Sitting of 25 March 2003

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

    Iraq
    Mrs Liz Blackman: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Kurdish people about the situation in northern Iraq. [104459]
    Ann Winterton: What plans he has to ensure long-term stability in Iraq. [104460]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I know that the whole House will join me in extending our profound condolences to the families of the servicemen who have been killed in the conflict or who are missing in action.
    Coalition forces are making steady progress towards our objectives. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelled out to the House yesterday, we are determined to pursue this campaign in a way that minimizes the suffering of ordinary Iraqis and safeguards the wealth of the country for the future prosperity of all its people; and to make this an action not of conquest but of liberation.
    On the situation in the north, Ministers and officials are in regular contact with Kurdish leaders and with the Government of Turkey.
    On long-term stability, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out last week our vision for an Iraq which is stable, prosperous, at peace with itself and its neighbors and able to play a full role in the international community.
    Liz Blackman: Yesterday, many Members posed questions to the Prime Minister on their concerns about Turkish incursions into northern Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will recognise that those anxieties are especially heightened by the massing of Turkish troops on the border. What efforts are being made to ensure that this potential disaster is thwarted
    138
    and that the Truks, as well as the Kurds, realise that such moves would serve to benefit them neither now nor in the future?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend raises an important issue about the stability of the border area between Turkey and the Kurdistan-controlled part of Iraq and the need for restraint both by the Kurds and Kurdish leaders and the Government of the autonomous Kurdistan region of Iraq and by the Government of Turkey. As I have indicated, we have held extensive discussions not only with Kurdish leaders but also with the Government of Turkey. I spoke face to face with Foreign Minister Gul at the European Council in Brussels last Friday and we continue to urge the Turkish Government to show maximum restraint and to understand that, as my hon. Friend says, it would not serve their interests any more than the interests of those within the Kurdish area if aggressive military action were to be taken by Turkish forces.
    Ann Winterton: How long does the right hon. Gentleman expect it to take for good governance to be established in Iraq post-conflict, bearing in mind that resources will be available from frozen assets and potential oil revenues to establish humanitarian and regeneration priorities? Moreover, does he agree that it would be wholly unacceptable for countries that refuse to join the coalition to free Iraq from tyranny to benefit commercially from its reconstruction?
    Mr. Straw: I cannot give any indication of when we anticipate that the military action will be concluded—that is the nature of warfare. On the establishment of good governance thereafter, we believe that can happen pretty rapidly. The Iraqis are a talented people; they have a basis for public administration and reasonable communications. Unlike Kosovo or Afghanistan, Iraq is a rich country and billions of dollars are lying idle in escrow funds in New York—United Nations funds—because the Iraqi Government have failed to unlock them. I am optimistic about the establishment of good governance as soon as the conflict is over.
    Ann Clwyd (Cyncn Valley): Is it not the case that the Turks have also been helpful to the Kurds of northern Iraq in the past by allowing their bases to be used for the planes that police the no-fly zones, so some gratitude should be shown to the Turks at the same time as saying to them very clearly that there is no reason for them to cross the border into northern Iraq? There is no perceived threat any longer from the PKK since its leader was locked up two years ago; nor is there a necessity to provide refugee camps inside the Kurdish border of northern Iraq when there is no perceived refugee movement towards the border with Turkey.
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who correctly acknowledges from her position of great authority on this subject that the Turkish Government have played a constructive role to try to calm tensions between the Turkish community on one side of the border and the Kurdish community on the other. We look to them to continue to do so. In my discussions last Friday with Foreign Minister Gul, he went out of his

    139
    way to explain that the Government of Turkey had done their very best to keep contact and maintain co-operation with Kurdish leaders.
    On refugee camps, the situation on the ground has changed markedly compared with 1991, when 500,000 Kurdish refugees went across an undefended border into Turkey because at that stage that area of Iraq was under the control of Saddam. Now it is not. None the less, we acknowledge the anxieties of the Turkish Government about refugees, which is one of the many reasons why we maintain such close contact with them.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: May I first associate the Opposition with the Foreign Secretary's condolences to those who have lost loved ones in action in Iraq?
    Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that post-Saddam Iraq will be run by a genuinely representative Administration, who will preserve and foster new democratic systems such as that in northern Iraq, will avoid creating permanent and subjugated minorities and will not been seen merely as a surrogate for rule by America, Britain or both? How confident is he that the United Nations will become involved in the reconstruction of Iraq and the stability of its Administration? The liberation of Iraq is being won by America, Britain and the rest of the coalition, despite the French and the European Union. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that any UN participation in reconstruction will actually reflect hat fact?
    Mr. Straw: I am confident that the Iraqis will be able to establish good, representative governance. That confidence is based on the innate talents of the Iraqi people, but specifically on the agreement that was reached in the Azores between Prime Minister Aznar, President Bush and the Prime Minister, who agreed—this was reflected in the motion passed by the House a week ago—that we would seek the adoption of a new UN Security Council resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian aid and reflect and endorse an appropriate post-conflict Administration for Iraq. There are differences in the EU about the conflict, as is well known, but I am glad to say that a constructive approach to the provision of aid and humanitarian relief was shown by our EU colleagues at the European Council meeting last Thursday and Friday.
    Mr. Ancram: What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made about the effects of the war on the wider region? What information has he received about the possibility of disruptive intervention in Iraq by Iranian militia, and what plans are there to forestall that? What hope is there that Turkey as a friend and colleague in NATO will work, if not under the coalition, at least with the coalition in any use of its armed forces in or around northern Iraq? What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to persuade Iraq's Arab neighbors that a benign and prosperous Iraq, instead of pumping poison into the surrounding region, could help to spread prosperity and peace throughout the Arab world?
    Mr. Straw: To take the last point first, it is well known that, in public, Arab leaders—for example, at the meeting of the Arab League in Cairo yesterday—with the single exception of Kuwait have taken a public position of criticising coalition action. However, that public position disguises a very wide range of private opinions held by those leaders and, indeed, by those on the street as well. I think that once the coalition action has been successful, we will see a very significant shift, both by the leaders and by those on the street.
    On the reports about Iranian militia incursions into Iraq, we have no basis of evidence at all to substantiate what we regard as poor reports in the media. I have seen no evidence about that whatsoever. Moreover, we have good relations with the Government of Iran, and only last Thursday I was in touch with the Foreign Minister, Kamal Kharrazi, talking about this and other matters.
    On Turkey—well, Turkey is an important NATO ally, and it has faced its own difficulties about the extent of military co-operation, which we understand. At the same time, its Parliament has agreed to overflight facilities for US and UK forces.
    Mr. George Galloway: The Arab leaders will have heard the British Foreign Secretary just publicly brand them as liars, but on that subject, the British military spokesman said to the BBC yesterday, "We expected a lot of hands up, but it hasn't quite worked out that way." Is not the Government's problem that the weapons of forgery, plagiarism, fabrication and lies that they have fed the people of this country and the world have become boomerangs, which are now cutting, alas, not the bodies of the donkeys who sent our people into battle, but the lions who are having to stand and fight in defence of the British Government's lies, forgery and deception?
    Mr. Straw: I would find my hon. Friend's extravagant rhetoric more convincing if only I did not recall that he used exactly the same rhetoric in respect of the military action in Afghanistan, and predicted that there would be a world war that went on for at least a year or two years—
    Mr. Galloway: You said it would be over.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Galloway: A year ago, you said it would be over.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman put the question. I cannot help the reply that he gets. He cannot complain about the reply.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: Over past years, Iran has been host to 3 million Afghan refugees and about 500,000 Iraqi refugees. One can therefore understand its reluctance to have an open border towards any refugees resulting from the current situation. Would the Secretary of State not agree that any post-Saddam Iraq, in terms of humanitarian aid, must take into account the situation with Iran? What discussions has he had with the Iranian Government and the United Nations High

    141
    Commissioner for Refugees about the possibility of the establishment of up to 10 camps run by the Iranians within Iraq?
    Mr. Straw: I have had no specific discussions with the Iranian Government about the establishment of such camps. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have made a great deal of effort in the past two years to improve relations with the Government of Iran. Indeed, I have visited Tehran on three occasions in the past 20 months, and I look forward to further visits. The Iranians, of course, know more about the terror and evil of the Saddam regime than almost any other peoples in the world, because they lost so many innocent people, not only through conventional warfare but through chemical warfare, during the Iran-Iraq war, and they have suffered from instability on both sides of their border. The issue is therefore the subject of continual discussion between me and my colleague and friend Kamal Kharrazi, the Iranian Foreign Minister, and, day by day, between our ambassador and his staff and the Iranian Foreign Ministry and other ministries in Tehran.
    Mr. Doug Henderson: I have said to my right hon. Friend previously that one of the principal reasons why I am against the invasion of Iraq is that the down side will inevitably be greater than any benefit. In relation to the question that he was asked about northern Iraq, we all know now that Turkish forces have crossed the border, although probably 2,000 to 3,000 Turkish troops have been there for a number of years. The real crunch will come when Turkish forces inevitably get involved in a military combat with the Kurdish forces. In the representations that my right hon. Friend has made to the Turkish Government, has he indicated whether Britain and America would be prepared to take military action on behalf of the Kurds against the Turkish invading forces in the north?
    Mr. Straw: I understand that my hon. Friend has a different point of view from ours, and this is an issue of trying to balance the advantages and disadvantages of military action. I do not, however, share his view that Turkish forces will "inevitably" get involved in military action against the Kurds. That is a distant possibility, and we are using every endeavour, in co-operation with the Government of Turkey and Kurdish leaders, to ensure that that does not happen. I would only say that the experience of northern Iraq gives me very great optimism about the future of Iraq without Saddam Hussein. Despite all the opposition to the no-fly zones and that action, it is incontrovertible that the introduction of the no-fly zones enabled there to be a Kurdish autonomous region. On every single indicator, in terms of child health, schooling, nutrition and freedom, that Kurdish autonomous zone, freed from the terror of Saddam Hussein, has been infinitely better than that part of Iraq that remains under the cosh of Saddam Hussein.

    Middle East
    Mr. Simon Thomas: What recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Israel regarding the proposed road map to peace. [104461]
    Simon Hughes: What initiatives he is undertaking to bring into existence a fully internationally recognised state of Palestine. [104468]
    Mr. Nick Gibb: If he will make a statement on his middle east policy. [104469]
    Claire Ward: If he will make a statement on the Government's current activities in seeking a middle east peace settlement. [104470]
    Mr. Julian Brazier: What steps the Government is taking to promote the establishment of a Palestinian state and the withdrawal of illegal settlements. [104471]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I discussed the road map with my Israeli counterpart, the new Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, on 21 March. The United Kingdom Government are committed to the establishment of a viable state of Palestine living in peace alongside a secure state of Israel, as provided in Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1397. This is achievable through full implementation of the Quartet road map, which was published, after the approval of Abu Mazen's Government, by the Palestinian Legislative Council.
    In recent months, we have worked with the Palestinians on their reform effort, notably through meetings in London on 14 January and between 18 and 20 February. We have encouraged President Arafat to appoint a Prime Minister. We are grateful that he has and, by doing so, he has helped to clear the way for road map publication.
    The first phase of the road map includes a requirement on Israel to take specific steps to halt settlement activity, which is illegal under international law and plainly an obstacle to peace.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply. When can we except phase 1 of the road map to be implemented and, especially, when will the Israelis and Palestinians give a commitment to the two-state solution? Will he comment on, and tell us what lies behind, Prime Minister Sharon's remarks in the Knesset that the road map is a matter of "controversy"? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that peace in Israel and Palestine cannot be achieved by going down the path of bulldozing settlements and homes in acts of collective retribution and justice or down the path of suicide bombers, but that the road to peace must be a two-state solution that is agreed and signed up to in full with no amendments?
    Mr. Straw: The important thing is to get the road map published and for both sides to start work on its implementation with the facilitation provided by the

    143
    Quartet. I cannot give specific time scales, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the aim of the road map is to move away from present divisions and conflict towards a situation in which there are two states in a relatively short time.
    A viable and separate state of Palestine is controversial in sections of Israeli politics but also in parts of the Arab world. Some people in the Arab and Islamic world take the view that there should be a one-state solution. However, a two-state solution has been agreed, it is part of international law under resolution 1397 and it is our duty to ensure that it is implemented.
    I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about suicide bombers and the bulldozing of people's homes in the settlements. We must end the spiral of violence and destruction. The only way the 6 million people in Israel and the 3.5 million people in the occupied territories can live together is by living in peace, which is the aim of the road map.
    Mr. Gibb: What commitments has the Foreign Secretary received from Abu Mazen that he will end Palestinian terrorist activity?
    Mr. Straw: I have not spoken to Abu Mazen since his appointment, although I spoke to him before that. We regard him as a fine politician and statesman who is fully capable of leading the Palestinians. He is committed, as is the rest of the Palestinian Authority, to a peaceful path. The Palestinian Authority will be required to take firm security action against the terrorist organisations, but some of the Arab states that neighbour Israel and the occupied territories have an even greater responsibility to end the funding and support of terrorist organisations. Of course, ore of those countries is Iraq.
    Simon Hughes: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that providing for a secure Palestine with recognised and secure boundaries, in addition to a secure Israel, is the greatest contribution that could be made to peace in Europe and Asia, as well as in the middle east? If so, will he explain why phase 1 of the so-called road map appears to require a withdrawal by the Israelis to the position as of September 2000? Will he confirm that Government policy is still for all occupied territories to be returned to the Palestinian Authority and that Israel should have returned to its 1967 boundaries by the end of the three phases?
    Mr. Straw: If we are to get from where we are to where we want to be, there has to be a phasing of it. The first stage needs to be a withdrawal by the Israeli defence force and other security forces from area A, which represents the occupied territories previously and effectively controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Our policy remains that very clearly laid down in resolutions 242, 338 and 1397: a return to the 1967 borders—there may be some amendments to those, but a state based on the 1967 borders—an end to the settlements, a solution to the refugee problem and a capital for a Palestinian state in Jerusalem.
    Claire Ward: There remains some scepticism in the Muslim community in my constituency over whether the United States Administration are genuinely
    144
    committed to the peace plan and that the plan is required to be backed up by the United States using its influence over the Israeli Government to prevent the incursions that are taking place in Palestinian areas. What is required is an assurance not just from this Government but from the United States Administration that this will be a priority in foreign policy not only at the end of the Iraqi conflict but from now.
    Mr. Straw: I understand the scepticism, which is shared by my own constituents and not just by my own Muslim constituents. It is incumbent on the United States Government, as much as it is on the other partners, to deliver on the road map. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has played an absolutely critical role in securing the creation of a road map and its earlier publication than anticipated. The middle east peace process will be one of the major items on the agenda for discussions that my right hon. Friend and I will be having with the United States Administration later this week.
    Mr. Brazier: Following that answer, does the Foreign Secretary accept that at a time when many Arabs in the middle east are believing Saddam Hussein's false propaganda that this is a war against Arabs, the acid test for moderate opinion in the middle east and for the very large Arab media, whose microphones we see before Saddam Hussein every day, will be the attitude to the Palestinian question and a genuine commitment to two states secure in their borders? Will the right hon. Gentleman finally accept that it is a measure of how far we in the west—America and Britain—have failed that we now see press reports that large numbers of Palestinians are among the Fedayeen fighting our soldiers at this very moment?
    Mr. Straw: I have not seen those reports, but I accept entirely the burden of the hon. Gentleman's comments. Only a tiny handful of people in Iraq and in the Islamic world outside Iraq have anything good to say about the Iraqi regime and the terror committed by Saddam Hussein. At the same time, across the Arab and Islamic world there is a real palpable sense of injustice at the way in which the Palestinians have been treated. I know that all of us acknowledge and share that. That is why, if we are to ensure that there is not a terrible clash of so-called civilisations or religions, we in the west, with our power, have a profound duty to deliver justice to the Palestinians alongside security for the Israelis.
    Jean Corston: Although we are all delighted that the United Kingdom Government have played such a role in the agreement that has led to the road map—I think particularly of the actions of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary accept that people cannot go on talking about this road map for much longer without seeing what it is? Will he explain either what is impeding publication or what steps it is expected will need to be taken before it can be published?
    Mr. Straw: I accept that there is a degree of impatience, which I have to say we share, about the publication of the road map. The approximate reason for its delay is this. It was due to be published in

    145
    December, but because of the impending Israeli elections on 28 January, it was decided that its publication had to be delayed until an Israeli Government were in place. An Israeli Government are now in place, and we have almost got to the point of having a Palestinian Authority Government in place. We want to see the road map published the moment that the Palestinian Government are fully in place and have been approved by the Palestinian Legislative Council.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: The whole House will note my right hon. Friend's choice of words to describe the delay in the publication of the road map. I am not sure that the whole Palestinian community would exactly go along with that choice of words, but I would like to deal with another major issue affecting the daily lives of Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza. Given that there has to be good will on both sides, can the Foreign Secretary tell us what evidence there is that the new Israeli Government are attempting to curtail the activities of their defence forces on the west bank and Gaza in their approach to the Palestinian community? The United Nations has made it clear that only 600 of the 10,000 houses that have been demolished have any connection whatsoever with any security operation, yet the Israeli defence force continues to demolish houses. What chance does the Palestinian community have if the Israelis are simply going to humiliate them daily?
    Mr. Straw: Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend that the publication date of the road map is a matter to be decided by the partners in the Quartet, and is not the responsibility of either the Government of Israel or the Palestinian Authority. It is, as it were, our decision, not theirs. On my hon. Friend's second point, we continue to call for the Israeli defence force to show proper restraint. In all my conversations with Israeli Foreign Ministers—with B. B. Netanyahu and now with Mr. Shalom—I have emphasised not only that that is required under international law and simple human care, but that it is not in the interests of the Government of Israel or the reputation of the Jewish people to act excessively and outside international law.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Could my right hon. Friend give a more specific assurance about the role that the American Administration will play in the implementation of the road map? I am thinking specifically about the halting of the demolition of Palestinian homes and the removal of Israeli settlements in the west bank.
    Mr. Straw: The US Administration are a key part of the Quartet. They are one of the four partners in the Quartet, and have signed up to the road map. It is known, of course. that Israeli politics and concern for Israeli security are a dominant theme in United States politics—that is just a fact of life. It is critical to build confidence among both the Israeli community in Israel and the Jewish community in the United States that their security is not going to be daily threatened by terrorism, particularly by suicide bombers. We have worked very hard with the Americans, the Israelis and particularly the Palestinian Authority to ensure that the maximum security action is taken against those terrorists. However, to return to the key point made by
    146
    my hon. Friend, I believe that the US Administration are fully committed to the implementation of the road map, otherwise they would not have endorsed it. We shall press them, as with all the other partners in the Quartet, to press ahead with its implementation.
    Mr. Michael Moore: The Liberal Democrats, too, wish to associate themselves with the earlier comments of the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary about the sad loss of members of the armed forces—our thoughts are with their families.
    The Foreign Secretary properly emphasised the importance of the road map to peace in the middle east. Once the new Palestinian Government have been formed, the next step in the draft plan requires unequivocal statements from both sides recognising each other and ending violence against each other. In light of the many recent deaths in the region, does the Foreign Secretary believe that the parties are close to being able to make such statements? Does he agree with the Israeli Prime Minister's suggestion that the road map is still negotiable? At what point will it cease to be amendable?
    Mr. Straw: I can certainly express hope on the hon. Gentleman's first point. It is in the interests of both sides to live in peace, so they have to recognise that the only way to peace is a two-state solution. On the issue of amendment, yes, I am aware that there are those in Israel who want amendments, and I discussed that with Foreign Minister Shalom last week in a long telephone conversation. My point to him was that the road map is the property of the Quartet, not the Israeli Government or the Palestinian Authority. It is a framework: yes, some of its detail may of course be changed over time, but what we cannot see is any change to its fundamental principles.
    Ms Julia Drown: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred to the scepticism of our constituents, both Muslims and others, over the middle east peace process, and particularly America's involvement in it, and by connection, its involvement in Iraq. Is my right hon. Friend able to tell the House what are the key ingredients of the road map that will give our constituents some confidence that it might succeed where so many other peace initiatives have failed?
    Mr. Straw: Copies of the informal text of the road map, which has not yet been published, are available in the Library. There is no magic ingredient in the road map; it reflects a series of previous peace plans. What is required—I suppose that this is the difference—is a stronger international commitment to its implementation, and perhaps more robust international architecture, and a weariness on the part of the Palestinians, the Israelis and the international community with the idea that conflict provides any answer to the solution of this centuries old problem.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: How far has the Foreign Secretary pressed upon the Israeli Government the importance of making urgent and even-handed progress towards the two-state solution, which those of

    147
    us who are friends of both Israel and Palestine believe is the only way forward? In that context, is it not vital that nothing further is done now before publication of the road map that could block it by pre-empting negotiations and decisions? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that not only includes continuing settlement activity—I am sure that he welcomes, as I do, the small but significant dismantling of the outposts near Hebron yesterday—but must also include the continued development of the new security fence on boundaries that presumably can never conform to those in the road map? To clarify this, should not the road map be published immediately?
    Mr. Straw: We continue to press the Government of Israel very hard on the principles of the road map. That comes up time and again in conversations with Israeli Ministers and representatives, but also, for example, and in a sense more powerfully, in the actions that the British Government decided to take when the Israeli Government decided to ban representatives of the Palestinian Authority from travelling to the London meeting. We decided that we would not simply accept, as it were, an attempt by the Government of Israel to cancel our meeting. Instead, we pressed ahead with it by using video links. I believe that that was an important milepost on the way to getting the road map published.
    The right hon. Gentleman is right to express anxieties about the security fence, which unlawfully takes more land from the Palestinians, and in some instances, quite gratuitously, good agricultural land. That is unacceptable and we have made that clear to the Israelis. The road map needs to be published as quickly as possible. With a decision by the partners in the Quartet, it will be published as soon as Abu Mazen's ministerial team is confirmed by the Palestinian Legislative Council.

    Iraq
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What assessment he has made of the links between the Iraqi regime and terrorism in the middle east. [104462]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The Iraqi regime has supported, trained and financed the Mujaheddin-e Khalq Organisation terrorist group and encouraged terrorism in the middle east for years, including assisting the murderous Abu Nidal group, the Palestinian Liberation group and Hamas, as well as making payments to the families of suicide bombers.
    Mrs. Ellman: Does my hon. Friend accept that Saddam Hussein's payments of about $25,000 to the families of every successful suicide bomber, in highly publicised ceremonies involving the Palestinian Authority, indicates that Saddam Hussein is part of the problem and not part of the solution? Will he be urging Abu Mazen to sever ties with similar groups sponsored by countries such as Iran and Syria, to give peace and the road map a chance?
    Mr. O'Brien: On my hon. Friend's final point, the new Palestinian Prime Minister designate, Abu Mazen, needs to be very clear in his condemnation of terrorism,
    148
    and I believe that he will be. As for my hon. Friend's overall point, payments to suicide bombers and their families, or any encouragement for suicide bombers, is reprehensible. The Iraqi regime is clearly part of the problem. The regime has been directly responsible for helping to fuel the conflict in the middle east. The removal of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the restoration of a stable and democratic Iraq will benefit the whole region. We also need to pursue a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an equally important precondition for long-term peace in the region.
    Mr. Andrew Rosindell: With potential terrorist attacks and also attacks by the Iraqi regime in the whole middle east region, will the Minister please urgently review the advice and support given to British citizens currently living in Kuwait? A constituent of mine has contacted me to say that the British embassy has failed to issue gas masks, while the French embassy has done so for its citizens. Could that matter be looked into?
    Mr. O'Brien: We are giving clear advice to the various British citizens who are in the middle east. In terms of the use of various suits and gas masks, our view is that the best thing for citizens in the area who are concerned is either to leave the area or take other suitable precautions to put themselves in a place of safety. At this point there have been no chemical and biological weapons attacks, and we very much hope that there will be no such attacks.

    Roma People
    Bob Russell: What recent representations he has made to applicant nations to the European Union about equal rights and safety for their Roma citizens. [104463]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): The problems of the Roma community are regularly raised by our embassies in the countries concerned and by the European Commission in its regular progress reports. The UK's EU action plans in the relevant countries include projects in the Roma communities, as do EU pre-accession programmes. Indeed, action plans for Slovakia and Romania were personally launched by the Foreign Secretary last year.
    Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging response. Does he agree that it is somewhat ironic that the Roma communities across central and eastern Europe were protected under almost 50 years of communism, but now that those countries have become democracies, those people have tended to become second-class citizens? Particularly in the Slovak and Czech Republics, there is almost an indication that the state is allowing that state of affairs to pertain. May I encourage the Minister to ensure, and ask him to give an assurance, that further representations will be made, particularly to the Slovak and Czech Republics?
    Mr. Rammell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and, in doing so, recognise his long-standing interest in this issue, although, his recollection of the

    149
    rights of Roma citizens under the former communist regimes does not bear any scrutiny or comparison with what actually happened. We will keep pressing the issue and we fund a number of human rights projects and will continue to do so. I also believe that the process of enlargement, adherence to the Copenhagen criteria and the increased economic opportunities that come with enlargement will address the factors that currently force Roma citizens to leave their countries.
    Keith Vaz: Is not the Minister right to say that the enlargement process has had a very positive effect on the member designate countries, which have a better understanding of this country's concerns about the way in which Roma citizens are treated? In his discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain), will he ensure that when the Convention on the Future of Europe is concluded, sufficient protection will be given to the rights of minority groups throughout Europe and, in particular, in the member designate countries?
    Mr. Rammell: I believe that the accession process has already led to a significant improvement. Indeed, last year's regular report from the Commission not only highlighted progress that has been made in candidate countries, but, genuinely and legitimately, highlighted areas for further improvement. It is that issue on which we now need to focus. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments about the Convention on the Future of Europe are passed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain).

    United Nations
    Mr. Huw Edwards: What recent discussions he ha .s had about reform of the constitution of the United Nations. [104464]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): There are ongoing discussions at the United Nations and between member states about a number of UN reform issues. Reform of the United Nations charter requires approval by two thirds of the membership of the UN. Currently, agreement on that issue does not exist. Nevertheless, the UK supports reform of the Security Council to make it more representative of the modern world. In our view, that should include enlargement of both its permanent and non-permanent membership.
    Mr. Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the people who feel so disappointed that UN support for the current conflict was not achieved are also perplexed about the UN's processes, especially the composition of the Security Council and the use of the veto? Will he assure us that, when the conflict is over, there will be a review of the UN so that it can be reconstituted as a more effective body for resolving conflict in the 21st century?
    Mr. Rammell: I share my hon. Friend's frustration at our inability to achieve consensus for a second resolution at the Security Council. We strongly believe that that would have created the best possible
    150
    circumstances in which to maximise pressure on Saddam Hussein and achieve a peaceful resolution. Nevertheless, we need to examine such issues carefully. It is important to look forwards rather than backwards. We are therefore working for the strongest possible UN involvement in any post-conflict Iraq.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: The present UN constitution allows for both mandatory and non-mandatory Security Council resolutions. Do the Government accept the possibility that, at the end of the road map process, there will be a need for a mandatory Security Council resolution to impose a settlement in the middle east peace process?
    Mr. Rammell: It is important not to rule out that option because it may be needed, depending on the progress that is made.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: My hon. Friend has just said that he seeks enlargement of the number of permanent members on the Security Council. That could lead to problems unless the veto procedure is changed at the same time. Will my hon. Friend outline any plans or proposals for changing the veto procedure if the number of permanent members on the Security Council is increased?
    Mr. Rammell: It is important to expand the permanent membership of the Security Council so that it properly represents the modern world. However, were that to be agreed and implemented, we have no plans to change the number of nations that currently have the veto.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: If we are to be realistic about the UN's structure, it should reflect where power lies and try to combine that with a measure of consensus in its decision making. Will the Foreign Secretary and the Minister join me in strongly rejecting the view of those who have reacted with glee to the UN's problems in the past couple of months? Such gloating is thoroughly irresponsible and serves only to fragment world opinion further.
    Will the Minister confirm that, in addition to discussing UN reform, its future and authority is best assured by all of us pressing for the implementation of existing resolutions in an even-handed way, especially in Gaza and the Palestinian west bank?
    Mr. Rammell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the latter point. I also agree that no one should view with glee what has happened to the UN recently. The UN is not perfect: on several occasions in the past 50 years, we have failed to reach consensus on crucial issues. Nevertheless, it is the only institution within which it is possible to create consensus among peaceful nations to enhance our security. I therefore believe that we should look forwards, not backwards.

    Convention on the Future of Europe
    Mr. Chris Bryant: What recent discussions he has had with his French, German and Spanish counterparts on the Convention on the Future of Europe. [104465]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): We submitted a joint paper with Spain on 28 February to the Convention. The Government continue to work closely with their European partners, including France, Germany and Spain, on the Convention on the Future of Europe on a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Bryant: My hon. Friend knows that, notwithstanding the debacle over the French use of the veto last week, many of us hope that there will be a significant rapprochement with France in the coming months, especially if we are to achieve outcomes in the Convention. However, will he put paid to one French idea that appears to be burbling around in the mind of the President of the Convention, namely that the preamble to the constitution should explicitly refer to Christian heritage in Europe? Surely that would be profoundly unhelpful at this time.
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend, with his background in holy orders, is right to ask the question.
    "Let us render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
    Mr. Giscard d'Estaing has raised the possibility of a reference to religion in the preamble, but that does not reflect the French Government's view. My hon. Friend knows that their views on such matters are secular. Although we acknowledge the enormous contribution of Christian, Jewish, Moorish and Muslim heritage to our common Europe, the Government do not believe that it would be appropriate in a multi-religious, multicultural. Europe to include a specific reference to one faith in the constitution of the Convention.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The Minister will know that the latest tranche of draft articles includes provision for a European public prosecutor. As the Government are apparently opposed to that, but have been very weak and timid in making their objections clear so far in the Convention, will they on this occasion make clear beyond doubt to the Convention and to other member states that we will not accept a treaty containing provision for a European public prosecutor? If the Minister is clear now, that will avoid tears later. Will he begin to stand up for British interests, and make clear that the Government have bottom lines that we will not cross?
    Mr. MacShane: That has been clear for a number of years—and I was not aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Haul) was a weak and timid person.
    I cannot speak for myself in this matter, but the Government's view is plain, and is shared by a number of other Governments. We believe that the establishment of a European public prosecutor as such is not the right way forward. We must, however, find serious mechanisms for the combating of European
    152
    fraud, and for combating trans-frontier crime. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will turn his mind to that, as one of our parliamentary representatives on the Convention.
    Mr. Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is now a need for a European constitution, and also a need for a clear statement of the European Union's objectives in a form that people can understand?
    Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is right. I recommend an excellent article in The Economist entitled "The European Constitution" and penned by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Given that the impetus for the Convention was, to a great extent, the enlargement process, does the Minister agree that the accession states should have not just full rights of participation at the Convention and the intergovernmental conference, but full and equal voting rights at the IGC? Would that not reassure those countries greatly, especially after the hollowness of a common European foreign policy has been made so obvious by the disgraceful and patronising attack on them by President Chirac?
    Mr. MacShane: As so often, the hon. Gentleman spoilt a good first point by including yesterday's insults in his closing remarks. It was clear from the treaty of Nice that the new European Union member states would play a full and a voting part in the IGC.
    Alan Howarth: Does my hon. Friend feel able to say that the extent of agreement in the European Council on the appropriate role of the United Nations in post-conflict Iraq and the middle east peace process, as well as the shared commitment to Macedonia, point encouragingly to the healing of the diplomatic wounds in Europe and the possibility of creating a European common foreign and security policy? Does he agree, however, that it would not be appropriate now or in the foreseeable future for such a policy to be subject to qualified majority voting or the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, as the new EU draft constitution appears to propose?
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Come back to us!
    Mr. MacShane: My right hon. Friend—whose contribution from the Labour Benches we welcome—makes a good point. I cannot see how foreign policy issues can be linked with the European Court of Justice, and I think that foreign policy will remain principally intergovernmental. I think, however, that in the new European Union of 25 states those that wanted a robust line to be taken on Saddam Hussein would have enjoyed a comfortable majority.

    Anglo-French Relations
    Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on Anglo-French bilateral diplomatic relations. [104466]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): Relations with France are close, but could be better. We continue to work with France on a range of important issues.
    Michael Fabricant: Over the weekend Le Figaro reported further critical attacks on Britain by Mr. Chirac, but the Government are right to try to strengthen ties with not just the old but the new Europe. What, though, will be the cost of United Kingdom membership of the new expanded European Union of 25 states that the Minister mentioned a few moments ago? Has the Foreign Office conducted any analysis? Is he aware that the United States Government believe that, taking into account indirect costs, that cost could be as high as £30 billion a year—equivalent to about 80 new hospitals in Britain every year? Has the Foreign Office conducted such an analysis, and if not will it do so?
    Mr. MacShane rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should not answer that question. I call Mr. Shaun Woodward.
    Mr. Shaun Woodward: Despite the considerable differences and problems, alluded to by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), with the French concerning military intervention in Iraq, does my hon. Friend agree that in fact, there are substantial areas of agreement with the French in foreign and security policy? Nowhere is this more important than in seeking a peaceful resolution between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and in the implementation of the road map for peace.
    Mr. MacShane: I am glad that my hon. Friend makes that point, because on a range of key foreign policy issues such as the Balkans and the middle east, and on others concerning the idea of Europe as a partnership of nation states, we are much closer to the position of the French than some of our other European partners. If I may answer the initial question, Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Office has of course analysed the cost of enlargement of the European Union. We believe that it will add about €1.75 billion —
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I told the Minister not to answer that question. I call the Reverend Martin Smyth.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: When the Minister said that we are really close to France, I thought for a moment that he was speaking of the tunnel. On our links with the European Union and the question of the European governor of the European Central Bank, when will France come up with a viable candidate, rather than prolonging the agony that they
    154
    have entered into in the past? Is the Minister satisfied that we constantly defend our rights with the same determination that the French defend theirs?
    Mr. MacShane: The question of the next governor of the European Central Bank will have to be resolved soon. Jean-Claude Trichet, the French candidate, certainly has the support of the City. He is a most austere and rigorous monetarist, and he is not lax on fiscal matters. He is stern on monetary matters—in fact, he is the very model of an Anglo-Saxon banker, even if he is French.

    British-German Relations
    Ian Lucas: What plans he has to meet representatives of the German Government to discuss British-German diplomatic relations. [104467]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer last Friday at the European Council. I had good talks with him, and a brief conversation with the German Chancellor. This follows my extensive meetings with Government and Bundestag representatives in Berlin last Monday.
    Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important that at this stage we work very closely with our German friends in putting together a new UN resolution on Iraq? I hope that we will move away from the rhetoric that has characterised much of the discussion of our European partners in the past week. We must rebuild the UN consensus, and could not our relationship with Germany be at the heart of putting forward a new UN resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq?
    Mr. MacShane: That is very much the wish in Berlin, and I hope that some of the rhetoric directed against this Government from certain of our partners and friends in Europe also dries up, because this has not been a one-way street. However, my hon. Friend is right: we must work very closely with Germany, and we welcome cooperation on ideas about a post-Saddam Iraq. We can put behind us, or leave to historians, analysis of diplomatic wranglings at the UN, and start to build a happier future for that troubled part of the world, in collaboration with Germany and other partners.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the Minister make it clear to his counterpart in the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Germany that the continued presence of British troops in the federal republic will be called into question in this country unless the German Government, through diplomacy and their conduct of foreign affairs, do not give encouragement, at least, to the Queen's enemies in Iraq?
    Mr. MacShane: That is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman. German military facilities are at the full disposition of the coalition and Germany military units are in the Gulf to help, in case of attack with chemical and biological weapons.
    I do not greatly object to the anti-militarist feeling that animates people of all political persuasions in Germany. I would have liked to see a different diplomatic course from the German Government in the last few months, but what they did was a response to promises made at elections by all parties, and I will have
    156
    no truck with any anti-German feeling or with remarks about our troops being anything other than fully welcome in the Federal Republic of Germany.
    Mr. George Stevenson: In the important discussions on diplomatic relations between my hon. Friend and our German counterparts, will the emphasis be on our Atlanticism or our Europeanism?
    Mr. MacShane: Both.

Company Directors (Health and Safety)
12.30 pm
Ross Cranston: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require companies to appoint a director as the health and safety director; and to impose duties on this director and on other directors of companies in relation to health and safety; and for connected purposes.
We still have a good way to go in this country in relation to health and safety. People know about the big disasters such as the Clapham and Paddington rail accidents, but smaller-scale accidents occur continually. In 2001–02, some 225 fatal injuries to employees—42 of them in the midlands—were reported to the Health and Safety Commission. Many companies have high standards, but we need to raise everyone's standard to their level. This important social problem must be tackled along various dimensions. My Bill approaches one of them by seeking to make a step change in what directors of a company must do to ensure a safer environment for employees and members of the public affected by its activities.
Directors are responsible for how companies operate. It is directors who set a company's policy on health and safety, and it is they who decide how high health and safety is on the agenda in comparison with other matters. It is they who determine the resources, including management resources, which a company allocates to health and safety. It is they who decide how health and safety is monitored in the company, whether accidents are properly investigated and what preventive action is taken for the future. The British Standards Institution summarises the position thus:
"Ultimately responsibility for occupational health and safety rests with top management."
My Bill recognises that reality and codifies within the Companies Act 1989 the responsibilities that directors already have in broad terms as a result of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and under guidance entitled "Directors' responsibilities for health and safety", which was issued by the Health and Safety Commission in 2001.
The 1974 Act adopted the Robens philosophy that health and safety is the responsibility of top management. It imposes duties on employers, but section 37 also imposes criminal responsibility on directors when an offence under the Act has been committed—in the rather old-fashioned language used—with their consent or connivance, or if it is attributable to neglect on their part. In theory, if a death occurs, directors could also be prosecuted under the general criminal law, although in practice that is exceptional and the Law Commission has recommended, and the Government have in principle accepted, the need to introduce an offence of corporate killing.
The Health and Safety Commission's guidance grew out of the Government's strategy—launched in their 1999 document "Revitalising Health and Safety"—of putting a new impetus into health and safety management. The guidance does not constitute legal obligations, but sets out best practice in five action points. It is aimed not only at companies but at public bodies and voluntary organisations.
158
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Work told me on 13 February about research into the effectiveness of the guidance in promoting greater responsibility for health and safety. Preliminary findings were encouraging, and he will report in the summer on the success of the voluntary approach and the need for legislation.
The first aspect of my Bill is to impose some general duties on directors regarding health and safety. Hon. Members will know that the Companies Act 1989 already imposes duties on directors in relation, for example, to financial matters. The general law also imposes additional duties on directors; for example, there is a duty not to appropriate opportunities that really belong to the company. The company law review recommended that those general law duties be given legislative form, and the Government have accepted that recommendation in their White Paper. However, neither the Companies Act nor the general law imposes any duty on directors relating to health and safety. This Bill does that.
First, the Bill contains a very general duty for directors to act in the interests of the health and safety of a company's employees and others affected by the company's activities. Secondly, it imposes on directors duties to take effective steps to ensure that the company acts in accordance with the obligations imposed on it by, for example, the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Effective steps will have been taken under the Bill if, for example, the directors have reasonably informed themselves of what; the company's health and safety duties mean for it, and if they have taken into account what the health and safety director has said.
No express penalties are set out in the Bill for directors in breach of those duties; as I have said, directors already face penalties under the 1974 Act for breach of health and safety duties. Rather, the duties in this Bill are owed to the company, and it is the company that enforces them. In that respect, the Bill accords with the excellent report of the Centre for Corporate Accountability on the general subject of corporate responsibility for health and safety. The whole issue of penalties underpinning the enforcement of the Companies Act 1989 was discussed by the companies law review. It may be, in the future, that those health and safety duties will need to be enforceable by the criminal law, but that is not the case under the Bill.
The Bill applies only to company directors. If it is accepted, I would hope that the principle could be extended to apply to those at the top of public sector bodies, such as Government Departments, local government and hospital trusts.
The second aspect of the Bill is the obligation that it imposes on public companies to appoint a health and safety director from among its directors. That is already a requirement under Health and Safety Commission guidance. According to the HSC, some leading companies have designated their chief executive as the health and safety director, sending a clear signal that the issue is serious. However, the Bill does not demand that, but leaves it to the company to choose which director should undertake the role. The Bill requires that the director chosen should be identified as such in the company's annual report.

159
The Bill then imposes on the health and safety director obligations to monitor the health and safety position within the company and to report on it to the board. Basically, the detail of those obligations is taken from existing HSC guidance. I emphasise that they are limited duties and that the health and safety director cannot be scapegoated for failures by the board as a whole. In practice, of course, the health and safety director may well find it worth while to undertake training, and to arrange for training for the other directors as well.
The monitoring and other activities of the health and safety director will gather much useful information. Already, many companies provide health and safety information to the outside world in their annual reports. Stimulated in particular by the challenge thrown down by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in the report "Revitalising Health and Safety", the HSC published guidance in 2001, entitled "Health and Safety in Annual Reports", on what in its judgment is the minimum information to be included in an annual report. Publishing health and safety information in a company's annual report demonstrates that company's commitment to the issue, and acts as a spur to further action.
Ultimately, I hope that the directors will report on health and safety matters in the operating and financial review proposed by the company law review for companies of significant economic size. The OFR will parallel the well-developed system of financial reporting, already provided under company law, and include information on performance and other aspects that the directors judge necessary to an understanding of the business, such as environmental and social impacts. That is how, as a matter of law, directors will have to have regard to the environmental and other social impacts of their company's operations. The company law review eschewed a mandatory approach to what OFRs should contain, but if directors are to make a bona fide judgment of the information necessary
160
to understand a company's performance and prosperity, health and safety issues should be included as well as environmental impacts.
My Bill is only part of the jigsaw necessary to ratchet up what companies do to protect the health and safety of their employees and others affected by their activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) has introduced a Bill to enhance penalties under the Health and Safety Act at Work, etc. Act 1974. There is also the separate issue of a new offence of corporate killing, which the Government made a manifesto commitment to introduce. My Bill is supported by the TUC and the Centre for Corporate Accountability. Mike Holder, the chairman of the Black Country chamber of commerce, has told me that he supports the Bill and any measures to improve health and safety at work. I am also grateful for the support that the Bill has so far gathered from both sides of the House. If leave is obtained today, I will seek to obtain even wider support for its aims.
The health and safety of employees and the public requires that company directors have a clear vested interest in health and safety matters. Obliging a company to appoint one of its directors as the health and safety director, and imposing duties on that director and others regarding health and safety will do that.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Quastion put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ross Cranston, Mr. Richard Allan, Tony Baldry, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Frank Doran, Angela Eagle, Linda Gilroy, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Shona McIsaac, and Lawrie Quinn.

Company Directors (Health and Safety)
  COMPANY DIRECTORS(HEALTH AND SAFETY) BILL
  Ross Cranston accordingly presented a Bill to require companies to appoint a director as the health and safety director; and to impose duties on this director and on other directors of companies in relation to health and safety; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 June, and to be printed [Bill 82].

Extradition Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
12.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I beg to move,
That the programme order of 9th December 2002 in relation to the Extradition Bill be amended by the substitution for paragraphs 4 and 5 of the following:
(4) Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on a programme motion varying this order which is moved on the day on which the proceedings on consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on such a programme motion.
The motion has two purposes. First, it provides for the total amount of time for discussion of the Bill today to be six and a half hours. Secondly, at the end of the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who led for the Opposition, requested two hours for Third Reading rather than the single hour provided for in the original programme motion. We are happy to oblige him in that request.
12.42 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: As the Minister suggested, we have no difficulties with the programme motion. We are content with the Government's proposals.
Mr. John Burnett: From the Liberal Democrat Benches, we, too, consent to the motion.
Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Extradition Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Extradition Bill
    New Clause 10

      BAIL: SCOTLAND
      'After section 24 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (bail and bail conditions) insert—
      "24A Bail: extradition proceedings

      (1) In the application of the provisions of this Part by virtue of section 9(2) or 76(2) of the Extradition Act 2003 (judge's powers at extradition hearing), those provisions apply with the modifications that—

      (a) references to the prosecutor are to be read as references to a person acting on behalf of the territory to which extradition is sought;

      (b) the right of the Lord Advocate mentioned in section 24(2) of this Act applies to a person subject to extradition proceedings as it applies to a person charged with any crime or offence;

      (c) the following do not apply—

      (i) paragraph (b) of section 24(3); and

      (ii) subsection (3) of section 30; and

      (d) sections 28(1) and 33 apply to a person subject to extradition proceedings as they apply to an accused.

      (2) Section 32 of this Act applies in relation to a refusal of bail, the amount of bail or a decision to allow bail or ordain appearance in proceedings under this Part as the Part applies by virtue of the sections of that Act of 2003 mentioned in subsection (1) above.

      (3) The Scottish Ministers may, by order, for the purposes of section 9(2) or 76(2) of the Extradition Act 2003 make such amendments to this Part as they consider necessary or expedient.

      (4) The order making power in subsection (3) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.".'.

      —[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      12.43 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department(Mr. Bob Ainsworth): 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 12—Undertaking in relation to person serving sentence.
      Government new clause 13—Extradition following deferral for competing claim.
      Government new clause 14—Person charged with offence in United Kingdom.
      Government new clause 15—Person serving sentence in United Kingdom.
      Government new clause 17—Appeal against grant of bail.
      Government new clause 18—Remand to local authority accommodation.
      Amendment No. 20, in clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end insert—
      '(c) The statement referred to in subsections (3) and (5) shall conform with the provisions of the model warrant annexed to the framework decision.'.

      163
      Amendment No. 18, in page 2, line 6, at end insert—
      '(c) the terms "accused" in paragraph (a) above, and "for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence" in paragraph (b) above, are understood to mean:

      (i) that sufficient evidence has already been gathered to bring a prosecution and to commit to trial the person in respect of whom the warrant is issued; and

      (ii) the extradition sought by the requesting state must be only for the purpose of putting the person on trial, and not: for the purpose of interrogation or evidence gathering; and

      (iii) that if, after the extradition has been granted, it emerges that the requesting country. in the opinion of the judge granting the extradition, has not fulfilled these conditions, the person shall be returned to the United Kingdom, upon an order from the appropriate judge.'.

      Government amendments Nos. 35 to 37, 43 and 44.
      Amendment No. 4, in page 18, line 30, leave out clause 39.
      Government amendment No. 50.
      Amendment No. 92, in clause 65, page 33, line 44, at end insert—
      ', as provided for in section 2(7)'.
      Government amendments Nos. 53 to 56, 59, 32, 62, 33, 63 and 65.
      Amendment No. 93, in clause 83, page 42, leave out lines 9 to 11.
      Government amendment No. 66.
      Amendment No. 94, in clause 85, page 43, leave out lines 16 to 18.
      Government amendments Nos. 14, 67 to 73, 6, 76, 77, 11 to 13, 83, 84 and 87.
      Mr. Ainsworth: This is a large group of new clauses and amendments. I shall begin with new clauses 10, 17 and 18 and amendments Nos. 32, 33, 83, 84 and 87, which are concerned with bail provisions in extradition proceedings, especially the right of the requesting state to appeal against bail granted to a fugitive.
      New clause 18 covers the position of juveniles who are subject to an extradition request. New clause 10 and amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 84 take account of the slightly different bail rules that apply in Scotland.
      During extradition proceedings, the fugitive can either be held on remand or granted bail, at the discretion of the judge. For the first time, we are creating a presumption in favour of bail in ex tradition cases. The fugitive will have the right of appeal against a decision to remand him. However, as currently drafted, the Bill does not provide a similar right to the requesting state to appeal against a decision to grant bail, even though the prosecution has that right in normal domestic cases. We believe that it would be desirable to keep extradition bail law as closely as possible in line with normal bail provisions, so we want to rectify that omission, which is what this set of amendments will do.
      I shall try to be brief. This is a very extensive group of amendments, and I do not want to waste the House's time on the relatively non-controversial or technical amendments, so I shall try to move as quickly as I can
      164
      through my speaking notes to allow the maximum time to consider those issues of substance that remain to be discussed.
      On Government amendments Nos. 32 and 33, the police in Scotland, unlike in England and Wales, have no power to grant bail. However, the Lord Advocate has the power to grant bail to any person charged with any crime or offence. Proposed new section 24A(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 will make it clear that the Lord Advocate should mirror the provisions in relation to a person subject to extradition proceedings that apply in England and Wales. Government amendment No. 84 is purely a drafting change that makes no difference of substance.
      Government new clauses 12 and 13 are purely technical. The Bill contains provisions that will allow us to seek undertakings when we send a serving prisoner abroad to stand trial. The Bill also covers situations where extradition is halted while a competing claim is considered, but a decision is taken to proceed with the original request. Both those provisions need to be slightly modified in cases where the fugitive consents to extradition, and those new clauses will achieve that.
      Government new clauses 14 and 15 deal with the situation where a person who is subject to an extradition request in the United Kingdom is charged with an offence in the UK or is serving a sentence of detention here. As currently drafted, part 1 will require a judge to adjourn the extradition if at any time he is informed that the fugitive has been charged with a domestic UK offence. Similarly, if a person is serving a sentence of detention in the UK, the judge has the power to adjourn until such time as the sentence has been served.
      However, under part 2, in the same circumstances and even though the judge is fully aware of the charge or the sentence, he must allow the case to run its full course and then refer it to the Secretary of State. Under part 2, the power to adjourn proceedings rests with the Secretary of State and can be exercised only when the case has reached him. Government new clauses 14 and 15 are necessary to bring part 2 into line with part 1, to ensure that we have a standard approach, so that such part 2 extradition cases can be adjourned, thus not wasting the court's time or the taxpayer's money.
      Mr. John Bercow: With reference to Government new clause 14(4) and the exercise of judicial power, is there an entitlement to appeal?
      Mr. Ainsworth: There is entitlement to appeal against all decisions taken under part 1 and part 2. However, in part 1 countries—our European Union partners under the European arrest warrant procedures—a strict time limit is applied to how long can be taken to deal with those appeals. We are attempting to introduce a streamlined extradition system—particularly streamlined in relation to our EU partners—and to prevent to the maximum possible degree the lengthy proceedings that take place under our current, totally unacceptable extradition arrangements. That is the purpose of new clauses 14 and 15: to bring part 2 into line with part 1, so that the cases can be adjourned, and so that there is not the unnecessary requirement to continue to the end knowing that the proceedings will have to be stopped in the final analysis.

      165
      Having looked at the new clauses and some of the associated amendments in this group, I shall now deal with amendments Nos. 20 and 18, tabled by Conservative Members, which refer to clause 2. I do not believe that there is much difference between the Government's position and that of the Opposition. That was reflected in the constructive discussion that we had on these issues in Committee. I said that I would go away and consider some of the points raised in Committee, and having done so, I am pleased to have the opportunity to set out the conclusions that we have reached.
      With regard to accusation cases, both sides of the House are agreed that extradition should only be possible for the purpose of putting a person on trial. It should not be possible for the purpose of interrogation or for the purposes of evidence gathering. Similarly, in conviction cases, the purpose of extradition should be that a person serves the sentence that has been imposed, or, if he has escaped before the sentencing process, that he can be sentenced. If Opposition Members examine the Bill, they will see that it already achieves that. A part 1 warrant is an arrest warrant that contains two key elements: the statement and the information. The contents of the statement and the information vary slightly depending on whether it is an accusation or conviction case. The information includes such details as the particulars of the person's identity or any other warrant, the circumstances of the offence, the particulars of the sentence that would be available to the court, or, in a conviction case, the sentence that has already been imposed.
      Of more importance for present purposes, however, is what is contained in the statement. If hon. Members look at clause 2(3), they will see that what is required, first, with conviction cases, is that not only must a person be accused of an offence in a requesting state, but the warrant must have been issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence. That is unambiguous language: it is not about interrogation, and it does not allow extradition for the purpose of evidence gathering or fishing expeditions; it is about putting a person on trial. No other meaning can be attached to those words.
      I know that that position is supported by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who said in Committee:
      "I would be happy to use the words in the framework document, which are 'for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution'."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9 January 2003; c. 53.]
      I would suggest that the words,
      "for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence"
      are significantly close to
      "for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution".
      The amendment would make absolutely no difference.
      Similarly, in conviction cases, the Bill provides that the statement must say that the
      "warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being sentenced for the offence or of serving a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention imposed in respect of the offence."
      Again, the position is unambiguous: if the statement does not contain the relevant information, the UK designated authority will be unable to certify it, and no further action could be taken on the extradition request.
      166
      Having set out why I believe that the Bill in its present form achieves what we want, I shall say a few words about the Opposition amendments.
      Mr. George Howarth: Having checked clause 2(3), I can see that it is in fairly unambiguous language. I wonder whether my hon. Friend could clarify one matter. In some systems, for example in Spain and Italy, where there are investigating magistrates, the process between arrest, investigation and standing trial is not as clear as in our system. How would the provision apply in those circumstances?
      Mr. Ainsworth: We already extradite people, and have done so for a long tame, to those jurisdictions. We do so for the purposes of their being put on trial. and not for the purposes of investigation taking place. A clear statement will be required in the warrant, the exact wording of which I have just read out, and the judicial authority that makes that request will have had to sign up to that statement. The National Criminal Intelligence Service, which will be the designated authority that will look at those incoming requests, will examine that statement, and if it is not in compliance with that requirement, it will say so, and will effectively stop the extradition proceedings before they even commence. We have a record in this area: although there are many other problems in relation to extradition, I have yet to hear of a situation in which the arrangements for requests from states that are our regular extradition partners have caused problems in the past, and I do not expect the system to change or problems to be caused in the future.
      Having said what the Bill clearly requires and prevents, let me turn to amendment No. 20, which requires that any warrant should conform to the model warrant attached to the framework decision. The simple point to make is that that will happen already. The requirements of the Bill mean that all the information included in the model warrant has to be supplied if extradition is to take place.
      I consider amendment No. 18 unnecessary, but we should not let it pass without comment. It states that if a court abroad has not acted in accordance with the wishes of a British judge, a fugitive held abroad shall be released and returned to Britain on the order of a British judge. I do not know whether Conservative Members can imagine that operating in reverse, and how we would we feel about a German or French judge being able to order the release of somebody who was in front of a court in the UK. I find it astonishing: it harks back to empire days when we sent a gunboat round to ensure that people did things in the British way. I am not sure that it is in any way workable, and it is certainly not needed. In the light of that explanation of how the Bill will work with its current wording, I ask Conservative Members not to press the amendments to a Division.
      1 pm
      I trust that all hon. Members will welcome Government amendments Nos. 35 to 37. They should be appreciated by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members because they respond to a point raised by representatives of both parties in Committee. My hon.

