by firefighters, in each fire brigade area, in the last period for which figures are available. [100124]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There is a Fire Brigades Union ban on pre-arranged overtime which has been called into question by the independent review of the fire service. However, unplanned overtime is worked e.g. when firefighters are in attendance at an incident at the end of their shift. Details of this overtime are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  GLA (Elections)
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to reduce the numbers of spoilt ballot papers at the 2004 elections for the Greater London Authority. [100034]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Greater London Authority (GLA)—through the Greater London Returning Officer—is working with the Electoral Commission to develop a publicity and information strategy which will help voters understand what they are voting for and how to exercise their votes at the 2004 GLA elections.

  At the same time, the Government is consulting on "Changes To The Rules For London Mayoral And Assembly Elections". After the consultation closes on 10 March, all consultation responses will be considered before any amendments to the rules are put before Parliament.

  New Deal
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many employees of New Deal for Communities projects(a) have been made redundant and (b) had a contract terminated early in each of the last five years. [99399]

  Mrs. Roche
  During the last five financial years 17 employees of New Deal Communities Partnerships have had their contracts terminated and two have been made redundant.

  Sustainable Communities
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the funding for Housing London, East and South East and Housing—other regions in 2003–04 924W
  identified in the table on page 66 of Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future, includes (a) local authority social housing grant, (b) the housing investment programme and (c) the major repairs allowance. [98514]

  Mr. McNulty
  (a) The table does not include local authority social housing grant. This is being abolished from April 2003. However, provision has been made in the housing transitional arrangements line of the table to safeguard LASHG schemes in progress or committed.

  (b) The table does include the Housing Investment Programme (HIP). This is £842 million for 2003–04. From 2004–05 resources provided to local authorities for HIP, and resources provided to the Housing Corporation will be put into a single regional housing pot. Final decisions on the allocation of resources will be made based on advice from the new Regional Housing Boards.

  (c) The major repairs allowance is not included in the table. This totals over £4 billion for the next three years.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he has put in place to assess the impact of the aggregates tax on companies in Northern Ireland. [97013]

  Mr. Pearson
  Officials from the Department of Finance and Personnel are passing information to HM Customs and Excise on the prevailing conditions within the aggregates industry since the introduction of the Tax. However, responsibility for policy regarding the Aggregates Tax rests with HM Treasury/Customs and Excise.

  Areas of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the European-recognised Area of Special Scientific Interest sites in Northern Ireland. [97942]

  Angela Smith
  There are two classes of site recognised for their scientific interest at the European level: Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) under the Habitats Directive (1992); and Special Protection Areas (SPA) under the Birds Directive (1979).

  Final agreement on the UK list of candidate SAC has not yet been reached with the European Commission. Among those proposed for the UK, the following sites are in Northern Ireland.

  Aughnadarragh Lough

  Ballynahone Bog

  Ballykilbeg

  Banagher Glen

  Bann Estuary

  Binevenagh

  Black Bog

  Breen Wood

  Carn/Glenshane Pass

  925W

  Cladagh (Swanlinbar) River

  Cranny Bogs

  Cuilcagh Mountain

  Curran Bog

  Dead Island Bog

  Deroran Bog

  Derryleckagh

  Eastern Mournes

  Fairy Water Bogs

  Fardrum and Roosky Turloughs

  Garron Plateau

  Garry Bog

  Hollymount

  Largalinny

  Lecale Fens

  Lough Melvin

  Magheraveely Marl Loughs

  Magilligan

  Main Valley Bogs

  Monawilkin

  Moneygal Bog

  Moninea Bog

  Montiaghs Moss

  Murlough

  North Antrim Coast

  Owenkillew River

  Peatlands Park

  Pettigoe Plateau

  Rathlin Island

  Rea's Wood and Fair's Bay

  Rostrevor Wood

  Slieve Beagh

  Slieve Gullion

  Strangford Lough

  Teal Lough

  Tonnagh Beg Bog

  Tully Bog

  Turmennan

  Upper Ballinderry River

  Upper Lough Erne

  West Fermanagh Scarplands

  Wolf Island Bog

  The sites classified as SPAs are:

  Belfast Lough

  Carlingford Lough

  KiHough Bay and Strand Lough

  Larne Lough (incorporating Swan Island SPA)

  Lough Neagh and Lough Beg

  Outer Ards

  Pettigoe Plateau

  Rathlin Island(Incorporating Rathlin Cliffs SPA)

  Sheep Island

  Strangford Lough

  Upper Lough Erne

  Lough Foyle

  Banking
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of state for Northern Ireland for what reasons banking institutions in Northern Ireland were excluded from examination 926W
  and control by the Director General of Fair Trading, with particular reference to excessive charging for current accounts; and if he will make a statement. [96746]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Competition Commission, in its report on the supply of banking services to SMEs, made an adverse Public interest finding in relation to the charging of excessive prices and therefore the making of excessive profits by the largest four clearing groups operating in England and Wales. These were HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds TSB and RBSG. The Fair Trading Act 1973 does not empower the Secretary of State to impose remedies on a company in the absence of an adverse finding. The Director General of Fair Trading was therefore required to seek undertakings in relation to interest on current accounts in surplus, or provision of free money transmission services, from these four banks only in respect of their operations in England and Wales. The conclusions of the Commission's reasoning is reported at paragraph 2.418 to 2.431 and 4.490 to 2.495 of its report.

  Belfast City Airport
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether public consultation will take place prior to the proposed increase in flights in to and out of Belfast City Airport. [99412]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of the Environment's Planning agreement, signed in January 1997, under Article 40 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. This agreement includes controls on operating hours to restrict scheduled flights to between 06.30 hours and 21.30 hours. The agreement makes provision for delayed flights to arrive between 21.30 hours and 23.59 hours.

  To date, no formal approach has been made to Planning Service seeking provision to be made for later flights. Upon receipt of an application to amend the present planning agreement governing the operation of Belfast City Airport, the Department of the Environment would examine the application on its merits. In particular, this would involve considering whether a new planning agreement was required and the most appropriate method of dealing with the application, including the possibility of holding a public Inquiry.

  Competition Commission
  Mr.McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the recommendations of the Competition Commission in respect of the eight clearing banking institutions in the United Kingdom will apply to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [96747]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Competition Commission made adverse public interest findings about eight leading clearing banks in respect of their operations in the UK. These banks have provided my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer with behavioural undertakings to remedy the adverse effects. Ministers

  927W
  announced on 31 October that they had accepted these undertakings, which apply to their operations throughout the United Kingdom.

  Diabetes
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the cost of diabetes and its associated complications to the health service in Northern Ireland. [98311]

  Mr. Browne
  The information on which to base such an estimate is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Domestic Violence
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to tackle domestic violence in Northern Ireland. [97743]

  Mr. Browne
  The regional forum on domestic violence provides the focal point for taking forward issues on domestic violence in Northern Ireland. Much of the work of the forum is carried out by working groups on inter-agency co-operation; criminal justice; education and training; research and information; work with churches and most recently, child protection issues. Local inter-agency groups are also established in all eleven Health and Social Services Community Trusts.

  The Northern Ireland Office also is currently co-ordinating, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Departments, the development of a strategy to tackle violence against women inNorthern Ireland. The strategy is due for publication in Spring 2003 and will look at a range of crimes, including domestic violence, where women are predominately the victim.

  In addition, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's homelessness Strategy and Services Review has been developed in acknowledgment of the need to help prevent homelessness resulting from domestic violence, help victims escape such situations through the delivery of adequate accommodation and support services and help support victims upon being re-housed.

  Education Strategy
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have occurred between the Department of Education and the Department of Employment and Learning regarding development of a strategy on educational provision for 14 to 19-yearolds. [100066]

  Jane Kennedy
  A series of discussions has taken place between the two Departments to define the issues in the 14–19 phase of education and, to consider a conjoint approach to future provision.

  Energy Contracts
  Lembit Opik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce provisions to enable the buyout of long-term energy contracts through(a) a bond mechanism, (b) low-cost loans and (c) another mechanism; and if he will make a statement. [97894]
  928W
  Mr. Pearson
  I am fully committed to pursuing and evaluating options and mechanisms for reducing energy costs in Northern Ireland. This process is not solely or specifically focused on buying out long-term contracts and includes a thorough examination of views and proposals on more efficient means of financing energy assets and contracts, many of which are already financed by bond arrangements. I have allocated a high priority to this exercise and my officials are working closely with the Regulator in defining possible mechanisms.

  Foetal Health
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals have received compensation in each of the last five years as the result of disability from injuries incurred while in the mother's womb. [88071]

  Mr. Browne
  I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Legal Action (Funding)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what grounds the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has been granted public funding to pursue private legal action against the media. [90185]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Financial assistance is provided to civil servants to pursue legal action against third parties if it is considered to be in the interests of the employing Department that proceedings should be instituted. In this case, financial assistance was provided to uphold the reputation of the Permanent Secretary in the interests of the Department.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants in each of the past 15 years have been granted public funds to pursue libel actions. [90186]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Three civil servants have been authorised to receive financial support to pursue libel actions in the past 15 years. Two other civil servants were authorised to receive financial support for preliminary advice in matters relating to their reputations.

  Financial assistance is given to civil servants to pursue legal action against third parties if it is considered to be in the interests of the employing Department that proceedings should be instituted.

  Linguistic Diversity
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to whom the draft linguistic diversity policy of the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland has been presented. [98198]

  Angela Smith
  The draft linguistic diversity policy of the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland has not yet been presented to anyone. The policy continues to have draft status at present because the outgoing Board of Trustees did not have an opportunity to approve it before the end of their term of office.
  929W
  However, it is hoped that the new Board will formally adopt the policy shortly, so that it can be widely circulated as part of the full, external consultation exercise required under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, prior to implementation.

  Manufacturing Employment
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs were lost in each sector of the manufacturing industry in Strangford in each of the last 10 years; and how much government funding was provided to manufacturing industry in each of the last five years. [97668]

  Table 1: Total confirmed redundancies in the Newtownards Job Centre area 1997–2003

  Manufacturing sector

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  DA

  Food products; beverages and tobacco

  26

  23

  38

  22

  1

  25

  0

  DB

  Textiles and textile products

  142

  43

  50

  498

  0

  0

  0

  DH

  Rubber and plastic products

  0

  0

  0

  21

  0

  0

  0

  DM

  Transport equipment

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  24

  0

  D

  Total manufacturing

  168

  66

  88

  541

  15

  49

  0

  Table 2: Key assistance offered to manufacturing companies in the Strangford constituency for the last 5 years

  £ million

  1997–98

  2.57

  1998–99

  2.99

  1999–2000

  1.93

  2000–01

  2.19

  2001–02

  1.88

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest available scientific research on the safety of mobile phone masts. [89402]

  Mr. Browne
  The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), chaired by Sir William Stewart, published a report on the subject of mobile phone technology in May 2000. The Group examined the health implications of this technology and carried out an assessment of existing research. It concluded that the balance of evidence indicated that there was no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures were expected to be small fractions of the guidelines.

  Recognising, however, that there were gaps in knowledge, the Expert Group recommended further research and as a result a joint government/industry research project, to which my Department is contributing £30,000 over three years, was announced in 2001. The Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) Programme invites research applications both in relation to masts and to mobile phone handsets. Research on the group of projects funded under the first call is now well under way. The names of the projects selected from the second call are
  930W
  Mr. Pearson
  Information on redundancies is currently only available at either Job Centre Area level or for Northern Ireland as a whole. The Newtownards Job Centre is the only job centre located within Strangford parliamentary constituency (PC). There have been a total of 927 redundancies since 1997 (the earliest year for which disaggregated information is available) in the manufacturing industry. Information on redundancies by sub-sector within manufacturing by year since 1997 is provided in Table 1.

  Over the last five years, the Invest NI legacy organisations (Industrial Development Board, Local Enterprise Development Unit and Industrial Research and Technology Unit specifically) offered assistance of £11.56 million to companies in the manufacturing sector within the Strangford constituency. Details of the assistance offered is set out in Table 2.

  expected to be announced in due course and an advert for a third call appeared in appropriate publications in week commencing 16 December.

  Nurse Recruitment
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new nurses have taken up their post in each board area in Northern Ireland over the last two years. [98260]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is detailed in the following tables.

  Figures in the following tables relate to nursing staff (including midwives) in each Health and Social Services Board that have taken up their post in the last two years—joiners are defined as those who were not in employment at the start of the year but who were in employment in the NI Health and Personal Social Services at the end of the year.

  Nursing joiners between September 2000 and September 2001

  Board

  Headcount

  WTE1

  Eastern Board

  799

  708.51

  Northern Board

  213

  177.29

  Southern Board

  157

  136.83

  Western Board

  177

  154.98

  Total

  1,346

  1,177.61

  Nursing joiners between September 2001 and September 2002

  Board

  Headcount

  WTE1

  Eastern Board

  1,361

  1,218.40

  Northern Board

  201

  168.05

  Sourthern Board

  214

  181.67

  Western Board

  377

  340.70

  Total

  2,153

  1,908.82

  1Whole-time equivalent

  Railway Services
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his plans are for the future of the Whitehead to Larne railway line. [94078]

  Angela Smith
  Further to my answers to Question ref. 82681,Official Report, 25 November 2002, column 24W, and Question ref. 82682, Official Report, 28 January 2003, column 770W, I can confirm that the plans for the retention of services on the Whitehead to Lame railway are set out in the "Regional Transportation Strategy for Northern Ireland 2002–12" (RTS). The intention is to retain services on this line, subject to successful results from the introduction of new trains and improved infrastructure on the "core" network in the early stages of implementing the RTS. Hence, in the short to medium term services will be retained on the Whitehead to Larne railway line, subject to normal safety procedures. However, no major improvements will be carried out until the assessments referred to above are concluded.

  Rohypnol
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the availability of Rohypnol in Northern Ireland; and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that Rohypnol is attained by the public solely for its prescribed purpose. [98374]

  Mr. Browne
  Rohypnol (Flunitrazepam) is subject to the same legal controls and prescribing restrictions in Northern Ireland as are in force within the rest of the UK. It is a prescription only medicine (POM) which may be only prescribed on private prescription. It is a Schedule 3 drug under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 and as such prescriptions written for it must comply with both prescription and handwriting requirements under the Regulations.

  Stocks of the product are subject to safe custody requirements. The Misuse of Drugslnspector (NI) is responsible for inspection and monitoring activities and enforcement action where appropriate. Routine and unannounced inspections are carried out on practitioners, pharmacists, trust and private hospitals, pharmaceutical manufacturers and wholesalers, and research and clinical trial establishments to ensure compliance with legislative controls, agreed standard operating procedures, good practice guidelines and safe custody requirements.

  Teachers'Pay Review
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the pay settlement reached in the Review of Salaries for Principals and Vice Principals will be extended to(a) teaching and (b) non-teaching principals. [100064]

  Jane Kennedy
  The independent Inquiry's Interim Report on Principal and Vice-principal Pay applies to all principals in grant-aided schools, irrespective of the teaching duties they carry out.

  Trolley Waiting Times
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average trolley waits in Daisy Hill Hospital were in(a) November 2002, (b) December 2002 and (c) January 2003. [98261]

  Mr. Browne
  There were no trolley waits in Daisy Hill Hospital in(a) November 2002, (b) December 2002 or (c) January 2003.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average trolley wait was in each hospital in Northern Ireland in January. [98262]

  Mr. Browne
  Trolley wait information is collected by time band. It is therefore not possible to calculate the arithmetic mean length of trolley wait. It is however possible to identify the median or mid point trolley wait.

  The median length of trolley waits by hospital are provided in the table below.

  Median hours Waiting

  Total monthly trolley waits

  Altnagelvin

  Less than 1

  7

  Antrim

  12–13

  312

  Belfast

  8–9

  188

  Causeway

  13–14

  152

  Craigavon

  17+

  421

  Down

  4-5

  11

  Lagan Valley

  11-12

  124

  Mater

  13-14

  242

  Mid Ulster

  8-9

  29

  Royal Group

  8-9

  107

  Sperrin Lakeland

  2-3

  29

  Ulster

  10-11

  357

  Whiteabbey

  8—

  1

  Vehicle Fleets
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has issued guidelines to local authorities in Northern Ireland on the introduction of facilities for the provision of(a) retail and fleet liquefied petroleum gas and (b) compressed natural gas. [96555]

  Angela Smith
  No guidelines have been issued to local authorities in Northern Ireland on the introduction of such facilities.

  The Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 enables District Councils to undertake the assessment and management of air quality in Northern Ireland. It requires District Councils to identify areas where air quality standards are not likely to be achieved within specified timeframes. In such areas, relevant authorities can then be required to produce proposals for reduction in the pollution levels. Should pollution from road transport be identified as a significant source in a particular area, government departments, district councils and other public bodies will consider possible reduction measures, including, where relevant, any contribution that might be made by a programme supporting low emission vehicles.

  Work Permits
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the term Baltic dancers
  933W
  appeared in the application made in summer 2002 for a group work permit for lap dancers for the Movie Star Café. [98034]

  Jane Kennedy
  The name of the group stated on the application form was "Baltic Dancers".

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions the Department of Employment and Learning had with Work Permits UK on the application made for a group work permit for lap dancers for the Movie Star Café in summer 2002. [98036]

  Jane Kennedy
  When processing work permit applications for Northern Ireland the Department for Employment and Learning applied the same criteria as used in Work Permits (UK). As no guidelines existed in respect of pole dancers, it was only after querying this aspect with Work Permits (UK) that DEL treated the application in question on the basis of an entertainment application.

  Work Placements
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many university students his Department has supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what his policy is on work placements; what plans he has to develop such schemes; and what his policy is on paying their university fees. [98550]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Department has supported or sponsored 71 university work placement students during the past year. These cover the areas of Valuation, Statistics, Economics, Architecture, Quantity Surveying, Mechanical Engineering, Media Studies and IT.

  There is no specific policy, however, the numbers employed are decided upon by the specialist business areas and is dependant on available funding.

  There are currently no plans to further develop the schemes.

  The Department employs and pays university students for the period of placement but do not pay or make any contribution to their university fees.

TRANSPORT

  A46/A47 Link Road
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make an assessment of the effectiveness of the A46-A47 Link Road. [100181]

  Mr. Spellar
  No.As the A46/A47 Link Road is a local road scheme, the responsibility for monitoring its performance rests with the local highway authority, Leicester city council.

  Buses
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his strategy is for encouraging greater reliance on bus transport in areas where bus services are deregulated. [100191]
  934W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Better partnership between bus operators and local authorities, with co-ordinated investment in infrastructure and new vehicles, is a proven way of growing bus patronage, and is particularly effective where it can relieve congestion. Other local authority policies, for example on parking restraint and park-and-ride schemes, can also encourage greater use of buses. That is why we have established the Bus Forum between the bus operators and local authorities to develop the best framework for this partnership.

  New Airport (Rugby)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Environment Agency's submissions on the proposed site of a new airport east of Rugby. [100192]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Environment Agency has engaged in the consultation process and we welcome their input. As I have said previously, we will produce a summary of the responses after the consultation has finished.

  Railways
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the level of investment in the national railway infrastructure in the last financial year. [100193]

  Mr. Jamieson
  National Rail Trends published quarterly by the Strategic Rail Authority gives details of total investment in the rail industry. For 2001–02 this stood at £4,070 million. Of this £922 million was in respect of rolling stock. The bulk of the remaining investment spend is in respect of infrastructure.

  Road Works Obstructions
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the cost to businesses of the overrunning of road works contracts which obstruct entry to business premises in the last five years. [100194]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Where a highway authority carries out works under a statutory power or duty, and performs those works properly, there is not at law any liability on the authority for loss of business.

  Consequently, no assessment is made of the cost to businesses of the overrunning of road works contracts.

  Nevertheless, the Highways Agency recognises the disruption these works can cause and requires its contractors to complete them as quickly as possible with minimum disruption to businesses. Every effort is made to ensure that its road works do not obstruct entry to business premises or, otherwise, alternative access arrangements are provided.

  Cycling Projects Fund
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Cycling Projects Fund. [100195]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Cycling Projects Fund supports cycling across England by providing funds for projects that can meet a local need and deliver an increase in
  935W
  cycling. Over £2 million was allocated in the first round and a second bidding round is now in progress, with a further £lmillion available.

  Roads (Eastern Region)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve road links in the eastern part of the eastern region. [100196]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Schemes currently under construction or programmed to improve access by road to the eastern part of the eastern region include: A47-Thorney bypass, Hardwick flyover, Kings Lynn, and Blofield-North Burlingham dualling; A11-Five Ways to Thetford dualling, Roudham Heath to Attleborough dualling and Attleborough bypass dualling; A14 Haughey New street-Stowmarket improvement and Rookery Crossroads grade separated junction, and A428 Caxton Common to Hardwick dualling. We are carrying out further studies to identify the appropriate way to deal with the A47 Acle Straight and the Highways Agency are looking at ways to improve safety on the Acle Straight and at improvements to roundabouts in Great Yarmouth to increase capacity and improve safety.

  Norfolk county council recently completed the Broome and Ellingham bypass and Suffolk county council are progressing with the south Lowestoft relief road for which funding will be provided once it has passed through all the statutory processes.

  Congestion
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made by his Department on the effect of the central London congestion charge on(a) traffic levels, (b) traffic speeds, (c) bus usage, (d) air pollution and (e) road safety; and if he will make a statement. [100533]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are following the scheme's progress with great interest. However, it is the responsibility of the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL) to monitor the scheme's effects. The first annual report will be published in spring 2003, meanwhile a paper on their proposed monitoring, "Impacts Monitoring Programme: Preview of First Annual Report" was published on 4 February, and is available on the TfL website at: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/cc_monitoring.shtml.

  Highways Agency
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what basis the valuation of Highways Agency assets in the National Asset Register was made; and if he will make a statement. [99395]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The data used to compile the National Asset Register return was based on the Agency's resource accounts for the year ending 31 March 2000 which were prepared in accordance with the Treasury Resource Accounting Manual.

  The trunk road network was valued at depreciated replacement cost. This was based on internal costing and physical asset records adjusted to current prices and to reflect the condition of the network. The network assets comprise carriageways; earthworks; tunnels and
  936W
  road pavements; roadside communications; bridges and other structures; and land and buildings within the highways perimeter.

  Roads in the course of design or construction were valued at current cost. Most other tangible assets were similarly valued at current cost. IT hardware and office equipment was valued at historic cost.

  Hospitality Budget
  Mr.Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department's hospitality budget(a) is in 2002–03 and (b) was in each of the last three years; and how much was left unspent at the end of each financial year. [99580]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department does not have a dedicated hospitality budget.

  Light Rapid Transit Project
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress of the Light Rapid Transit project for Fareham-GosportPortsmouth. [100187]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We approved this scheme for funding in March 2001. The new light rail line will bring considerable benefits to the residents of Fareham, Gosport and Portsmouth. It will help to reduce congestion by providing a realistic alternative to the car. I understand that the promoters are currently assessing bids from two consortia to build the scheme.

  Maritime Oil Cargo
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent measures he has taken with his European colleagues to improve the safety of transport of oil cargo in European waters.[100490]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A number of measures designed to improve the safety of the transport of oil by sea were agreed at the European Transport Council on 6 December 2002. The Council set out 20 conclusions, endorsed a week later at Head of Government level, which requested action at member state level, collectively at EU level, and by member states at the international level. The range of activity is ambitious — from ship design through better enforcement of existing safety rules to better arrangements for intervention, salvage and clean-up.

  Maritime Pollution
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made since 1997 in reducing pollution in UK waters; what proposals he has to further reduce these levels; and if he will make a statement. [100491]
  937W
  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has taken a number of proactive measures since 1997 with a view to reducing pollution in UK waters. Among these measures, the following are particularly worthy of note:in 1997 we were the first country to introduce a statutory requirement on ports to prepare a port waste management plan to address the waste disposal needs of all types of ships calling.
  in 1997, we introduced legislation which enables magistrates to impose a fine of up to £250,000 on either the master or ship owner for an oil pollution offence. This is the highest fine for any offence in a magistrates court.
  we have played a leading role in launching the 1997 Quality Shipping Campaign, which tackles the problem of substandard shipping and marine pollution by addressing the role of owners and flag states in fulfilling their responsibilities under relevant international conventions.
  in 1999 we introduced the role of Secretary of State's Representative for Maritime Salvage and Intervention (commonly know as SOSREP), who has the power to oversee, control and, if necessary, intervene in salvage operations within UK waters involving vessels or fixed platforms where there is a significant risk of pollution. The SOSREP role has proved very successful, as well as being an international first for the UK.
  in 1999 we increased the number of government-funded Emergency Towing Vessels (ETVs) around the UK coast to four (located in the Dover Strait, the Minch, the South West approaches and in the Fair Isle), and in October 2001 we extended their period of operation so that all four operate all year round.
  in 2000, we published the revised National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations, setting out how the relevant agencies and authorities in the UK will respond to such pollution incidents.

  As regards further measures, the Government are now in the final stages of the identification of Marine Environmental High Risk Areas (MEHRAs), which will further assist in the protection of our seas and coasts. We are working on a consultation document which will announce the locations of the MEHRAs and seek comments on a range of issues associated with MEHRAs. We expect to issue the document for public consultation shortly.

  My Department's Maritime and Coastguard Agency annually commissions a report to compile statistics and other information on the different types of marine pollution in the waters around the British Isles. Since 1965 this work has been completed by the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea (ACOPS), and in 2000 the ACOPS Report was revised and now provides data on the number of incidents, the type of incident by pollutant, the source of the pollutant and the geographical distribution of the reported incidents. The key figures from the ACOPS Reports since 1997 on chemical, oil, diesel spillages in UK waters are as follows.

  2001

  2000

  Number of pollution incidents

  678

  743

  Incidents where source could be identified (Percentage)

  87

  88

  Incidents from offshore oil and gas installations (Number)

  419

  456

  Mineral oils (Percentage)

  95.5

  95

  Chemicals (Percentage)

  1.3

  0.7

  Garbage (Percentage)

  0.4

  0.5

  Vegetable/animal oils (Percentage)

  0.3

  0.4

  Other substances (Percentage)

  2.4

  3

  938W

  Number of pollution incidents

  Incidents where source could be identified

  Incidents from offshore oil and gas installations

  Incidents where an estimate of the quantify of oil was reported

  Incidents where 100 gallons or more were spilled

  2001

  678

  614

  419

  544

  67

  2000

  743

  627

  456

  543

  77

  1999

  747

  748

  382

  541

  69

  1998

  801

  609

  359

  613

  87

  1997

  723

  578

  351

  553

  100

  NATS
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what measures he is taking to address the shortcomings in the provision of safety information by NATS to general aviation; and what assessment his Department has made of the risk posed by flying without access to safety information; [100260]

  (2) what recent discussions his Department has had with NATS and the CAA concerning the provision of safety information by NATS to general aviation; [100259]

  (3) what recent representations he has received on the provision of safety information by NATS to general aviation; and if he will make a statement. [100258]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's statutory aviation safety adviser, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), has assured me that there are no shortcomings in the provision of Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) information. The new version of the NOTAM handling system launched last August by National Air Traffic Services Ltd. (NATS) did have teething problems, but the CAA is satisfied that aviation safety has not been compromised and it has been possible to obtain the required data during this period.

  My officials have been in regular contact since last September with the CAA and NATS to discuss the resolution of the outstanding difficulties with the NOTAM system. Many of these difficulties have been resolved by the system improvements made since its introduction last August and which have concentrated on making it more user friendly. Furthermore, a number of meetings have taken place between CAA and NATS officials and representatives of the user community to address these concerns.

  NATS is scheduled to introduce a further revision of the NOTAM system in April 2003 designed to overcome the outstanding difficulties the General Aviation community is having with it. Officials from my Department and the CAA are monitoring the progress of this work and will continue to scrutinise the performance of the system after the changes have been made.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many trains travelling from Worcester to Hereford have been prematurely terminated at(a) Malvern and (b) Ledbury stations in the past six months; what percentage of total journeys from Worcester to Hereford this represents; and if he will make a statement. [99877]
  939W
  Mr.Jamieson
  During the period from 18 August 2002 to 1 February 2003, 1,854 trains were timetabled to travel between Worcester and Hereford of which 1,818 arrived at Hereford. This means that 36 trains or 1.94 per cent. of the timetabled services failed to complete their journeys in full.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure sufficient passenger capacity on cross country trains. [100461]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All train operators have an obligation to avoid excessive overcrowding on the services they provide, and they must agree a plan with the Strategic Rail Authority detailing how they will match capacity to demand. The authority have recently announced a number of timetable revisions agreed with Virgin Cross Country to be made from May and September which are aimed at improving performance and relieving congestion. In the longer-term the authority's "Capacity Utilisation Policy" will determine the most efficient use of the network.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Communications Bill
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received on the impact on employment in regional newspapers of the provisions of the Communications Bill. [99656]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  A number of representations relating to the newspaper merger provisions of the Communications Bill have been received. None of these has focused on any impact of these provisions on jobs in regional newspapers.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the role of the Crown Prosecution Service in domestic violence cases. [99404]

  The Solicitor-General
  The role of the Crown Prosecution Service is to review and prosecute cases of domestic violence in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and CPS policy. The revised policy, launched in November 2001, focuses on victims' priorities of safety, support and information and promotes the immediate and long-term safety of the victim and any children, while holding abusers accountable for their actions. This is achieved by promoting close working relationships between the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the voluntary sector, to ensure that decisions are properly informed and victims are properly supported. The revised policy also emphasises the need to construct cases, wherever possible, on the basis of evidence other than that of the victim. To underpin CPS policy, each CPS area has a domestic violence coordinator.
  940W
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of the Crown Prosecution Service and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary are currently preparing to undertake a joint thematic review of the investigation and prosecution of cases involving domestic violence, which will be concluded later this year.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Solicitor General how many staff worked for the Serious Fraud Office in each year from 1988–89 to 2003–04 (planned); and if she will make a statement.[99833]

  The Solicitor-General
  The following table provides all the relevant Serious Fraud Office statistics in relation to numbers of staff employed by the SFO from its inception in April 1988 to 2003–04 (planned).

  Financial Year

  Number of Permanent Staff Employed

  1988–89

  63

  1989–90

  Figure unavailable

  1990–91

  103

  1991–92

  117

  1992–93

  136

  1993–94

  138

  1994–95

  137

  1995–96

  162

  1996–97

  166

  1997–98

  154

  1998–99

  149

  1999–2000

  170

  2000–01

  178

  2001002

  233

  2002–03

  231

  2003–04 (planned)

  240

  Staffing levels at the Serious Fraud Office have steadily increased over the last four years. This has been necessary in order to accept a higher caseload and to compensate, in part for the reduction in the number of police officers made available to the SFO. The SFO continues to be an important tool in the fight against white-collar crime and its dedicated and professional staff play a fundamental role in the fight against fraud.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Car Parking
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what estimate he has made of the revenue forgone in each of the last five years from providing free parking for hon. Members and senior staff at the House; and if he will make a statement. [99892]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The House has never had a policy of charging for use of the car park, which is provided for security reasons as well as for the convenience of Members and staff. No estimate of revenue foregone has therefore been made

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. David Laws
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what total public spending on the House of Commons was in each year from 1992–93

  Expenditure from 1992–93 to 2003–04

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Members' pay and allowances

  67,038

  68,502

  69,469

  72,128

  81,766

  95,819

  86,175

  91,495

  94,417

  House staff costs

  26,180

  30,519

  31,056

  31,949

  33,795

  34,951

  37,483

  39,928

  40,943

  Accommodation

  19,745

  21,248

  25,934

  27,802

  29,111

  33,620

  34,609

  35,656

  38,844

  Portcullis House

  3,367

  7,662

  6,292

  15,104

  30,002

  35,958

  54,893

  44,769

  38,557

  Other

  37,307

  36,733

  36,364

  38,986

  37,284

  40,699

  46,565

  44,598

  41,653

  153,637

  164,664

  169,115

  185,969

  211,958

  241,047

  259,725

  256,446

  254,414

  Expenditure from 1992–93 to 2003–04

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2001–02

  Forecast

  Planned

  Members' pay and allowances

  116,567

  131,000

  143,607

  House staff costs

  43,000

  47,820

  46,907

  Accommodation

  41,558

  44,345

  35,708

  Portcullis House

  6,686

  2,657

  —

  Other

  41,264

  48,790

  58,215

  249,075

  274,612

  284,437

  Notes:

  The Members' costs shown include financial assistance to opposition parties (Short money) and the regular payments to the Members' Fund;

  Staff costs include pensions paid in-year;

  Accommodation includes new works, maintenance, rent rates and utilities; and

  The figures in 2001–02 show the cash spent in the year. This was the first year of resource accounting and the figures in the audited accounts are now presented on a resource basis

  The House of Commons Commission is not responsible for the pay and allowances of hon. Members. However, to assist the hon. Member for Yeovil I have included figures already on the public record.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions her Department has had with his US counterparts on the reconstruction of Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [100008]

  Clare Short
  Both my officials and I regularly meet with other donors to discuss a variety of issues, including the reconstruction of Afghanistan. I have discussed these issues with US counterparts on a number of occasions.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate her Department has made of the number of Afghans who suffered hunger-related deaths in 2001.[100005]

  Clare Short
  Neither DFID nor the UN agencies WHO or FAO have made an estimate of these figures. Malnutrition increases the propensity to catch other 942W
  to 2003–04 (planned), broken down by (a) hon. Members' salaries and allowances, (b) other staff costs, (c) building costs and (d) other costs; and if he will make a statement. [99891]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The amounts of cash spent, or estimated to be spent, in each year are as follows:

  illnesses but is very hard to isolate as the direct cause of death in Afghanistan, where there is food insecurity but no famine.

  The WFP estimates that in 2003 approximately 4.3 million people in rural settled areas will not be able to meet basic food needs. The WHO estimates that acute malnutrition in children is aroung 10 per cent. and chronic malnutrition is approximately 50 per cent. 20 per cent. of children are born with a low birth weight.

  UN agencies are co-ordinating a response that provides food aid to the most vulnerable sections of society, including returning refugees and people in isolated, rural areas. WFP have put forward a strategy for 2003 that aims to provide food assistance to over 9 million people over two years. WFP's food aid is in the form of wheat fortifield with nutritional supplements to halp combat the problems of malnutrition.

  HIV/AIDS
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial resources have been allocated to HIV/AIDS projects in each year since 1992. [100003]

  Clare Short
  DFID bilateral commitments to HIV/ AIDS since 1991/92 are as follows:

  HIV/AIDS bilateral commitments by year

  (£million)

  1991/92

  6.9

  1992/93

  10.1

  1993/94

  37.4

  1994/95

  78.2

  1995/96

  57.1

  1996/97

  53.6

  1997/98

  106.4

  1998/99

  154.8

  1999/00

  231.1

  2000/01

  362.6

  2001/02

  436.4

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment her Department has made of the impact of HIV/AIDS on the economic development of(a) Swaziland, (b) Malawi, (c) South Africa, (d) Tanzania, (e) Ethiopia, (f) Kenya and (g) Botswana. [99994]
  943W
  Clare Short
  HIV/AIDS is having a catastrophic impact on sub-Saharan Africa undermining and even reversing gains made in economic and social development over the last two decades. Current estimates suggest that HIV/AIDS has reduced the growth of Africa's per capita income by 0.7 percentage points a year.

  In South Africa, DFID is co-funding research into the economic impact of HIV/AIDS (with USAID and AUSAID), looking at the effects on labour supply, agriculture, on the education and health sectors, and at the household level. Research is also being done on developing methodologies for the analysis of the impact of HIV/AIDS on economic sectors, which will have broader application across Africa. In Kenya and Malawi, DFID are shortly about to undertake similar impact assessments.

  Elsewhere in Africa, economic impact assessments are being undertaken by a number of agencies, the findings of which are enabling DFID to develop their cross-sector strategy to combat HIV/AIDS and support country governments in mainstreaming HIV/AIDS responses.

  (a) In Swaziland, UNAIDS estimate that maize production has been reduced by 54.2 per cent. as a result of AIDS deaths among households.

  (b) In Malawi, HIV/AIDS is estimated to depress economic growth by 1.5 to 2 per cent. annually. Human capital is being continually drained with 8 to 10 per cent. of teachers lost every year to AIDS, faster than can be trained.

  (c) HIV/AIDS is impacting negatively on South Africa's international competitiveness, with domestic and foreign investment being deterred because of the high HIV prevalence rates.

  (d) The World bank estimated that in Tanzania, GDP will be 15 to 20 per cent. smaller than in a non-AIDS scenario in 2010 because of the impact of disease on physical, human, and social capital accumulation.

  (e) Ethiopia is a predominantly agricultural based economy, and HIV/AIDS is impacting heavily on rural populations. Families with an infected family member spend 14 hours a week working their land compared with the average of 34 hours, bringing agricultural productivity down considerably.

  (f) In Kenya, GDP is projected to decline by 14.5 per cent. by 2005, while per capita income would decline by 10 per cent. due to AIDS.

  (g) In Botswana, the epidemic will be responsible for an 8 to 10 per cent. decrease in per capita income over the next ten years and households in poverty will increase by 6–8 per cent. in the next 10 years.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which HIV/AIDS education programmes her Department is supporting, broken down by continent. [99996]

  Clare Short
  My Department is working with development partners to ensure that HIV is mainstreamed throughout education systems, plans and interventions in all African countries and elsewhere where we are providing education support. Support to 944W
  education is critical to ensure that "Education for All" is achieved and that school children in Africa are properly equipped with the skills and knowledge with which to protect themselves from the epidemic. This includes working directly with Ministries of Education to ensure that school curricula address HIV and AIDS in a manner that is gender-sensitive and relevant to students.

  We are also making progress by piloting targeted school-based HIV prevention programmes—the Nigeria Extended Life Planning Education Project is one such initiative.

  DFID is also supporting innovative "edutainment" programmes in Southern Africa, using multiple media such as radio drama, pamphlets and cartoon books to communicate about HIV prevention. For example, we are supporting a regional initiative to provide materials on HIV/AIDS to all 12 to 16-year-olds in Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland.

  Other HIV education programmes supported by my Department include:

  Africa
  Educational support to HIV/AIDS—Rwanda:HIV/AIDS Community Prevention and anti-AIDS project educational material—South Africa:Supporting the needs of young people—South Africa:Capacity building for HIV/AIDS Education—Africa regional:Africa Alive HIV/AIDS education messages to young people—Africa regional.
  Asia
  Reproductive Health Education and HIV/AIDS education—Kyrgyzstan:HIV/AIDS Education Project for young people—China.
  Eastern Europe
  United Nations Fund for International Partnerships.
  Pacific
  VSO HIV/AIDS personal and social education for Kiribati youth.

  Humanitarian Contingency Planning
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what contingency plans have been made to assist the civilians of Iraq in(a) water supplies, (b) food and (c) medical treatment after military conflict. [100082]

  Clare Short
  Operational humanitarian organisations have made a range of contingency plans to assist civilians with water food and medical treatment in the event of conflict in Iraq. My Department is in close contact with several such organisations, including Un agencies, the Red Cross/Crescent and NGOs. We also discuss regularly with the armed forces the importance of minimising the extent of civilian suffering, and the limited humanitarian assistance the military could provide during any period before UN agencies/NGOs were operational.

  Iraq
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her
  945W
  Department will take to support the Iraqi ration distribution system in the event of military intervention in Iraq. [100004]

  Clare Short
  The continuation of the oil-for-food programme would be a very high priority in the event of any conflict in Iraq. Measures necessary to ensure this are being actively discussed.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department will take to aid the re-establishment of links between families in the aftermath of possible war in Iraq. [99991]

  Clare Short
  Following any possible conflict in Iraq, I would expect as elsewhere that the International Committee of the Red Cross, and those UN agencies and NGOs experienced in tracing and family reunification, would take the lead in helping affected families. My Department regularly funds such organisations.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the number of people who will be displaced within Iraq in the event of conflict. [99998]

  Clare Short
  UN agencies and others have made a range of estimates of possible displaced people, which vary widely. The number of people who might leave their houses or try to cross borders would depend on what they are moving from. An essential part of our work has been to try to refine the military options to minimise the humanitarian risk which would lead to large scale movements of people.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made in Kosovo of(a) health services and indications and (b) education services. [100014]

  Clare Short
  Kosovo's health indicators are amongst the worst in Europe, following years of neglect to health services, the exclusion of the majority Albanian population from formal healthcare under the Milosevic regime, and serious damage to facilities during the 1999 conflict.

  Since 1999, the international community has invested 92 million in the reconstruction of Kosovo's health care facilities. The UN administration has established a basic framework for the delivery of health services. This responsibility has now been transferred to Ministry of Health of the elected Provisional Institutions of Self Government.

  My department has invested heavily in the improvement of Kosovo's health services, providing extensive emergency assistance during the immediate post-conflict phase, and a subsequent 11 million as technical assistance and infrastructure development. We now plan to launch a 1.6 million programme to boost the capacity of the Ministry of Health to meet these challenges. In addition, we have contributed approximately 7.8 million through the European Commission's health programmes since 1999.
  946W
  Education services were similarly disrupted during the Milosevic years and the eventual conflict. There is some evidence that access to education has improved markedly since the conflict ended, with the total number of children attending school rising by 42 per cent. since 1998, and the total number of university students rising by 19 per cent. My department does not provide direct support for education services in Kosovo, as this sector is already well provided for by other donors, including the World Bank and the Canadian and German governments.

  Liberia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment her Department has made of the humanitarian situation in the refugee camps in Montserrado county in Liberia. [100001]

  Clare Short
  Our information on the humanitarian situation in Liberia is from reporting by the UN and other agencies such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF).

  There are six camps in Montserrado county. Health and other services in three camps are supported by MSF Belgium, and in one each by MSF France, ICRC and World Vision. Another camp is being established by a Liberian NGO. We understand that the general condition of those civilians displaced and those living in camps, as well as the resident population, is poor but as yet not critical.

  We have recently committed £450,000 to MSF Belgium for primary health care and £550,000 to ICRC for humanitarian programmes in Liberia.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the number of Liberians who have fled into Sierra Leone following the upsurge of hostilities between Liberian Government forces and Liberian rebels; and what financial allocation has been made for the provision of shelter for Liberian refugees in Sierra Leone. 100002]

  Clare Short
  UNHCR estimates that, since the most recent outbreak of fighting in mid-February, 7,000 refugees have crossed into Sierra Leone.

  We recently committed £1.4 million for humanitarian assistance in Sierra Leone. £900,000 of this has been earmarked directly for assistance to Liberian refugees. £500,000 will provide emergency assistance, care and maintenance through UNHCR; and £400,000 will contribute to a UNICEF programme to control vaccine preventable diseases among refugees and the civilian population, in the east and north of Sierra Leone.