      167
      Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and other members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs should also welcome them because they raised the same concern. The amendments will make a European arrest warrant acceptable only if it is issued by a judicial authority in a requesting state. If the warrant came from any other source, the UK designated authority would be unable to certify it and no further action could be taken on it. The stipulation that the warrant must be issued by a judicial authority is already in the framework document, so the amendments will make little difference in practice. Nevertheless, we thought it right to respond to the wishes of those who raised the issue and to make the guarantee explicit in the Bill.
      Government amendment No. 37 will create a power to disapply the judicial requirement in respect of requests from certain countries that were issued before January 2004, which is when the European arrest warrant regime is due to come into effect. It is a transitional measure to enable the UK to deal with requests that are already on the Schengen information system when the UK becomes a party to the system in 2004. Pre-existing requests require a judicial authority to issue a domestic arrest warrant and a judge's permission would normally be required before requests were placed on the Schengen information system. However, some countries might put information on the system at the instigation of a police officer. In such circumstances, a person for whom extradition is sought may try to delay proceedings by claiming that the request did not come from a judicial authority. Given that a judicial authority must have backed the warrant in the first place, such arguments may well not succeed but we want to pre-empt attempts to delay and frustrate the extradition process. The problem will not arise after countries begin to operate a system of European arrest warrants, so we require only a limited short-term measure.
      Government amendments Nos. 43 and 63 respond to a concern raised in Committee. A person's identity is an important aspect of the extradition process and no hon. Member would want the Bill to allow the extradition of a person other than a person for whom extradition was sought. The Bill provides that, at the initial hearing that is held almost immediately after a person is arrested, the judge must decide whether the person before him is the person for whom the extradition request has been made. That process is not to determine whether extradition should occur and still less about determining whether a person is guilty of the crime for which his extradition is sought, but to ensure that the right person has been caught.
      The question of identity might be disputed in several cases. The Bill's current drafting requires the judge at the initial hearing to be satisfied that the person in court is the person for whom the warrant was issued. If the judge is not satisfied of that, the person must be discharged. It was suggested in Committee that the Bill should specify the standard of proof that would be required to determine that. That is a sensible suggestion and the amendments introduce the civil test of the balance of probabilities.
      168
      There are several reasons why we opted for the civil test rather than the criminal test. Extradition is not a prosecution and thus there is no need to apply the criminal test slavishly. However, it is an important fact that people who are subject to extradition requests are usually serious criminals, including terrorists, and such people are often adept at making their identity ambiguous or having multiple identities. If we had decided to use the criminal standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt, we might be unable to be certain of people's identity, which would allow them to walk free irrespective of the seriousness of the crime of which they were accused. The civil test, which is regularly used in, and understood by, British courts, is an appropriate way to ensure that a judge may reach a reasonable decision about a person's identity.
      Government amendments Nos. 44, 59 and 62 relate to an issue that was discussed at length in Committee. They will require the judge at the initial hearing to make the requested person aware of the contents of the warrant for arrest and extradition. The fugitive will already be aware of the contents of the warrant in the vast majority of cases because the police will generally show such people the contents of the warrant at the time of arrest or shortly after. In addition, the amendments will allow a fugitive or his legal representative to demand to see the warrant at any time. The new provisions make little difference in practice, but we hope that they represent a useful additional safeguard and that Opposition Members will welcome them.
      Amendment No. 4 has been tabled by the Conservative party, and we have tried long and hard to work out its rationale. Clause 39 provides that no person who has claimed asylum shall be extradited until a decision has been reached on that claim. The Government are all too aware that the asylum system has been subject to abuse and has been used to delay and frustrate the extradition process. That is why we included provisions to address that difficult situation and spurious asylum claims and appeals. If it is considered that an asylum claim is clearly unfounded, it can be certified as such by the Secretary of State when he refuses the claim. That certificate will mean that a person will be able to appeal against the asylum refusal only after extradition. The amendment would delete the entire clause and undo our attempt to provide a solution to such potential abuse.
      I hope that the Opposition will welcome Government amendments Nos. 50 and 67 to 69. The right to representation at a trial and the right to legal aid remain the cornerstones of our judicial system. We tabled the amendments to ensure that the right to legal aid that is enshrined in the Access to Justice Act 1999 applies to the issue of consenting to extradition. They provide that, before a judge accepts a fugitive's consent to extradition, he must check that that person had the opportunity to receive independent legal advice. In some cases, the fugitive would have declined to apply for legal aid after he had been advised that he was entitled to it. The underlying principle is that nobody should consent to extradition unless the opportunity for legal advice has been made available to them.
      Although amendment No. 92 is well intentioned, it is not needed and does not add anything to the safeguards in the Bill. Under clause 2, the UK's designated authority—which will be the National Criminal

      169
      Intelligence Service or the Crown Office in Scotland—can certify an incoming European arrest warrant only if it believes that the request has come from an appropriate judicial authority. Clauses 63 to 65 deal with what constitutes an extradition offence in order for the dual criminality requirement not to apply. I cannot therefore see what purpose would be served by trying to link clauses 2 and 65, as the amendment would. The definition is already identical, so the point is fully covered.
      Government amendments Nos. 53 to 56 and 70 to 73 are purely drafting amendments. Unless somebody insists that I go into them, I shall not detain the House.
      I turn to amendments Nos. 93 and 94 and Government amendments Nos. 65 and 66, which were tabled in response to concerns that have been raised. I hope that the House agrees that the Government amendments are a constructive answer. Requests from part 2 countries will often need to be accompanied by prima facie evidence. The amendments are concerned with the provisions that allow for documentary or summary evidence to be admitted in court. At present, evidence in those forms is not generally admissible. That might mean that we have to require, for example, a foreign witness to give evidence in person rather than accepting a police officer's account of what the witness had told him. That is particularly wasteful and cumbersome in cases where evidence is uncontested. Accordingly, the Bill provides for hearsay evidence to be admitted.
      There were concerns raised in Committee surrounding a case where the judge did not have the discretion to refuse to accept documentary or summary evidence if he had reason to believe that the evidence was faulty or flawed. We have listened to those arguments and given the district judge much greater discretion not to accept such evidence if he so chooses. I should add the reassurance that the Bill does not oblige the person whose extradition is sought to give evidence in summary; nor will it prevent the person from challenging any evidence that is given in summary or on behalf of the requesting state. I know that that was a particular concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). I hope that it is clear that those circumstances do not apply. There is no way that the defendant in such cases will be prevented from giving evidence in person.
      Government amendments Nos. 14 and 6 clarify the role of Scottish Ministers to order the extradition or discharge of a person arrested under part 2. Amendment No. 6 makes it clear that Scottish Ministers will be able to make a deferral order only when they are considering competing requests.
      The House may know that the Bill deals with a situation where two or more competing requests are received in respect of the same person. It provides that proceedings are deferred until a decision is taken on which should be given priority. It also provides for matters to be picked up again once that decision has been taken. Government amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 11 rectify an omission by specifying the appropriate judge in the deferred case.
      1.15 pm
      Government amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are purely
      170
      technical adaptations that are required for the Scottish jurisdiction. Amendment No. 12 makes it clear that all the rules of court to be made under this legislation will be made by act of adjournal in Scotland. Amendment No. 13 reflects the different terminology used in Scotland, where appeals are "abandoned" rather than "discontinued".
      I am sorry that this has taken so long, but the group of amendments is extensive. I commend the Government amendments to the House and ask the Opposition to consider withdrawing amendments Nos. 20, 18, 4, 92, 93 and 94.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: As the Minister has said, this is a detailed group of amendments. We on the Front Benches hope that our colleagues will bear with us as we wrestle with the complexities and technicalities of extradition law and procedure.
      I should stress at the outset that we welcome some of the provisions in the Bill. They are a welcome improvement and will help our police to extradite back to the United Kingdom people who are wanted here for serious offences. We welcome the fact that not only in this group of amendments but in subsequent ones, the Government have made several concessions in response to points that we made in Committee. However, they have not addressed all our concerns—not least the very big issue, as the Minister is well aware, of the European arrest warrant and the consequences of it. The Government have signed up to offences in the framework decision list, many of which are vague and some of which are not offences in UK law. There is a danger that British subjects will be shipped abroad without a British court being able to analyse or challenge the basis of a warrant issued by a foreign court.
      We repeatedly raised in Committee the example of the British plane spotters in the Kalamata court in Greece. That was a dire warning, which we discussed extensively. Since proceedings in Committee were concluded, we have had a further dire warning of the risk to UK citizens as a result of paperwork sent from one country to another demanding someone's arrest. The British pensioner Derek Bond was held for weeks in South Africa because the American authorities mistakenly thought that he was a wanted man. We shall deal later with the detail of why we feel that the draconian powers in part 1 should apply only to terrorist offences, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said on Second Reading.
      We welcome Government new clauses 10, 17 and 18 and Government amendments Nos. 32, 33. 83, 84 and 87. They are a response by the Government to concerns we raised in Committee. A foreign requesting country will now have the right to appeal against the granting of bail. I raised in Committee and on other occasions the fact that bail is too readily available in a wide variety of criminal proceedings in such courts. In UK courts, the granting of bail certainly ought to be reviewable in extradition cases, so we welcome what the Government have done.
      Government new clause 18 deals with juveniles going to local authority secure accommodation if they are not granted bail. Related amendments, as the Minister said, deal with the slightly different bail arrangements in

      171
      Scotland. We accept entirely that the Government are once again responding to concerns that we and others have raised. However, in passing, will the Minister note that we still have great concerns about the limited quantity and poor quality of local authority secure accommodation? There may be relatively few cases in which that will be needed in an extradition context, but we will no doubt return to the issue in other legislation and other debates.
      Government new clauses 12 and 13 are technical, as the Minister said, and we are happy to accept what the Government are suggesting. Government new clauses 14 and 15 address a mismatch between part 2 and part 1. It is good that the Government now accept that part 2 proceedings should be brought into line with part 1 on the issue of adjournment if a judge is informed that the fugitive has been charged with a UK offence or is a serving UK prisoner. We appreciate the need for consistency, but given the Secretary of State's recent mauling on many issues at the hands of British judges, it is perhaps a little surprising that he is abandoning his decision-making power and giving it back to the judges.
      Our amendments Nos. 20 and 18 go together to some extent. We intend to ask the House to divide on amendment No. 20, although I am advised by the expert Clerks that the vote will not take place at the end of the debate on this group of amendments, but later in our proceedings. We have made it clear that we are not comfortable with the concept of the European arrest warrant. We said in Committee that legislation introduced in the House should be honest and complete, and that all UK citizens should be able to see clearly what they are being made subject to by the Government. As a result, the proposed warrant ought to be included in the Bill—that is what our amendment No. 20 seeks to do, and we see no good reason why the wording of the warrant should not be included in the legislation. That must help honesty, clarity and—a word Ministers are fond of—transparency.
      If time had permitted, we might have sought a vote on amendment No. 18, but we do not want to detain the House in too many Divisions this afternoon and this evening. It may well be that the matter is revisited in another place, but the amendment expresses our concern that the Bill threatens the freedom of all UK citizens. Our concerns are widely shared across the political spectrum by organisations like Justice and Liberty, traditionally perceived as being on the left, and the Democracy Movement and the Freedom Association, traditionally thought of as on the right. Once again, I urge the Government to think about exactly what they are doing.
      I know that it would be embarrassing for the Government to do that because they have already signed up to the framework decision, but in the Labour-dominated Select Committee on Home Affairs many concerns were expressed about the way in which justice systems operate, not only in current EU countries such as Italy, Spain and Greece, but—this was raised in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), a distinguished former shadow Foreign Secretary and shadow Defence Secretary—in future EU countries such as, perhaps, Turkey and ex-Warsaw pact countries. Distinguished jurists such as
      172
      Leo Price QC and Torquil Dick Ericson have written extensively about those concerns, as have many specialist extradition lawyers practising in the UK who deal with the sharp end of extradition cases. We referred to a number of those concerns in Committee. We need the protections that we are suggesting, and I stress again that we will not withdraw amendment No. 20, but will press it to a Division.
      Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman said that he wants to include the European arrest warrant in the Bill, and that that is the purpose of amendment No. 20 in particular. However, does he accept that clause 2(3)(b) states that
      "the Part 1 warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence"?
      The key word is "prosecuted". In view of that and the assurance that my hon. Friend the Minister gave me, does the hon. Gentleman not think that his concern has been covered?
      Mr. Hawkins: I do not accept that. Almost exactly the same words as those that the hon. Gentleman has just read out were used by the Minister in a letter to me about the issues that we raised in Committee. We feel that it would be much better and clearer if the specific wording that we suggest were included in the Bill.
      Government amendments Nos. 35 and 36, as the Minister said, represent a significant concession made in response to concerns that we have raised, along with members of his own party and the Home Affairs Committee. We stressed that any warrants should be issued only by judicial authorities overseas. We are rather concerned that in Government amendment No. 37, the Government want a transitional right to disapply the concession if a country has already used the so-called Schengen information system for requests before 1 January 2004. We are not comfortable with the disapplication—the restriction to a judicial authority should apply to all requests whenever they are made. We do not have much faith in bureaucratic European administrative systems of justice, about which we have expressed concerns before. I do not want to be churlish—we recognise that the main thrust of the Government amendments is to make a concession in response to concerns expressed by the Home Affairs Committee and us—but there is an element of giving with one hand then snatching a little bit back with the other.
      Government amendment No. 43 and the linked Government amendment No. 63 deal with the need to define the standard of proof to be used when determining the fugitive's identity at the initial hearing. I understand from a letter that the Minister wrote to me that there was particular concern following the tragic and appalling murder of Detective Constable Oake in Manchester. When the defendant appeared in court, the Crown Prosecution Service said that it could not be certain that the information that it had on the defendant's identity was correct. In the light of that tragic and appalling case, which once again demonstrated how much we owe to the brave police officers who are dealing with those matters at the sharp end, we have to bear in mind the standard of proof used to determine identity. The Government have chosen the

      173
      civil balance of probabilities test. There was quite a bit of discussion about what was the appropriate test in Committee, and we accept the Government's concern about terrorists and other serious criminals who may seek actively to destroy any documents from which they could be identified. However, we also need to look at the case of the blameless British pensioner Derek Bond, who was arrested in South Africa on the request of the FBI. What would a balance of probabilities test of identity have led to if a European requesting state were using a European arrest warrant to arrest somebody?
      Mr. Bercow: I am not a lawyer—I say that as a matter of pride, although I have never held it against my hon. Friend that he is. With reference to the extensive and as yet unamended scope of the European arrest warrant, what assessment has he made of the compatibility of the Government's intended policy with the content of the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol of the treaty of Amsterdam?
      Mr. Hawkins: We have many concerns about the European arrest warrant. We do not think that it is proportional, and the Government were wrong to sign up to the framework decision before these matters were debated in Parliament. My hon. Friend is therefore on to something. However, we have to recognise—I hope that the Minister will bear this serious point in mind—that when talking about what should be the appropriate standard of proof we are talking about the lesser of two evils. I am sure that in another place those who are very learned in the law will return to this point, but I accept the choice that the Government made for the reasons set out by the Minister today, in Committee and in correspondence. However, he, in turn, will accept that this is a serious matter and that there can be two different views on which is the lesser of two evils. I therefore hope that he and those who work with him will keep that under review when the Bill goes to another place.
      1.30 pm
      Government amendments Nos. 42, 59 and 62, which are linked, represent a welcome concession to a point that we raised in Committee—it was also raised by the Select Committee on Home Affairs—that the district judge should ensure that the person arrested is shown the warrant that is the basis for that person's arrest.
      Amendment No. 4 seeks to leave out clause 39. I stress to the Minister, who was expressing some puzzlement about where we were coming from, that we wanted to probe to ensure that we would be able on Report to examine the problem of someone who may claim to be seeking asylum. The Minister has said that he wants there to be a fall-back position where the Secretary of State can say, "This is clearly a bogus claim." We were saying that always, in every case, the matter of whether someone should be extradited—we are talking in many cases about potential terrorists and serious criminals—should be gone through first, and that no delays should be injected into the system by way of somebody submitting an asylum case.
      Colleagues who served in Committee, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, were extremely concerned about the delays that the pre-
      174
      existing system has injected. We know that one of the ways in which so many people who might properly be extradited have delayed the process in the past has been by claiming asylum. I see the Minister nodding his assent to that. That is what we were getting at. I hope that the Minister will keep this serious issue under review. All Members of all parties in the House know that there is great concern throughout the United Kingdom about bogus asylum seekers and about the number who disappear into the black economy, where the Government have no way of finding them, or deporting those who may be a threat to our security and have no right to be here.
      We do not want another category being created of those who should be deported because they should be extradited to face charges elsewhere delaying matters by claiming asylum. The misuse of our legal system by a man called Rachid Ramda was referred to extensively by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon. The French authorities wanted him extradited from the UK to face very serious charges to do with the bombing of the Paris metro. I have heard what the Minister has said, but I hope in responding to the debate he will confirm that he and those who advise him will keep this serious matter under review.
      I hope that by tabling the amendment we will avoid the tendency of the Minister, the Home Secretary and, indeed, the Prime Minister to misdescribe the Opposition's position, wrongly accusing us of being soft or stopping the Government being tough when we have raised concerns about their legislation. It is clear that we are trying to persuade the Government to toughen up their proposals and to close loopholes. We hope that they will understand our point of view and where we are coming from, and will not seek to misrepresent our position in future debates or in another place.
      Government amendments Nos. 50, 67 and 69, which are linked, are welcome concessions to points that we raised in Committee. It is vital that a person considering giving consent to extradition must have had an opportunity to obtain independent legal advice first before consenting. The Minister says that he has thought about that and is prepared to accept that we were correct on that matter in Committee. I am glad that the Government have listened to us and to concerns expressed from many other sources and have made the concessions.
      Amendment No. 92 has been tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I agree with the Minister that it is perhaps a minor matter that does not add very much, but no doubt the Liberal Democrats will speak to their amendment.
      Government amendments Nos. 53 to 56 and 70 to 73, which are linked, bring terminology in line with the Courts Bill. The Minister said that he would not spend much time on these amendments unless someone asked him to do so. However, when he responds to the debate, I would ask him to cover one particular point. The Courts Bill, of course, is not yet law. It has had what I think could accurately be described as a rocky passage in another place. I suspect that that passage will continue when the proposed legislation comes to this place. More and more Labour Back-Bench Members have been lobbied—I watched that happen as recently as last week—by angry lay magistrates, who are furious at the Government's broken promises over the Courts Bill.

      175
      I hope that the Government realise that they should not assume in trying to amend this Bill to fit in with the Courts Bill that the Courts Bill will get through Parliament in its current form. We drew attention in Committee to the Government's lack of joined-up government—a phrase that they often use—with yet another measure in their huge raft of Home Office Bills, which is the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, which has also begun its passage in another place. We sought to put a line in that Bill and also in the Bill that is before us to suggest that the two measures needed to be co-ordinated. The Government resisted that approach in Committee and the issue was not selected for debate today. I hope that the Government, having said that the Bill needs to fit in with the Courts Bill, will not forget the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill.
      Government amendments Nos. 65 and 66 are, again, a Government concession, dealing with evidence in summary form. They seek to deal with concerns that we and the Home Affairs Committee expressed. The Government are removing "must" in clause 83 and replacing it with "may", to make it clear that a judge does not have to accept evidence where the provenance or credibility of that evidence is in doubt. We welcome that concession to the important points that we made in Committee.
      Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 93 and 94 are on the same point. They seek to delete parts of clauses 83 and 85, and also go to the issue of "must".
      Government amendments Nos. 14 and 6, which are linked, are technical Scottish amendments. They make it clear that Scottish Ministers exercise functions only when the fugitive is in Scotland.
      Government amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 11 are technical amendments that relate to who the appropriate judge is when a case is deferred after a competing request has been submitted. We have no problem with that.
      Government amendments Nos. 12 and 13 deal with Scottish legal terminology. I remember the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) telling us in Committee about acts of adjournal, and about appeals being abandoned, not discontinued, in Scotland. We are glad that the Government have listened to Scots lawyers on these points. There are further Scottish issues that we will come to when dealing with another group of amendments. Having put forward the amendments on which we feel strongly, that is all that I need to say about this group of amendments.
      Mr. John Burnett: As a lead into this group of amendments, we have always accepted for category 1 countries mutual recognition. We understand that. However, we do not believe that there should be mutual recognition without safeguards. It is imperative that there are safeguards.
      I welcome some of the amendments that the Government have introduced, which have been referred to by both the Minister and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), which contain safeguards in relation to matters that especially concerned us. I refer particularly to specialty, and the new clause that relates
      176
      to the death penalty. No country that still imposes the death penalty should be within category 1. That is clear from the Government's amendment.
      I am glad that the Government have decided to make the appropriate Scottish amendments following the arguments that were advanced in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).
      We had a great deal of help from the Select Committee on Home Affairs during consideration of the Bill in Committee. The Minister has made a number of concessions in relation to matters that were raised not only by the Home Affairs Committee but also by the Standing Committee. The Minister has said that he has made it clear that there was no intention to designate anyone other than United Kingdom enforcement personnel as an "appropriate person", and we welcome the clauses that make it clear that only constables, officers of Customs and Excise and armed forces police officers will be able to execute the European arrest warrant.
      There were further important discussions on judicial authority and its definition. Government amendments Nos. 35 to 37 make it clear that the warrant will be acceptable only if it has been issued by judicial authority. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned his concerns about the transitional provisions, which I share. In the other place, there will be opportunities for further probing and discussion of those arrangements. Our amendments seek to tighten up the procedure, and I shall advert to them shortly.
      In particular, I am pleased in connection with the definition of the standard proof in determining a fugitive's identity. That will also be considered in the other place, with regard to whether a balance of probabilities is the right basis for a judgment or whether the matter should be beyond all reasonable doubt. The Minister made the point that extradition is not prosecution, which I accept.
      I should like now to deal with the Liberal Democrat amendments. We tabled amendment No. 92, which seeks to amend clause 65, because we believe that the designated authority must be satisfied that the authority issuing the warrant in the category 1 country has that function. That must be clear beyond all reasonable doubt. The warrant should not be issued by anybody other than that authority and the judge must be satisfied that that is the case. The amendment would provide an additional safeguard and I look forward to hearing the Minister's view about it.
      Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 seek to amend clauses 83 and 85. They are similar amendments that seek to strike out subsections with exactly the same wording:
      "A summary in a document of a statement made by a person must be treated as a statement made by the person in the document for the purposes of subsection (2)."
      Although this matter might sound arcane, those are very important points. A summary is not good enough. A judge must see the evidence itself. A summary by someone other than the person in question is almost hearsay about hearsay. We must have what the person actually said and not what someone else believes they said. There is room for huge error and abuse in this matter. I believe that the Minister said that there was no

      177
      way that a defendant could be prevented from giving evidence in person, but we must face the fact that the defendant will not be present to do so in all such cases.
      As I said, we have made progress with the Bill and the Government have made concessions, which is welcome. Nevertheless, for reasons that we will explore later, not least the fact that we have not been satisfied about minimum standards of justice in all putative category 1 countries and about the nebulousness of the 32 offences set out in the Bill—a matter that we will have a chance to discuss later—we must have safeguards in the light of the shortcomings that exist. It is our job today, just as it will be the job of Members of the other place, to tighten up the Bill to ensure that there are no miscarriages of justice and that justice and fairness prevail in respect of our country.
      Mr. Tom Harris: I shall speak very briefly, because, like the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I am not a lawyer and a m rather proud of that fact. None the less, serving on the Standing Committee for a few sittings, which felt like many months, gave me a crash course in the law of England and Scotland, for which I am grateful.
      1.45 pm
      I should like to respond to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) with regard to Government amendment No. 43, which relates to the "balance of probabilities" in respect of a fugitive's identity. I understand why people are concerned about the case of Mr. Derek Bond, who was unjustly and unwisely held in South Africa for two weeks while the FBI carried out investigations, but I think that the public would be ill-served if we picked on that one specific and dramatic case as a reason for saying that the balance of probabilities should not be used in relation to the identity of a wanted person. The case was particularly unusual, and we as politicians must accept that, because of the intricate and sophisticated nature of intercontinental investigations, the identity of suspects occasionally cannot be verified and mistakes are made, but that does not necessarily mean that we will not pursue those investigations. We must remember that, in the case of Mr. Bond, to whom we all feel sympathetic, the true identity of the suspect was revealed after much investigation. I do not think that his case can be used as a reason for saying that we can give up on that specific type of inquiry by the FBI or any other international agencies.
      On amendment No. 4, which is an Opposition amendment, asylum is a big issue in my constituency and those of many other hon. Members. If we accept the amendment, we will completely remove from the Bill all references to asylum. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath suggested, that does not mean that asylum would no longer be used as a way of delaying procedures. As I understand it, the deletion of clause 39 would ensure that there were no guidelines at all about whether and in what circumstances accused persons could apply for asylum. I have personal experience of people claiming asylum for all sorts of ill-chosen motives.
      I would like to hear whether the hon. Gentleman accepts that the removal of clause 39 would create a far less specific and more vague asylum system. As the Bill
      178
      would contain no specific reference to asylum, people on whom warrants were enforced would use every possible means, including asylum, to delay their extradition. Some people may accuse the Government of being a bit too harsh on asylum seekers by refusing to accept the amendment. I disagree. The Bill already contains a very specific measure that allows people to appeal against an asylum decision that goes against them, albeit that that appeal has to be made outside the country. I welcome that; in the circumstances, I think it is absolutely justified.
      Amendment No. 18 is fantastic. I love it: only the Conservative party could have tabled an amendment saying that a British or English court can force these Johnny Foreigner courts to send someone home right away because we in this country do not think that they have met their obligations or that their legal system is quite up to the mark. When I read the amendment, I thought, "Only the Conservative party, God bless it, could come up with this sort of imperialist nonsense." The hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned that he had some reservations about the terrible bureaucracy in some foreign regimes. Once again—I would have laid money on this—he could not resist mentioning the plane spotters arrested in Greece, who were referred to many times every day in the Standing Committee. The idea that a British judge can decide that a foreign court is not quite up to speed and that we can demand that it sends a suspect back to Britain because we are not happy with its procedures is mind blowing. I hope that the Opposition will force that amendment to a vote, as it defines the philosophy of the modern Conservative party far more than many other things. It is the Ealing comedy amendment. Only in the late 1940s and early 1950s could people have taken such an amendment seriously.
      Let us consider the serious point of reciprocity. Does the hon. Member for Surrey Heath believe that a French, German or Greek court should be allowed to tell a British court that its procedures are incorrect, and that it should send the relevant person back home for trial? I presume that the hon. Gentleman supports the principle of reciprocity and believes that that should be the effect of the amendment, in which case he would be more than happy with the consequences that I outlined. I salute him if that is his genuine conviction; the Conservative party would have turned a corner. However, the amendment is neither reasonable nor acceptable to the majority of people in this country.
      My hon. Friend the Minister gave commitment after commitment in Committee, and made it clear that the Bill explicitly provides that no one will be extradited for anything other than a trial or a sentence. It was made clear many times that the Bill does not provide for extradition for investigation or interrogation. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to accept my hon. Friend's sincerity. He made the point clear many times. We spent day after day in Committee, with no doubt about the terms of the Bill. I ask the Opposition to accept that there is no need for amendment No. 18, except for comic relief.
      For the first time in British legislation, a Bill makes a specific, explicit commitment to protect people from extradition for anything other than serving a sentence or facing trial. The Extradition Act 1989, which was passed under the Conservative Government, made no such

      179
      distinction or commitment. For the first time, therefore, a Government are committed not to extradite for any reason apart from serving a sentence or facing a trial. I partly hope that the Opposition will press amendment No. 18 to a vote because I would enjoy voting against it. I hope, though, that they will consider it inappropriate.
      Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate the Minister on the extent to which he listened to the debate in Committee and made appropriate adjustments to the Bill. Everyone accepts that he is going a long way—in some cases, further than some of us wanted.
      I understand from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who opened the debate for the Opposition, that they intend to press amendment No. 20, but not amendment No. 18, to a vote. I am at a loss, because amendment No. 20 states:
      "The statement referred to in subsections (3) and (5) shall conform with the provisions of the model warrant annexed to the framework decision."
      Clause 2(3)(b) appears to cover all the anxieties that the Opposition expressed in Committee and today. When I intervened on the hon. Gentleman to point that out, he dismissed my comment and said that the Opposition would press the amendment anyway.
      I wonder why, given that the Bill covers the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, he wants to include an additional provision that would have the same effect. The obvious conclusion is that he believes that the amendment would circumvent the European arrest warrant. At least, the Opposition want an opportunity to vote against the European arrest warrant. They would probably be happy with it if it were called a "common arrest warrant" or an "arrest warrant for co-operation between states". However, the magic word "Europe" means that they feel obliged to reject it.
      I have not made those comments to poke fun at the Opposition because, by Labour party standards, I am reasonably Eurosceptical. However, a gulf exists between me and most Opposition Members, who appear to feel an obligation to vote against anything European.
      Annabelle Ewing: As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not clear whether amendment No. 20 will be pressed to a vote, but does he believe that it would alter the text of the Bill? One could argue that it would introduce legal clarity because it refers to
      "the model warrant annexed to the framework decision."
      Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Lady wants greater clarification about what was in the minds of the Opposition, she should have intervened on the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. I have made it a firm principle in my political career never to answer for the Conservative party. I intend to stick to that rigidly.
      The Opposition and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) made serious points today and in Committee about specific cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) made it clear a few moments ago that it is generally wise to legislate not on specific cases but on general
      180
      categories. Many hon. Members who are lawyers and are better versed than I am in these things could testify to that.
      I want to revert to an example that was used in Committee because it involves a constituent. Today, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath mentioned the case of Derek Bond, which was heard after our Committee proceedings. He also recounted the case of the plane spotters in Greece. However, in Committee, the case of my constituent Kevan Sloane, who is currently serving a three-and-a-half year sentence in Tenerife, was cited. None of the people in the three cases had to return to this country and subsequently be extradited to the country where the offence was committed. Since my constituent has been mentioned, I want to make his position clear.
      Kevan Sloane was arrested approximately two years ago, initially on five charges of armed robbery. By the time the case got to court, he faced two charges of armed robbery and he was eventually convicted of one. The standard of evidence required to convict him was poor. Two aspects were highly questionable.
      First, my constituent was picked out in an identity parade by a shop assistant who worked in the shop where he had allegedly committed armed robbery. However, the woman had been shown a photograph of him before the identity parade.
      2 pm
      The second piece of evidence given in court was that the perpetrator of the offence in question spoke colloquial Spanish. Apart from visiting his mother in Tenerife occasionally, my constituent has spent all his life in Kirby, and could hardly be thought capable of speaking colloquial Spanish. Nevertheless, despite that and despite the lack of any direct corroborative evidence, he was convicted.
      The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon said in Committee that that case proved the unreliability of foreign courts and the need for additional protections. I believe that my constituent was convicted on the basis of hopelessly flawed evidence, and the proceedings took place in Tenerife—and Madrid, where my constituent's appeal was turned down. I do not think, however, that the Bill would have made any difference, because my constituent was never in this country to be extradited in the first place.
      Mr. Burnett: I know that that case causes the hon. Gentleman enormous concerns and that he is a doughty fighter for his constituent, for which I pay tribute to him, but I think that my point in Committee was valid. Before we pass the Bill, we should ensure that minimum standards apply, especially in category 1 countries. In Committee, I gave examples of countries where such standards certainly did not apply.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman's whole argument hinges on the question of minimum standards, a phrase also used by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. I accept the need for minimum standards, but all the countries involved signed the framework document and therefore, at least in principle, are "signed up to" minimum standards. I believe that there was a miscarriage of

      181
      justice in my constituent's case, but to make a general case against the legal system in Spain and Tenerife is, in my view, to go a step too far.
      Mr. Burnett: I do not want to repeat all that was said in Committee, but in some EU countries there is no legal aid; in some EU countries there is no provision for interpreters; in some EU countries judges are appointed at the age of 21, and are paid a derisory salary. People are concerned about that, and so they should be.
      Mr. Howarth: I am concerned. My point is that commitment to the principle of minimum standards is evidenced by the fact that those countries signed the framework document. Unless the hon. Gentleman thinks it should never be recognised that a country is capable of signing up to a principle and delivering on that over time, he will surely agree that it is not the job of the House or of legislation passed here to redesign the legal systems of other countries, or to require the redesigning of those systems.
      As my hon. Friend the Minister said, if we pursued such ideas to their logical conclusion we would find ourselves returning to the foreign policy of Palmerston, and to gunboat diplomacy. I do not intend to bore the House with a recital of the Don Pacifico affair, but surely the Opposition do not really want us to return to those days.
      Mr. Burnett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Howarth: I will give way once more, but I want to finish my speech soon.
      Mr. Burnett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a third time. All we are saying is that before a fast-track procedure comes into play, minimum standards should apply in fast-track countries.
      Mr. Howarth: I do not know how many times I can reply to the hon. Gentleman's question without repeating myself, which he is doing. Let me simply say that while I accept the need for minimum standards, all those countries signed the framework document and, in doing so, committed themselves to such standards. The fact that the standards do not always apply in specific cases does not alter the fact that the principle has been accepted. It is for the countries to decide, over time, how to implement it.
      I end where I began. Although I do not suspect devious motives, I think the Opposition would rather vote against the whole of this part of the Bill than just vote for their amendment. If truth be told, they probably feel that they must make a stand, and are hanging their hat on amendment No. 20. I do not think amendment No. 20 is appropriate for the purpose; they should have been a little bolder, and voted against the whole section.
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I shall try to be brief, and deal only with the most important points. Let me deal first
      182
      with what was said by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and supported by the hon. Member for Torridge and North Devon.
      Mr. Burnett: West Devon.
      Mr. Ainsworth: It is disgraceful that Devon should be moved around like that—unforgivable, indeed. I mean the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett).
      Both Members suggested that the list was too vague, and that dropping dual criminality posed a risk to justice. What strikes me is that no one has been able to give even a bad example of how the arrest warrant proposals might have made a difference.
      Opposition Members have majored on the Greek plane spotters case, which was not an extradition case. The plane spotters were accused of an offence that is also an offence in British law, so the dropping of dual criminality would have made no difference. Similarly, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) was accused of a crime that exists in British law. As for the Derek Bond case, in which the extradition to the United States of a person who was in South Africa was sought, nothing in the Bill would have affected that either.
      No one will be subjected to a "vague list". The generic list is there to facilitate mutual recognition, and to end the requirement for dual criminality in cases covered by it. In the case of any and every request for extradition under the European arrest warrant procedures, the specific crime of which the person is accused will be spelt out on the warrant. It must be an offence in the requesting state: there is nothing vague about that. It must be an offence in French law, or in German law, but not in British law. We expect people who come to our country to abide by our laws and not their own, and the reverse must also be true. We have said that many times, but it needs to be said again.
      The case of Derek Bond raises the issue of identity. The acceptance of the European arrest warrant in our courts, and the issue of identity that arises before extradition, will be dealt with by a British judge. Anyone who says "I am sorry, but I am not the person who is sought in this warrant" will be able to make that case before a British judge.
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am listening to the Minister with interest. If his argument is that the removal of the dual criminality test will have no practical effect, why is he removing it?
      Mr. Ainsworth: That is not quite the argument that I was making, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. What I said was that the cases that have been prayed in aid against the proposals will not be affected by the proposals in any way. They occurred under current legislation and have nothing to do with dual criminality; indeed, the Greek plane spotters case had nothing to do with extradition. As I have said before, we have three choices. We live in a European Union in which we can all travel freely between our jurisdictions, and huge benefits flow from that, both economically and in terms of individual freedom. However, that point also applies to criminals. We can stand pat and hide behind arcane,

      183
      cumbersome and extremely expensive extradition arrangements that are hard to operate, and say that that is the barrier against the rest of the world; we can seek to develop a European framework of justice; or we can enter into a method of mutual recognition that enables us to co-operate in an effective and modern way with our European partners.
      Those are the three choices, but the Conservatives appear to have decided, despite the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to gloss over this issue, that they should stand aloof from the rest of the world and behave like a solitary little island, and to ignore the very real problems that would arise in respect of our ability to do justice to the victims of crimes committed in this country.
      Mr. Letwin: We will be able to discuss the general points that the Minister is making, and which are wholly misconceived, on Third Reading, but the interesting question is this. Is he admitting that the removal of dual criminality will in fact have a range of practical effects, or is he arguing that it is otiose to remove it? I cannot understand how he can avoid telling the House which of those is the case.
      Mr. Ainsworth: As I said in Committee—it was also said on Second Reading, and it continues to be our position—the removal of dual criminality is essential to putting in place a streamlined system; there is little doubt about that.
      Mr. Letwin: Will it have a practical effect?
      Mr. Ainsworth: Of course it will have a practical effect. While we are able to bring up issues of dual criminality, which repeatedly happens under current extradition regulations, people will be denied the opportunity to delay and to frustrate by using dual criminality arguments. That will be the practical effect, and that is why we are choosing to go down this road.
      The hon. Member for Surrey Heath said that although he welcomed my efforts in respect of naming, through the Bill, those who can apply for a European arrest warrant as a judicial authority, he felt that I was taking back with one hand as I was giving with the other. He was joined in that view by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, who raised concerns about the transitional arrangements for the Schengen information system.
      Mr. Burnett: All that I said is that the issue needs to be looked at again more thoroughly, and that it will be scrutinised in the other place.
      Mr. Ainsworth: If the hon. Gentleman supports me, I will accept his support, but I am not sure that that is the situation.
      I turn to the reason why we intended to include the term "judicial authority" from the start, other than the existing transitional problem. As I have said, all the warrants currently on the Schengen information system were originally backed by a domestic warrant, which was cleared by a judicial authority. In order to give the
      184
      concession requested, and to make the permanent situation as clear as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath wants it to be, we need that transitional arrangement—unless we are to refuse to extradite where existing warrants apply, or to provide people with an opportunity to question their validity, despite their being backed initially by judicial decisions.
      2.15 pm
      I thank my hon. Friends for their support on these issues, and I thank Members of both Opposition parties for their general tone, and for their welcome for the concessions that have been made. I am not surprised that I have been unable entirely to satisfy them, given some of the views that have been expressed. Those views were exposed by my hon. Friends in discussing amendment No. 18, for example. I ask the House to support the Government's amendments, and to reject those moved by the Opposition parties.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 11

      PASSAGE OF TIME
      'A person's extradition to a category 1 territory is barred by reason of the passage of time if (and only if) it appears that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him by reason of the passage of time since he is alleged to have committed the extradition offence or since he is alleged to have become unlawfully at large (as the case may be).'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: 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 5—Unconscionable delay—

      (1) This section applies if the Secretary of State believes that the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) are satisfied in relation to a person.

      (2) The first condition is that the person's extradition is sought or will be sought under Part 1 or Part 2 in respect of an offence.

      (3) The second condition is that there has been unconscionable delay between the time when the offence for which extradition is sought was committed and the extradition request.

      (4) The Secretary of State may certify that the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) are satisfied in relation to the person.

      (5) If the Secretary of State issues a certificate under subsection (4) he may—

      (a) direct that a Part 1 warrant issued in respect of the person and in respect of the offence is not to be proceeded with, or

      (b) direct that a request for the person's extradition in respect of the offence is not to be proceeded with.

      (6) If the Secretary of State issues a certificate under subsection (4) he may order the person's discharge (instead of or in addition to giving a direction under subsection (5)).

      (7) These rules apply if the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (5)(a) in respect of a warrant—

      (a) if the designated authority has not issued a certificate under section 2 in respect of the warrant it must not do so;

      185

      (b) if the person is arrested under the warrant or under section 5 there is no requirement for him to be brought before the appropriate judge and he must be discharged;

      (c) if the person is brought before the appropriate judge under section 4 or 6 the judge is no longer required to proceed or continue proceeding under sections 7 and 8;

      (d) if the extradition hearing has begun the judge is no longer required to proceed or continue proceeding under sections 10 to 25;

      (e) if the person has consented to his extradition, the judge is no longer required to order his extradition;

      (f) if an appeal to the High Court or House of Lords has been brought, the court is no longer required to hear or continue hearing the appeal;

      (g) if the person's extradition has been ordered there is no requirement for him to be extradited.

      (8) These rules apply if the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (5)(b) in respect of a request—

      (a) if he has not issued a certificate under section 69 in respect of the request he is no longer required to do so;

      (b) if the person is arrested under a warrant issued under section 70 or under a provisional warrant there is no requirement for him to appear or be brought before the appropriate judge and he must be discharged;

      (c) if the person appears or is brought before the appropriate judge the judge is no longer required to proceed or continue proceeding under sections 71, 73, 74 and 75;

      (d) if the extradition hearing has begun the judge is no longer required to proceed or continue proceeding under sections 77 to 88;

      (e) if the person has given his consent to his extradition to the appropriate judge, the judge is no longer required to send the case to the Secretary of State for his decision whether the person is to be extradited;

      (f) if an appeal to the High Court or House of Lords has been brought, the court is no longer required to hear or continue hearing the appeal;

      (g) if the person's extradition has been ordered there is no requirement for him to be extradited.

      (9) These must be made under the hand of the Secretary of State—

      (a) a certificate under subsection (4);

      (b) a direction under subsection (5);

      (c) an order under subsection (6).

      (10) The preceding provisions of this section apply to Scotland with these modifications—

      (a) in subsection (8)(a) for "he has" substitute "the Scottish Ministers have" and for "he is" substitute "they are";

      (b) in subsection (8)(e) for "Secretary of State for his" substitute "Scottish Ministers for their".

      (11) In subsection (2) the reference to an enactment includes an enactment comprised in or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament'.

      New clause 8—Passage of time—
      'A person's extradition to a category 1 territory is barred by reason of the passage of time if it appears it would be unjust or oppressive or not proportional in all the circumstances to extradite him by reason of the passage of time since he is alleged to have committed the extradition offence or since he is alleged to have become unlawfully at large (as the case may be).'.
      New clause 9—Referral of Part 1 warrant to Secretary of State—
      `.(1) Where a Part 1 warrant has been issued in connection with conduct which would not constitute an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom, that warrant must be
      186
      referred to the Secretary of State, who must make a decision separate to any decision of the appropriate judge as to whether extradition to the requesting country would be proper in all the circumstances.
      (2) The Secretary of State must make an annual report to both Houses of Parliament on the cases in which he has exercised his discretion as set out in subsection (1) above and the reasons for the exercise of his discretion in each case.'.
      New clause 19—Injustice and oppression—
      '.—A person's extradition to a category 2 territory is barred if it appears that because the accusation against him is not made in good faith in the interests of justice it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust or oppressive to return him.'.
      Government amendment No. 45.
      Amendment No. 23, in page 6, line 19 [Clause 11], at end insert—
      '() passage of time;'.
      Government amendments Nos. 47, 49, 51 and 52.
      Amendment No. 5, in page 30, line 38 [Clause 63], leave out
      '12 months'
      and insert
      '3 years'.
      Amendment No. 91, in page 40, line 35 [Clause 78], at end insert—
      `;—
      (e) injustice and oppression'.
      Government amendment No. 74.
      Mr. Ainsworth: This list of amendments is not quite so extensive, but there are still some issues to deal with, and I shall take the least controversial first. Government amendments Nos. 49, 51, 52 and 74 relate to the speciality waiver and further extradition to a category 1 territory. Under the Bill as drafted, the UK was able to adopt a higher position on speciality, which means that we could agree on a reciprocal basis with a part 1 extradition partner that they, and we, can, after extradition, presume our consent to the person being prosecuted for offences committed before extradition took place. However, grave concerns were expressed about this issue, and we listened to the worries expressed by members of the Standing Committee, and of the Home Affairs Committee. We have therefore decided that the reference to the use of the higher position on speciality and re-extradition should be removed from the Bill, and these amendments achieve that aim.
      Government amendment No. 47 is a purely technical amendment. It takes account of the possibility that such conduct might not constitute a criminal offence in the UK. In such circumstances, the district judge is required to apply the test of assuming that the conduct is contrary to UK law, and of then establishing whether the rule of double jeopardy prevents extradition.
      I turn to perhaps meatier issues: the passage of time bar to extradition, Government new clause 11 and Government amendment No. 45, and new clause 8 and its consequential amendment. The Government amendments duplicate the bar to extradition already contained in part 2 of the Bill. We made that change in the light of concerns expressed during consultation on the draft Bill, and in Standing Committee. Where extradition would be unjust or oppressive, as a result of the amount of time that has elapsed, it would in any case

      187
      be prevented under the Bill's provisions on human rights. However, we have listened to the arguments and see no harm in giving the judge the explicit direction to consider the question of the passage of time. I hope that Opposition Members will be happy to accept the proposed change.
      New clause 5 would give the Secretary of State the power to intervene in any case where there had been an unconscionable delay. I am not quite sure what Opposition Members believe the Secretary of State could bring to resolving such an issue, or how he could make a decision on unconscionable delay that contradicted the district judge. That judge's decisions are already subject to appeal to the High Court and, on points of law, to the House of Lords, so why add the Secretary of State to the process? That would open up the avenue for the legal challenge and judicial review, which would delay the proceedings. I hope that Opposition Members will accept that that the new clause is unnecessary, especially when we are including in the Bill the requirement for the district judge to consider the passage of time directly.
      On new clause 9, the Opposition present us with an opportunity to say that, if the crime for which the person is requested is not an offence in the UK, the Secretary of State should decide whether that extradition would be proper. I am not sure exactly what that means. A warrant would be issued by a body that we recognise—and have recognised for some time—for extradition purposes, and certified by our central authority, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, for an offence committed in a requesting state that is punishable in that state by at least the threshold amount. The Home Secretary, we are told, should decide whether that is proper. I look forward to hearing Opposition Members explain how the Secretary of State should go about deciding whether the decisions taken by the judicial authority of one of our European partners are proper.
      Mr. David Cameron: I do not want to preempt my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), but the Minister might like to ask any one of the Labour members of the Select Committee who voted for the report and in favour of a specific clause that was similar to the new clause. It would give the Home Secretary a backstop power, in cases in which the crime in question was not an offence in the UK, to do precisely what the new clause suggests.
      Mr. Ainsworth: Members of the Select Committee must speak for themselves, but I am not sure that they were seeking to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests. I can speak only to the new clause tabled by Opposition Members. I would be interested to hear—I did not hear it in the hon. Gentleman's intervention—how the Secretary of State is to decide whether the decision, say, of a French magistrate, to request extradition was proper. I may have gone to a different school from the hon. Gentleman's, but I do not see how he could get his head around that problem. Even if he could, any decision taken would be subject to judicial review and we would be left with appeals and delays—precisely what we are trying to avoid.
      188
      If people from another EU country came here and broke our law, would we expect that country to put them on trial? The fact that the conduct in question was not contrary to the law of their home country would be no excuse. How would we feel about a French Minister deciding whether our request was proper? I ask Opposition Members to view the problem in reverse perspective and think more about the consequences of what they are proposing.
      The second limb of new clause 9 requires the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the operation of the legislation. We do not believe that the Home Secretary should perform the role conferred on him by the Opposition in this new clause; nor do we see any need for an annual report. Home Office Ministers are answerable to Parliament and have to answer questions on the operation of extradition and other legislation—including details of the number of cases and the average time taken to process them. I see no reason for a formal annual report. No such requirement obtains in existing legislation and I see no reason to move in that direction.
      Amendment No. 5 is designed to limit the removal of dual criminality to offences attracting a three-year sentence, rather than a one-year sentence, as the Bill currently provides. The basic threshold for extradition that has operated for many years is set at 12 months, and we do not believe that it would be sensible to set a different threshold for the application of the dual criminality role. To do so would be a recipe for confusion. More than that, if hon. Gentlemen take the view that dual criminality is so important and necessary to prevent injustice when dealing with requests from another EU country—not a view that the Government share—why should that safeguard apply only to offences attracting a penalty of between one and three years, but not to more serious offences for which the person concerned potentially faces a longer period in prison? It would be illogical to impose a dual criminality requirement at the lower end of the offence scale, but not to impose such a requirement at the upper end.
      Secondly, I do not see why the UK's approach, in giving effect to European Union instruments, should always be characterised by doing the bare minimum necessary to comply, but I doubt whether many Opposition Members would agree. We have led on mutual recognition and we should seek to set an example to others. Several UK offences have no parallel in other European states, so there would be clear advantages for the UK and for the victims of crime here if other EU member states chose to go beyond the framework decision in respect of dual criminality.
      I shall now deal with Liberal Democrat new clause 19 and consequential amendment No. 91, which would add a further specific bar to extradition. I support the motives behind the amendments: we should not countenance extradition in circumstances in which it would be unjust or oppressive because the accusation ha .s not been made in good faith. However, the Bill requires no such enhancement. The bars already included in part 2, under clause 78, cover double jeopardy, extraneous considerations, passage of time and hostage taking. It is important also to remember that the whole Bill has the protections of the European convention on human rights firmly enshrined in it.

      189
      Clause 80, "Extraneous considerations", specifically covers where the request has been made for the purpose of punishing the person on the grounds of
      "race, religion, nationality or political opinions."
      Extradition is barred if a person would be prejudiced at trial or have his liberty restricted for any of those reasons. I do not believe that any additional requirement is necessary, and there is a risk that the amendments would be counterproductive. Their language is so subjective that they would present fugitives with a golden opportunity to block and frustrate the extradition process by creating additional grounds for appeal.
      I am sorry for taking the House's time, but I wanted to cover all the amendments in this group. I hope that Opposition Members will be prepared to withdraw the new clauses and amendments in their names.
      2.30 pm
      Mr. Hawkins: This substantial group of amendments is not quite as large as the previous group. I want to deal first with the Government new clauses. It is a measure of the lack of enthusiasm for the Bill among Labour Members, especially those who belong to the Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee, that the Minister has no one behind him on the Government Benches apart from his Parliamentary Private Secretary.
      Government new clause 11, and the linked Government amendment No. 45, amount to a significant concession. We welcome the Government's agreement to insert in part 1 of the Bill a "passage of time" bar to extradition, as proposed in my amendment No. 23. That is very similar to what the Government have proposed for part 2 cases.
      In Standing Committee, I explained how clients of expert extradition solicitors such as Victor, Lissack and Roscoe had suffered injustice as a result of the huge delays in other countries' legal systems. We welcome the Government's concession, and I welcome what the Minister has said today. The Government's proposal in response to the Opposition's new clause 8 and amendment No. 23, which were tabled before the Bill reached the present Report stage, and therefore before the Government concession was announced. We are of course delighted that the Government have been converted to our point of view, if a little on the late side.
      The Bill should not be retrospective. New clause 2 was not selected for debate, but we hope that the other place will reconsider the issue of retrospection.
      Our new clause 5 deals with unconscionable delay. We hope that the Government will continue to consider, in another place and more generally, whether that new clause's wording would be of additional assistance to clarify matters further, given the bad experience that expert extradition lawyers have had.
      We also hope that a de minimis provision will be inserted in the Bill in another place and, although new clause 7 was not selected for debate, that trivial matters will be excluded from the Bill.
      New clause 9 deals with the referral of part 1 warrants to the Secretary of State. It is an important matter, and I can tell the Minister that, if necessary, we will press it to a vote. We have made it clear repeatedly that one of the Opposition's main objections to the new European
      190
      arrest warrant machinery, and to the framework list that the Government have signed up to, is that many offences are listed that are not offences under UK law. Some, such as xenophobia and computer-related crime, are vague and undefined.
      The prospect is that UK citizens could be arrested here, at the request of a foreign authority, and shipped off abroad. They would not have the right to ask a UK court to test the matter. That is especially important in connection with undefined and vague categories such as xenophobia, and catch-all categories such as computer-related crime.
      New clause 9 would introduce the safeguard that the matter would have to be brought back to the Secretary of State, and that Parliament would receive an annual report. That would mean that there would be clear parliamentary scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) made a well judged intervention on the Minister a few minutes ago when he made the point that the Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee had called for just such a backstop. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that the new clause is not necessary and to ask how the Secretary of State would exercise the powers.
      We in this House are familiar with legislation that give Secretaries of State backstop powers. Given what the present Home Secretary has said about judges—the right hon. Gentleman claims that they do not operate legislation in the way that he intended, and says that judges should take note of what Parliament intended—I should have thought that he of all people would recognise that he needs the long-stop that a reserve power represents. Opposition Members strongly believe that there should be a regular report to Parliament, so that the massive change that the Government are introducing can be checked on annually by Parliament.
      Given the Home Secretary's very public anger about the way in which judges have stopped him doing what he wants, we hope that a scrutiny power for the Home Secretary will find favour. If the Minister is not empowered to say as much today, we hope that the debate in another place will force the Government to think again and give UK citizens the protection that they need.
      I stress that it would be even better if all cases could be looked at by a UK court before a British citizen is extradited for something that is not a crime in UK law. That is especially important after some of the issues raised by the Pinochet case. The danger is that another state could seek the extradition of Ministers—in the current Government, or in past or future Governments—in the same way as a Spanish magistrate sought to extradite Pinochet. Ministers may need to consider that possibility in connection with the current action in Iraq, or in connection with other international decisions. Reference was made in Committee to the concern about decisions made with regard to the bombing in Kosovo. Some people outside the House said that the decision was not an appropriate one for Ministers to take.
      The Minister must accept that the issue is serious. There is no doubt that it will be examined in another place. It cannot be dismissed.
      New clause 19, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, offers another sort of safeguard in these matters. Although our new clause 6 was not selected for debate,

      191
      the issue remains important. I am sure that many people in another place with senior experience in government or in the law will share our concerns. We understand what the Liberal Democrats are doing with new clause 19, and in general we share their concerns. New clause 19 could be a helpful further safeguard. In the future, if a far-left or fundamentalist Government were to take power in Turkey, say—if it was an EU member by then—or in Italy, and if that Government were to seek the extradition of the UK Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary of the day, Conservative Members would be able to say that we warned the Government that that could happen. They would be able to say that it was because the present Home Secretary failed to introduce a political reasons exception to this Bill, as recommended on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). The Bill needs a reserve power so that a future Home Secretary can have a fall-back position that will allow him to decide that extradition is not appropriate in certain cases.
      We do not agree with the list of offences to which the Government signed up in the framework decision, but we entirely understand the view put forward by the Chairman of the Select Committee, who is not able to be with us at present. He proposed an amendment that would have put the whole list on the face of the Bill. The Opposition might have proposed that ourselves if the list had been better, but our concern about the nature of some offences on the list means that that would not have been appropriate. However, the principle remains, and we shall come back to it in connection with a later group of amendments.
      Government amendment No. 47 is a technical amendment on double jeopardy, as the Minister made clear. It mirrors clause 14 and takes account of the possibility that the conduct complained of may not constitute a criminal offence in the UK. The Minister has made it clear that the Government acknowledge that possibility.
      Government amendments Nos. 49, 51, 52 and 74 represent a significant concession to the opinions expressed by us and by the Liberal Democrats in Committee, and by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in relation to speciality waiver and re-extradition. We do not want other countries to able to assume that they have the UK's consent. I welcome the Government's concession, although it was clear from the Minister's letter to me that it was made somewhat reluctantly. I will not go so far as to say that it was made grudgingly, but it was not made as willingly as some of the others.
      Amendment No. 5, to which I am delighted that the hon. Members for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) have added their names, would reintroduce the protection for which the Home Affairs Committee also called—namely, that the offences covered in clause 63 should be only those carrying three years' imprisonment, not 12 months. I remind the Minister that the Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee used very strong language about that. It said:
      "In relation to the dual criminality requirement, we can see no justification for eroding the basic level of protection provided by the framework decision".
      192
      It went on to say:
      "The framework decision requires the UK to do so only in relation to offences with a maximum penalty of at least 3 years and we are dismayed that the Home Office is seeking to do so".
      Amendment No. 91, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, seeks to introduce an "injustice and oppression" safeguard. We do not disagree with that, although it may not go as far as our suggestion of a political reasons safeguard.
      Although I have tried to be brief in summarising our responses to these matters and in speaking to our new clause, I should stress that my brevity does not suggest any lack of enthusiasm. These are important issues that will be taken seriously in another place, and I shall certainly want to press the new clause to division.
      Mr. Burnett: I have already said that we welcome the concession on speciality, and we also welcome the passage of time amendment tabled by the Government.
      New clause 9 proposes important safeguards that we support. The Bill contains many offences that are not offences in the United Kingdom. We have not discussed swindling: if I bought a car from the Minister for £1,000 knowing that I could sell it to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for £2,000 and then did so, would I be swindling the Minister? Perhaps I would, but that is the basis on which business is done throughout this country. That might seem to be a facile example, but it goes to the core of the entire definition. These offences are nebulous and uncertain. We believe that there should be safeguards, so we support the new clause.
      Mr. Cameron: As I said in my intervention on the Minister, I support new clause 9 because it is very close to what the Home Affairs Committee recommended as a backstop power for the Home Secretary. One of the objections made to us was that it may be contrary to the European arrest warrant and therefore out of order. As a good European, will the hon. Gentleman reflect on that possibility and give his view?
      2.45 pm
      Mr. Burnett: In Committee, the Minister cursed his misfortune in having drawn the two most Eurosceptical Liberal Democrat Members—[Interruption.] I had better make that figure three, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is here, although he did not serve on the Committee. I believe in a Europe of nation states—a partnership—and I do not want to see foisted on our judicial system matters that are nebulous, uncertain and unfair to our own people or to people abroad.
      I am delighted that we have the support of Conservative Members on new clause 19. The second head of injustice and oppression is not new—it is taken directly from section 11(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989 and appeared in all earlier extradition legislation. The Bill has adopted the cause of injustice and oppression arising out of the passage of time, which I welcome, and has rejected the
      "accusation not in good faith in the interests of justice"
      test in section 11(3)(c) of the 1989 Act. I refer to the case of Saifi v. the governor of Brixton prison, which demonstrated that in the absence of a discretion for the

      193
      Secretary of State to refuse extradition—that is, to act as a long stop to prevent injustice in exceptional cases—grave injustice may occur, which is not avoided by the application of the Human Rights Act 1998. In another case—the Murat Callis case, which was a Turkish case—the court discharged the accused on the ground that the accusations were not made in good faith in the interests of justice, but were made as a means of blackmail. While the principle of mutual recognition must be recognised in respect of category 1 countries that are party to the European Union, it does not fall to be recognised in respect of category 2 countries. The Minister said that he supports the underlying aims of the new clause. He does not, of course, believe that there should be injustice or oppression. As I said, however, it is no good the Minister falling back on human rights protections, because those are not available.
      I want to say a few words about the change in the threshold from 12 months to three years proposed in amendment No. 5. The European arrest warrant removes the dual criminality requirement for 32 offences where those are punishable in the issuing state by a custodial sentence or detention order for a maximum period of at least three years. Clause 62(3)(c) reduces that to 12 months. The Government have provided no justification for the inroad into the protection offered at EU level. We should maintain the threshold at three years, which would reduce the risk of warrants being issued other than for the most serious offences in respect of which it has been decided that dual criminality is not required.
      On amendment No. 91, a person's extradition to a category 2 territory is barred if it appears that because the accusation against him is not made in good faith in the interests of justice it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust or oppressive to return him. That is an important principle, and the House should consider it so.
      Mr. Andrew Rosindell: I rise to support the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but also to defend the liberties of my constituents, as all hon. Members must do. I am concerned about the Bill, and I want particularly to address the European arrest warrant.
      Although I would be the last person to want criminals from other countries to remain in the United Kingdom, and would prefer them to be punished in their native lands, I am concerned that the Government are not responding through the Bill to a genuine problem but are pandering to the wishes of Europe—not an uncommon occurrence with this Government, I —am sad to say. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the Bill's provisions relating to the European arrest warrant. They would allow for British citizens to be extradited to other European Union nations for crimes that are riot recognised in the United Kingdom, and with only limited UK legal hearings. It is particularly worrying that certain crimes in other European countries—especially those relating to so-called xenophobia and racism, and to computer-related crime—are exceptionally difficult to define and pinpoint accurately.
      Surely it is unthinkable that any British Government should lay British citizens open to arrest for breaking laws that are not clearly definable. Were this Bill to be passed, an Englishman—or, of course, a Scotsman or a
      194
      Welshman—who had perhaps done nothing wrong, or done anything that any right-thinking person in this country would condemn him for, or even anything that could be considered a criminal offence, could not feel secure in his own country.
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, when an Englishman is, for example, in Germany, he should obey German law or English law while he is there?
      Mr. Rosindell: Of course I believe that any person in any country should obey the laws of that country. I believe most strongly of all, however, that no British citizen should be subjected to the laws of other countries while they are in this country. That is completely wrong.
      I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who, alongside the directors of the Democracy Movement and Liberty, presented a petition on this issue to Downing street in November. The Bill will achieve an increase in the bureaucracy involved in extradition, at the cost of proper checks. What it needs to do is to tackle the real criminals who are a serious danger to the British national interest and to catch and deal with terrorists while protecting the innocent from European pettiness.
      The European arrest warrant represents an assault on civil liberties in the United Kingdom that will be potentially devastating for British people who fall victim unintentionally to committing ambiguous crimes abroad. It will open the floodgates for British citizens to suffer in foreign prisons and under foreign judicial systems that do not share our own standards and values. I urge hon. Members to reject it.
      Mr. Cameron: It is with great pleasure that I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), who has made a powerful case about the dangers of removing the protection of dual criminality. I rise to speak specifically in support of new clause 9, which would put into law the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee—I am pleased to see its Chairman in his place—to give a backstop power to the Home Secretary in cases in which extradition was being sought for something that was not a crime in this country.
      The Minister asked, when 1 intervened on him, how the Home Secretary could be asked to designate a request as being "proper." That is the word in the new clause. I did not draft it, and I have to say that I prefer the Select Committee's carefully drafted recommendation about the backstop power. I will try to defend the proposal, however, and I want to make two points to the Minister. First, the Home Secretary has a role in extradition right now. He has to decide in many cases whether someone should be extradited, and whether it is proper to do so. All that we are saying is that, under the European arrest warrant, if a person were accused of something that was not a crime in this country, the Home Secretary should have a backstop power to say whether it was proper or not. Secondly, we are in new territory here. Never before have we given up the dual criminality protection, so why not give a backstop power to the Home Secretary?
      The backstop power proposed in new clause 9 is important because I believe that we are making a great mistake in getting rid of the protection of dual

      195
      criminality. I shall give a simple example, so that we all know where we stand. Let us say that one of our constituents goes off to Spain, then returns to the United Kingdom and is accused of committing an offence. Under the Bill, so long as the arrest warrant had been properly filled out, that person would be returned to Spain. At no time would it be asked whether the offence that he was alleged to have committed was a crime in this country.
      I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee for this Bill, but I know that the proponents of the European arrest warrant say that we must try to give them a good example of a case that would be affected in the way that I have described. Because we have the protection of dual criminality, I have to admit that it is difficult to point to a good case. Perhaps I can ask the Minister what he thinks of the point.
      Other hon. Members have identified the problem of the very vague 32 categories, one of which is "racism and xenophobia". Not a lot of people know this—as Michael Caine might say—but in Finland, under the category of racism and xenophobia, warmongering is an offence. I shall share with the House what someone would have to do in Finland to be accused of warmongering. The Home Affairs Committee report states:
      "It is an offence, if, during an ongoing or imminent military or international political crisis, for the purpose of causing Finland to be at war with the target of that military operation, to:
      —publicly disseminate statements or other propaganda intended to turn the public opinion in favour of the carrying out of offensives".
      Unless I have got it wrong, anyone who, for example, supports military action in the Gulf against Iraq and who travels to Finland and makes the case that the Finns—who, after all, may soon be part of a common European security and defence policy—should join the coalition, would be committing an offence. Suddenly, that could be something for which someone could be extradited. I would not recommend that either the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister should rush to visit Finland if they are going to talk about what is going on in the Gulf. I see the Minister laughing, and I admit that it is quite funny. I did not know that that was Finnish law until recently.
      Mr. Boris Johnson: Will my hon. Friend consider this further possibility? Were someone in Finland to access the Downing street website and read the many arguments for war that it puts forward, it might be possible for an alert judge or prosecuting magistrate in Finland to extradite the Prime Minister for warmongering.
      Mr. Cameron: Absolutely. We have only to look at the Downing street website to see many statements in support of military action. They could be taken as an attempt to encourage the brave and plucky Finns to join us in the Gulf.
      I observed that the Minister was laughing at that example, but the problem is that the Bill is removing dual criminality as a protection. It is an important safeguard that people in this country have had for years. All that our modest new clause 9 proposes is to give a
      196
      backstop power to the Home Secretary. I am sure that in most cases he would say, "It is fine. The arrest warrant has been filled out, and it can go ahead. This is clearly an offence." However, we would give him a backstop power for cases in which there was no dual criminality, so that he could say, "Hold on a second. This should not happen."
      Proponents of the European arrest warrant always ask why someone should be protected just because they have managed to cross a border. They have been in Germany, Spain or Portugal, so why should they suddenly have protection when they get back to good old Blighty? My answer would be that our legal system is here to protect our citizens, and that that protection should be given up only if we can really trust the legal systems of other states. It is one thing to do that, as we have done in extradition cases for many years, when a crime that we recognise has been committed. It is quite another thing to give up that protection if we do not recognise the crime. This whole question turns on whether we trust other member states' criminal justice systems.
      3 pm
      The case of the plane spotters in Greece has been mentioned several times. It is not directly relevant to the EU arrest warrant because they were arrested in Greece and did not make it back to the UK. However, it showed people in this country that one could be held in prison in Greece for weeks on end before even being charged, let alone tried. That is what shocked so many people in the UK: those people had not even been charged, yet they were languishing in a Greek jail.
      My argument does not rely merely on one case, however. There are four vital objections to the removal of the protection of dual criminality. I shall deal with them briefly. First, we do not know for certain which offences will be covered by the EU arrest warrant. As I said earlier, the 32 categories include some extremely vague offences, such as xenophobia. We do not have a detailed definition of the offences that will fall into each of those categories in each member state. The Home Office told the Home Affairs Committee that it did not have detailed definitions of offences in the criminal justice systems of other EU member states. The Home Office cannot tell us for which specific offences we might be in danger of extradition.
      Secondly, the 32 categories do not appear in the Bill. When the Select Committee asked the Home Office why that was so, the response was that article 2.2 of the framework decision allowed for the list to be amended. We have thus been told that new classes of offence and extra offences could be added without proper parliamentary scrutiny. We are certainly not discussing them today. As those new classes of vague offences are added, we will not know which crimes fall within them. The Government rejected the Committee's recommendation to import the list of 32 offences directly into the Bill. Their response stated only that, although they do not know of any plans to amend the list of 32 offences, they believe that they must retain the flexibility to deal with any such changes.
      Do the Government want to amend the number of categories or not? The Select Committee's response to the Government was clear, and I could not agree more:

      197
      the UK's domestic law should be clear in the future Act. Citizens should not have to refer to the EU document "sitting behind" the Bill in order to know what the law is. We should know about the laws that we are passing.
      My third objection is that the situation is not static. Individual countries can add extra offences in each of the 32 categories—[Interruption.] I think that the Minister said "So can we". Even if he can tell us about every offence under each of the categories, including Finnish warmongering, he cannot reassure us that Governments will not create new offences in future. The protection of dual criminality would not exist for any of them.
      My final objection is that countries joining the EU could automatically be designated category 1 countries and therefore be part of the European arrest warrant system. In fact, there is no restriction on any country being designated category 1—it does not have to be a member of the EU. The Government said that they do not intend to designate other countries as category 1, but they seem to be retaining that possibility. Their reason for rejecting the Select Committee's recommendation was that they required flexibility to be able to designate other countries as category 1, so there is no reassurance there.
      Countries that join the EU or that become subject to the European arrest warrant can decide on their own interpretation of the 32 categories. They can decide which offences fall under them and add other offences in future.
      In summary, what that means for our constituents is that getting rid of dual criminality is no small thing. The Minister is not saying, "Here is a small list of offences in a small number of countries. They will not change and all I ask is that you trust their criminal justice systems in those limited cases." He is not saying that at all. In effect, he is saying, "Here is a list of 32 vague categories of offence but I cannot tell you which crimes will be included in them, nor can I tell you which new categories will be added in future. I cannot tell you which new offences will be added to those categories and I cannot tell you what countries joining the EU in future will do". There are no guarantees whatever.
      To put the matter in tabloid form, the Minister is not telling us to trust the current Greek, Portuguese or Spanish criminal justice systems. Instead, he is saying that we must trust any criminal justice system of any present or future EU country not as it is today but as it may be decades in the future.
      That is why we need a safeguard. New clause 9 is modest, and I can see no objection to it. We are asking only that the Home Secretary be allowed to decide in cases in which the offence is not a crime in this country. We should give him that backstop power. Will the Minister explain what is wrong with that?
      I can see only two possible objections. The first is that such a role is not appropriate for the Home Secretary—perhaps because he is too busy. I cannot believe that. Only a few cases would be involved. The Home Secretary should appoint another Minister to replace the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). That would reduce the workload—[Interruption.] I am trying to help the Minister to have a fulfilling life. The Home Secretary has played a role in extradition for decades, so that cannot be an objection. As I said, there would be
      198
      only a few cases in which people were subject to extradition for an alleged crime that is not an offence in this country.
      The only other possible objection is the one that I raised with the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). I now know that the hon. Gentleman is a good man as well as a good European, because he supports a Europe of nation states.
      Mr. Burnett: Independent nation states.
      Mr. Cameron: The hon. Gentleman gets better. Soon he will outflank me on the right.
      The other objection relates to whether the provision would be allowable under the European arrest warrant. Will the Minister tell us what legal advice he has received on that?
      The House should try to get the law right for this country. There certainly should be expeditious extradition arrangements between European countries but we should not get rid of fundamental protections. The House should include a backstop power for the Home Secretary in the Bill and then we should see what the European Court makes of it. We should not lie down meekly because Ministers signed things away in Europe without thinking them through and say that we have to go along with them with no further debate.
      I hope that we shall divide on new clause 9 and that it will receive support from both sides of the House or, at the very least, from all the members of the Home Affairs Committee.
      Mr. Boris Johnson: It is with great humility that I shall try to follow the masterly summary of the arguments given by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) also spoke passionately and well. I support in every particular the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).
      It would be foolish to pretend that the Bill is objectionable in every respect. I welcome some aspects of it, such as the speeding up of some of the procedures. The Minister heard a great deal in Committee about cases such as that of Rachid Ramda who was involved in the Paris metro bombing and succeeded in spinning out his case against extradition from the UK to France for seven years. It would be a very good thing if men like him were not able to monkey around with the judicial process for so long.
      I want to focus on dual criminality, as my hon. Friends the Members for Witney and for Romford and other hon. Members have done. I can understand that we have something to gain and something to lose by getting rid of the principle of dual criminality in the case of European extradition warrants. We have heard that we would gain in cases where we wanted to extradite to this country someone who was guilty of something that we had made a crime in this country. but was not criminal conduct in another country where that person happened to be. Swindling, the age of consent and various other examples of how we might gain have been raised.
      We would have something to lose, of course, and I want to range against each other two principles of law—mutual recognition and legal certainty. In my judgment,

      199
      there is an overwhelming case for preserving legal certainty, not going down the route that the Minister constantly invites us to take, which he calls mutual recognition. There is a reason for that: this is not mutual recognition, properly so-called. I said that time and again in Committee until I was virtually blue in the face.
      I had the great joy of spending five years in Brussels, reporting on the creation of the single European market, very largely brought about by Baroness Thatcher—it was in many ways a Conservative programme of extending the benefits of free trade and mutual recognition of standards and norms across the EU. Lord Cockfield, a former Conservative Cabinet Minister, who was the Commissioner responsible for the single market, pioneered the principle of mutual recognition, which is, of course, instantiated in the famous Cassis de Dijon case.
      Under the principle of mutual recognition, if the Minister manufactures sausages that contain a red dye that is approved in his constituency, but not in Germany, or the Germans do not approve of the standard of sausages that he makes because they contain too much red dye, that sausage must be—
      Mr. Burnett: Extradited.
      Mr. Johnson: No, not extradited. That sausage must be legally bought and consumed in Germany. The rule of mutual recognition says that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if we in this country say that the sausage is perfectly good for us and perfectly good for the Minister and made him what he is—a fine figure of a Minister—there is no reason why the Germans should not eat it too. That is mutual recognition.
      I want to tell the House in all candour that that principle can be very happily transferred to the criminal law. A moment or two's reflection will show why that is the case. It is possible throughout the Community to recognise two different types of sausage—the type that the Minister makes, in my hypothesis, and the type that the Germans want—so we could have German sausages and the Germans could have British sausages. There is a free movement of sausages—mutual recognition of sausages. It is not possible to bring that about in the criminal law.
      It is not possible simultaneously to make it legal to drive on the right and on the left in all Community countries. The Minister will start to appreciate the point that I am making. It is not possible simultaneously to have a legal age of consent at 15 and at 18 in this country, and there are variations across the Community. Therefore, what we are talking about is not mutual recognition, as it has been generally understood in building the Community.
      If anything, what we are trying to introduce by the European extradition warrant and the wrongful importing into the argument of the principle of mutual recognition is the assumption that, in any dispute between two criminal jurisdictions involving an argument about whether or not something is a crime, the higher standard will prevail; it will be assumed that that act is a crime for the purposes of extradition. That is not
      200
      what is meant by mutual recognition. I am belabouring that point, and I mean to belabour it because I do not feel that it has been properly understood. I have tried to din it into the heads of Labour Members, but they have remained obstinately immune.
      3.15 pm
      Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not engage in a debate about sausages, but does he believe that, if the age of consent is 18 in another European country—to use the example he gave—and people from this country went there and committed an offence, they should not be eligible for extradition?
      Mr. Johnson: As I said in my opening remarks, I really think—I shall come to this point again in a minute—that we have something to gain and something to lose from such extradition. There will be things that we think are criminal, that are not recognised as crimes in other countries, for which we would like to extradite people to this country, and we will lose that opportunity.
      Mr. Howarth: It is a simple question, Boris.
      Mr. Johnson: My answer is no. I do not think that that involves mutual recognition. The House is being asked to agree that, in any dispute between two criminal jurisdictions, it should be assumed in deciding the matter of extradition that there is criminal conduct. It may be that the country in which the person currently resides says that the conduct is not criminal but, if there is a dispute, it will be assumed for the purposes of extradition that criminal conduct has taken place. That is something different from mutual recognition, and that fact should be recognised.
      Mr. Tom Harris: During the hon. Gentleman's five years of journalism in Brussels, did he obey Belgian law or English law? Is it not the height of arrogance for him to suggest—this is the conclusion of his argument—that people from this country who go abroad are bound by their native law, not by the law of that other country? In effect, that is what he is saying.
      Mr. Johnson: I am not going to take that criticism from the hon. Gentleman. Of course I obeyed Belgian law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romford pointed out, we should obey the law of whichever Community country we happen to be in. Of course that is what we are saying, but we are also saying that when people are in Britain, they should have the legal certainty that the laws of this country, not those of another Community country, will apply to them. The whole point is that they will be vulnerable to extradition for things that are not crimes in this country. That is the point on which we differ.
      It is perfectly clear that there is a list of 32 broad categories of offence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney pointed out, that list can be varied at will by the European Council on a majority vote. There is no way that we can possibly influence the changes made to those categories of crime or, indeed, to the criminal justice systems of other countries, so we are giving up our democratic right to make the law of this country.
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: To clarify the situation, the list can only be changed by unanimity. What we cannot do,

      201
      however, is prevent the Belgians from changing Belgian law, or the French from changing French, law first as we will not allow them to prevent us from changing British law. If we changed British law, would we not expect people in our country to obey our new law?
      Mr. Johnson: I am grateful to the Minister for clearing up the point about unanimity and majority voting, and I am sorry to have got that wrong just now. He makes the point well that it is up to the Belgians to vary their own criminal justice system. We will have absolutely no influence over that. The net result will be that a citizen in this country can be extradited to Belgium or to another category 1 country to face charges for something that is not a crime in this country. In my view, that is taking away the legal certainty of people whom we represent and the freedoms of people whom we were elected to serve. It is rash of us to do that, particularly when we consider how deeply at variance we currently are about one aspect of international law: we cannot agree with the French about the legal status of the action that we are taking in Iraq. There is a huge difference of opinion about the legality of that most vital international operation. How, therefore, can we expect to have consensus and harmony about a great host of minor matters, and how can we possibly expect our citizens to have any certainty about what laws apply to them as they move around the country?
      Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of misrepresenting the case by almost suggesting—I know that he did not intend to say this—that a citizen of this country who has never set foot outside it will somehow be subject to extradition because he has broken a law in Britain that applies in another country. That is of course not the case. Citizens of Britain who go abroad are subject to the laws of that realm, and if they commit a crime in that country, irrespective of whether it is a crime in this country, they must surely be held accountable in the country that they have freely chosen to visit. Surely that is a fundamental point.
      Mr. Johnson: Of course such people must be held to account, and I am not opposed to their being held to account for crimes that they may have committed in foreign countries. Of course we must respect the legal systems of other Community countries. I am simply saying that when we think that there is no crime under our laws, it should be possible for the Home Secretary—a democratically elected representative of our people—to decide that there is no case for immediate extradition. The European extradition law means immediate extradition, with no argument and no discussion. All that the Opposition are suggesting is that that very small safeguard should be built into the Bill. That seems not much to ask.
      Mr. Burnett: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point, with which I have considerable sympathy. As he knows, dual criminality is abolished for category 1 countries. For example, someone who might have broken a swindling law in another category 1 country might be completely oblivious of the fact that he has broken any law whatever and would consider himself entirely innocent. Does the Gentleman agree
      202
      that in those circumstances there must be some safeguards and there should not be immediate extradition?
      Mr. Johnson: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who advances ever further in the hierarchy of soundness and common sense. It is miraculous what common sense Liberal Democrats in the west country show when they are up against Conservatives.
      To return to the previous intervention from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), I am in favour of us all obeying the laws of other Community countries and taking the consequences when we get home, provided that there is dual criminality. The Gentleman should bear in mind, however, that under the Bill, as he suggests, someone might be sitting in their front room doing something on a computer—as that is envisaged in the text of the Bill—and, as I read it, it is not outside the bounds of possibility that they could be extradited without having even set foot in a foreign country. The possibility that he raises as a reductio ad absurdam is therefore not as absurdam as he suggests.
      Finally, I want to revert to the case of the Kalamata plane spotters, as the last time I did so I said that it would have been awful had they come back to Britain and been extradited on the spot. I think the Minister stood up and said, "Ha, ha! They could already be extradited, even without this extradition warrant Bill, because they were arrested under charges of espionage, and they would have had to go back." It was a good point. As I was able to say to him then, however, and as I shamelessly repeat now, the point is that under the current law the Home Secretary can decide whether to vary that warrant. It would be a small protection for our citizens to give the democratically elected Home Secretary the ultimate power to decide whether an extradition request from a European country was vexatious or improper. It is not beyond the imaginative powers of the Minister to understand how the Home Secretary, who is a very capable and intelligent man—unless the Minister is trying to tell me otherwise—could decide whether an extradition warrant was proper or not. He would simply decide whether the case had been well made and whether there was a case to answer, even if he could see no dual criminality, and then sign the case off. Installing such a small protection for the people whom we represent is the very least that we can ask of the Government.
      I do not understand why the Minister does not do that because I can imagine the headlines that will be written after the provision bites. There will come a time when he will be recognised as the author of this sad legislation. I can imagine his future embarrassment and what certain tabloid newspapers will do to him. I could write the headlines for him—maybe I will. If he has any power of reflection, I urge him to think twice and accept the amendment.
      Mr. George Howarth: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) tells me that the hon. Gentleman has an iconic status among the young people of

      203
      Liverpool. I am not entirely sure how that has arisen, but no doubt I shall gain some brownie points from my hon. Friend for speaking against the hon. Gentleman.
      I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and, to put it kindly, the logic of his argument was muddled. He seemed to advance the theory that extradition should be right and permissible only when the offence that is committed in one country is roughly the same as an offence under our criminal law, which I assume he would concede to be the principle of dual criminality. I think that that was the burden of his argument, although he might wish to correct me because he was somewhat muddled and I might have misunderstood him.
      I found it rather shocking that the hon. Gentleman made that argument, and I have two problems with it. I think that he believes that nation states have the right to decide what is right and appropriate for them. I presume that his time spent as a journalist in Brussels reinforced that view because I have heard him advance the argument in the past. If he accepts that any nation state, whether in the EU or not, has the right to make such decisions, it follows that any visitor to a nation state is bound by its law and that any visitor who commits an offence there yet manages to get home should expect to be extradited back to that country to face the music. I have no problem with the logic of that and I do not know why the hon. Gentleman, who is a great defender of nation states, cannot understand why that must be the case.
      Mr. Cameron rose—
      Mr. Boris Johnson rose—
      Mr. HowarthI shall give way to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and then the hon. Member for Henley.
      Mr. Cameron: Surely the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that we should remove the protection of dual criminality not only from EU states, but from states throughout the world.
      3.30 pm
      Mr. Howarth: No. The omission that the hon. Gentleman makes in raising that point is that all other EU states, and even to some degree the applicant countries, recognise that there is already a framework setting down some minimum standards. So, there is a distinct difference. For argument's sake, I would not say that that would be so in all countries in the world, because clearly there are some places where criminal law is not as sophisticated as that in most European states and ours.
      Mr. Cameron rose—
      Mr. Howarth: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again, because I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Henley.
      Mr. Johnson: I am not, of course, saying that people should not be extradited except where dual criminality
      204
      applies. No one on the Conservative Benches is saying that. The hon. Gentleman grossly misrepresents my argument. All we are saying is that when dual criminality does not apply, the Home Secretary should have the power to decide whether to go ahead with the extradition. I thought that I had made that abundantly clear.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman's indignation overtook my ability to make my second point, which was indeed to talk about the Home Secretary's role. I happen to have been a junior Minister at the Home Office when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), as Home Secretary, had to study and make a decision on the Pinochet case. I shall not go into all the rights and wrongs of that, but I will make a couple of observations about the process.
      First, a cordon sanitaire had to be built around my right hon. Friend because it was properly recognised by officials that he could not be easily influenced by anything else going on and that he had to concentrate uniquely and almost single-mindedly on the arguments for the application for extradition and their merits or otherwise. Secondly—
      Mr. Johnson rose—
      Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my point, I will allow him to intervene.
      Secondly, although I had no direct or even indirect involvement in the Pinochet case, I know that my right hon. Friend had to concentrate on the legal arguments that both sides put before him. He was not acting as some superimposed arbiter of right and wrong, but deciding on the legal arguments which, in almost any other circumstance, would have fallen to a judge.
      Mr. Johnson: The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was in a difficult position because as a youth he had been out demonstrating against Mr. Pinochet. As far as I can remember, that was the particular difficulty that beset him. It is hard to imagine similar difficulties affecting future Home Secretaries in making such decisions. I therefore do not see why the hon. Gentleman's point invalidates the general desirability of a Home Secretary making such a final, safety, backstop judgment on whether extradition should go ahead.
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman's point applies not only to my right hon. Friend but to almost all politicians. The truth is—and the hon. Gentleman is no exception to this rule—we all have form. Every one of us in pursuit of our political careers has taken positions on all sorts of things. If the hon. Gentleman ever found himself in a position such as the one I have described, he too would have form—not necessarily on Pinochet, but he will have made pronouncements not only in his political life but during his career in journalism. That is why it is far better for such things to be decided by judges than by those of us who find ourselves in political positions that on occasions may have quasi-judicial implications. The hon. Gentleman has not made a strong case. All the arguments go in the opposite direction, and I certainly shall not be voting for the Opposition amendments.
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Where do I start? I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) for trying to help me bring a little clarity and logic to the debate, although that is pretty difficult.
      Let us try to unravel some of the jumbling that has gone on since the Conservative Back Benchers, joined by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), took over the debate. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon complained about the list, and someone not knowing whether or not he was committing an offence. I understand that the Gentleman is a lawyer. If he is seriously telling the House that ignorance of the law is a reason for rendering one immune to prosecution, he should stand up and say so, otherwise he should not have come to the House and spoken about someone not knowing they had committed an offence.
      Mr. Burnett: Of course, I recognise and acknowledge that ignorance of the law is not a defence against a charge. Having said that, if someone commits an offence overseas which he believes is not an offence—he believes that it is an entirely innocent—act and is then subject to extradition, surely there must be some safeguards.
      Mr. Ainsworth: So if a German, for example, comes to our country, breaks our law, returns to Germany and says, "But wait a minute, I didn't know I was breaking the law," he should not be sent back here to face justice.
      Mr. Burnett rose—
      Mr. Ainsworth: No, I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
      That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying—there must be a safeguard that prevents that man from being returned. His ignorance of the fact that he was breaking the law ought to provide him with protection from prosecution.
      Mr. Boris Johnson: The whole point, as the Minister well knows, is that ignorance of the law of one's own country is not a defence—that is indisputable. However, let us suppose that a fine, influential, upstanding Home Office Minister went to Finland and made a speech defending the behaviour of the coalition forces in the war, argued that there were good reasons for supporting military action in the Gulf, then went back to London thinking that he had done a good job, only to find that he was guilty of breaching the Finnish law on warmongering, would that Minister he wholly innocent or not on the ground that he did not know—and I bet that the Minister does not know, but perhaps he will correct me—that warmongering is an offence in Finland?
      Mr. Ainsworth: Let me try to deal with the issues that have been raised.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Ainsworth: l shall not accept interventions for the moment, but of course I will allow hon. Members to intervene later.
      206
      We have heard numerous contradictions, including many in the speech of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson). He said that if the age at which someone could be prosecuted as a criminal in this country was different from that in another country they should not be sent back. However, only a couple of sentences later, he agreed that when he was in Belgium he abided by Belgian law. He cannot have it all ways. The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) spoke about somebody who had committed an offence in Spain and returned to this country. That person could be extradited and, during that process, at no time would it be asked whether or not what he had done was an offence in that country.
      Mr. Cameron: No, I did not say that.
      Mr. Ainsworth: Wait a minute, that is what the hon. Gentleman said. If he wants to check the record, he can do so, as that is clearly what he said. I do not know whether he spoke in error.
      Mr. Cameron rose—
      Mr. Ainsworth: I urge the hon. Gentleman to sit down, as I am not going to give way to him. That is what he said. If he said it in error, I accept that, but he did say it.
      That idea is being bandied around in Conservative circles, and people are beginning to believe their own propaganda. There is nothing whatsoever in the Bill that says that people can be extradited for activities in this country that are not an offence here. I wish that hon. Members would stop making that allegation because it is not true. The Bill includes a requirement that provides the legal certainty that the hon. Member for Henley asked for. The Bill contains a requirement that whether or not somebody crosses a border, people must abide by the law of the country within which they are. That applies to people who come to our country as it applies to UK citizens who go abroad. If a German, a Frenchman or a Spaniard comes to our country and breaks our—
      Mr. Cameron: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ainsworth: Hold on for a moment.
      If that person comes to our country and breaks our law, he or she would be punished under our law while present in this country. In my view, there is no reason why they should be able to jump on a Eurostar train and for things to change all of a sudden when they get half way through the tunnel, with the result that they are not as vulnerable to being punished under our law—
      Mr. Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ainsworth: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Witney.
      Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way.
      I think that the point that he is missing—my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and for Henley (Mr. Johnson) have been trying to get it over

      207
      to him—is that one of the real mischiefs in the Bill is the vagueness of the categories of offence. The Minister must understand that one of the reasons for our concern, which is shared by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), is that if there are vague categories that will lead to British citizens being vulnerable, that is a concern and a particular reason why there should be a modest longstop, as a Labour dominated Home Affairs Committee suggested.
      Mr. Ainsworth: I do not know how many more times the hon. Gentleman will say "a Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee". It is a good phrase of his own. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because it brings me directly to the point that I want to make. He keeps saying, in the hope that it will become true, that people will be subjected to vague categories of crime. They will not.
      Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ainsworth: Hold on for a moment.
      The warrant that requires the arrest will be clear. It will spell out the offence that has been committed as defined in the law of the jurisdiction in which the person was when they are alleged to have committed the offence. It will not use vague terminology. It will use a clear and specific allegation in French law, Spanish law or German law, stating that "this person is accused and wanted to stand trial for this offence."
      Mr. Cameron rose—
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Ainsworth: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I would say that we have offences that are not recognised in other European countries. The offence in this country of incitement to racial hatred is not an offence in many other European countries. Another example is the offence of fraudulent trading. If hon. Gentlemen are saying that we should not be allowed to seek extradition for people who have broken our clear law—not a generic list, not a vague definition but our offence of fraudulent trading—because they happen to be in France or in Belgium, please let them say so and give us the reasons for so doing.
      Mr. Cameron: I want to clarify the point. The Minister was misrepresenting what I said entirely. I hope that he will give me some credit. I sit on the Home Affairs Committee and with others I spent hours producing its report. I was making the point about a constituent who went off to Spain and allegedly committed a crime in Spain. When the arrest warrant is filled out, at no time will it be asked whether the offence is an offence in this country. That is the simple point that I was making. I cannot think how the Minister can take issue with it. It is up to him to prove the case. He is the
      208
      one who is taking away a safeguard that has been in the law of this country for decades. It is up to him to make his case.
      Mr. Ainsworth: I take issue with the hon. Gentleman because that is not what he said.
      Mr. Cameron: That is what I said.
      Mr. Ainsworth: It is not what the hon. Gentleman said. If I am wrong, I will apologise. We shall have a look at the record if that is what we need to do. I am not trying to disparage the hon. Gentleman.
      Let us say he says what he says he said. At no time will it be necessary to prove that the offence that was committed is an offence in this country. The accused was in Spain and committed an offence there, and the warrant will define the offence in Spanish law. What is the matter with that? Effectively, the hon. Gentleman is saying that while his constituent was in Spain, he should have been prepared to abide not by Spanish law, but by English law, and that the warrant should take account of whether the offence was an offence in English law. The person in question was not in England when he committed the offence, but in Spain. The warrant will spell out not some vague category of crime, but a specific crime in Spanish law committed in Spain. If the threshold for extradition is exceeded, yes, that person will be extraditable.
      I see no problem with that arrangement and believe that it is positive. After crimes are committed in Spain, there will be Spanish victims who are entitled to justice. When crimes are committed by other European citizens in our country, British citizens will be entitled to justice, so I see no problem with mutual recognition. I believe that it is the way forward and the direction that we need to take.
      The hon. Member for Witney asked about the position of the Prime Minister, Ministers, diplomats and all the rest of it. The Bill contains absolutely nothing that changes the position on diplomatic or state immunity, so those who currently enjoy such immunities will continue to do so under the European arrest warrant arrangements.
      I have dealt with the main point of contention in this discussion, but in order to bring a lighter note to the debate, I should like to respond to the threat of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that some fundamentalist or left-wing Government in Turkey might use the European arrest warrant to arrest me or another member of the Government and that, in that event, he would be here to say "I told you so." I do not know whether that is an indication of his confidence that he will be sitting on the Opposition Benches for many a long year to come, but I certainly hope so.
      The measure has been widely misrepresented. The generic list of offences is a mechanism by which mutual recognition is facilitated. Nobody will be extradited from one European country to another for anything other than an allegation of a clear breach of law in the other country, and hon. Gentlemen should not seek to suggest otherwise.
      Mr. Hawkins: I thank the Minister for again giving way. He is laying a great deal of stress on the suggestion

      209
      that certain things will be made absolutely clear in the warrants if the measure becomes law, but I ask him to address the question asked by the Opposition and by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs from his own Back Benches. The Government have refused to include in the Bill the format of the arrest warrants or to accept what the Home Affairs Committee has said about including the list of very vague offences. I do not see how he can say at the Dispatch Box that he is confident about how the system will work unless he is prepared to include all the details in the Bill, as we have urged him to do.
      Mr. Ainsworth: I think I have said that it is extremely clear that the warrant will have to say exactly what the offence is, who issued it and whether they were an appropriate authority to do so—the Bill states that that authority will have to be a judicial authority—and that it meets the threshold in an accusation case that is required to allow extradition to be considered. If any of that information is not complete to the satisfaction of the National Criminal Intelligence Service in England or the Crown Office in Scotland, the warrant will not go forward and the case will not even be considered.
      Let me deal with the reasons for not including a minimal safeguard at the back of the Bill. We cannot do that without opening up the issue of dual criminality and the playground to which it would lead on every single case. We cannot use the backstop of the Home Secretary without any decision that he makes being open to challenge and judicial review, yet the hon. Member for Henley claims that he wants a speedier system. He says that he does not want the sort of delays that occur in our current system, but tries to reintroduce provisions that allow the sometimes appalling delays under existing legislation. The Bill is designed to avoid them.
      Mr. Burnett: We are beginning to tease an important point out of the Minister. Many hon. Members would like a clear exposition of what, in the Minister's view, a warrant will contain. Will it spell out the exact offence under legislation in the countries that seek extradition? What else will the warrant include?
      Mr. Ainsworth: We discussed that at some length and I talked about the matter again when introducing this group of amendments. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been able to sit through our proceedings this afternoon. The warrant will clearly state that people are sought in order to bring them to trial, give details of the law that has been allegedly broken in the jurisdiction and set out the potential penalty for breaking it. It will not refer to the generic list, which facilitates mutual recognition. The warrant will contain specific allegations. I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 2(4) and (6). It sets out the exact requirements on the face of the warrant.
      There is therefore certainty. The hon. Member for Witney asked what I would say to my constituents. I tell them that when people from another jurisdiction come to our country, they should be subject to our law. The fact that they manage to leave the country should not render them immune to it. However, the reverse applies to our constituents. When they go abroad, they must be prepared to abide by the law of the European country
      210
      that they visit. Yes, those jurisdictions can change their laws, just as we can change ours. We require people to abide by the law as it stands at the time of the alleged offence.
      Mr. Boris Johnson: The Minister gave the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) an interesting answer. Surely, in the overwhelming majority of cases, a direct congruence between the offence in the other Community country and that in our law is immediately obvious. There will be genuinely no dual criminality in only a tiny minority of cases. Is it not sensible to leave those cases to the Home Secretary, acting as a longstop and a safeguard?
      Mr. Ainsworth: It is true that there is not an exact equivalent of an offence in British law in only a few cases. However, does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that that stops people raising the matter in every case and requiring arguments for the exact equivalent in British law? Does he not realise that that is one of the main causes of the delays in our current system?
      For the benefit of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, let me read clause 2(4). It provides for the information that the warrant will contain. It is
      "particulars of the person's identity; … particulars of any other warrant issued in the category I territory … particulars of the circumstances in which the person is alleged to have committed the offence, including the conduct alleged to constitute the offence and the time and the place at which he is alleged to have committed the offence; … particulars of the sentence which may be imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence if the person is convicted of it."
      Subsection (6) says that the information is
      "particulars of the person's identity … particulars of the conviction … particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory … particulars of the sentence which may be imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence … particulars of the sentence which has been imposed under the law of the category 1 territory in respect of the offence".
      If the warrant does not contain those particulars, the extradition will not proceed. That has nothing to do with any vague list; a specific offence must have been committed in a category 1 country, and must be stated in the warrant.
      Mr. Cameron: The style of the European arrest warrant is given on page 47 of the Home Affairs Committee's report, which will tell the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) all that he needs to know. It is clear what the warrant will look like. What is less clear is the nature of some of the 32 categories, such as racism and xenophobia. I gave an example involving Finnish warmongering, supplied to the Home Affairs Committee by Home Office officials.
      Will the Minister give an undertaking that in years to come the Home Office will give the Home Affairs Committee and the House some guidance on laws in other countries relating to vague categories such as racism and xenophobia, so that we can at least help constituents who may get into trouble as a result of the new procedure?
      Mr. Ainsworth: As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath pointed out, we could attempt to trawl every jurisdiction for every piece of legislation that hits the threshold for

      211
      extradition, but the Spanish, the Portuguese or the Italians might change their laws, as we might change ours. There is nothing to stop them doing that. The principle is that when we are in their jurisdictions, we are obliged to abide by the laws of those jurisdictions, just as they are obliged to abide by ours. I see nothing wrong with that.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 12

      UNDERTAKING IN RELATION TO PERSON SERVING SENTENCE
      (1) This section applies if—

      (a) the appropriate judge makes an order under section 45(6) or 47(3)(a) for a person's extradition to a category 1 territory;

      (b) the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention in the United Kingdom.

      (2) The judge may make the order for extradition subject to the condition that extradition is not to take place before he receives an undertaking given on behalf of the category 1 territory in terms specified by him.

      (3) The terms which may be specified by the judge in relation to a person accused in a category 1 territory of the commission of an offence include terms—

      (a) that the person be kept in custody until the conclusion of the proceedings against him for the offence and any other offence in respect of which he is permitted to be dealt with in the category 1 territory;

      (b) that the person be returned to the United Kingdom to serve the remainder of his sentene on the conclusion of those proceedings.

      (4) The terms which may be specified by the judge in relation to a person alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of an offence by a court in a category 1 territory include terms that the person be returned to the United Kingdom to serve the remainder of his sentence after serving any sentence imposed on him in the category 1 territory for—

      (a) the offence, and

      (b) any other offence in respect of which he is permitted to be dealt with in the category 1 territory.

      (5) If the judge makes an order for extradition subject to a condition under subsection (2) the required period for the purposes of sections 46(2) and 48(2) is 10 days starting with the day on which the judge receives the undertaking.'.

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

    New Clause 13

      EXTRADITION FOLLOWING DEFERRAL FOR COMPETING CLAIM
      (1) This section applies if —

      (a) an order is made under section 45(6) or 47(3)(a) for a person to be extradited to a category 1 territory in pursuance of a Part 1 warrant;

      (b) before the person is extradited to the territory an order is made under section 43(4)(b) or 179(2)(b) for the person's extradition in pursuance of the warrant to be deferred;

      (c) the appropriate judge makes an order under section 181(3)(a) for the person's extradition in pursuance of the warrant to cease to be deferred.

      212
      (2) The required period for the purposes of sections 46(2) and 48(2) is 10 days starting with the day on which the order under section 181(3)(a) is made:—
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 14

      PERSON CHARGED WITH OFFENCE IN UNITED KINGDOM
      (1) This section applies if at any time in the extradition hearing the judge is informed that the person is charged with an offence in the United Kingdom.

      (2) The judge must adjourn the extradition hearing until one of these occurs—

      (a) the charge is disposed of;

      (b) the charge is withdrawn;

      (c) proceedings in respect of the charge are discontinued;

      (d) an order is made for the charge to lie on the file, or in relation to Scotland, the diet is deserted pro loco et tempore.

      (3) If a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention is imposed in respect of the offence charged, the judge may adjourn the extradition hearing until the sentence has been served.

      (4) If before he adjourns the extradition hearing under subsection (2) the judge has decided under section 78 whether the person's extradition is barred by reason of the rule against double jeopardy, the judge must decide that question again after the resumption of the hearing..—

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

    New Clause 15

      PERSON SERVING SENTENCE IN UNITED KINGDOM
      (1) This section applies if at any time in the extradition hearing the judge is informed that the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention in the United Kingdom.
      (2) The judge may adjourn the extradition hearing until the sentence has been served.'.:—
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

    New Clause 16

      SERVICE POLICEMEN
      The Secretary of State may by order provide for any provision of this Part which applies in relation to police officers or persons arrested by police officers to apply with specified modifications in relation to service policemen or persons arrested by service policemen.'.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: 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:
      Government amendments Nos. 38 and 39.
      Amendment No. 19, in page 3, line 10 [Clause 3], after second 'person', insert 'of British nationality, sworn to serve only the Crown, and'.
      Government amendments Nos. 40 to 42, 57, 58, 60, 61, 75, 78, 79, 81 and 82.
      Mr. Ainsworth: In its current form, the Bill provides that a European arrest warrant can be executed in this

      213
      country by a police officer or designated appropriate person. That formulation already exists in legislation, but as an added safeguard—in contrast to what the Conservatives did in government—we have provided that designation orders should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
      It has been said that the use of the phrase "appropriate persons" was a means whereby we sought to disguise our wish to include foreign police officers in the powers applied in this country. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and I stated that the term "appropriate person" was intended to cover Customs and Excise officers, service police officers and, possibly, other UK law enforcement agencies.
      Our new clause and amendments are intended to make things absolutely clear, in black and white. Presumably all Members will now accept what was the Government's intention from the start—that the powers apply to police constables, customs officers and members of other police services of our country, and not to foreign police or customs officers.
      Lady Hermon: I ask the Minister to clarify one point. After the Patten reforms, the number of police officers in Northern Ireland dropped dramatically, so the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland—and, indeed, the Policing Board—are very keen to recruit police officers through secondment and lateral entry. That may well include members of the police service of the Republic of Ireland—the Garda Siochana. It would be very helpful if the Minister could confirm whether those constables, if they should come, will have the power to execute an extradition warrant?
      Mr. Ainsworth: I am not familiar with all the details of the Northern Ireland jurisdiction, but I was coming to the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and in doing so I should be able to clarify the point.
      I assume that the amendment seeks to achieve what we now propose to achieve, but under it no one other than a British citizen would be able to execute a European arrest warrant. Under the terms of various laws governing the police in the United Kingdom—notjust in Northern Ireland—any British citizen, a citizen of the Irish Republic or a Commonwealth citizen may serve in our police force. It is not our intention to make such people second-class members of those police forces, and our amendment would not have that effect. They will be members of the British police force, and they will be able to issue extradition arrest warrants in the same way as they can issue domestic ones.
      I hope that new clause 11 fits with the true intention of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who did not want to go further by ruling out people from Commonwealth or Republic of Ireland backgrounds who were serving in the British police force. Our provision will not rule them out, but his would have done so, and I hope that he can accept our solution.
      4 pm
      Mr. Hawkins: I can deal with this group of amendments fairly quickly. As the Minister said, the important issue is Government new clause 16 and the
      214
      linked Government amendments: Nos. 38 to 42, 57, 58, 60, 61, 75, 78, 79, 81 and 82. As the Minister has made clear, the Government have made a significant concession in the light of our comments, supported by the Liberal Democrats, in Committee. That also reflects the very strong view of the Home Affairs Committee that the Government's original proposal—that "an appropriate person" should execute a European arrest warrant—was too wide. As the Minister said, he sought to reassure us in Committee, but we wanted the Bill to make the position absolutely clear. I am therefore very pleased that we succeeded in persuading the Minister and his advisers that it would be sensible to put it beyond doubt that only police officers, constables, armed forces' police and Customs and Excise personnel can execute a European arrest warrant.
      Although we welcome the Government's provision, I should mention in passing that we have some remaining concerns about the exact role to be undertaken by Customs and Excise in the light, as the Minister will be aware, of the collapse of recent cases involving Customs and Excise on such matters as bonded warehouses. The Minister is aware of issues that have been raised recently in this Chamber, and of the fact that there is an ongoing inquiry into the collapse of those cases. [Interruption.] The Gentleman nodded when I first raised this point, and, helpfully, he does so again. I hope that he will continue to keep the matter under review, because in our view there is much need for care if greater powers are to be used by Customs and Excise officials, given the very strong views expressed by the judge when those cases collapsed. We will continue to scrutinise this issue, and in our view reforms may well be required. This House will have another opportunity to debate this issue when the independent reports on the collapsed trials are received. [Interruption.] It is again very helpful to note the Minister's assent.
      The Minister referred briefly to the fact that amendment No. 19 seeks to bring in a requirement to a similar effect. However, as he rightly pointed out, we tabled our amendment before the Government tabled theirs. We were seeking to move in the same direction, and I understand the Minister's point about problems in cases, for example, in which someone from the Commonwealth is already serving in our police force. The Minister was kind enough to recognise that we were aiming at the same target and his amendments fulfil our request in Committee. I welcome that, with the proviso that I have mentioned.
      Mr. Burnett: I do not want to go over ground that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has already covered. I welcome these sensible amendments, which were supported by the official Opposition, Liberal Democrats and the Home Affairs Committee. On the matter of customs and the bonded warehouse cases, the Treasury has experienced a massive loss of revenue, and it is no bad thing that customs prosecutions will now come under the aegis of the Attorney-General's Department.
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Customs will have only those powers within its remit to issue European arrest warrants. I can also confirm for the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that if the individuals whom she mentioned have the powers of a constable

      215
      while they are serving in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, they will also have the powers to use the European arrest warrant in the same way as other constables in that service.
      Lady Hermon: I am pleased that the Opposition are willing to withdraw their amendment on that issue. The problem is not only the nationality issue, but the words that were used in amendment No. 19—
      "sworn to serve only the Crown".
      That would not reflect the new oath taken by new members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, so it would effectively disqualify new members of the service from executing extradition warrants, no matter what nationality they were.
      Mr. Ainsworth: In the interests of cross-party cooperation, I can confirm on behalf of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that that was not h is intention. He was trying to achieve what the Government amendment will achieve and he is satisfied with our proposal—in this regard, if not in others.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 17

      APPEAL AGAINST GRANT OF BAIL
      (1) Section 1 of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993 (c.26) (prosecution right of appeal against grant of bail) is amended as follows.
      (2) After subsection (1) insert —
      "(1A) Where a magistrates' court grants bail to a person in connection with extradition proceedings, the prosecution may appeal to a judge of the Crown Court against the granting of bail."
      (3) In subsection (3) for "Such an appeal" substitute" An appeal under subsection (1) or (1A)".
      (4) In subsection (4)—

      (a) after subsection (1) insert "or (1A)";

      (b) for "magistrates' court" substitute "court which has granted bail";

      (c) omit "such".