  Meningitis Vaccine
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate the World Health Organisation has made of the number of doses of meningitis vaccine required and how many have been distributed in(a) Burkina Faso and (b) the Central African Republic. [100046]

  Clare Short
  The information is as follows:
  947W
  a) Burkina Faso:

  In the epidemic season 2001–02 there was a global shortage of tetravalent vaccine. In Burkina Faso, there were 13,000 cases, with 1,500 deaths. The target population for a mass vaccination campaign is an estimated 3.5 million people. The national authorities made no formal request for vaccines. The World Health Organisation (WHO) provided 25,000 doses of tetravalent (corresponding to a donation from Aventis) which were used to protect health workers.

  So far in the epidemic season 2002–03, there has been 3,000 reported cases including 400 deaths. The national authorities have requested 1.4 million doses of the new GSK trivalent vaccine. WHO is in partnership with GSK to ensure widest use of this vaccine and are currently looking for funds from donors including the Gates Foundation. 500,000 doses have been sent so far with 1 million extra doses ready to be shipped.

  b) Central African Republic (CAR):

  The political situation in CAR is unstable and consequently it is difficult to collect reliable data. Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF) reported 60 cases in Bangassou and 20 cases in Mobaye between October and December 2002. CAR authorities requested 10,000 doses of tetravalent vaccine but due to the epidemiological figures and the absence of reliable lab data, no vaccination campaign has been implemented.

  Mine Clearance
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much was spent on(a) humanitarian mine clearance, (b) commercial mine clearance (c) military initiatives, (d) mine awareness, (e) victim assistance and (f) research and development for mine clearance in 2002. [100011]

  Clare Short
  The information is as follows:

  (a) DFID estimates that it will spend approximately £9 million on Humanitarian Mine Clearance in 2002–03. This figures also includes some integrated mine awareness activities. As programmes are often integrated separate costs of awareness are not available.

  (b) DFID has not funded commercial mine clearance. There are no records of UK commercial demining activities currently available in Department of Trade and Industry.

  (c) Military mine clearance has taken place in the Balkans since 1992. This is not funded by DFID. UK military advisers have been attached to UN Mine Action Centres assisting in the development of mine action programmes. They have also supervised the mine clearance carried out by the Entity Armed Forces and provided mine awareness to local populations. The Mine Information Training Centre (MITC) has provided mine awareness training to over 30,000 people. The MOD has also continued to monitor minefields in the Falkland Islands. This work is part of the wider responsibilities of those involved and is impossible to cost accurately.

  (d) DFID has contributed £300,000 to UNICEF for specific mine awareness activities.

  948W

  (e) Assistance to landmine victims is additional to our mine programme. Mine victims benefit from our mainstream health and population and social development programmes, as well as specific humanitarian programmes assisting the disabled. It is not possible to disaggregate expenditure figures for landmine victims.

  (f)DFID estimates that it will spend £1,400,000 on research and development in 2002–03 in connection with Humanitarian Mine Action.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what organisations the Government gave money for mine clearance in 2002–03; and how much was given in each case. [100009]

  Clare Short
  The following table gives the figures for the Department of International Development:

  £

  Organisation

  Estimated final Outturn 2002–03

  The HALO Trust (bilateral)

  325,000

  Mines Advisory Group (MAG) (bilateral)

  660,000

  United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS)

  5,300,000

  UNICEF (Mines Awareness)

  300,000

  Organisation of American States (Nicaragua demining)

  378,000

  QINETIQ (Tech Advice and Testing)

  200,000

  UNDP

  2,500,000

  Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD)

  1,000,000

  Landmine Monitor

  137,000

  DISARMCO (Research and Development)

  10,000

  ERA (Research and Development)

  117,000

  SERCO (Research and Development)

  30,000

  BARIC Consultants (Technical Advice)

  100,000

  Total

  11,057,000

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the expenditure was on humanitarian mine clearance in each year since 1997, broken down by country. [100010]

  Clare Short
  For details relating to the period 1997 to 2000, I refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave her on 29 March 2001(Official Report, column 721W). The figures for 2000 to 2003 are given in the table below:

  Country

  2000–01 (£)

  2001–02 (£)

  2002–03 (£ estimated)

  Afghanistan

  3,150,000

  1,800,000

  Albania

  369,648

  Chad

  369,648

  Croatia

  150,000

  Eritrea

  544,151

  694,540

  Guinea Bissau

  120,000

  Lebanon

  387,296

  Nicaragua

  283,000

  189,000

  378,000

  Cambodia

  1,430,571

  1,000,000

  500,000

  Northern Iraq

  616,100

  500,000

  500,000

  Jordan

  270,000

  197,402

  Laos

  616,689

  300,000

  Georgia

  438,616

  500,000

  325,000

  Kosovo

  8,700,000

  2,000,000

  Thailand

  300,000

  Bosnia

  500,000

  Croatia

  326,529

  The balance of the DFID spend on Humanitarian Mine Action is via the UN and not ring fenced for specific countries.

  Occupied Territories
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the estimated amount of food aid in the Occupied Territories is; and how much has been distributed. [99995]

  Clare Short
  Food aid is provided by a range of donors in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Comprehensive figures are not available. The largest provider, UNRWA, disbursed food to the value of US$21 million in 2002, and plans further support of US*$32million in the first six months of 2003. The World Food Programme, the International Committee of the Red Cross and a range of NGOs provide complimentary support to the non-refugee population. Food aid is however only one of a range of instruments used to meet the urgent needs of the Palestinian people. Other instruments, such as budget support and employment generation, have contributed significantly in easing the growing humanitarian situation and have the added benefit of stimulating the local economy.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the impact of a war against Iraq on the routes of humanitarian aid to the Occupied Territories; and what steps she will take to guarantee humanitarian aid routes to the Occupied Territories. [99997]

  Clare Short
  The most likely major impact, in the event of a war in Iraq, would be a complete closure by Israel of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, severely restricting travel between and within the Occupied Territories. The international community has made it clear that Israel must allow humanitarian operations to continue without impediment, including the safe passage of humanitarian staff and supplies. Lessons learned from the 1991 Gulf War and from the intense military activity of Israel's 'Operation Defensive Shield' in 2002 will help international and local organisations cope more effectively should this happen.

  Palestinian Authority Area (Living Conditions)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to help those living in the Palestinian Authority area to(a) secure employment, (b) access healthcare provision and (c) improve opportunities for improving literacy and numeracy; and if she will make a statement. [100586]

  Clare Short
  We are working, in close cooperation with our international and Palestinian partners, to support a range of initiatives to help ease the humanitarian situation in the West Bank and Gaza. We have supported the World Bank's employment generation project and a wide range of healthcare and education programmes. Our contributions to the World Bank's Emergency Services Support Programme help the Palestinian Ministries of Health and Education to continue to deliver services despite the economic and social decline. And our support for UNRWA delivers vital health and education services to the Palestinian refugee population.

  Police Training
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what consultation takes place with(a) the OSCE, (b) the United Kingdom's mission to the OSCE, (c) other regional international agencies and (d) the United Kingdom's missions to other regional international agencies prior to the commissioning or making of grants, in relation to police training and civil society building in the area of the OSCE; and if she will make a statement. [99448]

  Clare Short
  The UK Government-supported project concerned with community based policing and community safety in Serbia has been designed in collaboration with the OSCE. Consultation was also carried out with theSerbian Government and other interested bodies such as the EC and the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights. Close links will be maintained with all interested parties in the course of project implementation.

  World Food Programme Supplies
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the impact of the Israeli Defence Force's activities on World Food Programme supplies. [99993]

  Clare Short
  Over the last two years there have been significant disruptions of the delivery schedule of food aid by the World Food Programme (WFP), and other providers such as UNRWA, due to Israeli military actions and movement restrictions. Food consignments have been held in Israeli ports for considerable periods, and in November 2002 the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) destroyed a WFP warehouse in Gaza. 540 tonnes of food supplies were destroyed. High level representation by the international community has led to Israel's agreement to reimburse WFP's losses as a 'humanitarian gesture'.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many named day written questions were tabled to the Department between 15 October 2002 and 24 February 2003; how many that received a holding answer were given a substantive answer(a) within three days, (b) within seven days, (c) within 14 days, (d) within 28 days and (e) over 28 days later; and what procedures the Department has in place to monitor performance on answering (i) Parliamentary Questions and (ii) ministerial letters. [99430]

  Clare Short
  Between 15 October 2002 and 24 February 2003, 119 named day written questions were tabled to my Department.

  For those that received a holding answer substantive replies were given as follows:

  (a) 9 were given within three days,

  (b) 1 within seven days,

  (c) 2 within fourteen days,

  (d) 4 within 28 days and

  (e) 1 over twenty eight days.

  951W
  The Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on performance of departments in replying to Ministerial correspondence. The Report for 2001 was published on Friday 24 May 2002, column 674W. The Report for 2002 will be published in due course.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on foot and mouth disease in Zimbabwe and assistance from the UK in supplying vaccines. [100050]

  Clare Short
  The foot and mouth disease outbreak in Zimbabwe is another problem directly attributable to the lack of law and order and mismanagement of a poorly conceived land reform programme. Fences around wildlife reserves have been destroyed, and domestic cattle allowed to mingle with wild buffalo that carry the disease.

  The problem cannot be fully solved until the fences are restored and the movement of indigenous cattle regulated effectively. In the meantime, the FAO have imported 340,000 doses of vaccine, which are being used in the worst affected areas. This contribution was funded by the Dutch Government. Although more vaccine will be needed, my Department has prioritised support for the humanitarian crisis affecting 7.2 million Zimbabweans, and work to prevent and mitigate the impact of HIV/AIDS.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much producing her Department's latest annual report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [100816]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 27 February 2003,Official Report, column 657W.

  Gaelic Language
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Gaelic speakers there are in Scotland; and what proportion this is of the Scottish population. [100619]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Census figures for 2001 show 58,652 people aged three and over able to speak Gaelic, which is just over one per cent. of the Scottish population.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans her Department has to protect and promote the Gaelic language, with specific regard to broadcasting; and if she will make a statement. [100620]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government recognise that Gaelic is an essential part of the UK's cultural identity and heritage. On 27 March 2001, we ratified the European Charter on Regional and Minority Languages, making clear our commitment to the support and development 952W
  of the Gaelic language. We set out our plans for Gaelic broadcasting in the Communications Bill, published on 7 May 2002. We believe our proposals will put Gaelic broadcasting on a more stable footing and will result in a better co-ordinated service for the benefit of the Gaelic television audience.

  In addition, colleagues in the Scottish Executive have established the Gaelic Development Agency (BOrd Gaidhlig na h-Alba), which will have responsibility for co-ordinating and funding activities of the various Gaelic organisations.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money the Government are giving to support the Gaelic language in Scotland in the areas of(a) education and (b) cultural organisations in 2002–03. [100621]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Expenditure on these matters is for the Scottish Executive. For the current financial year, Scottish Ministers have allocated £3.334 million to Gaelic medium education, £1.6 million through the Gaelic Organisation Fund for cultural organisations and £8.5 million for Gaelic broadcasting.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Sure Start
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the Sure Start programmes in operation, and their budget. [96109]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list Sure Start programmes which have ceased operating. [96110]

  Maria Eagle
  No Sure Start programmes have ceased operating.

  A-Levels
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer to question 97151, what his assessment is of the interrelation of the finding in Mike Tomlinson's final report into A level standards that criterion-referencing has significant implications for the design of the A level framework with proposed changes to the 14–19 curriculum, as outlined in the Excellence for All White Paper. [99726]

  Mr. Miliband
  As recommended by the final report of the inquiry into A level Standards, the QCA is establishing an independent committee to advise publicly on whether or not standards are being maintained. The 14–19 Working Group, chaired by Mike Tomlinson, will be considering how best to ensure that reformed 14–19 learning programmes reflect the need to maintain standards over time.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of(a) the number

  953W
  and (b) the percentage of undergraduate students at UK universities who had been recipients of assisted places in independent schools. [100574]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not held centrally. Figures published by the Universities and Colleges Admission Service (UCAS) show the number of students accepted for entry to higher education who came from independent schools, but do not indicate whether or not they had received an assisted place

  Classrooms (Yeovil)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether(a) Westfield Secondary School and (b) Grass Royal Junior School in Yeovil will be required under the departmental school net capacity formula to have three classrooms removed; and if he will make a statement. [100413]

  Mr. Miliband
  The net capacity is intended to provide a single, robust and consistent method of assessing the number of pupil places available in schools.

  By comparison with the number of pupils on roll, the net capacity can indicate the number of places that are surplus or additional places that are needed. It is for individual authorities to determine how best to balance the supply of places in their area to ensure that schools serve the needs of their local communities and provide good quality education in the most effective way. The Department does not require authorities to remove capacity where there is a surplus.

  Exam Results
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what impact his federation of schools proposal will have on the availability and publication of each school's exam results.[100049]

  Mr. Miliband
  Exam results for schools in federations will continue to be published for individual schools as at present. In addition, we will also publish results for federations.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent on higher education in England, in real terms at 2000–01 prices, in each year from 1989–90 to 2003–04 (planned),(a) in total, and (b) per student; and if he will make a statement. [99822]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The data are shown in the table.

  Puplicly planned funding for higher education in England (£m)1

  Unit funding (£)2

  1989–90

  4,380

  7,720

  1990–91

  4.370

  7,030

  1991–92

  4,640

  6,680

  1992–93

  4,860

  6,190

  1993–94

  5,120

  5,850

  1994–95

  5,370

  5,690

  1995–96

  5.400

  5,440

  1996–97

  5,140

  5,080

  1997–98

  5,040

  4,930

  1998–99

  5,080

  4,930

  1999–2000

  5,290

  4,920

  954W

  Publicly planned funding for higher education in England (£m)1

  Unit funding (£)2

  2000–01

  5,410

  4,860

  2001–02

  5,680

  4,900

  2002–03

  5,800

  4,930

  2003–04

  6,100

  5,080

  1Rounded to nearest £10 million.

  2 Rounded to nearest £10.

  The unit of funding fell by 36 per cent. in real terms between 1989–90 and 1997–98. As a result of the 2002 Spending Review, publicly planned funding will rise by 16 per cent. in real terms by 2005–06 compared to 2002–03; and the unit funding will rise by 7 per cent. in real terms between those years.

  Learndirect
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is on Learndirect selling its products free of charge; and what assessment he has made of the impact of this on competition. [100047]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Ufi Ltd. was established by the Government as a private company limited by guarantee. It is funded through a combination of public funds and commercial earned income. The public funds are allocated and used to enable Ufi/learndirect to provide education and training programmes as part of the wider public service of further education and adult learning. They include adult literacy and numeracy programmes offered as part of the Skills for Life initiative. For these programmes Ufi/learndirect hubs and learning centres receive funding through the Learning and Skills Council. In addition Ufi/learndirect offers a range of other programmes with fees charged on a commercial basis for employers and learners who wish to buy them. These programmes are primarily oriented towards workforce development.

  Local Authority Spending
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list for each local education authority in England and Wales, for each year since 1997, their(a) total spending, (b) spending per pupil and (c) spending per pupil at (i) nursery, (ii) primary and (iii) secondary stages of education. [96657]

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

  Playing Field Sales
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to prevent the sale of school playing fields provided for under-eights; and if he will make a statement. [100327]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: Before October 1998, there was nothing to prevent a local authority selling a school playing field if it wanted to. Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was introduced in October 1998 to protect school playing fields from indiscriminate disposal. Section 77 requires local authorities and schools to obtain the

  955W
  written consent of the Secretary of State before disposing, or changing the use, of school playing fields and applies to all maintained schools, irrespective of pupils' ages. In addition, the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 prescribe minimum areas of team game playing fields for those schools with pupils who have attained the age of eight years. Although the regulations do not require team game playing fields to be provided for pupils under eight years, section 77 protects all areas of playing fields which have been provided, whether in response to regulatory requirements or otherwise.

  Applications to dispose, or change the use, of school playing fields are assessed against the following criteria:

  (a) schools' needs: that playing field provision and curriculum requirements at the school making the disposal—irrespective of the age of those pupils that attend the school, and at the statutory needs of other schools in the local area, will be met;

  (b) community needs: that community use of a school's playing fields is taken into account, with alternative facilities made available if necessary; and

  (c) finance: that any sale proceeds are re-invested to provide new or improved sports facilities at schools, or are used to help to raise standards by providing better educational facilities.

  Only those applications that meet the criteria are approved. All applications made since July 2001 have been scrutinised by the independent School Playing Fields Advisory Panel to make sure that they conform to the published criteria. The Panel comprises representatives from the National Playing Fields Association, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the education organisation: Learning Through Landscapes, the National Association of Head Teachers and the Local Government Association.

  Pupil Deprivation
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what factors are taken into consideration in assessing deprivation in pupils. [100220]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins) on 11 February 2003,Official Report, column 692W.

  School Circulars
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the circulars that have been sent by(a) the Office for Standards in Education,
  (b) the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and (c) the Teacher Training Authority to (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools since 1 February 2002. [99487]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is as follows.
  956W

  (a) This is a matter for the Office for Standards in Education. David Bell, Ofsted's chief executive will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  (b) This is a matter for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Ken Boston, the authority's chief executive will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  (c) This is a matter for the Teacher Training Agency. Ralph Tabbererr, the Agency's chief executive will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his Department's policy is towards the Specialist Schools (Selection by Aptitude) Bill. [100818]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Bill seeks to repeal the provisions of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which enable schools with a specialism, not just those designated under the Specialist Schools Programme, to give priority to up to 10 per cent. of pupils who can demonstrate an aptitude in one or more of the prescribed subjects.

  We do not believe it is necessary nor desirable to remove the flexibility which enables the admission authorities for schools with a specialism, where they wish to do so, to give limited priority to pupils with a particular aptitude for the relevant specialism. Allowing limited use of aptitude in this way makes it possible for pupils who, for example, show a capacity to be trained or developed in sport or the visual arts to get a place where they would not have been able to do so under the school's other admissions criteria.

  The basis on which schools may use aptitude as part of their admissions criteria is set out in my Department's statutory guidance document, "School Admissions Code of Practice".

  Sure Start (Harwich)
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding has been allocated to the Harwich constituency under the Sure Start scheme. [96912]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 10 February 2003]: No Sure Start local programme funding has been approved for Harwich to date. Plans for a 'mini' Sure Start programme are currently being considered by the Sure Start Unit. The Harwich 'mini' Sure Start, if approved, will receive up to £100,000 each year for revenue expenditure and funding for capital expenditure of up to £250,000 in total.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Angel Group
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the contracts which the Angel Group and its subsidiaries have agreed with local authorities for the provision of services for asylum seekers and other specific groups of individuals; [99687]

  (2) if he will list the contracts let and the dates on which they were let by his Department and its agencies to the Angel Group and its subsidiary companies; [99702]

  (3) for how many contracts the Angel Group and its subsidiary companies applied to the Home Office and its agencies, and with what results, in the last five years. [99705]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has one contract with the Angel Group which was signed on 3 April 2000 and runs for five years. I am unable to supply information on tenders submitted by the group during the last five years since this is commercial in confidence. NASS is not aware of any contracts the Angel Group has entered into with local authorities and other agencies regarding the provision of services for asylum seekers.

  Animal Experiments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what recent assessment he has made of the reliability of animal experiments relating to behavioural neuroscience;[99788]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the capacity of non-animal neurological research to replace animal experimentation. [99789]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government believe that animal based research still has an important part to play in research relating to the biomedical sciences. Neurological diseases and disorders remain major sources of human morbidity and mortality. Their impact is felt by individuals, their families, and society in general. Notwithstanding progress that has been made with understanding the causes and identifying possible treatments, there remains an urgent need to find better methods of preventing and treating conditions such as stroke, Parkinson's disease, and mental health problems. This requires the identification and use of the best current scientific technologies, not simply a reliance on animal research.

  To meet section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, any application to use protected animals in research must be subjected to a detailed cost/benefit assessment by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. This is undertaken on a case by case basis. The reliability and relevance of all animal models requested are key considerations in the cost/ benefit assessment and the Secretary of State looks to a number of sources, including Home Office inspectors and the Animal Procedures Committee, to provide advice not only relating to programmes of work, but also relating to technical developments that enable animal models to be reduced, refined and replaced. Licence authorities are only granted when there is no
  958W
  replacement alternative, and when all relevant and reasonable steps have been taken to identify and incorporate relevant reduction and refinement strategies.

  Asylum Seekers
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sources of in-country information about(a) Afghanistan, (b) Iraq and (c) Somalia are used in contesting appeals against refusal of an application for asylum from people leaving these countries. [100058]

  Beverley Hughes
  The main sources of in-country information for these countries are the Country Assessments and bulletins produced by the Home Office Country Information and Policy Unit. These are produced using published material from a wide variety of sources, which include non-governmental organisations, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and overseas governments. Information from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office may also be included.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum seekers awaiting a decision on their application have stated that they fought for or supported the Taliban; [99568]

  (2) how many people who have stated they fought for or supported the Taliban have entered this country through the asylum system; [99571]

  (3) how many rejected asylum seekers awaiting deportation have stated that they fought for or supported the Taliban; [99569]

  (4) how many failed asylum seekers awaiting an appeal have stated that they fought for or supported the Taliban. [99570]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]:: We are not in the business of offering asylum to Taliban terrorists or anybody else who poses a security risk to our country.

  All cases where a Taliban connection is claimed are referred to a Senior Caseworker to decide whether exclusion from the protection of the Refugee Convention is appropriate and for further security checks if appropriate. No evidence has been found that anyone who has willingly supported and fought for the Taliban has been granted asylum, and no other cases have arisen that have merited security action.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department after what period benefit payments are stopped in respect of asylum seekers who are refused asylum. [99711]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]:: An asylum seeker without children under the age of 18 remains eligible for asylum support from the Secretary of State under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, subject to meeting the other criteria for eligibility, until the claim for asylum is determined. The time when a claim for asylum is treated as determined for this purpose varies depending on the type of case pursuant to regulations 2 and 2A of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000. Where the claim for asylum is

  959W
  rejected, the claim for asylum is treated as determined 21 days after receipt of the decision refusing asylum or, if the person appeals, 21 days after the disposal of the appeal. However, where the asylum claim is rejected but the person is at the same time given exceptional leave to enter or remain, or where the asylum claim is rejected initially but the person successfully appeals against refusal of asylum, the claim for asylum is treated as determined 28 days after receipt of the decision, respectively the disposal of the appeal.

  In the case of an asylum seeker whose claim is rejected but whose household includes a child under the age of 18, while the child remains under 18 and the asylum seeker and the child remain in the United Kingdom, unless they are granted leave to enter or remain, they will be eligible for asylum support under Part VI of the 1999 Act, subject to meeting the other eligibility criteria, until they leave the United Kingdom.

  Carter Report
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the Carter Report into the Criminal Records Bureau. [99690]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: We have made it clear that the conclusions and recommendations which the Independent Review Team led by Patrick Carter presented at the end of last year took the form of advice to Ministers and included matters which are commercially confidential; and, as such, were not in a form intended for publication. But on 27 February my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a written statement welcoming the report. The main findings and recommendations of the Team have been placed in the Library, and my right hon. Friend's statement described how the Government proposes to take forward work on the 10 recommendations which have been made.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he received the report of the independent team led by Patrick Carter into the operation of the Criminal Records Bureau; when the report, or parts thereof, will be published; and what the key conclusions of the report are. [99713]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: The Independent Review Team's report was received on 17 December. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a written statement on 27 February setting out how the Government propose to take forward the Review Team's 10 recommendations. The main findings of the Review Team were published on the same date. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Charity Law
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to implement the recommendations in the Strategy Unit report Private Action, Public Benefit; and what the timetable is for drawing up a Charities Bill to implement the recommendations on charity law. [99650]

  Beverley Hughes
  The consultation period for the Strategy Unit report has now ended and over 1,100 responses have been received, which Home Office officials are now analysing.
  960W
  Where recommendations have commanded general support and do not require legislation, we aim to move as quickly as possible to implement them, although some may first need further policy development work.

  However, legislation would be needed to give effect to many of the recommendations; including the areas relating to the introduction of the Community Interest Company, the changes to Industrial and Provident Society legislation and changes to charity and fundraising law.

  Initial analysis of the responses to the Strategy Unit report indicates support for the Community Interest Company concept. The Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office and other interested Departments are now considering the timing and content of a possible technical consultation on the concept, which would be necessary before legislation could be introduced.

  The Treasury are currently examining the responses received to the proposals for changes to Industrial and Provident Society legislation and considering options for taking forward the recommendations. However, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly) made it clear at the Second Reading of the Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Bill, (private members Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend, Member for South Derbyshire (Mark Todd)) that it is Government's intention to enact an asset lock-in' regime, following further examination and consultation, if it continues to appear sensible and feasible to do so. Such a regime was one recommendation of the Strategy Unit report. The Treasury are working with Mark Todd to see how they can facilitate the introduction of such a regime through his Bill.

  Further policy development work will need to be done in some areas before the Home Office would be in a position to produce a draft Charities Bill, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently promised to publish as soon as possible. Currently Home Office Officials are liasing with the Department for Transport and the Treasury on their respective areas of responsibility.

  Correspondence
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 13 September 2002 from the hon. Member for Eccles concerning Ms Weyni Abraha, which his Department has acknowledged ref: 18797/2. [100401]

  Beverley Hughes
  My noble Friend, (Lord Filkin) wrote to my hon. Friend on 4 March.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Broxbourne of(a) 25 October 2002, (b) 18 November 2002, (c) 20 December 2002 and (d) 16 January 2003 relating to her constituent, Mr. Raj Kumar of Broxbourne. [92616]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 January 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to my letter to her of 21 February. As I set out in that reply, I am sorry for the delay in responding.
  961W
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the honourable Member for Walsall North will receive a reply to his letter of 8 January regarding a constituent ref. 7113. [98395]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]: I wrote to my hon. Friend on 3 March 2003.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has not replied to the letter to him dated 4 November 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Ms Mansovreh Bozoronia. [98963]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 25 February 2003,Official Report, column 397W.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to adjust the budget for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority for 2002–03. [99614]

  Hilary Benn
  An additional £25 million is being provided for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in the Spring Supplementary Estimate, published on 28 February. This will increase the 2002–03 resource budget for compensation to £208 million, sufficient to meet the liabilities accruing from compensation awards offered within that financial year.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff have been redeployed to the Criminal Records Bureau from the Passport Agency in each month since the introduction of the Criminal Records Bureau. [98722]

  Hilary Benn
  In order to support the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) continuous improvement programme, the United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS) has seconded staff without any significant impact on the delivery of the passports.

  The secondment programme began in June 2002 with the majority taking place during the period of lower seasonal demand for passports. UKPS normally seeks work for its staff elsewhere in the Home Office and other Government Departments at this time as a 'wider markets" initiative. Currently, 35 UKPS staff remain attached to either CRB or are offering support to police forces.

  The breakdown of numbers on a month by month basis is as follows:

  Stuff

  June 2002

  64

  July 2002

  80

  August 2002

  228

  September 2002

  228

  October 2002

  228

  November 2002

  192

  December 2002

  122

  January 2003

  35

  February 2003

  35

  962W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the inquiry headed by Patrick Carter into the Criminal Records Bureau will cost; and who will be responsible for the costs. [99388]

  Hilary Benn
  The estimated cost of the review is £585,000. This includes the cost of various consultancies in support of the review. The Home Office will be responsible for this cost.

  Domestic Violence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which local authorities in England and Wales have a written and publicly available policy on domestic violence; when each local authority's domestic violence policy was published; and if he will make a statement. [94124]

  Mr. Denham
  Central Government keep records of local authority policies only where there is a statutory requirement to have one. It is therefore not possible to give the Information requested since there is no statutory requirement to have a domestic violence policy, though all are encouraged to do so.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2003,Official Report, column 328W, in what circumstances drug treatment and testing orders are revoked; what is deemed as failure to comply by a participant; and if he will undertake a review of DTTOs. [99284]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Drug Treatment and Testing orders (DTTO) can be revoked for any of the following reasons: failure to comply; a conviction for a further offence; for other reasons, including ill-health or death or where the offender has demonstrated good progress on the order.

  Failure to comply refers to failure to adhere to the requirements of the order as set out under legislation and determined by the court. The two main requirements are to attend for treatment and to attend for testing as specified for a set period. The offender must also attend periodic court reviews and is expected to comply with instructions issued to him by his responsible officer.

  The results of the first year of a two year re-conviction study and also a DTTO thematic inspection report will be published later this year. The Government intend that the DTTO will become part of the generic community sentence as proposed by the Criminal Justice Bill currently before Parliament.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted offenders were assessed as having drug problems in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of these were eligible for a Drug Treatment and Testing Order.[99540]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The best available evidence on the links between criminal offending and drug use comes form the New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse (NEW-ADAM) research programme. This involves interviewing and drug testing those arrested by the
  963W
  police at 16 sites throughout England and Wales. Analysis of the data from the first eight sites in the programme, collected during 1999–2000, shows that of those arrestees that provided a urine sample, 65 per cent. tested positive for one or more illegal drugs. Furthermore, 55 per cent. of arrestees who reported using one of more drugs in the last 12 months and committing one or more acquisitive crimes, acknowledged a link between their drug use and their offending behaviour. This proportion rose to 78 per cent. for arrestees who said they had used heroin and cocaine/crack.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTO) enable courts to require offenders to undergo treatment and other programmes, designed to tackle their drug misuse and offending. Before making such an Order, a court has to be satisfied that:
  the offender is dependent upon, or has shown/demonstrated a propensity to misuse, drugs and that their offending is linked to drug misuse;is motivated and amenable to treatment;has given consent; and treatment and DTTO arrangements are in place in the area where the order is being made.
  Between November 2001 and October 2002, the latest period for which data is available, 6,296 offenders were assessed as suitable for a DTTO.

  Extradition Bill
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) clauses and (b) schedules were (i) fully debated, (ii) partly debated and (iii) not debated during the committee stage of the Extradition Bill. [100222]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  For a clause or schedule to be debated during the Committee Stage a member of the Committee must either table an amendment to it or speak to the motion that it should stand part of the Bill. In the case of a large number of clauses in the Extradition Bill, no member of the committee chose to do so.

  The number of Committee sessions for the Bill was agreed through the usual channels. The figure of nine was first suggested by the official Opposition.

  At its first meeting the Committee sessions for the Bill was agreed the terms of a programme motion which imposed a number of cut-off points by which discussion of a particular part of the Bill had to be completed.

  On only one occasion did the knife fall before the Committee had completed its discussion of the relevant part. This was in respect of Part 1 of the Bill which covers clauses 1–67. The knife fell when the Committee was discussing clause 63.

  Amendments to clauses 63, 64 and 65 had already been discussed at previous Committee sittings. At the point when the knife fell, the Chair was obliged to put the question for each of the remaining Part 1 clauses that it should stand part of the Bill. It was open to any member of the Committee to oppose it. No member of the Committee chose to do so in respect of clauses 66 and 67.
  964W
  When it became clear that there was a possibility that the knife might fall before the Committee had completed its deliberations on Part 1, the Government made several offers to change the timetable. All of these offers were rejected by the official Opposition.

  Hit-and-run Accidents
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the maximum fine is that can be levied on a hit-and-run driver without insurance. [98723]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 a driver is required to stop after an accident and provide his name and address. If for any reason the driver does not give his name and address, he is required to report the accident. Should the driver fail to do either of the above, the maximum fine available is £5,000 (level 5 on the standard scale). This is also the maximum fine for driving without insurance under section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Therefore, a driver convicted of both of these offences could be subjected to a maximum fine of £1,000.

  If a driver fails to stop or report following a serious road traffic incident in respect of which there is evidence to support more serious charges, he may be prosecuted for those offences in addition to failing to stop or report.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for he Home Department how many(a) hit-and-run accidents, (b) hit-and-run accidents whose driver did not have insurance and (c) hit-and-run drivers taken to court and (i) fined, (ii) imprisoned and (iii) acquitted there were in each of the last five years; and what percentage of these fines remain unpaid. [98724]

  Hilary Benn
  Department for Transport figures are given in the following table for the number of hit-and-run accidents in England and Wales for the years 1997–;2001.

  It is not possible, in the statistics collected centrally, to distinguish offences relating to a "hit-and-run" accident from offences resulting from other kinds of accidents. Motorists charged following a "hit-and-run" will e charged with an offence appropriate to the circumstances. This may often be failing to stop after an accident or failing to report an accident, but more serious charges may be preferred in some cases depending on the circumstances.

  Table B shows available data on motoring offences within England and Wales, as defined in section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, for failing to stop after an accident or failing to report an accident within 24 hours. The figures shown are the numbers of offences, rather than the numbers of offenders.

  Data on the number of cases where drivers were convicted for insurance offences, (under section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, using motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks), as well as the offences of failing to stop after an accident or failing to report an accident within 24 hours are given in table C.

  Information on fines unpaid by offence is not collected centrally.
  965W

  Table A—The number of hit-and-run accidents, England and Wales, 1997–2001

  Year

  Total

  1997

  17,456

  1998

  17,564

  1999

  19,023

  2000

  21,591

  2001

  23,757

  Table B—Proceedings at magistrates courts and outcome at all courts for the motoring offences of failing to stop after an accident, etc. and failing to report an accident within 24 hours—England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Year/offence

  Total proceedings

  Acquittals1

  fine

  Immediate custody2

  Failing to stop after accident. etc. (Road Traffic Act 1988 s170(4))

  1997

  15,829

  935

  6,760

  319

  1998

  15,387

  861

  6,299

  387

  1999

  14,923

  790

  5,922

  406

  2000

  14,663

  754

  5,658

  403

  2001

  15,392

  784

  5,411

  396

  Failing to report accident within 24 hours (Road Traffic Act 1988s170(4)and (7)

  1997

  13,092

  830

  4,419

  142

  1998

  12,876

  773

  3,944

  176

  1999

  12,336

  721

  3,603

  192

  2000

  12,029

  684

  3,283

  189

  2001

  12,377

  705

  3,092

  168

  1Includes cases dismissed at the magistrates courts under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 s9 and acquittals at the Crown Court.

  2 Includes unsuspended sentence of imprisonment, young offender institution, secure training order (1998–2000) and detention and training order (2000 onwards).

  Table C—The number of convictions for insurance offences1 where drivers were also convicted for failing to stop after an accident or failing to report an accident within 24 hours, England
  and Wales, 1997-2001

  Year

  Total number

  1997

  4,207

  1998

  4,339

  1999

  4,428

  2000

  4,446

  2001

  4,742

  1Section 143, Road Traffic Act 1988—using motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what hospitality has been offered at public expense in the last 12 months, by each Minister in his Department to outside interest groups, broken down by(a) restaurant, (b) recipient and (c) cost in each case; [99583]

  (2) how often Ministers in his Department have received hospitality in restaurants from outside groups in the last 12 months; [99506]

  (3) what criteria Ministers in his Department use when determining whether to offer hospitality in restaurants to interest groups at public expense; and if he will make a statement. [99582]
  966W
  (4) what his Department's hospitality budget (a) is in 2002–03 and (b) was in each of the last three years; and how much was left unspent at the end of each financial year. [99582]

  Mr. Blunkett
  All offers of hospitality are made in accordance with the published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in 'Government Accounting'. The giving and receiving of hospitality is conducted fully in accordance with the guidance set out in the 'Ministerial Code, and Guidance on Contacts with Outside Interest Groups including Lobbyists'. The detailed information requested is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Leave to Remain
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each quarter since January 1997,(a) how many applications for leave to remain on the basis of marriage were received, (b) what the normal time taken to full initial screening and decisions on straightforward cases was, (c) what the time taken to deal with those applications not considered straightforward was and (d) how many staff were employed in the relevant departments of the IND dealing with these applications. [99779]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available statistics are given in the following table. The information relates to grants and refusals of extensions of leave to remain on the basis of marriage for each quarter 1997 to 2001. Data for 2002 will be published later this year. Information on the number of applications lodged is not currently available.

  Grants and refusals of extensions of leave to remain on the basis of marriage in the United Kingdom, excluding EEA nationals, 1997 to 2001

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Total

  1997

  Grants

  4,060

  3,965

  4,105

  3,650

  15,780

  Refusals

  385

  360

  280

  210

  1,235

  1998

  Grants

  4,075

  3,670

  4,020

  3,635

  15,400

  Refusals

  290

  255

  210

  130

  885

  1999

  Grants

  2,255

  3,375

  5,795

  4,620

  16,050

  Refusals

  25

  50

  60

  80

  215

  2000

  Grants

  6,610

  6,990

  6,335

  5,845

  25,785

  Refusals

  140

  330

  440

  150

  1,065

  2001

  Grants

  6,025

  5,900

  5,685

  4,960

  22,570

  Refusals

  570

  360

  375

  370

  1,670

  Notes:

  Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  Data exclude unmarried partners and fiance(e)s.

  Data exclude the outcome of appeals and withdrawn applications.

  There are no published data on decision times for individual types of settlement applications. Our aim is to decide all straightforward applications within three weeks. At present some straightforward applications decided in initial consideration are taking about 10 weeks because of the exceptionally high intake of new

  967W
  applications received in the latter part of 2002. At present some applications that cannot be dealt with on initial consideration can take around 12 months to decide. Measures are being taken to reduce turnaround times.

  The information on staff dealing with marriage applications is not available in the form requested as individual staff members do not take decisions solely on marriage applications.

  London Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women have been assessed for drug treatment in each London prison during the last 12 months. [99407]

  April 2002 to January 2003

  CARATs1

  Detoxification2

  Rehabilitation2

  Prison

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Belmarsh

  572

  —

  799

  —

  0

  —

  Brixton

  744

  —

  1,068

  —

  78

  —

  Feltham

  1,356

  —

  163

  —

  0

  —

  Holloway

  —

  596

  —

  1,828

  —

  0

  Latchmere House

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  Pentonville

  1,024

  —

  2,361

  —

  71

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  1.170

  —

  1,692

  —

  58

  —

  —

  Wormwood

  Scrubs

  1,096

  —

  950

  —

  46

  —

  Total

  5,962

  596

  7,033

  1,828

  253

  0

  1Initial assessments.

  2 Treatment episodes.

  Multi-agency Public Protection Panels
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are under the supervision of each multi-agency public protection panel in England and Wales; whether there is a central database of offenders who are under the supervision of each multi-agency public protection panel in England and Wales; and whether a protocol exists for multi-agency public protection panels regarding the passing of information to other agencies. [99969]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 28 February 2003]: The number of offenders being supervised by multi-agency public protection panels in each area of England and Wales is not currently available and there is no central database of these offenders. However, each area's multi-agency public protection arrangements (the MAPPA) annual report (to be published this summer) will include this information. Also, a computer-based Violent and Sex offenders Register (ViSoR) is being developed with plans for its introduction next year.

  Contract

  Inception date

  Fully functional

  Home Office IT Services Contract 1994–04

  August 1994

  9 November 1994

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate Casework Contract1

  April 1996

  Contract never became fully functional and has now been superseded

  Quantum Project IT and Private Finance Initiative Agreement Contract for infrastructure

  February 2000

  Infrastructure roll-out will be substantially completed by 31 March 2003

  968W
  Hilary Benn
  Prisoners may receive different types of assessment for drug treatment, depending on need and availability. All prisoners receive a health care assessment on reception into custody which will trigger a further assessment for detoxification if required. All prisoners referred to counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare (CARATs) receive an initial assessment of need.

  Prior to acceptance on a rehabilitation programme, all prisoners will receive a detailed assessment. Figures showing the number of CARAT assessments are given in the following table. No figures are available centrally for the number of detoxification and rehabilitation assessments undertaken. Figures for the number of actual treatments, a proxy measure of assessments, are included in the table.

  Many Areas have established local protocols for sharing of information with other agencies and the consolidated guidance that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is to issue on MAPPA in March will contain advice on the legal principles and practicalities of information sharing.

  Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list IT contracts in his Department above £50 million in each of the last 10 years; what the inception date for each system was; when it became fully functional; when it became fully debugged; and what the cost of over-runs has been. [99010]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am unable to provide the hon. Member with a complete answer as central records are not held on the information sought, and to obtain the requested information in the time given may incur disproportionate cost. I am, however able to provide the following information on IT contracts held by the Home Department which were valued at £50 million or more, detailing date of inception and also when systems became fully functional:
  969W

  Contract

  Inception date

  Fully functional

  Criminal Records Bureau Contract with Capita

  August 2000

  May 2001—Manual Registration Services Launched

  July 2001—Registration Services Launched

  March 2002—High Level Disclosure Service Launched

  Home Office IT Services 10 year Contract

  October 2000

  February 2001

  Provision of Information Communication Technology

  October 2001

  December 2001

  Services to the Probation Service

  1Contract is a multi-disciplinary one, which is not exclusively IT.

  Police Cells
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are held in police cells; and if he will make a statement. [99541]

  Hilary Benn
  On 27 February 2003, no prisoners were held in police cells under Operation Safeguard. The Prison Service last used police cells under Operation Safeguard on 20 December 2002.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost of the Prison Service

  Financial year

  Total current, expenditure (Cash) (£ million)

  Total capital expenditure (Cash) (£ million)

  Total net expenditure (Cash) (£ million

  Total net expenditure at 2000–01 prices (Real terms)

  Cost per prisoner (£000 at 2000–01 prices) (Real terms)

  1985–86

  564.8

  89.9

  654.7

  1,177.4

  n/a

  1986–87

  585.0

  111.1

  696.1

  1,212.4

  n/a

  1987–88

  666.8

  108.1

  774.9

  1,280.2

  n/a

  1988–89

  750.8

  158.2

  909.0

  1,406.0

  n/a

  1989–90

  756.4

  366.3

  1,122.7

  1,620.6

  n/a

  1990–91

  887.7

  453.8

  1,341.5

  1,796.3

  n/a

  1991–92

  1,049.5

  412.6

  1,462.1

  1,845.2

  n/a

  1992–93

  1,138.4

  331.9

  1,470.3

  1,797.4

  n/a

  1993–94

  1,223.7

  285.1

  1,508.8

  1,800.0

  n/a

  1994–95

  1,279.6

  318.3

  1,597.9

  1,881.3

  n/a

  1995–96

  1,336.7

  330.2

  1,666.9

  1,908.2

  n/a

  1996–97

  1,388.5

  220.1

  1,608.6

  1,784.9

  n/a

  1997–98

  1,462.9

  277.9

  1,740.8

  1,873.7

  n/a

  1998–99

  1,611.7

  200.4

  1,812.1

  1,898.3

  n/a

  1999–2000

  1,696.8

  149.6

  1,846.6

  1,888.5

  26,454

  2000–01

  1,777.7

  135.2

  1,912.9

  1,912.9

  26,118

  2001–02

  1,921.0

  197.0

  2,118.0

  2,069.1

  29,037

  2002–03

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  28,367

  Prison Training Programmes
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to(a) promote and (b) provide financial assistance to corporate socially responsible training programmes in prisons and young offenders institutions; and if he will make a statement. [98877]

  Hilary Benn
  A number of companies and other organisations help the Prison Service to work to reduce reoffending through skills training and work placement schemes for prisoners. Discussions are continuing with those organisations on how best to develop these important and welcome links.
  970W
  was in real terms at 2000-01 prices (a) in total and (b) per prisoner, in each year from 1985–86 to 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [99809]

  Hilary Benn
  Prison Service total costs for the years 1985–86 to 2001–02 are shown in the following table. The total cost figures for 2002–03 are not yet available. To ensure comparability across the years the data is based on actual cash expenditure and has been drawn from the Prison Service Annual Reports and Accounts from 1991–92 onwards and the annual Report on the Work of the Prison Department prior to 1991–92.