      (5) In subsection (5) for "magistrates' court" substitute "court which has granted bail".
      (6) In subsection (6) for "magistrates' court" substitute "court which has granted bail"
      (7) In subsection (8)—

      (a) after "subsection (1)" insert "or (1A)";

      (b) omit "magistrates.

      (8) In subsection (10)(b) for "reference in subsection (5) above to remand in custody is" substitute "references in subsections (6) and (9) above to remand in custody are".
      (9) After subsection (11) insert"—
      (12) In this section—
      "court" in relation to extradition proceedings includes a judge of a court or a justice of the peace;
      "extradition proceedings" means proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003;
      216
      "prosecution" in relation to extradition proceedings means the person acting on behalf of the territory to which extradition is sought"'.
      —[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 18

      REMAND TO LOCAL AUTHORITY ACCOMMODATION
      (1) Section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (remand to local authority accommodation) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (11).
      (2) In subsection (1) after "following provisions of this section" insert "(except subsection (1A))".
      (3) After subsection (1) insert—
      "(1A) Where a court remands a child or young person in connection with extradition proceedings and he is not released on bail the remand shall be to local authority accommodation."
      (4) In subsection (4) after "subsections (5)" insert ", (5ZA)".
      (5) In subsection (5) after "security requirement" insert "in relation to a person remanded in accordance with subsection (1) above".
      (6) After subsection (5) insert—
      "(5ZA) A court shall not impose a security requirement in relation to a person remanded in accordance with subsection (1A) above unless—

      (a) he has attained the age of twelve and is of a prescribed description;

      (b) one or both of the conditions set out in subsection (5ZB) below is satisfied; and

      (c) the condition set out in subsection (5AA) below is satisfied.

      (5ZB) The conditions mentioned in subsection (5ZA)(b) above are—

      (a) that the conduct constituting the offence to which the extradition proceedings relate would if committed in the United Kingdom constitute an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for a term of fourteen years or more;

      (b) that the person has previously absconded from the extradition proceedings or from proceedings in the United Kingdom or the requesting territory which relate to the conduct constituting the offence to which the extradition proceedings relate.

      (5ZC) For the purposes of subsection (5ZB) above a person has absconded from proceedings if in relation to those proceedings—

      (a) he has been released subject to a requirement to surrender to custody at a particular time and he has failed to surrender to custody at that time, or

      (b) he has surrendered into the custody of a court and he has at any time absented himself from the court without its leave."

      (7) In subsection (5AA) for "subsection (5)" substitute "subsections (5) and (5ZA)".
      (8) In subsection (12) for the definition of "relevant court" substitute—
      "relevant court"—in relation to a person remanded to local authority accommodation under subsection (1) above, means the court by which he was so remanded, or any magistrates' court having jurisdiction in the place where he is for the time being; in relation to a person remanded to local authority accommodation under subsection (1A) above, means the court by which he was so remanded."
      (9) In subsection (12) in the appropriate places insert—""extradition proceedings" means proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003;";
      ""requesting territory" means the territory to which a person's extradition is sought in extradition proceedings;".
      (10) In section 98(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (modifications of section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 in relation to 15 and 16 year old boys) after paragraph (b) insert "; and
      (c) is not remanded in connection with proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003.".'.
      —[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      TERRORISM
      '.—"Terrorism" has the meaning given by section I of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c.11).'. —[Mr. Hawkins.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Hawkins: 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:
      Amendment No. 89, in page 1 [Clause 1], leave out line 6 and insert
      'of the European Union that have abolished the death penalty in all circumstances'.
      Amendment No. 16, in page 1, line 7 [Clause 1], leave out from `to' to end of line 8 and insert,
      'territories that are party to the European Convention on Human Rights'.
      Amendment No. 90, in page 1, line 7 [Clause 1], leave out from second 'territories' to end of line 8 and insert
      'of the European Union that have abolished the death penalty in all circumstances'.
      Amendment No. 24, in page 1, line 8 [Clause 1], at end add—
      '(3) A territory may not be designated for the purposes of this Part unless that territory is—

      (a) a signatory to the European framework decision, or

      (b) a signatory to the convention implementing the Schengen agreement.'.

      Government amendment Nos. 34, 46 and 48.
      Amendment No. 1, in page 30, line 34 [Clause 63], leave out
      'falls within the European framework list'
      and insert
      'constitutes terrorism'.
      Amendment No. 2, in page 32, line 19 [Clause 64], leave out
      'falls within the European framework list'
      and insert
      'constitutes terrorism'.
      Amendment No. 3, in page 33 [Clause 65], leave out lines 45 and 46.
      Amendment No. 25, in page 33, line 45 [Clause 65], leave out
      'article 2.2 of the European framework decision'
      218
      and insert
      'Schedule (European Framework List)'.
      Amendment No. 26, in page 33, line 46 [Clause 65], at end insert—
      '(3A) Schedule (European Framework List) (which is the list of conduct referred to in subsection (3) above) shall have effect.'.
      Amendment No. 27, in page 33, line 46 [Clause 65], at end insert—
      '(3B) The Secretary of State may by order amend the list of conduct set out in Schedule (European Framework List), but only in so far as is necessary to incorporate any extensions or amendments made to article 2.2 of the European framework decision by the Council of the European Union.'.
      Amendment No. 28, in page 34, line 34 [Clause 68], at end add—
      '(3) A territory may not be designated for the purposes of this Part unless that territory is—

      (a) a territory with which the United Kingdom has entered into a bilateral treaty governing extradition arrangements as between the United Kingdom and that territory, or

      (b) a territory with which the United Kingdom has entered into a multilateral treaty governing extradition arrangements as between the United Kingdom, that territory and one or more other territories.'.

      Amendment No. 29, in page 107, line 42 [Clause 198], at end insert—
      '(6A) The convention implementing the Schengen agreement is the convention made on 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen agreement of 14 June 1985 between the governments of the states of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJL239, 22.09.2000, p.19).'.
      Amendment No. 30, in page 109, line 5 [Clause 204], after '5(2),', insert '65(3B)'.
      Amendment No. 31, in page 109, line 6 [Clause 204], after `5(2),', insert '65(3B)'.
      New schedule 1—'SCHEDULE—
      Section 65

      EUROPEAN FRAMEWORK LIST
      1 Participation in a criminal organisation.

      2 Terrorism.

      3 Trafficking in human beings.

      4 Sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

      5 Illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

      6 Illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives.

      7 Corruption.

      8 Fraud, including that affecting the financial interests of the European Communities within the meaning of the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests.

      9 Laundering of the proceeds of crime.

      10 Counterfeiting currency, including of the euro.

      11 Computer-related crime.

      12 Environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species and varieties.

      13 Facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence.

      14 Murder, grievous bodily injury.

      15 Illicit trade in human organs and tissue.

      16 Kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking.

      17 Racism and xenophobia.

      219

      18 Organised or armed robbery.

      19 Illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art.

      20 Swindling.

      21 Racketeering and extortion.

      22 Counterfeiting and piracy of products.

      23 Forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein.

      24 Forgery of means of payment.

      25 Illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters.

      26 Illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials.

      27 Trafficking in stolen vehicles.

      28 Rape.

      29 Arson.

      30 Crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

      31 Unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships.

      32 Sabotage.'.

      Mr. Hawkins: This is the biggest issue in the Bill for us, and I make it clear to the Minister that we intend to divide the House on it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said on Second Reading, if part 1 applied only to terrorist offences we could, albeit in some ways reluctantly, accept it, because the unique threat of terrorism in our view alone justifies the draconian measures that the Government have proposed. The link between new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would do that. Amendment No. 3 returns to the issue of the framework list, which we have already debated today. Amendment No. 16 refers back to the question of which countries have signed up to the ECHR.
      In their amendments Nos. 89 and 90, the Liberal Democrats seek to take out countries that have the death penalty. In this House, the death penalty is a free-vote issue, on which hon. Memberscan express their personal views. I shall not detain the House on the matter this afternoon. I expressed my view in Committee, and I refer hon. Members to that.
      Several hon. Members in Standing Committee expressed the concern that, if it turned out that the Liberal Democrat amendments opened up a further loophole in respect of other countries that have retained the death penalty, people who should be extradited for very serious offences should not continue to be a burden on the British taxpayer by remaining in our prisons. In addition, Conservative Members understand entirely the reasoning of the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I am pleased to see him in his place, as he has tabled amendments 25 to 31, and new schedule 1, in association with Liberal Democrat Members. The proposals would put the whole of the European framework list of offences on the face of the Bill. They would also include in the Bill a reference to Schengen.
      We believe that what those amendments propose would be better than having no parliamentary scrutiny at all. As I explained, however, Conservative Members have not followed the route chosen by Liberal Democrat Members and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South.
      220
      We do not agree with the framework list of offences. Many organisations outside the House do not agree with it. They include, on the left of politics, organisations such as Justice, and Liberty. Opponents on the right of politics include the Freedom Association, and the Democracy Movement.
      We believe that many of the offences in the framework list are far too vague and undefined. I made that point in the debate on the last-but-one group of amendments, and I shall not waste the House's time by staging a reprise. However, the Liberal Democrats have not added their names to amendment No. 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. Doubtless, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) will say why he does not support that amendment.
      Finally, Government amendments Nos. 34, 36 and 48 also deal with the death penalty and put on the face of the Bill what the Home Affairs Committee wanted. EU member states Norway and Iceland are the only countries that the Government have said that they intend to designate. Neither of those countries retains the death penalty, so there is no difference in practice.
      Before I end this brief contribution, I want to adopt everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said on Second Reading. He noted that this part of the Bill was justified only in respect of terrorist offences. He said that the very draconian measures in part 1 were not needed, given that part 2 will do so much to speed up extradition proceedings. The sole exception is terrorism. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree—especially in the current international situation, which concentrates all our minds—that terrorism poses a unique threat.
      It is for the Government to justify the huge change that they are making. We feel that, despite the many hours in Committee and the warning that they received on Second Reading, the Government have signally failed to justify the change. That is why we intend to divide the House on what is a central matter in the Bill. It is undoubtedly a matter that will concern those in another place, as well as hon. Members in the Chamber this afternoon.
      Mr. Chris Mullin: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) in speaking about new clause 1. I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 24, 28 and 29, which are in my name. I thank the Government for their amendments Nos. 34, 46 and 48, which prevent any countries that retain the death penalty from becoming category 1 countries, to which fast-track extradition could apply. That removes one of the Select Committee's major areas of concern.
      Apart from the proposals in connection with countries' retention of the death penalty, however, the Bill does not define which territories should fall into the two categories. It lays down no guidelines or principles governing the choice. Apart from the belated exclusion of the death penalty countries, the Bill contains no limits on which countries the Government can, by Order in Council, designate either as category 11 or as category 2 countries. Which countries appear in which categories, and on what basis a category country could be promoted to category 1, seemed to the Select Committee

      221
      to be issues that are absolutely fundamental to the Bill. Future Orders in Council could dramatically change what Parliament understood to be the intention of the Bill at the time of enactment. We believe that Parliament should know clearly what policy and what principles it is being asked to agree, and we have therefore attempted to lay down some limits to the powers that Ministers are seeking for themselves.
      4.15 pm
      Amendment No. 24 would insert in clause 1 a provision that only countries that are signatories to the framework agreement may be category l countries—in effect, that means only EU states plus the Schengen countries, Norway and Iceland. Since we have been assured that those are the only countries that the Government intend to designate as part 1 countries, that should not pose the Government any problems.
      Amendment No. 28 would amend clause 68 so that part 2 countries are either those with which we have bilateral or multilateral treaties governing extradition arrangements.
      If none of that is acceptable to the Government—I cannot rule out that possibility, as they made it clear in their reply to the Select Committee that it was not—at the very least clause 205 should be amended to provide that Orders in Council to designate new countries or to move them from one category to another should be laid on an affirmative procedure so that they can be subject to proper scrutiny in Parliament. In his reply to the Select Committee, the Minister said that he would be prepared to consider that if a strong case for change could be made, but that he had yet to be persuaded. The case seems to me to be self-evident. It is to prevent countries, some of which may have very dubious human rights records, from being added solely at the whim of Ministers. I suggest that if the Minister is not minded to concede the point today, he should at least undertake to have another look at it when the Bill goes to another place.
      Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27, 30 and 31 and new schedule 1 would amend clause 65 to incorporate in the Bill the 32 offences listed in article 2(2) of the framework document—again, in line with the recommendations of the Select Committee. I tabled the amendments because I consider it highly undesirable that Parliament should have no say in future changes to the categories of offences listed in the framework decision, just as I consider it highly undesirable that Parliament should have no say as to which countries fall into which categories. Amendment No. 27 proposes, for the same reason, that any future amendment to the list of offences should be subject to an affirmative resolution.
      As with previous amendments tabled in my name, this is an argument about whether Parliament or Ministers in some future Government who might not be as benign as this one should decide what should constitute an offence. Faced with that choice, I back Parliament every time. As matters stand, Ministers will be able to change domestic law by signing up to proposals from the EC for the creation of new offences without reference to Parliament. With all due respect, it is not good enough for the Minister to say, as he does in his—very useful, by and large—reply to our report:
      "The Government does not know of any plans to amend the list".
      222
      Nor is it good enough to say, as he did, that they need the flexibility to deal with any changes that are proposed. The Minister can have all the flexibility that he likes, provided that he takes Parliament with him. I hope that even at this late hour he will recant on this point.
      Mr. Burnett: We have signed up to a number of the amendments that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin I has mentioned, particularly those that deal with the issue of which countries can fall into category 1. We believe that there should be a more tangible definition, and we have said that such countries should be European Union countries that have abolished the death penalty in all cases. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South said, we have won half that battle. We are not satisfied, however, that the Government should have carte blanche to decide exactly which countries should be category 1 countries. The negative resolution procedure is inadequate for such decisions, and we should have liked them to be subject to the positive resolution procedure. At least, we want there to be a clearer definition, and we should have liked that to include only European Union countries that qualify for category 1 status.
      The simplification of the extradition procedure and the consequential removal of traditional safeguards such as the dual criminality requirement mean that the EU member states and Britain will be operating under a new arrest warrant system that will involve mutual recognition. Mutual recognition rests on the presumption that judicial systems are equal across the European Union, and there is no justification for extending the principle of mutual recognition and relinquishing many procedural safeguards in the case of non-EU member states that are not part of the European arrest warrant scheme. I understand that the Commission has recently published a Green Paper on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings which, once adopted, will further substantiate mutual trust between member states. That adds a more compelling argument to our amendments Nos. 89 and 90.
      I want to say a few words about amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27, 30 and 31, and new schedule 1. We have talked about new countries coming in, and the amendments deal with the corollary to that, in the form of new offences. We have discussed the existing nebulous and unsatisfactory nature of the offences, and I shall return to that point on Third Reading if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, .Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Minister made some points with which I would like to take issue. He suggested that, when in Rome, we should do as the Romans do, and of course we should obey the laws in other countries, but the provision of a schedule listing 32 nebulous offences in the Bill ensures that any extension of the list to include further types of offence would be subject to parliamentary control. If there are to be further offences, let us get them right this time.
      The Conservatives have talked about not joining in with these amendments because they do not approve of the list. We do not approve of the list—or of a lot of its drafting, which has led to a lack of clarity—but unfortunately the Government have signed up to it. Our amendments would provide damage limitation. If the

      223
      Government were to propose any further offences, at least Parliament would have some say in the matter. For that reason, we wholeheartedly support the new clause.
      Mr. Rosindell: My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made it clear that it matters not what our views on the death penalty are. What matters to me—and what should matter to the House—is that we respect the laws and punishments of sovereign nations. The Bill will undermine that principle. Indeed, the Government appear very confused over this particular aspect of it, and I am sorry to see that happen. There appears to be a level of hypocrisy coming through in relation to this part of the Bill, because they are proposing one thing to be right for Europe but not for the rest of the world. That is unacceptable.
      On Second Reading, during a challenge from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) about whether the famous plane spotters could have been extradited from the United Kingdom to Greece for their so-called crime, the former Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), revealed that hypocrisy in spectacular style.
      He said:
      "If a country has a crime of espionage and wishes to charge people with that, that must be its right … We expect that anybody in the UK who breaks our laws can be brought before British justice and that the extradition system should enable those people, if necessary, to be brought back to face British justice."—[Official Report, 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 47.]
      On serious charges relating to crimes such as terrorism or murder, I agree: sovereign states should be free to set their own laws. Equally, however, they should be allowed to set their own punishments when those laws are broken. Under the Bill, a murderer could not be extradited to the United States of America because that country continues to apply the death penalty, which is condemned under the European convention on human rights.
      The Government defend the sovereignty of Greece and its right to prosecute British citizens under Greek law, yet they say that we cannot help to bring a murderer to justice because American policy on capital punishment does not conform to the ECHR. Either Britain respects the sovereignty of other nations or it does not.
      I oppose the proposals.
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I shall confine my comments to the two broad themes of what constitutes an extradition offence and what are the criteria for designating countries under part 1 or part 2 of the Bill.
      New clause 1 and amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 would limit the relaxation of dual criminality to terrorist offences only. After comments made on Second Reading and in the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) will not be surprised to learn that I do not accept the amendments. They are neither desirable nor workable.
      There is a need to modernise our extradition law, by putting in place a fast-track regime to govern our extradition relations with countries in whose criminal
      224
      justice systems we have faith. A major plank of that attempt to fast-track extradition is the relaxation of dual criminality for the 32 categories of offence on the list. I make no apology for that. In previous exchanges, I have made it clear that British citizens who go abroad and break the law of another EU country should expect to face justice, just as we would want to prosecute people who come to the UK and break our law. The lack of an exact equivalent offence in the home country does not excuse illegal conduct; nor should it be a means of avoiding extradition.
      No one, least of all a Home Office Minister, underestimates the awful threat posed by terrorism, but nor can we ignore the menace of non-terrorist serious criminality and international crime. I do not believe that is what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath wants, but it would be one effect of his amendment.
      Indeed, the effects of the amendment would go further. The provision would implement two routes for extradition, according to intent. The courts would be required to make a judgment about a criminal's motive. However, defining a terrorist is often problematic. It is not always possible to distinguish between, for example, drug trafficking that is carried out for personal gain and that undertaken for another purpose. Some organisations in different parts of the world are involved in drug trafficking for their own gain. Sometimes the same organisations undertake drug trafficking to fund terrorism. If we accepted the Opposition's argument, we would open up an avenue for legal challenges and arguments not about the offence committed, but about the motives of the individual who committed it.
      4.30 pm
      The Opposition will say that they have defined terrorism according to the Terrorism Act 2000, but that raises another problem. The definition of terrorism to be used for this purpose is based on a list of terrorist offences contained in UK legislation. In other words, according to the Opposition, the only circumstances in which we should be prepared to do away with the dual criminality requirement is where the conduct is an offence in UK law. That is an interesting back-door way to end up with the entire dual criminality requirement intact, which would be the effect of new clause 1. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath seeks to sneak in by the back door complete opposition to the relaxation of dual criminality, in effect, in terrorism cases, as well as in others, so I am opposed to new clause 1. It would effectively do away with the dual criminality proposals, for terrorism, as well as the other serious offences.
      I turn now to the other amendments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for tabling amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27, 30 and 31 and new schedule 1. Those amendments are relatively clear in their effect. They would place in the Bill the list of offence categories set out in the framework decision in article 2.2.
      Clause 65 deals with what constitutes an extradition offence and makes it quite clear that the list of generic offences for which dual criminality will be abolished is that in the framework decision, so I suggest that no ambiguity or doubt will be occasioned by the present formulation. The list can be amended only by a unanimous decision of the Council. That would require

      225
      very broad consensus, so it would be most unlikely that over-controversial or trivial offences would be added to the list.
      As I said in my written reply to my hon. Friend, I am not aware of any plan to amend the list, but if it were amended, the effect would be that the Bill would be updated automatically. We need to be able to retain the flexibility to deal with changes to the list, so I am not at present persuaded that there is any need to make the change that the amendments would bring about. I recognise, however, that my hon. Friend still holds very strongly the views that he has expressed today on the point raised by the Home Affairs Committee. It remains to be seen whether Members of another place feel the same way.
      I now turn to the designation of territories and amendments Nos. 16, 24, 28 and 29, tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, and amendments Nos. 89 and 90, tabled by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). The effect of amendment No. 16 is that, if a country were party to the European convention on human rights, it would be automatically designated as a category 1 country. That amendment would put a huge and disproportionate amount of trust in countries that have signed up to the convention with absolutely no say domestically about whether or not they should be included in that category of streamlined extradition. The mere fact of ratifying the ECHR should not in itself lead to those countries being included in category 1. That suggestion seems to me to be a radical step, and I do not really believe that that is what the hon. Gentleman intended.
      Amendments Nos. 24, 28 and 29 lay out an alternative way in which states can be designated in primary legislation. On the face of it, there would seem to be nothing wrong with those amendments. However, they would restrict our ability to add new countries to either part 1 or part 2. This is a useful opportunity for me to offer some reassurance to the House by explaining our intentions with regard to part 1 and part 2 designations.
      We intend to designate all existing EU member states as part 1 countries. In the short term, it is possible that we will designate Norway and Iceland as part 1 countries. Further down the road, we will need to designate new members of the EU. Beyond that, there are no plans to add any country to part 1. It is possible, however, that at some time in the future it would be desirable to add some other country, such as a trusted Commonwealth country or regular bilateral treaty partner, to part 1. We do not believe that we should remove the flexibility to allow for that. I do not believe that there would be any great objection in the House to, say, putting Australia or Canada into part 1 if they desired it. As I have indicated, we have no plans to do so, but, equally, we do not see why our future flexibility should be unnecessarily limited.
      Mr. Mullin: If my hon. Friend can see no particular objection to adding any of the countries to which he has just referred, why do the Government not let the House in on the act, too?
      Mr. Ainsworth: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but, as I have said, his amendment effectively limits part 1 designation to EU countries and other Schengen
      226
      countries. We need that flexibility, and there may be countries that do not fall into that category which ought, in the future, to be designated as part 1 countries, if they and we are desirous of that.
      Mr. Letwin: This point will be relevant on Third Reading. The exchange between the Minister and the Select Committee Chairman is a fascinating one. Is the Minister's general principle that the Government want to maintain the flexibility to use the prerogative power to set British criminal law? Is that the principle that the Government seek to enunciate?
      Mr. Ainsworth: To be honest, I am not at all sure of all the ramifications of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I am talking about the Extradition Bill and what is in it at the moment. I want to maintain the ability, which I would have thought he would think reasonable, to designate as part 1 countries those countries with which we have regular extradition communication and traffic and in whose legal systems we have a high degree of confidence.
      Mr. Letwin: I am sorry to delay the House, but this is a point of cardinal importance. The discussion between the Minister and the Select Committee Chairman is not about whether those countries should be added, but about whether the Government should be able to do that by prerogative power, or whether the House is the place in which such decisions about British criminal law are made.
      Mr. Ainsworth: I hear what both my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and the right hon. Gentleman say on that, and, clearly, we will have to reflect on those comments and on others that may be made as the Bill progresses through the House. Clearly, if Members are not satisfied with the arrangements that are currently in the Bill, they will continue to make their views known, and we will continue to open our ears to those arguments. If I may, I shall move on to what may be an even bigger problem: the situation that faces us in relation to what will become part 2.
      It is currently possible for any country with which we do not have standing extradition relations to make an ad hoc extradition request to the UK. We would not want to lose that facility, not least because the reciprocal nature of extradition means that losing it would put in doubt the UK's ability to make ad hoc outgoing requests. Clause 1 gives us flexibility within a defined designation process that is subject to parliamentary approval. However, I know that some people were especially worried that we might want to add the USA—a country with the death penalty—to part 1. We tabled the amendments necessary to render that impossible, and I know that many hon. Members are pleased that it is beyond doubt that we will not allow a country with the death penalty to be designated under part 1.
      Lady Hermon: I am pleased that the Minister has clarified the wording of Government amendment No. 34. It says:
      "A territory may not be designated for the purposes of this Part if a person found guilty in the territory of a criminal offence may be sentenced to death for the offence".

      227
      I am deeply concerned by the opening words. Why did he Government choose to use the phrase
      "A territory may not be designated"
      rather than stating that a territory shall not be designated if it has the death penalty?
      Mr. Ainsworth: I have heard people arguing about the difference between the words "may" and "shall" in this House and other places in many different circumstances over many years. I hope that our intention is clear, and, in case it is not, I shall clarify it: we do not intend it to be possible for any country that retains the death penalty to be designated as a category 1 country.
      Annabelle Ewing: I welcome the Government's actions but I wonder why the provision on category 1 countries appeared in the Bill in the first place. Will the Minister elucidate on that point?
      Mr. Ainsworth: All I can say is that it was never our intention to designate the USA as a category 1 country. That is the obvious example because the USA is one of our main extradition partners. Indeed, the USA has no desire to be designated as a category I country. I hope that we are putting that fact beyond all doubt to the satisfaction of the hon. Lady and other hon. Members.
      The amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats would provide that only EU countries could be designated under part 1. As I said, in common with other EU member states and in accordance with normal practice, we intend to designate Norway and Iceland in the near future. I hope that Liberal Democrat Members will not object to that in principle, and I am sure that there was simply an oversight.
      Mr. Hawkins: The Minister made a fascinating speech, not least when he responded to interventions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary. His responses revealed that he has not thought through the full implications of the Government 's proposals, and we shall return to that point on Third Reading and, to a greater extent, in another place.
      We entirely understand why the Minister is giving interesting signals to Conservative Members and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). To summarise his soft words, he is signalling that after one more push in another place, the Government will probably give way with limited grace to the suggestion of including the framework list in the Bill. I encourage the hon. Member for Sunderland, South to keep talking to his friends in another place to try to ensure, as we will, that one more push will be forthcoming and we may yet get exactly what we and the Select Committee want—indeed, we may get a good deal more than we need.
      4.45 pm
      On the crucial issue of part I applying only to terrorism, we are not going to agree. The Minister is not going to agree with those of us on the Opposition
      228
      Benches and we will have to divide the House. The central issue is the unique threat of terrorism. We had seriously hoped that including in the amendment the Government's definition of terrorism as drafted in their legislation might have concentrated their mind and persuaded them to accept that we are right to say that part 1 should apply only to such a unique set of offences. I am sorry that that attempt has failed. There is still a clear division between Government and Opposition, and we will therefore press amendment No. 1 to a vote.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 9

      REFERRAL OF PART 1 WARRANT TO SECRETARY OF STATE
      '.(1) Where a Part 1 warrant has been issued in connection with conduct which would not constitute an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom, that warrant must be referred to the Secretary of State, who must make a decision separate to any decision of the appropriate judge as to whether extradition to the requesting country would be proper in all the circumstances.
      (2) The Secretary of State must make an annual report to both Houses of Parliament on the cases in which he has exercised his discretion as set out in subsection (1) above and the reasons for the exercise of his discretion in each case.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 302.

      Division No. 132]

      [4:46 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Cash, William

      Allan, Richard

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Amess, David

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Chidgey, David

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Chope, Christopher

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Bacon, Richard

      Collins, Tim

      Baker, Norman

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Barker, Gregory

      Cotter, Brian

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Curry, rh David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Bercow, John

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Blunt, Crispin

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Boswell, Tim

      Doughty, Sue

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Brady, Graham

      Evans, Nigel

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Flight, Howard

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Flook, Adrian

      Burnett, John

      Forth, rh Eric

      Burns, Simon

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burnside, David

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Burstow, Paul

      Francois, Mark

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Cameron, David

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Goodman, Paul

      229

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Grayling, Chris

      Randall, John

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Redwood, rh John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Rendel, David

      Greenway, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hague, rh William

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Hammond, Philip

      Hancock, Mike

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Harvey, Nick

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Hawkins, Nick

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Heald, Oliver

      Sanders, Adrian

      Heath, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Selous, Andrew

      Hendry, Charles

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Shepherd, Richard

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Howard, rh Michael

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

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Soames, Nicholas

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Keetch, Paul

      Spring, Richard

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Streeter, Gary

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Stunell, Andrew

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Lansley, Andrew

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Leigh, Edward

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Thurso, John

      Loughton, Tim

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Tredinnick, David

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Trend, Michael

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Maclean, rh David

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Malins, Humfrey

      Waterson, Nigel

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Maude, rh Francis

      Whittingdale, John

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Wiggin, Bill

      Mercer, Patrick

      Wilkinson, John

      Moore, Michael

      Willetts, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Wilshire, David

      Norman, Archie

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Ottaway, Richard

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Paterson, Owen

      Mr. Mark Hoban and

      Pickles, Eric

      Mr. Robert Syms

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Banks, Tony

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Battle, John

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Alexander, Douglas

      Benn, Hilary

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Blackman, Liz

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Blizzard, Bob

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Blunkett, rh David

      Austin, John

      Borrow, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Baird, Vera

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      230

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Godsiff, Roger

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Goggins, Paul

      Bryant, Chris

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Burden, Richard

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Burnham, Andy

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Cairns, David

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Casale, Roger

      Caton, Martin

      Healey, John

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Challen, Colin

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Chaytor, David

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clapham, Michael

      Heppell, John

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hermon, Lady

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Heyes, David

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cohen, Harry

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Coleman, Iain

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Connarty, Michael

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Corston, Jean

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hutton, rh John

      Cranston, Ross

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Crausby, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Cruddas, Jon

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire,

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      David, Wayne

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Dawson, Hilton

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Kidney, David

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Doran, Frank

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lammy, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Fisher, Mark

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Linton, Martin

      Follett, Barbara

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      231

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Salter, Martin

      McCafferty, Chris

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Sawford, Phil

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sedgemore, Brian

      MacDonald, Calum

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McDonnell, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      MacDougall, John

      Sheridan, Jim

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McIsaac, Shona

      Singh, Marsha

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      MacShane, Denis

      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, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Soley, Clive

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Southworth, Helen

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Spellar, rh John

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Martlew, Eric

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Miliband, David

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Miller, Andrew

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Morgan, Julie

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Mountford, Kali

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mudie, George

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Mullin, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Timms, Stephen

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Tipping, Paddy

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Olner, Bill

      Trickett, Jon

      O'Neill, Martin

      Truswell, Paul

      Organ, Diana

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Owen, Albert

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Perham, Linda

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Picking, Anne

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Ward, Claire

      Pound, Stephen

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Weir, Michael

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      White, Brian

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Purchase, Ken

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Purnell, James

      Wills, Michael

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Rammell, Bill

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Wishart, Pete

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Wright Tony (Cannock)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Rooney, Terry

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Gillian Merron and

      Ruddock, Joan

      Mr. Nick Ainger

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 19

      INJUSTICE AND OPPRESSION
      '.—A person's extradition to a category 2 territory is barred if it appears that because the accusation against him is not made in good faith in the interests of justice it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust or oppressive to return him:.—[Mr. Burnett]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 302.

      Division No. 133]

      [5:00 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Allan, Richard

      Amess, David

      Flight, Howard

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Flook, Adrian

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Forth, rh Eric

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Bacon, Richard

      Francois, Mark

      Baker, Norman

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Barker, Gregory

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Gidley, Sandra

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Bercow, John

      Goodman, Paul

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Grayling, Chris

      Boswell, Tim

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Greenway, John

      Hague, rh William

      Brady, Graham

      Hammond, Philip

      Brazier, Julian

      Hancock, Mike

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Burnett, John

      Harvey, Nick

      Burns, Simon

      Hawkins, Nick

      Burnside, David

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Burstow, Paul

      Heald, Oliver

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Heath, David

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Cameron, David

      Hendry, Charles

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Cash, William

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Holmes, Paul

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Chidgey, David

      Howard, rh Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hunter, Andrew

      Collins, Tim

      Jack, rh Michael

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Cotter, Brian

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Curry, rh David

      Keetch, Paul

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Doughty, Sue

      Lamb, Norman

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Leigh, Edward

      Evans, Nigel

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      233

      Lidington, David

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

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Loughton, Tim

      Soames, Nicholas

      Luff, Peter (M- Worcs)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Maclean, rh David

      Spring, Richard

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Streeter, Gary

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Swayne, Desmond

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Syms, Robert

      Mercer, Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Moore, Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Norman, Archie

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Thurso, John

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tredinnick, David

      Page, Richard

      Trend, Michael

      Paice, James

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Paterson, Owen

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Pickles, Eric

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Watkinson, Angela

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Randall, John

      Weir, Michael

      Redwood, rh John

      Whittingdale, John

      Rendel, David

      Wiggin, Bill

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Willetts, David

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Wilshire, David

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Wishart, Pete

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Young, rh Sir George

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Selous, Andrew

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shepherd, Richard

      Tom Brake and

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Brennan, Kevin

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Bryant, Chris

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Burgon, Colin

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Burnham, Andy

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Austin, John

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cairns, David

      Baird, Vera

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Banks, Tony

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Battle, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Casale, Roger

      Benn, Hilary

      Caton, Martin

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Blackman, Liz

      Challen, Colin

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Chaytor, David

      Blunkett, rh David

      Clapham, Michael

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Borrow, David

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      234

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Heyes, David

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cohen, Harry

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Coleman, Iain

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Connarty Michael

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Corston, Jean

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hutton, rh John

      Cranston, Ross

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Crausby, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Cruddas, Jon

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      David, Wayne

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Davis, rh Terry (B ham Hedge H)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Kidney, David

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Doran, Frank

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lammy, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Etherington, Bill

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Fisher, Mark

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Flint, Caroline

      Linton, Martin

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Follett, Barbara

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Gerrard, Neil

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Gibson, Dr, Ian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Godsiff, Roger

      MacDonald, Calum

      Goggins, Paul

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      MacDougall, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McKechin, Ann

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hanson, David

      McWilliam, John

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &amp; Rhymney)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Mallaber, Judy

      Healey, John

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcartle N)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hermon, Lady

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hesford, Stephen

      Martlew, Eric

      235

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Merron, Gillian

      Michael, rh Alun

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe Lunesdale)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Miliband,David

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Smyth Rev.Martin (Belfast S)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Soley, Clive

      Morgan, Julie

      Southworth, Helen

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Spellar,rh John

      Mountford, Kali

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Mudie, George

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mullin, Chris

      Stevenson,George

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Olner, Bill

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      O'Neill, Martin

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Organ, Diana

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Owen, Albert

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Perham, Linda

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Picking, Anne

      Timms,Stephen

      Pickthall, Colin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Trickett, Jon

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Truswell, Paul

      Pound, Stephen

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Purchase, Ken

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Purnell, James

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Ward, Claire

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Rooney, Terry

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wills, Michael

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sawford, Phil

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wyatt, Derek

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Singh, Marsha

      Dan Norris and

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. Nick Ainger

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions necessary to bring proceedings on consideration to a close, pursuant to Orders [9 December 2002 and this day].
      Amendment proposed: No. 20, in page 1, line 17 [Clause 2], at end insert —
      '(c) The statement referred to in subsections (3) and (5) shall conform with the provisions of the model warrant annexed to the framework decision.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 297.

      Division No.134]

      [5:13pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Greenway, John

      Allan, Richard

      Hague, rh William

      Amess, David

      Hammond, Philip

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Hancock, Mike

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Harvey, Nick

      Bacon, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Baker, Norman

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Barker, Gregory

      Heald, Oliver

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Heath, David

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hendry, Charles

      Bercow, John

      Hermon, Lady

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Blunt, Crispin

      Holmes, Paul

      Boswell, Tim

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Howard, rh Michael

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Brady, Graham

      Hunter, Andrew

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Jerkin, Bernard

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Burnett, John

      Keetch, Paul

      Burns, Simon

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Burnside, David

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Burstow, Paul

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Lamb, Norman

      Cameron, David

      Lansley, Andrew

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Cash, William

      Leigh, Edward

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Chidgey, David

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Chope, Christopher

      Lidington, David

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Collins, Tim

      Loughton, Tim

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Luff,Peter (M-Worcs)

      Cotter, Brian

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Maclean, rh David

      Curry, rh David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Doughty, Sue

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Moore, Michael

      Evans, Nigel

      Moss, Malcolm

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Flight, Howard

      Öpik, Lembit

      Flook, Adrian

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Forth, rh Eric

      Ottaway, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Page, Richard

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Paice, James

      Francois, Mark

      Paterson, Owen

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Pickles, Eric

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Goodman, Paul

      Randall, John

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Redwood, rh John

      Grayling, Chris

      Rendel, David

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Robertson. Angus (Moray)

      237

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Thurso, John

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Tredinnick, David

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Trend, Michael

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Salmond, Alex

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Waterson, Nigel

      Selous, Andrew

      Watkinson, Angela

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Weir, Michael

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Whittingdale, John

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Soames, Nicholas

      Wilkinson, John

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Willetts, David

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Spring, Richard

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Wilshire, David

      Streeter, Gary

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Wishart, Pete

      Syms, Robert

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Young, rh Sir George

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mr. Mark Hoban and

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Chaytor, David

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Clapham, Michael

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Allen, Graham

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Austin, John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bailey, Adrian

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Baird, Vera

      Cohen, Harry

      Banks, Tony

      Coleman, Iain

      Battle, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Benn, Hilary

      Cooper, Yvette

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Blackman, Liz

      Corston, Jean

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cousins, Jim

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cranston, Ross

      Borrow, David

      Crausby, David

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Bryant, Chris

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Burgon, Colin

      David, Wayne

      Burnham, Andy

      Davidson, Ian

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Cairns, David

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Casale, Roger

      Dismore, Andrew

      Caton, Martin

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Challen, Colin

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Doran, Frank

      238

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lammy, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Etherington, Bill

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Fisher, Mark

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Flint, Caroline

      Linton, Martin

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Follett, Barbara

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Gardiner, Barry

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Gerrard, Neil

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      MacDonald, Calum

      Godsiff, Roger

      McDonnell, John

      Goggins, Paul

      MacDougall, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McKechin, Ann

      Hamilton. David (Midlothian)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hamilton. Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hanson, David

      McWIliam, John

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mahmood. Khalid

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Mallaber, Judy

      Healey, John

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Martlew, Eric

      Heyes, David

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hinchliffe, David

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Miller, Andrew

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Morgan, Julie

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mountford, Kali

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mudie, George

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hutton, rh John

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Iddon,Dr. Brian

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Olner, Bill

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jamieson, David

      Organ, Diana

      Jenkins, Brian

      Owen, Albert

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Perham, Linda

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Picking, Anne

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Pound, Stephen

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kidney, David

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prosser,Gwyn

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Purchase,Ken

      239

      Purnell, James

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Trickett, Jon

      Rooney, Terry

      Truswell, Paul

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Salter, Martin

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Sawford, Phil

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Ward, Claire

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Singh, Marsha

      White, Brian

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Wills, Michael

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Soley, Clive

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Southworth, Helen

      Woodward, Shaun

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Steinberg. Gerry

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Stinchcornbe, Paul

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Dan Norris

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 63

      EXTRADITION OFFENCES: PERSON NOT SENTENCED FOR OFFENCE
      Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 30, line 34, leave out
      'falls within the European framework list'
      and insert
      'constitutes terrorism'.—[Mr. Nick Hawkins.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 352.

      Division No. 135]

      [5:25 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Amess, David

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Brazier, Julian

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Burns, Simon

      Bacon, Richard

      Burnside, David

      Barker, Gregory

      Cameron, David

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Cash, William

      Bellingham, Henry

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Bercow, John

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Chope, Christopher

      Blunt, Crispin

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Boswell, Tim

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Collins, Tim

      240

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Mercer, Patrick

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Curry, rh David

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Norman, Archie

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Page, Richard

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Paice, James.

      Evans, Nigel

      Paterson, Owen

      Fabricant, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Randall, John

      Flight, Howard

      Redwood, rh John

      Flook, Adrian

      Robathan, Andrew

      Forth, rh Eric

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Francois, Mark

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Goodman, Paul

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Selous, Andrew

      Grayling, Chris

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Greenway, John

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Hague, rh William

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Hammond, Philip

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Heald, Oliver

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Spring, Richard

      Hendry, Charles

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Streeter, Gary

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Howard, rh Michael

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Syms, Robert

      Hunter, Andrew

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Jack, rh Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Tredinnick, David

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Trend, Michael

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Lansley, Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Leigh, Edward

      Watkinson, Angela

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Whittingdale, John

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Wiggin Bill

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Whilkinson,John

      Lidington, David

      Willetts, David

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Wilshire, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Maclean, rh David

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Young, rh Sir George

      Malins, Humfrey

      Maude, rh Francis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Mr. Mark Hoban and

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Baker, Norman

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Banks, Tony

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Battle, John

      Alexander, Douglas

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Allan, Richard

      Beith, rh A J.

      Allen, Graham

      Benn, Hilary

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Blackman, Liz

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Blizzard, Bob

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Borrow, David

      Austin, John

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Baird, Vera

      Bradshaw, Ben

      241

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Edwards, Huw

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Etherington, Bill

      Bryant, Chris

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Farrelly, Paul

      Burgon, Colin

      Fisher, Mark

      Burnett, John

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burnham, Andy

      Flint, Caroline

      Burstow, Paul

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Follett, Barbara

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Foster, rh Derek

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Cairns, David

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Gerrard, Neil

      Casale, Roger

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Caton, Martin

      Gidley, Sandra

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Challen, Colin

      Goggins, Paul

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Chaytor, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Chidgey, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clapham, Michael

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Hancock, Mike

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hanson, David

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Harvey, Nick

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Healey, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Heath, David

      Connarty, Michael

      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

      Hermon, Lady

      Cousins, Jim

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cranston, Ross

      Heyes, David

      Crausby, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Holmes, Paul

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      David, Wayne

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davidson, Ian

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hutton, rh John

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Illsley, Eric

      Dawson, Hilton

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Jamieson, David

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Jenkins, Brian

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Doran, Frank

      Doughty, Sue

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      242

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Organ, Diana

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Owen, Albert

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Keetch, Paul

      Perham, Linda

      Kemp, Fraser

      Picking, Anne

      Kidney, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Pollard, Kerry

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Pound, Stephen

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Lamp, Norman

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lammy, David

      Prescott, rh John

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Purchase, Ken

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Purnell, James

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Linton, Martin

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Rendel, David

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      McCafferty, Chris

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Rooney, Terry

      MacDonald, Calum

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McDonnell, John

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      MacDougall, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McKechin, Ann

      Salmond, Alex

      MacShane, Denis

      Salter, Martin

      McWalter, Tony

      Sanders, Adrian

      McWilliam, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Sawford, Phil

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mallaber, Judy

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Singh, Marsha

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

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

      Merron, Gillian

      Michael, rh Alun

      Soley, Clive

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Southworth, Helen

      Miller, Andrew

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Moore, Michael

      Morgan, Julie

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mountford, Kali

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Mudie, George

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mullin, Chris

      Stunell, Andrew

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Olner,Bill

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      243

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      White, Brian

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Thurso, John

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Williams Betty (Conwy)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Williams Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

      Williams Roger (Brecon)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wills, Michael

      Truswell, Paul

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Wishart, Pete

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Wray, Jsmes (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Ward, Claire

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Weir, Michael

      Dan Norris

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      5.36 pm
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Now that we have reached the final stage of scrutiny of the Bill in this House, it is appropriate that we should reflect on some of the key points that have emerged from our deliberations. The first point that I want to put on record is that nobody has sought to defend the United Kingdom's present extradition system. That has not been a point of contention between us. It simply cannot be right that fugitives can frustrate the system by bringing appeal after appeal, raising the same point each time, with the result that their cases can take years to resolve. The case for reform is overwhelming.
      The second point of note is that the proposals in part 2, which deal with extradition outside the European Union and away from the European arrest warrant, have been broadly welcomed. I am grateful to the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats for their support for that part of the Bill. Similarly, the provisions that spell out for the first time how we should make outgoing extradition requests, and those that deal with the powers available to the police in extradition cases, have proved largely uncontentious. We have hardly had to deal with them at all during the passage of the Bill. It is fair to say, therefore, that the bulk of our debate has centred on part 1, and it is on that that we ought to concentrate once more, as we try to make a case for the part 1 proposals and the European arrest warrant.
      Given that the status quo is untenable in an age in which travel around Europe is so easy and cheap, I would ask the Opposition to tell the House how they would address the issue of extradition in those circumstances. Are they in favour of the full-scale harmonisation of our criminal justice systems? No, they are not—as they have confirmed and as we all recognise. They are clearly equally not in favour of mutual recognition. Let us be quite clear that, from my point of
      244
      view, those are the only two realistic options. The Government are quite clear that mutual recognition is the way forward. In Committee, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) repeatedly described part 1 as "draconian". No matter how many times the hon. Gentleman repeats that claim, it will not be true.
      I shall set out the safeguards in part 1. Anyone who is subject to a European arrest warrant will be arrested by a British law enforcement officer. That was always the case and I hope that the Opposition have the good grace to accept that it is now in no doubt, as we have made it explicit in the Bill. They can no longer make spurious claims that foreign police officers could make such arrests.
      Once a person has been arrested, he must be brought before a UK judge as soon as possible. At the initial hearing, the judge will check that the person is indeed the subject of the extradition warrant and decide whether to grant bail. For the first time in extradition cases, there will be a presumption in favour of bail.
      The main extradition hearing, at which the judge will consider whether extradition should take place, will be held soon after the initial hearing. Extradition is barred if the double jeopardy rule applies and if there are no specialty arrangements in the requesting state, or if the extradition request has been made for the purpose of punishing a fugitive on the grounds of race, nationality, religion or political opinion. No country that retains the death penalty will be accepted under our part 1 arrangements.
      Lady Hermon: I apologise to the Minister and to the House for not being present at the beginning of the debate.
      The Minister referred to the double jeopardy rule. Will he kindly elaborate on what the Government now mean by double jeopardy? As he knows, the Criminal Justice Bill, which was in Committee at the same time as this Bill, makes huge changes to the double jeopardy rule. What does that rule mean in the context of the Extradition Bill? Does it mean that new and compelling evidence will be taken into account, or not?
      Mr. Ainsworth: The measures that apply to extradition will be those that apply in our justice system. If changes are made to the double jeopardy rule they will be reflected in our extradition arrangements. At present, the double jeopardy rule applies. If Parliament decides to amend it, that will have ramifications for extradition.
      Extradition cannot take place if it would be unjust or oppressive by virtue of a fugitive's mental or physical condition. Most important, it cannot take place when it would breach a fugitive's rights under the European convention on human rights. The Bill provides an impressive package of measures and it seems to me that only a perverse definition of "draconian" could apply to them.
      Ultimately, the difference between the Government and the Opposition comes down to dual criminality. That matter has been at the base of all, or almost all, our discussions. I make no apology for the fact that the Bill removes the dual criminality requirement in certain limited circumstances where a request has come from an EU country.