  Separate information on cost per prisoner was not published in the Annual Report prior to 1999–2000. The figures for 2001–02 and 2002–03 have been constructed on a cash basis to give a consistent comparison with earlier years. The figure for 2002–03 is based on the published target figure.

  Prisoner Nutrition
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of(a) the nutritional needs of prisoners in HM prisons and (b) the need for supplements to be issued; and if he will make a statement. [99943]

  Hilary Benn
  Prison caterers are required to offer a balanced and varied diet which meets the nutritional needs of prisoners. Healthy options are indicated on all menus. Advice for caterers is contained in Prison Service Order 5000, together with mandatory requirements. The advice is consistent with recommendations made by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy and covers nutritional and energy intake.
  971W
  A nutritional research analysis of prison food was carried out in late 1998 by Professor John Edwards of Bournemouth University. The report concluded that `the diet consumed in all surveyed prisons was extremely good and in general fell within the recommendations'. Individual clinical needs of prisoners are assessed by medical officers. Any necessary supplements would be given on the authority of the medical officer.

  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of offenders serving sentences of(a) under 12 months and (b) over 12 months tested positive for (i) heroin, (ii) crack cocaine and (iii) cocaine while in prison in the last year for which figures are available. [99536]

  Hilary Benn
  Figures for prisoners in England and Wales testing positive under the random mandatory drug testing programme are not disaggregated by sentence length. Figures for heroin are included under the heading of opiates. Laboratory analysis is not able to distinguish between use of crack cocaine and cocaine. The respective percentages of positive tests for opiates and cocaine in 2001–02 are 4.6 per cent. and 0.2 per cent.

  Probation Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what performance targets are set for the National Probation Service in England and Wales. [99932]

  Hilary Benn
  The performance targets for the National Probation Service for England and Wales are as follows.

  National Probation Service Performance Measures

  Service Delivery Agreement (SPA) Targets

  1. Improve the timeliness of probation service reports to the courts by:
  (a) increasing the proportion of Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs) completed within the 15 day National Standard to 90 per cent.; and
  (b) increasing the proportion of reports to the court (i.e. PSRs and Specific Sentence Reports (SSRs)) that are SSRs to 20 per cent. in 2002-03 and 25 per cent. in 2003-04.

  2. Increase the educational and vocational qualifications of offenders with 6,000 programme starts and 1,000 completions of basic skills awards at any level in 2002–03; and 12,000 completions in 2003–04, comprising 2,000 at entry level, 8,000 at Level 1 and 2,000 at Level 2.

  3. Increase the number of offenders going through accredited offending behaviour programmes with 12,000 offenders to complete accredited programmes in 2002–03, 20,000 offenders to complete accredited programmes in 2003–04, and, subject to a satisfactory scheme being accredited by the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel, a further 30,000 to start enhanced community punishment programmes in 2003–04 (from October 2003 to March 2004).
  972W
  4. Breach action to be taken in accordance with the National Standard (on or before second unacceptable failure for community sentences and on or before third unacceptable failure for licence cases)—Target: 90 per cent.

  5. To improve access to employment and accommodation for offenders.

  6. Ensure that the number of Drug Treatment and Testing Order commencements in England and Wales increases to 6,000 approximately in 2002–03, to 9,000 in 2003–04 and to 12,000 in 2004–05.

  7. Progress against the Home Secretary's race equality employment targets (published in July 1999) aimed at increasing levels of representation, retention and career progression of people from minority ethnic groups.

  8. To reduce sickness absence in the probation service to an average of 10 days per staff year by 2003 and to 9.0 days per staff year by 2004 and to sustain this improvement thereafter.

  Supporting Performance Measures (SPMs)

  1. Proportion of cases involving serious sexual or other violent offence in which the probation service makes contact with the victim or victim's family within eight weeks of sentence in accordance with National Standards and Victim's Charter Target: contact made within target time in 85 per cent. of cases where offender sentenced to 12 months or more.

  2. Proportions of

  (a) PSRs completed in 15 working days

  (b) Total reports that are SSRs

  Each for (i) Crown and (ii) magistrates courts separately (i.e. breakdown of SDA 1 figures by court type).

  3. Overall quality of PSRs

  4. Actual reconviction rates for persons subject to community orders by type of order compared to predicted rates. Target: lower actual rates for all types, and achieve rates lower than predicted

  5. Average of compliance proportions across a basket of national standards requirements on first and subsequent contact, i.e:

  Community Rehabilitation Orders

  first appointment was arranged for within five working days

  at least 12 appointments were arranged for within the first 12 weeks

  at least six appointments were arranged for the next 12 weeks appointments thereafter were monthly

  Community Punishment Orders

  first work session was arranged for within 10 working days

  offenders were offered a minimum of five hours per week throughout order

  Community Punishment & Rehabilitation Orders

  first probation appointment arranged for within five days and first work session arranged for within 10 days

  at least 12 CR appointments and 11 CP work sessions arranged in first 12 weeks

  at least six CR appointments and 12 CP work sessions arranged in next 12 weeks
  973W
  Licences
  offender seen within one working day of release home visit within 10 working days of release (excluding HOC)weekly contact arranged for first four weeks (further to first meeting)two-weekly contact arranged for second and third months monthly contact arranged thereafter
  Target: overall average of 90 per cent.

  6. Proportion of supervision cases where supervision plan done in 15 days, and reviews every four months.

  7. Proportion of cases where breach action taken in accordance with NS, broken down by community punishment order/community rehabilitation order/ community punishment and rehabilitation order/licence (i.e. breakdown of SDA 4).

  8. Proportion of offenders under supervision whose current offence is serious (i.e. violence, sexual, robbery or burglary). (To be discontinued from 2003–04)

  9. Proportion of cases assessed as High of Very High risk of harm on any of the four such OASys measures where a plan to manage the risk was prepared within five days of order or release, or the date at which a previously lesser risk was identified as having risen to High or Very High.

  10. Proportion of hostel residence orders or conditions which are completed.

  11. For offenders on community sentences: difference between the proportion in employment at end of their supervision and that in employment at start.

  12. For offenders on licence:
  difference between the proportion in employment at end of their licence and that in employment directly after release difference between the proportion in employment at end of their licence and that in employment immediately before custodial sentence started
  13. For offenders on community sentences: difference between the proportion in education or training at end of their supervision and that in education or training at start.

  14. For offenders on licence:
  difference between the proportion in education or training at end of their licence and that in education or training directly after release difference between the proportion in education or training at end of their licence and that in education or training immediately before custodial sentence started
  15. For offenders on community sentences: difference between the proportion in settled accommodation at end of their supervision and that in settled accommodation at start

  16. For offenders on licence:
  difference between the proportion in settled accommodation at end of their licence and that in settled accommodation directly after release difference between the proportion in settled accommodation at end of their licence and that in settled accommodation immediately before custodial sentence started 974W
  17. Unit cost of PSR, community rehabilitation order, community punishment order, community punishment and rehabilitation order, ACR and life licence.

  18. Proportion of bedspaces in approved hostels which are occupied. Target: 90 per cent.

  19. Proportion of all community punishment orders where the average weekly hours worked was at least five hours.

  20. Wastage of staff (excluding death, retirement and in-service transfer) as percentage of work force.

  21. Annual sample survey of sentencer satisfaction, i.e. the proportion of magistrates satisfied with
  the work of the service overall the overall usefulness of PSRs, ditto for SSRs the objectivity of PSRs, ditto for SSRs Target: 90 per cent for each the proportion of judges satisfied with the work of the service overall the overall usefulness of PSRs, ditto for SSRs the objectivity of PSRs, ditto for SSRs
  Target: 90 per cent for each

  22. Achievement of Charter Mark or Investors in People award.

  (To be discontinued from 2003–04)

  23. Proportion of hostel residents whose conviction or charge is for a serious offence (i.e. violence, sexual, robbery or burglary).

  (To be discontinued from 2003–04)

  24. Average National Standards compliance proportions for high risk of harm cases—on same lines as general basket measure at SPM 5 above but including proportion of cases where appointments actually took place as well as just arranged.

  25. The proportion of those offenders for whom drug misuse is a criminogenic factor who are on a recognised drugs intervention (e.g. DTTO, drug abstinence order, drugs programme) in the course of their supervision.

  26. Proportion of offenders commencing orders and licences who go on accredited programmes:

  (a) Proportion for all such offenders;

  (b) From 2003–04 proportion for those offenders who have OASys scores above a certain level.

  27. Number of offenders completing accredited programmes (i.e. number of people completing, to complement the "satisfactory completions" measure in SDA 3).

  28. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) implementation quality rating (IQR) for delivery of accredited programmes.

  29. Number of offenders completing accredited drug misuse programmes.

  30. Ratio of total commencements of orders and licences to total (weighted) staff. (To be discontinued from 2003–04)
  975W
  31. Satisfaction surveys of other CJS stakeholders (e.g. police, other Crime and Disorder Act partners); partnership agencies; victims

  Bail information. (To be discontinued from 2003–04)

  Other Measures

  To ensure that there is a clear recommendation in at least 95 per cent. of PSRs written on minority ethnic offenders.

  To ensure complete and timely information in at least 95 per cent. of returns.

  Reconvictions
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 13 February to question 98141, what the reconviction levels were between 1995 and 2002; and what estimates he has made of reconviction levels in(a) 2003 and (b) 2004. [99723]

  Hilary Benn
  Two-year 'un-adjusted' reconviction rates for prisoners discharged from custody are available for 1995 to 1998. These were 58 per cent. in 1995, 57 per cent. in 1996, 58 per cent. in 1997 and 59 per cent. in 1998. These rates are published in "Prison Statistics—England and Wales 2001".

  Reconviction rates for offenders discharged from custody have also been published according to the requirements of the Government's Public Service Agreement (PSA) 10 target. These are adjusted to take out convictions for offences committed prior to discharge, giving a reconviction rate of 55.3 per cent. for the first quarter of 1999. The equivalent figures for the first quarter of 1997 and 1998 are 56.8 per cent. and 55.7 per cent. respectively.

  Neither set of rates indicate trends in rates over time, as they make no allowance for changes in the characteristics and criminal histories of offenders given custodial sentences. To do this a predicted rate is used. Comparisons between the actual and predicted reconviction rates for 1999 show that the actual rate was 3.3 percentage points lower than predicted relative to the 1997 baseline.

  Reconviction rates for more recent periods are not yet available.

  Rehabilitation
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners undergoing drug treatment were offered continuing treatment on release into the community; and how many prisoners took up this offer in the last year for which figures are available. [99538]

  Hilary Benn
  Information on the numbers of prisoners offered treatment on release and the number taking up that offer is not available centrally. A programme of work is under way to collect that information but data are not expected to be available until late summer 2003.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on drug rehabilitation for(a) offenders in prison and (b) prisoners on release in each of the last five years. [99539]
  976W
  Hilary Benn
  The following table shows the drug rehabilitation spend for offenders in prison for the financial years 1999–2000 to 2001–02; this comprises additional rehabilitation resources made available through the Comprehensive Spending Review and Spending Review 2000 settlements. Drug-related expenditure prior to 1999–2000 cannot be broken down by individual drug intervention.

  Drug rehabilitation spend for prisoners in custody

  £million

  1999–2000

  2.4

  2000–01

  4.4

  2001–02

  6.4

  Information relating to rehabilitation spend for prisoners post-release is not recorded centrally and could be established only at disproportionate cost.

  Secure Units
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his latest estimate is of the cost per year per inmate of(a) local authority secure units,
  (b) secure training centres and (c) young offenders' institutions. [99797]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 28 February 2003]: The juvenile secure estate comprises Prison Service Young Offender Institutions, privately-operated secure training centres and local authority secure units. The different types of establishment vary in the age and vulnerability of the offenders they hold, and in the levels of staffing and types of regime. Responsibility for commissioning and purchasing places in the secure estate rests with the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales which estimates that the average annual costs of detaining an offender aged under 18 in these establishments are as follows.

  £

  Young Offender Institution

  53,000

  Secure Training Centre1

  159,000

  Local authority secure unit

  164,000

  1 Includes VAT

  Traffic Accidents (Havering)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many road traffic accidents were reported last year in(a) the London Borough of Havering, (b) the London Borough of Redbridge,
  (c) the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and (d) the County of Essex. [99742]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Data for reported road traffic accidents in these areas referred are as follows:

  London Borough

  2001

  2002

  Havering

  957

  1801

  Redbridge

  1,186

  1913

  Barking and Dagenham

  696

  1536

  Essex

  19,005

  18,803

  1 Figures for December 2002 not yet available

  977W
  The figures for Essex include reported non-injury accidents whereas those for the London Boroughs do not. Non-injury accidents in the London boroughs are not recorded centrally.

  The total number of accidents reported is not always a useful figure since many minor accidents are not reported and the length and type of roads in the four areas are very different.

  Voluntary Organisations (Vulnerable Children)
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to support the establishment and development of voluntary organisations using the model and approach of 'Kids Company' in Camberwell. [98875]

  Beverley Hughes
  Kids Company is a charitable organisation working with disadvantaged young people in Southwark. It is one of a number of voluntary organisations and charities working with young people at risk to help them achieve positive outcomes and avoid becoming involved in drugs and crime.

  Average custodial sentence length1 imposed on persons aged 10–17, by sentence type, England and Wales, 1997 to 2001

  Months

  Custodial sentence type

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Detained under sec 53 C & YPA 19332

  42.1

  39.6

  37.7

  39.6

  40.1

  Detention and training order3

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  7.6

  7.3

  Secure training order4

  n/a

  8.3

  9.6

  8.1

  n/a

  Young offender institution5

  6.7

  6.3

  6.2

  6.1

  n/a

  n/a = not applicable.

  1Excluding life sentences.

  2 Sec 9010–92 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 from 25 August 2000. Served in local authority secure units (LASUs), Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) or, since 2000, secure training centres (STCs).

  3 Served in LASUs, YOIs or STCs and available nationally from 1 April 2000.

  4 Served in STCs and available from 1 March 1998 to 31 March 2000, when replaced by detention and training orders.

  5 Served in YOIs and replaced by detention and training orders from 31 March 2000.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) local authority secure units, (b) young offenders' institutions and (c) secure training centres have been in operation in each of the past five years; how many places there are in each; and what the average occupancy rate for each unit was in those years. [99798]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 28 February 2003]: The information requested cannot be readily provided. I shall therefore write to my hon. Friend.

HEALTH

  Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out into the impact of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on human health. [99254]

  Ms Blears
  There has been and continues to be a large amount of research relevant to the broad hypothesis
  978W
  In June 2001 the Youth Justice Board commissioned Crime Concern to undertake a short study on the feasibility of replicating the Kids Company model, and we are considering the outcome of that study. Kids Company offers one approach in working with young people and there are others, such as the Youth Inclusion Programme. We do not advocate one model above any other without clear evidence of both impact and cost effectiveness.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of sentence(a) issued and (b) served for those young offenders sent to (i) local authority secure units, (ii) young offenders' institutions and (iii) secure training centres was in each of the last five years. [99796]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 28 February 2003]: The information is not available in precisely the form requested. The custodial part of a sentence may be served in different types of establishment and an individual offender may move between different types of establishment during the course of his sentence. The table shows the average length of sentence imposed, some of which will be served in a custodial establishment and some in the community.

  that current exposures to chemicals may alter the functions of the endocrine system in such a way as to harm human health, and many expert reviews have been published. The most recent comprehensive review is in the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), Global assessment of the state-of-the-science of endocrine disrupters, published in August 2002 by the World Health Organization (WHO/PCS/EDC/02.2). A copy will be deposited in the Library. The report is also available at http://www.who.int/pcs/emerg site/edc/global edc TOC.htm

  The Department of Health provided financial support for the IPCS review and both financial and secretariat support were provided by the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  Several Departments fund research projects on possible health effects from and levels of potential endocrine disrupters present naturally or man-made, in food, consumer products and the environment.

  Attention Deficit Disorder
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of(a) junk food and (b) additives in food on (i) ADD and (ii) ADHD; and if he will make a statement. [99679]

  Ms Blears
  Independent evidence suggests that some foods and their ingredients can affect certain aspects of children's behaviour. While eliminating some foods may thus be helpful, a dietary approach to the treatment of children with the more severe form of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has been found to be of limited value.

  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) considers that more definitive information is needed on the relationship between additives and the behavioural effects on children. The FSA is currently seeking advice on undertaking further research in this area.

  Cancer Services (Investment)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the findings of the exceptional tracking exercise on the additional investment in cancer services will be published(a) in full and (b) on his Department's website; [99313]

  (2) if his Department will use the findings of the exceptional tracking exercise on the additional investment in cancer services to inform its work to improve the patient's experience of cancer, as an NHS Cancer Plan priority; [99314]

  (3) if his Department will contact (a) patient stakeholder groups and (b) their representative organisations to inform them of the publication of the findings of the exceptional tracking exercise on the additional investment in cancer services; [99312]

  (4) when his Department plans to publish the findings of its exceptional tracking exercise on the additional investment in cancer services; [99311]

  (5) what format will be used for the publication of the findings of the exceptional tracking exercise on the additional investment in cancer services. [99926]

  Ms Blears
  We intend to publish headline national and network level figures on cancer investment on the Department's website in late spring. The exact format will depend on the level and type of information received from strategic health authorities. We will continue to work with key stakeholders and patient representative groups to improve the patient experience including making available to them the figures from the cancer investment tracking exercise. At a local level this exercise will inform cancer networks' discussions with their stakeholders on plans for future investment, to further improve patient care.

  Further details of the tracking investment exercise can be found at www.doh.qov.uk/cancer/ trackinginvestment.htm

  Cloning
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has held with his European counterparts on cloning; and if he will make a statement. [100319]
  980W
  Ms Blears
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has held no meetings with his European counterparts on cloning. However, cloning has been on the agenda at a number of international meetings attended by the Prime Minister and Science Minister since 1998.

  The United Kingdom was the first European country to put in place a specific legal ban on human reproductive cloning in 2001 and we continue to support moves in the United Nations to introduce a global ban on human reproductive cloning.

  Continuing Care
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to revise the notes for guidance on continuing care in the light of the case of R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Pamela Coughlan. [100815]

  Jacqui Smith
  Revised guidance was issued in light of the case of R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Pamela Coughlan in June 2001.

  Contraception
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many girls aged(a) under 16, (b) under 18 and (c) under 20 have been given the morning-after pill under Patient Group Directives in each year in which Patient Group Directives have been in force. [99460]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The use of patient group directions for health professionals to supply emergency contraception is a local decision taken by the relevant primary care trust.

  National data on the occasions on which emergency contraception is provided is derived from the KT31 form annual returns from national health service contraceptive services in England. This data does not identify whether the provision is through a patient group direction.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many digital hearing aids have been issued by the NHS in the London Borough of Havering in the last 12 months; [99735]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the availability of digital hearing aids in the London Borough of Havering; [99750]

  (3) what proportion of the funding for digital hearing aids will be available to hospitals in the London Borough of Havering. [99749]

  Mr. Hutton
  Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals National Health Service Trust will start to fit digital hearing aids routinely from the end of March. Audiology staff are currently being trained and new equipment is being installed.

  We have recently announced that £94 million is being made available, over the next two years, to support the introduction of a modernised hearing aid service, including the provision of digital hearing aids, across the whole of England.
  981W
  Primary care trusts are being asked to fund 25 per cent. of the additional revenue costs of a modernised service.

  Drug Treatment
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what clinical trials there have been on heroin treatment using(a) methadone, (b) buprenorphine, (c) naltraxone, (d) psychotherapy and (e) residential rehabilitation. [98153]

  Ms Blears
  Comprehensive reviews of the effectiveness of methadone have been provided by several authors (Hall et a;, 1998, Farrell et al., 1994, Bertschy 1995, Marsch, 1998). Most of those studies demonstrating the effectiveness of methadone are of ongoing maintenance treatment but the evidence generally becomes weaker as the duration of treatment shortens, with little systematic evidence to support short-term detoxification. Specific studies include Fontain & Ansseau, 1995, Glass, 1993 and Gossop, M. et al., 2001. High quality medical and psychosocial services, a clear orientation towards social rehabilitation, treatment longevity and slow detoxification of well-stabilised patients have all been identified as giving the best outcomes (Cacciola et al 1998, Bertschy 1995). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) show a relationship between higher doses (>50 mg) and reduced illicit drug use with better treatment retention rates(Ward et al 1992, Ling et al 1996, Fontaine & Ansseau 1995 and D'Aunno & Vaughan 1992).

  Buprenorphine has more recently been established as a potential effective alternative substitution treatment for some patients by a number of studies such as those concentrating on effective doses including Johnson et al., 1995, Ling et al., 1998 and Strain et al., 1994. Specific differences from methadone have been highlighted in other studies including Walsh et al., 1994, Reynaud et al., 1998, Bickel & Amass, 1995, Reisinger, 1997 and Barnett P.G. et al., 2001) and trials in Europe have been reviewed by Chapleo et al., 1997. Also see Uehlinger, C. et al. 1998 and Fischer, G. et al. 1999 for published studies.

  The Cochrane review of buprenorphine maintenance for opioid dependence in August 2002 concluded `Buprenorphine is an effective intervention for use in the maintenance treatment of heroin dependence, but it is not more effective than methadone at adequate dosages.'

  The effectiveness of naltrexone for relapse prevention has been demonstrated in controlled studies by Shufman et al., 1994 and Gerra et al., 1995. Probation-linked supervised naltrexone has been used as an alternative to custody in opiate-misusing offenders and studied by Brahen & Brewer, 1993. A recent systematic review of the efficacy of naltrexone maintenance treatment in opioid dependence by Kirt Mayer et al. 2002 noted limit support for naltrexone in its findings and this treatment is generally seen as appropriate for a minority of patients.

  The Cochrane review of naltrexone maintenance for opioid dependence in January 2002 concluded 'The available trials do not allow a final evaluation of naltrexone maintenance treatment yet. A trend in
  982W
  favour of treatment with naltrexone was observed for certain target groups (particularly people who are highly motivated), as has been previously described in the literature.'

  There is a very limited experimental research base comparing specific psychotherapies. McLellan et al., 1994 reviewed the evidence and concluded that `successful outcomes are related to marked and consistent differences between counsellors,' and 'a study of whether the addition of counselling improved the efficacy of methadone maintenance programmes found that the addition of basic counselling on a weekly basis resulted in major and significant improvements'.

  International literature (Gerstein D. R. et al., 1990, Kooyman M., 1993 and Hubbard, R., 1994) demonstrates improvements from residential rehabilitation with programmes offering additional services having improved outcomes. The National Treatment Outcome Research Study (Gossop et al. 2001) has confirmed benefits in the UK for those attending residential rehabilitation and found that time in residential treatment is predictive of superior outcomes.

  Useful general references containing more detailed references as above:
  Community treatment of drug misuse: more than methadone. Nicholas Seivewright, Cambridge University Press 2000.
  The task force to review services for drug misusers—report of an independent review of drug treatment services in England (DH 1997).
  Methadone substitution therapy—policies and practices. Monograph series number one. Ghodse, A. M. et al. 1998. European Collaborating Centre in Addiction Studies (ECCAS).

  Drug Users
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many problematic drug users were in treatment in each of the last five years. [99535]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Following the closure of the Home Office Addicts Index in 1997, The regional drug misuse databases (RDMDs) were the main source of information on people presenting to drug treatment services with a drug problem up to 31 March 2001. Information on the numbers of users reported as presenting to drug treatment services for treatment in England is shown in the table.

  A one-off exercise was carried out to estimate the number of drug users in England in contact with drug treatment agencies in 2000–01. Around 118,500 individuals were reported to be in contact with drug treatment agencies in England in 2000–01.

  In April 2001 the national drug treatment monitoring system (NDTMS) was introduced. The figures from the NDTMS are not directly comparable with information collected previously for the RDMDs. However, provisional estimates are that the number of problem drug misusers who presented for treatment to drug treatment agencies and general practitioners in England in 2001–02 increased by around 8 per cent., over the previous year.
  983W

  Number of users reported as presenting for treatment for drug misuse in England during the six months periods ending 30 September 1996 to 31 March 2001

  Six month period ending

  Number presenting for treatment

  September 1996

  24,879

  March 1997

  25,925

  September 1997

  21,996

  March 1998

  23,916

  September 1998

  28,599

  March 1999

  28,499

  September 1999

  30,545

  March 2000

  31,815

  September 2000

  33,093

  March 2001

  33,234

  Note

  Reporting to the RDMDs was voluntary; changes in the numbers may, at least in part, be due to changes in reporting practice.

  Source:

  The Department of Health series of Statistical Bulletins "Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases". Bulletins for the six months ending March 1998 onwards are available at http:// www.doh.qov.uk/public/work public health.htm

  The Department of Health Statistical Press Notice "Provisional Statistics From The National Drug Treatment Monitoring System In England, 2QgVg2//http://www.doh.qov.uk/public/ spndruqsQ212. htm

  Drug-eluting Stents
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which NHS hospitals provide drug eluting stents to private patients but not to NHS patients; [99439]

  (2) which NHS hospitals which provide drug eluting stents to private patients also provide NHS patients with drug eluting stents. [99438]

  Ms Blears
  No information is held centrally regarding the provision of drug eluting stents for national health service patients or for private patients who are treated in private units based in NHS hospitals. Such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Drugs
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department will have stocks of(a) The Score: Facts about drugs, (b) Drugs-The Facts A6 booklet, (c) A parent's guide to drugs and (d) drugs helpline cards; and if he will make a statement. [100030]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 28 February 2003]: It has been decided that the national drugs helpline cards will not be reprinted. This decision has been made in the light of upcoming new work on the development of a new national drugs campaign.

  The following leaflets will be reprinted to cover the time period until the new campaign launches and the resources to support the campaign are available. It is expected that delivery into the warehouse for these leaflets will be:

  The Score: Facts about drugs—17 March

  Drugs: The facts—17 March

  A parent's guide to drugs and alcohol—17 March

  While these items have been out of stock we have continued to collect orders from customers and will despatch these items as soon as new stock is received.
  984W
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long the Department has been out of stock of(a) The Score: Facts about drugs, (b) Drugs the facts A6 booklet, (c) A parent's guide to drugs and (d) Drugs helpline cards: and what the reasons are in each case. [100031]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 28 February 2003]: The Score: Facts about drugs, Drugs, the facts A6 booklet and A parent's guide to drugs and alcohol all went out of stock in December 2002.

  The National Drugs Helpline credit card went out of stock in January 2003.

  We experienced higher than usual demand over the December and Christmas period for all drugs resources.

  The Department of Health, in partnership with the Home Office and supported by the Department for Education and Skills, is currently developing a new national drugs campaign, which we anticipate will launch in late spring 2003.

  The campaign will be supported by new material promoting a helpline service and providing information for young people and parents on the risks and dangers associated with drug use.

  Elder Abuse
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from the Community and District Nursing Association on elder abuse. [100771]

  Jacqui Smith
  On 12 February, I held a meeting with representatives of the Community and District Nursing Association, who raised the findings of their membership survey relating to elder abuse.

  Epilepsy
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) medical consultant and (b) nursing specialist posts specifically concerned with the treatment of epilepsy there are in the United Kingdom. [99338]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of medical consultant and nursing specialist posts specifically concerned with the treatment of epilepsy is not collected centrally.

  Consultants in neurology and neurosurgery treat patients with epilepsy. Latest figures show that, between September 1997 and March 2002, consultant numbers in neurology increased by 94, or 34 per cent., to 372. During the same period, consultant numbers in neurosurgery increased by 27, or 21 per cent., to 154.

  General Practitioners
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average patient roll is for each general practitioner in the Camden and Islington area; what he expects the number to be in 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [100531]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table. Figures from September 2001 are still the latest available.
  985W

  Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)1 and average list size as at 30 September 2001

  Number (headcount)

  UPEs

  Average list size

  England total

  27,843

  1,841

  Of which:

  London RO

  3,962

  1,985

  Of which:

  nbsp;

  Camden and Islington HA

  225

  2,039

  1 UPEs include CMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  Source:

  General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Health Protection Agency
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to agree the National Assembly of Wales funding for the Health Protection Agency. [95671]

  Ms Blears
  Departmental officials came to an agreement some months ago on the general principle of the National Assembly for Wales' contribution to the funding of the Health Protection Agency; that is that funding streams continue as now for those functions which the HPA will provide in Wales. As is usual at this point in the year, precise sums are still to be confirmed. We expect to do so in the near future.

  Health Service Finance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent providing(a) occupational and physiotherapy, (b) home help and (c) district nursing services in England in each of the last five years. [99390]

  Jacqui Smith
  Complete information on expenditure on occupational and physiotherapy and on district nursing services is not collected centrally.

  Local authority personal social services expenditure for England on home care, inclusive of management and support costs, are shown in the table.

  Year

  £000

  1997–98

  1,359,761

  1998–99

  1,438,617

  1999–2000

  1,559,316

  2000–01

  1,625,869

  2001–02

  1,712,064

  Health Services (Children)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which module within the National Services Framework for children will include targets for improving the treatment of enuresis and paediatric continence. [100418]

  Jacqui Smith
  Common childhood conditions, including enuresis and paediatric continence, will be considered primarily by the healthy child and young people module of the national service framework for children, young people and maternity services.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce training for(a) commissioners and (b) managers on managing
  986W
  comprehensive Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services in accordance with the national service framework for children. [100497]

  Jacqui Smith
  A conference for joint commissioners/ managers of child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) in the light of the pending publication of the emerging findings from the CAMHS module of the Children's national service framework was held on 7 January in Doncaster. Further conferences are planned for 4 April in Newbury and 20 May in London.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to monitor the child and adolescent mental health targets set out in his Department's publication "Improvement, expansion and reform: the next three years". [100554]

  Jacqui Smith
  The objectives for improving and expanding child and adolescent mental services (CAMHS), set out in the priorities and planning framework 2003–06, "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", will be incorporated into the local delivery plans currently being prepared by primary care trusts. Local monitoring of these plans will be undertaken by strategic health authorities.

  At a national level, progress towards the CAMHS objectives will be monitored mainly via the annual CAMHS mapping exercise, which will provide detailed information on the level of services. The first mapping survey has just been completed. This will be used as a baseline against which future service improvements will be measured.

  Heart Choice Scheme
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients have(a) been eligible and (b) applied for treatment elsewhere under the Heart Choice Scheme; [97313]

  (2) how many patients have received treatment (a) abroad and (b) in the independent sector as part of the Heart Choice Scheme; [97314]

  (3) how many patients have been treated in a hospital that is not their home centre under the Heart Choice Scheme; [97312]

  (4) how many patients waiting more than six months for heart surgery had a choice of alternative hospital in (a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000, (d) 2001, (e) 2002 and (f) 2003; [98929]

  (5) how many choices of alternative hospital patients waiting more than six months for heart surgery have had since 1997, and what has been the average wait between referral and treatment in the alternative hospital. [99093]

  Ms Blears
  Early unvalidated data suggest that between 1 July 2002 and 31 January 2003, 3,822 patients were eligible for choice and of these 1,423 patients chose to be treated in a different hospital. Further information will be placed in the public domain when data returns have been validated and analysed.

  Hepatitis C
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to implement the hepatitis C strategy for England, published in consultation form in August 2002. [99523]

  Ms Blears
  The Chief Medical Officer's strategy to combat infectious diseases, "Getting Ahead of the Curve", has called for intensified action in a number of areas including blood-borne and sexually transmitted viruses. Implementation plans for the hepatitis C strategy will be set out as part of this action plan, which will be published in the next few months.

  Work has already begun on improving surveillance of hepatitis C and raising awareness amongst health care professionals.

  In March 2002, the Department held four regional conferences for primary care staff, which were very well attended. It will be holding a further four conferences in March 2003. Following the conferences in March 2002, the Department published a briefing pack for health professionals, entitled "Hepatitis C: Essential Information for Professionals", which was distributed to all general practitioners and practice nurses in England.

  Homoeopathic Treatments
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans his Department has to encourage the use of homoeopathic treatments, where their effectiveness has been proven; [99920]

  (2) what studies he has considered that evaluate the worth of homoeopathic treatments for GP practices. [99922]

  Ms Blears
  [Holding answer 3 March 2003]: Our June 2000 complementary medicine information pack for primary care groups commented that there was some evidence to suggest that homeopathy might help certain patients. It suggested in particular that the best evidence of its effectiveness was in relation to conditions with an allergic element, for example asthma, rhinitis and hay fever.

  However, the centre for reviews and dissemination at the University of York has concluded in its more recent Effective Healthcare bulletin on homeopathy (2002, volume 7, number 3) that current evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy is not conclusive enough to warrant a significant change in National Health Service provision of homeopathy.

  Hospital Mergers
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 11 February 2003,Official Report, column 666W, on hospital mergers, if he will (a) name and (b) publish the study covering trusts in London. [99451]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: The article referred to in my response of 11 February 2003 is "Process and impact of mergers of NHS trusts: multicentre case study and management cost analysis" (Fulop N, Protopsaltis G., Hutchings A., King A., Alien P., Normand C., Walters R.).
  988W
  This study was published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on 3 August 2002—reference BMJ 2002;325:246–9. It is also available on the BMJ's website at www.bmi.com/all/shtml and in the Library.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the number of people who may have been obliged to sell their homes to pay for care, following the report by the Health Service Ombudsman on NHS funding for long term care; [99375]

  (2) how families of deceased relatives will be informed that they may be entitled to appeal against the selling of the family home to pay for NHS care, following the report by the Health Service Ombudsman on NHS funding for long term-care; and if he will make a statement; [99384]

  (3) what plans he has to compensate people obliged to sell their homes to pay for care for (a) emotional distress and (b) loss of value of the home; and if he will make a statement; [99385]

  (4) what steps his Department is taking to ensure cases of the sale of homes to pay for care since 1996 will be investigated, following the report by the Health Service Ombudsman on NHS funding for long term care; and if he will make a statement; [99376]

  (5) what the timescales are for the assessment of the unlawful selling of homes to pay for care for (a) strategic health authorities, (b) primary care trusts and (c) social services departments, following the report by the Health Service Ombudsman on NHS funding for long term care; and if he will make a statement. [99386]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has welcomed the Ombudsman's report on national health service funding for long-term care. As part of the initial response, the Department has asked strategic health authorities to estimate by 28 March the number of people who may have been wrongly assessed under criteria not consistent with the Coughlan judgment.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the report by the Health Service Ombudsman on NHS funding for long term care; and if he will make a statement; [99387]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the compatibility with R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Pamela Coughlan of the guidance (a) HSC 2001/015 and (b) HSC 1999/180, following the report by the Health Service Ombudsman on NHS funding for long-term care; and if he will make a statement; [99382]

  (3) when he will publish new guidance following the report by the Health Service Ombudsman on NHS funding for long-term care. [99374]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, welcomes the Ombudsman's report on national health service funding for long term care. The Department has already asked strategic health authorities to review criteria in use since 1996 and estimate the number of people who may have been wrongly assessed under criteria not consistent with the Coughlan judgment by 28 March.
  989W
  The Department is satisfied that the guidance issued in 1999 and 2001 was compatible with the Coughlan judgment.

  The Department will consider the recommendation to review national guidance on continuing care carefully and respond in due course.

  Mental Health
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether consideration of the responses to the Draft Mental Health Bill consultation has been completed; and when a re-drafted bill will be presented to the House; [100826]

  (2) how many responses to the Draft Mental Health Bill there were from community health councils. [100776]

  Jacqui Smith
  We received almost 2,000 responses to the consultation of which 88 were from Community Health Councils. Work on the Mental Health Bill continues and a Bill will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  MMR Immunisation
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the immunisation rates were for MMR in each of the last five years. [99184]

  Ms Blears
  Information about immunisation rates for MMR for children by their second birthday and by their fifth birthday for the last five years is shown in the table.

  Percentage of children immunised against MMR

  By their 5th birthday1

  By their 2nd birthday

  First dose

  First and second dose

  1997–98

  90.8

  —

  —

  1998–99

  88.3

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  87.6

  93.0

  76.0

  2000–01

  87.4

  91.9

  74.8

  2001–02

  84.1

  90.8

  74.0

  1Information about uptake at age 5 was collected for the first time in 1999–2000

  Source:

  Department of Health, Statistics Division SD3G, COVER data

  MMR Immunisation (Kent)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the immunisation rates were for MMR in each of the last five years for Tunbridge Wells and West Kent. [99180]

  Ms Blears
  Statistics on immunisation rates are collected by health authority area. The table shows the immunisation rates for measles, mumps and rubella for children by their second birthday and by their fifth birthday within the West Kent health authority area for the five years to 2001–02, the last date for which figures are available.
  990W

  Percentage of children immunised against MMR in West Kent health authority

  By their 5th birthday1

  By their 2nd birthday

  First dose

  First second dose

  1997–98

  93

  —

  —

  1998–99

  91

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  90

  95

  80

  2000–01

  91

  94

  78

  2001–02

  93

  93

  75

  1Information about uptake at age 5 was collected for the first time in 1999–2000

  Source:

  Department of Health, Statistics Division SD3G, COVER data

  Motor Neurone Disease
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what targets are being set to reduce diagnosis time for people suffering from motor neurone disease; and if he will make a statement; [100101]

  (2) what assistance is available from the NHS for people suffering from motor neurone disease; and if he will make a statement. [100105]

  Jacqui Smith
  A wide range of services which are tailored to suit individual needs are required to support people with motor neurone disease (MND). National health service services provided include physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and augmentative communication, mobility aids and district nursing support. In the later stages of the disease, the following interventions may also be required: enteral feeding (for severe dysphagia), domiciliary or hospice care and ventilatory support, including mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy.

  The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) has reviewed the evidence of the clinical and cost effectiveness of Riluzole for MND. NICE has advised that Riluzole (marketed as Rilutek) should be made available in the NHS as one component of the management of those people with the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis form of MND.

  There is no specific test for MND and it may be difficult to diagnose with certainty in the early stages of the disease, because the patterns of symptoms varies between individuals and may be similar to those seen in other conditions. However, a great deal of research work is being carried out, and encouraging advances are being made in understanding both the disease process and the way motor neurones function.

  We are developing a national service framework (NSF) for long term conditions, which will have a particular focus on neurological conditions. It is scheduled for publication in 2004 and implementation from 2005. The national service framework will help to drive up standards and improve the quality of and access to care for people with neurological conditions like MND.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to place motor neurone disease in the national service framework; and if he will make a statement. [100102]
  991W
  Jacqui Smith
  The national service framework (NSF) for long-term conditions will focus on neurological conditions, including motor neurone disease and brain and spinal injuries. It will also tackle some of the common issues, which are relevant to a wider range of people with long-term conditions generally and help to drive up the quality of treatment and care.

  We have appointed an external reference group and working groups to take forward detailed development of the NSF. One of the groups is looking at areas where standards might be set along the patient pathway for people with progressive conditions, including motor neurone disease. People with clinical expertise and experience in dealing with motor neurone disease and from the Motor Neurone Disease Association are represented on this group. They will ensure that the needs of people with motor neurone disease are considered during development of the NSF.

  National Service Framework for Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 7 February 2003,Official Report, column 474W, on the National Service Framework, what methods are being used to monitor the progress of implementation of the NSF milestones for older people. [99524]

  Jacqui Smith
  The data collection lines underpinning the monitoring of targets in Improvement, Expansion and Reform and the frequency of data collections are currently in the process of being determined. Progress on the other national service framework milestones will be for strategic health authorities to monitor locally.

  Nurses and Nursing Agencies
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) of 28 January 2003,Official Report, column 822W, on nurses' recruitment, how many agencies have been removed from the list of agencies who are compliant with the code of practice. [86043]

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answers of 4 February 2003,Official Report, column 225W, on nurses, and nursing agencies, what the reasons are for the differing indications of the level of compliance with the code of practice by nursing agencies [97237]

  Mr. Hutton
  No evidence of non-compliance with the code has been brought to the attention of the Department.

  The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency (PASA) is working with the NHS through a procurement programme for the provision of temporary staffing by commercial agencies across the national health service in England. As the framework agreements are awarded, the agencies will be contractually bound to comply with detailed quality standards, including compliance with the code of practice. PASA will ensure that all successful agencies are complying with their contractual obligations. A full range of national audits into compliance will begin in summer 2003.

  Older People (Falls Prevention)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the progress of local health authorities against the National Service Framework for Older People's 2003 milestone on falls prevention. [100110]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department will be monitoring formally the overall falls milestone of integrated health and social care falls services by April 2005 as this is included as one of the key targets in "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", the priorities and planning framework for 2003–06.

  Progress on the other falls milestones will be for strategic health authorities to monitor locally, although these are 'stepping stones' for reaching the overarching milestone of a fully integrated falls service.

  Overseas Nurse Advice Line
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2003,Official Report, column 317W, on the overseas nurse advice line, if he will break down the calls received by the helpline by (a) type of query and (b) length of call; what records are kept on callers into the helpline; and if this information is passed on to any other bodies. [99682]

  Mr. Hutton
  The international nurses' advice line receives queries from nurses from abroad who are currently in the United Kingdom. The calls primarily concern problems the nurses are experiencing either with their current employer or the agency they work for.

  The average length of a call is three minutes and 20 seconds.

  The following information is kept on file: the caller's name, postal address, contact phone number and email address; whether the caller was a member of the Royal College of Nursing or Unison; the caller's query or problem; action to be taken by the Department; the outcome of the call; and where the caller found out about the advice line.

  Information is passed on to the Department at the caller's request.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2003,Official Report, column 317W, on the international nurses advice line, if he will set out its objectives. [99683]

  Mr. Hutton
  The objective of the international nurses' advice line is to provide advice and assistance to internationally recruited nurses.

  Overseas Nurses
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who the members are of the group set up to identify problems faced by overseas nurses; what budget the group has; what findings it has so far presented; what findings have been published; what timetable the group will work to; and if he will make a statement. [99717]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 March 2003]: The Department representatives the Royal College of Nursing, UNISON, Nursing and Midwifery Council, Work Permits (UK), Independent Healthcare

  993W
  Association, Registered Nursing Home Association, Department of Trade and Industry, Philippines Embassy and Philippines Nursing UK to join an informal working group to identify problems faced by overseas nurses and help establish the international nurses advice line.

  The working group does not have a separate budget and a meeting will be held in May to review progress.

  An adaptation guide on clinical provision is being produced in collaboration with the Independent Healthcare Association.

  Patient Choice
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many choices of alternative hospital patients in London waiting more than six months for elective surgery will have. [99103]

  Mr. Hutton
  Patients waiting more than six months for elective surgery in the procedures covered by choice will normally be offered the choice of two alternative hospitals. Those waiting for primary hip or primary knee operations may, in addition, be offered overseas treatment.

  The London patient choice project started to offer choice for cataract patients who have already waited more than six months for treatment, in October 2002. and from March 2003 will be offering a similar choice in ear, nose and throat, general surgery and orthopaedics. The scheme rolls out to other surgical specialties such as gynaecology, urology and plastic surgery from summer 2003.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many choices of alternative hospital patients in Greater Manchester waiting six months for orthopaedic treatment, ENT treatment or general surgery will have. [99108]

  Mr. Hutton
  The aim is to provide up to four alternative treatment locations in Greater Manchester in 2003–04, which are:
  The Greater Manchester Surgical Centre at Trafford General Hospital;Local private sector capacity;Other available national health service capacity in the Greater Manchester conurbation.
  These options are in addition to choosing to remain with their local provider, which is an equally valid choice to make.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the income per capita of the population is for primary care trusts in(a) Wiltshire, (b) Hampshire and (c)Berkshire. [97801]

  Ms Blears
  The funding per weighted head of population of primary care trusts (PCTs) is shown in the table, is calculated using the cash funding made by the Department of Health, and health authorities to those PCTs. PCTs also receive small quantities of miscellaneous income for fees and charges and this has not been included in the table.
  994W
  From April 2003, PCTs will be funded directly by the Department of Health.

  Health authority area

  Funding per head(£)

  Wiltshire

  South Wiltshire

  977.01

  West Wiltshire

  837.39

  Hampshire

  East Hampshire

  754.66

  Mid Hampshire

  859.55

  New Forest

  766.20

  North Hampshire

  860.08

  Portsmouth City

  632.39

  Southampton

  583.85

  Isle of Wight

  704.03

  Berkshire

  Newbury and Community

  694.65

  Reading

  815.50

  Slough

  834.41

  Wokingham

  756.00

  Note

  Populations derived from weighted capitation formula used for 2003–04 to2005–06 PCT revenue allocations, ie GP lists reconciled to mid 2001 Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates and weighted for age, need and cost.

  Source:

  Primary Care Trusts audited summarisation schedules 2001–02.

  Public Health Laboratories
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the additional resources to be provided when NHS trusts receive laboratories from the public health laboratory service will match the additional costs, including those services provided previously through the PHLS network and central facilities. [95868]

  Ms Blears
  Resources are being transferred from the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) to national health service trusts commensurate with the additional costs for providing the services they will be responsible for with effect from 1 April. This includes the direct costs of the laboratories and an appropriate apportionment of PHLS' centrally financed overhead.

  Queen Alexandra Hospital
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the approved affordability is of the private finance initiative at Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham; [98628]

  (2) what the expected annual cost is of the private finance initiative at Queen Alexandra Hospital, Cosham. [98629]

  Ms Blears
  I am advised that the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Strategic Health Authority and stakeholder primary care trusts reviewed the affordability in 2002.

  The estimated capital cost of the scheme was confirmed as £173 million. The revenue consequences of the development of the Queen Alexandra Hospital site amounted to £44 million per annum.

  Approval to the original proposed scheme was re-confirmed.

  Radiation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recent research published by the European Commission on Radiation Risk and the implications for human health. [100400]

  Ms Blears
  The European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) maintains that the scientific evidence for the harmful effects of ionising radiation accumulated by the international scientific community over several decades is flawed and risks are being under-estimated significantly. This hypothesis, originally proposed by Dr. Chris Busby, founder of the special interest group "Green Audit", is currently being considered in detail by the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters (CERRIE). This Committee was set up by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) and their conclusions will be published in due course. Dr. Busby is a member of CERRIE.

  ECRR is not a formal scientific advisory committee to the European Commission or to the European Parliament. Its report1 is published by the Green Audit. Dr. Busby is the secretary of ECRR.

  1Green Audit. 2003 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk. Editor Chris Busby with Rosalie Bertell, Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake, Molly Scott Cato and Alexei Yablokov http://www.euradcom.org/2003/ecrr2003.htm#press

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the health implications arising from the operation of the nuclear industry. [100402]

  Ms Blears
  The independent Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) was set up in 1985 to advise Government on such matters. COMARE has carried out a series of investigations into alleged increases of cancer around several nuclear installations in Great Britain and has published seven reports and a variety of statements.

  It is currently awaiting the results of a national study of childhood cancer in Great Britain, including all cases from the 1960s onwards. This study will include data on over 33,000 cases of childhood cancer and will address the question of whether there is a real association between British nuclear installations and the incidence of those cancer cases. This will be the subject of a major COMARE report, which it hopes to complete this year. The Department of Health and the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs has also asked COMARE to review the latest data on the risks from internal radiation emitters and advise on any further research that may be required. To help them to do this they have set up the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters (CERRIE). This group is also hoping to report in 2003. Furthermore, Government have asked the small area statistics unit to draw up a protocol for a study of the incidence of adult cancers in the areas around British nuclear installations.

  Since 1986, the Department of Health and its predecessor, the Department of Health and Social Security, has administered the Radiological Protection Research Programme. The objective of this programme is to identify the research which is needed to inform policy development in the area of low level radiation
  996W
  exposure (both ionising and non-ionising), its effects, and the need to quantify the risk to public health and to implement appropriate preventative measures. The programme has funded many individual research projects designed to examine these aspects of radiation exposure.

  Smoking
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department plans to give to its employees on actions to take on No Smoking Day. [98840]

  Ms Blears
  The Department sees No Smoking Day as an important opportunity to actively encourage those employees who smoke to quit. In the run-up to 12 March, the staff magazine Link is carrying an article on smoking which includes information about support available to smokers. The article publicises the national health service smoking helpline (0800 169 0169) and the core care welfare service (0800 652 3304) which are both available to employees who want to give up smoking. In addition, No Smoking Day posters and displays will be placed in the Department.

  The Department already gives employees who wish to attend cessation groups reasonable time off to do so and reimburses the prescription cost of one week's supply of nicotine replacement therapy. In addition, the Department is piloting an on-site smoking cessation group for London-based staff. This has been scheduled to follow No Smoking Day, in the hope that it will attract employees who have set a quit date. The group will run from every Thursday from 20 March from 4.00–5.00 pm for seven weeks in the same format as NHS groups. Subject to the success of this pilot, this may be extended to other areas of the Department.

  Social Care Grants
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the grants funded by his Department for social care for which individuals may apply; how much funding was made in the last financial year; how many awards were made; and what their administrative costs were. [99949]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are no grants funded by the Department for social care for which individuals may apply.

  Tuberculosis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when(a) he, (b) the head of the tuberculosis unit of the Public Health Laboratory Service and (c) senior officials from his Department last met NHS trust executives of areas with recorded rates of tuberculosis higher than the national average. [100507]

  Ms Blears
  Departmental officials met with national key stakeholders, including the Public Health Laboratory Service, on 30 September in London and 25 October in Leeds to review the strategic national plan to deal with tuberculosis in all areas.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are made to inoculate NHS staff against TB. [98627]
  997W
  Ms Blears
  Guidance entitled "Recommendations for the Prevention and Control of Tuberculosis at Local Level June 1996" documents the occupational health policy for national health service staff and tuberculosis:
  `pre-employment—All staff in regular contact with patients or handling specimens, including laboratory workers, agency staff and locums, should be screened and offered protection with BCG vaccine according to BTS guidelines'.

  Waiting Times (Hull and East Riding)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the number of patients and (b) the length of waiting time for smear test results in Hull and the East Riding in the past 12 months. [92847]
  998W
  Jacqui Smith
  Within the East Riding Health Authority in 2001–02, 84.9 per cent. of women in the target age group(25–64) have has an adequate cervical smear test in the last five years, against 81.6 per cent. for the whole of England.

  Guidance from the cervical screening programme states that women should have to wait no longer than six weeks for the written results of their cervical smear tests. Figures for the length of waiting times are available on a regional basis. Across the Northern and Yorkshire region in 2001–02. 48 per cent. of women received their results within six weeks, of which 78 per cent. received their results within 10 weeks.

  Source:

  Department of Health

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  In January 2002, the Government issued a consultation document on possible changes to the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order. Responses were to be received by 24 April 2002. We received over 2000 responses, which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has since been considering.

  During the course of the Parliamentary debates that have taken place on the Licensing Bill, attention has been drawn to an issue on which we received many representations as part of the Use Classes review. There is widespread concern that the inclusion of pubs and bars with other uses such as restaurants and cafes in the A3 class is contributing to the increase in the number of licensed premises in some areas and that such changes in use do not require planning permission. I have considered these representations carefully and I am announcing today that it is our intention to change the Use Classes Order so as to put pubs and bars into a separate class. The effect of this change will be to require any proposal to change use of an existing building into a pub or bar to apply for planning permission.

  I expect to make a full statement on the outcome of our consultation on proposals for changes to the Use Classes Order shortly.

  Tall Buildings
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  This statement is to bring to the attention of the House the 80WS
  guidance note on tall buildings prepared jointly by English Heritage and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), published today.

  The Government expect new development to be well-designed, safe and sustainable, whether it comprises a tall building or low-rise. It considers that all buildings should be designed with regard to their likely impact on their immediate surroundings and the wider environment. The policy is set out in PPG1 General Policy and Principles, and is supported by good practice guidance, By Design. In its response to last year's Select Committee inquiry on tall buildings, the Government encouraged English Heritage and CABE to finalise their draft guidance note Guidance on tall buildings, taking full account of the Committee's recommendations. The Government consider that such a note, in support of Government policy and existing good practice advice, will contribute to sound planning decisions on tall buildings.

  The Government therefore welcome the publication of the joint guidance note. The Government consider that the good practice advice provided will be of value to local planning authorities in drawing up their planning policies for tall buildings, and capable of being material to the determination of planning applications.

  I will place a copy of the document in the Library of the House of Commons shortly.

DEFENCE

  Reservists
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  A new call-out order has been made under section 56 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 so that reservists may continue to be called out to support operations in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This order will take effect from 1 March 2003, the date the previous order expired. There are no plans to call reservists up compulsorily under this order, as it is expected that the small numbers needed will be met through volunteers for service in those countries.

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

The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
John, Lord Bishop of Sheffield—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Oxford and the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
2.40 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking a ministerial visit to Kingston upon Hull on Friday 14th March when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Gibraltar
Lord Hoyle Lord Hoyle asked Her Majesty's Government:
What role Gibraltar is playing in the build-up of military forces in the Gulf.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, Gibraltar's role as a key staging post, strategically located at the gateway to the Mediterranean, makes it a logical transit point for naval and other forces en route to the Mediterranean or the Middle East.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, as in the past, the people of Gibraltar are once again showing loyalty to this country? Does he not further agree that loyalty is a two-way traffic?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. The Government fully and completely appreciate the support, including to our military forces, of the people of Gibraltar for many years. Our primary aim is to secure a more stable and prosperous future for the people of Gibraltar. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place on 18th November last:
"no deal will be imposed on the people of Gibraltar against their will".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/02; col. W17.]
Lord Vivian: My Lords, the Minister agrees that Gibraltar is of vital strategic importance to this country as a forward-operating base. Does he further agree that any military operation in the Mediterranean
698
or Gulf area would be greatly hindered if the United Kingdom did not have sole control over this forward-operating base in the future?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's comments. We have made our views clear. We intend to retain current arrangements for UK military facilities on Gibraltar.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that in the circumstances lie set out negotiations with Spain for sharing sovereignty of the Rock have been suspended?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not agree that they have been suspended. Under the Brussels process, the UK and Spain reached a broad measure of agreement on the principles that should underpin a lasting settlement, although a number of issues remain unresolved. It was equally clear that, for Her Majesty's Government, no deal was better than a bad deal. I repeat that any agreement reached would have to be acceptable to the people of Gibraltar.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, if there is no other way of getting RAF planes to the Gulf, will the Government transport them by ship, using Gibraltar as a staging post on that journey?
Lord Bach: My Lords, there are other ways of getting aircraft to the Gulf; namely, by flying them.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, as it is clear that the people of Gibraltar are not in favour of sharing sovereignty with Spain, why do the Government persist in negotiations towards that end?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we do not ignore the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. We recognise that the referendum result highlighted how the people of Gibraltar feel. What we still believe—I think that the government of whom the noble Lord was a distinguished member also believed this at one time—is that we need to look at how to move forward and tackle the real problems that still exist for the people of Gibraltar. The referendum did not answer the basic question of how to secure a more stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar. That is what we need to do. Nor did it address the underlying reality of the dispute with Spain, which can be resolved only through dialogue.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, in the circumstances with which the Question deals—the military build-up in the Gulf—does my noble friend acknowledge that the British Government, the British people, the Spanish Government, the Spanish people and the people of Gibraltar are all fighting on the same side?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. That is absolutely right. Although Gibraltarians, as always, are staunch and solid allies of

699
the United Kingdom, it should be noted—and has been noted by my noble friend—that Spain, too, is on our side in this important matter.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that not all of us seem to think that we are all on the same side? If the Government will not suspend these negotiations, will they consider that in current circumstances, which may well involve important military action, they should be put on ice?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we shall certainly consider what the noble Lord says but we still feel that we need to find a way through this matter. That means dialogue with Spain and Gibraltar. I am sorry if the noble Lord and I are not on the same side. I try to be on the same side as he.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Spanish Government have their own reasons for not wishing to enter into a shared sovereignty agreement with the United Kingdom Government?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot comment on the motives or reasons that the Spanish Government may have. All I can say is that on the issue that is of the greatest importance to this country at the present time, Spain is a loyal ally.

Doctors: European Working Time Directive
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the shortage in the United Kingdom of junior doctors, consultants and other trained medical staff, whether they will delay the implementation of the European working time directive for United Kingdom doctors in training.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the United Kingdom successfully negotiated transitional arrangements which permit phasing in the introduction of the 48-hour average weekly working time limit by a staged reduction of hours, from 58 in 2004 to 48 in 2009. If difficulties still remain, the UK may defer full implementation of the 48-hour working week for up to a further three years, at 52 hours, until 2012.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which is better than I had hoped. I thought that we might not be able to do anything. Nevertheless, the Government's NHS Plan, which was intended to bring us many more doctors, either home produced or from overseas, is falling way behind. Both the Royal College of Physicians and the
700
BMA are concerned that with the introduction of even parts of the scheme in 2004, we shall end up with not enough doctors to deal with patients in hospital. They think that that is an acute problem. What are the Government doing to produce more doctors?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I recognise the pressures on the National Health Service to implement the working time directive. We are working hard with the NHS, the royal colleges and the BMA to ensure that the NHS gets as much help and support as is necessary. We also have pilot schemes which are looking at new forms of rosters and shift systems in order to tackle some of the issues that are involved. As regards medical workforce planning and numbers, we have seen increases in the number of consultants and other doctors employed in the NHS over the past five years. Of particular significance is the expansion in medical school intakes. In 1997–98, the figure stood at 3,749, but by 2002–03, the provisional figure shows an intake of 5,292. That is a significant increase.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the working time directive will have a major impact on hospital trusts, yet the Government appear to be giving no guidance on compensatory rest for junior doctors. Why are they leaving it up to individual hospital trusts and not issuing national guidance?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Because, my Lords, the noble Lord has been telling me for the past three years that the Government try to micromanage the health service. It is much better that we give advice and encourage working relationships between NHS trusts and employees, but at the end of the day, it is up to them to come up with their own solutions.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, the Minister is no doubt aware that because of concerns on the part of the medical profession, I tabled a Question on this very topic one day after the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, tabled hers, and therefore withdrew it. Is it not the case that the problem arises as a result of the horizontal amending directive, passed by the European Union, which would modify the implementation of the European working time directive as from 2004? This would be a serious problem in reducing certain working hours which at the moment the Royal College of Physicians feels could not be carried out because of shortage of doctors, as the noble Baroness has indicated, and would therefore have a serious and detrimental effect upon clinical care.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not quite agree with the noble Lord. I certainly understand the concerns in the health service and among the medical profession about the impact of the working time directive. But the horizontal amendment resulted from pressure from this and other governments to give many more years to implement the directive. So although I recognise the pressures, the horizontal amending directive has been helpful to the UK.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, contrary to what has been stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, although it may be true that the proposal for postponement has the support of the Royal College of Physicians, it does not have the support of the British Medical Association. I talked to the association this morning and have its briefing note in my hand. The BMA deals with terms and conditions. It points out that one-third of England's junior doctors work more than 56 hours a week at present and that more than half of them are outside the current new deal hours limits.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand the BMA's position. At the end of the day, there are two points to be made. First, requiring junior doctors to work too many hours is hardly good for patients, so the general direction in which the directive takes us is welcome. Secondly, on current hours of work, we already have the new deal agreement. My understanding is that 95 per cent of pre-registration house officers are in new deal compliant posts. Of course, further progress needs to be made with other junior doctor grades, but we should recognise that a great deal of progress has been made by the NHS in the past couple of years.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the dramatic shortening of doctors' hours in France is causing great problems?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am always deeply concerned about the difficulties of the French Government in healthcare matters. They will have to consider the issues, as we do. But when it came to seeking a horizontal amendment, the UK received support from a number of European countries which were similarly concerned about the implications.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, at the risk of being called naïve by two Ministers in two days, why did the Department of Health not recognise five years ago that the working time directive would he coming into force and take steps to ensure that enough medical staff would start to be trained then so that they would be available now? That was the answer I received yesterday when I asked about engine drivers.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is not naïve. On preparing for the implementation of the directive, it is worth recalling that the Council directive was issued in November 1993. There are Members in other parts of the House who might have to answer the charge of lack of preparation. When we came into office, we set about increasing the number of medical training places with great vigour. The fact that in 2002–03 we have an intake of 5,292, compared with 3,749 in 1997–98, tells a very convincing story.
Earl Howe: My Lords, do the Government accept the general proposition that if junior doctors are to work fewer hours, we shall need commensurately more
702
of them in the health service? If they do, has the Minister estimated how many more junior doctors are required for the health service to meet the requirements of the European working time directive?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, taking the time factor and assuming that we had to fill the time reduction currently being worked by juniors with new junior doctor appointments, a rough estimate is that between 7,000 and 10,000 new junior doctors would be required. While increasing the medical work force is one of the ways in which we will respond to the issue, there is no doubt that the work being undertaken with the BMA and the royal colleges in reorganising out-of-hours work and shift systems, and improving and enhancing the way in which junior doctors are involved in the health service, will be key in answering this problem.

Halon Fire Extinguishers
2.57 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to assist owners of halon fire extinguishers to dispose of them, once it is illegal to possess them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, under the European ozone-depleting substances regulation, halon fire protection systems and fire extinguishers must be decommissioned, unless they are critical, by 31 December this year, and the halons recovered. It would be illegal to use such extinguishers after 31 December but, strictly speaking, it is not illegal to possess them. In 2001, the DTI and DEFRA issued detailed guidance on the phase-out of halon. An industry group recently sent us a proposal to assist with the decommissioning of redundant extinguishers and the recovery of halon, and we are considering it.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, will the Government get on with it? It is a very short period of time before these fire extinguishers have to be decommissioned. They are expensive to dispose of legally, very inexpensive to dispose of illegally, and, if discharged illegally, they do enormous harm to the ozone layer.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I certainly accept the noble Lord's last point. Halon is something like 10 times as damaging as CFCs, although we are dealing with smaller amounts. However, we published our guidance in 2001, well ahead of the due date. A large number of such appliances have been decommissioned. We have the technology and the facilities for dealing with the excess halon.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, how many halon extinguishers does the department think are in circulation at the moment? One option is to incinerate them. How many such plants are available and, roughly geographically, where are they situated throughout the UK?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the estimate in 2001 was that about 2.5 million of the small hand-held extinguishers were around. That excludes the halon in buildings-based systems which is being decommissioned. The extinguishers can be dealt with now by incineration; shortly, a plasma arc process will be available. There are incineration plants which specialise in halon at Ellesmere Port and at Fawley, Hampshire. The plasma arc facility will be in the Teesside area.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, will the Minister initiate an exchange scheme of new, safe fire extinguishers for old ones to ensure that halon fire extinguishers are withdrawn from service on time? This should be done immediately.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards buildings almost everybody deals with an assessment of their fire system every year for insurance purposes. This has been going on since the directive has operated, and under guidance from the department since 2001. Therefore I do not think that any new exchange system is necessary to fulfil those obligations.

Congestion Charging
3 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the working of the London congestion charge, they will facilitate the introduction of congestion charging in other cities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have facilitated the introduction of congestion charging. The Transport Act 2000 provides permissive powers for local authorities to introduce road user charging, or workplace parking levy schemes, to assist in the management of congestion. I am sure that all local authorities are looking with interest at the experience of the introduction of congestion charging in both London and Durham.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. In Answers to previous Questions, Ministers were always extremely anxious to dissociate themselves in every possible way from the congestion charge. Would he pass on my congratulations to the Mayor of London and ask when he is going rejoin the Labour Party?
On a more serious note, must not the corollary to congestion charges be better public transport? Is the Minister aware—and I do not blame him if he is not—that my train from Sussex to Victoria this morning
704
was, as always, a quarter of an hour late? Every carriage was crowded, dirty and old. When are we going to hear from the Government about that? When are we going to see those improvements in trains and the Tube that we have been promised for so long?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Renton, looks back at the record—and I have never been accused of being a Livingstone groupie—he will see that I have always supported the principle of congestion charging. I have always expressed the view shared by the Secretary of State, that successful congestion charging, in addition to being technically successful, must have the support of the people in the city. It must also lead to improvements in public transport.
In addition to the £16 billion which is being spent on the Tube in London over the next 15 years, the Mayor of London has already introduced 300 new bus services, and provided an additional 11,000 seats in the peak hours on buses. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, had such an unhappy train journey.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be extremely dangerous and premature, after only two full weeks, to make a judgment on the effect of congestion charging—and on the financial effect, not least on business and commerce?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree. Some of the difficulties which were foreseen have not proved to be the case. There are many issues which have yet to be considered, not least the amount of traffic. It will take several months for a firmer conclusion to be possible.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords—
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we have plenty of time. We must not have an unfortunate fracas. Let us start with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the congestion charge has been an utter disaster for Mr Steve Norris and the Conservative Party? It was very silly of them to condemn it in advance—even before its first day. Does he also agree that we might just possibly have alighted on a popular and effective measure for curbing the problem of excessive car usage in our towns and cities? This may he applied elsewhere, outside London, and is also being followed with great interest by other cities around the world, particularly in Europe.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was sorry that Mr Norris—for whom I have much affection—made the huge mistake of appearing, on the day of his adoption as the Conservative candidate, with the Leader of the Conservative Party at 7 o'clock in the morning at Smithfield market. He must have known

705
that the Smithfield market traders were going to withdraw their objection within 48 hours of this unfortunate public relations exercise. That is their problem, not the problem of the Government.
As I have said, we have been encouraging local authorities, with the availability of permissive powers, to introduce road user charging or workplace parking. There is no doubt that they will be influenced by the experience in both London and Durham.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the Minister agree that so far one of the reasons for the success of congestion charging in London is that bus priority measures were in force and cameras were used to enforce them? Can he give the House some assurance that these powers will be extended to places outside London? The department has been promising this for nearly a year, but it is always just around the corner.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Macdonald gave the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, the appropriate Answer in reply to a Question for Written Answer on 16th January. He said—I am not quoting, because I do not have the text—that this is probably just around the corner. We are giving it high priority. That is the Question to which I believe he was referring about having cameras in bus lanes outside London. We hope to be able to introduce regulations next month.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are pluses and minuses with this scheme? I have driven into Westminster every day since the charge was introduced, and I have yet to pay a penny. That is because every day I bring in a blue badge holder who is disabled, so the car is exempt. Our journey time has reduced by 25 per cent and it has not cost us a penny. I think it is a super scheme.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure the Mayor will be delighted to hear that. However, I am not quite sure to whom my noble friend Lord Carter is referring as being disadvantaged by this. It seems that both he and his daughter do very well out of it.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, today I received my second penalty charge—that is in spite of having paid and having a receipt from the congestion people. I suspect that I am not alone. Can there be some form of ombudsman, because people will worry about receiving penalty notices after they have already paid? There is the worry that, because drivers are being asked to pay twice, the administration will take a considerable time to sort out. Do the Government intend to do something about this?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not bring my handcuffs with me, otherwise the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, might find himself apprehended as a persistent offender. I have no doubt that he will adequately defend himself by showing his receipt for
706
paying the registration fee. I say that at some distance, because these matters are the concern of the Mayor, and not of the Government.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the revenues of the congestion charge are those of Transport for London? They will go no way at all towards alleviating the commuter services to which my noble friend Lord Renton referred. What hope can he extend to those citizens of London and the Home Counties, who suffer the overcrowded, crumbling and unsatisfactory services, which are held out as public transport?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, is entirely right that the revenues from the congestion charge will go to the services run by Transport for London—and shortly to be run by London Transport. I do not really think he wants to go back over the unfortunate history of privatisation of the railways by his government, which led to the break up of the railway system in this country. The numerous contractual relationships with train operators were separated from track ownership. Much of that can be held responsible for the present condition or the railways.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when considering extending congestion charging to other parts of the country, will the Minister consider the plight of low income families who have no practical alternative but to face congestion charges? They also face an extra 1 per cent on their national insurance, and incredibly high increases in their council tax charges.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the other parts of the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, are not related to the Question on the Order Paper. Clearly, however, the equity of a congestion charge is something that every local authority will have to take into account in making a recommendation. Local authorities are responsible to their electors, and that is a matter for them.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, agree that Mr Ken Livingstone deserves particular congratulations on having overcome his normal political disposition, to use market forces through the price mechanism to allocate scarce resources with such great success? He may well reap reward and harvest from unexpected sources in the forthcoming election regardless of whether he rejoins the Labour Party. However, will the Minister ask the Mayor whether he will consider extending the scheme to Chelsea, which could benefit from it as well?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I will communicate the views of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, together with those of all other noble Lords to the Mayor in the usual way. Whether the principles behind the noble Lord's question go back to Milton Friedman in 1951, as has been suggested, or

707
further back—I have heard it said that it was T H Marshall who first suggested something like this—I really do not know.

Congestion Charging

  Identity Fraud
  3.11 p.m.
  Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What steps they are taking to protect United Kingdom citizens from identity theft or fraud.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the consultation exercise on entitlement cards and identity fraud which ended on 31st January asked for views on changing the law to make it an offence to use the identity of another person or a fictitious identity without reasonable cause. We are currently studying the responses received. We are also establishing a cross public-private sector work programme to tackle ID fraud. That will improve the checks on passport and driving licence applications and provide improved guidance on how those and other documents are used to verify identity. We are also looking at the feasibility of new IT systems such as a database of lost and stolen identity documents.
  Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very detailed Answer. In the light of Mr Bond's horrific experience and the incredible figure of 53,000 cases of identity theft reported in 2001, costing £1.2 billion, have the Government any plans to introduce compulsory ID cards? If not, why not?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we published a consultation document last July on entitlement cards. We did not propose to make it compulsory to carry cards, but we are consulting on the issue of whether everyone should have one. We need to consider the extent to which such action can combat identity fraud and be useful in other ways as well. It is an issue that we need to address. The consultation ended on 31st January, and we shall produce the results in the next few months.
  Lord Dholakia: My Lords, what happened to Derek Bond in a South African prison is deplorable. Many of these frauds are undertaken for the purpose of obtaining identification documents, in particular passports. The Minister is aware, I hope, that each passport application requires a counter-signatory. In this case, the American courts will deal with the perpetrator. However, what action do the Government propose to take in relation to those who countersigned that passport, which effectively denied Mr Bond his freedom?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, greater checks need to be made to ensure that passport applications are genuine, and that is already happening. The same applies to driving licence
  708
  applications. Those countersigning an application need to make an attestation. If it is false, that constitutes a criminal offence. However, we need to go further and consider—as we are doing—whether using someone's identity should be made a criminal offence. That was one of the matters on which we consulted in the document that I mentioned in answering the noble Baroness's Question.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Codes B to E) Order 2003
3.14 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonrose to move, That the proceedings of Monday 24th February be vacated.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I should like briefly to explain why this Motion is necessary. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Codes B to E) Order 2003 was laid before the House on 30th January and approved on 24th February. With approval in another place, the order would have brought into effect from 1st April 2003 revised codes of practice in connection with the exercise of certain police powers. Four draft codes of practice were laid before the House on 28th January. However, we now know that, due to an administrative error, one of the codes was incomplete. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, drew that point to the attention of the House, for which I thank him. The Motion passed last Monday also referred in error to the order as a draft rather than a made order.
Fresh versions of the draft codes were laid before the House on 26th February. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Codes B to E) (No. 2) Order 2003 was laid before the House on 27th February. I think that the right thing to do is to ask the House to approve the order again. However, before I can ask the House to approve that order, it is first necessary to revoke the order laid on 30th January. I apologise for the error. I beg to move.
Moved, That the proceedings of Monday 24th February be vacated.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, although I am in my 58th year in Parliament, may I confess my ignorance in being unable to understand how proceedings are vacated in accordance with the Motion? Can the Minister explain what "vacated" really means in this context?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it means annulled. I am doing this because I cannot ask the House to approve an order that it has already approved. I am withdrawing the order that the House, because of the missing pages, approved before it had a proper opportunity to consider it. Once the House has agreed to the annulment of that order, I can again move that the order be considered.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
3.17 p.m
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 193:
After Clause III, insert the following new clause—
"MEANING OF "SERIOUS OFFENCE"
(1) in this Part "serious offence" means a relevant offence to which subsection (2) applies and in respect of which a custodial sentence of at least 30 months was imposed.
(2) The relevant offences to which this subsection applies are—

(a) any sexual offence, within the meaning of section 161(2) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) (interpretation),

(b) any violent offence, within the meaning of section 161(3) of that Act,

(c) any relevant offence under the Theft Act 1968 (c. 60) or the Theft Act 1978 (c. 31), and

(d) any relevant offence under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (c. 45).

(3) In subsection (2) "custodial sentence" has the same meaning as in section 76 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) (meaning of "custodial sentence")."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 193, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 195, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215 and 216.
These amendments all relate to a very important aspect of the Bill—applications for a personal licence from individuals with convictions for serious offences. Clause 118 makes various provisions as regards an application for a personal licence. A licensing authority must grant the application if the applicant is 18 or over; he possesses the relevant qualification; no personal licence previously held by him has been forfeited in the previous five years; and he has not been convicted of any relevant offence or foreign offence. If those conditions are satisfied, the licensing authority must grant the application; there is no discretion in the matter. That is the case even if the chief officer of police is satisfied that the granting of the licence would undermine the crime prevention objective. As we said quite strenuously in Committee, that cannot be right.
If the chief officer is satisfied that the granting of the licence would undermine the crime prevention objective, we on this side of the House feel that it is absolutely essential that the licensing authority should consider the chief officer's view. The licensing authority can always reject his views, but, at the very least, it should consider them. The chief officer must therefore he given notice of any application for a personal licence so that he can then form a view as to whether the granting of a licence would undermine the crime prevention objective.
We also believe that if an applicant for, or the holder of, a personal licence is convicted of a serious offence, the application for a personal licence should be dismissed or the personal licence forfeited. The Bill as presently drafted merely provides that where the applicant or the holder of a personal licence is convicted of a relevant offence, which would include a serious offence, the licensing authority must notify the chief officer of police, who then has to form a view as to whether the granting or continuation of the licence would undermine the crime prevention objective. If he forms that view he must give the authority an objection notice, which would then be considered by the licensing authority.
For serious offences, the application for a personal licence should be dismissed or the personal licence forfeited. As to what we mean by a serious offence, we have had regard to Clause 112(2) and (3). Those subsections make a distinction as regards certain specific offences. Those are any sexual offence, any violent offence, and any relevant offence under the Theft Act 1968 or the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. The distinction that those two subsections make is between convictions where the offender is sentenced to either more or less than 30 months in prison.
As the Bill is drafted, if the applicant for a personal licence is convicted of such an offence but not sentenced to more than 30 months, that conviction is disregarded and, if all the other conditions are satisfied, the licensing authority must grant the application. As we said in Committee, we find that extraordinary. If an applicant is convicted of one of the specific offences, at the very least the chief officer of police should be entitled to object. If a sentence of more than 30 months is imposed, we believe that: the application should be dismissed. We see no justification whatever for the view that someone convicted of such a serious offence and sentenced to more than 30 months' imprisonment should be a suitable person to hold a personal licence.
Noble Lords will notice from the third Marshalled List that clear progress has been made since we debated the matter in Committee. We are very pleased that the Government are to support Amendment No. 195, which concedes that the police should have the discretion to form a view in the event that the applicant for a personal licence has been convicted of a "relevant offence" that is not spent. We are grateful that the Government have recognised that important measure. On the assumption that Amendment No. 195, to which the Minister has added her name, is agreed to, our Amendment No. 193 is unnecessary.
I shall deal briefly with Amendment No. 202. It covers a slightly different but very important point. It provides a change in the burden of proof where the applicant for or holder of a personal licence has been found guilty of a relevant offence. The burden of proof should be on him to satisfy the authority that the crime prevention objective would not be undermined by the application being granted or the licence not being revoked.
As drafted, the police simply have to be satisfied that granting the licence will not undermine the crime prevention objective. That is not enough. The burden should be on the applicant to convince the police that he or she should be granted a licence. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the amendments. Although I added my name to a number of them, I plan to speak only to Amendments Nos. 193 and 195.
The purpose of Amendment No. 193 is to widen the net for those convicted of serious offences, so that a number of different offences not set out in the Bill would be included. On looking at them again, I would have many difficulties with my noble friend Lord Avebury if I were to press it, because it might well impinge on the rights to run premises of offenders who had served their time in prison and been rehabilitated.
As said by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, the Minister has added her name to Amendment No. 195. We believe that it is a compromise that will enhance the Bill rather than detract from it. On that basis, I very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will not press the other amendments but will support Amendment No. 195.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government have reflected carefully on the House's debates in Committee about relevant offences. As a result of our considerations we wholly support Amendment No. 195, which would substantially change the Bill's definition of a conviction for a relevant offence. Amendments Nos. 214 and 215, which stand in my name, are both consequential to the changes envisaged by Amendment No. 195. Having made those concessions, however, I must resist the other amendments in the group.
If taken in isolation from the other amendments in the group, Amendment No. 195 would mean that if an applicant for grant or renewal of a personal licence had an unspent conviction for any offence listed in Schedule 4 to the Bill, the licensing authority would be required, on considering an application for grant or renewal of a personal licence, to notify the police.
The police, having regard to that conviction, would then be free to notify the licensing authority if they considered that to grant or renew the licence would undermine the crime prevention objective. On receiving such a notification, the licensing authority would be required to hold a hearing at which all the parties would be able to put their arguments. After hearing the arguments, if the licensing authority were satisfied that it was necessary for the promotion of the crime prevention objective to refuse the application, it would do so.
That would be a significant strengthening of the arrangements in the Bill debated in Committee. We have listened carefully not only to the points made in the House, but to points made to us directly by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and we believe that Amendment No. 195 meets those concerns.
712
The other amendments take matters much further, and we believe that they go too far. They would create a new concept of "serious offence" which adopts the formulation that the Bill currently uses to create a threshold in respect of convictions of relevant offences identified in Clause 112(3). The object of the threshold had been to identify the place where a conviction could be disregarded for some, but not all, purposes in the Bill. A conviction for a serious offence would mean automatic refusal of an application for grant or renewal of a personal licence. Effectively, the individual would be banned for life from ever holding the authority to sell alcohol by retail. In addition, the proposal is that on convicting a personal licence holder for a "serious offence" as defined in the amendments, the courts would be obliged to declare the licence forfeit.
What kind of message would that send about rehabilitation? I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said about that. Under the amendments, a life ban would arise out of any conviction for an offence currently listed in the Bill at Clause 112 if a custodial sentence of at least 30 months had resulted. We question whether that could sensibly be regarded as proportionate, and it might well give rise to questions of human rights. A man convicted of theft or assault at the age of 21 would still be subject to the automatic ban at 40 without any consideration of how his circumstances might have changed. We do not think that reasonable. To accept the amendments would write such individuals off regardless of the efforts that they might have made, and of whether probation and prison services that work with such individuals during and sometimes after the completion of their prison sentences would welcome that. I very much doubt that they would.
We also have difficulty with the idea that the sentencing court should have no discretion when deciding whether or not the licence should be forfeit. No doubt the court would take such action in very many cases. However, this is still a matter that should be judged on the individual merits of each case in all the circumstances that have given rise to the offence. I do not believe that we should be attempting to settle arguments about mandatory and discretionary sentencing in a Bill that is focused on licensing.
I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that we have gone a long way down the road of ensuring that the public are properly protected by accepting Amendments Nos. 195 and 214 and moving Amendment No. 215 in order to strengthen the qualifying tests and increase the involvement of the police. We believe that the other amendments in this group go too far.
I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment and to accept that Amendments Nos. 195 and 214 are all that is necessary to meet the concerns of noble Lords. I also ask the House to accept Amendment No. 215 which, as I said earlier, is consequential to the changes that we are proposing.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very full reply. I accept what she said about a life ban. It may seem stiff hut it has been worth our while to push the matter to strengthen our case. I accept what she said about the question of proportionality. Any sentence that carries a conviction of more than 30 months involves a fairly serious offence. We are relying to a large extent on rehabilitation that works.
We are grateful to the Government for listening to our concerns, which have been echoed by the Association of Chief Police Officers. It understands the issues better than all of us. We are pleased to withdraw our Amendment No. 193 and hope that noble Lords will agree to Amendment No. 195 and Amendment No. 214, which strengthens the test, and consequential Amendment No. 215. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Personal licence: relevant offences]:
Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 116, line 38, at end insert—
"An offence under any of the following provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)—

(a) section 107(1)(d)(iii) (public exhibition in the course of a business of article infringing copyright);

(b) section 198(2) (broadcast etc. of recording of performance made without sufficient consent);

(c) section 297( 1 ) (fraudulent reception of transmission);

(d) section 297A(1) (supply etc. of unauthorised decoder)."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 112 [Meaning of "conviction"]:
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 62, line 32, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 115 [Application for grant or renewal of personal licence]:
Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 63, line 37, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) An application for the grant of a personal licence must be made to the Central Licensing Authority."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 116 [Individual permitted to hold only one personal licence]:
Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 64, line 14, leave out from second "the" to end of line 15 and insert "Central Licensing Authority"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 118 [Determination of application for grant]:
[Amendments Nos. 198 to 202 not moved.]
Clause 119 [Determination of application for renewal]:
[Amendments Nos. 203 to 206 not moved.]
Clause 121 [Duty to notify licensing authority of convictions during application period]:
Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 66, line 40, leave out from second "the" to end of line 41 and insert "Central Licensing Authority"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 122 [Convictions coming to light after grant or renewal]:
[Amendments Nos. 208 to 211 not moved.]
Clause 127 [Forfeiture or suspension of licence on conviction for relevant offence]:
[Amendments Nos. 212 and 213 not moved.]
Clause 129 [Court's duty to notify licensing authority of convictions]:
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 71, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 130 [Licence holder's duty to notify, licensing authority of convictions]:
Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 215:
Page 72, line 7, leave out from "apply," to "or" in line 9.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 216 not moved.]
Clause 134 [Unauthorised licensable activities]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 74, line 6, at end insert "covered"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to explore the area covered by these newly made offences, which may be for doing something that is not in itself very harmful. The amendment suggests that there should be an offence only if the activity is conducted in covered premises, not if they are being conducted in the open air. As I say, this is an exploratory amendment and I shall be glad to hear the Government's explanation of the situation. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I appreciate the manner in which the noble Lord proposed the amendment, which he defined as exploratory. I am afraid that it leads to a dead end so far as the Government are concerned. The amendment would not stop activities that are carried on outdoors from being licensable but would preclude effective enforcement if an authorisation was not obtained. It would be an open invitation to the less scrupulous to flaunt their responsibilities.
One of the virtues of the Bill is its flexibility. It makes provision, for example, for village fêtes, where the use of temporary event notices will ensure light-touch regulation. It also provides for larger-scale outdoor events, which carry serious implications for public order, safety and nuisance—events such as very large concerts in Hyde Park and the Glastonbury Festival, to name hut two.

715
We must ensure that issues of public safety, the prevention of crime and disorder and public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm are considered by organisers of large-scale open-air events such as those to which I referred. It is also imperative that expert bodies have the opportunity to consider proposals for such activities. We all remember the tragic death last year when 250,000 people turned up at a concert held on the seafront at Brighton but only 60,000 were expected. That provoked Fatboy Slim to say that he would not play at another free show in Brighton unless he could guarantee people's safety. At the rather more sedate Brecon Jazz Festival in 1999, 90 arrests were made for drug offences and 23 for public disorder offences.
Even events on a much smaller scale have the potential to give rise to problems. The problem with the amendment is that it would, for example, effectively allow a rock band to perform out in the open—perhaps in a park in the centre of a residential area—without any authorisation.
As well as in the entertainment context, no offence would be committed if a person, whether or not a personal licence holder, sold alcohol outdoors without authorisation. Nor would it be an offence to provide late-night refreshment from uncovered premises without authorisation. I am not convinced that the public would thank us for allowing such a state of affairs to obtain.
We must ensure that open-air activities come fully within the ambit of the Bill in order that matters relating to the promotion of the licensing objectives can be properly considered. Where people undertake licensable activities without appropriate authorisation, they must be left in no doubt that they are committing an offence. I hope that the noble Lord recognises that there is a strong case against the amendment and that he will withdraw it.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Minister mentioned concerts. Would the Jubilee Concert at Buckingham Palace last year have been licensable under the Bill?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is an interesting point. I am slightly chary about the privileges that obtain with regard to royal palaces. I believe that we all recall the time when this place benefited from such a provision. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that I will not trample over a royal prerogative inadvertently from the Dispatch Box. I cannot answer him directly but I shall of course write to him.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the Bill's approach in this regard and the limits to its extension. I am entirely on his side, living as I do on the edge of Clapham Common. If I pursue the amendment I do not imagine that it would be popular with my neighbours. The
716
Minister's reply leads to some questions which I may pursue at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 74, line 9, at end insert—
"(1A) Where the licensable activity in question is the provision of regulated entertainment, a person does not commit an offence under this section if his only involvement in the provision of the entertainment is that he—

(a) performs in a play,

(b) participates as a sportsman in an indoor sporting event,

(c) boxes or wrestles in a boxing or wrestling entertainment,

(d) performs live music,

(e) plays recorded music,

(f) performs dance, or

(g) does something coming within paragraph 2(1)(h) of Schedule 1 (entertainment similar to music, dance. etc.).