      245
      No one will be extradited for conduct that occurs in the UK that is not contrary to our law. I reiterate that, because people constantly allege that that is not true: nobody can be extradited for conduct that occurs in this country that is not contrary to British law. What is the great constitutional principle that holds that we should not extradite a person who breaks the law of another EU country just because we happen not to have an exact equivalent offence in UK law? We are talking about EU countries which are mature democracies and ECHR signatories.
      If a person committed an offence in another EU country and was arrested there, we should not object to them being put on trial. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) confirmed that in the Standing Committee on 9 January 2003, at column 36. So why should the fact that such people manage to cross a border before being apprehended allow them to evade justice? Why should the UK be a sanctuary for those who have committed crimes in another EU member states? Of course, that cuts both ways.
      As the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen said on Second Reading, not all our EU partners recognise the same serious offences as those on the UK statute book. If people come to this country and commit one of those offences, we would expect to be able to put them on trial. We would certainly not accept the excuse that the conduct happened not to be an offence in their home country. Equally important, we would want to be able to extradite such people to stand trial if they had managed to get away and leave our country. The partial abolition of the dual criminality requirement will allow us to do exactly that.
      As long as the Opposition remain wedded to the idea that there must be absolute dual criminality in the EU, it follows that they are effectively suggesting that people should be able to come here and commit offences such as incitement to racial hatred, or indulge in fraudulent trading with complete impunity. [Interruption.] Well, so long as such people can cross the frontier before our police apprehend them, that is exactly what Conservatives Members are saying. I do not know what their justification is, but I suppose they think that it is a price worth paying that people should be allowed to commit those offences with impunity. That has almost come out on a few occasions. Those are the consequences of the line that they are taking, and it is no good their trying to deny it. That is exactly what would happen.
      Finally, I wish to say why the Government have decided to remove the dual criminality requirement for all list offences that attract a one-year penalty in the requesting state, rather than just for those that attract a three-year penalty—the minimum required under the framework decision.
      The basic threshold for extradition has been set at 12 months imprisonment for more than 100 years, and no one has seriously suggested that we should change that. However, if it is accepted that 12 months is the threshold for extradition, it would not be sensible to set a different threshold for the application of the dual criminality rule. That would be a recipe for confusion. Moreover, if the Conservative party takes the view that dual criminality is an important and necessary safeguard to prevent injustice when dealing with requests from other EU
      246
      countries, that safeguard should apply not only to those offences that attract penalties of one to three years, but to more serious offences where the person concerned could face a much longer prison sentence. It would be illogical to impose a dual criminality requirement at the lower end of the offence scale, but not at the upper end.
      The plain fact is that the European arrest warrant is a worthwhile measure. It will enhance co-operation between European slates. It offers very real advantages to the United Kingdom and law-abiding UK citizens. We will be able to bring back more speedily those accused of serious crimes in the UK. No longer will some of our European partners be able to avoid extraditing their own nationals. It is the only mechanism available to encourage countries such as Austria to be prepared to extradite their own nationals. They are not prepared to do so currently, which can detract from our ability to offer justice to the victims of crime in our country.
      No longer will those countries be able to refuse to extradite for fiscal offences. No longer will they be able to refuse to extradite where their statutes of limitation have expired. All of those real weaknesses in the current extradition arrangements have caused us real difficulties. Criminals have not been slow to exploit them. The introduction of the European arrest warrant will sweep away those loopholes.
      The Bill that will leave the House is better than the one that entered it: the House agreed earlier to a number of changes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and the other members of the Home Affairs Committee for the considerable effort that they have put into scrutinising the Bill. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), other Conservative Members who served on the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and my hon. Friends who served on it.
      This is an important Bill. It will ensure the swift and efficient return of those who are subject to extradition while safeguarding the rights of all such people. It will mean that our extradition arrangements will move from the 19th century framework, which is totally unacceptable and which no one defends, into the 21st century where they belong. It gives me great pleasure to commend the Bill to the House.
      5.51 pm
      Mr. Letwin: I thank the Minister for the significant progress that was made, not by me, of course, but by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), the Minister himself and others in Committee. Clearly, some of the technical deficiencies in the Bill from part 2 onwards were altered and removed, which is much to the Minister's credit. I am particularly glad that the change to the Bill that was required, as I noted in my speech on Second Reading, to ensure that a British police officer would be involved in any arrest has been made today.
      The Minister is right that the Bill, from part 2 onwards, could command support. We are now on the threshold of the Bill moving to another place, however, and he will be aware that we will ask our colleagues in the Lords—with considerable support, I suspect, from

      247
      other parts of the House—to fight sustained campaign radically to change part 1. It is therefore important briefly to rehearse the structure of the argument as we see it in relation to that part of the Bill, and, more importantly, to lay the groundwork for what I suspect, by the time we discuss the matter again—when the Lords, I hope, send the Bill back—will form the majority of our consideration.
      As regards the substance of the argument, the Minister has just exposed the intellectual deficiency of the position that he and the Home Secretary have taken. He argued a moment or two ago that if we are to maintain a proper relationship between this country and our fellow members of the EU, and an effective, efficient and modern system, we need part 1 of the Bill. He is promoting a Bill, however, that contains part 2. I therefore presume that the Government regard part 2 as an appropriate method of dealing with extradition in relation to the rest of the world. It is extremely difficult to understand what is the material and operative difference, for the purposes of the Bill, between other countries that are members of the EU or that are within the Schengen area, and other jurisdictions that have established civilised and proper systems of jurisdiction. It is extremely difficult to understand what the basis for part 1 can be, other than the fact that the Home Secretary, among others, signed a framework directive that effectively compels part 1 to be introduced in this country, when those who had in mind a new evolution of EU competence saw their opportunity in the aftermath of 11 September. I do not know what the Minister believes, but I do not believe that in the absence of 11 September and the rush that it precipitated to a framework directive we would be discussing part 1. Instead, the Government would have favoured part 2 and we could have all supported the Bill.
      What makes it imperative that the part 1 procedure applies to Austria but not to Canada? We have not heard Ministers give a coherent explanation for that today, in Committee, on Second Reading or in public. The Minister just explained—I do not know whether he realised quite what he was saying—that the discrepancy was brought about by the exigencies of travel. He argued that we need part 1 to deal with our relations with the EU because people travel around Europe a great deal in this modern world, and that part 2 is sufficient for everyone else. He cannot for a moment think that that is the determining difference, however, because people travel enormously to the rest of the world as well. The problem cannot be as a result of a difference that is located in the alignment and propriety of legal systems. Many Anglo Saxon juridical systems are vastly better aligned with our own than our continental partners' on the mainland of Europe.
      We have yet to hear a coherent explanation of the need to have part 1 and part 2, save the one that I advanced: that the Home Secretary found himself in the odd position of rushing helter-skelter to sign something because we faced the ghastly realities of 11 September.
      Mr. George Howarth: Even the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is a crucial and immense
      248
      difference. Those countries covered by part 1 are subject to the European convention on human rights and the framework directive.
      Mr. Letwin: The framework directive is the problem. It is because the Home Secretary signed it in the aftermath of 11 September that part 1 exists. The ECHR is a red herring. We could import ECHR constraints into part 1. I know that, because the Minister has imported them into part 2. There is no reason to apply part 1 to countries that are signatories to the ECHR, and part 2 to those that are not, because the Minister has devised an escape route by importing the ECHR into part 2. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) is right to mention the framework directive, however. It was foisted on the Home Secretary—or perhaps he lunged for it—because we had gone through the trauma of 11 September and a group of people in other European countries and the Commission saw it as a golden opportunity to advance the cause of the EU's juridical competence.
      My hon. Friends and I have to an extent accepted that the awful realities of 11 September live with us. That is why, clutching ourselves, pinching our noses and worrying, we have accepted part 1 in the sole case of terrorism, but we will not go beyond that.
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I think that the right hon. Gentleman was present when we discussed that earlier. Does he accept that his proposal to single out terrorism as the only offence to which part 1 would apply is not workable and would reintroduce dual criminality across the board?
      Mr. Letwin: As the Minister knows, and, indeed, as he has said, we have the most profound differences of view about dual criminality, quite beyond the question of Parliament. None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath has tabled perfectly workable amendments. We do not accept that a definition in terms of the Government's legislation of the nature of terrorism is unworkable.
      Mr. Ainsworth: It is a British definition.
      Mr. Letwin: It is indeed a British definition, and is none the worse for that. The Minister will certainly not make headway against me by suggesting that there is some imperfection in this Parliament defining those things for which this Parliament will allow people to be extradited. To us, that seems a perfectly proper method of proceeding.
      Lady Hermon: Will the right hon. Gentleman address the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom? Paramilitary terrorist organisations, both loyalist and republican, smuggle weapons, fuel and cigarettes. Given that the paramilitary terrorism that we have had to confront is so closely tied to other very serious offences, his proposal to narrow the definition to terrorism would do a great disservice to people of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Letwin: I do not think that that would be the case, although I would be delighted to discuss the matter with the hon. Lady. If part 2 were applied to the Irish

      249
      Republic, for example, in respect of offences that are not covered by the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000, it would work perfectly well. The oddity of the Minister's logic is that his remarks about part 1 undercut his case for part 2. If part 2 is, generally speaking, effective and modern as a means of extradition, why will not it work in the case of Austria? If it works for Canada, why will not it work for southern Ireland? I cannot see the logic in that.
      I want to put on record what I think will be the crux when the Bill, as I hope, returns to this place. In contrast to the overwhelming forces which, with a notable exception recently, the Minister can normally carry into the Lobby, it is likely that in another place matters will be far more evenly balanced. I anticipate that, when the Minister's noble Friends on the Treasury Bench scent the possibility of defeat, they will argue that the House should not be irresponsible and that it should take into account the fact that the Home Secretary has already given the game away—in short, the framework directive is compelling. I do not know whether they will argue that, but I want to do my best this evening to ensure that they do not. If I fail in that endeavour, I want at least to ensure that we have a firm platform on which to erect the arguments that we will then want to make if the Bill returns to this House as a result of messages from the other place.
      I do not know how it came about that when Parliament won the civil war, it lost the peace. I do not know how it came about that the prerogative power was not properly constrained in this country. That power is not unique, but it is most unusual. We are the only sophisticated democracy of which I am aware in which a Government can sign such things and incorporate them into our domestic law without proper parliamentary scrutiny other than that of other members of the European Union. How we allowed that to evolve is a matter for deep historical investigation, but this case is perhaps more poignant than any other, because huge endeavours were made in the House to ensure that the third pillar was different and that the prerogative power could not have such an effect on our criminal law. If our constitution, or what passes for it, has any meaning—in my more pessimistic moments, I doubt that it has—it is that under the third pillar the prerogative power does not have the capacity to bind Parliament. I do not otherwise know what the third pillar is. If the Home Secretary took it into his head to sign the framework directive after 11 September under conditions that, we are all aware, were extremely emotionally charged, that is a problem for him, not Parliament. Nobody in the Commons or the other place should listen to the argument that this country is bound by the framework directive. If the judgment of Parliament when we come to the end of this process is that part 1 should not apply, or should not apply except in the case of terrorism, or should otherwise be modified, its will should prevail and the Home Secretary should be asked to unsign the framework directive and seek to renegotiate it to conform with the will of Parliament.
      I do not know whether our hon. Friends in the Commons or our noble Friends in the other place will be able to achieve that. I do not know whether negotiations between the Commons and the other place, should it come to that, would accomplish that, but I am extremely keen to ensure that no one says to us in the Commons or
      250
      our noble Friends in the other place that we have in any sense conceded the principle that the framework directive dictates an outcome in British law. I hope that Ministers will confirm that that is their understanding, and that we have not in the past few months gone through a charade in relation to part 1. I hope that they too believe that the Commons and the other place, gathered together as the Parliament of this country, have the power to decide what our British criminal law is, notwithstanding the Home Secretary's actions in the days succeeding 11 September.
      That principle is vastly more important than any other that we are going to encounter in the Bill. It goes to the root of the relationship between our Parliament and our Executive, as well as the relationship between our Parliament and the Executives of the countries with which we are in partnership in the European Union. When people look back at the Bill and consider the debates that took place on Second Reading and in Committee, as well as those that will take place in another place, they will see much more clearly whether the Bill set that precedent or whether it set a contrary precedent and established that once a Minister went to Brussels and signed such a directive he compelled Parliament to take a particular position. That is the crux of the matter—it is the item that history will judge us by. I hope profoundly that, on that matter at least, we shall find that we are at one with the Government.
      Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. However, is his argument not inadvertently misleading? My understanding is that the framework directive does not make part 1 inevitable—it merely makes it possible. There is a world of difference between those two ideas.
      Mr. Letwin: I do not seek to mislead the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation is exactly the one that the Government will make—it is certainly mine. I agree with him—I do not think that the framework directive compels Parliament to accept part 1. I am merely trying to ensure that at no point in the debate in the other place does a Minister spring to the Dispatch Box and use the argument that the framework directive compels acceptance of part 1.
      Mr. Ainsworth: I am not trying to suggest that the situation is perfect, but surely the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the framework decision went through the scrutiny arrangements in the House and cleared them. It was put in place when the Conservative party was in government. I have no desire to suggest that the arrangements could not be improved. However, these scrutiny arrangements have been in place for some time now.
      Mr. Letwin: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman now sees the danger that I foresaw. I accept that the scrutiny arrangements are in place—I share the Minister's view and have a stronger version of it—but the arrangements are inadequate. That is not the issue. This is a third pillar measure. This is a measure relating to British criminal law. This is a measure that lies within the sovereignty and competence of this Parliament. On my understanding of this tenuous miasma known as the British constitution, it is not open to the Executive to use

      251
      its prerogative power, scrutiny or no scrutiny, to override or compel the powers of this Parliament in relation to British criminal law. That is the point that I seek to establish. I hope that it will be the Government's position.
      At least let it be understood that if the Government seek to argue in the other place that the framework directive compels part 1, contrary to my understanding and that of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East, they are taking a position to which we root and branch object and with which we root and branch disagree. That is the crunch issue that we shall face when, as I hope, the Bill returns to this place. It is an issue that I hope will at last attract to the Bill the public attention that it has so far so dramatically and sadly lacked.
      6.11 pm
      Mr. Mullin: As the Minister said, I think that the Bill leaves us in much better shape than it was in when it arrived in this place. Some of the improvements that the Opposition and the Select Committee on Home Affairs have achieved are examples of what can be obtained through effective scrutiny.
      I have some sympathy with the points that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) was making a moment ago. There is a sense in which senior Ministers went off to Brussels and signed something, and then left my hon. Friend the Minister to explain it to us afterwards. He has done a good job of doing that. I do not have the same hang-ups as Opposition Members about European—and certainly European Union—judicial systems. I do not follow them as far as they would like us to. At the back of all this, I think there has been a slight feeling that the deal has already been done and that there is not much that the British Parliament can do about it. That makes me a bit uneasy, too.
      Lady Hermon: I ask the hon. Gentleman to comment on the nature of directives. Directives are used regularly within the European Community to harmonise legislation throughout the member states. Member states are set aims and objectives by the directive and it is entirely within the discretion of each member state how it implements a directive. However, if the directive is not implemented by the time a deadline has passed, that gives rise to direct rights that individuals can rely upon anyway.
      Mr. Mullin: I do not want to open out the debate into the long struggle that has taken place between the House and the European Commission and all its works. For the purposes of the Bill I want only to place it on record that I think that, at the back of the Bill, there has been the problem which, to some extent, the right hon. Member for West Dorset described a moment ago. However, I think that the principles are sound. It must be reasonable that we should be able to extradite people who have committed offences in judicial systems where
      252
      broadly similar standards apply, and that they can be returned to face the law. Most EU judicial systems are rather more merciful than our own.
      Annabelle Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Mullin: Yes, but I was not proposing to make a big meal of these matters.
      Annabelle Ewing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I hope not to take up too much of his time. Does he not accept that the principle of mutual recognition that underpins EC first pillar legislation is based on minimal harmonisation of standards? The third pillar measure in question is an extension of the principle of mutual recognition to an area where minimal harmonisation of standards has not occurred.
      Mr. Mullin: That is a reasonable point and it has been made quite a lot during our discussions.
      As I said, I think that the Bill has emerged from the House in rather better shape than when it was introduced. There is still some scope for improvement and that may occur in another part of the building. I should like to thank the Minister for the constructive way in which he has proceeded, especially in his engagement with the Select Committee. Pre-legislative scrutiny is a science that it is still in its infancy, but his handling of the Bill has been better in terms of engaging with the Select Committee than that of almost any of the Bills that we have so far considered.
      The process has been helped by the fact that the Bill was published well in advance, so it was possible to gather other opinions. That is not the case in respect of much of the other legislation that comes tumbling out of the Home Office. The Committee often has to conduct an inquiry before we see the Bill in question. On antisocial behaviour, the Committee had a session with the same overworked Minister this morning, but the Bill is yet to come. It will be along in a couple of days and I think that it will be considered on Second Reading in a couple of weeks' time. Everybody acknowledges that that is not an entirely satisfactory way of doing business, especially in terms of very controversial measures. The Bill has benefited by being published well in advance and I know that Home Office Ministers would like to achieve that in introducing all their legislation. That is to the benefit of the Government and Parliament, and I hope that that process will continue. I look forward to seeing what happens to the Bill when it goes to another place.
      6.17 pm
      Mr. Burnett: I should like to put on record again my gratitude and that of the House for the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The Committee deserves credit not only for the report, but for the speed with which it drew it up. It has been of great help to Opposition parties and in Committee, and I believe that it has also been a great help to the Government themselves. During the passage of the Bill, we have made considerable progress. Like other hon. Members, I welcomed on Report the fact that the Government have made significant concessions.

      253
      As I said earlier, the major concession was the restoration of specialty. That was important for me and a great many of us on the Committee. We now have sensible definitions of enforcement personnel. Furthermore, any country that retains the death penalty cannot qualify as a category 1 country. I tabled an amendment in Committee to that effect, and I am grateful that that proposal is now part of the Bill. I am also delighted to see that there has to be judicial authority to effect a European arrest warrant, although that is subject to transitional arrangements that will, I am sure, be scrutinised carefully in another place. There will now be more satisfactory provisions in relation to identity. No doubt those in the other place will again pay careful attention to the level of the burden of proof as set out by the Minister.
      There are genuine difficulties in relation to which countries should be designated as category 1 countries and would benefit thereby from the expedited fast-track procedure. There are also genuine objections to the nebulous 32 offences. Of course, we should obey the laws of the country in which we reside or the countries that we visit.
      The Minister should not scoff at the genuine reservations and anxieties of hon. Members who argue cogently for accurate definitions of offences that are eligible for fast-track extradition. As the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) rightly said, there is no minimum harmonisation standard. Their Lordships will revert to such matters, but we derive encouragement from the Minister's statement that he will "have his ears open" to those problems.
      Considerable progress has been made and I believe that there will be more in the other place.
      6.20 pm
      Mr. Cameron: I did not intend to speak. However, not for the first time, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) inspired me to say something to back him up—not that he needs it—on the point about whether we can amend what the Government agree under the third pillar.
      It would be instructive to share with hon. Members an interesting occurrence in the Home Affairs Committee. We wanted to try to find a way in which to accept the European arrest warrant while reducing the impact of changes to dual criminality. We perceived them as constituting a major change to our constituents' rights. We proposed that the Home Secretary should have a back-stop power. Our recommendation stated
      "that in each case the district judge should look at the terms of the offence specified in the European Arrest Warrant and make a statement as to whether dual criminality applies. In cases where the alleged offence is not a crime in the UK a separate decision about whether to extradite should then be made by the Home Secretary, who is responsible to Parliament."
      The Select Committee devised that modest proposal, which we included in a draft report. Our excellent Clerk returned to the Committee and said that he did not believe that we could include it in the final report because parliamentary counsel's advice suggested that the recommendation might be asking the Government to do something illegal. We discussed the matter in the Committee and decided that that was ridiculous because Select Committees should be able to make
      254
      recommendations to the Government. They could then tell us whether the recommendations were illegal and try to explain their reasons to the House of Commons.
      What have we come to if we cannot even make a cogent and sensible suggestion in Committee for reducing the European arrest warrant's impact on people's freedom in this country? The Minister could take two steps. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, he could ask the Home Secretary to return to the European Council to try to renegotiate, at a slower pace, the warrant which was initially negotiated in haste, so that it provided the protection that members of the Home Affairs Committee believed to be necessary.
      Secondly, the European arrest warrant does not state that we cannot have a back-stop power. Why do not the Government have a little courage and introduce such a power to our domestic legislation? That would be a good provision, which an all-party Committee supports. We should try that and allow it to be tested in European law, thus ascertaining whether it went against the terms of the directive.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, it is essential to ascertain whether the third pillar means that the Government can sign up to something in Europe that we cannot amend in the House. If that is the case, what is the point of the many hours of debate in the Select Committee, the Standing Committee and the Chamber? We need an answer to that question in the other place, if not here, before we finish scrutinising and, I hope, improving the Bill.
      6.24 pm
      Lady Hermon: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on a Bill that I welcome.
      In a previous incarnation many years ago, when I lectured in the law faculty at Queen's university, Belfast, I taught international law, and I must confess that I dreaded the weeks when I had to lecture on extradition law. It was extremely complicated, and I am sure that the students ended up no more enlightened. I am therefore delighted that the extradition procedure has been simplified.
      The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) expressed genuine concern about the effect of European Community law on our criminal law, but I must tell him that it already has an effect, in that it already provides a complete defence to a criminal charge in this country without our having to do anything. Let me give an example from Northern Ireland. A lorryload of pigs that had been smuggled across the border was intercepted by a police officer in South Armagh. The driver pleaded guilty to a charge of breaching our domestic legislation because he did not have the relevant documents. He faced three months in prison, confiscation of his 75 bacon pigs—my students used to write "baking pigs", but they were bacon pigs—or both.
      The driver's defence lawyer, who had had the excellent experience of being taught European Community law at Queen's—as the House knows, we are very progressive in Belfast—advised him to make a plea based on that law, and on the free movement of goods between one member state and another. The driver was simply moving goods—pigs—from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom. That was a

      255
      complete defence to a criminal charge. I could cite other cases, but you would intervene if I did, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Letwin: I accept that, alas, first and second-pillar European legislation has brought about the principle of the defeasibility of our domestic criminal legislation in our law. There is, I fear, no doubt of that. Does the hon. Lady not recognise, however, that in this instance—we are dealing here with the third pillar—we would take an immensely significant further step if we accepted that the Home Secretary of the day could negate Parliament's activity in legislating afresh in the sphere of domestic law simply by signing a framework directive in Brussels?
      Lady Hermon: That is a good point, but it is technically incorrect. For many years directives, having passed the date for implementation in member states, have become directly effective, which is quite different from directly applicable. EU regulations are directly applicable; directives give individuals a directly effective right to challenge decisions in their local courts. This is not an exception, and such cases are not unusual.
      Mr. Letwin rose—
      Lady Hermon: The right hon. Gentleman, with an angelic smile, requests me to give way again. I shall do so, although I am sure it is not wise.
      Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because I think this is immensely important.
      I accept the doctrine of direct effect—how could I do otherwise, since a series of cases make its existence clear, regrettable though I consider that to be. In this instance, however, who would have the locus? A foreign Government, the Government of an EU member state, would have to try to persuade the European Court of Justice that they had the locus to enforce the direct effect of the directive in a UK court. That has never happened in a UK court, and it would be a further step amounting to a huge constitutional innovation.
      Lady Hermon: That was, as ever, a very helpful intervention. I think that the person charged could plead European Community law on free movement—free movement of people, in this context—but I repeat that it is not unusual for provisions in directives to be directly effective.
      Let me now move on, before the right hon. Gentleman develops a habit of intervening. In my view, easily the best thing that Labour has done since coming to power in 1997 is bringing home the European convention of human rights and incorporating it through the Human Rights Act 1998. It has therefore grieved and troubled me to note those past occasions when legislation such as this has not measured up to our human rights commitments. Because of the changes and amendments that the Government have introduced today, I am much happier to believe that we are in line with our convention obligations, particularly given the Minister's clarification and firm assurance, in response to my earlier intervention, that no one would be
      256
      extradited to a part 1 territory if they were at risk of the death penalty. Indeed, that is a clear obligation under the longstanding jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
      I am very glad that this country has ruled out for ever and a day the death penalty, which was on the Republic of Ireland's statute book but is never used. I am very pleased that the Government have made it clear that there is no way a person will be extradited from this country to face the death penalty. As I said, it is clear that our obligations within the convention have been recognised today, and I welcome that.
      On a very personal note, my dear husband was Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—it was not the Police Service of Northern Ireland in those days—for almost 10 years, making him the longest serving Chief Constable bar none. It was harrowing to realise that those who had committed atrocious and appalling acts of terrorism could escape across the border into the Republic of Ireland. It was also harrowing for relatives of victims to know that, because of the complicated extradition procedures involving the United Kingdom and the only member state that borders it, that state refused to, or found it difficult to, extradite such people in order at least to face a trial—there is always the presumption of innocence—in Northern Ireland or elsewhere for the atrocious crimes that they allegedly committed.
      The right hon. Member for West Dorset seemed to turn his mind to terrorism, and if the Bill makes it easier to extradite those who are guilty of terrorist crimes, I fully support it. However, I urge the Minister not to exclude the linked paramilitary activities that fund terrorism. Terrorists need funds to carry out these appalling acts, so I urge him not to narrow the provision to cover just terrorism itself.
      6.32 pm
      Mr. Bob Ainsworth: With the leave of the House, I will respond to what has been a very worthwhile debate, in which we have finalised consideration of the Bill in this place. I understand that, potentially, we have until 7 o'clock, but I am not planning to delay the House until then—unless the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) pops up repeatedly.
      I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and the various members of the Select Committee for the work that they have put into this Bill. Their interventions and representations have provided food for thought, and considerable effort went into that process. As both Opposition parties have recognised, that was a great help to them in getting their heads round what is an obscure area of law. As I said in my opening speech, that process has led to a better Bill going to the other place. As my hon. Friend knows, I will wear the praise that he heaps upon me with pride—and I hope that he tells the boss as well.
      I do not have the skills to get involved in the intellectual legal tussle that has just taken place between the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and the right hon. Member for West Dorset. The hon. Lady's contribution was impressive, and as a non-lawyer I doubt whether I can match it in any way. I hope that she has given the right hon. Gentleman food for

      257
      thought. As he often asks us to continue to reflect on our positions, I hope that he will continue to reflect on his. He will have to justify his line that the measure should apply only to terrorism. The hon. Member for North Down exposes that view on the basis of practical experience. It is not workable and I believe—I hope that I am not being unfair to him—that the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He does not want to stand before the House and be seen to make a proposal that would weaken our armoury against terrorism, so he has slipped this in as the very minimum that he can achieve with respect to part 1. Effectively, he is proposing something that simply would not work and he is also ignoring some serious crimes.
      It is interesting to note how the right hon. Gentleman conducts himself in this Third Reading debate. We have been bombarded week after week by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), making the constant allegation that these are dreadfully draconian measures, but the right hon. Gentleman chooses to challenge us mainly not on the measures in part 1, although I am sure that he does not agree with them, but instead he alleges that we are doing something dreadful and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was appallingly lax in his response to the tragedy of 9/11 and allowed himself to be rushed into commitments now being imposed on Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman invites us to think that it is all awful and hopes that some way can be found of undoing the dreadful damage that has been done.
      I might not want to challenge the right hon. Gentleman to a legal intellectual battle, but I am able to challenge him on the historical record. In that light, there is only one thing wrong with what he says—it is simply not true, and the record shows that it is not true. I ask him to look again at the consultation document, "The Law on Extradition: A Review", issued by the previous Home Secretary in March 2001—before 9/11 and all the panic that the right hon. Gentleman suggests lies at the centre of these proposals. I repeat that we issued a consultation document proposing a new framework for extradition back in March 2001. That document does not square exactly with what is in the Bill—I am not suggesting that it does—but it proposed that we did away with dual criminality in respect of our European partners. How on earth can the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the only reason why we are in this position is that the Home Secretary was panicked into doing something after 9/11, when the fundamental proposition appeared in a Government consultation document six months earlier?
      Mr. Letwin: This is absolutely wonderful. I do not know whether the Minister realises it, but he has just told us that the Home Secretary had malice aforethought—that he knew, before 11 September, that he intended to give away our birthright. The Minister admits that the Home Secretary could have taken the Bill through the House before signing the framework directive, that there was no panic and no rush to implement, and that action could have been taken after the Bill became an Act. Ultimately, the Home Secretary consciously undercut the powers of this House. Is that what the Minister is telling us?
      Mr. Ainsworth: I am not telling the right hon. Gentleman that at all. Impressive though the Home
      258
      Secretary may be, he did not know that 9/11 was going to occur. A consultation process was in place and a public consultation document was before the House for scrutiny and comment. It proposed the complete removal of dual criminality for our European partners. It bears out what I am saying—that the provisions have in no way been imposed on us by the European Union. If the right hon. Member for West Dorset is suggesting that they have, he is simply wrong. We have led the debate, and the hon. Member for North Down has exposed the reasons very adequately. Whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not, there is a desperate need for us to modernise our extradition arrangements and to bring them up to date. Moreover, when we set the criminal framework for dealing with extradition, we must be mindful of the free movement that takes place in the EU of capital, people and everything else.
      Mr. Letwin: In that case, why did not the Home Secretary see fit to legislate first and sign the directive afterwards?
      Mr. Ainsworth: We put out the measures for consultation. We put the ongoing negotiations on the framework document through the parliamentary scrutiny procedure, in the way that is required by the procedures of the House. We are now putting the Bill before the House.
      The Bill contains extensive safeguards. Why should we allow a person to evade justice simply because he or she has managed to cross a border before being arrested by the police? The Fill is a much-needed reform of our outdated and antiquated extradition laws. It is in the interests of us all, including our international partners, that criminals are not able to string out our extradition proceedings for years on end. The old maxim "justice delayed is justice denied" applies in extradition as it applies in other fields of criminal justice. This Bill will finally enable us to have an extradition system that is capable of coping with a world of free movement and cheap travel.
      I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 142.

      Division No. 136]

      [6:42 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Blackman, Liz

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ainger, Nick

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ainsworth,Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Blunkett, rh David

      Allen, Graham

      Borrow, David

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Brennan, Kevin

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Austin, John

      Bailey, Adrian

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Baird, Vera

      Banks, Tony

      Bryant, Chris

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Battle, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Burnham, Andy

      Benn, Hilary

      Burnside, David

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      259

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Cairns, David

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Casale, Roger

      Hanson, David

      Caton, Martin

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Challen, Colin

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Healey, John

      Chaytor, David

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clapham, Michael

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Heppell, John

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hermon, Lady

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Heyes, David

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Howarth. George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Corston, Jean

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cranston, Ross

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Crausby, David

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hutton, rh John

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Illsley, Eric

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jamieson, David

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jenkins, Brian

      David, Wayne

      Johnson. Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davidson, Ian

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Kemp, Fraser

      Doran, Frank

      Kidney, David

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Edwards, Huw

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Etherington, Bill

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Fisher, Mark

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Linton, Martin

      Flint Caroline

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Follett, Barbara

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      McCafferty, Chris

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Gardiner, Barry

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gerrard, Neil

      MacDonald, Calum

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McDonnell, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      MacDougall, John

      Goggins, Paul

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      260

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKechin, Ann

      Sheridan, Jim

      McNulty, Tony

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McWalter, Tony

      Singh, Marsha

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Southworth, Helen

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Spellar, rh John

      Martlew, Eric

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Stevenson, George

      Merron, Gillian

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Miliband, David

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Miller, Andrew

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Morgan, Julie

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mountford, Kali

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mudie, George

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Mullin, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Timms, Stephen

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

      Olner, Bill

      Trickett, Jon

      Owen, Albert

      Truswell, Paul

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Perham, Linda

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptovvn)

      PicKing, Anne

      Pickthall, Colin

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Pound, Stephen

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ward, Claire

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Prescott, rh John

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      White, Brian

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Purchase, Ken

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Purnell, James

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Wills, Michael

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Wilson, Brian

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Rooney, Terry

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Salter, Martin

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wyatt, Derek

      Sawford, Phil

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Joan Ryan and

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mr. Jim Murphy

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Amess, David

      Bacon, Richard

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Barker, Gregory

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Bellingham, Henry

      261

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Blunt, Crispin

      Maclean, rh David

      Boswell, Tim

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Maude, rh Francis

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Brady, Graham

      Mercer, Patrick

      Brazier, Julian

      Moss, Malcolm

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Burns, Simon

      Norman, Archie

      Cameron, David

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Cash, William

      Ottaway, Richard

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Chope, Christopher

      Paterson, Owen

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Pickles, Eric

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Collins, Tim

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Conway, Derek

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Randall, John

      Redwood, rh John

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Evans, Nigel

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Ruffley, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Salmond, Alex

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Selous, Andrew

      Flight, Howard

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Flook, Adrian

      Shepherd, Richard

      Forth, rh Eric

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Francois, Mark

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Spring, Richard

      Goodman, Paul

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Grayling, Chris

      Streeter, Gary

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Greenway, John

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Hague, rh William

      Syms, Robert

      Hammond, Philip

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hawkins, Nick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Heald, Oliver

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Hendry, Charles

      Tredinnick, David

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Howard, rh Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Hunter, Andrew

      Weir, Michael

      Jack, rh Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Wiggin, Bill

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Wilkinson, John

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Willetts, David

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Wilshire, David

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Lidington, David

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Young, rh Sir George

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Loughton, Tim

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Mr. Mark Hoban

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

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    HOUSING
    That the draft Regulatory Reform (Schemes under Section 129 of the Housing Act 1988) (England) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 11th March, be approved. —[Charlotte Atkins.]
    Question agreed to.

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That—

    (i) at the sittings on Tuesday 1st April, Wednesday 2nd April and Thursday 3rd April, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords shall have been received;

    (ii) at the sittings on Tuesday 1st April, Wednesday 2nd April and Thursday 3rd April, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported; and

    (iii) at the sitting on Thursday 3rd April, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he has notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

    Ordered,
    That Mr Robert Syms be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mr John Randall be added.—[Keith Hill.]

  Sectarian Violence (Gujarat)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Charlotte Atkins.]
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Mike Wood: I want to raise two issues relating to the communal and religious violence that swept through large parts of Gujarat in northern India just over 12 months ago. My interest was centred initially on the fact that four of my constituents were caught up in the violence, with devastating consequences for them, their families and for the wider constituency community, especially in the Batley area where I have 6,500 Muslim constituents, of whom 6,000 were either born in Gujarat or have parents who were born there.
  I shall briefly recount the details of the incident. On 28 February 2002, four of my constituents, all British-born Muslims, were nearing the end of a holiday in India. At least one of them had never been to India before. They had been sightseeing to the Taj Mahal, which is not unusual on a visit to India, and they had visited many of their relatives in the state. However, as they returned to hotel on that fateful date and while driving along the main highway from Jaipur to Surat, their car was stopped by a mob, the vehicle was set on fire and they were dragged out.
  The local Muslim driver and one of my constituents, Mr. Aswat Nallabhai, were killed on the spot. The youngest member of the party, Imran Dawood, was beaten and left for dead, but fortunately he survived and is recovering slowly in this country with his family. The other two of my constituents, cousins Sakil and Saeed Dawood, are still missing and, although the families find that impossible to accept—
  It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
  Mr. Wood: Although the families find it impossible to accept that Sakil and Saeed are still missing, we have to assume that they, too, fell victim to that terrible crime. Some remains of one of those men were found soon after the event, close by, by a relative who went to search for them, but, 12 months later, because of the poor forensic facilities in Gujarat, the family do not know which of those two men those remains are from and, of course, they have no news whatever of their other relative.
  The House will understand that such factors make that dreadful event even more impossible for the families to put behind them. In total, if we assume that both Sakil and Saeed are dead, nine children have been orphaned by that event. Those young men, enjoying a relaxed and informative holiday, were innocently caught up in violence that claimed up to 3,000 lives in a matter of days. Of course, we shall never know the actual number of dead because of the anarchy that reigned for days, until the army was brought in to restore order.
  264
  As I said, it will not be difficult for the House to understand that those events have had a devastating effect on two families and a wider community, but that has been greatly exacerbated by their perception of the very poor quality of the police investigation at the time of the riots, which now leaves them with so many unanswered questions and, more importantly, makes it look increasingly unlikely that any individual or even organisation will be brought to book for those murders. Justice is being denied to those families, to add to their other injuries.
  I wish to press the Minister tonight to give a commitment that his Department will renew its efforts to convince the Indian Government of their responsibility to mount, even at this late stage, a full and proper investigation into the deaths of those British subjects and, for that matter, the deaths of so many of their own subjects, too. May I further request that that approach should also involve again offering the services of British police officers and resources to help in that exercise if that would help to expedite matters?
  I know of the considerable departmental contacts that have been made with the Indian authorities with regard to that case. In particular, the Foreign Secretary has met me three times—once during the week that his own father sadly died. He has met representatives of both families, and he has taken up the matter personally with the Indian Prime Minister and his own counterpart. I understand that the families believe that more could have been done. Having suffered such trauma, how could they believe anything else? However, I should like to place on record my thanks for the efforts of the Department, its Ministers and, not least, the Secretary of State himself.
  Time has moved on—as I have said, we are just beyond the first anniversary of those events—and so I would make a plea that those matters should be revisited; we owe those families nothing less.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: I am sure that the House will join my hon. Friend in extending its sympathy to his constituents' families. Will he also join me in expressing the horror of the House not only about the communal violence to which he refers, but about the later attack on the Akshardham at Gandhinagar, in which one of the sadhus, who used to be at the Neasden temple in north-west London in my constituency, was also killed? The communal violence in Gujarat last year is a real scar on the face of Indian democracy, and we must do all that we can to ensure that it does not happen again and that it is certainly never allowed to affect politics and community relations in this country.
  Mr. Wood: Of course, I am pleased to identify with the points raised by my hon. Friend. That leads me to the second, more wide-ranging issue that I wish to raise with the Minister.
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: I have listened carefully to the concerns and deep feelings that my hon. Friend has expressed about his constituents. As a Hindu, and as someone who was born in India, my heart goes out to his constituents and their families, given the pain and suffering that they have experienced. Given that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) said, this

  265
  matter is a blot on Indian post-independence, may I also make my hon. Friend aware that it was utterly condemned by the Indian Deputy Prime Minister when he visited the UK last year? The Indian Prime Minister has described the incident as,
  "a blot in the face of the nation".
  The whole House condemns what happened in that spirit.
  Mr. Wood: Again, I hear what my hon. Friend says, although in many ways words are cheap. In the face of the violence that we saw, and the causes of it, actions would speak considerably louder. As I develop my second point, perhaps he will understand where I am coming from.
  I share the view of many reputable commentators that the secular India that we have known since independence is under threat. Nowhere is that more true, if it is true at all, than in Gujarat. Indeed, many believe that Gujarat is being used as a test bed for sectarian politics, which, if replicated throughout the country, will have far-reaching and long-standing implications, not just for that region but globally and, more importantly and immediately, for the many minority communities in India. I believe that nationalism is being fostered through antipathy to minorities.
  Britain, as the ex-colonial power, has both the opportunity and the duty to monitor the situation and to raise it with the Indian authorities before even greater sectarian violence occurs. Clear commitments are needed to the principles of democracy and inclusion, which have been the hallmark of the India to which my hon. Friend has just referred: the India that we have known for the past 50 years.
  One year after the violence that appears to have taken the lives of three of my constituents and many thousands of others, tens of thousands, largely Muslims, are eking out an existence in temporary camps, unable or unwilling to return to their burnt homes and ruined businesses. Many of those homes, of course, were burned to the ground and their occupants murdered while the local sectarian police force stood and watched. A flashpoint such as Ayodhya and partisan administration of justice such as that will provide just the spark needed to make the unrest of the last 12 months seem as nothing unless action is taken urgently.
  In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will assure me, and all those who have the best interests of India at heart, that the Government will play their full part, alongside our allies, the United Nations and the rest, in ensuring that our worst fears are not realised.
  7.8 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mr. Wood) on securing this debate on the British victims of sectarian violence in Gujarat.
  I welcome the opportunity that this debate provides to mark the fact that one year has passed since the tragic events took place and to set out the action that we have taken so far. My greatest sympathy goes to the families of the victims of this tragedy. I cannot begin to imagine how difficult this past year must have been for them.
  266
  As my hon. Friend said, on 28 February last year four British nationals visiting India were attacked in their car during a period of intense violence in the state of Gujarat. I understand that the group of four British Muslims and one Indian Muslim were travelling from Jaipur to Surat in a seven-seater vehicle. The shocking events took place when it seems that about 50 Hindus ambushed their vehicle near Prantij. The driver of the vehicle, an Indian citizen, was pulled from the vehicle and attacked. The four other occupants fled the vehicle. Imran Salim Dawood, a British citizen, was injured but managed to escape and was hospitalised with minor injuries. We understand that he witnessed a British citizen, Mohammed Aswat Nallabhai, being killed by the mob. The other two occupants, British citizens Saeed Shafik Dawood and Sakil Abdul Dawood, were unaccounted for after the incident.
  The British deputy high commission in Mumbai was notified of the incident on 1 March 2002. It immediately alerted the police in Prantij and asked them to investigate. On 8 March, consular staff in Mumbai accompanied Indian police officers and a member of the family to the area of the attack to try to establish what had happened to the two men who had disappeared. During the visit, the group found the burnt out remains of the car. They also examined a burnt out factory, which local people claimed they had seen the two men running towards before it was set on fire. They found human bones, most of which were regrettably little more than ash. Those were collected and sent to the Hyderabad laboratory for DNA testing. The DNA results were received on 8 May and identified some of the bones as belonging to Saeed Dawood.
  Our consular staff have been in regular contact with the police, who have launched murder investigations into the deaths of both Mohammed Nallabhai and Saeed Dawood. Very sadly, there is still no indication of the whereabouts of Sakil Dawood. Given the horrific events that took place that day, the family believe that he is dead. The police arrested six people in connection with the incident. They were released on bail on 31 August. We are in regular contact with the Gujarat authorities to make clear our concern that those accused are brought to trial.
  I share the families' view that justice should be done. I know that they would welcome UK police assistance in the investigation. However, any police force willing to assist in an investigation in another country can do so only at the invitation of the host Government. We have offered UK police assistance on several occasions at the highest level, but no request for such assistance has been received from the Indian Government. I assure my hon. Friend that the offer is still open and will remain so.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the case with the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Vajpayee, on 12 October and wrote to him on 4 November. He raised concerns about the case and reiterated our offer of police assistance. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend met the families of the victims of the tragic events on 21 May. My right hon. Friend raised the case with the Indian Government no fewer than four times last year, asking about the progress of the police investigations, offering police assistance and raising the issue of compensation. I also raised those issues with Foreign Secretary Sibal on 16 October last year.

  267
  The Indian Government agreed the principle of compensation, which is in the process of being paid. I understand that the issue of compensation is a sensitive and difficult one for the families. The amount offered is a relatively insignificant amount in this country and can in no way compensate for their terrible loss. Furthermore, the whereabouts of Sakil is still unknown. The family of Saeed and Sakil Dawood met the Foreign Office's consular directorate in January. The consular directorate, the high commission in New Delhi and the deputy high commission in Mumbai continue to have a strong interest in the case. They continue to pursue vigorously issues raised by the family and to help in any way that they can. Obviously, the longer that matters are drawn out, the more difficult any investigation becomes, but I reassure my hon. Friend that we remain alert to and will keep a close eye on any progress in the case and that we will continue to do all that we reasonably can to press the Indian authorities to ensure that they bring investigations to a conclusion, which we hope will result in justice for the families of the victims.
  The backdrop to the tragic events was the violence that engulfed Gujarat between February and April 2002. It was the worst outbreak of religious-related violence that has occurred in India for at least 10 years. Muslims were the main victims. The deplorable attack by a Muslim mob on a train at Godhra on 27 February, in which 58 Hindus were killed, sparked horrendous violence for the next two months. According to official figures, the ensuing violence claimed more than 1,000 lives, including the three British citizens. Many reports suggest that the true figure is higher. Many women were raped. The large majority of victims were Muslim, and their businesses and homes were destroyed.
  The Government of India have publicly condemned the violence, as my hon. Friend has said; Prime Minister Vajpayee called it a "blot on India". However, we are concerned at reports that the state Government of Gujarat did not do as much as they could to prevent and end the violence. We think that they could have acted more quickly and more decisively. The National Human Rights Commission in India has accused the Gujarat Government
  "of a complicity that was tacit if not explicit".
  Nevertheless, we welcome the Indian Government's quick response in October to prevent further violence after the terrorist attack on a Hindu temple in Gandhinagar, Gujarat. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) referred to the circumstances surrounding that and to the implications for his constituent. Obviously, we share his concern about that event.
  We remain very concerned about the welfare of many in Gujarat, especially Muslims and Christians. The Government of India have given us assurances, which we welcome, that they will take action to bring to justice the perpetrators of the violence. Some 23,277 people have been arrested in connection with the violence so far, but we understand that, to date, there have been very few prosecutions and that many of those arrested have been released on bail.
  Ministers and officials have raised our concerns with the Government of India on a number of occasions since the violence began in February last year. My right hon.
  268
  Friend the Foreign Secretary has been in regular contact with senior members of the Indian Government about the situation in Gujarat. At the same time, he raised our wider concerns about all incidents of religious intolerance in India.
  Most recently, on 17 October, I discussed our concerns about Gujarat with Mr I.D. Swami, the Indian Minister of State for Home Affairs. New Delhi high commission officials have followed developments closely, and also raised our concerns with the Government of India on several occasions last year. We have also offered practical help. The British Government provided immediate relief assistance to victims of the violence. We are now considering whether there are further practical measures that we can support under the human rights project fund to encourage reconciliation between the communities in Gujarat.
  For all the justifiable concern that these incidents have caused, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that there remain grounds for hope. The violence in Gujarat, awful as it was, did not spread to other Indian states. The vast majority of people in India were appalled by what happened there last year. The Government of India are always ready to listen to our concerns and consistently reiterate their commitment to religious equality, and we welcome that. Nevertheless, more and swifter action on the ground and in the courts to bring the perpetrators of the violence to justice would send a welcome signal that the Government's commitment is being translated from words into meaningful action. We shall continue to urge them to ensure that such a positive signal is sent. We will also continue to press them and the Gujarat authorities to bring those responsible for the murder of British nationals to justice.
  Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, particularly when he is about to conclude.
  I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that over the many years of the appalling so-called troubles in Northern Ireland we lost a lot of people through sectarian violence. In fact, they disappeared without trace and no one has served any time at all or been convicted of their murder. In Northern Ireland, therefore, there is speculation and talk about a truth commission. Has the Minister, or human rights organisations in Gujarat and India, given any consideration to the need for a truth commission in Gujarat to address the problem of people who have disappeared and others who have been killed? Without such a commission, we may never get to the bottom of who was responsible.
  Mr. O'Brien: On the particular issue of whether there has been any consideration of a truth commission in Gujarat, I am afraid that I do not know, but I will find out and write to the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] I am getting signals from my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North and for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), who obviously have a deep personal knowledge of Gujarat, that they are not aware that any such consideration has been made, but I shall certainly write to the hon. Lady about that.
  In conclusion, as far as we are concerned, the death of any British national is a matter of enormous concern for the Government. However, the particularly horrific

  269
  circumstances in which those British nationals died is of deep concern to all of us, and the matter has been taken up with considerable personal interest not only by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister but by the British High Commission. We all hoped that India had put such matters behind it. India is a democracy that has made enormous strides in the past 50 years, and these blots on India, as the Prime Minister said, must be dealt with firmly to ensure that they do not arise in future. Our direct involvement as a result of some of the victims of those incidents being British means that this is a matter
  270
  of concern not just to Indians but to the British people and the British Government. It is a matter that all right—thinking people across the world ought to be concerned about. India is a great democracy—it needs to be true to the standards of democracy, and will be held to account as a democracy, which means dealing firmly with any religious intolerance and certainly any religious murders.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Seven o'clock.

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

Workplace Bullying
Motion made and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
9.30 am
Valerie Davey: "Dignity at Work" is the affirmative title that has been given to trade union campaigns and two successive Bills to establish a legislative framework to ensure dignity and respect for everyone in the workplace. My direct involvement began, as so often for Members of Parliament, with a constituent's telephone call about being undermined, passed over for promotion, leaving and bringing a case for constructive dismissal. Such cases are distressing, but may initially lead one to question whether there was a clash of personalities, a misunderstanding or a lack of confidence. However, I soon reflected on the fact that I had other such cases; inquiries among friends and colleagues led to other cases coming to the fore. Such personal and workplace examples are often told with a sense of relief that at last someone is concerned.
I was aware of the general extent of the problem without knowing the details until November 2001—I first applied for this debate in July 2001—when Manchester School of Management at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology published a report entitled "Destructive Conflict and Bullying at Work". That survey was the result of responses from more than 5,000 people in 70 workplaces. It showed that one in 10 people—10 per cent. —had experienced bullying during the previous six months and one in four —25 per cent.—had experienced bullying during the previous five years. Bullying turned out to be particularly prevalent in the Prison Service, post and telecommunications and teaching. Since then, I have received further evidence from trade unions confirming that, despite years of campaigns against bullying, it remains a persistent and extensive problem. Far from going away, it seems to be intractable.
I want to thank Amicus-MSF and, especially, Chris Ball, the national secretary, for bringing the matter to public attention and for producing good material for the use of its members and officers, and draft policies for employers and organisations. It has extensive experience and states:
"We have organised conferences and training events and struggled to make sense of a phenomenon which blights the lives of millions of workers. The size of the problem cannot be overstated."
The Work Foundation and, in particular, Angela Ishmael, also deserve credit for the research, campaigning and consultancy that have helped to raise awareness and to prevent bullying at work. The Work Foundation defines bullying as
"offensive behaviour through vindictive, cruel, malicious or humiliating attempts to undermine the competence, effectiveness, confidence or integrity of an individual or a group of employees on a regular or persistent basis."
2WH
The contribution of the Andrea Adams Trust, the first charity to be set up to deal specifically with workplace bullying, should also be highlighted. It offers a national telephone helpline which, since it started in 1997, has provided a welcome source of help for thousands of people and a lifeline, literally, for some.
Linda Roy, whom I heard recently at a conference, was a postlady for 20 years and then, with the support of the Communication Workers Union, worked on a helpline for post office workers. Her stories bring tears to the eyes and include two suicides, so the matter is serious.
Trade unions, including CWU, the Public and Commercial Services Union, and Unison, offer training and support for their members. All recognise the value of dignity-at-work polices and the need for a legislative framework. Indeed, the Labour party, with its links with trade unions, has also recognised the need for further action. It stated in its manifesto:
"We are committed to working with managers and employees to reduce the problem of bullying and violence in the workplace".
It went on to recognise that, particularly in the public sector where the Government have their main responsibility, it is important to improve the quality of work for employees and to help with recruitment and retention, stemming from the need to prevent bullying at work. Yet, so far, there has been no legislation, although the Government should be commended for improving employment legislation. Work conditions have undoubtedly improved under the Government. The introduction of the minimum wage, the part-time workers directive, the increase in the length and payment of maternity pay and the start of paid paternity leave all add up to an improvement in conditions for workers.
There is some legislation on the statute book, but it covers sexual, racial and disability discrimination. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 do not cover the persistent intimidation, undermining or malicious acts so often described to us in our surgeries and to trade unions and for which there is no immediate remedy. That complex set of legislation is difficult for any individual and, indeed, trade union representative to wade through to find the relevant sections for this general and extensive form of abuse.
Why have we made no further progress? The most frequently given reason for the lack of legislation is that bullying is extremely hard to define.
David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend recall receiving a letter from a constituent of mine, who also sent it to me, making exactly that point: some employers evade their responsibility to employees because it is difficult to define bullying? What areas does she believe can be tackled in the first instance to provide an all-encompassing definition of bullying? That might be difficult to achieve.
Valerie Davey: I am grateful for that contribution, which, I am sure, echoes the experience of many hon. Members who have come here today to provide support.

3WH
I acknowledge that it will be difficult to draw up the legal definition of bullying, but it will be no greater than the difficulty of defining sexual or racial harassment. The purpose of considering Bills in Committee is to tease out the legal framework and definition.
The Department for Education and Skills has worked on anti-bullying strategies for many years so the Government have defined bullying. Just this morning a Minister issued a press release on how to beat bullying, in which he states:
"Bullying is a blight on us all; it is painful and degrading for the victim, and tarnishes not only the reputation of the school but also the wider community. I am determined to do more to spare young people the indignity and distress of bullying."
If that is so for schools and communities, how much more so for workplaces and communities?
Mr. John Bercow: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Given that bullying is a form of discrimination, might the EU directive designed to tackle discrimination in employment prove a useful vehicle for our purposes here?
Valerie Davey: We have to look at that very carefully. I would welcome consistency in legislation across Europe. Given the wide transfer of people from one country to another, creating a common factor in legislation under which all our workers were covered would be a welcome step. I do not think that legislation yet covers workers in the detail that I am asking for but, yes, the directive is one obvious way in which we can move forward together.
Given the work that has been taking place on this matter in the DFES for many years, perhaps there is a need for joined-up thinking across government or do even the Government have the erroneous idea that bullying happens only in schools? If so, we must apply a strong dose of reality. Legislation is needed and a Bill exists—we do not have to go back to square one. A definition of bullying is included in that Bill.
The first Dignity at Work Bill was introduced to the House of Lords in 1996 by Lord Monkswell and to the House of Commons by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). That Bill fell, however, with the end of that Parliament. In December 2001, a second Bill based on the earlier one was introduced to the Lords by Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen. It had its Second Reading almost exactly a year ago today and passed through all its subsequent stages, but failed to reach the Commons. I have a copy here, which shows the valuable work, including detailed analysis in Committee, that was done. The Bill deals clearly and concisely with the right to dignity at work and the action to be taken when that right is breached.
When Lord McIntosh of Haringey replied to the debate on the Bill for the Government, he stated that the Government were neither for nor against the Bill. I trust that we shall have a rather more positive statement from the Minister today. Lord McIntosh went on to say how strongly opposed to bullying the Government were. We have heard such a statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) this morning.
4WH
Lord McIntosh then listed the existing legislation that provides protection, and concluded that bullying was extremely difficult to define.
Lord McIntosh looked to the Health and Safety Executive to develop management standards to form the basis of a code of practice, but a code of practice is not sufficient.
Mr. Michael Clapham: In relation to the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, does my hon. Friend think that if there were codes of practice, it would be possible for individual victims of bullying to bring claims against their employers, and that established claims could be the stimulus for employers generally to accept such codes of practice?
Valerie Davey: Clearly, we are moving forward in that way, which is valuable. However, as I shall discuss in a moment, good companies establish a code under which employees can appeal. If the HSE comes up with a code, that will be an improvement, but it will not give individuals or trade union representatives a legal code under which to appeal.
We must make strenuous efforts on the matter. We should accept the health and safety avenue as an improvement, but it is not the final objective—certainly not for the many people who have been working intensely on the issue for so many years. If, as trade union evidence suggests, we are talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people, poor administrations in institutions and companies will not roll over and accept a code and all that goes with it. The impetus of legislation is needed to give better conditions to their workers. I welcome the move in the HSE, but my immediate reaction is that by the time the HSE goes into companies to look for the stress factor, it is too late. We want legislation to prevent bullying at work, not to pick up the pieces afterwards. Picking up the pieces is important, but I and many others are concerned with prevention—with dignity, not just anti-bullying measures.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Minister that two important meetings in Parliament recently, one in the Lords and one in the Commons, were both attended by more than 100 people who had direct experience of bullying or were working on behalf of people who had been bullied. Not a single person at either meeting thought that the situation would change without legislation. There is a whole culture and ethos to be changed. Good companies and workplaces operate dignity-at-work policies. Trade unions have produced such policies in detail, which are recognised by good companies as being important, but the individual still has no clear legal remedy. In poor companies with no such policies, the need for a legal framework is even stronger.
I am sure that my colleagues will want to add to the debate, and endorse it by quoting experiences in their constituencies. There is a new all-party group on dignity at work, which will continue to campaign on the issue. Sadly, bullying is not diminishing. However, we will not diminish our efforts on behalf of the many people who, even today, are going to work in fear of further intimidation.
Mr. Bill Tynan: My hon. Friend has laid out in graphic detail the problems facing many

5WH
people in work. Does she accept that a further facet is the number of days lost through associated stress-related illnesses, estimated at some 19 million per year? Does that not make a compelling case for my hon. Friend the Minister to recognise that legislation is required?
Valerie Davey: I am delighted that that point has been made. Although I have emphasised the importance to the individual of dignity and respect at work, from the other side—that of the employer or institution—the loss of working days, the cost to the company and the dysfunction are enormous problems. There is a lack of effective, efficient business and industry. There is a cost in stress to the individual, but also a cost to the health service. That shows that this is a matter for clear cross-party and cross-Government action, to benefit individuals, companies and Departments, in particular the Department of Health.
This is an enormous problem, which we have all, I think, wanted to push under the carpet. When we hear distressing cases, we do not initially want to believe them. We think that the case brought to our surgery is the exception, the extreme case. Then we realise that it is not. I have realised that since I put my head above the parapet and said that I wanted to campaign on the issue. I first spoke on it in the Adjournment debate that ended the previous Parliament, saying that if I was returned to Parliament this was the one issue on which I would personally campaign. As I have campaigned, attended conferences, received more correspondence and talked to colleagues, I have been made aware that the problem is extensive and affects many areas of government. The heart of the problem is that so many hundreds of thousands of individuals are affected that we cannot deny its existence any longer.
The all-party group will continue to work until we get legislation. For the sake of the people who have gone to work this morning in fear and those companies whose work is made less effective by bullies who, being unrestrained, continue to act in that way, our commitment to the legislation will not diminish.
9.51 am
Mr. Robert Key: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on securing this important debate.
Last Thursday, the startled constituents of Salisbury woke up to the headline, "Council suspends 'bullying' whistle-blowers" in the Salisbury Journal, which is their excellent local newspaper. The newspaper stated:
"Four members of staff have been suspended by Salisbury district council after going public with complaints accusing council bosses of harassment and workplace bullying ߪ Councillors attending a meeting of the council's resources overview and scrutiny panel on Wednesday night were taken by surprise when the statements were produced during public question time."
One of the objectors, who
"has worked for the council for 14 years, spoke in her statement of a 'culture of bullying, intimidation and inequality'. She claimed: 'I have watched people being bullied and good, capable people leave. I have been bullied myself and made to be frightened' ߪ The council acted swiftly in suspending the four staff, saying in a statement that they would remain off work on full
6WH
pay pending an investigation into their actions. The statement ߪ said: 'It is totally unacceptable for staff to hijack an official meeting of the council to express personal views about their employer' ߪ In a letter to members this week, Salisbury branch organiser of the union"—
Unison—
"said: 'We were not approached prior to this action being taken for our advice or support. If we had been, we would have counselled against this action."
Had I been asked for my opinion, which I was not, I, too, would have counselled against.
It was distressing for those people that the union could not back them. The regional organiser for Unison is now being extremely helpful and has explained that the local organiser is compromised because he has to get on with the management come what may. He did not therefore wish to intervene; his position was difficult.
I have not told my councillors or the chief executive that I am raising the matter because I have no intention of getting inside the rights and wrongs of the issue. Important disciplinary procedures will be instigated, which will affect people's working lives, and I am not competent to judge the issues. However, the headline did not surprise me because in January I received an e-mail from an organisation called "Worms Can", which has a website at www.geocities.com/wormscan. It states that it
"was set up by and for employees of Salisbury District Council. Our aim is to make it possible for people across the Council to meet and talk. Our hope is that open discussion will reveal the extent to which workplace bullying is endemic in the culture of the Council. We believe that the first step towards solving the problem is to acknowledge that it exists, and this can be as hard for the victims to admit as it is for the perpetrators ߪ We realise that you are unable to interfere in the management of Salisbury District Council, but we feel that you are able to have influence."
It is right; I will not interfere in the management of Salisbury district council. I am bringing my influence—such as it is—to bear today.
The organisation asked me to support early-day motion 198 on dignity at work. In my reply, I stated:
"I won't sign it for the good reason that it is a completely blank cheque and no government could accede to that. A pity it wasn't drafted rather better, really. But I do support the concept of 'dignity at work'."
David Taylor: In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West cited the Prison Service and education, and the hon. Gentleman is citing local government. Does he find it especially disappointing that the problem is prevalent in the public sector? Will he acknowledge that it is, of course, also widespread in the private sector?
Mr. Key: The problem is, of course, widespread. My example happens to be in the public sector. It shocked me that in a small local authority such as Salisbury anyone should even think that the problem exists, regardless of whether it does, which is something that I am in no position to judge.
When I met the people involved in "Worms Can", they said one or two important things. They said that one problem is:
"People won't give witness statements"
in the procedures of the council
"because they are circulated to the person complained about".

7WH
The council is small and one can imagine that situation. I asked them whether that happens in other local authorities, to which they replied that it occurs in some. They said that in Wiltshire county council there had recently been a case of alleged bullying, which the county council had immediately put in independent hands for adjudication, but that course of action is not available in Salisbury.
My constituents threw the bullying and harassment procedure into doubt. They alleged:
"It is flawed in the mechanism of its application and in-house investigation and judgment is unlikely to be objective ߪ Where bullying is endemic in the culture, and people are fearful for their jobs, they do not feel able to question circumstances which may be improper or irregular."
I have a copy of "Harassment Policy and Procedures" of Salisbury district council, which I have read carefully. Paragraph 1.3 of its introduction states that there should be
"independent support free from pressure".
I subsequently discovered that independence means calling in an occupational health adviser who is not a council employee.
Stage 3 of the disciplinary procedure concerns investigation. It states:
"The Head of Personnel & Training Services will nominate an officer not within the Service Unit of the alleged harasser, to investigate the allegation, including all relevant parties. The investigator will establish the facts and complete the investigation and report within ten working days of the date of receipt of the complaint. If the allegation is against the Head of Service, their Director will undertake the Senior Officers role within the procedure."
The process is entirely internal and there is no external adjudication, which is the fundamental flaw.
I wanted to know whether just Salisbury district council was involved. I therefore got hold of the "Sexual, Racial and Personal Harassment Policy" of Ryedale district council. The policy is good, but the "Formal Procedure" section states:
"If the Line Manager is approached he/she will consult with Personnel & Training Services and an investigating officer will be identified as responsible for conducting the investigation into the complaint."
Again, the procedure is entirely internal, which is emerging as the real problem.
I turned to the House of Commons Library for help. Its business and transport section has produced an excellent briefing paper on bullying at work, which was last updated on 26 November 1999. It contains an answer from the Minister for the Environment to a written question on workplace violence and bullying:
"I have therefore asked the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) to consider options for further action that would make a significant impact on preventing assaults, verbal threats and abuse in the workplace. Any plans I make to introduce measures will be based on HSC's advice."—[Official Report, 14 June1999; Vol. 333, c. 47W.]
I thought that that was good and that progress was being made.
I therefore asked this parliamentary question:
"To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what advice the Government has received from the Health and Safety Commission on options for action to make a significant impact on preventing assaults, verbal threats and abuse in the workplace for employees of local authorities."
8WH
The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) replied:
"The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) is committed to tackling the problem of work-related violence. In March 2000, the HSC agreed a three-year programme to help employers tackle the problem of work-related violence ߪ HSE has published general guidance for employers to help them tackle work-related violence, and sector-specific guidance covering health services and education."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 740W.]
He said nothing about local authorities and did not answer the question—what's new?
I asked the Library to probe further. It said:
"The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to issue regulations which would provide a framework for the investigation of such complaints and allegations, but I understand ߪ the drafting of the regulations have taken longer than expected—in part due to the large number of submissions received in response to the consultation document. One issue which emerged during the consultation was that section 66 of the Local Government Act 2000 envisaged that all allegations and complaints would be referred back to the local authority's monitoring officer for investigation.
Many of those responding to the consultation document argued—as I understand is being argued in your constituency—that the investigation should be conducted by an investigating officer from outside the local authority, to ensure impartiality and fairness."
Hooray! The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has got the message. So what is happening? To me, this absolutely is not a party political issue. My council is a Conservative council, but the incident distresses me very much.
I contacted the Local Government Association, which replied:
"I can confirm that Section 3 of the Local Government Act 2000 set out proposals for a code of conduct covering employees of local authorities as part of Labour's 'ethical framework' to improve standards in public life. However, to date no proposals have been drawn up or published by the relevant dept. (now of course the ODPM). It seems that these proposals have slipped due apparently to other more 'pressing' matters."
The LGA added that its predecessor had published guidelines and recommended minimum standards, but that they had been
"totally voluntary and carried no legal weight. Local authorities can therefore do pretty much as they like in regard to a code of conduct at the moment."
I asked the Deputy Prime Minister what statutory remedies were available to local authority staff who were victims of workplace bullying. The Under-Secretary replied:
"The main acts of parliament that are in place to deal with unreasonable behaviour or workplace bullying are as follows:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Race Relations Act 1976

Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 740W.]
I also asked the Deputy Prime Minister
"when he will publish proposals under Section 3 of the Local Government Act 2000 for a code of conduct to protect employees of local authorities; and if he will make a statement."
The Under-Secretary replied:

9WH
"Part III of the Local Government Act 2000 provides for the Secretary of State to issue model codes of conduct as regards the members (section 50) and employees (section 82) of local authorities. Codes of conduct under section 50 were laid before Parliament in November 2002. These codes place obligations on members to treat others with respect and not to do anything which compromises the impartiality of those who work for the local authority."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 740W.]
Full stop—nothing about local authority employees. That is the root of the problem.
I ask the Minister for Energy and Construction to speed up the introduction of regulations that will provide a code of conduct for local authorities. If local authority employees in their tens of thousands felt that they could follow a route of impartial adjudication on their problems with bullying in the workplace. we could begin to crack this appalling problem.
10.3 am
Mr. John Lyons: I shall try to be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on securing the debate. It is very important that we discuss bullying at work in an Adjournment debate and that we continue to discuss its effects on the mental and physical well-being of people. Companies could provide examples every day of people who have been affected by bullying.
However, the issue affects not only councils and public services. In a way, that is a distraction, because workers want bullying at work to be dealt with, irrespective of whether they work in the public, private or even voluntary sector. Workers from all sectors have experienced and have had to deal with bullying at work—no one is exempt. Therefore, we must address the problem across British industry and the economy as a whole, rather than in individual sectors.
David Taylor: I wish briefly to remind my hon. Friend of the point that I made to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) a moment or two ago. Is it not the case that people expect better of the public and voluntary sectors and related areas and, to a certain extent, condone and are unsurprised by the existence of bullying in the private sector?
Mr. Lyons: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. It is important to consider the matter in the way that he describes, because it is not restricted to any one sector; it occurs across British industry. We must tackle the issue accordingly.
There is plenty of evidence about the extent of bullying at work. It is worth referring to some of the surveys that have taken place. When the TUC asked for information about bad employers, 38 per cent. of the responses related to bullying at work. That gives a fair indication of the spread of bullying across the UK. The public sector union Unison surveyed its members to try to identify the incidence of bullying in the workplace and found that 66 per cent. had either witnessed or experienced bullying there. Again, a substantial number of people said that it had occurred in their workplace. Of those who participated in the Unison study, 75 per cent. said that bullying had a mental or physical effect on their health and led to stress, depression and low self-esteem—part and parcel of the problem. Every day, people could give testimony to how they have been affected by bullying at work.
10WH
Not just trade unions but employers confirm that bullying is extensive in the workplace. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development surveyed more than 1,000 workers and found that one in eight had been bullied in the previous five years. The Institute of Management said that every day 270,000 people took time off because of stress and bullying at work.
The facts and figures are absolutely devastating. It is right that we try to drive bullying up the political agenda and develop joint working on the issue. Employers and trade unions are keen to tackle it, and the Government must show the same willingness and play their part through their legislative programme.
For years, the TUC has campaigned on bullying. At successive conferences, it has called for additional education, training and legislation. I am glad that many employers and trade unions have taken up the call and operate policies in the workplace to raise awareness and train people so that they are able to tackle the problem when it arises. It is the same in the private and voluntary sectors, and it is good that it is.
At the beginning of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West referred to the survey that Cary Cooper and others carried out on behalf of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. Again, the figures are staggering: £1.3 billion lost to the British economy, 18 million working days lost, one in 10 people—approximately 2 million—bullied at work and one in four bullied within the past five years. Approximately one in two report that they have been bullied or have witnessed bullying within the past five years. The physical and mental effects include anxiety, headaches, ulcers, nausea, skin rashes, suicide and sleeplessness.
Our agenda is clearly set. We must ensure that this opportunity for an Adjournment debate is not lost, but is part of the campaign that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West properly described in her opening remarks as trying to secure dignity at work. There is a good feeling in the country about doing that. Employers and trade unions are happy to do it, and the Government need now to show their willingness to do it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr Edward O'Hara): Order. Before I call the next speaker, it might be helpful if I point out that the first of the three Front-Bench spokesmen should be called not later than 10.30 if we are to leave time for them to make their winding-up speeches.
10.8 am
John Robertson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on securing the debate. She and other hon. Members have been trying for some time to secure a debate on the subject. Her speech illustrated the enormous amount of work that she has put into the issue, and I am delighted to support her.
My hon. Friend said that bullying behaviour in the workplace manifests itself in many ways. All forms of bullying are unacceptable. Not only does it make the employee's job considerably more difficult, if not impossible, but it can affect other aspects of people's

11WH
lives. Stress and ill health may become part of their daily life. Well-known symptoms include anxiety, headaches, sleeplessness, skin rashes, irritable bowel syndrome, high blood pressure, tearfulness, loss of self-confidence and, in extreme cases, thoughts of suicide. Hon. Members have mentioned those points, but I reiterate them so that we remember what we are dealing with when we talk about bullying.
We need to appreciate the much wider cost of bullying to industry and the Exchequer. Many facts have been mentioned, and I will not go into all of them again. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) mentioned that somewhere between 19 million and 40 million working days are lost annually. The cost of that is estimated to be about £12 billion, but it could be in excess of £20 billion to £30 billion annually. That is equivalent to a hidden tax burden of over £1,000 per working person per year.
I also want the Government to consider why legislation is failing to do justice to UK employees. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West mentioned that harassment is all too prevalent in bullying. Harassment law is based on discrimination, but litigation can be pursued only on the grounds of race, gender or disability and that precludes employees who are being harassed for other reasons. In fact, studies have found that most bullying is targeted at confident staff, regardless of race or gender, who are seen as a threat to the perpetrators. It has also been argued that bullies focus their prejudices on things that are not covered by legislation.
Mr. Clapham: My hon. Friend will be aware that many local authority workers—for example, social workers—work in the community and that much bullying takes place outside the traditional workplace. Does he feel that legislation should embrace that situation?
John Robertson: My hon. Friend makes his case very well. He is absolutely right. The Government have to address that issue. The fact that we have considered only race and gender is wrong. Consideration of many forms of bullying has been precluded, and we should conduct an in-depth study of bullying. Bullying causes loss to manufacturing industries and local authorities. Particularly in the case of carers in the community, there is the stress of having to do a job for which there appears to be absolutely no reward and for which, in effect, it seems that all that one gets in return is abuse.
Unfortunately, each time new discrimination legislation is introduced, bullies change their prejudicial focus to remain outside the law. Bullying occurs not just because of gender or race, but because the target is talented, successful or co-operative and, ultimately, is perceived as a threat to the bully. Legislation must be flexible and adaptable. We cannot write it in tablets of stone. As the bully changes his or her tack, legislation should adapt to cover that.
Considerable steps have been taken to legislate against discrimination on the grounds of sex, race or disability. However, in such cases, the main thing that has to be established is the motivation for bullying; the
12WH
issue is not just proving that bullying is taking place. In short, what we might term motiveless bullying is not covered at all.
Employers have a duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act, etc. 1974 to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their employees. If they do not fulfil their duty, they are breaching an individual's contract of employment. Employers and/or bullies may find themselves facing fines, compensation and possibly a jail sentence. Currently, the only redress for many employees is to resign and claim unfair dismissal. However, only about 2 per cent. of bullying cases make it to employment tribunals owing to the inadequacy of UK law on bullying and the absence of provision for compensation for detriment caused by bullying. On average, only about 0.5 per cent. of cases result in compensation.
It has been argued that because bullying can be difficult to detect it can often be overlooked or dismissed as a weakness on the part of the person on the receiving end, a personality clash or a strong management style. The key feature of bullying is persistence of behaviour. It is never just a one-off incident and it is rarely targeted at a sole employee. In fact, it is estimated that 90 per cent. of cases involve serial bullying. A bully acts in that way all the time; once a bully, always a bully. Many would say that bullies have a medical problem. They perceive their behaviour as the way in which they do their job. Patterns emerge, and if there were legislation to cover bullying, it would be much simpler to take action against bullies who currently get away with their behaviour.
I want to consider what is happening abroad. In Sweden, an ordinance on measures against victimisation at work came into force in March 1994. It defines victimisation as
"recurrent reprehensible or distinctly negative actions which are directed against individual employees in an offensive manner and can result in those employees being placed outside the workplace".
Guidance on the ordinance makes it clear that that includes adult bullying, mental violence, social rejection, harassment and offensive administrative sanctions. The ordinance requires the employer to plan and organise work so as to prevent victimisation; to make it clear that victimisation cannot be accepted; and to provide routines for the early detection and rectification of unsatisfactory working conditions. I ask the Minister to take a look at that legislation. It makes it clear that bullying is an organisational issue and that employers have a duty to organise work and the work environment so that they do not create a climate in which bullying is likely to occur.
I reiterate my call for legislation to counteract bullying. We need a new law that will close some of the loopholes in the existing legislation. Ultimately, employment law needs to be upgraded to provide the right to dignity at work regardless of the prejudicial focus of the bully or harasser. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West for initiating today's debate.
10.17 am
Mr. Michael Clapham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on securing this important debate. Until fairly recently, it was thought that workplaces were benign and free of bullying and violence. However, recent studies have shown that that is not the case. In fact, a study that was done at the time that Baroness Gibson introduced the Dignity at Work Bill to the House of Lords showed that large numbers of people were being bullied. At that time, it was estimated that about 18 million people were being bullied and that the cost to society in general was between £4 billion and £5 billion.
I note from the TUC's website that the latest study indicates that the worst region for bullying tends to be the north. I was particularly disappointed to read that because I had always believed that there was greater solidarity and compassion in the north and therefore that bullying was generally less prevalent there than in other regions. Clearly, that is not so. Much of the bullying has arisen because the demise of trade unions in many areas of work has exposed workers to the continual possibility of bullying by employers.
The Dignity at Work Bill described bullying and set out a legal definition. The International Labour Organisation has also set out a definition, which may well be adopted by the European Union and could be used for legislation embracing all EU countries.
During the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), I referred to the fact that many people who work for local authorities do not work in an environment that conforms to the traditional perception of the workplace. Before my wife came to work for me, she was a social worker, dealing with child abuse. I recall that she dealt with a problematic case, which resulted in the family being disruptive in the community and the local authority office being burgled. At the time that the burglary took place no one was convicted, and it was difficult to associate it with that particular case. It has come to light since that in all probability the burglary was related to the case. My wife was subjected for some months to shouts in the street and so on from family members. That is bullying in the community and when the Minister examines the legislation he will need to consider such situations and ensure that the legislation embraces them.
Last weekend, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and I were scheduled to meet cleaners at the local hospital. I could not be at the meeting, but my hon. Friend was and he was astounded to find that the bullying had become institutionalised to the extent that notices had been posted in various places throughout the hospital denigrating the cleaners. That sort of bullying undermines the position of those cleaners. We shall raise that matter with the hospital management during the coming weeks.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West said, there is an array of legislation. Health and safety at work legislation in particular gives a victim the opportunity to make a claim for compensation, but that is not what is required. We require legislation that deals with such cases at work in a more preventative way. The dignity at
14WH
work legislation introduced in the House of Lords provides the way forward, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pick up on that, and ensure that the legislation can move forward so that we can provide protection from bullying in the workplace.
10.22 am
Mr. Martin Caton: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on securing the debate, and the excellent way that she has led it. I congratulate her even more on the campaign that she has been involved with during the past two years to move the issue up the agenda.
Like my hon. Friend, and many hon. Members interested in the issue, I was alerted to the seriousness of the problem of bullying, harassment and victimisation at work by a constituent who was suffering such treatment daily. My constituent is a woman who had a professional career in a major public institution in south-west Wales. She had taken a job in a department working with other professionals, and thought that she had taken a major step forward in the development of her career and, because she loved—and loves—the area to which she moved, in the quality of her life. However, the bullying began almost immediately and affected the nature of the work that she was expected to do, the quantity of that work and the respect that she received, not just from her immediate superior, but from several of her colleagues. When she challenged her treatment or raised her concerns with the perpetrator she was promised change, but she experienced further victimisation. When she took up the problem with colleagues, she found that they either had a vested interest in supporting the status quo or were too scared to raise their head above the parapet.
Out of desperation, my constituent eventually sought redress from more senior management—including the most senior management—in the institutions that she worked for. She was listened to sympathetically and promised that the issue would be seriously addressed. She then found that that meant in practice that her complaint had been reported to the person doing the bullying, resulting in a new wave of increasingly petty acts of harassment on top of ongoing injustices.
My constituent managed to find an alternative employment opportunity that allowed her to use her training and skills. She still does not want me to name her, the bully or the institution because, even now, it could have repercussions. Since listening to that case, I have come across other examples. It occurred to me that the bullying that we find in the workplace is not so different from what we find in the playground. Frequently, it is carried out by people who have problems of their own and feel inadequate in some way. It involves creating an "us and them" gang culture in which people are pressured to take sides. It undermines the successful development and individual fulfilment not just of the bullied, but of the bully and his or her allies. In its most extreme forms it damages health and even takes lives. In the workplace, bullying also means lousy management practices.
John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the problems inherent to bullying, particularly in management, occur when senior mangers encourage junior managers to bully and set impossible targets to ensure that they bully to meet them?
Mr. Caton: That is absolutely true. The culture of believing that good management is harsh treatment of people is a major part of the problem that leads to less effective work from all.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need change to the law in this area. That is exemplified by the cases that we have heard about today from the public sector, where there are, ostensibly, codes of conduct and good working practices, but they are not being carried out. We need law so that everyone in the management chain knows that repeated offensive, abusive, malicious, insulting or intimidating behaviour is unacceptable. Repeated unjustified criticism and unreasonable punishments imposed under a cloak of discipline are nothing more than harassment.
Changes in work duties that devalue the employee for no reason are just a form of bullying. Everyone in the management chain, and all employees, should know that employees have recourse to a complaints procedure that will establish the truth and rectify injustices. If bullying, harassment or victimisation is exposed, there should be severe consequences for the perpetrator or perpetrators. All such provisions should be based on statute.
Surveys show that bullying is rife in the workplaces of our country. The cost of bullying to industry and taxpayers is estimated to be some £12 billion annually. Most important, bullying at work, as anywhere else, makes life unbearable for the victims, and often their families as well. Let us do something about it.
10.27 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on securing the debate. In preparation, I read a speech that she made last September to the south-west TUC. In that speech, she explained that she had been applying for this debate every week since Christmas, by which she meant Christmas 2001. The debate is a tribute to extraordinary persistence on her part, and her case was extremely well made.
The hon. Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) and others have set out well the factual evidence of the high incidence of bullying, and the costs to employers and the economy as a whole. I will not repeat all that; the UMIST study is pretty comprehensive.
Listening to the contributions, I found some of the anecdotes compelling, such as the one that we heard from the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). I have several, too, which I was shocked to encounter. One was referred to me by my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is trying to sort out the case of an 18-year-old man who started work after leaving school. He was in a carpet laying company and fell in with a group of fellow apprentices who systematically bullied and hounded him with
16WH
violence and verbal abuse. The pressures were so extreme that he had a nervous breakdown and had to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983. In the mental hospital he tried to hang himself, and cut his wrists. One hears stories of such things occurring in young offenders institutions, but that case occurred at work. The problem is not yet resolved because the family cannot get legal aid. There was clearly a succession of legal failures by the company. That may be criminal failure, but the family cannot get access to the legal system to sort that appalling problem out.
My second example concerns a constituent. It is a less extreme case, but it shows circumstances that many people encounter. A young woman came to my surgery about three weeks ago. She works for a chain of pub restaurants. I shall not mention the name, because the case is still unresolved. She was happy working there. A new manageress came to the unit and decided to crack the whip. She made it clear that there would be a new, more abrasive style of management. Within a few days, my constituent had been ordered to remove an unobtrusive necklace. It was a little like that worn by the hon. Member for Bristol, West. There was no safe on the premises and, as the necklace was valuable, my constituent declined to remove it on the spot. She agreed to come back to work the following day without it, because she did not want to make trouble. However, the next day she discovered that she had been suspended for insubordination and failure to follow instructions from management. She then set in train an appeals procedure through the company's disciplinary process.
Six of my constituent's colleagues have been disciplined similarly by the same manageress and the atmosphere at the workplace is inflamed. I have advised my constituents to consult the union, so that the problem can be approached collectively. I said that, if they exhausted the company's procedures and did not receive satisfaction, we would try to name and shame it in the media. I accept that that case involved a subtler form of harassment than the first case to which I referred, and one to which legal remedies are not easily apparent.
The third case concerns another constituent and is more serious than the other two. It is difficult because it points to the fact that bullying can be perpetrated not only by management, but by other workers and members of the union. The case that was referred to me involved a Sikh gentleman who lives in Twickenham and who works for London Underground. He had an appalling history of abuse by his union, the RMT, which seems to be dominated in some branches by an unholy combination of Trotskyites and neo-Nazis. The neo-Nazis had their teeth in the individual and other Sikhs. I think that there had been 40 separate allegations of abuse. They had been subjected to enormous torment over the years.
The problem is that such matters cannot be dealt with under race discrimination legislation. The guy had been promoted on merit. There was no evidence that his career was impeded in a formal sense, but each day he ran the gauntlet of abuse. The management did not condone what was happening, but felt weak. They could not confront the union branch. They tolerated such activity, although they eventually sacked one of the worst perpetrators. However, the bullying did not stop.

17WH
The people involved in the harassment found out the gentleman's home telephone number. They rang perpetually. They abused his wife. His daughter was followed to school and beaten up in the toilets. The police were involved. My constituent has paid them enormous tributes.
However, such practices continue in London Underground to this day, so much so that I have sought an inquiry through the Commission for Racial Equality, the Mayor of London and London Underground. The problem may be as serious as the subject of the Ford inquiry a few years ago, although that remains to be established. The case demonstrates the different facets of bullying at work and the difficulties of finding a single solution to such a problem.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West argued that we need new legislation. I have sympathy with that suggestion, but we already have a considerable number of laws to deal with the problem, some of which the hon. Lady itemised. There is standard discrimination legislation, such as that on disability, sex and race. However, as the hon. Lady implied, we are dealing today with non-specific discrimination. In addition, there are separate pieces of legislation, such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which contains provisions on harassment. In 1995, there was an addition to the Public Order Act 1994. I am not a lawyer and I cannot evaluate such legislation, but it is difficult to believe that harassment cannot be pursued through those Acts. However, there could be a loophole in the legislation, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) said earlier. If so, that needs to be dealt with. Perhaps the Minister can advise us on such matters.
I was struck by the comments made by the Andrea Adams Trust, which the hon. Member for Bristol, West cited. It asked:
"Does the courtroom really have to be the appropriate battleground? … Surely in reality the ideal place to resolve the problem must be in the workplace itself. Recognition and awareness of workplace bullying is essential if we are to move forward."
Whether or not there may be a case for workplace legislation, the report said that a concerted effort should be made by management and the unions to raise the profile of workplace bullying to ensure that it is properly monitored.
Lady Hermon: One piece of legislation that has not been mentioned this morning is the European convention on human rights. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that one of the best actions taken by the Government was to make that part and parcel of our domestic law. Under article 3, the Government have an obligation to protect everyone, irrespective of their nationality, within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom from, among other things, degrading treatment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that bullying in the workplace and schools is degrading treatment and that the convention is valuable legislation?
Dr. Cable: I agree with the hon. Lady that such legislation is positive; indeed, we supported it. She is a distinguished lawyer, so she is in a better position than
18WH
me to judge whether it is appropriate. I hope that it is. It reinforces my point that various legal remedies already exist.
The recent survey carried out by personnel institutions made the point that only 40 per cent. of employers have anti-bullying practices in place, whereas about 90 per cent. of personnel managers acknowledge that there is bullying in the workplace. The key step that must now be taken is to ensure that those employers who recognise the problem, but do not control it, have a policy. If there were a role for legislation, perhaps it is not laying down prescriptive procedures to deal with workplace bullying, but placing an obligation on employers to have an anti-bullying policy and to allow for flexibility in that policy to deal with particular problems.
10.37 am
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I thank the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) for securing the debate on such an important issue. I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who has specific responsibility for such matters in the Conservative party, for his absence. At present, he is a member of a Standing Committee, so responsibility for responding to this debate has fallen to me. However, there is no harm in widening our expertise and understanding of the issues that have been raised during such an excellent debate.
When I first knew that I was to take part in the debate on behalf of the Opposition, I was asked why I was participating in a discussion about the conduct of the Government Whips Office. When the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) referred to "us and them" gang culture and lousy management practices, I thought that we were beginning to reach the kernel of the issue. It is easy to make a light-hearted remark, but that should not distract us from the seriousness of the issue raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, West.
The central question is whether legislation is the appropriate framework to pursue the problem. The hon. Lady and her supporters are of the view that that is the case. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked whether the courtroom was the appropriate forum for the battleground in respect of bullying. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) said that employers and trade unions wanted to deal with the problem. He said that 38 per cent. of calls to trade unions concerned bullying and that 75 per cent. of such cases resulted in specific health effects, either mental or physical. That provides ample evidence, which is also mentioned in the UMIST study and elsewhere, about the widespread nature of bullying in the workplace. The central point is that bullying must be dealt with by everybody—employers and trade unions. We must decide whether tackling it through additional legislation is appropriate, because legislation is already on the statute book.
We must first define bullying. There is no official definition, although various suggestions have been offered. The one in the UMIST study is probably as good as any. It states:
"We defined bullying as a situation where one or several individuals persistently over a period of time perceive themselves to be on the receiving end of negative actions from one or several

19WH
persons, in a situation where the target of bullying has difficulty in defending him or herself against these actions. We will not refer to a one-off incident as bullying."
That definition emphasises the negative, persistent and long-term nature of the experience.
Workplace bullying is a widespread problem. We have heard evidence of the trauma that it causes. It damages businesses and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made clear, the climate in which people work, especially in the public sector. The UMIST study suggests that bullying is more widespread in the public than in the private sector and several of the cases to which hon. Members referred appear to confirm that.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West did not mention one area of the private sector to which the UMIST study referred. The dance profession is an example of a profession or recreation in which bullying has taken place. Hon. Members who have learned to ride or sail will know that instructors in those activities tend to be extremely firm because of the danger that is sometimes involved and that firmness could turn into bullying.
On a wider scale, our armed forces are in action in the Gulf. The military have had to recognise the problem of bullying in training, when officers try to create a resilient work force prepared to put their lives on the line. They have to operate on the most extreme end of what is, in a sense, the workplace. Officers face the difficult task of developing resilience through training without overstepping the mark with actions that could be perceived to be bullying. Such work involves facing difficult issues.
A study by the London chamber of commerce published in 2000, estimated that bullying cost industry £2 billion a year. It identified 19 million working days lost per year because of abuse, which often resulted in accidents and mistakes, increased sick leave, lost productivity and higher recruitment costs. Causes of the problem included autocratic, insensitive and even abusive management styles, high work loads, unsatisfactory relationships and rapid changes. A survey in 1999 by Personnel Today and the Andrea Adams Trust found that 82 per cent. of respondents identified weakness in management as the prime reason for bullying, which seems to be supported by testimony from the public and private sectors that we have heard in this debate.
The problem is serious and widespread, but we should question whether more legislation is likely to solve it, given that previous legislation has failed adequately to do so. We should also question whether the extra burden that such legislation would impose is justified, especially for small businesses and the public and voluntary sectors. Large, private sector employers with adequate resources can and do use cost-benefit analysis to underpin a business case to tackle workplace bullying. However, it is not certain that small businesses would have adequate resources to carry out similar analyses should legislation require them to do so.
It is self-evident that bullying is counter-productive for any organisation or company. It is fair to assume that a company in which bullying is a significant problem will be less profitable and effective than competitors that have proper policies and look after their people properly, which must be a great incentive for companies to do the right thing.
20WH
Several UK companies already have serious policies in place to deal with workplace bullying. Indeed, about 6 per cent., including Rolls-Royce, Littlewoods and British Telecom, have specific anti-bullying policies. That is welcome, and reflects my belief that the best place to deal with the problem is in the workplace. It is important to create a culture in which bullying is seen to be unacceptable. Firms should be encouraged to deal with the problem by paying careful attention to the way in which they conduct their business.
I sound a note of caution to any firm considering taking action: it should recognise that employment rights also cover those accused of bullying, not only the employee who is being bullied. We must also recognise that, although in many instances it is clear that bullying is taking place and must be dealt with, in other instances, accusations of bullying might be used to disguise inadequate performance. Mr. Richard of the Institute of Directors has suggested that any legislation automatically faces difficulties. He said:
"How would you distinguish between times when people do need to be criticised and encouraged to do better, and those when people are being treated in an unacceptable fashion?"
I have already alluded to professions in which that boundary is difficult to identify.
Bullying is an emotive issue that must be dealt with. I support measures that aim to tackle bullying in the workplace and that raise public awareness of its existence. If a company has a well-publicised anti-bullying policy, it can learn to recognise and minimise the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury referred to a case involving Salisbury district council. He made overwhelmingly clear the requirement for independent adjudication of bullying within the public sector. Why such adjudication is not already taking place on a voluntary basis within the public sector frankly escapes me. Such organisations are the very ones that should have developed personnel procedures to deal with bullying problems.
We should all aspire to the universal adoption of good practice. It is likely that people work best under good conditions. Ways of dealing with bullying present particular problems for small businesses, which comprise nearly 99 per cent. of businesses in the UK. They employ 44 per cent. of the private sector work force and generate 37 per cent. of our nation's output. They also create virtually all the new jobs in the economy.
A great deal of new regulation has been introduced to employment law over the past few years. Last year, more than 4,642 new sets of regulations were introduced in the UK, which amounts to one every 26 minutes for every working day. The IOD says that the recurrent annual cost of employment regulations introduced in the past five years could be as much as £6 billion, with those costs rising as new regulations come into force. Although it may be possible to find valid reasons for each new regulation, the cumulative total is undermining the enterprise culture. It is worrying to note that Britain has fallen from ninth to 19th in the world competitive league. That should give us pause for thought before we reach for the legislative or regulatory rule book.
Faced with such facts, I worry that further legislation, however worthy its aims, could be damaging to business. The problem of bullying is real to business

21WH
because it loses its competitiveness, but balancing that problem with the complexity of introducing more targeted legislation that has not succeeded in the past poses difficulties. Ways of dealing with bullying are difficult to identify and I am not able to provide an overarching solution. However, I welcome the attention that the problem has received, and I note with interest hon. Members' contributions to this debate, especially the Swedish example.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, West on raising the issue and on her persistence in obtaining this debate. In the end, we must make people in all work forces—both management and workers—aware that the problem is widespread and must be dealt with. People will then begin to deal with it because it is a matter of simple justice and decency.
10.49 am
The Minister for Energy and Construction (Mr. Brian Wilson): I echo the congratulations that have been offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on having raised this debate and on her general commitment to the campaign against bullying. I am sorry that she has had to wait for so long for it to take place. The debate has been a useful of airing of an important subject—which, in some extreme cases, is a matter of life and death.
As my hon. Friend said, she has been involved—particularly since the last election—in an ongoing and valuable campaign. The only caution that I would offer her came through in the other two winding-up speeches. Progress should not necessarily be equated with specific legislation. A lot is happening, and highlighting the issues in the way that my hon. Friend has done today will contribute to the pressure for more to be done, but it is open to question whether specific legislation is the answer—or the sole answer.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions would normally have responded to this debate. He is attending the Committee stage of the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill, but I will ensure that the letter and the spirit of the debate are communicated to him.
The most fundamental thing to say is that the Government take the issues of bullying and harassment very seriously. We condemn such behaviour unreservedly and believe that employees should be able to work without fear of encountering bullying or harassment from their employers, fellow employees or anyone else. It is worth recalling that the last Labour manifesto made the following commitment:
"To work with managers and employees to reduce the problems of bullying and violence in the workplace."
Therefore, it is clear that we all share the same objective; we want bullying and other forms of degrading treatment to come to an end. That is an essential part of good employment relations and of a good culture in a workplace, but it is also inherent in the concept of human dignity and people's right to lead their lives free from harassment.
Lady Hermon: If I heard the Minister correctly, he described such behaviour as degrading treatment, and he said that he wished everyone to be free from it. Does
22WH
he accept that article 3 on the prohibition of degrading treatment in the European convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms—which is now part and parcel of our domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998—makes that form of bullying illegal?
Mr. Wilson: Perhaps I could address that later in my speech. [Laughter.] I wish to do so for the best reasons—I do not want to evade the question. I had better keep a watch on how much time I have left, but I was interested in what the hon. Lady said earlier, and I asked for further advice on the matter. As she can observe, my only problem is that I have lost that advice.
We consider that a combination of legislative action and a change of approach in the culture of workplaces must be a key to solving the problem of bullying and harassment in the UK. The law that is already in place covers a wide range of definable undesirable behaviours. I must repeat a list that has already been made: the current legislation includes the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Employment Rights Act 1996. All these laws provide protection and enable individuals to seek remedies to problems that are a result of detrimental behaviour against them.
Mr. Tynan: My hon. Friend the Minister has read out a litany of Acts, but does he accept that, in spite of a concentrated effort to reduce bullying at work, there is a growth in instances of it? Does he also accept that that means that we need to do more to control bullying at work, and that an Act would help in achieving that?
Mr. Wilson: I respect that point of view. One of the problems is that, while there may be a perception of such an increase, it is impossible to gain objective evidence of that because, for instance, for very good reasons more attention is now paid to the matter. People are more prepared to talk about it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West and others have taken it up as a campaign. I cannot comment on whether there is more or less of this behaviour, but everybody seems to recognise that it is a substantial and continuing problem.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West recognised in her opening remarks, a lot has been done, even since 2001. For instance, the Employment Act 2002 contains provisions to ensure that all employees have access to a good internal grievance procedure. It is estimated that that will benefit around 6 million employees who have access to no such procedures, or to procedures that are inferior to the new statutory minimum. It is hoped that the Employment Act 2002 will provide an important means for employees to raise their problems at work, and to have them addressed by their employer at an early stage. We are also extending this range of protection against the most extreme forms of abuse under the provisions of article 13 of the Amsterdam treaty. That will extend protection to cover age, sexual orientation and religious discrimination.
Reference has been made to the work that is going on to create Health and Safety Executive management standards on relationships. The Department of Trade and Industry and the HSE are working on a relationship

23WH
management standard to address the problems caused by bullying through cultural change. The management standards will be introduced on a voluntary basis. However, employers have duties under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to assess the risk of stress-related ill health arising from work activities.
The HSE has the power to issue enforcement notices if employers are not addressing stressful situations in the workplace. They are not used often, as it is hard to judge how stress affects employees and where in the workplace it is occurring. However, the management standards that I have described will help HSE inspectors and employers to identify where and how stress is occurring.
Officials have met Chris Ball of the MSF section of Amicus to discuss a wide-reaching partnership fund project to tackle bullying in the workplace, and the Andrea Adams Trust may be included in that as a partner. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West will recognise that as another productive outcome of her campaign, even if it falls short of the legislation that she seeks.
We had an interesting little sub-Adjournment debate about the problems of Salisbury district council and the wider issues that flow from that. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said, and I will draw attention to the anomaly that he suggested exists between the provisions for local authorities and other employees. I will ensure that he receives a response to that, and I commend him for raising an interesting subject.
Somewhat paradoxically, I will now return to the comments of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on the Human Rights Act 1998. For private sector employers, we have checked whether the legislation that I listed complies with the Human Rights Act, but it is my understanding that the provision in that Act—which would, in any case, be the last course of action—applies only to the public sector. That requires clarification and elaboration, and I undertake to write to the hon. Lady about it.
The general message that has come through from this debate is that there is a substantial problem, which has been given more attention as a result of the campaigning that is going on and of the fact that people feel more confident about discussing it. Simply because a problem is submerged does not mean that it is not a problem, and the attendance at this debate, and the contributions to it, reflect the interest in this area of human suffering. Perhaps it was neglected to some extent in the past, and perhaps the measures that are in place do not adequately respond to it. However, the Government's current position is that there are ways ahead that fall short of legislation, although I have no doubt that pressure for further legislation will continue to be applied.

Disability Living Allowance (Hospital Patients)
11 am
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I shall take the opportunity of today's debate to raise an issue that was brought to my attention by one of my constituents, although it prompts wider concerns that are worth bringing to the attention of the Chamber and my hon. Friend the Minister.
The outline of my constituent's case is straightforward. She suffers from a psychotic illness and depression, and she receives disability living allowance—DLA—at the higher rate for the care component and the lower rate for the mobility component. Due to her illness, she finds it difficult to leave her house on her own, and she is cared for at home by her husband.
Last year, my constituent was admitted to the Royal Edinburgh hospital for treatment lasting several months, which involved a course of medication combined with overnight stays in hospital. During that time, however, she spent most of the day—between 10 am and 10 pm—out of hospital and at home. She was technically an in-patient, so after four weeks she lost her entitlement to DLA despite the fact that for large parts of the day she was living normally at home, incurring the same costs of care that she would have incurred had she not been receiving hospital treatment.
Many people are concerned about the withdrawal of DLA after 28 days from disabled persons admitted to hospital, which has been criticised for causing undue hardship to the disabled and their carers during a difficult time. I have some sympathy with that point of view. However, I intend not to talk about that, but to focus on the issues raised by my constituent's experience—namely, the problem that arises when DLA is withdrawn from someone who is nominally a hospital in-patient, but who spends large parts of the day at home. It has not been raised recently in Parliament, so I welcome this opportunity and look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Three specific issues arise from my constituent's case: the definition of an in-patient, how someone who normally receives DLA can have their cost of living met when the allowance is withdrawn during a stay in hospital and the purpose of the mobility component of DLA.
The definition of an in-patient is central. As my constituent was classified as an in-patient, her entitlement to DLA was lost. My research suggests that there is, at the very least, a lack of clarity about what constitutes in-patient status for the purposes of the benefit. Existing case law throws up contradictory answers: one case suggests that a person is to be treated as being maintained free of charge as an in-patient provided only that he or she is in the hospital 24 hours a day, but other cases suggest that absences during the day do not affect in-patient status, nor that of being maintained free of charge.
The same lack of clarity is to be found in the Department for Work and Pensions publication

25WH
"Decision Makers Guide", which states that an in-patient can be someone who is
"a long-term patient and spends part of each day away from the hospital".
However, the guide does not give any indication of how long that time away from hospital needs to be before the person is no longer regarded as a long-term patient. The criteria should be clearer for deciding whether a person who spends time away from a hospital during the day is to be regarded as an in-patient. I find it hard to understand why my constituent was considered to be an in-patient for DLA purposes.
My second point relates to how a person in the circumstances of my constituent is to meet their normal living costs. Even if my constituent were to be described as an in-patient for the purposes of the benefit, she was out of hospital for what would be described as the normal day—10 am to 10 pm. I wish to concentrate not on the general issue of withdrawing DLA from hospital patients after 28 days in hospital, but on the particular experience of my constituent. She was spending 12 hours a day out of hospital, but was not receiving DLA help to meet the costs of care and mobility. She and her husband do not live on a high income, and she relied on the income from DLA to meet the cost of her essential expenses. She said that the experience of losing DLA during her hospital stay was "difficult" and "very stressful", and that it had led to a significant reduction in her weekly budget. Although she received some care at home from the hospital in the form of visits from a community psychiatric nurse, she was not compensated for the loss of DLA. She was certainly not receiving constant care at home from the hospital.
I am sure the Minister agrees that it is important for people to be given the autonomy to spend time away from hospital during any course of treatment, if that is appropriate, but if daily expenses during that time are not supported by benefits or the health service, either disabled people may be less inclined to enter hospitals in the first place or patients may have to remain in hospital for more of the day than is necessary. Those outcomes would not be conducive to recovery and would lead 10 patients qualifying for further DLA payments, which would be a cost to the public purse.
My third point, which relates to the mobility component of DLA, is the most central to my constituent's case. Although there is certain logic, even in my constituent's case, to not paying the care component of DLA to someone who spends their time overnight in hospital, the logic to withdrawing the mobility element from my constituent is much weaker. For the vast majority of the day, that person was out of hospital, so presumably the mobility needs that originally justified the mobility component still applied. Part of the definition of eligibility for the mobility component is that it is designed to help people who have severe difficulty walking or who require assistance getting around out of doors. That need is not any the less because a person spends part of the day or night in hospital. For the rest of the time, that person must meet the costs of mobility.
If someone on the higher rate for the mobility component is admitted to hospital, entitlement to a car or wheelchair provided under the motability scheme is not withdrawn, but that protection does not help people
26WH
on the lower rate—people such as my constituent who are not immobile, but who still need help when they venture out of their home. I hope that the Minister considers that point. A possible solution would be to pay those who spend a substantial period away from hospital a proportion of the DLA mobility component. Perhaps it could relate to the time that they spend in hospital in a day and the time that they spend at home.
Of course, I recognise that in any benefits system there are bound to be cases that do not fall neatly into the categories or definitions of eligibility. That is inevitable, and I accept that sometimes it is not possible to introduce a general principle that will ensure that the difficulties in a particular case do not recur, but cases such as that of my constituent must recur from time to time. Also, greater clarity about the rules and how they are applied, and greater fairness in their application, would ensure that people do not suffer the financial penalty that my constituent undoubtedly did.
The Minister has already considered the matters raised by the case, but I hope that she will consider the points that I have made today, both as they relate to my constituent and in terms of their general implications for people in similar circumstances.
11.11 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz). In such debates, he usually mentions a fascinating lacuna or difficulty that he has found in the benefit rules—not that it is difficult to do that, the rules being as they are. Today is no different, and his comments are of his usual standard.
The Government recognise that the need for financial security does not cease when people are in hospital and that they are likely to have ongoing domestic commitments. Many income maintenance benefits are downrated once the recipient has been a hospital in-patient for six weeks. When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions took his post, he committed himself to changing the rules on hospital downrating of benefit, particularly as that relates to retirement pension, but also in respect of such benefits as income support, and incapacity and housing benefit. From October, such benefits will be downrated after 13 weeks, rather than six.
The average hospital stay lasts about six days, and the vast majority—more than 97 per cent.—last less than six weeks. Nevertheless, we estimate that the change made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions, which is to be introduced in October, will benefit a further 26,000 people at any one time. For some 18,000 of them, that change will be in respect of their retirement pension; for the rest, it will be in respect of other income maintenance benefits. Those who need longer hospital stays will have the extra seven weeks to plan their future financial arrangements.
I want to explain the rationale for hospital downrating, because when one discusses the subject with people, they do not necessarily immediately understand it. However, I do not say that that is right or wrong. The rationale basically comes down to the rule against overlapping provision, which is a founding principle of the welfare state and has been with us as

27WH
long as the welfare state itself. That principle pops up in all sorts of places in the benefit system, and it basically means that the state will not pay two benefits for the same contingency. It will not pay benefit or income maintenance—such as income support, incapacity benefit or housing benefit—when the needs for which they are paid, namely maintenance, are met free of charge by the national health service for a hospital in-patient. That is why the issue arises, and why benefits are downrated at all after a period of hospital admission. That is the basic rule.
I come to disability living allowance and attendance allowance. As my hon. Friend said, since the changes to hospital downrating were announced, it has been asked why such changes have not been extended to DLA and AA. Those allowances involve different considerations. They are not paid for normal day-to-day living and they are not for income maintenance, although my hon. Friend said that that is what his constituent is using them for. They are paid as a contribution towards the extra costs faced by severely disabled people who need help with care or have walking difficulties. The rationale behind those "extra cost" benefits is different from that behind benefits such as retirement pension or income support. Of course, the state will still pay out money to people who receive such benefits, once they have been assessed.
The reason for paying a benefit is not necessarily apparent to those receiving it. There is no question of there being any restriction on what the benefits should be spent on. There is no requirement for someone receiving DLA care component to spend it on care, nor is there a requirement for someone receiving the lower-rate mobility component of DLA to spend it on their mobility needs, although they may choose to do so.
Mr. Lazarowicz: Perhaps I should be clearer: my constituent has made it clear that she fully understands the purposes of DLA. There is no question of DLA contributing towards normal living expenses. My constituent's normal household budget takes account of the fact that she normally spends DLA on costs that continued when she was in hospital for part of the time. I am not suggesting that the DLA was being used for normal living expenses.
Maria Eagle: It is always difficult to discuss particular circumstances. I do not want to discuss a particular case here, although I may discuss it with my hon. Friend away from the Floor of the House. If his constituent was receiving the highest-rate care and the lower-rate mobility components, that would, last year, have come to £71.15 a week. That is a significant amount, and I fully accept that its removal would have had an impact on her ability to budget for costs that she meets one way or another.
DLA comprises three care and two mobility components, whereas attendance allowance has two care components only. All in-patients' disability-related needs are met by the national health service. That is where the rule against overlapping provision comes in, and that is why DLA and AA are withdrawn after a shorter period—namely, once an adult has been in hospital for 28 days. For children under 16, the rule is 84 days.
28WH
Those arrangements are based on the principle that double provision—in this case, NHS in-patient care and payment of DLA—for the same need should not be made from public funds. The difference between the arrangements for adults and for children is recognition of the therapeutic value of visits and treats for a disabled child who is adjusting to life in hospital.
Different arrangements also apply for people who are using their higher-rate DLA mobility component to secure a lease or hire-purchase agreement for a motability vehicle. My hon. Friend referred to that. In such a case, the higher-rate mobility component is still paid, so that the motability vehicle can be available when a severely disabled person is discharged from hospital. I hope that it is obvious why an exception is made in that special case. If it were not, a person would lose a car that should have been available to them for three years. The implication of the downrating in that instance would last long after the discharge from hospital and the restoration of benefit.
My hon. Friend has properly drawn attention to details of his constituent's case. I can say general things about that, but he will appreciate that I will not go into vast detail about particular cases. His constituent spent several months in hospital, but she was permitted to go home during the daytime. This is a slightly more difficult case, although the circumstances are not unique—other people are hospital in-patients who have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983—and it is not representative of most hospital stays. Most people go into hospital and stay until they are discharged, but some hospital in-patients—my hon. Friend raises one such case—spend a lot of time out of hospital. This is, of course, a difficult case, but the withdrawal of the DLA payment in such a situation does not breach the underlying principle of not providing twice out of public funds for the same need.
The person concerned was a hospital in-patient and all her needs, including disability-related needs, could be met throughout the day. The in-patient place could not have been be used by another patient until she was formally discharged. My understanding, from Department of Health advice, is that hospitals are reimbursed within the calculation of their unit costs for all the costs involved in providing the patient with all the care they need, including periods out of hospital on leave of absence. That ought to include help with mobility.
My hon. Friend's constituent appears to have been out of the hospital for as long as she was in it, but the NHS should still have been responsible for all those costs. Perhaps we could discuss more precisely, outside the Chamber, what has gone on in this case. None the less, in such circumstances, it would not be right for us to make concurrent provision for a person's needs through the benefits system, because that would inevitably breach the double provision principle.
My hon. Friend was especially concerned that the payment of the mobility component of his constituent's DLA was withdrawn. He asked what was the purpose of the mobility component; I understand that his constituent was receiving the lower-rate mobility component. As I suggested in my brief exposition of the reasoning behind DLA and the extra cost benefit, the purpose of the benefit is to assist in providing a contribution to the extra costs to severely disabled