(1 B) Subsection IA) is to be construed in accordance with Part 3 of Schedule 1."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 137 [Defence of due diligence]:
Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 75, line 12, leave out "section" and insert "subsection"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 219 and 284 have been tabled to correct minor drafting points. Clause 137(2) should read, "This subsection applies" rather than, "This section applies". Amendment No. 219 seeks to correct that. Amendment No. 284 clarifies that the reference to the 1964 Act in paragraph 29 of Schedule 8 is to the Licensing Act 1964. I hope that noble Lords will support those minor changes.
As regards Amendment No. 248, noble Lords will recall that in Committee I gave undertakings that appropriate and fair time limits will be set out in regulations. Those will ensure the timely processing of applications and prevent them being frustrated by delay. It is important that there is consistency and a degree of certainty for industry and that at the same time licensing authorities and other relevant authorities have sufficient time to consider applications. As I have explained, the rationale behind setting out such time limits in secondary legislation rather than on the face of the Bill is to ensure enough flexibility to amend those if necessary in the light of experience.
Building on those assurances, Amendment No. 248 seeks to clarify that appropriate time limits can be imposed in relation to all stages of the application process; for example, the amount of time licensing authorities have in which to consider application forms and any relevant representations before a hearing is held, the length of time between notification of a hearing and the hearing, and the length of time a licensing authority has in which to determine the application following a hearing.
Noble Lords welcomed the assurances on time limits given in Committee, so I hope they will be able to support the amendment, which seeks to give greater clarification to our intentions. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I welcome the amendments and do not want to detain the House. Can the Minister give the House an idea of the draft timescales, which obviously may change, which the Government are considering at this stage of the Bill?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not think I am able to help the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, at this stage. However, as soon as I can I shall let him know.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 219A:
After Clause 138, insert the following new clause—
"DISORDERLY CONDUCT OUTSIDE LICENSED PREMISES
(1) Where customers of licensed premises engage in disorderly conduct after they have left those premises, no person to whom subsection (2) applies shall be liable to any fine or other penalty arising from that conduct by those customers.
(2) This subsection applies—

(a) to any person who works at the premises in a capacity, whether paid or unpaid, which authorises him to prevent disorderly conduct on the premises;

(b) in the case of licensed premises, to—

(i) the holder of a premises license in respect of the premises, and

(ii) the designated premises supervisor (if any) under such a license,

(c) in the case of premises in respect of which a club premises certificate has effect, to any member or officer of the club who, at the time the conduct takes place, is present on the premises in a capacity which would enable him to prevent disorderly conduct occurring within the premises;

(d) in the case of premises which may be used for a permitted temporary activity by virtue of Part 5, to the premises user in relation to the temporary event notice in question."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have had numerous debates on the responsibilities of the industry and how far that extends beyond the premises. Certainly, in our early debates it was clear that the publican, or indeed the club owner or manager, should not be responsible for the behaviour of drinkers or clubgoers beyond the immediate vicinity of the premises. Through our debates, "vicinity" seems now to have extended to the neighbourhood. There is perhaps still the question of how far that neighbourhood extends.
We have also had numerous debates about fees. The Government have been keen to reassure the House that while the whole system will be self-financing, at the same time fees will be set centrally and will be reasonable. The Government have worked at length to encourage us to feel comfortable about leaving the
718
question of fees and the amount of such fees to regulations. Indeed, the noble Baroness was very clear when she stated:
"Licensing fees will he set centrally and fairly. They will be set at a level which will allow licensing authorities to recover the full costs of exercising the licensing functions, including administration, inspection and enforcement".
The noble Baroness went on to say:
"The exact level of fees is yet to be decided. The Secretary of State is still considering representations on the levels and the figures are not therefore etched in stone. We currently estimate that the one-off fee for a premises licence will be set in bands between £100 and £500, with annual charges for the purpose of providing revenue for the licensing authority set in hands between £50 and £150".—[Official Report, 16/1/03; col. 342.]
To some extent we have all felt that it is time to back off and wait for regulations. However, I was rather taken aback when I opened the Daily Telegraph last Saturday and discovered on page 4 an article stating:
"Pubs and nightclubs would have to pay a levy to fund the cost of extra policing in city centres hit by late-night drunken disorder, according to proposals that have alarmed Downing Street.
David Blunkett is drawing up plans that would force the licensed trade to make a financial contribution to pay for extra patrols in areas plagued by anti-social behaviour at closing time.
The scheme, which some say would amount to making the private sector pay 'protection money', has clivided Whitehall where some officials say it could open the way for extra burdens on business.
The Home Secretary is looking for ways to include the idea in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill being drawn up to tackle 'low-level' loutish behaviour such as graffiti and vandalism.
Bob Ainsworth and John Denham, the Home Office Ministers responsible, initially tried to have the measure included in the Licensing Bill which is before the Lords, but were resisted by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport".
I enjoyed the last sentence. I take it that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport realises the extent to which we in your Lordships' House are concerned about the real impact of the Bill on the industry and on local authorities, and has therefore persuaded Home Office officials that the process of setting fees, if fees are to be set, should be delayed and included in a later Bill.
The purpose of our amendment tabled yesterday—I apologise to the Government; I do not like tabling amendments at the last minute—is to seek clarification as to where the responsibility for licensed premises begins and ends. It is accepted that there are duties on personal licence holders to ensure that they run orderly premises and that they do not serve drinks or sell to under-age persons. Beyond that we are keen to ensure that disorder away from such premises is properly associated with those who are personally responsible for such behaviour and that they are dealt with by the powers which the police already have.
The Bill ensures that disorderly and drunk persons are evicted from the premises. We want to ensure that the licensee is then not made responsible. We question the Government as to whether their intention is to make the licensee responsible for such persons once they are outside. We believe that that would be iniquitous and unfair. There have been discussions in your Lordships' House and elsewhere as to whether

719
licensed premises should be charged separately for the cost of policing in city centres and whether such charge should be laid on the pubs, bars and night-clubs.
We want to know from the Government, and we believe it is only fair that the industry should know from the Government, ahead of any anti-social behaviour Bill what is the true position. Will the industry be asked to pay for anti-social behaviour, however that is defined in a later Bill? Is this a matter which the Government have decided to delay until another date but have full intentions of assessing? It is important that we have a clear answer now from the Government. We are doing all we can to assist them by backing off in terms of demanding at this stage that the question of fees should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the amendment. Although it is a probing amendment, the issue is important.
We have had many debates on the impact of the Licensing Bill on the amenity and the neighbourhood and how it will affect different areas. We are concerned about the idea that a levy or fee might be paid, which seems to be based on a pilot study done on Peter Street in Manchester, where bars and pubs were asked to pay money towards an extra police officer, with the police paying for another officer. That led to a reduction in crime, so we support it as a scheme on a voluntary basis, but we would have severe reservations about making it a national scheme.
There are some stress areas that would react well to that sort of scheme, such as the Big Market in Newcastle or parts of the West End. If the scheme was conducted in a broader area, it would be extremely unfair on smaller pubs that have no problems with the type of behaviour exhibited in the stress area. I hope that the Minister can give an indication that no such national levy is being considered.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I understand fully the sentiments behind this amendment. It is designed to clarify the extent to which managers and staff are responsible for the conduct of customers after they have left the premises. I hope I can do that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, it is a probing amendment.
The Government's position has always been that the licensing regime is focused on individual premises and individuals when they are on those premises. The Bill provides the specific offences of allowing disorderly conduct on licensed premises; sale of alcohol to, or obtaining it for, a person who is drunk on licensed premises; failure to leave licensed premises; and so on. It is very difficult to see how it could be otherwise.
Licensees have a range of tools to control people's behaviour while they are on the premises—not all of them born of legislation. However, once the customer leaves the licensee's sphere of influence, his or her power over them is rapidly attenuated. Indeed, I made that clear during earlier stages of the passage of the
720
Bill. That said, there is a range of measures on which licensees in a particular area can collaborate to reduce disorder collectively. For example, some town centres operate a radio paging system so that messages relating to disorder issues can be disseminated rapidly to all licensed premises. That can help in alerting all licensees in a particular area when trouble is occurring, ensuring that disorderly groups cannot simply move from pub to pub.
Noble Lords will be aware, too, of the provisions in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 relating to on-the-spot penalties in respect of disorderly behaviour while drunk in a public place and to the offence of buying or attempting to buy alcohol for consumption in a bar in licensed premises by a person under 18. We should not be introducing anything to reduce the breadth of powers of the police under the 2001 Act.
The focus of the Bill itself falls squarely on the premises. It is precisely because of that focus that this amendment is unnecessary, although I accept that it is a probing amendment. I should point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that one should never believe what one reads in the newspapers. We have no intention of imposing such a levy—the article is not true.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, moved an amendment in Committee about police charging and we resisted it. We believe that industry contributes to the cost of policing and that the matter is properly dealt with in voluntary arrangements such as those that take place in Peter Street in Manchester, to which I referred on several occasions.
I hope that has reassured noble Lords and the licensed trade that licensees will not be penalised for the activities of customers after they have left the premises and hence the licensee's control. In view of that, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to this probing amendment. I believe the Minister when she says that the article that I quoted is not true. I am grateful to her for being so clear on that point. However, although I would love to agree that one should not believe all that one reads, one could follow with that awful cliché, "No smoke without fire". Noble Lords will appreciate that such an article will make many people wonder whether the aims of the Government, Her Majesty's Opposition and other noble Lords on the Bill will be undermined by another Bill at a later date.
I urge the Minister to ensure that this debate gives rise to a true example of joined-up government, with the officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport making our views clear to officials from the Home Office, so that they are fully aware of what has been said today. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lea of Crondall moved Amendment No. 220:
After Clause 141, insert the following new clause—
"LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PERSONS) ACT 1980
(1) Section I of the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980 (c. 32) (exclusion orders) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for "may" there is substituted "shall".
(3) In subsection (3), for "two" there is substituted "ten"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if we conducted a public opinion poll on the question, "Do you agree that people found guilty of violence against staff in a pub should be excluded from that pub for a long time?", I would guess that around 95 per cent of people should say, "Yes". Indeed, they would express astonishment that it is not already the case. This is the sort of practical measure that would help to connect politicians with ordinary people in public and saloon bars.
We have often debated violence against staff, and it has often been said that we want to do all that we can to eliminate that sort of appalling behaviour but that it is difficult to achieve. If that is the case, why are we not already doing what is proposed in the amendment?
I hope that the Minister will not take comfort from the marked reduction in the number of exclusion orders from what, on any interpretation, was already a small number. In the early 1990s, it was something like 70 and about 25 in the mid-1990s, when the statistics suddenly dried up. I may be wrong about those statistics, but no doubt I will be corrected if I have looked up the wrong ones. However, the reduction is marked. I have talked to the trade unions and employers, who are all concerned about the marked reduction. Their conclusion is not that the problem has gone away. The explanation lies in the roles of the magistrates' courts and the licensing courts, and the relation between them.
When people are found guilty of a violent offence, why are they not automatically excluded? Surely, a priori, one would think it the simplest thing in the world to attach automatically such an order to a sentence. The measure was included in a White Paper in 1980, but mysteriously disappeared. Does the problem relate to automatic sentencing or some related objection, or is it a technical problem relating to court procedure? If so, we should deal with it in the Courts Bill—and we have the opportunity to do that.
If the problem relates to the sort of objection that I have mentioned, it is an illogical objection, as will become clear when we give the matter a moment's thought. It is not exactly an infringement of liberty to be kept out of a pub, is it?—especially, if one has been proved guilty of committing a violent offence in that pub.
Without making a long speech, I ask my noble friend to take the matter forward by agreeing to consider carefully how the principle can best be drafted before the Bill is sent to another place. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is unfortunate that exclusion orders were not included in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why they were not. They would have been extremely helpful. Bar staff can be intimidated when people who have been barred return and make life difficult for them.
I also support one scheme which has done most to counteract violence in pubs. The Minister mentioned the pager scheme in the previous amendment, which is part of the national Pubwatch scheme. I commend the work of all those who have set up that voluntary scheme and who have tried so hard to make sure that it is a national scheme. In considering the good work and the fact that the Minister has mentioned that scheme today, will she press her colleagues in the Home Office to make sure that there is adequate funding for it? It is a scheme that works. It has prevented a great deal of violence by groups who have caused violence in one pub, have been thrown out, and who have then moved on to the next one. Having said that, I very much hope that the Minister will give some reasons as to why exclusion orders were dropped from this part of the Bill.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support this very sensible and worthwhile amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, Amendment No. 220 would insert a clause into the Bill amending the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980.
The 1980 Act provides that on convicting an individual for an offence involving violence or threats of violence on licensed premises, a court may make an exclusion order banning the individual from those premises or other specified premises unless the licensee consented to his admission. Orders can have effect for not less than three months and not more than two years. An offence is committed if the person breaches the court's order.
Amendment No. 220 would make two key changes to those provisions. First, it would remove the court's discretion not to make such an order. It would also increase the maximum period of such an order from two years to 10 years. The White Paper, which was published in April 2000, proposed that the courts should be empowered to impose longer bans for up to 10 years and, in the most serious cases, for life. I therefore have some sympathy for the proposal to increase the maximum period of the ban. Nevertheless, I must resist the amendment.
Perhaps I may explain why the position has changed. Following the White Paper consultation, we examined the prospects of including this measure in the Bill. However, there is a question mark regarding whether a licensing Bill that deals mainly with regulatory and administrative arrangements is an appropriate statute in which to address sentencing matters. In the context of human rights, there are also

723
sensitive considerations in relation to the proportionate nature of bans of such length, particularly where the subtext for the offence could involve a problem with alcohol that borders on illness.
Our concerns in this area have led us to decide not to include such a change on this occasion. I should add that it may also be considered odd that, where a ban of such an arguably draconian length is imposed by a court, it should be up to the licensee or his staff as to whether it is enforced. That aspect certainly needs more consideration.
Noble Lords should also appreciate that licensed premises are private properties and no licensee is obliged to admit any person to his premises so long as he does not unlawfully discriminate. Licensees can and do bar individuals from their premises, sometimes for life. Indeed, Pubwatch schemes often ensure that certain individuals are barred from pubs across a widespread area. Incidentally, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that I shall certainly pass his comments on to my colleagues in the Home Office about resourcing schemes of this kind.
We do of course appreciate the concerns that exist to protect licensees and their staff who are sometimes the victims of drunken violence. The 1980 Act is already there to provide some degree of protection, but in our view the amendment goes too far.
Our concerns are increased by the proposal to remove the court's discretion not to make an order following a relevant conviction. If the offender worked on licensed premises—let us say as a member of staff—and was convicted of offences involving threats of violence after a squabble with a drunken customer, an exclusion order of the kind proposed could cost him his livelihood. It would be a very significant sentence indeed.
We cannot therefore agree that the court should have to add an exclusion order to the sentence being given, which might be a conditional or even an absolute discharge. At the other end of the scale, it would be somewhat burdensome for a court to have to make an exclusion order in the case of a person being sentenced to life imprisonment, say, for a very serious act of violence.
The criminal courts are the appropriate bodies to decide whether such orders are necessary and whether the making of such an order is a proportionate response to the particular offences committed in the individual circumstances of any case. I do not think we should be trying to settle the argument between mandatory and discretionary sentencing in a Bill of this kind. It is a matter to which this House is bound to return in the context of a number of other, perhaps more appropriate, Bills.
So, in the light of the points I have made, I hope that noble Lords can agree not to press their amendment on this occasion.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. I am astonished that, despite all its technical ins and outs, the conclusion is not more
724
positive. I again ask that the matter is given serious consideration. It has the support of some noble Lords on this side of the House and of both the other parties that have spoken. It will shortly be going to another place. I speak having been a member for many years of the Transport and General Workers' Union. The National Association of Licensed House Managers is now a part of that union. It is not the only party; the employers are also very concerned about the problem of violence in pubs.
I begin by expressing some concern that the example that was given was of an absolute discharge. I am talking about someone who is found guilty of a violent offence. That is the matter we are amending. That person ought to be excluded from a pub. I ask my noble friend to ask the department to have another look at the matter.
On the question of which Bill, we have enough Bills passing through Parliament this Session that I am sure we can find the right Bill. There is the Courts Bill and there is another one which will deal with sentencing and so on.
The opportunity should not be missed to update an inadequate position. That has been proved by more than 10 years of experience of running the present system. In withdrawing the amendment at this stage, I want to say that if nothing is done, I am afraid that this will not be the end of the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 221:
Before Clause 143, insert the following clause—
"ALLOWING CHILDREN INTO LICENSED PREMISES
(1) In pursuit of the licensing objective in section 4(2)(d), children under the age of 14 are only permitted to enter into licensed premises as defined in subsection (2) when accompanied by an adult over the age of 18.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), these licensed premises are—

(a) public houses;

(b) nightclubs; and

(c) any similar establishment whose primary purpose is the consumption of alcohol."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to the issue of children—an issue on which I have felt especially strongly during the Bill's progress through the House. I said on Second Reading that I could not understand how the Government could have a stated policy to develop a family friendly culture if parents did not have to be present. I have continued to press that point and thought long and hard about how we could address that difficult area.
As the Bill stands, unaccompanied children of any age will, in principle, have totally unrestricted access to bars, clubs and pubs at any time of day or night. I have yet to meet a publican who thinks that that is a good idea or who wants to be responsible for supervising youngsters who may get into trouble in what is sometimes a very adult atmosphere. Licensees have told us that they feel compelled to make their premises as unrestricted as possible in order to remain

725
competitive under the new regulations, irrespective of whether they think that a good idea in principle. That serves only to encourage an environment that puts children in danger. Many children can look older than they are and, with fake identity cards available from the Internet, it is easy for them to fool bartenders and bouncers.
The Bill lumps together supermarkets and lap-dancing clubs under the same licensing regime, with potentially disastrous results. Although it is wholly desirable for children to accompany their parents on family shopping trips, the same legislation enables them to visit a nightclub at 3 a.m. on their own, if they so wish. We have returned to this point many times, and many beyond your Lordships' House find it hard to believe.
The situation is compounded by the fact that in the same Bill, where children even attempt to buy an alcoholic beverage under the age of 18, they are guilty of a criminal offence. There is no defence under the Bill; they are guilty. Is it reasonable to make our children criminal? The Bill encourages the notion that we should allow children and young people into pubs and clubs, saying, "Come in and join this atmosphere, but if you dare to attempt to buy an alcoholic drink, you are a criminal". That cannot be right.
Amendment No. 221 is reasonable. It sets a liberal limit on the age under which children should be prohibited from entering certain premises unless accompanied by an adult. It provides that children under the age of 14 should not be allowed into pubs and clubs, unless accompanied by an adult. We have been careful to specify premises. The Bill covers premises licensed both for the sale of alcohol and for regulated entertainment—perhaps unwisely. Children should be able to enter cinemas, theatres and restaurants. We want to restrict their access when unaccompanied to premises whose primary function is the sale of alcohol—primarily, pubs and clubs.
We should remember that we are discussing extending licensing hours up to 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I am sure that the Government will say hat that will not happen in many circumstances, but we believe that we must create some consistency in the Bill for the sake both of our children and of licensees and club owners and managers. Is it fair on them to have the burden of deciding whether their premises are suitable for young children?
We fully support the promotion of family friendly pubs. The amendment would not prevent that. Children would not be in any way prohibited from entering pubs with their families. We intend to guard against less salubrious licensed premises, where there is potential harm to young children who enter unaccompanied.
Let us remember the added burden on the licensee. The licensee can always state on the licence that access for under-18s is prohibited. The problem arises when we turn to the guidance. Paragraph 4.25 of the draft guidance notes makes it clear:
"Nothing in a statement of licensing policy should limit the access of children to such premises unless it is necessary for the prevention of harm to children. No statement of policy can
726
properly anticipate every possible issue of concern that could arise in respect of children with regard to individual premises and as such, general rules should be avoided. Consideration of the individual merits of each application remains the best mechanism for judging such matters".
But any publican, club owner or manager will have to state clearly when applying for a licence why he wants to exclude children from his premises. From the Bill and the national guidance notes, it is clear that they must clearly set out reasons why they want to protect children from harm. Is that the right position in which to place a publican: that he must say, "I don't want children in my pub"—or club—"because I want to protect them from harm"? What publican in his right mind will apply for a licence saying, "I really want a premises licence but there is something a little bit wrong with my pub", or club?
The examples in the national guidance notes are clear. A statement of policy that the local authority may set out may highlight areas that give rise to concern in respect of children. For example, they may include premises where there have been convictions for serving alcohol to minors or with a reputation for under-age drinking; with a known association with drug-taking or dealing; where there is a strong element of gambling on the premises; and where entertainment of an adult or sexual nature is commonly provided. That all places a huge, unfair and unnecessary burden on licensees and club owners and managers. We question why the Government have an alcohol reduction strategy when at the same time they are saying that they want to encourage a family friendly environment and encourage our children into pubs and clubs.
I have children. I go into pubs with my children. I should not dream of allowing my children into a pub under the age of 14. The police told me that they wished that I would make the age in the amendment 18; they believe that 14 is too liberal. But at present there is a law that says that children can enter parts of a pub that do not include the bar area—for example a beer garden—unaccompanied. That is why we have set the age in the amendment at 14; we hope that we have got that right.
To us, the amendment is extremely important. We have tried both on Second Reading and in Committee to persuade the Government that a limit that would encourage consistency throughout the land with regard to children would help. I have now spoken to an enormous number of people. I spoke on 12 radio stations and two television channels this morning and no one beyond your Lordships' House can quite believe the Bill as drafted. A lady from Birmingham said:
"That's it. The lunatics have finally taken over".
A youth worker from Birmingham said that it will cause more confusion for children. He said that there is a popular belief among young people that cannabis is now legal—we know that that is not the case, but there is confusion—and that they will think that it is legal to drink alcohol.
Another interesting point was made to me just before I entered the Chamber. A mother rang me to say that she fears that under the Bill there will be no incentive for children to come home. It will be harder for parents to enforce curfews and children will stay out all night. Those are entirely unnecessary additional burdens and worries for parents. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Falkland and I have attached our names to the amendment. The Government have set out a case for allowing unaccompanied children into pubs, but it is not strong enough to include the provision in the Bill. That is why I hope that the Minister will heed the arguments advanced today. Otherwise, there will be a division of opinion on the matter.
I was especially taken by what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said about the Bill making it a criminal offence for someone under 18 to try to buy a drink. I was thinking about the matter last night. It was and is a rite of passage for anyone under 18, but especially boys, to try to buy a drink in a pub to see whether they can get away with it. It does not seem to cause many problems at present. To deem it a criminal offence would add a layer of criminality to such activity. Young people try to sneak into certificate "18" films and to buy alcohol before they are 18. It would be unfortunate if it were made a criminal offence, especially if someone were charged with it. But I doubt that such an offence would ever be used.
The Bill creates stringent conditions on the sale of alcohol to people under 18. If under 18 year-olds are allowed as of right into pubs, many 16 or 17 year-olds might enter, making it difficult for landlords to ensure that they have stopped the sale of alcohol to everyone under 18. I remember buying a pint easily when I was 17. It happens despite the best efforts of many landlords, for whom we are creating a high hurdle. We have created conditions whereby, if a landlord believes that a customer is 18, it is all right. But, under the Bill, many under 18 year-olds will believe that they have a right to be in a pub.
My local landlord at the Albert in Primrose Hill in London told me a story that is extremely pertinent to the situation. One afternoon, he asked some 15 year-olds who had entered his pub and were making a noise to leave. When they said that they were only drinking Coca-Cola, he told them that they must leave because they were unaccompanied. The 15 year-olds complained to their headmaster, who complained to the publican that he had broken the law because people aged over 14 were allowed into a pub unaccompanied. The headmaster wrote to the brewery, which replied that the publican would donate to the charity that the children had been supporting in a sponsored walk that day.
It is an interesting situation. The Bill will give people the impression that they are allowed into a pub as of right. I asked the Minister about the matter several times, and he told me twice that people were allowed
728
into a pub only at the discretion of the publican. But we are heaping many responsibilities on landlords and giving the public the impression that young people will have a right to enter pubs. It is easy to say in this House, where we all understand the definition, that the situation would be easily understood by most publicans. But, when I mentioned to the publican of the Albert that he had a right to refuse entry to anybody, he agreed but did not feel that he could have argued the point in that situation.
We have an issue: many young people will go to pubs. Pubs attract people. One of the arguments for allowing young people into pubs was that they might be safer there than they would be outside on the street. It is a strange argument. Children might be safer in some pubs—the good ones that we have all drunk in. However, if it is not safe outside—as in some areas in Newcastle that I know well—the pubs will not be safe either. In one particular case, the police had to close down a pub in Walker where two handguns and a large quantity of drugs were found. Those are extreme examples. In 99 per cent of cases, it might be perfectly acceptable for children to enter pubs.
We also talk about the need for pubs to be family-friendly. However, by making pubs family-friendly we assume that the whole family will enter them as opposed to unaccompanied children. If that is the case, I see no difficulty with the amendment, which, ultimately, is extremely sensible.
I have no difficulty with the Government's concept of trying to liberalise the system. However, we are not liberalising the system; we are building into it problems that will have to be sorted out by the good sense of publicans. Although I have every respect for the good sense of publicans, this would be an unnecessary addition to the Bill.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I make my customary declaration of interest as a non-executive director of Whitbread. I support the amendment. The difficult question of unaccompanied children has always been on the agenda since consideration of the Bill began. The public would regard the Bill as creating a strange situation if it were not amended. Obviously, we are confronting differences of view. On the one hand, I welcome a liberalising Bill that could improve the convenience and amenity offered by the hospitality trade through licensed premises. But, like many Members, I am concerned about unaccompanied children.
We must ask ourselves whether we are satisfied that it would be good if a publican admitted to his pub a 13 year-old girl, for example, who could then sit by the bar sipping Coca-Cola for four or five hours. The Bill would make it perfectly legal. Would that be a good situation? I do not think so. That is why it would he advantageous to have clarity as proposed by the amendment. The amendment is clear about the age at which children can enter licensed premises unaccompanied and where they must be accompanied. It would be good for social policy and for publicans and owners of premises, who would know where they stood.

729
We all know that it is an offence to sell alcohol to an individual aged under 18. But that is not the question here. The question is: what would happen if unaccompanied children were given total access to a bar, whatever they were drinking? I am not in favour of such an element of freedom. It is a dangerous freedom to grant some children.
I support the amendment, but, if it is accepted, it might be useful to clarify the exact meaning of "public house". There is now a large variety of public houses, including pub-restaurants, some of which have a children's facility attached, which is now a common feature that is highly desirable. That is a secondary point. For the moment, I support the amendment as presented.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I raise a technical point on proposed subsection 2(c), which refers to,
"any similar establishment whose primary purpose is the consumption of alcohol".
It is an imprecise provision. Who will decide the primary purpose? The owner of the premises might argue that the purpose of his establishment was the promotion of darts. The subsection, therefore, imputes a motive by a third person undefined. It might be more sensible to refer to an establishment whose "principal activity" was the consumption of alcohol. One could observe such activity and arrive at a decision. No doubt we shall have to work on the clause, so perhaps that point could also be considered.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I support the amendment. I have not spoken during previous debates on the Bill but I have followed the arguments carefully. I am particularly concerned about the growth in drunkenness and drug-taking among youths. The test that I apply is whether I believe that the Government's proposals will help or hinder policy development in those areas. Regrettably, I have not so far been convinced that they will help; rather the reverse. It is important that I register my opposition. If we cannot find a way through the issue, some of us may vote in the Lobby in which we would not normally be expected to vote. I believe that I speak for some of my colleagues on these Benches on that.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I support the amendment. I spend a great deal of time with young people listening to them, and I am particularly concerned that the Government appear to be giving out extraordinarily mixed messages.
We all know how it works: alcohol may not be sold to a younger child, but it will be bought by an older young person and handed on. We all know what the statistics show about the increase in alcohol consumption among our young people. If the Government are serious about tackling the issue, they are sending out a mixed message by saying that young people can go unaccompanied into premises on which alcohol is sold within this definition.
730
The argument has been used that children might be safer in such premises than outside. I know places where they might well be safer inside than outside. However, that is no argument. That is an argument for providing better youth facilities that are appropriate for young people and where they will be safe to develop their skills. In the village where I live, we have marauding young people with nothing else to do buying drink from older peers and terrorising some of the older folk. I do not feel that I can blame those young people; we do not provide any facility for them.
I support the amendment. My only regret is that the age limit is not set at 16 or 18.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I support the amendment for three reasons. The first is that it provides a measure of protection to children, a matter that has been of considerable concern to the House over the years. Secondly, the amendment would provide a degree of guidance to children about appropriate behaviour, especially to 13 year-olds under significant peer pressure. Thirdly, it provides support for the good regulation of pubs by publicans, and it would be welcomed by the trade.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as we explained during debates on earlier groups, we recognise the importance of the issue to the House and to the wider public. We have been fastidious in our consultation with groups such as children's charities, Alcohol Concern, the police and the Association of Directors of Social Services to make sure that their concerns are taken into account.
The policy enshrined in the Bill is exactly that contained in the White Paper, which received widespread support. We made the protection of children from harm an objective of the Bill, and, from the start, that has guided our approach to the issues. For that reason, I shall make it clear before I go any further that we will take the amendments away and come back either at Third Reading or, more realistically, in another place with a further strengthening of the Bill in that respect. I hope that your Lordships will accept my good faith in that matter.
In considering the matters raised in the debate, it is important that your Lordships properly understand the position under the alcohol licensing laws. There is a lot of misunderstanding and even ignorance. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, are, I am almost sure, aware of the situation, but, in the interests of completeness in responding to the debate, I shall explain it. Under existing law, at the discretion of the individual licensee, it is open to any child aged 14 or over to enter a public house or nightclub unsupervised and to remain there so long as they do not consume alcohol. Under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, children's certificates were introduced by the previous Conservative government to permit the supervised presence of children of any age in bar areas until nine o'clock to help create more family-friendly pubs.

731
At the discretion of the licensee, unsupervised children of any age may also enter and remain in licensed premises, so long as they do not enter the bar area. They can be present in dining areas, family rooms, pub gardens and other places away from the bar area. The Bill simplifies the position by giving children the freedom to enter licensed premises but only at the discretion of the licensee, as several noble Lords pointed out. The licensee does not have to say why he does not want children in his pub or nightclub; he must say how he will protect children from harm, if he intends to admit them. That is an important point. We are also providing for that freedom for the licensee to be restricted in respect of children under 18 where necessary for their protection from harm. That provides greater control and protection than at present, for several reasons, although I am aware that the public may not fully understand that.
Under the Bill, where necessary for the protection of children from harm, conditions may be attached to the premises licence excluding or restricting the presence of children, whatever the licensee's preference. That cannot be done under existing law by the licensing justices. The Bill also provides for responsible authorities and interested parties to be consulted before a decision is taken as to what conditions should be imposed in respect of children. That does not happen now. Finally, at any sign of trouble or concern, the Bill provides for any interested party or responsible authority to seek a review of the licence, following which entry by children could be restricted. No such provisions exist currently. I am a little surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, continues to say that the Bill allows unrestricted access at any time of day or night. The Bill provides for the restriction of access, if that is necessary for the protection of children from harm.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that what we did at the moment was fair enough in 99 per cent of cases. That is why we chose the option of having a flexible Bill supported by flexible guidance, so that we do not regulate everyone unduly for the sake of 1 per cent of cases but retain powerful controls to deal with that 1 per cent. Furthermore, we intend using the guidance to emphasise that there are particular premises from which children should be excluded. They include those with a poor reputation for under-age drinking; places where drugs use may be an issue; places where heavy gambling goes on; or places where adult entertainment is provided.
We also made it clear in responding to another group of amendments that we were happy to consider adding the local social services to the list of responsible authorities that may make representations about the presence of children. I must underline the fact that we are also strengthening the laws on the consumption of alcohol by children on licensed premises. There is a significant package of measures focused on protecting children. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, mentioned the issue of the offence of drinking by
732
young people under the age of 18. I shall not get into that issue now, as it comes up in the next group of amendments.
We have an enormous amount of sympathy with the underlying objectives of this group of amendments. As I said, we will consider them carefully. We intend to discuss them with the children's charities, the police and the child protection organisations. We have arranged a meeting tomorrow with seven of the bodies concerned with such matters, and I will ensure that the concern expressed in your Lordships' House is made known to everybody at that meeting. I apologise for the fact that we have not been able to hold the meeting a little earlier and thus been able to come forward with new proposals, but it has been difficult, given the problems of busy diaries, to arrange a meeting involving seven different organisations.
We recognise that in the amendments noble Lords have attempted to restrict the proposal to pubs, nightclubs and other similar venues where the primary purpose is the consumption of alcohol. However, in its current formulation, the amendment is not quite right. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, pointed out that the third category of venues is vague and could lead to problems of definition. Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, said, problems of definition will arise over the terms "public house" and "nightclub", neither of which is currently used in licensing law. The words would cover a wide variety of premises. We want to think carefully about definitions.
We also need to think hard whether requiring children under the age of 14 to be accompanied by adults before they may enter such premises serves as an open invitation to those who might harm children by offering their services as an accompanying adult; they could be 18 years old. Again, we need to consider this and speak to all the relevant bodies with experience in the area.
Of course we need to focus on the question of whether unaccompanied children—
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for the interruption. She mentioned that older adults might provide a service for those aged over 14 to enable them to go into clubs. However, is not that the case at present? I believe that 14 year-olds are allowed entry provided that they are accompanied by an adult.
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords, but if we are going to write that into the legislation and believe that it will provide a protection, we must be absolutely clear that it is done in a way that provides genuine protection.
We also need to focus on the question of whether allowing unaccompanied children into pubs would put them at risk of being tempted to buy alcohol. We must focus on the risk of underage drinking. Temptation implies choice, but the Bill provides no choice. It would be an offence to try to buy, to sell or to allow the consumption of alcohol. That is not presently the case,

733
so again this is an improvement. I say this not to be defensive but simply to ensure that your Lordships are clear on what the Bill does. However, as I have said, we are alive to all the concerns expressed and we shall consider how they can be met.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 226. I do not believe that in speaking to the amendment, the noble Baroness really wants to make it unlawful to sell alcohol to an adult in an off-licence if a child aged under 14 years is present. As drafted, the amendment would ban children of that age from such shops and convenience stores. I do not believe that that would make much sense.
I have listened carefully to noble Lords on all sides of the House. I hope that noble Lords will accept our assurances that the Bill has in place many arrangements which can protect children from harm. I hope too that they will accept that we are willing to examine what more can be done to ensure children's well-being. In the light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment until the whole issue can be properly addressed with the relevant children's organisations and the police.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, perhaps I may put a question for clarification to the noble Baroness before she sits down. I did not hear her mention whether any effort has been made to consult parents. Can she give an assurance that before this section of the Bill is redrafted, some effort will be made to take into account the views of parents?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for that suggestion. Of course I shall take it away and ensure that parents' organisations are consulted.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she respond to the powerful point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about the responsibilities of the landlord under the terms of the Bill? Is she going to address the matter in the next group of amendments?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I think that I have already said something about it in response to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, but the point will be addressed again when we consider the next group of amendments.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and thank also the many noble Lords who have offered their welcome support for this important issue. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who has added his name to the amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has to say as regards the wording. I thank also my noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, and the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood. I am truly grateful for the wide support of noble Lords because
734
this is such an important issue, one that goes way beyond politics. It is about our children and the need to protect them from harm.
The Minister is quite right; the publican has to say how he intends to protect children from harm. However, I say that that will put an enormous burden on him, which is not currently the case. A publican will have to make clear, when a licence is applied for, how he intends to protect children from harm. By instant inference, that makes it sound as though the publican has a problem with his pub. I think that that is entirely wrong.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has said that tomorrow she intends to speak to a number of children's societies. The Government have had some two-and-a-half years to get this right. Perhaps I may quote briefly from a letter sent to me by the Children's Society:
"In relation to this amendment, we do think that it is important to stress the fact that creating child-friendly and family-friendly environments requires a commitment to ensuring that there are benefits to be gained for children—not simply relying on the idea that children's presence will have a positive effect on adults. Children may become intimidated by the environment and behaviour around them and in the absence of a parent or carer there arise many questions about how the licensee can and should respond to them. For example, what should he the pub licensee's response to an upset unaccompanied eight year-old turning up in a bar at 11 p.m. asking to be served a soft drink? By what means might a licensee appropriately seek to remove a child from their premises, and should they just leave them outside? What, if any, is the licensee's responsibility if he or she notices a group of young teenage girls on the receiving end of seduction attempts by older men on their premises? There are many wider questions of children's interests, care and development that are not addressed by a licensing policy which presumes in favour of children's unrestricted access, and relies on licensees' discretion".
The Bill is absolutely clear. I have been a lawyer for 25 years, but I had to read and re-read the Bill when I first received it because I could not believe its intention. However, the intention is clear and backed by the Government's draft guidance notes.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—
Baroness Wilcox: Not yet!
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I meant to say, "the noble Baroness". Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that I think she is being a little unfair in claiming that the Government have not thought about this over the past two-and-a-half years. A White Paper was published and a wide consultation held as a result. It did not produce the kind of concerns that we have heard around the House during this debate. Moreover, the Government consulted children's organisations. They made it clear that they thought the proposals being put in place in the Bill to protect children were adequate. Clearly more thought must be given to that in light of the concerns being expressed, but I wanted to point out that it is not quite true to say that this has not been considered by the Government for two-and-a-half years.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I accept what she has said, but it is not for us to be concerned that a meeting is taking place tomorrow. We want to accept what the Minister has said in terms of her good faith.
However, I do not believe that we can leave the issue to another place. The risk is too great. Too much is at stake, and it is about our children. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 221) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 184; Not-Contents, 111.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Addington, L.

Fowler, L.

Alderdice, L.

Freeman, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Ampthill, L.

Geraint, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Glentoran, L.

Arran, E.

Goodhart, L.

Avebury, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Greenway, L.

Barker, B.

Hamwee, B.

Biffen, L.

Hanham, B.

Blackwell, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Blaker, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Blatch, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Henley, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Higgins, L.

Bridges, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Hogg, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Burnham, L.

Hooson, L.

Buscombe, B.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Byford,B.

Howe, E.

Caithness, E.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Carrington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Jopling, L.

Chan, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Chorley, L.

Kirkham, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Cobbold, L.

Laird, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L [Teller]

Listowel, E.

Craig of Radley,L.

Liverpool, E.

Craigavon, V.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Croham, L.

London, Bp.

Cuckney, L.

Lucas, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Luke, L.

Darcy de Knayth,B.

McColl of Dulwich,L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Denham, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

McNally, L.

Elles,B.

Maddock, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Elton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Falkland, V.

Marsh, L.

Fearn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Feldman, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Fookes, B

Methuen L

736

Miller of Hendon, B.

Sandwich, E.

Montrose, D.

Seccombe, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Selsdon, L.

Moynihan, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Naseby, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Newby, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Slim, V.

Northbourne, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Northesk, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Northover, B.

Stewartby, L.

O' Cathain, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

O' Neill of Bengarve, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Patten, L.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Peel, E.

Swinfen, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L

Tebbit, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L

Thatcher, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Plimb,L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Tope, L.

Pym, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rawlings, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Razzall, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Reay, L.

Vinson, L.

Redesdale, L. [Teller]

Vivian, L.

Rees, L.

Waddington, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Rennard, L

Wakeham, L.

Renton, L

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Walmsley, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Walpole, L.

Roberts of Quarry Bank, L.

Weatherill, L.

Rogan, L.

Wigoder, L.

Roper, L.

Wilcox, B.

Russell, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Saatchi, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Windlesham, L.

Sandberg, L.

Wolfson, L.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ahmed, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Alli, L.

Desai, L.

Amos, B.

Dixon, L.

Andrews, B.

Donoughue, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Elder, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Bach, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Barnett, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Billingham, B.

Gale, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gilbert, L.

Blood, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Borrie, L.

Golding, B.

Bragg, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brookman, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Burlison, L.

Harrison, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Haskel, L.

Carter, L.

Hayman, B.

Chandos, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Christopher, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hoyle, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Crawley, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

David, B.

Chancellor)

Davies of Coity, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

737

Jeger, B.

Puttnam, L.

Jones, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Jordan, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Richard, L.

Lipsey, L.

Rooker, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

[Teller]

Sawyer, L.

MacKenzieof Culkein, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Simon, V.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mitchell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morgan, L.

Varley, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Nicol, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Parekh, L.

Whitaker, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Whitty, L.

Paul, L.

Wilkins, B.

Pendry, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord

Peston, L.

Privy Seal)

Pitkeathley, B.

Winston, L.

Plant of Highfield,L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5 p.m.
Clause 146 [Purchase of alcohol by or on behalf of children]:
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 79, line 27, leave out subsections ( 1 ) and (2).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 222, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 223, 224 and 225. The penalties for persons committing criminal offences when buying or attempting to buy alcohol under the age of 18 in each case would be a maximum of a level three fine on the standard scale, which is a recordable offence. Although the offences are contained within existing legislation, we, and the Children's Society, believe that there is a need for them to be removed in light of proposals in the Bill to relax access to licensed premises for children and the intention of the Government to create more child-friendly environments.
We are concerned about under-age drinking and the damage that it can cause to children. However, we are strongly opposed to the criminalisation of children in order to deal with the matter. The whole package of reforms contained within the Licensing Bill has important implications for children and young people. The effect of relaxation in licensing conditions would allow children and young people to access licensed premises more freely, although now—with thanks to your Lordships—those under 14 would require adult supervision.
This rightly highlights the need to strengthen existing prohibitions against wrongful sale and supply of alcohol to minors by adults. However, enforcing these offences for children would criminalise a high proportion of young people whom we know to be experimenting with alcohol before the age of 18.
Paragraph 8.34 of the guidance issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport makes the intentions of the Government clear. It states:
"The Secretary of State intends that the admission of children under the age of eighteen to premises … should normally be freely allowed without restricting conditions unless there are very good reasons to restrict entry or to exclude children completely. The Government does not want the promotion of child-friendly and family-friendly premises to be frustrated by overly restrictive licence conditions. The changes in the 2003 Act to the law concerning consumption of alcohol by minors on licensed premises now mean the focus for licensing authorities, the police and other authorised persons should he on the enforcement of those laws and not on restrictions".
We, and the Children's Society, are extremely concerned that existing restrictions on children's access to premises licensed for the sale and consumption of alcohol are to be replaced with more rigorous enforcement of offences relating to under-age drinking, given that the range of offences includes offences committed by children. We believe it to be illustrative of a failure to understand fully the concept of protecting children from harm should the Government deliberately increase children's exposure to opportunities to procure and consume alcohol at the same time as urging more rigorous enforcement of offences that would see increasing numbers of children subject to arrest, conviction and fine.
The vast majority of children experimenting with alcohol under age are not involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour of any kind. Perhaps of even more concern is the prospect of these offences being added to final warnings and other convictions of children at an early age of offending, drawing them more rapidly into the category of persistent offending and consequent harsher punishment. It is inappropriate and unjustified to use criminal sanction against children in order to attempt to protect them from the irresponsibility of adults who might sell to them or supply them with alcohol.
We are concerned at the criminal offences that can be committed only by a child for behaviour that is entirely lawful for anyone else. We also note that while adult offences under the Bill are accompanied with a statutory defence, there is no such defence for a child. Thus, it becomes more likely that an adult can evade his or her responsibility for an illegal act of selling or supplying to a minor, leaving the child to take the blame for the criminality of the transaction.
I have further notes on this subject and it is important that the Government consider it with real care. There are a number of issues at stake. We believe that, far from better protecting children, the measures in the Bill are likely to increase the pressures upon and opportunities for children to buy and drink alcohol in public venues—given the extended hours and so forth—only for criminal law to be used should they give in to temptation. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I spoke in support of Amendment No. 222 earlier.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government recognise that these amendments are both clear and

739
well-intentioned. However, I fear that we cannot accept them. We are strengthening considerably the law as it relates to the sale of alcohol to minors and its consumption by them on licensed premises. The Bill will make it an offence to sell alcohol on licensed premises to anyone under 18 and an offence for those under 18 to consume it anywhere on licensed premises, with the sole exception of 16 and 17 year-olds being permitted to drink wine, beer or cider with a table meal when accompanied by someone over 18 years old.
Amendments Nos. 223 to 225 would remove the offences committed by an individual aged under 18 of buying or attempting to buy alcohol, or having or attempting to have alcohol supplied to his or her order by or on behalf of a club, and that committed by an individual aged under 18 of knowingly consuming alcohol on licensed premises.
I understand entirely the good intentions behind the amendments. It is to avoid the situation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made clear, in which large numbers of prosecutions are brought by the police against children, with the potential impact on their future lives and careers. That is a laudable aim and none of us would want children's prospects to be blighted.
However, the amendments are both unnecessary and undesirable. First, to be clear, the Bill as drafted translates the law as it currently stands faithfully. The idea that the Bill in some way creates a new offence of this nature is misconceived. If the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, feels that over this long period of time he has a confession to make, I assure him that other authorities might be interested. However, under the Bill, it was an offence in the past and it is an offence now to carry out that minor rite of passage which he quoted from his past.
The existing law, however, did not in his case result in prosecution—perhaps because he succeeded in concealing the fact that he was below 18. It does not result in a large number of prosecutions. The police tend to use cautions to deal with this kind off offence. For example, during 2000, fewer than 25 prosecutions were brought in the whole of England and Wales for the combined offences of purchasing or consuming alcohol on licensed premises by someone under 18. Of those, 22 were found guilty. During the same period there were just 80 cautions for the same offences.
As is often the case, the main use of the offence provisions to which these amendments refer—and which they seek to delete—is as a deterrent. The majority of people, including young people, do pay proper attention to the law. Although it would be impossible to arrive at precise figures, a certain amount of under-age drinking is prevented by the simple fact that it is illegal. Of course, it is entirely unrealistic to expect that no children will ever buy or attempt to buy alcohol, or consume it on licensed premises. But the law places a serious obstacle in the path of such activity, and the Bill will replicate that.
There is a further argument against the arrangements that these amendments would introduce. Under-18s would soon appreciate the fact
740
that there was nothing whatever in the law to prevent them trying to buy alcohol. It would he open season for under-18s to try everything they could to pull the wool over the eyes of even the most responsible of licensees. These amendments would risk leading to a significant increase in under-age drinking.
The offence provisions in the Bill will act as a deterrent—as the existing legislation does—and balance the increased freedoms provided elsewhere in the Bill. As is often the case with deterrent powers, they will not result in large numbers of prosecutions brought against children—we do not expect such action to rise above the current low levels. I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe—having moved her amendment with the best of intentions—will recognise that the Bill as it stands meets her objective and will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am grateful for his acceptance that we have good intentions in relation to these amendments. Given the previous grouping and the Minister's remarks with regard to the forthcoming meeting with various children's societies and other groups on the issue of how we deal with children, I ask the Government to consider carefully the question of offences.
There is no question that under-age consumption of alcohol has become a growing problem—more so now that many children carry identity cards. I logged on to the Internet the other day to see how easy it is to obtain an ID card. All I was asked to do was to pay £10 and state my age. I was very tempted to state that I was rather younger than I am! I have seen these cards. For a tenner, I could have become a member of the British students' union: all of a sudden I could have become 18 years of age—how wonderful!—and found myself with a card that enabled me to enter a club or pub pretending to be that age. I should not have got away with being that age, but many do. They therefore believe that they are not doing anything wrong. Of course, they are; but we are now living in a climate where a great deal of under-age drinking takes place. We should not do anything that encourages it—hence our determination to ensure that there was an age limit so that children of a certain age could not be allowed into pubs and clubs on their own.
We question why the Government have an alcohol reduction strategy—not the sincerity of the strategy, but its purpose—if, at the same time, children under 18 are criminalised if they attempt to drink alcohol.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way? She may like to be reminded that the Government do not yet have an alcohol harm reduction strategy. One has been promised for years but is still in the process of gestation.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. It illustrates better the point I am attempting to make.

741
I believe that the Government are sincere in their wish to find ways to reduce this growing problem—one that worries all of us. Criminalising children is, in our view, not the way to deal with this. I hope that the Government will give time to this issue between now and Third Reading. I know that there is not much time, but we should be grateful if it were possible to discuss this issue at some length with the various children's groups tomorrow. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Clause 147 [Consumption of alcohol by children]:
[Amendments Nos. 224 and 225 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 226:
After Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
"PROHIBITION OF SALES IN THE PRESENCE OF CHILDREN
(1) A responsible person commits an offence if, on any relevant premises which are licensed principally for the sale by retail of alcohol, he knowingly allows an individual aged under the age of 14 to be in that part of the premises where such sale takes place during any such sale unless that individual is accompanied by another individual aged I8 or over.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level I on the standard scale.
(3) In this section "responsible person" means, in relation to a licensed premises—

(a) the holder of a premises licence,

(b) the designated premises supervisor, or

(c) any individual aged 18 or over who is authorised for the purposes of this section by that holder or supervisor."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 164 [Review of premises licence following closure order]:
Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 227:
Page 89, line 34, leave out "Regulations may" and insert "The Secretary of State must by regulations"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 169 [Relaxation of opening hours for special occasions]:
[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 94, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as he considers appropriate."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 170 [Activities in certain locations not licensable]:
Lord Greenway moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 94, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) aboard a vessel licensed to carry less than 100 passengers engaged on a journey,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with an aspect of the Bill which, so far as I am aware, we have not yet discussed.
Clause 170 lists a number of exemptions from the Bill's provisions, including various modes of transport: aircraft, hovercraft and trains on domestic journeys, and vessels engaged on international voyages.
I tabled an amendment in Committee to add domestic passenger vessels to this list, but due to an unfortunate mix-up over timings was unable to move it. I had tabled it as a result of the widespread concern expressed by domestic passenger ship operators at the Bill's provisions, coupled with their annoyance at the fact that no prior consultation had taken place with their trade associations, or with the Maritime & Coastguard Agency, which oversees all maritime regulatory and safety matters and which, I understand, does not look too kindly on a whole host of different local authorities getting involved in marine activities.
I understand, however, that since Committee stage some meetings with the department have taken place at which it became clear that, as a result of the inquiry into the "Marchioness" disaster, the Government are primarily concerned with the tidal Thames, where the largest concentration of boats exists. Many of these are used as tourist boats by day and as what are termed disco boats by night. I appreciate that the latter activity gives rise to concern. It is noisy, and there is a potential for anti-social behaviour when passengers come ashore at night. Furthermore, these tend to be year-round activities.
I understand that during the discussions some measure of sympathy was expressed in regard to smaller boats elsewhere in the country. As a result, I have narrowed down my original amendment to one which seeks to delete only those domestic passenger vessels or craft which are licensed to carry 100 passengers or fewer. It is aimed specifically at that part of the industry which operates inland: that is to say, on canals and on certain sections of non-tidal waterways such as the River Thames above Oxford and, moreover, on a more seasonal basis.
Such activities are an integral part of local tourism, which is still struggling to recover from the disastrous effects of the recent foot and mouth crisis. I do riot need to remind the Government that tourism is one of the main planks for their plans for regeneration of the countryside. The prime purpose of these vessels is tourism and the sale of alcohol amounts only to some 10 or 15 per cent of their income, which hardly puts them into the same category as public houses.
Despite the sympathetic noises from the department, which I mentioned, it could well be that 100 passengers might be considered too high. But I have chosen the figure carefully. Most of the larger, so-called, "disco boats" have two decks and carry well over that number. The larger single-deck boats which operate below Oxford also carry more than 100 passengers. Those to which my amendment would apply almost invariably have only a single deck in order to be able to pass under low bridges.
Among the latter is a horse-drawn barge, which operates on the Kennet and Avon Canal and can carry 90 persons. Many other canal vessels cater mainly for coach parties of around 60 to 70 passengers. At the other end of the scale are a number of small craft carrying as few as eight passengers, where the "bar", if I may describe it as such, is nothing more than a cupboard containing a couple of bottles of spirits. All operators of such boats regard the provision of the bar as a valid part of what they offer. And what can be more pleasant than enjoying a glass of beer, or perhaps something a little stronger, when gliding through the countryside on a warm summer's afternoon?
Under the provisions of the Bill, the cost of licensing and all the extra work that that involves would in some cases make a considerable dent in bar profits and would impose a substantial burden on operators who run a fleet of boats. In addition, I think it most unlikely that the activities I have described would lead to anti-social behaviour. Indeed, I find it hard to recall a single incident, certainly one that is drink related. On the other hand, I can well remember a number of serious disturbances that have occurred among football fans travelling to or from matches abroad on vessels that are specifically excluded from the effects of the Bill.
It would be a tragedy if a number of small businesses engaged in the rural tourist industry were forced to scale down their operations, or even close down, as a result of what is widely regarded in the boating industry as an unnecessary sledgehammer-like approach to deal with what is perceived as an almost non-existent problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some satisfaction. And if he does not like this amendment, perhaps he will indicate that between now and Third Reading he might be prepared to find an alternative way of achieving a similar end. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I support the amendment. I understand why the Government have adopted their present position, given my experience of living close to the River Thames from Monday to Thursday. Often I have the benefit of hearing some of the large disco boats which travel up and down and that may have been a prime factor in the minds of the draftsmen. However, many other people are involved in the industry, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, particularly on canals and rivers. A good deal of the business there has suffered badly as a result of the foot and mouth crisis.
The industry is beginning to recover to some extent, but it foresees that if the legislation is passed, a good deal of additional bureaucracy and cost will fall on to its shoulders. Alternatively, it will simply stop making alcohol available, which in turn will affect business in the longer term.
I hope therefore that the Government will reconsider the matter. Like much of what we have seen in the Bill, this issue is one of proportionality. If left as it stands, the provision will place a substantial additional burden on a good and successful part of the
744
tourist industry. We should be seeking to encourage, rather than discourage, it. Yes, we need regulation and deregulation from the Bill, but we need to strike a balance. The ideas put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, present us with an opportunity to effect some changes, if not precisely in line with the amendment. If the Minister is prepared to explore the issue, we can find a balance that is acceptable to the industry and will produce results which will make everyone happy.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I, too, live by the River Thames from Monday to Thursday; namely, in this House. Sometimes when the windows are open in the Library we occasionally hear the raucous noise from the boats on the River Thames. At weekends and during the holidays I live in Chester. The wonderful River Dee and the Shropshire Union Canal flow through it and they are well used by leisure and commercial boats. I support the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in his request to the Government to ascertain whether those who I understand are the real target of this provision—namely, the disco boats—can be pinpointed. The other leisure boats, often run by small businesses which are integral to the tourism industry in places such as Chester, should not be discomforted by misdirected legislation.
I cannot outline the problem better than the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and therefore I ask the Government to look kindly on his amendment. Perhaps they could finesse the problem in another way so as to ensure that the thriving industry associated with leisure and pleasure boats is not struck down.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I, too, have sympathy with what has been said and I hope that the Government will take action as proposed by the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I declare an interest because I spend my weekends next to the River Thames in a non-tidal waterway below Oxford. I would therefore be spared from the proposal in the amendment. When I first heard of it, I was concerned because my experience is that water is a fantastic conduit for sound. I am sure that the Government have borne that in mind in relation to this part of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has clearly given great thought to the amendment in confining it to smaller boats and waterways and to those who want to conduct their business in a way that does not unduly impact on others or interfere with licensing objectives.
The noble Lord's reference to gliding gently through the countryside is all too tempting a suggestion. We want to do all we can to support tourism. This is tourism generally of a rural nature. It relates to those who are struggling to make a living and do not want to see it compromised by legislation which lacks proportionality. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, said, there must be a balance and I believe that the amendment strikes the right balance.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the amendment seeks to amend Clause 170, which is an important clause. Clause 170 provides that an activity is not a licensable activity if it is carried on at particular locations. These include aboard an aircraft, where separate legislation applies, or aboard a railway vehicle engaged on a journey and also aboard a vessel engaged on an international journey, where domestic law does not apply.
As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, indicated, he seeks to add a new category of exemption for vessels licensed to carry fewer than 100 passengers. The Government do not consider vessels with just under 100 passengers small vessels. The "Marchioness" tragedy gave rise to the vessels clause. The number of people involved in that tragedy was only just over 100. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, described river journeys in almost idyllic terms, as did others who enjoy the delights of the river. However, I stress that the Government wish to address an important issue here with regard to the necessity for licences.
The Bill provides a simple licensing process for vessels of the kind we are discussing that is not excessively expensive. We should take public safety into account with regard to a vessel on the water. I think that the noble Lord will appreciate why I am reluctant to respond completely positively to his amendment although I recognise the force of his argument.
The laws in regard to the licensing of activities on vessels have always been inadequate. For instance, it is perfectly legal to sell alcohol to children on vessels on a journey and for them to consume it. It cannot be right in the Government's view that the sale of alcohol and other activities aboard vessels—for example, pleasure cruisers—should not be licensed when the risks associated with those activities are at least as great as they are on land. Public safety and prevention of harm to children and of disorder are probably the main considerations. But there will also be questions of public nuisance—to which noble Lords referred—to people who live on the banks of waterways or in houses by the edge of canals and rivers.
Lord Justice Clarke's view, stated in his interim report on the Thames Safety Inquiry, and supported in his final report, was that:
"If we are to retain liquor licensing laws and require premises to be licensed to sell alcohol, then the reasons that commend themselves to require such premises on land to be licensed seem to me to apply with at least equal force in respect of vessels. Indeed it might be said that safety concerns demand even higher standards for those in charge of serving alcohol on board boats".
Following that inquiry the Deputy Prime Minister made a commitment that the Government would close the loopholes in regard to the sale of alcohol on vessels. The Bill fulfils that commitment and will bring about 600 vessels within the licensing regime. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, recognises, the amendment would prevent licensing authorities from taking any measures in respect of the licensing objectives with regard to the protection of children
746
from harm. That is an important consideration. The noble Lord will recognise that that is one of the golden threads that run through the Bill.
We recognise that this is one of the areas of the Bill that is regulatory rather than deregulatory, but given the overwhelming public interest issues it is necessary to bring vessels within the licensing regime. I emphasise that for smaller vessels the process will be simple and not costly.
I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, made a persuasive case. The Government will consider whether we could exempt the category of boats—I believe that the noble Lord referred to single-deck boats and to barges—that hold eight to a dozen people. I am sure the noble Lord will recognise that we must be careful in this regard. Some small pubs have capacity for only a small number of people in their bars. We cannot have a situation where a pub hat can establish that it has a capacity as small as that of a barge should be exempt because we have accepted the strength of the noble Lord's case in relation to a certain category of vessel. As I say, we shall consider the matter to see what can be done. I hope that with that earnest of intent the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, at the outset I say how grateful I am to noble Lords on all sides of the House and to the noble Baroness who supported the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for giving a full and frank reply. I was not aware that under existing rules one can, apparently, supply alcohol to a child on a boat. As far as I am aware, under the MCA rules all passenger carrying boats have a strict alcohol policy maintained by the skipper. I should have thought that there are already plenty of regulations to deal with these matters.
I believe that the safety aspect is also something of a red herring. There are many regulations dealing with safety aspects with regard to the captain and crew. I believe that there is a far lesser possibility of safety problems arising out of alcohol consumption on the kind of boats I described. Nevertheless, any crumb of comfort is better than nothing. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for saying that he will reconsider aspects of the matter, I hope in consultation with the various trade associations involved in the activity. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 94, line 30, after "effect," insert—
"( ) at premises in respect of which a licence under the Gaming Act 1968 is in force and the premises are being used wholly or mainly for the purposes of gaming to which Part 2 of that Act applies,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 231, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 261. At previous stages of the Bill the Government said that they would not remove casino and bingo clubs from the provisions of the Bill. But the reasons the Government gave show that, remarkably,

747
they have failed to grasp the nature of their own licensing regime over those establishments. Matters cannot be allowed to rest there.
The Government say that the removal of casinos and bingo clubs from the provisions of the Bill would leave magistrates with the responsibility for alcohol licensing in relation to one group of premises when they would no longer have it for another group. But irrespective of the provisions of the Bill, magistrates will retain full control over the conduct and licensing of gaming premises by way of the Gaming Act 1968. Nothing we are debating today will change that position. It is generally accepted that the control and licensing of gaming premises by magistrates works well. I stress again that it must continue until such time as Parliament approves a new gaming Act.
So the effect of the Bill as currently drafted is that gaming premises will have to make an additional and unnecessary licensing application to the local authority. The amendment seeks to avoid that situation which would be a recipe for chaos and confusion. Without the amendment the Bill will create precisely the "ping pong" between local authorities and magistrates' courts that the Government said in Committee they were so anxious to avoid.
I remind your Lordships that the Government stated again in Committee on 13th January that they did not want business to be subject to unnecessary burdens as a result of the Bill. But by imposing the requirements for licensing by the local authority, the Bill has precisely that effect on gaming premises. They would have to make applications to both the local authority and the magistrates whereas all other licensed premises would have only one annual fee to pay.
The costs involved are substantial: the current fee for the renewal of a gaming licence is £7,950 for casinos and £1,450 for bingo clubs. I understand that the additional costs arising from the Bill could amount to as much as £10,000 per establishment. I would be interested in the Government's response to that figure. For one company alone, the additional expenditure could amount to about £1.5 million. That wholly unnecessary burden would remain until such time as the gaming Bill promised by the Government reached the statute book. I would be surprised if the Government were willing to give any undertaking as to when that Bill might appear.
The Government say that the amendment would mean that magistrates would have to acquire a new responsibility in relation to entertainment licensing in gaming establishments. But magistrates have been responsible for entertainment licensing in these premises for almost 35 years. The Government can hardly be unaware of the position, because only five months ago the Department for Culture, Media and Sport issued guidance to magistrates following the decision to allow live entertainment in casinos. Contrary to what has been claimed, the amendment would introduce no new responsibilities for magistrates.
The Government also claim that the amendment would mean that the Bill would not apply to casinos and bingo clubs. That seems to suggest that these clubs would be allowed to make hay until such time as the Government introduced a new gaming Bill. That is not so. The criteria and safeguards set out in the Bill already apply to gaming establishments because they arise from the application of the provisions of the Gaming Act 1968. They have to be considered at each annual renewal of a gaming licence by magistrates.
It is not as if local authorities are actively seeking this new responsibility in any event. We understand that Westminster City Council, in whose territory many of our foremost casinos are situated, has told the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that it is practically impossible to see how local authorities could process applications for gaming premises under this Bill until such time as new criteria are established under a new gaming Act. Such concerns recognise the primacy of gaming legislation in regulating casinos and bingo clubs. It is of course right that gaming legislation should have primacy, because it can impose more stringent requirements than can reasonably be imposed by the general run of licensing legislation.
The amendment would not result in piecemeal provision, as the Government claim. That implies that the amendment anticipates parts of the promised gaming Bill, but it seeks to do quite the opposite. It would maintain what is widely regarded as a satisfactory status quo pending the implementation of a new gaming Act.
We believe that the Bill is a recipe for short-term chaos and unnecessary cost. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the amendments would take out of the control of the licensing authorities licensable activities in almost 2,000 bingo clubs and over 120 casinos and transfer them to the magistrates under the Gaming Act 1968. Before these proposals can be properly debated, it is important that the House appreciates the Government's current plans for reform of gambling law.
The responsibility for licensing gambling establishments, such as bingo clubs and casinos, rests at present with the magistrates. An individual company which wishes to run a bingo or casino club must obtain a certificate from the Gaming Board for Great Britain. This confirms that the applicant is fit and proper. The magistrates then decide whether to grant a licence covering the premises on which bingo or casino games are to take place. They must take into account any advice given to them by the board.
Last March, the Government published A Safe Bet for Success which set out proposals for comprehensive reform of gambling. The noble Baroness is right: as I said in Committee, of course I cannot give a firm commitment about when it will be possible to bring a gambling Bill before Parliament. It could be as early as next Session, but obviously we have to wait until the next Queen's Speech before we know.

749
The amendments try to anticipate parts of that gambling Bill. Once local authorities are responsible for gambling premises in their areas—not just as the licensing authority for alcohol, entertainment and late-night refreshment but for gambling—in principle, it makes sense to envisage a single licensing procedure for casinos and bingo clubs. We envisage that the licensing committees which will be set up under the Bill would in due course be empowered to deal with gambling licensing matters as well. Bingo clubs and casinos would, therefore, be able to make one application to one body. Such a streamlining of the present arrangements could bring about substantial savings for business and also for the police, local residents and others with an interest.
It would be wrong to pre-empt the future reform of gambling licensing through piecemeal provision in advance of full and detailed consideration of what is appropriate for that future position. The amendments are an unsatisfactory short cut to that future position. In the first place, they would leave the magistrates with responsibility for alcohol licensing in relation to one group of premises when they would no longer have it for any other group. So administrative systems and expertise would have to be maintained for that purpose. Indeed, the magistrates would have to acquire a new responsibility in relation to entertainment licensing.
What is worse, the provisions of the Licensing Bill would not apply, so that the criteria and safeguards which we have spent many hours debating would not extend to bingo clubs and casinos. If these amendments were made to the Bill, the provision of licensable activities in those clubs would not benefit from the Bill's inbuilt protections of expert scrutiny and representation but would in effect be at the magistrates' discretion. If that is no longer considered the right licensing approach for all other premises, why should it be so for bingo clubs and casinos?
The exemption that is envisaged also has a number of wider repercussions. A number of the offences set out in Part 7 of the Bill and the closure powers set out in Part 8 apply only to behaviour or activities taking place on premises for which a licensing permission under the Bill has been granted. So the exemption provided would render these offence provisions ineffective. Let me give a few examples: if the amendment were accepted, children under 18 could be permitted to consume alcohol in bingo clubs and casinos without an offence being committed; disorderly conduct could be allowed to develop without an offence occurring; and alcohol could be freely sold to drunks. I do not think that the noble Baroness wants or intends to have such an arrangement.
The noble Baroness asked about the new casino licence fees. I understand that the fee will be £28,915, with renewal at £7,950. The casino currently has to obtain a justices' licence for which it pays extra, and a special hours certificate, for which it also pays extra. Under the Bill, casinos will obtain a premises licence
750
costing between £100 and £500 and then make a payment of £50 to £150 a year. That seems to be an improvement.
The Government readily acknowledge the case for rationalising licensing responsibilities but believe that this needs to be done properly. Gambling and gaming raise many additional issues which will not be relevant to the licensing activities with which the Bill deals. The right safeguards need to be in place when any attempt at integration is made.
The amendments would lead to a significant vacuum that is unacceptable, and I hope the noble Baroness will agree not to press them.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her full response. Clearly we still disagree with her on a number of issues. I thought I made it clear that in our view the amendment would not result in piecemeal provision, as the Government had stated in Committee. Clearly the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, believes that it would do so. We disagree on that. She also repeated the argument made in Committee that the amendment would mean that the Bill would not apply to casinos and bingo clubs. As we have said again this evening, the criteria and safeguards set out in the Bill already apply to gaming establishments, because they arise from the application of the provisions of the Gaming Act 1968. They have to be considered at each annual renewal by magistrates of a gaming licence.
There are other issues on which it would not he sensible for me to repeat my arguments without repeating all that I said when moving the amendment. We clearly differ on some issues. I hope that before Third Reading the Minister will consider again some of the points that we have raised in Committee and this evening. In turn, I shall take away her point about disorderly conduct and children. That is an important issue that I should like to consider further. I also entirely agree with her that a fee of £100 to £500 sounds like an attractive improvement on £7,950. Again, I shall defer to those in the industry, who are better placed to respond to what the Minister has said.
I thank the Minister for her response. I ask her to consider again the case that has been made, given that the Government have promised a new gaming Act. We understand that it is impossible to give an accurate timescale for when that will be introduced. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 231A:
Page 94, line 31, at end insert
"(h) at a garden fete or other event of a similar character promoted for purposes other than private gain at which fewer than 500 people are to be present at the same time"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, fêtes could be the issue that got away. A lot of helpful amendments have been tabled to the Bill, but the one issue that came up on Second Reading that was not aired in Committee was fêtes. In case anybody thinks that this is a minor

751
matter, I calculate that there must be about 50,000 fêtes a year in England and Wales—charitable fêtes, fundraising fêtes and fun fêtes. I have no idea what licence fee is being contemplated, but if fêtes stay within the ambit of the licensing system, a fee of £100 would represent a total of £5 million of licence fee expenditure. The more important point in many ways is the bureaucratic burden that would be imposed on thousands of tiny organisations that put these annual fêtes together on a wing and a prayer. Many of them would get it wrong.
I am sure I do not need to labour the place of the fête in village life. It is almost a symbol of a certain way of life. It represents all the things that we are trying to preserve in society: jolly harmlessness, the communality that is so often under attack or missing; and inclusiveness. They are all-embracing, amateur, joyful occasions. I suspect and hope that the Government may not have intended that these events should be part of the regulatory framework of the Bill. I have heard many times and believed the statement that this is a deregulatory measure. We need to have regard to the importance of the role of fêtes in our lives.
There is wide support for the amendment in principle, although there is wide ignorance of the fact that fêtes will be caught up in the tentacles of the Bill. From those who have been made aware of the fact that they currently fall within the Bill, one gets a unanimous and pretty fierce response. The Churches have expressed that to me. Perhaps they have written to the Minister. The Charity Finance Directors' Group has just woken up to the issue. They may have written as well. I am not sure.
I hope that my drafting is simple and straightforward. "Garden fête" is used in Schedule 1 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. I cannot be certain that these fêtes are not part of the current licensing framework, because the 1982 Act provides that local authorities can opt out of the need to have licences for such events. Nobody ever gets a licence in my part of the world, so Suffolk has certainly opted out. I suspect that licensing authorities have opted out all round the country. I should be interested and surprised if it were otherwise.
I have included a provision that in order for a fête to be exempt it must be promoted for purposes other than private gain. That is borrowed from Clause 172. I have also suggested that there should be fewer than 500 people present at the same time. That is borrowed from Clause 98. I hope that the purport is clear and that there is ample justification for allowing the amendment in principle, if not with the words that I have used. I beg to move.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I support the amendment. I shall not be able to express the issues any better than the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I think his figure of 500 is arbitrary. Given the type of event, there would be nobody counting the people. However, in principle, the size is about right.
752
In passing, I noticed that the clause exempts royal palaces. That answers an earlier question about whether the recent Jubilee concert would have had to be licensed under the Bill. Clearly it would not.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I also support the amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, that there is a question mark over the figure of 500. I have ringed it and thought about it and my feeling is that, sadly, it would be unusual today to attract more than 500 people to a garden fête or similar event. A few years ago, more people might have turned up, but 500 is a reasonable number. A number has to be set and 500 is about right. It would be otiose to say any more than the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has already said on this sensible and fair amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government are prepared to consider the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has raised, but we have some concerns that will have to be addressed. First, the amendment would exempt from the licensing regime all licensable activities carried on at garden fêtes or similar events, including the sale of alcohol. I did not believe that to be the noble Lord's intention—I hope I am right in that. I thought that the purpose of his amendment was to raise issues about regulated entertainment that are more properly considered under Schedule 1, as he said. If I am not right, while we are prepared to consider the case for regulated entertainment, the Government would oppose any exemption for the sale of alcohol.
I should perhaps remind the House that the provision of public entertainment at garden fêtes is already covered by existing legislation. Within Greater London, entertainment carried on at such events is licensable. Outside Greater London, the position depends on whether individual local authorities have chosen to adopt the relevant provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, to which the noble Lord referred, and whether they have made any relevant by-laws. There are also provisions in the Private Places of Entertainment (Licensing) Act 1967, which is another area where local authorities can resolve to apply its provisions in respect of entertainment.
Nevertheless, I understand that the local authority in whose area of responsibility the garden fête run by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, takes place—namely Suffolk—has not adopted the relevant legislation or made any by-laws. So I can quite see that, from his point of view, the requirement to obtain a licence under the Bill for an activity that he carries on now without a licence would represent an extension of regulation. We want to avoid that. Nevertheless, as he is obviously aware, the potential for regulation already exists.
A further concern relates to what we would mean by a garden fête. The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear me say that. Unfortunately, there is no definitive case law on the point, and the small number of cases that have been decided by the courts give an unclear and contradictory picture. One case concluded that a

753
jazz and beer festival fell within the meaning of "fête". Another took a much narrower and probably more sensible approach by referring to the sale of cakes, old clothes, locally grown fruit and vegetables, and perhaps games such as guessing the length of a phenomenally long runner bean. The point is that the concept of a fête is somewhat nebulous.
On a related point, we are also concerned that unless we get the definition and any relevant parameters right, we might end up allowing some potentially quite large events—such as the jazz and beer festival to which I referred—to fall through the cracks. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, recognises that and has sought to address it through the application of an upper limit. We will consider that as part of our further consideration.
I will ensure that the noble Lord is involved in further thinking about this, although he will appreciate that any amendments to the Bill may have to be introduced in another place. However, that does not in any way preclude us from involving him in the discussions that now need to take place. In the light of that, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for that reply, which could not have been more helpful. I should hope, however, that we could deal with the matter here; as we know, another place misses out whole swathes of legislation when time is short. Nevertheless, I understand the problem. I immediately assure the noble Baroness that I have no intention of bringing in bucolic drunkenness by the back entrance to the marquee. I accept that Clause 172 deals with raffles and tombolas and with a certain limited provision of sealed containers of alcohol. There is no shortage of soft-shoe shuffle on my part about that, and I accept that it must not be allowed in.
The noble Baroness mentioned the Private Places of Entertainment (Licensing) Act 1967. However, that legislation is confined to events promoted for private gain. It would therefore withstand the current proposals and not be touched by this legislation. Other than that, I look forward to seeing the fruit of the noble Baroness's statement and to collaborating with her as far as possible. I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Clause 173 [Prohibition of alcohol sales at service areas, garages etc.]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 232:
Page 96, line 34, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am seeking to amend Clause 173, which is entitled:
"Prohibition of alcohol sales at service areas, garages etc".
In order to avoid a misconception that seemed to arise in Committee, I should say that nothing that I am proposing has anything at all to do with service areas.
754
The prohibition on alcohol sales at service areas seems entirely reasonable to me. There seemed to be some confusion about whether I was seeking to permit alcohol to be sold at service areas; I am not.
The amendment seeks to create circumstances in which we can maintain the village shop, particularly where it is linked to a garage and wishes to sell alcohol. It seeks to prevent the creation of "shopping deserts", as they have come to be called. As we discussed and we all know, the village shop is under considerable commercial pressure. Village shops/post offices are under pressure because benefit payments are being made differently. Village shops/garages are under pressure because we have a "throw away" rat her than a mend environment. Petrol retailers are being driven out because of the pitiful profit margins. The village shop is also under pressure because of supermarkets.
If that commercial unity is to survive, the only answer is to combine those functions. If the garage wants to sell other goods and those goods include alcohol, so be it—let them apply for a licence. I am not suggesting that they should be free from having to apply for a licence. I am saying that they should not be prohibited, as the Bill currently provides, from being able even to apply for a licence. Garages are not even included in the permissible category.
The illogicality of the current position can be illustrated in various ways. It is, for example, permissible for an off licence to be located just 10 to 15 feet from a garage in the same village street. In all likelihood, however, if operated separately, both businesses would go out of business as they would not be commercially viable. Major supermarkets advertise in local newspapers to offer cheap petrol as a means of attracting customers. As I said in Committee, however, once people fill up with petrol at the supermarkets, they can fill up the boot of their cars with booze. Driving to Tesco or Sainsbury's to buy alcohol is as dangerous as driving to one's local village shop/garage to buy a six-pack of beer.
In replying on this issue, the noble Baroness had only two arguments. The first was that permission can be given if less than half the annual turnover of the village garage/shop involves garage-type activities. I think that that was the point she made in Committee in reply to an intervention from my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. The argument seems totally illogical. If 49 per cent of my garage/shop turnover is in petrol, I can apply to sell alcohol with impunity. If it is 51 per cent, however, I cannot do so as I would be in danger of creating alcohol crazed drivers. How will we deal with the threshold when village shops are just either side of the 50 per cent level?
The Minister's next substantive argument was that changing the arrangements would encourage drink driving. She pointed out that, since 1979, alcohol-related deaths on the road have decreased from 1,600 to 480. I think that the number decreased again in 2001. She was absolutely right to say that that is extremely good news. The question, however, is whether those figures are in any way related to the prohibition proposed in the Bill. I would argue quite strongly that they are not.
I have mentioned the position regarding Sainsbury's and Tesco and the huge bias against small village garage/shops. In reply to a Written Question in another place, Mr Bob Ainsworth said that no studies have been undertaken on the commission of drink driving offences related to alcohol purchases from different retail categories. He went on to say that the UK has shown that a combination of rigid enforcement and advertising campaigns has had a dramatic effect in reducing the numbers of people killed and seriously injured in crashes involving illegal levels of alcohol. That seems to shoot another hole in the Minister's argument because, if the prohibition was that important, the Home Office should have done some research on it. The Home Office, in a Written Answer, is effectively saying that the major factor is not alcohol sales, but enforcement and advertising campaigns.
The present permissions were introduced in 1988. Since then, between 600 and 1,000 forecourt stores have met the requirements of the present legislation, and there has been no increase in alcohol-related deaths. Indeed, as the Minister rightly points out, alcohol-related deaths have fallen.
In Scotland, the situation is already as I would like it to be, as legislation liberalised the position in 1997. Garages can apply to the district council licensing board for a licence permitting them to sell alcohol, and there has been no discernible increase in alcohol-related deaths as a result of that minor change in Scotland.
The provision is a strike for local democracy, and for village shops and local communities. The Government talk about the Bill being a deregulatory and decentralising piece of legislation. They should trust the local licensing authority, which will know whether an application is worth while. If it is not, they can turn it down. Local people would have a chance to decide. To have a blanket ban drives another nail in the coffin of local shopping facilities based in villages. If they are to survive, we have to combine functions to meet modern economic competition. If the Government are honest about local authorities taking decisions that reflect their local conditions, they should remove the blanket ban and permit local sense and opinion to prevail. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the cogent argument put forward.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, similarly, I should like to support the amendment, for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, so eloquently put forward.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we also support the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for returning to the matter, as we had an enjoyable debate on it in Committee.
756
Clause 173 prohibits the sale of alcohol at certain excluded premises, including garages. That prohibition is not new. I remind the House that it was introduced under a Conservative government not that long ago, at the behest of the police and road safety organisations. We have reviewed the position and consider it right that it should continue as it is for the time being.
Although we and previous administrations have made good progress in reducing drink driving, there is still much work to be done. Allowing the sale of alcohol would undermine our very clear messages in that area. The issue is not so much to do with reducing drink driving as ensuring that our messages on the topic are clear, and that we can continue the welcome results of the past 20 or more years. The police and road safety organisations maintain their extremely strong support for our view. It would be quite wrong of the Government to act contrary to that firm advice, as would certainly be the effect of the amendment.
I appreciate that the position may not seem logical in some circumstances. It is of course true that one can drive to an off-licence and fill one's boot with super-strength lager, even when the off-licence is 25 yards down the road from a garage. However, all our advice from the experts in road safety points to the continuation of the prohibition.
That said, we might one day reach a point where we consider that drink driving is no longer a menace. At that happy time it might be appropriate to lift the ban on alcohol sales, and the Bill provides flexibility for the Secretary of State to do that through regulation. The amendment would remove that flexibility, and primary legislation would be needed to change the position.
We recognise the importance of balance, however. There is no blanket ban, as the noble Lord said that there was, on the sale of alcohol from garages. It will be allowed under certain circumstances. We recognise that the garage shop often plays a vital role in rural communities, where it might be the only store for some way. That is why the Bill is drafted in such a way that the prohibition will apply only to premises that are primarily used as a garage or form part of premises that are primarily so used. I know that the noble Lord was concerned that the effect of the Bill would be to penalise village shops but, for the reasons that I have given, we have drafted the Bill to ensure that that does not happen.
I should like to take the opportunity to clarify some of the definitions on which the Bill will rely. Use as a garage means use for the retail sale of petrol or diesel or for the sale or maintenance of motor vehicles. Whether a premises is used primarily as a garage is tested under current law by reference to the intensity of use by customers. That may take turnover into account, as I said in Committee. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, following our debates in Committee with quite a detailed explanation. I placed copies of that letter in the Library. In effect, the licensing authority will be able to take into account a

757
number of factors when arriving at a licensing decision in relation to premises of such a nature, so there is no blanket ban.
At present, it is right to continue the prohibition in its current form. At some stage in future the position may have to be reviewed. Meanwhile, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, that is not very satisfactory. We are sacrificing small businesses because the Government want to give a message. As I have explained, while we all absolutely applaud a reduction in alcohol-related deaths, the reality is that the provisions on small garages have nothing to do with that. Nothing that the Minister said makes any difference on such deaths at all. She simply said, "We've got to say this, because that's the message that we want to give". Essentially, we are telling many small businesses, "Because we want to give a message, you're going to go out of business". That is what the Minister effectively said.
Forecourt stores have become a new sector of the British retail trade. Frankly, it is unfair of the Government to permit large superstores on the edges of towns to continue to sell alcohol while advertising petrol as a loss leader, and then to say that that simply cannot be done in the village. In the village, the ability to sell alcohol will depend on intensity of use, but that is undefined; it could be turnover but could he something else.
The Minister spoke about public opinion. The law in Scotland permits people to apply to local licensing authorities and get a licence, irrespective of the features to which the Minister referred.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord implies that the prohibition is new, but it is not; it is in the existing arrangements. It is important that people understand that. He also implies that large numbers of village shops will go out of business because of a new arrangement that is being introduced. The arrangement already exists and the village shops are operating. The rules that apply to village shops are exactly the same as those that apply to supermarkets; the issue depends on the intensity of use. If the intensity of use in supermarkets becomes mainly that of selling petrol to motorists who drive in with their cars to pick up petrol and move on, the same limit and prohibition will apply to them. However, that is not normally the case, because petrol is a smaller part of their business than selling food and other items. The noble Lord is not being entirely fair about the present position, which—I again remind him—was introduced by the government whom he supported not that long ago.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, are we going to play pat-ball over who did what? The fact is that economic conditions have changed much over the past 15 years and forecourt stalls are now a feature of the retail scene. Moreover, over the past 15 years village shops and village facilities have come under
758
greater economic pressure than ever. That cannot be helped but it is a fact. We either say, "We must stick with the law as it is because that would send the wrong signal", or we must say, "This is not right because the circumstances have changed".
If the Minister can produce a single piece of evidence that shows that selling booze from small shops in villages increases the number of alcohol-related deaths from driving, I should not be standing here. The fact is that there is no such information. In Scotland, there is no public opinion for change. The reality is that we should make the change to reflect the circumstances and take a small step towards preserving the village shop. I want to test the opinion of the House.
6.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 232) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hylton, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jopling, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Avebury, L.

Liverpool, E.

Barker, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Blaker, L.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

Luke, L.

Bridgeman, V.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Burnham,L.

Mackie of Benshie, L

Buscombe, B.

Maddock, B.

Byford, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carlileof Berriew, L.

Methuen, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Montrose, D.

Cobbold, L.

Moynihan, L.

Colwyn, L.

Newby, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Newton of Braintree, L

Craigavon, V.

Northbrook, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Denham, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Dholakia, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Palmer, L.

Dundee, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elton, L.

Patten, L.

Falkland, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ferrers, E.

Peel, E.

Fookes, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Freeman, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Razzall, L.

Geraint, L.

Redesdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Glentoran, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Goodhart, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rogan, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Roper, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Russell, E.

Henley, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Higgins, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L. [Teller]

Sandberg, L.

Selborne, E.

Hooper, B.

Selsdon, L.

Howe, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

759

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Vinson, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Waddington, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Wakeham, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B

Walpole, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Weatherill, L.

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Crosby, B

Trumpington, B. [Teller]

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hoyle, L.

Alli, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Andrews, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Bach, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jeger, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Jones, L.

Bhatia, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Billingham, B.

Lipsey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Bragg, L.

Brennan, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brett, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brookman, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Christopher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clark of Windermere T

Mishcon, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mitchell, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Crawley, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Parekh, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Pendry, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Peston, L.

Desai, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dixon, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Eatwell, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Elder, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Richard, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rooker, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Filkin, L.

Simon, V.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Gale, B.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Gilbert, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Golding, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Turnberg, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Uddin, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Varley.L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Whitaker,B.

Hardy of Wath,L.

Whitty, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Wilkins, B.

Harrison, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Haskel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.30 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 233 and 234 not moved.]
Clause 174 [Rights of entry to investigate licensable activities]:
[Amendment No. 235 not moved.]
Clause 176 [Appeals against decisions of licensing authorities]:
Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 236:
Page 98, leave out line 12 and insert—
"(3) The magistrates' court may make an order as to costs, having regard to its statement adopted under subsection (4) below.
(4) The magistrates' court shall—
(a) beginning on the day appointed by the Secretary of State referred to in section 5(2)(a), adopt a statement as to its policy for awarding costs in relation to cases heard on appeal under this Act, after consulting with—

(i) premises licence holders,

(ii) personal licence holders,

(iii) residents,

(iv) business, and

(v) such others that it deems fit;

(b) review its statement adopted by virtue of paragraph (a) above every three years, after consulting with—

(i) premises licence holders,

(ii) personal licence holders,

(iii) residents,

(iv) business, and

(v) such others as it deems fit."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who is unavoidably absent hosting an event at the University of London, I rise to move Amendment No. 236 standing in his name. The amendment is concerned with the award of costs by magistrates' courts in cases where there is an appeal against the decision of the licensing authority.
Under the European Convention on Human Rights, courts may award costs in certain circumstances. The convention is based on the principles of legality and proportionality, which require that where a public authority has a wide discretion in law—in this case the discretion of the magistrates to award costs—there must be either in the legislation or in supplementary regulations,
"a sufficient indication of the circumstances in which that discretion will be exercised".
That is taken from the case of Silver v UK (1983).
A public statement setting out the approach that will be adopted in the exercise of otherwise over-broad discretions may suffice in some cases. Section 2(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires courts and tribunals in making determinations on issues which have arisen in connection with the convention to take into account among other things any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights. That includes the decision that is made in regard to costs. The European Court of Human Rights does not award costs against any person who claims that his rights have been violated, whether or not that claim has been upheld.
Furthermore, the convention requires that the burdens placed on any of the parties in civil cases should not be so onerous as to create an imbalance between the parties. The Bill as presently drafted is likely to deter individuals from appealing against decisions of the licensing authority even where there are very good grounds for doing so—for example, where there is evidence of bias or where there have been serious mistakes of fact or law—because of uncertainty over the costs that a litigant may have awarded against him.
There is even greater uncertainty because paragraph 9(3) of Schedule 5 to the Bill requires the licensing authority and the licensee to join in as respondents, which creates the possibility that two lots of costs may be awarded if magistrates choose to exercise their discretion in that regard. The experience of litigants is that residents will not take on risks of costs if there is uncertainty as to the quantum.
Given all of that, while magistrates should, indeed, have the power to award costs, the interests of ensuring that there is access to the court requires it to be indicated on what basis they will exercise that discretion. We believe that the best way would be through a statement which would have to be produced after consultation with the parties likely to be affected. Magistrates' courts already have court user forums where such issues can be raised. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, Clause 176 provides that after determining an appeal, magistrates' courts may make any order as to costs they think fit. Amendment No. 236, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would fetter the courts' discretion by requiring them on making an order as to costs to have regard to their own statement of policy as to costs. As the noble Lord described, that policy must be developed in consultation with licence holders, business, residents and any others the courts think appropriate. The policy must be reviewed every three years, again following consultation.
In our view it would be quite wrong to fetter the courts' discretion to make orders as to costs on the basis of the individual merits of any case. The courts do that every day. They are already the appeal body at first instance for appeals associated with public entertainment licences. The courts should not be expected to consult the community before they make decisions. Their independence is something we all value.
Aside from those points of principle—the amendment raises a point of principle—I believe that the amendment is a recipe for what would be inconsistent practice all across the country on the matter of costs. If an appeal brought before the courts is considered vexatious by the magistrates or judged to be frivolous, surely it is only right that the courts should bear that in mind when making their decisions on costs. The courts have vast experience of such matters and we have no desire to change the existing arrangements with regard to appeal hearings. We must trust our judiciary to act reasonably and judiciously as they overwhelmingly do.
762
The noble Lord is concerned, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, at a previous stage of the Bill expressed concern, that local residents may be reluctant to mount appeals with the prospect that costs may be awarded against them. I understand the sentiment behind the representations. Those with a valid case have no reason to be deterred but it is right that any potential appellant should think hard before bringing an appeal. It is not meant to be a second bite at the cherry. The decision-making body under the terms of the Bill is the licensing authority. The appellate court is needed to ensure justice, fairness and reasonableness in the decision-making and as a remedy when parties are genuinely aggrieved.
As I said earlier, we have to trust the courts to exercise their discretion fairly. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I shall not press the amendment without consulting the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. However, I found the Minister's reply unsatisfactory in the sense that he did not deal with the argument. I pointed out that the case law in the European Court of Human Rights requires that some indication of the circumstances in which the discretion of the courts would be exercised has to be given. At present, there is not any. Whatever the noble Lord may say, I believe there is a powerful deterrent against people who wish to exercise legitimate rights in appealing against the decision of the licensing authority for any of the reasons that I have given by virtue of the fact that they may be faced with almost unlimited costs. I do not think that any residents' association will take on the responsibility of formulating an appeal knowing that those risks exist, however remote, and however justifiable the case.
The best I can do at this stage is to say that I shall discuss the matter in detail with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and with those who he has consulted, who are experts in the law of Strasbourg and who have advised him, as I have told your Lordships, that a provision of this kind is required. It may not be in the exact wording of the amendment, but certainly the manner in which the discretion of the courts would be exercised has to be notified to those who might exercise their rights to appeal against the decision of the licensing authority. It is unfortunate that the Minister could not have given even an indication that the Government would consider the principle of the matter if not the detail of the amendment. We shall have to take it away and come back, if necessary, after consultations at another stage of the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Appeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 237 and 237A not moved.]
Lord Cobbold moved Amendment No. 237B:
Page 117, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment would delete paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 5, which is concerned with the right of appeal against the granting

763
of a licence. The right of appeal is vitally important in principle, but the provision worries me as it relates to persons who have already made relevant representations at the original licensing authority hearing, and it challenges the licensing process itself. The provision may be used as an objector's charter, giving rise to all sorts of frivolous appeals designed explicitly to delay the licensing process. That could be especially relevant in the case of a public entertainment licence for a special event, when timing may be of importance.
I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division, but will the Minister comment on whether the concept of an objector's charter has any validity?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 238 and 245, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. This, again, is a convention matter.
The convention requires that decisions involving civil and convention rights must be made by independent and impartial tribunals such as, in this case, a magistrates' court. If they are made by an administrative body, such as a local authority, there must be an avenue of appeal to an independent tribunal on the facts as well as on the law.
The Bill does not give objectors the right to access to a magistrates' court unless they have made relevant representations. However, an individual may have been precluded from making relevant representations for a variety of reasons. There may have been no notice advertising the application and the local authority may have made a mistake in determining the application in those circumstances. The objector may incorrectly have been considered not an interested or responsible person. The licensing authority may incorrectly have deemed the representation frivolous or vexatious or, in a review, incorrectly considered the representation to be a repetition.
Those restrictions on access to an independent tribunal may fundamentally affect the rights of such an individual, whose only course of action may be to petition the administrative court for leave to quash a decision made on that basis. The burden on a resident in doing that would be onerous in terms of substantial cost and time. The essence of his right of access to an independent tribunal would be vitiated, which would be a violation of Article 6.
The amendments would deal with that problem by allowing the individual the right to appeal to the magistrates' courts, which would have the ability to award costs to prevent or deter abuse of the right.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is only right that all parties involved in the process of licensing applications have available appropriate remedies and the freedom to challenge decisions in appropriate circumstances. Where, following the advertisement of an application so that interested parties may have the opportunity to make relevant representations and then a hearing convened to consider them, it would seem
764
wholly unfair to deny those people the right to appeal the determination of the licensing authority if they feel it is necessary. For example, a premises licence may have been granted subject to modified conditions, which the interested party does not feel properly addresses the concerns raised in his representations about the prevention of public nuisance.
Amendment No. 237B would remove not only that right of appeal, but also the right of responsible authorities—expert bodies such as the police or environmental health body for the area—to appeal against decisions. In this respect, the amendment would not only be unfair but would also remove a safeguard when, for whatever reason, such bodies feel that an appeal is necessary to ensure the promotion of the licensing objectives. Quite apart from those concerns, I would not be in a position to confirm to noble Lords that acceptance of the amendment would be compatible with convention rights. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, will withdraw it.
Amendments Nos. 238 to 240 and 242 to 245, on the other hand, would add new circumstances in which appeals could be made. They would allow a person who had made representations about any of these applications to appeal on the grounds that the application should not have been treated as compliant by the licensing authority. They would allow someone to appeal a decision when their representations about applications or the review of licences or certificates had been deemed not relevant by the licensing authority. On all these matters, they would allow a person to appeal against a decision by the licensing authority that their representations were not relevant representations, or were frivolous or vexations.
The proposals strike at an important aspect of the procedures for applications for licences. The Bill, without the amendments, will enable the consideration and determination of applications to be dealt with speedily and effectively, involving the appropriate professional experts and those residents and businesses likely to be affected by the outcome of the application.
We have often pointed out during the course of debate that the Bill needs to strike a balance between allowing the licensed industry to go about its business and protecting the rights of interested parties and responsible authorities. The Bill allows those parties and authorities to have far more say in the licensing system than before. Not only can they make representations about all applications, they can also request the review of a licence on a ground relating to the licensing objectives at any time.
It is important, however, to ensure that safeguards exist to prevent a small number of troublemakers from frustrating the intentions of the Bill. That is why licensing authorities will be able to decide whether representations about applications or reviews have come from interested parties or responsible authorities—and if they have, in the case of the former, whether they are relevant, and not frivolous or vexatious.

765
The amendments have the potential to create a nightmare scenario whereby every single administrative judgment about representations that the licensing authority makes could be appealed against, thereby protracting the operation of the licensing regime. I am also curious as to why there is such a distrust of licensing authorities, which is implied in the amendments. They are capable of making sound judgments in relation to representations and to the parties who have made them. It is right that there should he an avenue of appeal against the decisions that licensing authorities take about applications relating to licences, certificates and statements. But to allow appeals against the judgments that a licensing authority needs to make to ensure that it is considering the correct evidence from the right sources when making decisions is simply unnecessary. Judicial review is the appropriate recourse for a person aggrieved by judgments of this sort.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, will not press his amendment.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I hear what the Minister says, but she has not answered my question about frivolous delaying tactics at the second stage. She stated, correctly, that frivolous applications could be stopped at the first hearing, but there seems no method for preventing frivolous applications and appeals under the provisions. However, I am not prepared to press the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 238 to 247 not moved]
Clause 178 [Hearings]:
Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 248:
Page 98, line 28, at end insert ";
( ) prescribe the period within which an application, in relation to which a hearing has been held, must be determined or any other step in the procedure must be taken"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 180 [Provision of information]:
Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 248A:
Page 99, line 43, at end insert ", or
(c) to an interested party to enable them to make relevant representations,
but nothing in this subsection shall authorise a licensing authority or responsible authority to disclose matters of commercial confidentiality"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 248A again on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. It concerns a situation where a responsible authority or the licensing authority becomes aware of information that may threaten the well-being or harm the safety of individuals where it may have an obligation to make information available to those likely to be affected. That was held in the case of Guerra v. Italy, which was discussed on an earlier occasion.
The Bill, as drafted, prevents the licensing authority from complying with that obligation. The amendment removes the offending clause and allows the licensing authority and the responsible party to consider whether in all the circumstances that disclosure is necessary.
I refer back to the discussion in Committee between the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, on the subject of disclosure of information from licensing premises. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, sought to distinguish the decision in Guerra v. Italy, on the grounds that the polluter was a chemical factory and therefore of greater risk to residents than licensed premises.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, may be right about that or he may be wrong; it all depends on the facts in question. In the absence of Clause 180(3), the licensing authorities and the courts would have to balance the data protection and privacy issues with the issues relating to the right to receive information on issues that may cause harm. The problem with Clause 180(3) is that it prevents the licensing authority and the courts from carrying out this balancing task. Therefore, we believe it is unsatisfactory to have the clause in the Bill in Convention terms.
It is questionable for the Minister to argue, as he did, that licensing premises do not cause problems that can damage health. The possibility that that might occur is implicit in the Bill. For example, in Clause 13(4)(d) local authorities are given powers to object in pursuit of statutory functions relating to,
"minimising or preventing the risk of pollution of the environment or of harm to human health".
If a local authority were to find that there was harm to human health, it would be difficult to argue convincingly that the principles in Guerra v. Italy do not apply.
Perhaps I may say that in Committee the Minister seemed unaware of the way in which the Strasbourg courts have used the judgment in Guerra and subsequent cases. Since then, I hope that he has taken the opportunity to bring himself up-to-date on the issue. It is not an isolated case; it is a case that established the principle that public authorities have duties to collect and disseminate information on environmental pollution that can affect the amenities of people who live in their midst. It has been quoted approvingly, for example, in Lopez Ostra v. Spain and in Hatton and others v. UK. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving the amendment. As he said, we had a fairly thorough discussion of the matter in Committee, but I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and, I imagine, the noble Lord himself are dissatisfied with the response. We are not convinced either by the representations made at that time or by the arguments presented on this occasion.
Clause 180 provides that information held by licensing authorities and responsible authorities for the purposes of the Bill may be shared with other licensing authorities or responsible authorities. where

767
necessary, to enable the discharging of their functions under the Bill. I do not think anyone would disagree that it is perfectly reasonable that licensing authorities and bodies such as the police, fire authority and health and safety bodies should be able to share such information for such purposes.
What would not be reasonable—this is the case that the Government argued in Committee—is the removal of the protections for licence holders, applicants and other individuals without which they could not know which other organisations or individuals had been passed their confidential information or data, and for what purpose. That is particularly acute in relation to personal data where, as noble Lords will know, the Data Protection Act makes specific provision on disclosure. It would be wrong for us to seek in the Bill to override those provisions. Applicants provide information for the purposes of the Bill and it is to be used for those purposes only.
Clause 180 provides the right level of protection because, in discharging licensing functions or its functions as a responsible authority, the licensing authority or responsible authority may well have in its possession information to which issues of confidentiality and so on will attach. And of course information relating to licences and notices issued by licensing authorities will be kept on a register which all licensing authorities are required to maintain and this information will be accessible to the public. For those reasons, I ask that these amendments are not pressed. There are excellent reasons why the clause is necessary.
I understand the main concern behind these amendments is a concern that the clause will endanger powers under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Local Government Act 2000, which allow information about crime and disorder and environmental issues—to which the noble Lord made specific reference—to be shared and that that would be incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was an issue much raised in Committee. I offer the noble Lord the comment that we have thought seriously about these issues since Committee. I give a strong assurance that that is not the case. There is nothing here which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Clause 180 relates to information collected specifically for the purposes of the licensing regime by licensing authorities. The types of information relating to crime and disorder and to environmental matters—which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has in mind, and are issues to which he referred in Committee, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has reflected those anxieties today—are rightly available to interested parties under the 1998 Act. The provisions of the 1998 Act similarly provide a gateway for the sharing of information which enables the holders of information to provide it to others in accordance with that Act. The provisions in the Bill relate to its scope; they do not affect the provisions in the 1998 Act.
768
The noble Lord will know that my noble friend the Minister has signed the Bill to the effect that it is compatible with the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights; and Clause 180 is so compatible. That is the reassurance that I give.
I recognise that the noble Lord has raised some very important points. The Government's contention is that we are dealing with a very restricted area of information for specific purposes. It is within that framework that the restrictions apply. I hope he will recognise the reasonableness of the Government's case and feels able on behalf of the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, once again I am obliged to withdraw the amendment because I am not able to consult with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, regarding the Minister's answer. There did not seem to be anything in his reply, so far as I could make out, to enable this balancing of two conflicting requirements that I mentioned when introducing the amendment.
I specifically acknowledged that there were data protection implications and other requirements of confidentiality that had to be observed, but that the amendment was designed to allow those to be weighed against the freedom of information requirements which would otherwise have applied if there had not been, for example, the Data Protection Act.
I need to take the matter away and discuss it again with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in order that we can decide with the benefit of the advice—and particularly in the light of considerations that go to the heart of the Human Rights Act—whether we need to bring the amendment back at another stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 249 not moved.]
7 p.m.
Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 249A:
After Clause 180, insert the following new clause—
"PROVISION OF INFORMATION BY THE POLICE
(1) When a relevant representation has been made by an interested party or by a responsible person (other than the chief officer of police) in respect of any premises, the licensing authority must give notice of that fact to the chief officer of police as soon as is practicable.
(2) When the chief officer receives a notice of a kind referred to in subsection (1), he must as soon as practicable place a report before the licensing authority giving details of all incidents of crime and disorder (if any) on the premises or in the vicinity and related to the premises reported to the police during the most recent three months for which the information is available."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was prompted by my experience listening to the licensing sub-committee of the City of Westminster on 20th February, when the head of CO14 Clubs and Vice Unit was not objecting to the renewal of the licence in question, but two officers attended to give evidence on their own initiative. The head of CO14 explained that the internal process in the police was that all officers who had anything to say about a particular application were to channel their comments through

769
CO14, which would, in the light of all the circumstances, decide whether it was expedient to object.
In this case, having considered the information at their disposal regarding violence and disturbance at or in the vicinity of the premises, and in the light of what the management were doing about it and how many people were coming through the establishment's doors, it concluded that there were insufficient grounds to object to the renewal. A councillor then asked whether it would not be a good idea to present that evidence to the sub-committee. The officer replied that to be fair and ethical, the police would have to consider every individual offence to see whether it related to the premises, which would take a lot of effort.
I accept that in the West End, where there is a concentration of nightclubs in a small area, it may not always he easy to say whether offences committed in the vicinity are related to particular premises, but the police are already required to exercise their judgment on that in relation to closure orders under Clause 158(1).
As I see it, three groups of offences are relevant: those committed on the premises, about which there can be no doubt; those committed by someone who recently left the premises; and those where no evidence is available about where the offender was beforehand, or whether he was ever in any of the premises in the vicinity. When I say "evidence", I do not mean it in the strictly legal sense, because the police will generally know more about the background than is available in the form of witness statements. I take it that the phrase,
"related to, the premises",
in Clause 158(1) must be construed in that way. People nearly always tell ambulance personnel where the victim had been drinking and the information may be given to the police by ambulance men or by witnesses who are not prepared to give formal statements. It is perfectly reasonable for the police to make their own judgment on whether an offence is related to the premises, short of being able to prove it to the standards that would be required in a court of law.
In pursuit of the licensing objective, the police should maintain records that allow them to analyse the connection between licensed premises and offences committed on or in the vicinity of premises. Those records must be produced when the police have imposed a closure order and are asking magistrates to order that the premises remain closed until the licensing authority reviews the premises licence under Clause 164(2).
In fact, the police keep computer records of all crimes reported to them, and I am told that it would not he difficult to analyse them in that way. That would mean that little further work would be required to produce the information for the licensing authority as required by the amendment. Without it, it is difficult to imagine how the licensing authority will set about achieving the objective of reducing crime and disorder.
The Minister has accepted that there is a relationship between alcohol consumption and crime, and that the presence of large numbers of people in open public spaces can give rise to problems of disorder and nuisance. The combination of the two causes the harm. Large numbers of people without alcohol are completely innocuous, as we saw from the recent anti-war march, in which more than 1 million people participated without, as far as I am aware, any increase in crime or disorder in central London. But put the two together and we get trouble, as the House would be aware if the Minister had been able to give the figures that she said she would try to provide when I asked her for them on 19th December at col. 801.
If I may say so, the Minister could not have asked the police about the figures, because when I did so, they were able to give me month-by-month statistics for 2002 of calls to the police classified as violence against the person in the Charing Cross and West End Central police areas of Westminster and, for comparison, the whole of the boroughs of Croydon, Barnet and Merton. The totals are instructive. In Barnet, there were 649; in Merton, 299; in Croydon, 889; but in central London, 1,495.
From those figures, your Lordships will deduce what is in any case intuitively obvious: the more late-night drinking establishments there are, the greater the level of crime and disorder. It follows that any strategy to reduce crime and disorder should include the closest possible monitoring of existing establishments and a rigorous policy of closing those that can be shown to be connected with a large number of offences.
Amendment No. 259A, which is grouped and also stands in my name, follows a similar train of thought. It proposes that the licensing authority should maintain records of crime and disorder at or in the vicinity of premises, as well as of ambulance calls to the premises. I do not envisage a great deal of work for the licensing authorities if the amendment is approved, because they would simply receive details from police and ambulance authorities in electronic form, to be accessed for the licensing authority's consideration where relevant representations were made against the renewal of a licence.
That would ensure that the licensing authority, not just the police, had the information about the level of crime linked to the premises, instead of being completely in the dark if for some reason—as in the case that I cited at the beginning of my speech—the police decided not to oppose renewal. At present, that is a serious gap in the Bill.
If the Minister can think of any other way to reduce crime and disorder through the policies of the licensing authority, I should like to hear about it. In the guidance, where premises licences are discussed, only one paragraph deals with the licensing objectives, paragraph 6.24, and that is concerned only with operating schedules. Paragraphs 6.70 to 6.74 deal with reviews of premises licenses, but those can arise only when the police have imposed a closure order. The guidance is clear that only actual convictions are to be

771
considered in those reviews, but it is less clear whether it must be proved that the criminal conduct was a matter of policy or of negligence.
If the management allow under-age drinking or use of the premises for the sale of Class A drugs, for instance, those would be for consideration; but what if the offence was committed by someone on the premises or just outside? Would cases such as that of Mr Lee Bowyer and Mr Jonathan Woodgate, accused of grievous bodily harm and affray outside the Majestyk club in Leeds, be taken into consideration, or would the licensing authority have to ignore the Lee Bowyer case because he was acquitted?
I hinted earlier at one other question: the National Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy is supposed to report in May. The health Minister, Hazel Blears, told me that there would be an interim analysis paper by the end of last month, summarising the results of the consultation that took place between October last year and mid-January 2003.
Here is yet another example of the lack of joined-up government, because we have no idea what views were expressed about the role of the Licensing Bill in combating alcohol harm. Licensing was not mentioned at all in the consultation document, but some of the representations undoubtedly made the point that late-night drinking is linked to crime. Perhaps it is inconvenient, from the Government's point of view, for that to be highlighted while your Lordships are considering the Bill.
It is commonsense that the licensing authority should be entitled to consider all the information on record about crimes on licensed premises or in their vicinity. Without that, they will not have the means to use the licensing system to reduce crime and disorder. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support the amendments. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will not mind my saying that I discussed the amendments with him. I asked him whether they might place a significant additional burden on the police. I was satisfied from our discussion that that would not be the case.
Given that, I believe that the amendments are sensible and, in essence, would be for the benefit of all. To say more would be to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, although the intention behind the amendments is both clear and laudable, the Government must resist them for several reasons. First, they are unnecessary. Where the police are notified of an application for a premises licence or club premises certificate, a variation of the same, or a provisional statement, or where they call for a review of a premises licence or club premises certificate or contribute to one on the grounds of any of the licensing objectives, they will have access to the relevant history of the premises and will be able to present the facts of the case to the hearing. That history need not be
772
limited to the three-month period that would be achieved by Amendment No. 249A. Furthermore, Clause 180 makes specific provision for the police as a responsible authority to make available the information that they hold,
"for the purposes of facilitating the exercise of the authority's functions".
In addition, Clauses 17, 29, 50, 70 and 85 provide for regulations to be made on the procedures for dealing with applications for the granting of, or review of, premises licences or club premises certificates and for the making of a provisional statement. The Bill states expressly that those regulations will require the applicant to advertise his application and to give a notice containing details of it to each responsible authority and such other persons as may be prescribed. It further states that, where the application is for a review of a premises licence or club premises certificate, such notice must he given to the holder of the premises licence or club premises certificate. Furthermore, in the case of a review of a premises licence or club premises certificate, it makes clear that those regulations will require the licensing authority to advertise the application and to invite representations about it to be made to the authority by any interested parties and responsible authorities. The first part of Amendment No. 249A is, therefore, unnecessary—it is already provided for by the Bill as it stands.
The amendments would also place significant additional burdens on the police, the ambulance service and the licensing authority. They would place further pressures on the police, in particular. I fear that they may entail diverting resources from dealing with crime and disorder into handling another significant set of paperwork.
Finally, the amendments adopt something of a shotgun tactic. Not all incidents of crime and disorder, or ambulance call-outs, will relate to how premises are run, or the effect of liberalisation of licensing laws. A major component of crime at licensed premises, particularly in tourist areas, is theft of, for example, mobile phones, wallets and handbags. It is a cognitive leap to explain the apparently higher number of calls to central London police by the presence of more licensed premises. Many factors may be involved, including the large number of tourists, on whom criminals prey.
Another large part of crime committed at licensed premises comprises threats, intimidation and violence against licensees. It would not be appropriate to seek to link those aspects of crime to a premises licence or club premises certificate. My point is that requiring the police and the licensing authority to record every incident of crime and disorder that may relate to licensed premises imposes huge extra burdens for little gain. Fraud by bar staff is another example of relatively common criminal activity that would appear to have little bearing on a licensing application. What is important is that the police can make all the relevant facts available. Under the new system they will already be able to do that.

773
Similar arguments apply to requiring the ambulance service to record all calls to licensed premises and to provide details to the licensing authority. Many of those calls will be entirely unrelated to the activities carried on at licensed premises.
A review of a premises licence does not have to wait for a closure order. Clause 50 allows any interested party or responsible authority to apply for a review at any time on a ground related to the licensing objectives.
We have discussed Amendment No. 259A with ACPO. Its view is that a requirement that local authorities maintain records of crime at or around licensed premises would duplicate work that the police already undertake, and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary. It is also concerned that it could give local authorities a crime and disorder role that properly lies with the police.
I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness has discussed the amendment with the police. I have done so. I can tell her that no extra work would be involved. The police already record reported crimes on computer. As I said earlier, it would be a simple matter of electronic transfer for them to give the information to the local authorities.
Admittedly, the information would not be analysed in such detail as the noble Baroness hinted at. There would be no indication of whether particular crimes were linked to activity over which management staff of premises had control. The local authorities, in interpreting the figures, would have to exercise judgment. Given that the noble Baroness says that they will receive the information called for in this amendment in some form, I do not see why they should not have it as a matter of regular practice. If local authorities built up experience of evaluating police reports and determining the proportion of crimes attributable to the management of premises, they would become as good at exercising that judgment as one would wish. In any case, if local authorities receive reports of crime and disorder that they must consider when deciding whether to award or renew a licence, they must exercise a certain amount of judgment on the figures presented to them by the police.
Obviously, we shall not solve the problem this evening. I am afraid that it is another piece of unfinished business to which we will have to return. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, warmly for her kind support. No doubt we will discuss the matter again before the next stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 250 not moved.]
Clause 189 [Index of defined expressions]:
[Amendments Nos. 251 to 259 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 259A not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 260:
After Clause 191, insert the following clause—
"ANNUAL REPORT ON THE EFFECTS OF LICENSING POLICY
(1) The Secretary of State shall publish each year a report on the effects of the change in licensing policy introduced under this Act.
(2) In each report under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall include—

(a) an assessment by the Chief Medical Officer of the public health advantages and disadvantages of alcohol in regard to the licensing policy set out under this Act, including specifically, details of the amount of binge drinking,

(b) an assessment of the impact of the licensing policy on children and young people,

(c) a statement of the number of fixed penalty offences, cautions and convictions for alcohol related offences in the preceding year, together with details of the number of recorded offences under Part 7 of this Act,

(d) evidence from licensing authorities as to whether the new licensing system is cost effective, and

(e) any other information which the Secretary of State sees fit to include."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would impose on the Secretary of State a duty to produce an annual report detailing the effects of the change in licensing policy proposed in the Bill. In Committee, I spoke to a similar amendment, Amendment No. 446. It proposed an annual report on the effects of licensing policy on public health. I was heartened by many noble Lords' support for that amendment. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson rightly pointed out:
"We need to monitor the effects of the laws that we pass; otherwise we are working in a vacuum and will have no way of monitoring the effectiveness of our decisions".—[Official Report, 20/1/03; col. 476]
In response, we were told:
"The Government take these issues very seriously and we shall continue to monitor them. However, we do not need to set down in primary legislation a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a report every year on the matters covered by the Bill".—[Official Report, 20/1/03; col. 478.]
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, on that point. It is the duty of the Government to publish a report detailing the effectiveness of an Act that amounts to a complete overhaul of the laws relating to the licensing of alcohol and entertainment.
I sincerely hope that the new licensing system will work efficiently, especially in the light of the many hours that we have devoted to scrutinising the Bill in your Lordships' House. The Government argue for guidance, rather than regulation, but regulation is not flexible enough to cope with the alterations—foreseen and unforeseen—that may be needed as the system gets off the ground. There may be teething troubles.
I do not wish to sound like a pessimist, but, in the worst possible scenario, there may be fundamental problems in the practical working of the new system. An example of that can be seen in the issue of fees. We have already talked at length about a cost-effective,

775
self-financing system. Those representing local government fear that they will not have enough income to sustain the administrative burden of the licensing system. They would prefer the introduction of local variables in fees. The Government have insisted that fees be set centrally, and we agree with that. However, we must know whether that aspect of the Bill will place vast financial pressure on local authorities, as they fear.
We must know whether alcohol-related crime soars; whether binge-drinking escalates or diminishes; whether the policy on children provides adequate protection; and whether local transport and cleaning services can cope with later licensing hours. Essentially, we must know whether the new system works. We should remember that the last Licensing Act was passed in 1964, and we have been—if I can put it this way—stuck with it for a long time. The same situation could apply with this law.
If the Government's only reason for opposing the amendment is that they fear the burden of producing such a report—as I fear it is, going by what the noble Lord said in Committee—I am disappointed. Transparency and accountability are at the heart of the amendment. I hope that the Government's opposition to it does not reflect a concern that an annual report might expose the shortcomings of their new licensing system. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, we had a debate on this in Committee. She is right. I shall reiterate the points about the effects of the Bill.
The Government take seriously all the issues that the noble Baroness raised and will continue to monitor them after the implementation of the new licensing system. Just as the policy was not developed in a vacuum, we would not wish to see it administered and enforced in one. It is important that the effects of alcohol or any potentially dangerous substance on public health are carefully monitored. The Department of Health does that. Along with the Office for National Statistics, it publishes comprehensive statistics on alcohol use and abuse in all sections of the public, including young people. For example, Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people is an annual report on the frequency of drinking, the amount drunk and the types of drink consumed by children and young people. The Home Office does a great deal of work with the Office for National Statistics on the relationship between alcohol and crime.
Any report such as that proposed by the noble Baroness would have to be based on robust criteria showing clearly the link between the data and the licensing system introduced by the Bill, as well as the many other factors that influence behaviour. It is a complex area, and, as I said in Committee, I fail to see how a report that could be of use in those terms could be constructed. To require the Secretary of State in primary legislation, every year for the foreseeable
776
future, to produce and publish such a report—much of the contents of which are already published by other departments—is unnecessary.
The amendment would also place an ongoing burden on local authorities and other responsible bodies. The noble Baroness broadened the requirements to include the impact on local authorities. That would create burdens where they are not needed. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. In some ways, I am pleased that the Minister recognises that there are issues that may come to light when the system begins and that there may be teething troubles.
There is a need for flexibility, and I am sorry that the Government do not accept that it would make sense to have some form of annual report. That would allow us properly to review how things are progressing. In our debate on an earlier amendment today, when we discussed the age at which children should be allowed into pubs and clubs, I made the point that we might get it right or we might need to raise the age if there were problems.
There are many issues connected with new alcohol and entertainment licensing laws that we may not even have begun to recognise at this stage. We wish the new system well, but it is regrettable that the Government do not feel it appropriate to have an annual report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 262:
Page 142, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) After section 55(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8) (meaning of "development" and "new development"), insert—
"(2A) Notwithstanding the provisions of any order or development order or any other provision made under any power under this Act, all premises which are licensed or required to be licensed under the Licensing Act 2003 shall be required to seek planning permission for any material change of use in the premises.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 262, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 270 and 271, regarding planning and use class orders.
Ministers have said on many occasions that issues relating to the impact of licensed premises on the amenities and environment of an area should be dealt with through the planning system and should not be addressed through the licensing system. At present, that is not always possible in the planning system. The amendments would ensure that planning controls would apply to all material changes in use in licensed premises and that all the conditions and undertakings to which a licensed premises was subject were transferred into its planning consent, to the extent that they were not transferred into its planning licence. The

777
amendments would give practical effect to ministerial wishes for amenity issues to be planning issues, not licensing issues alone.
Planning permission is required for all development in land and buildings that includes material changes of use. In deciding whether to grant planning consent, a planning authority must decide the application,
"in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise".
Such considerations might include, for example, noise, waste, pollution or the cumulative effect. The planning system does not always work in that way, because not all material changes of use are subject to development control in the planning system. The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 created a new use class—the A3 use class—comprising all uses of premises for the provision of food and drink. That order exempted all premises in the new A3 use class from the requirement to seek planning consent and was, moreover, retrospective.
The argument used at the time by the Government was that controls over the impact of a premises on the amenities of the area could and should be dealt with through the licensing system and not through the planning system. Therefore, a change from restaurant to bar does not require planning consent, nor does an increase in hours or numbers. The Licensing Bill and, in particular, the guidance will sweep away the ability of local licensing authorities to take into account material changes of use at licensed premises and the body of licensing conditions and undertakings that exist 'with respect to existing premises.
The effect will be that there will be no planning or licensing control over the impact of a licensed premises on the amenity of an area, except in the case of new premises, which will have to apply for planning consent. Crucially, there will be no control over the impact on local amenities of decisions by existing premises to extend their hours, increase their capacities or switch from low to high intensity uses. Planning authorities will become far more cautious about granting planning consent and development will be constrained. We have returned repeatedly to this concern during the passage of the Bill. We do not want to see a situation arising where the industry puts forward plans but then local authorities are afraid that those plans would have a compromising impact on licensing and therefore back away at the planning stage. We think that the amendments would assist in that matter.
I appreciate that in the near future a planning Bill is to come before the House, but we cannot wait and second-guess what that Bill may contain. If amenity is to be solely a planning matter, then adequate safeguards must be transferred to planning conditions. That is what the amendments seek to achieve. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I rise warmly to support he amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. Perhaps II may discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 268,
778
272 and 273 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. They concern the carry-over into the new regime of undertakings given in connection with the award of a licence. At present, those undertakings will not form part of the transitional arrangements and in effect they will disappear because they are dealt with on an informal basis by agreement between the licensee and the local authority. I am not sure of their legal status, but we have been advised that one of the effects of the Bill would be that all the undertakings given to licensees in the past will not read across into the new regime and thus will be lost. We think that that represents a serious lacuna in the Bill which the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, seek to address.
I shall not repeat all that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, but I should like noble Lords to know that I counted the number of times that the word "planning" was used during our discussions in Committee. The total was 123 times. That emphasises the fact that noble Lords believe that there should be a close link between planning and licensing. The amendments would establish a necessary connection by ensuring that material changes of use of licensed premises would remain under the control of the planning authority and that any conditions and undertakings to which a licence is to be subject would carry over into the new regime created by the Bill. To an extent therefore an overlap occurs between the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville.
I am concerned about the combined effects of the A3 use class as set out in the use classes order and the Bill. As the noble Baroness has explained, the A3 use class order embraced a whole class of uses of premises for the provision of food and drink, all the way from a little neighbourhood café comprising half a dozen tables up to a huge nightclub able to accommodate over 2,000 people. The order provided that changes of use from one use to another within that use class did not require planning permission. Furthermore, the 1987 order was retrospective, applying to all premises that came within the A3 use class at the time. What was even worse was that planning permission continued to be given for new A3 development, but at least under the licensing regime as it stood before the proposals in this Bill it was possible to impose conditions for new liquor licences, on entertainment licences and night café licences on grant or renewal to protect the amenity of the surrounding area.
At earlier stages of the Bill I mentioned the situation in Ealing, which was reviewed in the Research Report on Planning for Leisure and Tourism from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I commend the report to noble Lords. It contains some interesting case studies. However, the study that particularly caught my attention related to Ealing town centre. It helps to establish that what we are talking about is not unique to Westminster—a point often pretended by those who seek to suggest that the circumstances of Westminster are unique and should not be allowed to drive policies in the Bill.

779
The report showed that:
"In Ealing town centre, between 1990 and 1995, there were 25 applications for change of use from A1 to A3 (plus 6 extensions) and 8 from offices to A3. The growth of liquor licences has also been significant. Not only were there applications relating to new A3 uses but existing A3 uses [such as] cafés, take-aways, restaurants and pubs were changing in concept (without requiring planning consent) and seeking new licences. Over the same period there were 20 new on-licences and 11 restaurant licences in Ealing town centre".
The effects of that, felt by Ealing residents, were problems relating to the concentration of A3 uses, leading to public disorder disturbances and the deterrence of potential visitors; conflict of amenity with residents; noise and traffic in the early hours; degradation of the environment; litter, broken glass, urine and so forth; along with a reduction in facilities for other groups of users such as families and the elderly. Those are the same kinds of problems that have been cited in relation to Westminster. They could be duplicated in many other places.
I think it is important to include the amendments in the Bill. in particular that any undertakings given by licensees should be carried forward into the new regime. Without that, a substantial degree of protection will be lost.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I recognise the genuine concern that because of the exploitation of the current A3 use class, "superpubs" have been allowed to spring up by the back door. That is why, in a statement made today, my honourable friend Tony McNulty, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, announced his intention to change the use classes order so as to put pubs and bars into a separate class. The effect of that will be to require planning permission for such a change, closing the ability to exploit the planning development position.
The remaining amendments relate to Schedule 8 to the Bill which makes provision for transition from the current licensing system to the new one. Where a licence exists, an application may be made to convert it to a premises licence. The licensing authority must grant such an application subject only to possible objection from the chief officer of police. The Government agreed to include these provisions in the Bill following representations from the industry expressing concern that, without them, the industry would face damaging uncertainty about continued trading.
Schedule 8 also provides that a conversion application can be accompanied by an application to vary the converted licence. The Government hope that the majority of applicants will use this to take advantage of the opportunities which the Bill offers. Once the new regime is in operation, there will be potential for a review of the premises licence.
An application for the conversion must be accompanied by certain relevant documents, including the existing licences and forms of consent from, for example, the holder of the existing licence if that
780
person is not making the application. The documents are required to enable the licensing authority to confirm the existence of and the terms of the permissions that will be converted into the terms of the new premises licence.
Amendment No. 270 would require that an application would also need to be accompanied by an application to modify the planning consent for the premises. The application would need to incorporate any conditions or undertakings on the existing licence or licences which would not be transferred to the new premises licence. Amendment No. 271 would further require the relevant authority not unreasonably to withhold planning permission for any such applications.
I have already stated that the conversions of existing licences will provide assurance to licence holders that they will, as a minimum, retain the authorisations enjoyed under their existing licences. The "two in a bar" exemption contained in the Licensing Act 1964, which we have of course previously debated at length, will not be continued. That exemption does not represent an authorisation under the terms of the existing licences, but is a freestanding provision in the 1964 Act. But the conversion will not affect other existing legally binding conditions such as planning conditions. On that point, therefore, the amendments are unnecessary.
The position on undertakings is a little more complicated. Undertakings are usually provided by applicants for licences in order to obtain their licences in circumstances where they might otherwise be refused. For instance, a pub might undertake to ensure that no customer leaves the premises with a glass after 10 o'clock at night. Such undertakings are a way of assuring licensing authorities that the licence holder will behave in a certain way, and thus dissuade them from refusing a licence application or granting it only with certain restrictive conditions.
However, these undertakings do not have any legal force. They may be considered now by licensing authorities when licences are being renewed. If the undertakings have been broken, that could lead to renewals being refused. But they cannot of themselves lead to a criminal prosecution as would be the case with licence conditions.
Therefore, should it be mandatory for applicants for licence conversions to provide information on these non-legal obligations? There is one key reason why I do not believe that it should. Under the Bill, interested parties and responsible authorities can request the review of any premises licence on a ground relating to the licensing objectives. This gives ample opportunity for residents, for instance, to seek recourse if any premises give rise to problems of crime and disorder or public nuisance.
I can assure the House that the Bill provides ample protection. It also provides more opportunities than at present for residents and others to seek a remedy if a premises causes a particular problem. I therefore see no need to require all applicants for licence conversion to face the additional hurdle of a mandatory

781
application for modification of planning consent, or indeed to require relevant authorities to have to consider them.
As to the amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, we have already debated the merits of the transfer of undertakings to premises licences at some length but I shall rehearse some of our reasons for resisting these amendments again.
The attaching of existing conditions to a new licence under the conversion arrangements is already addressed by the Bill. Undertakings are a different matter. They do not have any legal force unless they themselves form conditions on the face of existing licences. They may be considered by licensing authorities when licences are being renewed and, if the undertakings have been broken, this could lead to the renewal of licences being refused. But they cannot of themselves lead to a criminal prosecution, as would be the case with licence conditions.
The question is therefore whether it should be mandatory for applicants for licence conversion under paragraph 2 to provide information on these non-legal obligations. There is one key reason why I do not believe that it should. Under the Bill, interested parties and responsible authorities can request the review of any premises licence on a ground relating to the licensing objectives. That gives plenty of opportunity for residents and others to seek a remedy if a licensee does something, or fails to do something, which was previously the subject of an undertaking, provided of course that the act or omission relates to the licensing objectives.
As we have said before, there is nothing to prevent the applicant providing additional material in his conversion application if he wants to. This could help assure local residents of his intentions in a similar way to an undertaking.
I can assure the House that the Bill provides the protections needed. It also provides more opportunities than at present for residents to seek a remedy if a premises causes a particular problem. There is nothing to be gained in transferring undertakings to premises licences and I therefore hope that these amendments will not be pressed.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords. I thank the Minister for that full response. I am grateful that the Government have expressed a genuine concern about the current A3 use class. We are surprised and delighted by the statement from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which may well have been made while we have been busy in your Lordships' House. We are pleased to learn that the Government intend to change use class orders and put pubs and bars in a separate class. We welcome that and appreciate the Government's move on the issue.
I heard what the Minister had to say about Amendments Nos. 270 and 271. I am sorry that there is to be no movement on them but I accept in large part what the Minister said in relation to them. As to Amendments Nos. 268, 272 and 273, I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who spoke on behalf of the
782
noble Lord, Lord Brooke—who, unfortunately, is unable to be in his place tonight—and I await to hear what the noble Lord has to say in regard to the Minister's response.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his support for the amendment and his welcome for the Government's statement today. These are important issues. As regards undertakings, I shall speak further with noble Lords before deciding whether or not to return with an amendment at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 263:
Page 148, line 31, at end insert "with the exception of section 2"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I cannot remember starting a speech in this way before. I hope that I shall enjoy the goodwill of the Government when I say that I shall be brief. If they are equally brief in reply I shall more than understand.
My position can be briefly stated. It is this. When the Report stage of the Bill started I was somewhat disappointed and surprised that more had not been made of one of the important moves initiated by the Bill—that is the replacing of licensing justices with local authorities. I believed that there was bound to be an occasion during the Report stage when noble Lords would have a chance to put their views very clearly and to seek the opinion of the House. That did not happen.
I must accept that in some ways it was my oven fault. I had tabled two amendments, the purpose of which was to preserve into eternity the licensing justices and to remove the peril of their being replaced by various local authorities. Unhappily, on the particular day that I was here, waiting with bated breath to take part in the debate, your Lordships suddenly made a bound forward with such speed that I was taken totally by surprise—I believe I can perhaps be forgiven for being surprised—and I failed to move the amendment. Amendment No. 263 is not very important. It seeks to preserve the definition of licensing justices and is key only when matched with the earlier amendment to Clause 3.
I have the greatest admiration for the way in which my noble friend on the Front Bench has conducted proceedings on the Bill. She has done so with great distinction, intelligence and eloquence. I appreciate that she is under some constraints from which I am comparatively, if not totally, free.
My worry is that the Government are removing licensing justices—who are experienced, trusted and efficient—and that local authorities will have to learn. They will have to start in a painful way by stating their policies. I expect that will be a muddled and confused affair. I promised to be brief and I shall therefore resist the temptation to quote from the guidance which the Secretary of State has graciously offered to local authorities on how to conduct their new roles. But that guidance will require a great deal more guidance, and

783
more guidance after that, before anyone really understands and comes to conclusions about what they should do.
The point is that the Government are replacing what is known and works with what is new. Moreover, genuine fears are awakened among family brewers and licensees. I shall not quote figures because they will indicate only who is in favour of what. But suffice to say that there is a sufficient and genuine volume of anxiety on this point which concerns smaller businesses in the industry and individuals whose livelihoods are dependent on it. They are worried that proceedings under local authorities will be slower, and who can doubt that when looking at the evidence of planning procedures? They are also concerned that decisions are likely to be extremely varied in quality and that they may come up against bias, and that there will be more expense.
It is simply no good for Ministers to say that there is a right of appeal. That ignores the simple basic fact that appeals are an expensive procedure. I shall not dwell at length on the guidance so kindly offered by the Secretary of State. I shall turn to that at a later stage. Briefly, I refer to the colourful speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, when he referred to my noble friend Lord Hodgson as Scylla to match the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, as Charybdis. I do not see any similarity between my noble friend Lord Hodgson and a whirlpool.
However, in that speech, the Minister tiptoed with the utmost delicacy around all the real points of the Bill. He did not satisfy me in any way. Nevertheless, he proceeded with the utmost delicacy and did not put his foot on any particularly delicate plants.
I am being intentionally brief, but, in my opinion, there should have been an opportunity during the passage of the Bill for your Lordships to express a clear view on this issue of whether the licensing justices should be replaced by local authorities. It is my intention to table an amendment at Third Reading which will comprise the two amendments which I had proposed on Report. They are of fundamental importance to the Bill and noble Lords should have an opportunity to express their views. To ask anything tonight would be completely hopeless, but I give the Minister notice of my intention to table those amendments at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I shall be brief. First, I thank my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil for his extremely kind words in relation to the Bill. I remind your Lordships that this is a subject on which I spoke at some length at Second Reading and in Committee. I asked then that the Government consider an evidence-based approach—something which they applauded when discussing earlier Bills. It is important that we understand the issues behind the reasoning for the move from magistrates to local authorities. I believe that the response I received in Committee fell short of all the issues. As my noble
784
friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil said, the Government appeared to be tiptoeing—a fitting expression—around the most important issues.
This is an important issue. As previously said, it is a hearts and minds issue that needs to be won. There is concern in some areas of the industry that the Government have not given enough reasons as to why the move is being made.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 263 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I, too, had hoped to contribute at Report, but found that the amendment was not moved—or if it was, it was not debated.
I declare an interest as a justice of the peace, although now on the supplemental list. I was out of action during the earlier stages of the Bill but I read the Hansard report of Second Reading and Committee. I was considerably surprised at how little attention was given at either stage to the change of licensing authorities from licensing magistrates to local authorities. I should mention that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe—whose speeches at Second Reading and in Committee I have read—made a gallant effort to elicit a satisfactory response as to why such a change was felt to be necessary. But she received little support from any Benches; nor, in my opinion, a convincing or informative answer from the Ministers. One reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, was that it would be considered as going to the heart of the Bill and would, therefore, be seen as a wrecking amendment.
Having checked that point with the Public Bill Office, I understand that their view is that that is not the case. I confess to not being a lawyer, but the amendment—both the original and this one—moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, appears to replace local authorities with magistrates as the licensing authorities. If it was Parliament's wish, the rest of the Bill could remain the same. So why is it a wrecking amendment?
As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, there are other important issues. Why replace well-trained, well-trusted bodies with people who will need to be trained? There probably will be more costs involved than anyone has taken into account. Perhaps more significantly, but more delicately, the greater objectivity and even transparency that justices bring to their judicial decision-making is important. Without wishing to cast dispersion on local authorities, your Lordships are all too aware of the pressures that constituencies with certain axes to grind can bring to bear.
Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and apologise to your Lordships' House for raising the issue at this stage. However, I hope that the noble Lord will be allowed to raise it again at Third Reading in order that a more satisfactory answer will be obtained. I fully understand if we do not receive an answer now.
8 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, indicated, the House should not expect much of an answer now because the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is to table amendments for further debate at Third Reading, irrespective of what I say. That makes for a most interesting debate. I am replying to a debate in which no one will listen who has actually contributed thus far.
However, I shall speak briefly into the void. I recognise the inadequacies of the debate in Committee. I have no doubt that there will be inadequacies at this stage, not least because I fear that we are speaking to a thin House about an amendment which may not be wrecking but goes so much to the heart of the Bill that it totally transforms the legislation. The Government propose that the new licensing authorities should be local authorities, and here is an amendment saying, "No. Why don't you stay with the people who have been administering licences for pubs and for the sale of alcohol over the past decades?" If that is not fundamental to the Bill, I do not know what is. It seems rather strange that we are being asked to debate this substantial issue at this late stage in our considerations. But so be it.
Let us be absolutely clear. Of course we pay tribute to what licensing authorities have done in the past. Magistrates have done an excellent job. But times change. Let me say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that, if he has his wishes, magistrates will be invested with continuing responsibility not only with regard to alcohol licensing but for all the other licences for which local authorities are presently responsible. Responsibility for five other categories of licensing regimes will be placed upon magistrates. I do not think that anyone has suggested that that should be the way in which the issue should be resolved.
It is a common misunderstanding that magistrates, in their capacity as licensing justices, sit as a magistrates' court. That is not so. They were established as an administrative committee elected by the magistrates in the relevant petty sessions area because the job that they do is not a judicial job, although the role has certain judicial aspects to it; predominantly it is an administrative role. The reason why we say that that administrative role should now be vested in the local authorities is simply that there are two important practical considerations to take into account.
First, since 1998, the local authorities have given the lead locally on crime prevention strategies and partnerships. We all recognise that the public good requires a real consideration of the relationship between alcohol and crime, and the local authorities are well placed to give that lead.
Secondly, local authorities are now overwhelmingly the licensing authorities for five of the regimes that we seek to integrate. This is a deregulating Bill to reduce the burdens of red tape on the industry. It aims to bring the licensing authorities into one complete entity to deal with the range of issues. Only local authorities can conceivably be expected to undertake that responsibility.
786
Thirdly, as an administrative concept, in principle—I ask the noble Lord this, because he has a long record in democratic politics which we all respect—to whom does he think the magistrates are responsible when they carry out their role? The answer is that they are responsible to each other and the way in which they have been selected for the Bench. To whom does the noble Lord think the local authorities are responsible? He knows very well that they are responsible to their communities.
Surely it is only right, when dealing with a regime that so affects the local community, that we should seek to make the licensing authority responsible to the local community rather than to a select group within it. That is a further principle which I hope the noble Lord shares with me. He may well disregard everything that I have said, regard this as an inconsequential response from the Government Front Bench and table his amendments. But I assure him that they will be resisted, on principle and in practice, because this is the fundamental basis of the Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to reply to the noble Lord at considerable length. I hope that I shall have an opportunity to do so at a later stage.
The only point I want to make is that he is not entitled to saddle the Opposition with acceptance of the Government's intentions and the validity of those intentions. The Opposition, too, has its convictions; it has its notions and ideas. I have given voice to them only briefly. I have done so because I am profoundly disturbed that we have arrived at this stage of the Bill without having had an opportunity to challenge the Government on this particular step and to get them to give their reasons in full. That will do. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 8 [Transitional provision etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 264 to 266 not moved.]
Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 155, line 27, at end insert "which shall include a supplement to recoup local authority costs of preparation and implementation of the requirements of this Act"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, with his approval, as before. I shall not say that I shall be brief, because I shall be— unlike those who say so and do not carry out their undertakings.
This is a probing amendment. It arises out of an anxiety expressed by the City of Westminster to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, concerning the start-up costs of the new regime. The council does not want to impose any additional burdens on the entertainment industry, but it would like an explanation from the Government as to what funding will be available from central government to enable local authorities to cover the start-up costs for the new licensing regime. At

787
present, the council says that it has not received any kind of answer from the department on this vital matter.
The council has done some assessments of the start-up costs that it will face. These are in the region of £100,000. That includes: training for the additional staff that it will have to take on; equipment; office accommodation; and the cost of transferring data from magistrates and for the policy and consultation work that will have to be done within the authority.
Those are preliminary estimates at this stage, but it is a fact that most local authorities will face substantial additional costs in terms of starting up and getting the new regime under way. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify whether there will be any supplement on the fees or, if not, how the Government expect local authorities to be able to fund the start-up costs without transferring money from other essential services. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the one-sentence answer is that the amendment is unnecessary. The Secretary of State will set fees on the basis of full cost recovery, and full cost recovery will cover all the costs mentioned in the amendment.
There is also a three-sentence answer which I think Westminster would like me to give. The amendment is about the transitional period—the start-up period. During that period, there will be 155,000 personal licence applications nationwide from existing holders of justices' licences. Each of those will cost £30. In addition, 180,000 businesses will convert from their existing licences to premises licences, and those licences will cost £100 to £500. All these fees will be upfront, and during the transitional period there will be no enforcement costs whatsoever because the justices' licences will still be in force. Local authorities will be quids in.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that answer, although I am not sure that Westminster will necessarily agree that authorities will be quids in. They will have to do the arithmetic and tell us whether they are satisfied with the figures that he has given. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 268 to 279 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 280 and 281:
Page 164, line 9, leave out from first "and" to "in" in line 10 and insert "section 73 (prohibited conditions in club premises certificates) applies"
Page 164, line 14, leave out "sections 72 and" and insert "section"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 282:
Page 165, line 25, after "licence" insert "or a person who has held a justices' licence within the last 12 months prior to the appointed day, that has not been subsequently revoked"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief; I am not sure whether I can be as brief as my noble friend Lord Avebury, but I will try.
This is a probing amendment. We believe it sensible to give those who have held a justices' licence 12 months in which to apply for a new licence. It gives people who may be out of work at the time of the change a chance to apply for one of the new personal licences. We very much hope that the Government will look favourably on the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think there is a misunderstanding in the amendment. At any time during the transitional period, anybody who has a justices' licence will be able to qualify automatically for a personal licence, and he can do it early or late in the transitional period. The amendment says that anybody who ceased to have a justices' licence in the 12-month period before the transitional period but had one before that is also automatically qualified. That is not the purpose of the Bill. We are saying that those who are engaged in the licensed trade—in other words, those who have a justices' licence—are accepted as being fit and proper persons, to use the existing wording, and therefore it is proper that they should qualify automatically for a personal licence. Once they have given one up, the question arises: why did they?
The amendment excludes those whose licences have been revoked. Have they given their licence up because they lost interest or because they feared that it would be revoked if they did not abandon it first? The prospect should be thought about; it is better to leave the provision the way it is.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, on that evocative note, I should like to thank the Minister for his reply and all the Ministers for the helpful way in which this stage of the Bill has been dealt with. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 284:
Page 168, line 15, leave out "1964 Act" and insert "Licensing Act 1964 (c. 26)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2003
8.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order be approved. I shall also speak to the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order

789
2003. I am satisfied that both instruments are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
As your Lordships are aware, these draft orders are a routine annual event but they are, none the less, an important part of DWP business. The uprating order will increase most benefits from April in the normal way in line with the retail prices index for national insurance benefits and the Rossi index for income-related benefits. For the 12 months ending in September, the RPI increased by 1.7 per cent and, in the same period, the Rossi index increased by 1.3 per cent. The second order will increase the guaranteed minimum pension by 1.7 per cent in line with RPI so that it holds its value. However, as usual, we want to increase some benefits by more than inflation.
We are continuing to do more to help families to balance their work and home lives. We are again raising the standard rate of maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay by substantially more than inflation, from £75 to £100 a week. Around 350,000 families a year will benefit from these increases and other improvements to maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay. Additionally, we are introducing statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay at the same standard rate.
We are further helping the poorest families by aligning the child allowances in income support and jobseeker's allowance with child tax credit rates so that those families will be able to benefit from the increased generosity in those tax credits. For example, the disabled child premium will increase substantially from £35.50 to £41.30 and the enhanced disability premium for a child will increase from £11.25 to £16.60. We know it is particularly hard for families on low incomes who are bringing up children with disabilities, so we believe it is right that they, in particular, should see a substantial rise. Indeed, all the child allowances will be increased by more than inflation, which will benefit around 1.3 million families.
We continue to show our commitment to tackling pensioner poverty. In this order, we are again doing more for pensioners and giving significant help to the elderly. As in every year since introducing the minimum income guarantee, we will increase it in line with earnings. In April it will rise to £102.10 for a single person and to £155.80 for a couple. As a direct result of MIG, a single person will be at least £18 per week better off and a pensioner couple £28 per week better off than they were in 1997. In conjunction with winter fuel payments and free TV licences for older pensioners, we see that a single pensioner is at least £22 per week better off and a pensioner couple will have gained more than £31 per week.
The pension credit, which will be introduced in October, will guarantee a minimum income at these basic rates. In addition, it will directly reward the savings and second pensions of pensioners on low and modest incomes. Those who have worked hard and saved hard will get the benefit of their labours. The average gain will be around £400 a year. In addition,
790
the introduction of pension credit will mark the end of the intrusive weekly means test and the rules that have excluded people with £12,000 or more in savings from any help. We will continue to make sure that those on low and modest incomes can also share in our growing prosperity. As we promised last year, we will increase the basic state pension by £100 a year for a single pensioner and £160 for a couple. That is to £77.45 a week for single pensioners and to £123.80 for couples. We will uprate by at least 2.5 per cent in future years during the lifetime of this Parliament. These measures help all pensioners, with most help going to the poorest.
I have outlined the main issues in the uprating statement. I commend the order to the House
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, this is an annual event. Customarily, it tends to be wide-ranging in your Lordships' House, whereas in another place it tends to be fairly restricted. In view of the fact that we have a general debate on pensions tomorrow, I propose to deal with the matter rather more specifically than we have done in the past. Over several years, the select group of people here this evening have had a number of debates on these issues.
I thought that the noble Baroness was going to deal with both orders together, but I did not recall her saying anything on the second one.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I spoke to both orders. I explained that the second one increased GMP by the rise in inflation, which is 1.7 per cent.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, that is absolutely right, but a little brief. I intend to raise some points on that with the noble Baroness.
We welcome the proposed changes to disability benefit and child disability benefit. They are clearly appropriate improvements in present circumstances.
It is appropriate to look at the history of recent increases in the state pension. For simplicity's sake, I shall take merely the figures for the single state pension rather than going into all the detail. In successive years we have had increases of—notoriously—only 75p, followed by £5, followed by £3 and now followed by £1.95. That is an erratic sequence, with significant variation, which may have been the result of an impending election at an appropriate stage in that sequence of events. Basically, as the noble Baroness pointed out, the state pension is being uprated in line with the RPI. We understand, therefore, why the figure is as it is in this year's uprating.
I should like to pursue a couple of points that arose in our debates last year about which we are still not clear. The Government said that they hoped to move from a situation in which 40 per cent of benefits for pensioners were funded privately and 60 per cent by the state to the reverse ratio; namely, 60 per cent private sector and 40 per cent state sector. Although I

791
have tried on several occasions to elicit an answer from the noble Baroness, I am still not clear whether that is still the Government's intention. Perhaps she can clarify the situation on this occasion.
Hospital downrating, and particularly the timing of it, was the other issue that preoccupied us a good deal last year. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the extension of the period came into operation on the due date? While I think that it is common ground in all parts of the House that there should not be duplication of benefits, the amount that is actually deducted seems to us to have been the same for a very long time. Unless I have missed something, there is a case for reviewing that. I hope that the Minister will say that that is so.
Generally speaking, what we get here is continuation of the Government's policy on means testing—which is I think the right expression; not simply, as the noble Baroness would suggest, "targeting". There is an ever-widening gap as a result of this order and the ones that preceded it between the basic state pension and the minimum income guarantee. In 1996, the difference was only £5.90. In 1999, it increased to £8.25; in 2000, to £10.95; in 2001, to £19.65; in 2002, to £22.65; and in 2003, to £24.65. So we do have an ever widening gap between the provision of the state pension and the provision of the minimum income guarantee. I think that there is concern about that because of the ever higher percentage of those who are on the minimum income guarantee and are likely to be so in future.
In a recent study, the Pensions Policy Institute suggested that something like three-quarters of today's workers are likely to end up on means-tested benefits when they retire. Will the noble Baroness confirm whether that is the Government's view? If it is, at some stage we will have to ask ourselves who will have to pay for that amount of means-tested benefits. It appears that it will be a very considerable problem.
The noble Baroness has put some stress on the improvement of the position of pensioners, but here again the study to which I referred suggests that, in 1979, the income of the bottom fifth of pensioners was 23 per cent of average earnings, whereas by 2000–01 it had fallen to just 21 per cent. I think that that is somewhat inconsistent with the general policy that the noble Baroness says the Government are pursuing.
I turn to the other point on which I have repeatedly tried to get an answer from the noble Baroness. I hope that we can have an answer. I am trying to establish how large a fund it will be necessary to build up in future to take one above the minimum income guarantee. The increases in means-tested benefits are clearly having a serious impact on the incentive to provide for one's own pension. If one can quantify that, one can get some idea of how much people have to build up in a fund to get anything back in return.
The other main issue with which we have been concerned over the years is take-up. What is particularly worrying is the lack of statistics. Generally speaking, figures for take-up have emerged—that is an appropriate way to put it—from the government
792
statistical office about 18 months after the end of the year to which they relate. For 1999–2000, the figures were issued on 27th September 2001. It was also suggested at that time that the level of take-up had declined. Since then, there have been added complexities so far as the benefits are concerned.
Those are the last figures that we have had. The later figures have still not been published. Even if they were published tonight, the delay would have been something like two years. I do not understand why the figures take so long to produce. It is important that we have up-to-date figures on take-up, not least because the added complexity of the government proposals is likely to mean that the take-up figures decline. Help the Aged suggests that one in three pensioners does not claim all the income support to which they are entitled. Do the Government agree with that figure?
The complexity is building up more and more. In the report of the Public Accounts Committee on such matters so far as the new tax credits are concerned, the suggestion is that the administrative costs and so on are likely to be more than £1 billion. Witnesses from the Revenue in front of the PAC suggested that the complexity of the computer required was something like eight times greater than that of the computer needed for the collection of self-assessed income tax. While the increases are welcome, if that is so we should have growing concern about the degree to which people entitled to benefits understand them, and the problems so far as the administration of the benefits is concerned.
The noble Baroness dealt with the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2003 in a single sentence, simply describing precisely what is to be done. However, a number of issues arise from that sentence, and I shall deal with only one or two. The guaranteed minimum is what operating company schemes that have contracted out have to make sure is paid. It is obviously very important that the position of such pensioners should be protected. However, in the light of some recent cases—the Maersk case was one particularly difficult example, but I do not expect the Minister to reply on it unless she feels able to do so—what happens when a company winds up its scheme when the resources available to meet its commitments appear inadequate? Can the Minister tell us whether the guaranteed minimum pension, which was due under that scheme, will still be paid? If so, from what funds and to what extent? That payment has priority over other payments that may be due. This is an important issue because, alas, in the situation in which we now find ourselves with regard to company schemes—that is for a variety of reasons, which we shall no doubt debate in greater detail tomorrow—the position of pensioners may well be seriously undermined.
My second point on the second order is that the actual calculation of the rebate paid with regard to those in company schemes seems to have a somewhat doubtful statistical basis. There was reference to that in another place, particularly with regard to the assumptions that the Government Actuary made,

793
which appears to assume that the return on index-linked bonds, on which the calculation rests, will increase from 2 per cent to 3.5 per cent. I refer to the return on index-linked gilts. The Minister in another place did not give a satisfactory answer on that matter. It is difficult to understand why the Government Actuary made such an assumption; perhaps the Minister could explain that. The Government doubtless considered the advice of the Government Actuary before accepting it.
The Government Actuary's report was interesting in a number of respects, not least with regard to the lack of data. He said that although he believes that different levels or patterns of contracting out could have a material—that word is used in the technical sense—effect on the cash flow of the national insurance fund, the reduction of NIRS2 led to a lack of data that means that we do not have satisfactory data on contracting out. I understand from the report that that is likely to be improved but the data is still being analysed and validated. When is that process likely to be completed?
In some ways, this is a very traditional set of orders: they involve the usual up-rating in relation to the RPI, the Rossi index and so on. However, it must be considered carefully in the overall context of pensions provision, about which there is great concern. If we can have answers on the technical points this evening, that will help to clarify the situation.
8.33 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, by long tradition, this order is taken as an occasion on which to have a general debate on the state of the social security system. I do not wish to take issue with any specific points in the order but I will examine some of the general principles underlying the Government's approach to social security, which may give rise to debate.
The Minister is, I am sure, all too familiar with my views that, first, the New Deal is carrying too great a weight in the Government's strategy to relieve poverty; and, secondly, that too much credit is being given to the New Deal in proportion to the state of the global economy.
It is just possible—but, I believe, improbable—that the noble Baroness remembers me advising her in a debate on the humble Address in 2001 to give some of the credit to the global economy before she has to give some of the discredit to the global economy in the next downturn. It is not the responsibility of Opposition spokesmen to talk the economy into downturn but it would be a rash person who said that the economy was never again going to have a downturn. I do not intend to be that rash person. I agree that other people are prepared to be that rash person, but I do not want to take the responsibility; I am no expert in the subject.
Since the publication of the report by the National Audit Office a year ago there is even more question than before about the Government's argument that there is no element of substitution in the people who got jobs after going through the New Deal. The Government claim 250,000 for the New Deal for
794
young people. The National Audit Office states 35,000 after allowing for substitution. That is a significant difference.
I shall not say that the view which happens to suit the case I am arguing is necessarily, therefore, right. I would listen with great interest to a reply from the noble Lord, Lord Layard, to that particular argument. I have not yet heard such a reply. When I hear it I shall listen to it and try to judge it on its merits. It does at least raise a considerable question.
Behind the New Deal, especially in the early years of this Government, there was for a while a strong tendency to assume that the problem was to make people want to work. The extent of the use of disentitlement implies that. It is less strongly threatened than it used to be. I do not think it has disappeared. I do not think that this is a particularly severe problem. For most people work is not only their remuneration; it is also their social life. It is their way of getting involved with the rest of the world; of having a community and of meeting with and talking to people. We do not need a policy which is based on the draconian attempt to press people into work.
When we consider what has happened, it is true that there is a good deal of work about. In some areas, for example Newbury, unemployment is remarkably low. However, the national, regional and even borough figures conceal what is happening in some of the very serious cases. It is only in the past hour that I have got my hands on the Indices of Deprivation published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I cannot claim to have analysed those figures properly in one hour and shall not do so. However, they show what I believe I had already observed: quite an alarming development of poverty on a ward level. Looking at areas which I happen to know because they are close to where I live, one thinks one sees what is painfully familiar to those who have lived in America; that is, the development of ghettos, not all of which are black.
The Minister must be familiar with the number of times I have cited the case of Carlton ward, Kilburn, which is the ward next door to mine. In 1992 37 per cent of the population of that ward were on means-tested benefits. It has come up a bit in the world since, but it is still a severely disadvantaged ward. There are a good many of those in London. There are quite large numbers in places such as Hackney and Tower Hamlets. There are two in Camden: Somerstown and St Pancras. We should not go away with the idea that severely deprived wards are all in the north of England; they are not. Poverty is just as poor in London as it is in the North.
Poverty next door to gross and ostentatious riches is probably even more painful than poverty when it is the norm of the community in which one lives. American crime figures clearly illustrate that. The worst are the poor areas on the very edge of the rich areas. I do not see why that should be different in London.
Whether the Government's strategy is suited to these new ghettos is a question worth serious thought. Overall, according to the New Policy Institute, there has been a fall of 1 million or 7 per cent in those living

795
in poverty since 1996–97. That gets us back only to the level of 1995–96, which in the light of the peculiarly favourable state of the global economy is not a particularly remarkable achievement. It is an achievement and should be welcomed as such, but it is not stunning.
Are all those jobs really available to people in especially deprived wards? If they are available, they are not going to them. What is happening in those wards? We are seeing the development of multiple inequalities. For example, figures show that it is far harder to get insurance in those areas than in many others. It is often much harder to get transport, so it is much harder to get to work if it is available in the area. In addition, 20 per cent of households still have no bank account, which is a problem in deprived areas because banks do not particularly want to go there.
Schools tend to be a problem, too, as they tend to close in these areas. St. George's school, which has been much mentioned, is on the edge of Carlton ward, Kilburn, and draws most of its intake from it—or did. Before that school closed, it was obvious for quite some time that it was not a trouble-free environment. I am not surprised at that, because for a trouble-free environment, one needs hope, and for people coming out of those areas there is not much hope. The threat of withdrawal of benefits if they do not do what is wanted will not contribute to the hope that is needed.
The areas in London particularly afflicted seem to have one or both of two characteristics. First, they may have a high proportion of social housing—and Carlton ward, Kilburn, is almost entirely social housing. I remember the local paper becoming very much exercised when all the lifts were out of action for three weeks in the height of summer. The old age pensioners living on the 21st floor were in considerable difficulty when they needed to do their shopping, and no one did anything about it. Repair is another problem in that area.
Secondly, there is the problem of ethnic minorities. Harlesden, in Kilburn, is another of the affected wards; one needs only to drive through Harlesden to realise that it is predominantly an ethnic minority area. Stonebridge, in Kilburn, is a high scorer on both counts.
That suggests a fairly considerable problem. I can cite figures published by the Child Poverty Action Group about average equivalent income for households with at least one earner. For white households, it is £225 a week; for Caribbean, £184; for Indian and African Asian, £167 to £172; and for Pakistani and Bangladeshi, £94. It is no wonder that we need to worry about our relations with the Islamic community. Those figures are in themselves enough cause for worry.
Purely on the spur of the moment, I ventured the opinion in the debate last Friday on the Equality Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Lester that the cases of discrimination that we were discussing might account for more inequality than class does. It is a difficult question to tackle as a subject for research,
796
because the categories have a built-in tendency to develop an overlap. I am not sure how the question should be answered, but the mere fact that I am not sure is in itself a significant step.
We need to think much more about access to work in terms of removing discrimination. That applies also to age discrimination. The figures for those over 50 who want to work and are unable to do so are far higher than the figures of recorded unemployment. That matter needs serious attention. Two-thirds of heads of households living in social housing lack paid work. Housing is clearly one of the failures in this area. I do not for one minute pretend to have the solution, but I do think that between us we should be looking for one.
There is a whole series of serious problems. The Government may be relieved to hear that one cheerful statistic in these areas is that the level of burglaries is falling sharply. One would never guess that from reading the papers. It is typical of them to pick up the one thing that is going right and say that it is the one thing that is going wrong.
There is a great deal that is going wrong. The development of ghettos does not encourage hope. We need some fairly significant rethinking of policy in order to prevent that development from going any further. I do not think that the New Deal is the answer to it. I do not pretend to know what is, but I am sure that the Minister and her colleagues—suitably encouraged—are perfectly ready to join in constructive thinking about that themselves. I very much hope that they will do so.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I apologise for the slight delay. I was taking a lot of notes and nearly read notes on Humberside and Yorkshire.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I always find the quality of comments and questions in this House impressive. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to some extent was seeking to acquire bullets to fire for tomorrow afternoon's debate. Let me see if I can help him. He still has to place them on target, but that is a secondary and subsidiary issue.
The noble Lord's first point was about the 60:40/40:60 issue. I repeat—as I have said on several occasions—that that is an aspiration that we are working towards. Obviously issues such as the pension credit and so on may affect those figures. We expect pension expenditure by the Government in GDP terms to remain roughly consistent at around 5 per cent of GDP over the next 30 to 50 years. That breaks down into basic state pension of about 3 per cent, SERPS S2P of about 1 per cent and MIG, pension credit and other pension-related benefits of about 1 per cent. They vary somewhat between each other, but together they represent about 5 per cent.
Expenditure on pensions represented by the private sector will depend to some extent—as we shall no doubt explore tomorrow—on the degree to which voluntary contributions and savings continue to grow, despite what is happening to the stock market.

797
Secondly, the noble Lord asked me about hospital downrating. The "more generous terms"—in other words, the fact that it will kick in later—will come into effect in October 2003. The main reason for that is to coincide with the introduction of pension credit; otherwise, the complexities of entering one system and then untangling it would be substantial. So it will be introduced from October 2003.
I shall deal with Maersk before I turn to the noble Lord's main push about means testing, targeting and so on. He was kind enough to inform me that he wanted to ask this question. I have done what I can in the time since we spoke. If there is additional information that I can give, I shall write to him.
My understanding of the case is that the scheme has 196 deferred members. It would appear that there are no current members, so GMPs are not in payment yet. The scheme is solvent. There is about £6.4 million currently in the fund. It is marginally funded over the MFR. GMPs rank high in the priority order above other pension commitments. They are ring-fenced. That should mean that GMPs may represent—if someone has a pension of say £10,000—about 20 per cent of the pension. My understanding is that that should mean that they are secure. But if in any respect I have misled the noble Lord, I will make sure that he has a clear statement from us when I can get one. The issue is quite technical, but I understand that GMPs are secure and ring-fenced. There is no reason to think that they cannot be paid fully and properly. There is more of a dispute about the rest of the pension.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having made those inquiries, but I am concerned with the general point rather than the specific one. What happens if a scheme is wound up so that there are insufficient resources to pay the GMP? Is the company concerned still liable?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, presumably we are talking about a DB scheme and one where the company has enjoyed the benefit of the contracted-out national insurance rebate. Given that I understand that GMPs might, on a £10,000 pension, represent about 20 per cent of that pension, it would seem to me actuarially a major issue of trustee responsibility and the like if any scheme being wound up could not meet at least the GMP element. I understand that it is ring-fenced and secure.
I accept that this is an important issue, but it is quite technical. If I can give the noble Lord any further information, I shall do my best to let him have it before tomorrow. I understand that it is ring-fenced, secure and comes high on the list of priorities. The scheme would have to be about 80 per cent plus under-funded for there to be any question mark about the ability to pay GMP. That is my understanding, but if I can add to it any way, I am happy to do so.
I am not sure whether the question about GAD concerned the data or the reliability of the GAD forecasts. All that I can say is that in all my years in opposition and in government I have never yet heard of an occasion of up-rating when companies outside
798
have not wanted more generous rebates to help to fund their liabilities. I understand that GAD forecasts are based on his or her best assumptions. It is entirely independent of government and the Department for Work and Pensions can in no way influence it. I have no evidence to suggest that GA D's forecasts have been erroneous in the past.
However, if the noble Lord wants to press me on that or ask further questions, it may be more helpful if I write to him with the details.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I did not propose to raise either this point or my previous one tomorrow, so there is no rush for the answer that the noble Baroness has kindly offered. But in simple terms, why should the Government Actuary—or anyone—suppose that the rate of return on index gilts should rise, as he is apparently assuming? From first principles, why should that be so?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I cannot say why he has made the assumptions that he has. I understand that the current level of rebates was proposed in the August 2000 consultation document. GAD is of the view that it would not recommend moving away from those rates if a review were being carried out now. That is because recent changes in economic conditions would not have altered the long-term economic assumptions on which the rebates are based.
As I said, that is a source of advice independent of what may be conflicting commercial interests. There may be dispute about GAD forecasts, but I have no evidence that they have been erroneous or wildly off the mark in the past. As I said, based on the consultation document, I have never known a period when companies have not argued for more generous terms, but we would expect them to say that, would we not?
I do not think that I can help the noble Lord much beyond that. If he wants to press further about GAD's assumptions, I can try to dig up a more informed briefing about what GAD takes into account when making calculations, but I suspect that that is in the public domain in the consultation document, which the noble Lord could consult as well as I. That is not a matter specifically for my department. We rely on that independent source of advice.
I turn to the substantive issue, which concerns the interlocking of means-testing, as the noble Lord calls it. Behind it is something very simple. This aspect relates to points that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made. I suspect that the noble Earl would share our belief on this side of the House that services—what might have been called the social wage in the old days—must be universal at the point of provision if we are to ensure that services for the poor are not poor services. However, without targeted finances in the form of MIG, pension credit, and so on, there is no redistribution of income to ensure equal access in the labour market and equal access in the market to purchase other items.

799
Why do we need to target finances? For two basic reasons. The first relates to poverty and the second to inequality. I remind the noble Earl that in 1979 I would have assumed that the answer to pensioner poverty was simply to increase the basic state pension. I no longer believe that. I shall tell the noble Earl why. First, the coverage of the basic state pension is a problem. At present, 51 per cent of female pensioners do not have a complete NI pension in their own right. So, without targeted help, they cannot even reach the state pension level. They must have that help. Therefore, the pension cannot be universal; otherwise money is given to people already over the RP level as well as to those below it.
The second reason for needing to target finances is the inequality that has resulted mainly from, and is the downside of, occupational pensions. I remind the noble Earl that between 1979 and 1997 the real earnings of the working-age population grew on average by 36 per cent. Pensioners' income grew by 64 per cent. Relative to the growing wealth of the country, pensioners, deservedly, improved their position. But the top fifth's income grew by 80 per cent, courtesy of occupational pension savings, and the bottom third's grew by 30 per cent. Sixty-four per cent was merely the average figure. In other words, between 1979–80 and 1996–97, pensioner inequality widened. As a result, some pensions—mainly those of older women without complete national insurance records—fell severely behind the growth in real incomes for the rest of the population. If everyone were given the same help, such pensioners would receive £4 or £5. But if finances were targeted, that category of pensioners could receive £19, thus enabling them to begin to share the living standards of the others.
That is basically why we target finances. I would not have argued in favour of the approach in 1979. But inequality within each household type—whether lone parents, children, disabled people, those of working age or pensioners—has grown dramatically between 1979 and 1996–97. It has grown to the extent that, unless nearly half of the expenditure is targeted, it will go to those who do not need—it the ugly phrase "dead weight" was used—and those who need it, will not get enough. I, for one, have changed my views since the late 1970s as a result of what we experienced during the 1980s and 1990s.
The noble Earl asked how large a fund would be required to take the income above the MIG—I assume that he means minimum income guarantee as opposed to the pension credit. The best estimate that I have is that, on the assumption that someone has a full national insurance pension, we are talking about £15,000 for men and £19,000 for women.
The take-up statistics for 2000–01 are due to be published on 27th March. The noble Earl also asked what take-up we were assuming. Our planning assumption has been one in three because of build up. But, one should make a distinction between clients and cash. It may sound perverse, but one of the reasons why the planning assumption, particularly of clients but not cash, is not higher is that we rightly expanded
800
considerably the generosity and decency of MIG in 1999. As a result, many more pensioners became eligible, but for quite small amounts. Most did not bother to claim their payment. But the increase in eligibility was the result of augmenting the generosity on the income scale. I will be disappointed if, in cash terms but not necessarily in client terms, we have not reached 75 per cent by the time that pension credit and MIG have been properly bedded in.
The final point was about targeting. The noble Lord keeps talking about means-testing. I hope that he will not do so. The word carries a lot of baggage. It harks back to the 1930s and the household means test, and all the snooping and iniquitous inquiries that went on. There is a real issue about how we get value for money in ways that are decent, without spending a lot of money on giving financial support to people who are already adequately provided for. Given the inequality statistics, the answer must be targeting.
How do we ensure that those who are entitled to the money receive it? That is a take-up issue, which is why, as noble Lords know, we have simplified the forms, increased the information available and are going for a timetable of once every five years. There is analysis of incomes, and we are trying to get support through telephony and the like. That is a long way away from the old weekly means test and from accounting for every penny in a building society account.
All of us—the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who is in her place—worked on the Pension Credit Bill. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that, with the help of voluntary organisations such as Age Concern and Help the Aged, we have tried to construct a way of targeting resources on those who most need help in ways that make it most likely that they will claim and enjoy the money that they are entitled to receive. Calling something like that "means-testing" discourages those who are most entitled and have greatest need for the money from claiming it. If we move the language on, we can move the agenda on.
I agreed with quite a lot of what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. I did not agree that we were asking the New Deal to carry too much. Obviously, there is always an issue about dead weight, but the most reliable statistics that I have seen suggest that 750,000 people have been helped into work by the New Deal. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has said that, without the New Deal, long-term youth unemployment would be twice the current level.
We must recall that most people—75 to 80 per cent—on jobseeker's allowance get a job within six months. That has improved dramatically over the past four or five years. Ten to 20 per cent—perhaps one in four—of the people on JSA are functionally illiterate. Many of them are members of ethnic minorities—I shall come back to this issue—and may suffer multiple deprivation and disadvantage. Some of them are drug and substance abusers; some of them have come from fractured homes; and some have come from the care system. If they are to get a chance of work, they may

801
have to enter the labour market and go through the New Deal not once but twice or three times, before they can hang on in an unfamiliar work situation. With its emphasis on personal advice, the New Deal has been particularly helpful to those who are most disadvantaged. Without that help, they would find it difficult even now not only to get a job but to keep that job for at least four or five months.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about substitution. There is much debate about that, but I shall refer him to one striking statistic: since 1997, there has been a fall in the claimant count of 500,000 and an increase of over 1,500,000 people in work. The difference between those figures shows that we are bringing into the labour market people who were hitherto economically inactive, including sick and disabled people, lone parents and partners. That suggests that substitution is not going on. If it were, we would see a closer match between the claimant count and the job figures.
The noble Earl made a point about regional disparities. He is right that it is not a North/South issue. There are some striking statistics. The figures for 1992 showed a regional variation in unemployment figures from 6 per cent in the South East to 16 per cent in Northern Ireland. Ten years ago, there was a 10 per cent variation in unemployment figures. Now, the variation is 3 per cent: the figures are 1.7 per cent and 4.7 per cent. Unemployment is down to a third of what it was in 1992 in virtually every region. I think that we have done remarkably well.
However, I absolutely agree with the noble Earl over the area in which we still face major problems, though not so much as regards social housing where obviously there is an issue of how much investment we can continue to press, although it is an important and major priority for the Government. As I have said, whereas in virtually every region unemployment has fallen to one-third of the levels recorded a decade ago, for ethnic minorities in more than half the regions of the country, unemployment has increased over the same period. The disparity between those two statistics is extremely striking.
The noble Lord may not recall this, but when I scratched away at the statistics after the Bradford riots during the summer of 2001, I found that 65 per cent of all people in that community were in work. At the time 40 per cent of ethnic minorities nationally were in work, but only 31 per cent of young Pakistanis and
802
Bangladeshis aged between 16 and 24 were in work. The figures provide further evidence of the point made by the noble Earl.
Earl Russell: My Lords. I recall that very well and I congratulate the noble Baroness on the figures.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. Some of the New Deal programmes are tailored to tackle this, such as step-up and outreach programmes, along with action teams. All of those work extensively with ethnic minority communities and voluntary organisations to try to overcome the effects of multiple deprivation. However, I have to agree that, when considering the statistics, young people and some older people in the ethnic minority communities are facing not only disadvantage but also discrimination. Some of that may be related to language issues, poor health or underdeveloped social skills, while some may be associated with lack of access to anyone in the local knowledge community or with connections in the job market.
It is clear that we have to do far more. Such deprivation is found in the heart of almost every great city and certainly does not reflect the North-South divide. Indeed, unemployment among ethnic minorities has fallen more appropriately in Yorkshire, Humberside and the North, while it has become worse in London. The noble Earl is absolutely right: whereas for the rest of us unemployment has fallen to one-third of the 1993 levels, in more than half the regions of the UK it has actually increased for ethnic minorities. I was quite shocked by the Figures.
We have gone wide of the orders before us, but I hope that we have had an opportunity to address and explore issues that otherwise we might not have done. I hope too that I have answered as best I can questions raised by noble Lords. If I have not done so, I am sure that they will lobby me and I shall come back to them. With that, I hope that noble Lords will agree to the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2003
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes past nine o'clock.

  Iraq
  Iraq
  Pakistan: Human Rights
  Pakistan: Human Rights
  Angola: Publish What You Pay Initiative
  Angola: Publish What You Pay Initiative
  Congo: UN Expert Panel
  Congo: UN Expert Panel
  Capita: FCO Contracts
  Capita: FCO Contracts
  Reproductive Healthcare
  Reproductive Healthcare
  Zimbabwe: EU Aid
  Zimbabwe: EU Aid
  Occupied Territories: Use of UK-supplied Equipment by Israel
  Occupied Territories: Use of UK-supplied Equipment by Israel
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  Northern Ireland: Smoking
  Northern Ireland: Smoking
  Motoring Offences: UK Citizens Abroad
  Motoring Offences: UK Citizens Abroad
  Armed Forces Overseas Allowances: Gulf Service
  Armed Forces Overseas Allowances: Gulf Service
  Gulf Service Units: E-mail Facilities
  Gulf Service Units: E-mail Facilities
  Challenger 2 Tanks
  Challenger 2 Tanks
  MoD Test and Evaluation Requirements: QinetiQ LTPA
  MoD Test and Evaluation Requirements: QinetiQ LTPA
  Reservists: Operations in Sierra Leone and DRC
  Reservists: Operations in Sierra Leone and DRC
  Tall Buildings: Guidance
  Tall Buildings: Guidance
  Licensed Premises: Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order
  Licensed Premises: Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order
  NHS: Mattresses and Fire Regulations
  NHS: Mattresses and Fire Regulations
  Asylum Practitioners: Standards
  Asylum Practitioners: Standards
  Absences from Work
  Absences from Work
  Burma/Myanmar: British Companies and Export Credits
  Burma/Myanmar: British Companies and Export Credits
  Syria
  Syria
  OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
  OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
  VAT: Housing and Construction Work
  VAT: Housing and Construction Work
  Illegal Meat Imports
  Illegal Meat Imports