29WH
people of personal care and being able to get around. However, after a person has gone through the gateways, as required, and has been assessed as being in need of one of the components, there is no requirement on how that money should be spent, so there is no question of the benefits system policing how such money is spent or threatening to take it away if it is not spent on mobility-related costs.
I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise answer on what is the purpose of the mobility component, although I can tell him what are the eligibility criteria. It is up to the individual disabled person how to spend the money and I understand that disability groups value that flexibility. There is no doubt that the range of needs and requirements of disabled people vary enormously from person to person, but while the benefit has gateways, the severely disabled person involved can decide, once the money is there, to use it in the most suitable way to meet extra costs.
Most hospital in-patients have little opportunity for individual mobility—they are in hospital and they stay there. If they need to be moved, the hospital will arrange transport. For most people, a stay in hospital is a short-term event and people who need a degree of care, but who might benefit from independent mobility, are likely to live in their own home, with friends or relatives, or in a care home. The mobility component of DLA can he paid to them in any of those situations for as long as they meet the conditions of entitlement to the component.
My hon. Friend referred to the definition of an in-patient, highlighting what he regards as a lack of clarity and quoting contradictory case law. Any lawyer would tell hon. Members—there are a number of lawyers present—that there are always contradictions in case law. One can always find cases that point in opposite directions. It is important to recognise, however, that the hospital is under an obligation, which is set out in the 1983 Act, to meet the needs and requirements of my hon. Friend's constituent. In this case, that is what being an in-patient means.
"Decision Makers Guide", to which my hon. Friend referred, suggests that one can be a hospital in-patient and spend time away from hospital. There is, however, no reference in that document to a length of time. The key point is, who is responsible for the maintenance elements and for looking after the costs associated with the person concerned? We expect our decision makers to apply a common-sense approach, subject to any case law that is currently out there and authoritative.
It would be neither possible nor desirable for "Decision Makers Guide" to set exactly how long an in-patient had to be out of hospital before they were no
30WH
longer considered as such. It is not the length of time that matters. I understand my hon. Friend's concern that this lady was out of hospital almost as much as she was in, but "Decision Makers Guide" is there to guide people and our decision makers have to deal with myriad situations and circumstances, not all of which could be captured in a guide or a booklet. There is no right or wrong answer on DLA—it covers such a wide range of circumstances. It does not surprise me that my hon. Friend could find no definitive answer in "Decision Makers Guide", because it is a guide to common-sense decision making.
My hon. Friend also asked how this lady could meet the cost of living. The Department of Health has suggested to me that it reimburses hospitals to meet such costs, and I think that I have already dealt with his question on the purpose of the mobility component. Disability living allowance, AA and the extra cost benefit are unlike any other part of the benefits system: they are neither simple nor straightforward, and there is no black and white answer on eligibility or the circumstances in which somebody might be eligible. One cannot say that somebody with a condition or illness is automatically eligible—in fact, the effect of a disability or illness affects the care and mobility needs of the individual. That flexibility is an essential part of the benefit, which is valued by its recipients, but it is also the administrative bane of my life, and of many others who have to deal with DLA and AA decision making. There are downsides to the upside of flexibility, but we must live with that while the benefit remains as it is.
The debate has provided a useful opportunity to explore how benefits are treated when people are in hospital—my hon. Friend usually secures useful debates. I understand his concern that the changes we are making for benefits for everyday living are not being made to attendance allowance and DLA. I do not expect everybody to agree with the rationale, but I hope that they understand it. That does not mean that benefits recipients will not benefit from the changes that we are introducing in October—many of them also receive benefits for income maintenance.
At the same time, we shall introduce the pension credit, which will provide enhanced support for lower-income pensioners and reward those people with savings. However, I suspect that my hon. Friend's constituent might not be a pensioner—he did not say that she was. Perhaps we can continue our discussion on the case away from the Chamber.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Rural Broadband Services
2 pm
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the Minister for abandoning his visit to Wales to reply to this debate. I have heard him speak many times on this subject and not only is he in total command of his brief, but he speaks with commitment and enthusiasm on the subject.
Many issues fill the rural MP's postbag, but the non-availability of broadband is elbowing its way up the political agenda, certainly in Hampshire and, I suspect from looking around the Chamber, elsewhere. It is a reflection of the changing nature of rural life that the absence of the latest technology is such an issue. The blood pressure of many of my constituents has been further raised by the high profile campaign urging them to sign up for broadband when they have already tried to do so and been told that they cannot have it.
I have three objectives for rural broadband: to increase accessibility and affordability, to promote greater openness from infrastructure providers on the options, and to obtain some answers from the Government in areas where they hold the key. The internet is to wealth creation in this century what the roads and the railways were in the last two. As the exchange of information becomes as important as the exchange of goods and services, the information highway—the internet—is a key element of a country's infrastructure. Just as countries that have prospered needed an efficient transport system to carry people and goods quickly, so the growth economies of tomorrow need an efficient highway for information to move around quickly. Broadband provides that efficient highway. A computer using a standard phone connection can download up to 56 kilobits of information a second. Broadband, however, allows it to download information at rates from up to 512 kilobits to more than 20 megabits per second, some 400 times faster than a standard connection. The services now being marketed to consumers are what I call introductory broadband at up to 512 kilobits, approaching 10 times the speed of a standard phone connection. Other advantages of broadband are that it is always connected and comes at a flat rate price, meaning that the user pays a standard price per month or year, regardless of the time spent online.
The Government are seized of the importance of broadband. In his letter to me of 26 February, the Minister said:
"If the UK is to succeed as a world-class place for e-business, public service delivery and online participation, it is essential that we develop a world-class communications infrastructure."
The Government have set a target to have the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. If that is the right target, we are a long way behind the leaders. Japan had more than 5 million ADSL subscribers at the end of last year and was adding no fewer than 300,000 a month. We have about 750,000.
Two options are available to the Government to enable them to hit that ambitious target. One is to decide that broadband is a universal service, like water or daily delivery of mail, that everyone should have it and that, if the revenue from the service does not cover its cost, the
32WH
Government will make up the difference. That subsidy to the universal supplier can be justified by invisible benefits, such as equality of opportunity or international competitive advantage.
The other option, which has been adopted in this country, is not to rely on a universal obligation, but to promote a market with alternative suppliers and means of access, and then to let competition ferment away, moderated by regulation. That has certainly proved more economical. Less than $5 per head has been spent by the UK Government to support broadband infrastructure, compared with $25 in France and $90 in Japan.
That policy has worked well in city centres, where people and companies are being offered faster and faster internet connection at lower and lower prices by a variety of competing suppliers using a range of different technologies. Around 50 per cent. of broadband is provided not over BT's wires but over cable. That policy is working less well in rural areas and gives rise to a policy issue for Ministers. Are they content to see that differential provision and, if not, does their current approach need adjustment?
Mr. Anthony Steen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Devon's topography is hilly and that BT has not invested the necessary money to enable people who want to work at home—they increasingly want to do that—to access broadband? Is he also aware that structural funds from the European Union and Government funding for broadband facilities are being dispersed to the regional development agencies rather than the providers of broadband? Why is the money not being used to encourage BT to widen broadband facilities instead of being used for wasteful bureaucracy?
Sir George Young: As a fellow cyclist, I am aware of the topography of Devon and that it is not a flat county. My hon. Friend asked a good question and although he seemed to direct it at me, I know that he was directing it at the Minister, who will, I am sure, take it on board in his response.
Rural areas play a vital role in the life of the nation, accounting for nearly 25 per cent. of its population, 30 per cent. of its employment, 30 per cent. of its gross domestic product and 80 per cent. of its landscape. According to the Country Land and Business Association, whose activity in this area I applaud, only 20 per cent. of rural areas have access to broadband. The broadband stakeholder group gives a lower figure of less than 10 per cent., emphasising the point that there is no definition of a rural area. Such a situation puts rural business at a clear competitive disadvantage compared with urban business. There is an urgent need in rural areas to diversify from agricultural employment and to develop home-based employment to discourage travel. In Hampshire, many farmers are diversifying into other income areas. I visited one recently who has the UK franchise for a solar-powered swimming pool purifier. Folk like him need broadband, because without it it is more difficult to compete. They cannot get broadband because they live too far from an exchange or it is unviable for BT to enable the exchange, and the costs of alternative provision are very high.
People living in many of the small towns and villages in Hampshire may, if they are lucky, be on an uncertain path towards what I call introductory broadband in the

33WH
form of either ADSL or the more restrictive satellite services. However, large parts of the country have no choice at all. They are told to use satellite services, or to form local co-operatives to put up more radio masts and take the risk of investing in local community wireless systems, or to club together and risk £55,000 for BT's new exchange activate proposition. They are busy folk who are trying to run their own companies. They are confronted by a mosaic of agencies that are falling over one another to offer potential and sometimes conflicting help and advice on rural broadband. It cannot be right when developing a national infrastructure that is critical to the future of the country's economy and a foundation for important social and public service developments to ask those busy people to get broadband to their village as well.
Lembit Öpik: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that haphazard approach to something with strategic importance—it certainly has that in mid-Wales—risks enabling the Government to abdicate? It is the Government's responsibility to recognise not just the economic benefits for rural areas, but the environmental benefits for all of us in having a strategic approach that is transparent and affordable for rural communities.
Sir George Young: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If one wants to conserve energy and minimise the need for travel, the better the communications infrastructure, the more progress will be made. The moral is simple. People who live in cities have access to an information motorway. In villages they have access to a footpath. Without change, there will be a drift to jobs in the cities.
The main broadband provider in rural areas is BT. As of 21 March, only 1,158 of 5,500 exchanges had been ADSL-enabled, which is just over one fifth. Both the Government and BT stress that that covers approximately 71 per cent. of homes. However, that is the mean of 90 per cent. of city homes and less than 10 per cent. of rural homes. Another 179 exchanges are currently at the build stage, having reached their trigger levels, which is bringing the percentage of enabled exchanges to around 25 per cent. A further 102 exchanges will have trigger levels published on Monday. I declare an interest—as Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, that is a wise precaution—because I live in an area served by an unenabled exchange, along with my near neighbour, the chairman of British Telecom.
Mr. Hugo Swire: If my right hon. Friend moved from his constituency to Devon, he would be in good company because, by the end of the year, 45 per cent. of the population of Devon will be unserved by broadband compared with the national figure of 20 per cent. That shows the problems that we have.
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend reinforces my point about the risk of a digital divide between rural and urban areas.
BT has reduced the price of broadband, introduced a rolling programme to enable exchanges, set targets and, in some cases, reduced those targets. I commend it for the progress that it has made, but too many people are still left out in the cold. That means that businesses that
34WH
need broadband will have to consider more expensive options if the trigger level cannot be reached or if no trigger level has been set for that exchange. The director general of Oftel told me on 25 February:
"Where no trigger levels have been set, BT does not believe it to be commercially viable to fully enable the exchange using current cost information and its existing business model."
ADSL coverage will never reach many parts of rural areas. The Minister told us in the debate in the House on 4 March:
"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."—[Official Report, 4 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 738.]
BT is working hard to find ways of extending broadband availability to rural areas through marketing initiatives and through working with interested public and private sector bodies. However, its plans have to be made within the current commercial and regulatory framework and it is clear that, unless there is dramatic change in the economics of broadband provision, the remaining 10 per cent. of areas will require a different public-private partnership model or a different technological platform. Are the Government prepared to put together the right combination of interested parties and give the appropriate encouragement and support, so that rural broadband in those areas becomes a reality on a time scale that will benchmark against key competitors?
Mr. David Drew: I know that this is a reprise of the earlier debate, but there are two key issues that should be raised with BT, through the Minister. First, BT often sets the highest targets in the most rural areas, which seems unfair and counter-productive. Secondly, take-up in rural areas is very low, even where there is ADSL. That is because we have not provided the proper packaging to make it clear to people what they are signing up to. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?
Sir George Young: Yes, I entirely endorse that. I agree that we should tackle not only the supply side, about which I have been talking, but the demand side. We need to explain to small and medium-sized enterprises exactly what the benefit of broadband is.
Mr. George Osborne: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that one problem has been that people have expected to have broadband available, have gone through a process to get that service but have then found that they could not get it? The trouble with the demand side of the argument is that demand is stimulated where the service cannot be provided.
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is exactly right. If he raises that problem with BT, it will tell him that it is anxious to increase demand in areas where broadband is already available but take-up is low. That is why it is promoting broadband as a concept, but the downside to that, which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, is that it irritates those who want broadband, dial in their exchange number and are then told that it is not available, that there is no trigger level and that there are no plans to bring it within reach.

35WH
In fairness to the Government, they are worried about the digital divide. Some £30 million of grant has been given to the regional development agencies so that a digital divide in high-speed internet access does not open up between urban and rural communities. The Minister said on 4 March that he was working on that problem "energetically". I want to find out how that reservoir of energy is being applied.
In particular, I want to know how the prime ministerial commitment given last November will be met. I make no apologies for returning to that question a fourth time. The last time that the Minister spoke, he said:
"It would not be sensible, however, for me to announce from the Dispatch Box precisely how that will be determined"—[Official Report, 4 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 739.]
With respect, I disagree. It would be sensible for us to know how that commitment was going to be delivered, because it goes to the heart of the issue under debate this afternoon.
The Prime Minister set the Government targets of 8 megabits per second in broadband connections in secondary schools and 2 megabits per second in primary schools. In non-broadband-enabled areas in my constituency, such bandwidths might be provided through a private circuit, which helps the school but does nothing for the rest of the village. An alternative, bolder and preferable method would be for the Government to specify a delivery mechanism for schools that would bring opportunities for the school and automatically pull through additional broadband infrastructure to the surrounding area—somewhere that might otherwise have to wait a long time for broadband under normal commercial conditions.
Until there is clarity on that issue, there will continue to be blight and uncertainty. Children will learn in one environment at school—proper broadband—and go home to a more basic form of delivery. How that commitment is delivered is of enormous interest to communities large enough to have a school or GP practice but not large enough to have their telephone exchanges enabled. In my constituency, that includes Whitchurch, Overton, Kingsclere, St. Mary Bourne, Hatherden and Abbotts Ann.
In the debate on 4 March, the Minister was pressed on that subject by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who asked whether the Government would
"draw up contracts with added public benefit, or … end up with tight contracts"?
The answer was straight from "Yes, Minister":
"I am confident that we will be able to achieve suitable contracts".—[Official Report, 4 March 2003; Vol. 400, c. 739.]
Can the Minister shed more light on that this afternoon? His letter to me on 26 February said:
"The public sector as a user of broadband will be a major driver for the introduction of broadband services throughout the country."
Later, speaking of the £1 billion that the Government are going to spend on broadband connectivity for public services during the next three years, the Minister said:
"We will make sure that the potential benefit of this spending is maximised and takes full account of the benefits of broadband."
36WH
The primary objective of the UK broadband taskforce is to support the aggregation of public sector demand for broadband and to ensure that through such aggregation, there is an extension of broadband availability, particularly in rural areas.
Mr. Richard Allan: The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that concern is being expressed in some public sector organisations that are demanding to be aggregated, that that is causing problems. That applies particularly to the national health service network. The contracting for NHSnet has, in effect, been put on hold while the demand aggregation process takes place, and it feels that it is losing time and capacity that it desperately needs. There are problems across the piece.
Sir George Young: That underlines the need for joined-up government and a cohesive approach that looks at the broader benefits of public sector aggregation. As the hon. Gentleman has just implied, there is some cynicism outside this place over whether we will get the broader benefits potentially available.
Some people living in rural areas will need a wireless solution, on which I want to press the Minister. Wireless broadband is based on a network of a central transmitter and a series of receivers. The clear advantage of wireless broadband is speed. At up to 11 megabits per second, it is far faster than other forms of broadband, and the roads do not have to be dug up for it to be installed.
However, wireless has a number of disadvantages. First, the technology in the UK is still very much in its infancy. With the wireless spectrum currently allocated in the UK, connection fails if there is no clear line of sight, just as mobile phone signals can be lost in a valley. Secondly, unless there is external funding, the local community—by definition, the village—has to fund the cost of installing the service and stand the risk that enough people may not subscribe, while each user has to pay for individual receivers' equipment. Thirdly, the issue arises of connecting the community wireless network to the main internet, known as backhaul. There have already been two failed attempts to auction the spectrum suitable for that, but even where the licence was taken up there was no obligation on the successful bidder to deploy. As a result, fixed wireless networks are springing up all over the country, but they are all in towns—unlike in the USA, where they are also in the countryside.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Those solutions, and the technologies involved, need to be linked to the aggregation of public sector demand. If the public sector uses leased lines where a wireless solution might be developed, that will not help the community generally.
I have further questions on the allocation of spectrum for that purpose. The 28 GHz auctions did not deliver the demand levels anticipated. My right hon. Friend may know, as we have briefly discussed, that the technology and equipment used by a company such as Cambridge Broadband—an equipment supplier rather than an operator—is successfully in use in other countries, operating at 3.5 GHz. Some problems with the use of wireless solutions, to which he referred, would

37WH
not apply to the use of that spectrum to the same extent. The question of whether that spectrum is to be licensed is, therefore, real and immediate.
Sir George Young: I want to probe the Government on their taking account of broadband issues when they make their decisions on allocating the spectrum. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, the Government have not released the sweet spot, which is the 2 GHz spectrum. He implied the question, which I shall pose again, whether the Government will optimise public benefit through conditions that actively encourage rural deployment or whether they will maximise income regardless of broader policy imperatives.
In its annual report to the Government last November, the BSG said:
"The Government should give priority to the support of broadband services when deciding policy on spectrum allocations"
on the basis that
"wireless schemes offer the most attractive means of providing broadband facilities to large sections of the population and their timely deployment will be crucial to the achievement of Broadband Britain objectives".
The Government released their response to the BSG's report on 20 March and said that the Radiocommunications Agency would be making additional spectrum available this year. Whether that will be the right spectrum under the right conditions remains to be seen, but the price is obviously important. The BSG's response states:
"Unleashing the potential of wireless is absolutely essential for Broadband Britain, but there are some real commercial regulatory barriers that need to be overcome, particularly around the provision and assignment of suitable spectrum".
I hope that I have conveyed to the Minister my constituents' mood and that he can give me a message to take back to them. They feel a little bruised by some of the Government's policies. They have an appetite for the new technology and are frustrated that they cannot get it. I hope that the Minister will help to bring it within their reach.
2.21 pm
Mr. David Drew: I am delighted once again to respond to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young). I am sorry that we are a double act, but the issue covers the whole rural area. I shall be brief, to allow other Members to contribute.
The BSG's report is a useful position paper. The group is obviously made up of many hard-working people in the field, although it is unfortunate that all the references to rural areas are at the end of the report. I get the feeling that it was written to draw in different aspects of the issue such as business needing to get on to broadband and the broadband needs of institutions, including public services and others. It discusses the rural dimension at its end, which is where we read for the first time about RABBIT. That, if I can get it right, is the remote area broadband inclusion trial—but we can all talk about RABBIT. There are many good initiatives, but I would like to hear from the Minister how they are being taken forward to ensure that good practice is widely explored.
38WH
In an intervention on the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, I explained the two key problems on which I want to spend a little time. There was probably no way to allocate the resources fairly other than by setting targets. I have worked with Giles Deard at BT and, in the main, have found BT to be helpful and responsive. From my area, I congratulate Mike Cowley in Stonehouse, where I live, on leading a campaign to get on to broadband. In my constituency, there has been a similar campaign in Dursley, and I am sure that there will soon be one in Nailsworth. I understand why the trigger mechanisms were set, but there should be a clear implication that broadband will go as widely as possible and that the form of rationing is a means to an end. Broadband should go forward wherever it can, notwithstanding the difficulties over cost.
If people are located just outside an area covered by ADSL, they will be in a frustrating situation because a next-door business can get ADSL while they are highly unlikely to get it unless they happen to overlap with another, more urbanised area. In those circumstances, they are likely to be excluded unless they can find another technology, which is an important point to explore.
To follow up on those who are on broadband, there is a need for—I hate this term—capacity building to ensure that the process is about not only the trigger mechanism. I am aware from my discussions with BT that it gets about 10 per cent. follow-up in real terms to information service providers once the ADSL has been put in place. That cannot make much sense and much more needs to be done.
I would like to see an evaluation of the benefits of the other means available. There are clear advantages if people can get on to ADSL: if they are in the fortunate position of being on cable, it does not need to be part of the evaluation process. I would like to see a comparison between satellite and wireless conducted by means other than cost to allow people to know where they are going. As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire rightly said, people are being asked to pay up front and they want to know how long their competitive advantage will be in place. If they have to change technology, they will lose money.
Will the Minister say what progress is being made on the institutional side in terms of health and education, and how that backwashes into the business world and wider community ventures? Greater co-ordination seems sensible, and I congratulate the Government on setting up the BSG. Its report is good and it shows that there is an attempt to co-ordinate and monitor progress. The number of people coming on to broadband in one form or another is pleasing.
I cannot think of an organisation that could co-ordinate the situation better locally than a local authority. There should be a way to ensure that the different public sector bodies are in touch with businesses and the wider community to see how they can achieve economies of scale by building the critical mass and negotiating communally with BT and others to ensure that the best service is obtained. I am not sure whether such co-ordination is happening. Perhaps my area is less developed than some others, but I have seen little evidence of co-ordination. It is down to the enthusiasts to keep e-mailing people, including their

39WH
local MP, to get enough names on their trigger lists to reach their targets, at which point everyone can relax and the next town or village has to follow suit.
It would be better if there were greater cohesion locally. The debate has come at a fortuitous time and the Government have plenty to do. They have made a good start, but we have to be honest and admit that some areas are unlikely to get on to broadband. We must have the satellite versus wireless debate and we must make some decisions. We should also make the situation clear to allow people to pursue their hunches on the best way forward.
2.28 pm
Mr. Keith Simpson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on securing a debate on such an important subject. My constituency, which is largely rural, although it contains some of the outer fringe suburbs of Norwich and some dormitory villages, has mixed access to broadband. For the majority of my constituents, access to broadband is problematic if not some way off, which will discourage established small businesses. The majority of small businesses in my constituency employ fewer than 10 people, and I suspect that limited access to broadband will deter others from setting up businesses in rural areas.
Like other Members, I have been approached by a number of small businesses, which frequently consist of one man or woman. They say that if they cannot have broadband it will be a severe disadvantage and that they will consider moving to an area in which there is broadband. I have spoken to the chief executive officers of both my district councils, Breckland and Broadland, and they are very enthusiastic about the potential of broadband for the public and private sectors. In fact, they emphasised the importance of broadband access in a rural area such as Mid-Norfolk because of the need to support sustainable communities.
I do not have to tell Members that many rural constituencies are undergoing a massive sea change as their economies move from traditional farming and food industries to much more complicated industries—often tourism, for example—which frequently use the internet. The internet will be an important stimulus for the economic growth of many of those areas and broadband will be absolutely key to promoting sustainable communities in them.
Constituencies such as mine are often considered to be wealthy and idyllic. They are idyllic, but the Countryside Agency received a report from the New Policy Institute in which the whole of Norfolk was classified as "remote rural", with the exception of Norwich and Great Yarmouth. Some 20 per cent. of the people who live in the countryside live in poverty, so building sustainable communities is absolutely crucial.
I wish to pick up on points that the Minister made to me in a letter dated 8 January, in which he responded to questions raised by a constituent. He noted, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire said, that £30 million has been allocated to help with the development of broadband through regional development agencies. BT has joined forces with the
40WH
East of England Development Agency to test a new approach that could bring broadband ADSL technology to small exchanges where previously it was not commercially viable. Can the Minister tell me whether the trials have been completed and whether they focused on any exchanges in my constituency?
The broadband brokerage is a pilot scheme that allows companies and public sector bodies to register their interest in broadband and that brokers an aggregated solution for them. It has been expanded to the connecting communities competition, which offers communities a chance to apply for a substantial contribution from EEDA's dedicated £5.8 million fund. How many communities in Mid-Norfolk are eligible, how many have applied and how many have been successful? I do not expect the Minister to provide the figures off the top of his head, but I would be grateful if he wrote to me later.
My final point, which is crucial, relates to what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire said. The remote area broadband inclusion trial is examining alternative broadband internet access, using wireless and satellite, for small businesses in rural areas. The Minister's statement of 7 January 2003 highlighted the importance of wireless technology in delivering broadband to rural areas. Several innovative schemes have already been developed by local communities. For example, EdenFaster is a local community organisation that is bringing broadband internet connections to the entire Eden valley, which is on the border between Cumbria and the Yorkshire dales, and several trial schemes are being developed in Norfolk. I commend to the House the scheme of Richard Ellis and his son, James, which aims to provide broadband service for local communities in my constituency.
Noel Coward once said, "Very flat, Norfolk." That is not completely accurate, but, in large parts of my constituency, tall structures such as closely linked church towers can be used to provide a useful network. However, I wish to draw a technical constraint to the Minister's attention. Mr. James Ellis has asked whether it would be possible to have a dispensation to increase the legal effective radiated power limit between specific point-to-point links in rural situations. The Minister is aware that there are major problems in such areas. Mr. Ellis believes that there would be considerable advantages to establishing wireless technology in remote rural areas and providing the development that we want for sustainable communities, but the ERP limit must be addressed.
This is an important debate. Establishing broadband on a wide basis in Mid-Norfolk, which is a rural area, would secure the economic future of my constituents and bring a wider world to them.
2.35 pm
Mr. Brian Jenkins: I congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on securing a debate on this important issue. One can tell how important it is by the number of hon. Members who have turned up this afternoon.
Most people think of me as a Member of Parliament for an urban area, but the vast majority of the Tamworth constituency is rural. There are pluses and

41WH
minuses to living in a rural environment. I do not expect a motorway to run to every village or a supermarket at the end of every street. However, I do expect the information highway to run to every village and rural location. I shall explain the grounds for that in a very short contribution, so that other hon. Members are able to speak.
The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) mentioned sustainability. Information technology is necessary for sustaining our communities. We all know that farmers have gone through hard times recently. We asked them to diversify. Some farmers—they are businesses—would like to diversify into alternative businesses and run them from the same site. How can they do that if broadband is not available to them? How can they sell their concept or bring in money and investment?
That environment has certain advantages. Many people would like to live in a village and do not want to travel into towns or cities. If we maintain communities that are more sustainable and create work in the rural economy, people will not have to travel to towns and cities, or sit in traffic jams causing costs for the person who is behind them. It would be a win-win situation. The advent of broadband in the rural economy should not be seen in isolation. It should be considered by all Government Departments.
Mr. Swire: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that access to broadband can be hugely beneficial not only to those who are in work but to those among our population who are retired and wish to continue studying through, for example, the Open university? They, too, are penalised if access to the internet is not available in rural areas.
Mr. Jenkins: There is no doubt that the matter affects the whole community. I was simply advancing an argument about why it is so important that Government Departments should interact with each other to show that the cost can be offset. For example, the cost of providing extra traffic management facilities could be avoided if the traffic were not generated in the first place.
I congratulate BT on its work as a main provider. I understand that, as a commercial enterprise, it may have a problem in funding a large amount of work at any given time. It must raise funds, and we know what the stock market has done to its value and how difficult it has been for the company to raise money. However, we should not walk away from the problem and say that we cannot solve it if the matter is simply one of securing extra funding.
In my area, we must deal with enablement and trigger points for the local exchange, as does everyone else. One would think that that was easy. However, I shall run through a case that shows the difficulties. It involves Mr. John Metcalf of Shenstone, who was told by BT that the Shenstone exchange required 150 people to register to trigger enablement. Being a community-minded individual, he wrote to the local paper, put up posters in the village, and encouraged people to sign up, so that the exchange could be enabled. He has been getting there slowly—96 people have now registered interest.
A new development in Shenstone involves the building of an office block of 36,000 sq ft and the creation of up to 400 jobs in a rural economy. That will
42WH
be a tremendous boost to my constituency. Mr. Metcalf suggested to BT that with a big office block in place there would surely be enough people to enable the exchange to be triggered. The developers cannot sell the office block to potential customers if there is no broadband access. No one will move from an area that has broadband to an area that does not. I was a bit amazed—I suppose that the Minister would have been too—to be told by BT that only BT account holders can register an interest. It is a Catch-22, chicken-and-egg situation. There will be an office block of 36,000 sq ft, and it is obvious that the exchange will be triggered and that the need is there, but BT will not even take that into consideration. How does that support the Government's plan to diversify and bring sustainable economies and communities together? BT is working on a different route map.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: One of the dangers that we face is telling BT how to run its business, when what we really want is the Government to release the 2 GHz bandwidth. Once people can get broadband by means of radio, we will not have to worry about telling other people how to run their businesses or about commercial decisions. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that with radio delivery of broadband, everybody would be happy?
Mr. Jenkins: I believe that radio has an important part to play in the delivery of broadband, but people should walk away with the idea that most broadband in this country will be delivered by cable. It will come mainly through copper cable. I hope that later it will come through optic fibres, but it will still be cable-delivered.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has taken such issues on board and has been working quite hard in this area for many years. I am sure that the problems are not new to him. I would like some guidance on when my constituents can expect the delivery of the system. The Government target of 2006 is fast approaching. Will the Minister assure us that he will meet that target? I would love to take that message back.
2.42 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on instigating the debate. We have had such debates before, but we cannot have enough of them because we need continually to highlight the importance of extending broadband to rural areas.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins). If nothing else, his constituency has a great reputation for pigs. I support what he said about farmers diversifying to get an income. Many farmers are desperately trying to diversify and without modern information technology and broadband communications, they cannot do that. There is more to diversification than running bed and breakfasts, and farmers are looking forward to that.
BT has behaved very well in my constituency, which is the most sparsely populated in England—that is what we claim. I certainly have the least populated district council in England. In the market towns and larger

43WH
villages, we have reached the threshold and exchanges are being converted. I suggest that hon. Members who are worried about the matter should encourage their local paper to run a campaign. My local paper, the Hexham Courant, ran a successful campaign that alerted people to the idea that they must register. People registered in droves and, as a consequence, the exchanges will be enabled. However, a vast area of my constituency has no prospect of a traditional link-up. People in those areas will be able to access broadband only by satellite or wireless technology.
I want to give a brief example. I can claim another record: my constituency contains the most remote village in England. It is called Kielder. Believe it or not, six workshops were developed there with help from the regional development agency and the local authority. They were supplied with satellite broadband courtesy of the regional development agency. As a consequence, within weeks of the buildings being completed, five out of the six had been let. It was clear that if there had not been access to some form of broadband communication, those premises would not have been so easy to let, so broadband is extremely important.
Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman has made several important points about how we will lose businesses in rural areas if they do not have connections. In my constituency, I have a business centre in a rural area. It has 12 tenants, all of whom have told the owner of the business centre that if they cannot get broadband in the next 12 months, they will have to move to a town. That is the kind of problem that rural areas face.
Mr. Atkinson: That is an important point. It was pointed out earlier that if some areas are enabled for broadband and others are not, there will be a migration of people from areas that are not enabled to those that are.
Earlier today, the Countryside Agency issued an extensive report on rural economies called "Stepping Stones to Healthier Futures". It is worth telling hon. Members about some of the key facts and statistics, because that should go a long way towards informing the debate. The Countryside Agency states:
"80 per cent. of the rural workforce is employed in either manufacturing, distribution, financial or public services—not farming or tourism."
Those areas rely hugely on broadband communication. It continues:
"5.53 million employees and self employed work in rural shops, offices, workshops, factories and farms."
One can see that there is a considerable amount of manufacturing and industrial activity in rural areas. In fact, 17 per cent. of total rural employment is in manufacturing and not farming, which some people will find surprising.
One further point, which many people in villages will not be happy to learn, is that it is village incomers who start up businesses. Apparently, many of them move to villages simply because they want to live in the lovely countryside, but they go on to start up businesses. The Countryside Agency estimates that two thirds of all start-up businesses in rural economies are started by
44WH
incomers. Such people are familiar with, and rely on, modern technologies. If they cannot access them, they will not move to such areas and will settle elsewhere.
I want to reinforce the message conveyed by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and others. It is vital for the Government to take a lead in addressing the problem of how to roll out the network into the countryside.
2.47 pm
Mr. Wayne David: I was saddened to hear that the Minister has been unable to visit Wales today. He should not be too concerned because the examples that I shall cite are exclusively from Wales.
No one taking part in the debate minimises the importance of broadband to the economic development and prosperity of our country. Over the past few years, Wales has seen a number of examples of good practice, which have been successful in themselves but have also served as models for development elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I cite the example of the Strand 6 initiative, which was completed in December 2001. It was a partnership between BT, the Welsh Development Agency and the Llwybr Pathway. Essentially, the project addressed the supply side of communications in rural Wales. It ensured that, in a short space of time, ADSL broadband was installed in 10 exchanges. That was extremely important for the communities in question and it also served as a model for what could happen elsewhere.
Lessons were also learned from some of the initiative's shortcomings. For example, Strand 6 paid very little attention to demand stimulation. Subsequent initiatives, such as Opportunity Wales, show that that lesson has been learned. Opportunity Wales has been directed primarily at small and medium-sized enterprises in Wales and has encouraged them to get the best out of ICT. The Opportunity Wales initiative is one of the largest objective 1 projects in Wales; some £21 million has been allocated over three years. That is enormously important. West Wales and the valleys are categorised as objective 1 because they have a very low GDP. Although there are many other ways in which GDP can be increased in the short term, investing in the long term, through broadband, is one of the most effective ways of ensuring the vitality and wealth of the local economy.
We have seen other examples in Wales as well. One of the most socially worthwhile instances of success has been the partnership established between BT and the national health service in Wales. Broadband connections have been provided to some 500 GP practices, hospitals and home workers, and an enormous social benefit has been derived from that. We are seeing the rolling out of the Broadband Everywhere initiative, with some £100 million earmarked for the development of a partnership involving BT, the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Development Agency with the objective of achieving nearly 100 per cent. broadband coverage throughout Wales.

45WH
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I would like to focus on developments in the Caerphilly county borough, 40 per cent. of which I have the privilege of representing. In that area, a grass-roots public-private partnership has already proved to be very successful. Its aim is to increase the availability of broadband in some of the less commercially advantageous parts of the Caerphilly borough, which includes most parts of the borough. Initiatives are already under way in many parts of the borough, and the success of the partnership is reflected by the fact that in one or two pockets of the borough that are not covered there is already a hue and cry, and people are asking why they do not have access to broadband as well. A local momentum has built up to encourage the maximum amount of coverage.
Mr. James Gray: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the things that we can do as Members of Parliament is to encourage that kind of activity? For example, there is a link on my own website www.jamesgray.org to BT so that people can register through the site. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a good idea?
Hon. Members: Declare an interest.
Mr. David: The hon. Gentleman has not declared an interest yet, but he does make a very good point. I am sure that many hon. Members—myself included—can cite instances of members of the public getting in touch because they want us to make representations and facilitate access so that they can get the benefit of broadband. We can make a practical contribution where that is concerned.
The initiative in Caerphilly is designed to stimulate demand and to provide investment on the supply side. It is an extremely important partnership because, through the good offices of Caerphilly county borough council, there has been co-operation with BT and the Welsh Development Agency. Funding has come from the Corus regeneration partnership, where resources have been provided because of a slimming down of the Llanwern steelworks; Caerphilly county borough is part of that catchment area. Money has come from the partnership to stimulate marketing and encourage demand, and BT has provided four or five extra exchanges to cover much of the area. The initiative is proving to be extremely successful and there is no doubt in my mind that it will be a success, followed by others elsewhere in Wales in the near future.
Broadband is absolutely essential for economic development in the Caerphilly county borough, in Wales and throughout the UK. I am hopeful that by the middle of 2005 availability will rise to nearly 90 per cent. throughout the UK. That will come about not least because the Government have the right support policies, and the vision and perspective necessary to ensure that broadband makes a significant contribution to the future prosperity of this country.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. I remind hon. Members of the importance of starting the winding-up speeches at 3 o'clock.
2.54 pm
Pete Wishart: I start by declaring a depressing fact. I have probably the only mainland constituency that has no BT exchange enabled—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I said probably, and I said it cautiously.
Matthew Green: I can confirm that my constituency has no BT broadband-enabled exchanges, and I believe that there are none in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) either.
Pete Wishart: I am sure that tomorrow's record in Hansard will show that I said "probably". When I said probably, it was likely that I would be challenged.
I have the fifth largest constituency in the UK. That means that some 525,000 hectares of south central highland Scotland—most of Perthshire and Angus—have virtually no broadband access. Listening to some of the contributions of other hon. Members today, I can see that my constituency is not untypical in that respect.
I looked at the BT website today to see what type of exchanges were enabled for broadband, and I could not find any exchanges that could be described as rural enabled in Scotland. We hear that in the next few years broadband will be brought to the south pole. It now looks likely that the south pole will have broadband access before my constituents in Pitlochry and Aberfeldy. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We seem to have several competing debates going on at once.
Pete Wishart: On its website, BT also stated that it is rolling out ADSL upgrades to some 200 new exchanges. Only one of them is in Scotland, in South Queensferry, which lies in the Scottish central belt. Rural Scotland is not benefiting from the technology and looks unlikely to in the medium term because of the massive infrastructure investment required to enable rural exchanges. BT is doing all that it can to enable such parts of the country, but leaving broadband provision to market forces simply is not working when it cannot provide broadband to rural areas. BT has set improbable trigger threshold levels, which are almost impossible for small disparate communities to meet in constituencies such as mine. There are 12 exchanges in my constituency. Only three of them have been set a threshold level.
I believe that BT is serious and sincere when it says that it wants to bring broadband to rural areas. I have had several discussions with senior BT members and executives. They have even gone so far as to lower the threshold in the three exchanges in my constituency—not sufficiently to enable them—and BT staff have been prepared to sit down and discuss the problems and issues with the many campaign groups that have been set up to push for broadband in their localities.
BT understands, as many hon. Members do, that if we do not deliver broadband to such areas we are in great danger of creating a technological divide with the fault line separating urban and rural communities. Many

47WH
small and medium-sized enterprises and small family companies in my constituency already feel technologically disadvantaged. Perthshire and rural Angus may be great places to stay, but they are rotten places to do business if one requires the latest in information technology and e-commerce.
My constituents get—I will use a Scottish word—fair scunnered when they see glossy BT or Freeserve campaigns knowing fine well that they will never get broadband in the short or medium term. The only way that my constituents will acquire broadband will be if they up sticks, move out of my constituency and resettle in one of the cities or towns in central Scotland.
Why is broadband so important to rural areas? I will give an example from my constituency. Highland Perthshire is almost entirely dependent on tourism. As everyone in this Chamber knows, tourism is a very competitive business. Broadband can enable a better net profile for tourism businesses and attract a worldwide audience, which such businesses require. Broadband means more information on services and accommodation, quicker access to that information for customers worldwide and more rapid handling of complex booking and ordering tasks and payment transactions.
I understand that there are problems in rolling out broadband, not just for the UK but for all the developed countries. Most people who currently receive broadband get if from cable or ADSL. ADSL has problems; it can be supplied only to homes that are up to 5.5 km from an exchange. If every single exchange in the UK were enabled by BT, a significant amount of the population would still not have access to broadband. We have to consider other mechanisms for delivering broadband to rural communities, but we must approach some of the alternative technologies with a great deal of caution.
I looked at the BT website today, and it floats the option of what is called midband. I think that BT sees midband as the solution for rural areas. However, midband is little more than glorified ISDN. It only gives half the operating speed of broadband, but people are charged almost the same.
Mr. Robert Key: The midband myth must be dispelled. BT has said:
"Midband … will provide faster internet access and hopefully sensitise people in relevant areas to the benefits of broadband and thereby stimulate the demand which will then support full broadband upgrading."
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a con trick?
Pete Wishart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that midband has been floated to get BT off the rural hook. That is unacceptable.
However, there have been a couple of experiments in operation of mini-DSLAM in highland Scotland. There have been trials in Drumnadrochit and Muir of Ord. Mini-DSLAM enables small communities to have smaller exchanges at a much more competitive cost. When we see the results of the experiments at the end of June 2003, we might learn more about the possibilities in that particular technology.
48WH
I refer now to the old chestnuts of satellite and wireless. Initially, satellite was paraded as a solution for rural communities, but it is an expensive option. It costs £1,000 to install. The running costs of satellite are between £60 and £500, depending on the bandwidth required. Clearly, that is not an appropriate solution for the domestic user in rural areas. I have only four or five businesses that are enabled with satellite in my constituency, and even for them it is an expensive solution. It is a far from ideal technology. The time delay in signals travelling to and from the satellite can cause serious problems. Internet browsing is slow—in some cases, as slow as dial-on.
Wireless access offers a solution for rural areas, although it is beset with regulatory and political problems, which have been barriers to its entry and stop its adoption. Power lines have not been mentioned today. They are another attractive option for delivering broadband. A couple of interesting experiments are now taking place in the south of Scotland and at Stonehaven in Aberdeenshire. Power lines have the advantage that they can be delivered to each home. Each home is connected to the grid. Such technology has enabled large parts of Scandinavia to deliver for their rural communities. Will the Minister comment on what he regards as the potential use of power lines to deliver broadband?
Securing broadband in each locality in the United Kingdom should become a mission for the Government. We are still at the bottom of the G7 for broadband access and that must be dealt with. We are looking for resources and a commitment from the Government to deal with such matters, so that I can tell my constituents in Blairgowrie that they will receive broadband before it is received by people at the south pole.
3.2 pm
Mr. Richard Allan: It gives me pleasure to return to this subject. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on raising it again. I want to talk about broadband services as a process, not a specific event. It is important that a process is in place whereby the network can develop, instead of our thinking that it is a single challenge to put out ADSL to many more people.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to use the development of the road and railway networks as an analogy. We are discussing the scale of the development of transport networks. They have never been frozen in time, but have continued to develop. We are seeing something that is equivalent to the canal, road and rail systems being developed at lightning speed, but people are feeling left out along the way. Unlike the transport network, the information network has the great advantage that its development is generally not seen to have huge environmental downsides. It is welcomed, particularly in rural areas, whereas motorways such as that planned up to the Humber bridge was not welcome as it would have been built through the middle of Lincolnshire. Indeed, it was never built, for that reason.
We must remember that the process should be driven not by technology, but by what functions people want from information networks. We should not be thinking about requiring a specific technology. We do not require broadband as such. We are looking for services and

49WH
benefits that will derive from it. Broadband is not important in itself, but the services that it will deliver to people are. There is no doubt that the ADSL network over BT wires will be the network that satisfactorily delivers to most people in the short term, specifically to those in rural and semi-rural areas who have not been able to receive the same benefits as people in urban areas.
A range of solutions has already been mentioned. We could be wrapped up in a lot of technical jargon, but it is worth referring to the ups and downs of different technologies. ADSL broadband is often talked about. It is advertised by BT, which focuses on the fetching creature that flies through the living room. As has been said, the normal speed of that is 500 kilobits per second, but it can go faster. BT is offering business solutions that go up to 2 megabytes, which gives some scope for expansion.
Satellite has a slow uplink and is thus unsatisfactory for many people, especially those in business. Many of the requirements are business requirements, and people need to send documents to their customers and receive documents back. Having a fast downlink to the computer is fine if a person wants to surf the internet, but a fast uplink is essential if a person wants to transmit material to customers.
Cable broadband has a high potential and is a most satisfactory solution. However, I do not think that we are discussing cable networks rolling out to broadband areas. There is no serious prospect of that happening. It will have an important role to play in urban areas, but we should not be thinking of it delivering in rural areas.
Wireless networks are important. As has been said, they have a fast local loop. However, when we get off the local loop, we have the problem of how to get on to the mainstream network. We particularly need some imagination from the suppliers of the wired loop, especially BT. It could either encourage or discourage the kind of community initiatives that we have heard about. One, in Bottisham in Cambridgeshire, is talked about at length. We would expect such things in Cambridgeshire, but I have also heard about them in Norfolk when people have got together and created a wireless local loop. Clearly, the terms of their contract do not enable broadband services to feed all that through one ADSL connection in someone's bedroom.
BT could come up with imaginative and helpful community contracts that would allow people to develop such services at reasonable cost to each of their customers. I am not arguing for it to be a free service, but it could be reasonably priced. I hope that the Government will, through Ofcom, give a clear steer that they want to encourage such innovation. We must bear it in mind that discouragement could arise if the suppliers of the onward link want to hold back in order to sell their own single-user contract at a later date.
Wireless also raises the matter of potential interference with satellite. The Minister sat through debates on the Communications Bill in Committee, as did the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who must have been itching to talk about broadband, but could not because he was in the Chair at the time. The spread of wireless seems attractive, but there may be a downside to it. The Minister was arguing that the logic behind asking satellite providers to pay to protect their
50WH
spectrum was to do with the potential for future interference. Wireless has scope for growth, but we may reach a limit simply because of interference.
The final important network that has not been mentioned is the mobile phone network. It has been slow to develop its third generation services, but one of the major logics behind that is the provision of faster internet services to points anywhere within the mobile phone network. That has a much greater potential reach than the wired broadband network does at present. The third generation mobile services have been developing slowly.
Costs are being highlighted at present. A person can buy a pig in a poke. He may sign up to buy 3G services, but he does not know what he will get; all that he knows is that services are likely to get cheaper. That is interesting for people who want to take up technology quickly, but we cannot argue that the third generation mobile services are an adequate substitute for wired broadband access. A range of solutions will offer broadband access, but we should not be under any illusions that the market will deliver to everyone at the speed that we need.
The demand for ever greater speed will always create a further technology gap. People may be on the information super-highway as it is currently defined when they have access to broadband at the speeds that come through BT and ADSL, but in five or 10 years' time that may no longer be sufficient and they may feel left behind because an even quicker technology is being rolled out to urban centres, from which they are excluded. We need to consider mechanisms through Ofcom, which is the Government's primary mechanism for delivering the services, to raise the floor for which a universal service needs to be provided. The current legal requirement imposed on BT is that it should deliver data access at a speed of 2.4 kilobytes per second. It has a self-imposed requirement to meet a speed of 9.6 kilobytes, which is slow. There is scope within Ofcom's remit to require all the providers of communications networks that it regulates to raise the floors—the slowest speed at which they provide services successfully. There would be benefits across the piece of sticking to that type of mechanism rather than one that is technology-specific.
We must also continue to sell the benefits of broadband more widely. I have just changed over to it at home and it is revolutionary—I cannot sing its praises highly enough. Although the slogan is trite, it is true because broadband "Works at the speed you work at". I can now go home and access the latest news update, using my BBC Online service in preference to Teletext. It is quicker and better. There is no way that one would do that using narrowband, and the more I use it, the more I understand the very rich layer of functionality that can be accessed only through broadband.
We must continue to get that message across. As we tell everyone about the wonderful stuff out there, the Government and their regulators—especially Ofcom—have a responsibility to ensure that the infrastructure is in place for everyone to receive broadband, wherever they are in the UK.
3.10 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I too congratulate my fellow cyclist, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), on his

51WH
good fortune in securing this debate, his tenacity in pursuing the issue and his extremely comprehensive and excellent speech, which the Minister will wish to address in his winding-up comments.
There have been some useful and varied speeches. Unusually, I would like to comment on that of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who brings great personal knowledge to the debate. During the passage of the Communications Bill, he referred to himself by a rather self-deprecating term that I do not intend to repeat. He brings knowledge to the debate that is useful, as does the Minister. Not everyone knows that in 1986 or 1987 the Minister wrote a paper on broadband communications, which was probably before most of us had even heard the term.
This is not a partisan debate. We all genuinely want the Government to deliver for the sake of the country. We know that it is not easy. Hon. Members who have followed the problems of Deutsche Telecom, or those of France Telecom reported in today's newspapers, will know that broadband delivery can bring commercial difficulties.
In my home town of Lutterworth in my constituency, I have to ring people up to encourage them to register. We had a trigger point of 500, in common with many other hon. Members' constituencies. That figure has now been reduced to 350 and we have got as far as 344. I am not sure that it should be the purpose of a Member of Parliament to lobby for a commercial company to register with the local exchange, but that is the point that we have reached.
Also in my constituency is an example involving the public sector, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire referred. The East Midlands Broadband Consortium delivers broadband to a school that I visited on Friday, as well as others in the constituency—as do other consortiums throughout the country, I understand. Sapcote library, I was surprised to discover, receives its broadband through the People's Network, another public sector delivery point. If the public sector can get broadband, surely that can pull through additional broadband infrastructure for the private sector, as my right hon. Friend said.
We have discussed the huge importance of broadband to business—especially in rural areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned. It is of huge importance throughout the country that the UK is not left behind in the development of the information or knowledge economy. Various people have come to see me with their concerns about that. The number of hon. Members present for the debate testifies to the importance of broadband to rural areas. There are 11 Conservative Members present, who represent areas from the Scottish borders all the way down to South Hams in Devon. That signifies the importance of what might otherwise be a quiet debate in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday afternoon.
Rather than covering old ground, I turn to two specific issues. One has been termed the broadband tax by Vtesse Networks in Hertford, a company that has written to me. I am sure that the Minister also received a letter from Vtesse. It states that
"rates are, in our view, applied unfairly to the leasing of dark fibre"
52WH
which creates
"a Broadband Tax inhibiting the development of Broadband Britain."
Will the Minister comment on that in his winding-up speech? Exactly the same issue was raised by Thus, a company that sprang from Scottish Telecommunications. Thus raised the issue in a meeting with me yesterday. It considers that the broadband tax is a tax on investment and a tax on its network. The tax is also counter-competitive because British Telecom does not pay the same rates as Thus for its network. In Vtesse's view:
"The development of a market in dark fibre is in our view the key to the development of a leading edge Broadband infrastructure in the UK."
The second issue concerns what the CBI would like to see—incentive-based regulation. The CBI believes that the lack of competition in the telecommunications market has stalled investment in the required infrastructure. Although there were 1.4 million broadband connections at the end of January, the UK is in only 6th place among the G7 countries in terms of the number of its broadband connections. Only a small percentage of those connections were for SMEs.
A study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found a close correlation between the availability of rival providers and the growth of broadband penetration. To date, the UK regulatory environment has offered insufficient incentive for operators to build an alternative infrastructure. We know that much attention has been paid to the unbundling of local exchanges, but local loop unbundling does not appear to have had the desired results. Indeed, of those that have been unbundled, only a small number are being used by alternative operators, which suggests that the concept of local loop unbundling may be inherently flawed. Certainly, it is not a simple procedure.
The CBI concludes that if there is to be an increase in the number of broadband connections in the UK to reach the Government's target of being the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005, regulation should be introduced to encourage investment and innovation. The existing regime, which was partially created to curb the monopoly of BT, is largely based on penalties rather than incentives. There are few carrots to match the sticks available to the regulator. To attract long-term capital expenditure and create an incentive for the development of broadband markets, a new approach should be taken by the new creature of Ofcom, encouraged by the Government.
What action will the Government take to deal with the problem of broadband provision? It is not a partisan issue—all hon. Members have agreed today that more action must be taken to encourage the development. At a recent meeting, I was told that the Government were good at tea and sympathy. We need more than that today.
Mr. Key: More than RABBITS out of hats.
Mr. Robathan: More than RABBITS out of hats, as my hon. Friend says. We need sensible action, policy and, from the extremely knowledgeable Minister, delivery for the future of the UK and its information economy.
3.18 pm
The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): I too congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on securing this debate, which has been extremely good. We have had a useful discussion. I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the diligence and authority with which he has pursued this subject. I also wish the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) well in finding the last six people to sign up for the BT threshold in his constituency.
Mr. Robathan: I think that we have got them.
Mr. Timms: I am very glad to hear that.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: My hon. Friend referred to the business of trying to get enough people to reach the threshold, which is what I have been doing in my constituency. The problem is not in achieving the trigger, because my main town has been enabled and we are now trying to enable the second town. However, even when they are enabled, there is the problem of the distance limit of 4.5 miles of copper wire. Large tracts of my main town cannot access broadband and the rural parts of the constituency will never be able to access broadband because of the problem. How will my hon. Friend encourage wireless solutions?
Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend raises an important point: the limitation is an important constraint. BT has announced today that it is introducing a technology to increase the limit. That will not remove the problem entirely but will at least enable some of the problem to be addressed.
In October, I visited the Act Now project in Cornwall, an impressive partnership put together by the county council and enthusiastically supported by the Federation of Small Businesses and others. The generation of demand for broadband has been a key element of that project—to pick up an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—alongside funding for technology.
During my visit to that project, I met the Quintdown Press, which has three print shops in Cornwall, and which as a result of broadband has been able to achieve one-day turnaround for print jobs delivered to its shop in Truro, compared with three days in the past. Its Internet café in Newquay increased its turnover by 50 per cent. within two weeks of the introduction of broadband.
Mr. Swire: The Minister referred to the Act Now project. Will he join me in congratulating Devon county council? It is seeking to emulate that project: it has announced today that it will provide £300,000 to perform a similar function in Devon—and hopefully to obtain some objective 2 funding, as well.
Mr. Timms: I welcome that point.
In Cornwall, I also visited a web marketing company called Neutralise, which moved from London to Cornwall because it knew that broadband would be available there. It is now a six-person business, and its staff made the point that it would never have been able to become that large if it had stayed in London.
54WH
Those examples show the economic importance of broadband in rural areas from the point of view both of the rural areas themselves—I refer hon. Members to the remarks about diversification made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins)and echoed by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson)—and of our ambition to raise productivity and improve the competitiveness of the UK economy as a whole. It is important that we ground this discussion in the interests of the country as a whole, as well as in the interests of rural areas themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth made a telling point about new developments, which I hope that BT heard.
A couple of weeks ago I was in Oakham, the diminutive county town of Rutland, and I visited Rutland Online, which employs 15 people. It began six years ago by hosting websites and providing e-commerce solutions for businesses in the area, but broadband has increasingly become a major part of its interest. Today there is no broadband service in Oakham, but in the coming few months three separate broadband services will be established. Next month, an independent operator will use local loop unbundling to provide the first broadband service in the area; shortly after that, BT expects to upgrade its local exchange for ADSL, and later in the year, Rutland Online will establish a wireless broadband service with which it expects to be able to support 60 small and medium-sized enterprise users. Rutland Online would like to be able to roll out that wireless service to other nearby villages, perhaps by using church spires in the way that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) suggested—I will write to him about the points that he put to me.
There is a great profusion of activities of this kind at the moment. One can get a sense of that from the Government's response last week to the report of the broadband stakeholders group, in which we set out information about activities in each of the regions, in Wales—my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) referred to a number of important initiatives there—and in Scotland. I refer the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) to some of the initiatives that are being taken forward, for example, the objective of increasing access to ADSL-equivalent broadband to 70 per cent. by the end of 2003–04, which is a Scottish Executive initiative. A copy of that response is in the Library and on the Department of Trade and Industry website.
At present, 71 per cent. of households in the UK can access an affordable broadband service. That puts us ahead of several other countries, including France and Italy. We now have over 1.5 million connections, which is more than the figure that some hon. Members mentioned. The UK now has the second largest broadband network in Europe after Germany, and the number of connections is growing by over 30,000 per week, which is much more than in Germany. Recognising the effectiveness of the much greater degree of competition in the UK, my German opposite number asked me last week for UK input to the development of the German broadband strategy, which is due to be launched in May. However, despite the progress that we have made, the hon. Members who underlined that there is still a great deal more to do to make broadband available in all rural areas of the UK are correct.

55WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made an important point about the limitation on the distance from a BT exchange from which people with ADSL can receive broadband. Oftel estimates that 5 per cent. of customers connected to BT's DSL-enabled exchanges live too far from the exchange to obtain DSL broadband. However, as I said, BT announced today that it can extend that distance further, and it believes that that will increase the maximum national coverage to 98 per cent.
I do not believe that there should be a general public subsidy for broadband, as has been suggested. The key role for the public sector in broadband will not be through handing out subsidies; it will be as a customer for broadband services, because public services will spend over £1 billion on broadband in the next three years. We need to aggregate that demand to maximise the impact on industry investment and on the availability of broadband. That was why I launched the UK broadband taskforce last November.
At present, the main obstacle to the provision of more affordable broadband in rural areas is concern that the initial investment required will obtain a slower return in those areas, where there are fewer people within a given distance from the service provider than there are in areas of high population. In particular, there is the problem of the so-called backhaul infrastructure—the cost of connecting a local exchange or a new wireless base station to the core network. That is a big barrier to the extension of broadband to rural areas. Rutland Online told me that of the £90,000 cost of providing its wireless broadband service for two years, backhaul will account for £50,000. The key point here is that the investment that delivers, for example, broadband to a school in a rural area in the future can also contribute to the backhaul for a local access system for the community as a whole. That is the key: public sector investment should be used to ensure wide access to other users for broadband services in rural areas. That is at the heart of the work that we are taking forward.
Matthew Green: In Shropshire, every school has been enabled on broadband, but there is no broadband for any of the businesses in my constituency. There is a reason for that: the Government imposed a deadline of
56WH
this year for the schools and they managed to do that by January, but the only system that was on offer to the county council was of no use to businesses or homes. There was no choice but to accept the only tender on offer: now, every school and library is on broadband but that is of no use to businesses and homes.
Mr. Timms: I welcome the progress that has been made in public sector provision in Shropshire. Advantage West Midlands is now putting together a very impressive arrangement for using the investment that has been made in infrastructure to open that up to other users. The intention is to aggregate the network that the hon. Gentleman refers to—whose contract comes to an end this summer—with the higher education network in the west midlands so that they can be put together and the infrastructure can be opened up to other users. To pick up on some of the concerns that have been expressed in this debate, what is happening in the west midlands is a good illustration of the potential of this approach to provide broadband services, particularly to small enterprises in rural areas.
There is great potential for using public sector procurement to extend the reach of broadband into rural areas. That is not automatic: it requires some very smart management on the part of the Government and the regional development agencies, but I am certain that we can do that. Therefore, we should look at what the public sector will be procuring in broadband services over the next year: for schools, it is planned that broadband will be provided at 8 megabits per second symmetric to every secondary school; all GP practices will get 256 kilobits per second connectivity; and the criminal justice system will use broadband. We need to ensure that that investment is managed to extend access to other users as well: for example, 85 per cent. of public libraries currently have broadband—including, I noticed during my visit there, the public library in Oakham.
I could say a great deal more, and I welcome the comments that have been made in this debate. I hope that I have briefly been able to give the House a sense of the determination of the Government to ensure that rural communities have the benefits of broadband. We have already seen with regard to mobile telephones that the competitive market can best deliver the choice of services and real value that consumers are looking for.

Phoenix Traders
3.30 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of phoenix traders. It is by no means a new issue, and has been raised by other hon. Members over the years.
As I prepared for today's debate, it struck me that the reason why everyone always agrees on this issue but nothing ever changes is because the main victims of phoenix traders are usually small and medium-sized enterprises, which do not have the same political clout as big business. Often such businesses are too busy fighting for survival to seek the necessary political change. I hope that today gives us the opportunity to focus on the small and medium-sized enterprises that suffer from this practice.
My interest in phoenix trading was first stimulated by a piece of constituency casework, to which I shall later refer. The debate has proved timely, however, as last Sunday the Sunday Mail carried an article that is a classic of the genre. The headline is "Shameless", and the article tells the story of a tycoon whose bus firm went bust owing £350,000 but who is back on the road again. Being a good tabloid newspaper, it states that he is "guzzling" champagne. I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with the Sunday Mail—it may not be the paper of choice in her constituency—but I commend it to her as an excellent example of responsible tabloid campaigning on an issue that affects a great number of people.
The report states:
"The firm under investigation is School Bus Scotland, which went to the wall two years ago after running up losses of £500,000 and owing creditors £344,715."
The creditors of that firm are typical of such stories. One is the Golden Filling Station in Greenock, which is owed some £26,907. That is an example of what I mean when I speak of small businesses that can ill afford to be so cheated.
The Minister and I both served on the Committee that considered the Enterprise Bill—I hope that her scars have healed as well as mine, as it was something of a marathon. Much of the debate in Committee focused on the tension between encouraging an entrepreneurial spirit and the need to penalise dishonest chancers. The more I see of such stories, the more convinced I become that we have not got the balance right. The law is letting too many chancers get away with economic murder—it is nothing short of a chancers' charter.
The constituency case to which I referred concerns one of my constituents, Dr. Jonathan Wills. He runs an excellent wildlife tourism business, taking visitors to see Shetland's spectacular seabird colonies and seal rookeries. It is an award-winning business. He was looking to develop and expand his business and accordingly he decided that a more comfortable, larger boat that was specially designed to allow wheelchair users and other disabled passengers to take advantage of his service was necessary. He received good support from the local council and Shetland Enterprise.
Dr. Wills then entered into a contract with a company called Steelboat Ltd. in Pwllheli, north Wales, which was run by one Mr. Don Fuller-Love. The business was
58WH
apparently on the level. Mr. Fuller-Love produced a reference from Natwest bank. A proper marine construction contract, complete with penalty clauses for late delivery, was checked by lawyers and a marine surveyor. In October 2001, Dr. Wills paid a 10 per cent. deposit, and thereafter made stage payments as work proceeded on his new boat.
My constituent did not know at the time that Mr. Fuller-Love had previously liquidated two of his companies. He believes that Mr. Fuller-Love used the practice of taking funds from one company to pay debts due on another. His subsequent investigations led him to believe that more than £90,000 may not have been properly accounted for in the firm's books. Nor did he know that the deposit and stage payments that he made were all that kept Mr. Fuller-Love's company afloat. It began with no capital, and was using deposits from new customers to finish work on the previous contract. A game of financial musical chairs was going on, and when the music stopped it was Dr. Wills's misfortune to be left standing.
It eventually became clear that the boat would not be finished on time. Eventually, Mr. Fuller-Love's company went into voluntary liquidation. A liquidator, BN Jackson Norton, was called in to perform the administration. That was when Dr. Wills's difficulties went from bad to worse. The liquidator insisted that, notwithstanding the terms of the contract as Dr. Wills interpreted them, he would release the boat in its semi-completed state only on payment of £30,000. I do not know how that was assessed. At the same time, another company in my constituency was dealing with the same company and they received a similar offer.
Dr. Wills ultimately had to hire lawyers to negotiate with the liquidator, and I became involved. I was eventually able to broker a deal and as a result Dr. Wills was able to get hold of his property at the beginning of December. If the situation had been left for another couple of weeks, Dr. Wills would have been out of business because he would not have been able to sustain the losses. He tells me that he may be working for nothing for the next couple of years to keep his business afloat.
My constituent is a remarkable individual. He is a former investigative journalist and—the Minister may be interested to learn—a former Labour party activist. In his own time and at his own expense, he traced Steelboat's former employees, and with their help he discovered that £53,000 of company assets had been spirited away just before liquidation. He says that there are gaping holes in the company's financial records, and has established that the liquidator did not have full access to the company's records, which were all removed from the office in Four Crosses by Mr. Fuller-Love and his assistant hours before the liquidator was called in. Dr. Wills properly passed on all that information to the liquidator, and 12 weeks after the firm had gone into liquidation some interviews were held.
I understand that Mr. Fuller-Love is still in business. He is trading under another name and uses assets that my constituent believes are properly the property of Steelboat Ltd. Incidentally, some 16 workmen lost their jobs at Steelboat Ltd., but somehow Mr. Fuller-Love continues to trade. The injustice of that is obvious.

59WH
I should like the Minister to consider the role of insolvency practitioners in dealing with such cases. My suspicion is that a lesser man than Dr. Wills would have paid the £30,000, which was over and above all the money that he had paid to Steelboat Ltd., and gone away counting himself lucky. I do not quite understand how the liquidators arrived at the figure of £30,000. It seems arbitrary, but no doubt there is some reason behind it.
It is worrying that the only real investigation into the circumstances surrounding the collapse of the company was carried out by those in my constituency, not by the insolvency practitioners—and BN Jackson Norton, as the Minister will know, is a very reputable firm. If that is how insolvency practitioners conduct themselves, it is time to look again at how the system works. Not every small and medium enterprise is run by someone as intelligent and resourceful as Dr. Wills is, especially when roused. How many others have been in the same situation and simply given up and gone away because it was too difficult?
What use has been made of the new powers to disqualify directors for up to 15 years? Can the Minister give me some assurance that those powers are being used to their full potential, and that it is not just the big boys who are being hammered? If we are serious about cracking down on phoenix traders—I hope that the Government are—those powers are an obvious sanction that will have some effect. It is said sometimes that phoenix traders are an inevitable consequence of limited liability. I understand why that is said, but that does not have to be the case. If we use the sanction, limited liability can regain some of its respectability.
There is also the factor of the different practices of, and resources used in, trading standards departments. The Minister will be surprised to hear me ask for more central control. She will have heard me speak in the past about the importance of subsidiarity. However, on this issue, the Minister's Department should have control, especially in setting minimum standards.
The Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland suggested that there is a need for a special division in courts to handle liquidation applications. I do not know whether that comes under the Minister's remit or that of the Justice Department of the Scottish Executive. Obviously, it is a matter on which there will be considerable overlap. I hope that, if that is a shared responsibility, the Minister can make progress with the Scottish Executive.
The Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland has suggested that stop now orders simply do not work properly, especially in relation to one of the most recent scams, in which companies offer services under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Minister may be aware that many companies receive an official-looking letter telling them that they need to pay £90 to register under the 1998 Act. The actual cost of registration is, I think, £35. As soon as the companies responsible are found out, they go under and re-emerge in another guise, and the scam goes on. That is one of the most obvious and clamant deceitful practices of phoenix traders.
60WH
The Government introduced the disqualified directors hotline in 1998, but I am told that it does not operate north of the border. Does the Minister's Department have responsibility for that, and why is there that distinction?
3.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on securing the debate, and on raising issues affecting his constituents, which he did with his usual vigour. He did not advise me beforehand of the specific cases that he has mentioned, but even if he had, I could not comment on them. I cannot comment on the detail of the points that he raised. However, I listened with sympathy to his constituent's plight.
The Government's overall aim is to promote an effective framework for corporate activity and to give confidence to investors, business and other stakeholders. I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the business-to-business aspects of that. Within that framework, it is essential that we have an insolvency regime that, while encouraging enterprise and reducing the stigma associated with failure, deals fairly and effectively with financial failure and deters fraud and misconduct. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are fully committed to tackling abuse and misconduct, and that we have in place—and in use—mechanisms that deal with that abuse. I must emphasise that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's concern that we have got the balance wrong on "chancers", as he called them. That is not right.
The term "phoenix trading" is generally used for those who abuse the privilege of limited liability. It normally refers to cases in which the directors walk away from the debts of a failed company and assume the management of a successor business, often working from the same premises, using the same or a similar name and the assets of the failed company. At its worst, phoenix trading is dishonest exploitation of limited liability by the unscrupulous, who maintain commercially unsustainable operations at the expense of their creditors. Those creditors typically include the small businesses and members of the public who can ill afford such losses. The hon. Gentleman sketched out how losses of that kind have affected his constituent.
Of course, the Government are keen to prevent such abuses. We have brought forward a number of cases recently involving such matters as the reuse of a company name. Last year, at West Bromwich magistrates court, Grenville Higgins was convicted of the offence of using a prohibited company name. At Manchester Metropolitan magistrates court on 12 November, Graham Heap was convicted of the same offence. There have been several other such cases, some quite substantial, involving directors.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions about the use of the powers, I will sketch out what we are doing in a little more detail. There are quite a number of mechanisms to deal with the abuse. There is disqualification, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Courts can, in the cases that he mentioned, disqualify unfit directors for between two and 15 years. Phoenix companies are particularly targeted, and the courts take

61WH
such cases very seriously. I mentioned a couple of them earlier, but I could have cited many others. Of course, we need hard evidence in all cases.
Mr. Carmichael: I thank the Minister for what she has said about the use of disqualification. What assessment is her Department making about the length of disqualification, and will she consider introducing a minimum period of disqualification? That would fetter the discretion of the courts and ensure a more uniform application of the law.
Miss Johnson: We have in legislation set a period of between two and 15 years, so once a disqualification is issued, there is, in effect, a minimum ban of two years. In a way, what the hon. Gentleman requests has already been envisaged. Obviously, it is not for me to fetter the discretion of the courts. I am sure that if he were wearing other hats, he would object strongly if I did such a thing.
On the results of the process, it is worth the hon. Gentleman noting that 1,413 disqualification orders were made between April 2002 and February 2003, of which 1,122 were undertakings. Since 1986, some 13,082 directors have been disqualified. Indeed, in some of those cases there was no need for a court hearing, because the director consented to the period of disqualification. There is also the fast track process that was introduced in April 2001. The Insolvency Service has the resources to pursue all identified cases of serious misconduct and it has been doing so.
The hotline that the hon. Gentleman mentioned was established in January 1998. The public may use it to report possible criminal activities by those who manage companies while they are disqualified. More than 3,500 calls have been received and every one is followed up by the appropriate people. Apart from being disqualified, directors can be, and are, prosecuted for offences relating to phoenix operations, including theft of company property, fraud in anticipation of winding up and, in more serious cases, fraudulent trading. There is quite a wide range of responses. It is not just the big guys, as the hon. Gentleman alleged; it is also the smaller companies and those who are affecting other small companies. I sketched out earlier a couple of court cases involving both large and small companies.
The reuse of a company name is another relevant aspect. There are restrictions on the reuse by directors of the failed company name. They can be prosecuted if those are ignored and they can also be made responsible for the company's debts. Between April 2000 and March 2001 the Department prosecuted 46 offences and obtained 35 convictions. Between April 2001 and March 2002 it prosecuted 74 offences and obtained 58 convictions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming that activity and the success rate we have achieved.
The hon. Gentleman may wish to note that it is possible to arrange for clawback provisions to apply if a company's money and assets have been put deliberately beyond the reach of creditors. However, the creditors may need to fund such a court action and they are often unwilling to lose more by funding the liquidator to take action. Of course, unscrupulous directors take care to cover their tracks.
I do not have to hand the figures on activity on stop now orders, but I am happy to supply whatever current figures we have. I have recently answered a number of
62WH
questions relating to that issue. There has been a good success rate in the use of stop now orders. However, the formal orders brought before the courts as injunctions are orders that have not been successful in preventing, through agreement and discussion between trading standards officers, or the Office of Fair Trading, and those who are committing an offence, the need to go to court. In fact, many stop now orders do not appear in the statistics. However, we know that they are being used widely by trading standards departments throughout the country and by the OFT, under its responsibilities to protect the consumer.
Mr. Carmichael: Can the Minister tell me what measures are taken to record those informal arrangements, that enable us to stop short of going to court? There is a danger of people entering into that kind of arrangement and then quietly going away.
Miss Johnson: It is not possible for me to give any figures on the number of arrangements that have been accepted by anecdotal means, or perhaps through contacting various trading standards departments. The likely numbers would vary between departments, because they are of different sizes and deal with different kinds of areas. It would not be easy to get a representative picture, but we know from what is said to us that the numbers refer to negotiations by trading standards and the OFT that take place in various cases. It is unlikely that, having come to the attention of either of those bodies, the trader would be left entirely to his or her own devices without some continuing oversight, albeit from a distance, to check on whether their trading practices and activities are lawful.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured that people are watching over those who have not gone through the formal injunction processes or to court, but who have, none the less, been prevented from continuing with things that would undoubtedly have led to injunctions for offences. Those powers are being widely used and the hotline is also being well used.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the powers of Westminster and the Scottish Executive. I will write to him on those matters. It is always dangerous to venture an opinion about the exact balance of responsibilities in that regard.
We take the hon. Gentleman's concerns seriously and we take the need to tackle phoenix companies seriously.
Mr. Carmichael: I would not normally intervene on a Minister during her peroration. However, the Minister has dealt fully with the matter and it strikes me, as I listen to the full exposition, that we have a complex system that will be beyond the means of many small businesses. Is the Minister's Department actively looking at ways in which the system might be simplified and made more user-friendly for the small firm that does not have vast resources to spend on big commercial lawyers?
Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that in all instances the businesses themselves must bring the case. However, a trading standards department would act if something were brought to its attention. Similarly, disqualification proceedings are brought to the

63WH
attention of the courts by the department, and those are prosecuted through the courts. Businesses on the receiving end of such problems are not required to bring them to the attention of the courts. There are various routes that do not require the businesses themselves to take further and to prosecute—both literally and metaphorically—the case in question. Many routes are available. Those are well used and are leading to disqualification, fines, winding up and other mechanisms, about which we have spoken.
I am happy to draw the hon. Gentleman's views to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths)—the Minister with responsibility for small businesses—who always gives due consideration to how things can be improved for small businesses. I shall ask whether he has additional reflections on the matter, which may assist small businesses in future. That may reassure small businesses throughout the country that the Government, Government agencies and trading standards departments do, and will, regularly take action on their behalf.

Tetanus Vaccinations
3.59 pm
Ann Taylor: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise a matter that started as a constituency issue but has wider implications. The reason why I requested the Adjournment debate is the tragic death in my constituency of Sheila Creighton, who lived at Norristhorpe and who died last April in tragic circumstances.
Sheila was an active and fit 61-year-old. She was 18 months into her retirement when she had what seemed a simple fall in her garden and cut her head on a step. She went, as anyone would in those circumstances, to an accident and emergency unit, where she received prompt attention and the cut was cleaned. Sheila was sent home and at first all seemed well. Her family and even she did not realise how serious the situation was. Unbeknown to her family, friends and doctors, Sheila had contracted tetanus. She soon developed serious problems and had to return to hospital.
Tetanus was not diagnosed instantly, however. There were several factors in that, all of which had some justification. There was some doubt at the time about how long ago Sheila had last been vaccinated against tetanus. Indeed, I think that some confusion still surrounds that. In addition, many of the symptoms that she displayed could have been attributed to other aspects of the fact that she had fallen and hurt her head. It was not clear that the symptoms were pointing in one direction as opposed to another.
The other factor that undoubtedly played a part was that tetanus is extremely rare in Britain. Very few doctors in hospitals or elsewhere think of that as the first diagnosis for someone with Sheila's symptoms. Indeed, it was a doctor with experience of working abroad who first indicated that tetanus might be a diagnosis in the case. It is not for me to comment on the balance of those factors, but I think that they all contributed.
As I said, Sheila was not diagnosed with tetanus quickly. Once the diagnosis was made, it was not possible to save her life, and tragically she died as a result of what at first seemed a simple fall in the garden. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), will join me in expressing sympathy to Sheila's widower, Ronnie, and the whole family. I have spoken to Ronnie, to another relative, to the family GP, Dr. David Findlay, and to the coroner involved in the case, Dr. Roger Whittaker. I am grateful to them all for the time that they have given. Obviously, each of them has thought about this exceptional case a great deal.
The case raises a couple of basic questions, which I shall raise with the Under-Secretary so that Ronnie Creighton and his family can feel that all possible lessons have been learned from what seemed like a simple accident leading to tragic consequences. First, is enough being done to raise awareness among people generally of the need for protection from tetanus? My second question is somewhat different. It is relevant to this case and many others. Are our individual medical records as patients, including our vaccination records, sufficiently available to those who need them when they need them?

65WH
I am aware that tetanus is relatively rare in Britain. It is a common cause of death in developing countries, but thankfully not in the United Kingdom. The Under-Secretary probably has more up-to-date figures than I have. Mine are from the Library, which recorded 145 cases in a 10-year period up to the mid-1990s. Of course, most of those cases were not fatal, but that was the incidence of the disease during that time. The fact that we have so few cases is thanks largely to immunisation, higher hygiene standards and probably other factors, such as greater mechanisation in farming. We could discuss that, but it is important to register that it is a rare disease.
In the decade for which I have figures, 53 per cent. of all cases involved people over 65, and two thirds involved women. The fact that the younger section of the population is less affected by tetanus must be due at least partly to the vaccination programme that has been in force since 1961. It is now commonplace for infants to be vaccinated against tetanus and to receive other vaccinations when they are very young. Booster injections are also commonly given at different points in a child's school life. I have figures suggesting that, in 2001–02, 94 per cent. of children who reached their second birthday at that time were immunised against tetanus when they were immunised against diphtheria and polio. I understand that 95 per cent. is the target and that that was the first time in nine years that the figure had been below 95 per cent. Perhaps that tiny chink in the numbers needs to be watched, so that the figure does not go any lower.
I want to ask the Under-Secretary about the fact that there are no formal targets for the reinforcer or booster doses, which come later. According to the figures that I have seen, not all those who receive early vaccinations successfully are covered when it comes to booster injections. It is commonplace for people to receive some protection, but not everyone will realise that vaccination in early childhood or the injections that people receive after an accident do not necessarily provide protection for the whole of their lives, and that they need booster injections from time to time. Lifelong immunity is not easily achieved. I saw a report—perhaps the Under-Secretary will comment on it—that we need five full doses on different occasions before we have lifelong full immunity. I am not sure how many people have that.
Will the Under-Secretary look again at whether more can be done to ensure that everyone receives the advice that they need and that everyone considers vaccination? I understand that there are sometimes reasons why vaccination may not be recommended and why it is sometimes decided that not everyone in an A and E department should be routinely vaccinated against tetanus. However, many people do not even consider the matter unless they are travelling abroad and they take advice then.
I looked up what information was available on the NHS website and the Department of Health website. I also tried NHS Direct. Its advice was helpful, as are programmes such as "Gardeners' Question Time", which occasionally mentions the need for people to seek protection against tetanus. However, many people, particularly those potentially at risk, such as those over 65, do not necessarily search out that information and do not come across it. Is the Under-Secretary satisfied with the immunisation programme and, in particular,
66WH
the follow-up programme for return booster injections, which are critical for long-term protection? If we get the early vaccinations right, it is easier to continue. Is she satisfied that more mature adults who have never had any vaccinations are being encouraged at least to be aware of the need for appropriate information and immunisation? They should not panic or queue up for injections that they do not need, but they should get the advice that they need from GPs or elsewhere.
That brings me to my other concern. When my constituent went to hospital for the first time after the accident, there was no easy and immediate way of checking if or when she had last been vaccinated. Many of us could say that that would happen for other illnesses or vaccinations. We often cannot recall exactly when we had different vaccinations and would probably have to get our vaccination records checked before we travelled to certain countries, which is the most likely time that we think about vaccinations.
My concern is therefore about accessibility to medical records and whether more could be done. In particular, will the Under-Secretary share her latest thinking about the possible use of smartcards? I know that there is a European Union dimension to the issue, which can be a red rag to a bull, but that does not mean that we should not consider it. Many EU countries have incompatible health smartcard technologies, but there are incompatible technologies within Government, and computers cause us problems.
We have an opportunity to do something. I understand that there have been pilot schemes in the United Kingdom. Whether such a development is UK based or wider, there must be scope for improving access to information. If my constituent had had a smartcard with all the information about her vaccinations, what she told the doctors or whether she could remember having a vaccination would not have been an issue. The information would have been instantly available, and a routine post-accident tetanus injection would have been considered necessary, and would have made a difference.
My constituent Ronnie Creighton has suffered a great loss, and his family were devastated by the incident. Obviously, there is nothing that we can do for Sheila, but it would help the family if we met some of their anxieties about the need for more awareness of the dangers of tetanus and about information getting to the point at which it is most needed. If we made progress in both improving access to information and increasing people's awareness, so that they consider having tetanus vaccinations, and younger people know about keeping up to date with their booster vaccinations, some good could come out of this tragic incident and more people could get better protection in future.
4.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) on securing this important debate. I extend my sympathy to the family of Sheila Creighton, in particular to her widower Ronnie. Sheila died tragically in the spring of last year after contracting tetanus following a fall in the garden, and it is safe to say that the majority of the undoubtedly rare cases of tetanus arise from incidents in the garden.

67WH
It is incredibly sad that someone should die of tetanus in the 21st century. The disease has largely been eradicated from this country, and the circumstances are unusual. The inquest into Sheila's death found that the treatment delivered by the two hospitals that she attended—Dewsbury and district hospital and Pinderfields hospital—was acceptable and although the diagnoses were incorrect, they were perfectly reasonable given the rarity of tetanus. Several different doctors saw Sheila, and her condition was recognised only towards the end. Mrs. Creighton's tetanus status was investigated as soon as she presented at the accident and emergency department, and it was indicated that she had had a booster within the past five years, so in accordance with hospital policy and Department of Health guidelines, no tetanus injection was given.
I want to deal with the immunisation system generally and how that protects younger people and consider the position of older people, which my right hon. Friend has rightly emphasised. I will then examine the information technology issues and look to the future and how we can have systems to minimise such events.
A national childhood tetanus immunisation programme was introduced in the United Kingdom in 1961. Since 1990, vaccination coverage at two years of age has exceeded 90 per cent. in England and Wales. I am pleased to say that in the Calderdale and Kirklees area, the percentage of children immunised by their second birthday is in excess of the national average at 96 per cent. and the percentage of children who have had diphtheria, tetanus and polio immunisation at the age of five years is 97 per cent. A good job is being done in that area to ensure that children are immunised at two and then have their boosters later in childhood.
Due to the success of the programme, tetanus disease almost disappeared in children under 15 years of age by the 1970s, so the majority of cases are in unimmunised adults, as in the case of Mrs. Creighton. To increase the vaccination uptake in adults who remained at risk, it was recommended in 1970 that immunisation should be routinely offered in the treatment of tetanus-prone wounds, so that when people presented with any wound or burn that showed various symptoms of tissue damage, doctors routinely offered immunisation.
That is still the position today. If there is any doubt about someone's tetanus immunisation status, it is recommended that the patient receive a tetanus jab. The difficulty in the case in question was that the hospital believed that the doubt was eradicated by Mrs. Creighton's indication that she had had a booster jab. However, if there is any shadow of a doubt, the patient should have the injection straight away to build the immunity.
It is incredibly important to us that the childhood programme is maintained and, when possible, opportunistic vaccination takes place in adults who have not been able to complete a course of the vaccine. In that way, we can approach the problem from both ends: ensuring that the children are properly vaccinated and getting the patient immunised on every occasion that they present with a tetanus-prone injury. Tetanus is not passed from person to person. It is picked up from spores in the soil, so it cannot be completely eradicated, which is why vaccination remains so important.
68WH
My right hon. Friend is right that it is recommended that people have five doses of vaccine at appropriate intervals to give lifelong immunity, which is what the childhood immunisation programme aims to achieve. The vaccine is now given in three doses one month apart for infants at two months old, so they receive their first three doses early on. They then receive a pre-school booster dose of diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis together. That is recommended for three to five-year-olds, is given with the polio vaccine, and is the fourth dose of tetanus. Finally, a reinforcing dose of tetanus and low-dose diphtheria is recommended for young people between 15 and 19 years of age, which is the fifth dose of tetanus vaccine.
Ann Taylor: Will my hon. Friend confirm whether targets exist for those other two categories? There are clearly targets for the young infants, but my information was that targets do not exist for three to five-year-olds or school leavers. I would have thought that it would have been useful to have targets for those groups, particularly as school leavers may remember having the vaccine in later life and go back for subsequent booster injections.
Ms Blears: At the moment, these are recommendations, not targets. The programme is extremely successful in relation to childhood immunisation, which involves the four doses that I mentioned up to the age of five. As I said, the figure in England is up to 94 per cent., and is even higher in my right hon. Friend's area. There are no targets for the dose for 15-year-olds, which remains to be recommended. I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall examine the current state of affairs more closely to see how much of the population we are reaching to ensure that they have that final booster dose that will give them the lifelong immunity that it is so important.
Tetanus has occurred only exceptionally rarely in fully immunised individuals. The relatively small number of cases that continue to occur in this country are among unimmunised or partially immunised people. The tetanus immunisation programme has been very successful. The annual incidence of tetanus is now 0.2 per 1 million people—the lowest figure ever recorded in this country. We have driven down the figures for the disease; there is a real record of success in the UK. There are no longer any cases of tetanus reported in children under the age of five, although we should remember that tetanus infection is still a common problem in parts of Asia and Africa, especially in newborn babies due to infection of the baby's umbilical stump. Tetanus is an important cause of death in many of those countries.
The situation is regularly surveyed by the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, which is part of the Public Health Laboratory Service. Between 1984 and 2000, it carried out a survey in which 175 cases were reported. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, 91 of those cases were people over the age of 65. We are therefore seeing a concentration of the admittedly few cases among older people.
Since the 1930s, cases of tetanus have been more common in women. One of the reasons is that in 1938, men in the armed forces started to be immunised. Women obviously did not have the same access to that immunisation programme. Recent surveillance data

69WH
suggests that men and women are now equally at risk. Tetanus is more common in older people. Because the national infant programme was introduced only in 1961, many older people have not got the immunity that they need. It is very important for older people to ensure that they are protected.
It may be possible to intervene around the time when older people go for their flu jabs to ensure that awareness is raised. We have a major campaign among older people to ensure that they receive a flu jab every year. Injection rates are now quite good; probably more than 65 per cent. of older people are now being immunised every year. It would be an excellent opportunity for general practitioners to check with their older patients that their entire immunisation is up to date. I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall undertake to see whether we can dovetail that raising of awareness with the times when patients go to their GPs to receive their flu jabs.
The guidance that we give to staff at accident and emergency departments is that they should give a tetanus injection to the person who is being treated if there is any doubt about their immunisation status. There are clear guidelines that anti-tetanus immunoglobulin should be given to someone who is not immunised, or if their immunisation is not up to date, as it gives immediate protection. It is not about the future, but about the there and then, and ensuring that the antibodies are stimulated and that tetanus is prevented from taking hold.
Immunoglobulin contains ready-made antibodies against the tetanus toxin that work immediately—one does not have to wait for the body to make its own antibodies. It is a course of action that can be taken to try to minimise tragic events such as that involving Mrs. Creighton, and should be taken in hospitals where there is any doubt whatsoever. Ideally, people will receive lifelong protection through immunisation, but an emergency response is also very important.
It would be extremely useful to have more accurate and up-to-date information about patients' immunisation records. In the case of Mrs. Creighton, the coroner, Mr. Whittaker, said:
"What I am concerned about is the lack of knowledge available to doctors. I shall be recommending that electronic medical cards with a computer chip be introduced which will contain all the details of a patient."
For some time now we have been working with the NHS on the idea of developing an electronic patient record that travels with a patient. The professionals—the doctors, nurses and therapists—can have access to a patient's medical history wherever that patient accesses the NHS. That would be of immense value in improving the health outcomes for patients wherever they are.
As I am sure my right hon. Friend knows, major information technology projects are fraught with difficulty and have varying success. That is why we are committed in the health service to managing that process as much as we can in a co-ordinated way to ensure that all the computers talk to and interact with each other, and that electronic patient records are a fully integrated system throughout the health service.
Ann Taylor: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's encouraging remarks on raising awareness among pensioners about the possible need for a tetanus injection when they receive their flu jab, and on the need for information to be available. I agree that computers can cause difficulties, but will she update us on any possible time scale, especially in view of the fact that we have had pilot projects and that other countries are using the technology now?
Ms Blears: My right hon. Friend is right. Several trusts have been able to install information technology to help them with electronic patient records. However, it will be some time before that is rolled out throughout the country. The state of technology in our NHS varies dramatically, as different places have invested in their infrastructure at different rates. Many of our GPs still use a wide variety of IT systems that need to be co-ordinated throughout the NHS. In the NHS plan, we have made a commitment to ensure that electronic records are available throughout the service, but I understand that we will not be in a position to ensure that all patients can access their records through IT until 2005.
The situation is encouraging in that more and more GPs, community-based organisations and primary care trusts are starting to realise how much investment in IT can help them to carry out their functions more efficiently and effectively. We need to make swift progress on the programme, but we must also ensure that the massive investment in IT, which will run to hundreds of millions of pounds, is money well spent and is effective. The public sector has too much history of investment in IT that does not serve the purpose for which it was designed. The NHS is therefore determined to ensure that our IT programme is effective and achieves value for money.
We must ensure that the electronic patient record travels with the patient wherever they may be and that it provides the widest possible range of medical information for patients when they access the health service. It is an ideal way of empowering patients themselves: they too will have that knowledge and information.
The electronic patient record will also be extremely useful in medicine management. If patients and doctors know the sort of medication that patients have been taking, their care will be much more appropriate and effective when they arrive at the accident and emergency department.
My right hon. Friend has made some extremely important points today on behalf of her constituent. I am only sorry that Mrs. Creighton died in such tragic circumstances, but if doctors can cope appropriately and effectively with patients in those circumstances, we may learn lessons from that tragic case for the future. I hope that my right hon. Friend's constituent will feel that the NHS has learned from that tragedy and will take it very seriously.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  A27
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of changes to traffic levels on the Lancing to Worthing section of the A27 since the publication of the last Inspector's report recommending a by-pass; [104951]

  (2) what level of priority he attaches to providing a by-pass for the Lancing to Worthing stretch of the A27; and when it will feature in future planned works. [104952]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The problem of traffic congestion on the Lancing to Worthing stretch of the A27 was the subject of detailed analysis as part of the South Coast Multi Modal Study (SoCoMMS). Assessment of past and future traffic levels in this section was undertaken as part of the SoCoMMS work and the Worthing Lancing Integrated Transport Study. We are currently considering the recommendations of the SoCoMMS study, as put to us by the Regional Assembly, with a view to making decisions on the way ahead in the near future.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what improvements to traffic flow(a) have been made in the last five years and (b) are planned for the Lancing to Worthing section of the A27; and if he will provide relevant supporting figures. [104953]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In June 2001 the A27 Worthing Transport Study, commissioned by the Government Office for the South East, identified small scale local solutions to address the problems in the A27 trunk road corridor through Worthing and Lancing.

  As a result of this report the Highways Agency intends to implement a series of improvements along the A27 corridor as part of a short term strategy including traffic calming of local roads and enhancements for users of public transport, walkers and cyclists.

  Air Travel (Health)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) research his Department has conducted and (b> action has been taken related to the recent outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome and the air industry. [104484]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has not carried out any specific research into severe acute respiratory syndrome as this is a public health issue. My Department would advise travellers that although no restrictions on travel are currently being recommended, they should be aware of the symptoms and seek urgent medical advice should they develop them.
  114W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what research has been conducted into the link between ill-health from infection and travelling by plane; and if he will make a statement; [104487]

  (2) what role the unit for addressing health issues affecting air passengers and crew announced by his Department on 6 March will have in examining the relationship between ill-health from infection and travelling by plane: what other work is (a> being conducted and (b> planned into this relationship; and if he will make a statement. [104485]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Research by Building Research Establishment (BRE) Ltd., commissioned by my Department and the Department of Health and entitled the "Study of possible effects on health of aircraft cabin environments—Stage 2", reviewed the published research on the transmission of infection and listed the papers of significance.

  The Aviation Health Unit, announced on 6 March and to be based at Gatwick, will become a centre of expertise on health issues affecting air passengers and crew. The unit will be involved in reviewing the BRE recommendations on infection and travelling by aircraft and will propose appropriate further research as needed.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what(a> legislation and (b> regulations govern travel by people with suspected infectious ill-health (i) from and within the UK and (ii) arriving in the UK on board aircraft; [104504]

  (2) what (a) legislation there is and (b) measures are taken to prevent travellers with suspected infectious ill-health from travelling (i) from the UK and (ii) to the UK on board aircraft. [104486]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Public Health (Aircraft) Regulations 1979 (S.I. 1979/1434) require the commander of an incoming aircraft to notify the port health authority at the first port of landing if the crew become aware that there is a person on board who is suffering from, or has symptoms which may indicate the presence of, an infectious disease. In the case of outgoing aircraft on an international flight, the medical officer at the airport may examine any person who proposes to embark if he has reasonable grounds for believing him to be suffering from a disease subject to the International Health Regulations of the World Health Organisation (ie cholera, plague, smallpox and yellow fever) and must prohibit his embarkation if he shows symptoms of such a disease. In addition, an airline may, under the terms of its Conditions of Carriage, refuse boarding to any passenger if they consider his mental or physical state is a danger to himself, the aircraft or any person in it.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will answer the letters of 5 December 2002 and 25 January 2003 from M. J. Mundy of the Hampshire Advocacy Group for the Partially Sighted in Southampton. [103975]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A reply has been sent to Mr. Mundy. In addition, Ministers have written to a number of Hampshire MPs in recent weeks in response to
  115W
  correspondence they have received from Mr. Mundy raising concerns on behalf of Hampshire Advocacy Group for the Partially Sighted.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many names and addresses of vehicle(a) owners and (b) keepers have been disclosed over the last two years by the DVLA to a third party by virtue of that party showing reasonable cause for the disclosure; and if he will make a statement on (i) the number of cases where disclosure was made but was subsequently shown to be not for a reasonable cause and (ii) the action taken in such cases. [104522]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The DVLA vehicle register is a record of vehicle keepers—the person responsible for paying vehicle excise duty. It does not contain details of the person who actually owns the vehicle. The number of reasonable cause' enquiries resulting in the disclosure of keeper details during the last two years is as follows:

  2001–02

  937,125

  2002–03

  779,559

  The majority of requests are from insurance companies and finance houses in respect of insurance claims and vehicle-related loan arrangements. The remainder are from solicitors, car parking enforcement companies and members of the public.

  The Information Commissioner has powers under the Data Protection Act to prosecute anyone who knowingly or recklessly obtains information without consent. Any disclosure subsequently used for a purpose other than that stated in the application is referred to the Commissioner to investigate. Two such cases were referred in the past year.

  First Great Western
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he had with First Great Western in advance of their decision to shut Paddington Station over the Easter weekend. [104027]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. Network Rail is responsible for the management of engineering possessions, under arrangements overseen by the Rail Regulator. I understand that Network Rail has consulted with First Great Western, as required under the possessions regime, regarding the major re-signalling of the approaches to Paddington over that weekend.

  Household Spending
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is of average UK household spending on(a) motoring, (b) rail travel and (c) bus travel, in each year from 1980–81 to 2002–03, using real terms prices at 2000–01 levels; and if he will make a statement. [101523]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is set out in the following table.
  116W

  Average weekly UK household expenditure on motoring, rail and tube fares and bus and coach fares: 1980 to 2000–01

  £ per week

  2000–01 prices

  Motoring expenditure

  Rail and tube fares

  Bus and coach fares

  1980

  33.60

  2.02

  2.82

  1981

  34.48

  1.76

  2.50

  1982

  34.05

  1.65

  2.53

  1983

  35.44

  1.86

  1.96

  1984

  36.60

  1.67

  2.00

  1985

  37.54

  1.34

  1.85

  1986

  37.16

  1.28

  1.86

  1987

  40.02

  1.50

  1.92

  1988

  40.57

  1.67

  1.91

  1989

  45.23

  1.37

  1.98

  1990

  45.95

  1.48

  1.67

  1991

  43.78

  1.23

  1.60

  1992

  44.11

  1.45

  1.55

  1993

  44.19

  1.43

  1.63

  1994–95

  42.63

  1.26

  1.57

  1995–96

  42.22

  1.46

  1.43

  1996–97

  45.91

  1.44

  1.54

  1997–98

  50.30

  1.48

  1.45

  1998–99

  54.14

  1.95

  1.37

  1999–2000

  54.13

  1.90

  1.47

  2000–01

  55.09

  2.01

  1.41

  Note:

  Fares do not include combined tickets, amounting to £0.91 in 2000–01.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey, ONS

  London Underground
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 12 March 2003,Official Report, columns 254–6, on London Underground, if he will provide figures for each (a) month and (b) week since March 2002 for which figures are available. [103793]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is not readily available in the form requested and could be assembled only at disproportionate cost. Information is, however, available on an annual basis and was set out in my answer of 12 March 2003,Official Report, columns 254–6W.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list internal flights made by Ministers in his Department in 2002, including in each case the(a) cost, (b) departure location and (c) destination; and of these how many were (i) first class, (ii) business class and (iii) economy class. [103580]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W in response to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and my response to the hon.Member for West Chelmsford (Mr Burns) on 5 March 2003, Official Report, column 1033W.

  Motorway Congestion Charging
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total length of the motorway was that the Commission for Integrated Transport found
  117W
  would be the main area of congestion charging as defined on page 35 of 'Paying for Road Use: Technical report February 2002'; if he will list the junctions of the motorway network that would define the main areas of charging; and if he will make a statement. [102874]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As the technical report prepared for the Commission for Integrated Transport indicates, their consultants' central case, on the modelling assumptions adopted, implies that charging would apply to about 10 per cent. (some 350 kms) of the motorway network. The report indicates the areas where the charge would apply, but does not identify specific junctions. CfiTs reports are produced independently of the Department and do not represent Government policy.

  Motorways
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the 10 most congested English motorway stretches; and if he will make a statement. [101524]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. David Laws, dated 25 March 2003:
  I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking him to list the ten stretches of motorways in England experiencing the most congestion.
  The Department for Transport and the Highways Agency uses long-established modelling techniques to assess road network congestion, and to forecast future congestion depending upon a range of traffic growth and transport infrastructure investment assumptions. A traditional output of this work is a three-banded "stress map" indicating those parts of the network that are experiencing peak and off-peak congestion. The latest available version of the map estimating the effect of congestion was published in the Ten Year Plan for Transport.
  This modelling method is not designed to rank individual motorway links within the congestion bandings. To obtain a measure of congestion on individual motorway links consistent with most congestion indicators, it would be necessary to measure journey times and speeds as they vary hour-by-hour and day-by-day. Regular network-wide measurement of journey times at this level of detail has not been carried out in the past, mainly because of the extremely high costs that would be involved. However, the opening of the Traffic Control Centre next year will greatly improve our knowledge of traffic conditions and will lead to comprehensive information on journey times and speeds being made generally available to the travelling public.

  No-fly Zones (Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what(a) commercial and (b) military no-fly zones have been in operation in Scotland since 15 September 2002; and what are planned for the remainder of 2003; [105034]

  (2) if he will amend the no-fly zone status for commercial and military flights over areas in Scotland that contain petro-chemical plants and nuclear facilities; [105032]

  (3) what plans there are to amend the no-fly zone status for commercial and military flights over towns in Scotland during the current Gulf conflict. [105033]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 4 February 2003,Official Report, columns 140–41W.
  118W
  No further restricted airspace has been imposed in Scotland since 15 September 2002. It is expected that temporary restrictions on flying will be imposed in regard to certain air displays in 2003, but such events are only provisional at the current time.

  Rail Links (Edinburgh)
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) financial and (b) other forms of support his Department is providing to the work being carried out by the Scottish Executive in respect of rail links to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports. [103650]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department and the Strategic Rail Authority provided support during the economic and engineering study process for the rail link options, which included some financial support and the provision of technical expertise. We will continue to work closely with the Executive on airport issues and the SRA will continue to provide technical expertise as the work on the rail links progresses.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his letter of 13 December 2002 to the hon. Member for Wycombe, what research his Department has conducted into the effectiveness of various methods of providing conspicuity lighting for vehicles during daylight hours. [104976]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport has conducted two pieces of research into the effectiveness of daytime conspicuity lighting. In 1991 The Transport Research Laboratory were commissioned to carry out a study into daytime conspicuity lights and in 1998 to assess the report of research into daytime running lamps commissioned by the EU Commission.

  Copies of the two TRL reports, "Daytime Conspicuity Lights" and "Review of SWOV Report on Effectiveness of Daytime Running Lights" have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Safety Regulation Group
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the Safety Regulation Group's total yearly funding is received from the aviation industry. [103993]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Civil Aviation Authority's Safety Regulation Group receives 96 per cent. of its yearly funding from the aviation industry. The remainder derives from the CAA's work overseas and work done on behalf of my Department.

  Traffic Commission (Licences)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the criteria used by the Traffic Commission when issuing operator licences to enable the Commissioner to assess the environmental impact of the licensed vehicles on the local communities through which they are likely to be driven; and if he will make a statement. [104987]
  119W
  Mr. Jamieson
  In deciding applications for goods vehicle operators' licences, Traffic Commissioners are able to take into account the effect on the local environment which may result from the use of land as an operating centre. Factors may include noise, fumes, pollution, vibration and visual intrusion. We have no plans to review these criteria. Local traffic authorities and planning authorities are responsible for dealing with the wider environmental impact of traffic on local communities.

  Websites
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total cost of his Department's website was in the last 12 months; and how many hits it received in the same period. [104203]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The estimated total cost of the DfT website (www.dft.gov.uk) from 1 June 2002 to 31 March 2003 is £752,000. This includes staff costs, development and HTML conversion costs. It also includes the capital costs of developing a new website, which aims to provide my Department with an improved more customer-focused website in terms of design, navigation and information retrieval. The new website, which is under development, accounts for 70 per cent. of total costs.

  DfT did not exist as a separate department for the period March-May 2002. Calculation of an accurate transport percentage of costs for that period could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  During the period 1 July (when statistics were first available for the DfT website) to 19 March 2003 the total number of page impressions (used as a measure of 'hits') was 13,352,742.

  West Coast Main Line (ATP)
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has that trains on the upgraded West Coast mainline will operate with automatic train protection systems. [104989]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are committed to introducing the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS). However, at present, ERTMS is insufficiently developed or proven for use on a high capacity, mixed use railway such as the West Coast main line. The modernisation of the line is therefore being taken forward with protection provided by the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS), as originally planned and now installed, with additional protection at higher speed junctions.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the situation in Iraq. [104472]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given earlier in the House today by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman).
  120W
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what commitment he will make to compliance with UN Resolution 1325 in any post-conflict reconstruction in Iraq. [104478]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are fully committed to UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and are working on its implementation with the UN Secretariat, agencies and NGOs. We have mainstreamed gender into our peace-keeping and reconstruction activities, for instance in Afghanistan and Sierra Leone and expect to do the same in Iraq.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on when the Government of Iraq first used chemical weapons against its own people. [100072]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Iraq used chemical weapons against its own people in the attack on Halabja in 1988. There are allegations that Iraq has used chemical weapons on other occasions. Given the circumstances in Iraq, Halabja is the only attack on Iraqi civilians which we have been able to verify beyond any doubt.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times during the inspections in Iraq carried out prior to 1998 the Iraqi Government was recorded by the UN as non-cooperative, broken down by(a) minor delays and (b) actual inspection refusals. [103972]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  UNSCOM did not routinely report all instances of Iraqi non-cooperation. Only the more serious cases were formally reported. They did, however, regularly report that they were not receiving full cooperation from Iraq. Their regular reports to the UN Security Council and, more particularly, the final report produced by Richard Butler in March 1999, which is available in the House of Commons Library, show a systematic effort to frustrate inspectors throughout the 1990s.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received a copy of the Iraqi declaration to the United Nations of 7 December 2002; if he will place a copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [104054]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A copy of the declaration was provided to us by the United Nations a few days after it was produced by the Government of Iraq. It was subsequently studied in detail by officials.

  I am withholding the information requested under exemption 1 C of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (information received in confidence from Foreign Governments, Foreign Courts or International Organisations).

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the governments of(a) Commonwealth countries and (b) British Overseas Territories regarding the crisis in Iraq. [104243]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly have discussions with Commonwealth Governments and those of the British Overseas Territories about a wide range of foreign policy issues, including the crisis in Iraq.
  121W
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 18 March 2003,Official Report, column 725W, on Iraq, what action the Government have taken since UN Resolution 57/232 was passed to deploy human rights monitors in Iraq. [105031]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Saddam Hussein's regime refused to allow human rights monitors to be stationed in Iraq, despite repeated urging by the international community. For the 10 years prior to February 2002, it would not even allow into Iraq the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights.

  Middle East
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's activities in seeking a Middle East peace settlement. [104473]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As I have already indicated; our aim is for the Middle East Peace Process to create two states, Israel and Palestine, side by side, both at peace.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps he has taken to promote dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. [104475]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We held a conference in London on 14 January to encourage Palestinian reform, which the Israelis say is necessary for progress. We are also closely engaged with both parties in encouraging the peace process.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the first meeting on the road map for Palestine and Israel will take place. [104476]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Quartet will present the roadmap, as agreed by them on 20 December 2002, to both parties once Abu Mazen has been confirmed as Palestinian Prime Minister. We expect this to happen shortly. The Quartet will then discuss implementation of the road map with the parties. We look to both of them to implement the steps it sets out with speed, vigour and determination. Direct meetings between the parties, for example on security issues, are part of this process.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposed road map for resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict. [104477]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Quartet road map is an internationally agreed series of steps which lead to a comprehensive settlement of the Arab/Israeli dispute in 2005, as envisaged by President Bush in his 14 June speech last year. There is no other way forward. We support the efforts of the Quartet partners to get the road map published and implemented as soon as possible and call on all the parties concerned to co-operate fully with them to these ends.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [104482]
  122W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A peace process can best be restarted through early publication and implementation of the Quartet road map. We are doing all we can to secure this.

  EU Asylum and Immigration Policy
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the EU on strengthening cooperation on asylum and immigration policy in Europe. [104474]

  Mr. Rammell
  In Geneva last week I held discussions on the UK's ideas for improving asylum policy in Europe with my Spanish and Finish counterparts and with Ruud Lubbers, UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposed a UK initiative on asylum to the European Council on 21 March. The initiative aims at better global management and protection of asylum seekers through improved regional management of migration flows, and the creation of processing centres on transit routes to Europe. The council invited the commission to explore the UK's ideas further and report back to the Thessaloniki European Council in June.

  The Foreign Office is working very closely with the Home Office, as the lead Department, on this agenda. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers have regular meetings with their opposite numbers. EU Interior Ministers will discuss the UK's ideas at the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council on 28–29 March.

  UK-Turkish Relations
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on bilateral UK diplomatic relations with Turkey. [104480]

  Mr. MacShane
  Bilateral UK diplomatic relations with Turkey are strong. Turkey is important to us: as a NATO ally, an EU candidate, a developing market economy and an influential regional power. Contacts at both ministerial and official level are frequent and cover a wide range of issues of international and domestic importance.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet Sri La nkan Ministers involved in the peace process in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. [104481]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I met two Ministers who lead the Sri Lankan Government's negotiating team (Prof. G. L. Peiris and Milinda Moragoda) during my visit to Colombo in January and plan to meet Prof. Peiris again on 27 March. We continue to maintain regular contact with key players in the peace process. We also provide practical help, including drawing on our Northern Ireland experience, on security sector transformation and devolution, and have funded the appointment of a human rights adviser to the negotiating teams.

  Cayman Islands
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 35WS, on the Cayman Islands, if he will set out the extent of his ministerial responsibilities in respect of the (a) appointment, (b) resignation and (c) term of office of the Attorney-General of the Cayman Islands. [104173]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Governor of the Cayman Islands is responsible for the appointment (which may be for a specified term) of the Attorney-General of the Cayman Islands and for dealing with any voluntary early departure. These responsibilities are conferred on the Governor by the Constitution of the Cayman Islands, which also protects the Attorney-General from removal from office except in accordance with a procedure involving an independent judicial tribunal. It is customary for the Governor to exercise these responsibilities in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Children (Interrogation)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidelines are given under the International Convention on the Rights of the Child on the interrogation of children under 10 in respect of the alleged illegal activities of their parents. [103102]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  "Provision of Therapy for Child Witnesses Prior to a Criminal Trial: Practice Guidance" was issued by the Home Office, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Department of Health in 2001 to assist child care professionals and lawyers. It refers to Article 3 of the United Nations Convention which make the best interests of the child a primary consideration and Article 12 which gives children the right to express themselves and to be heard.

  Detailed guidance on planning and conducting interviews with children, including very young children, was issued to the police in 2002 (Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings

  Neither document refers specifically to the questioning of children about the alleged activities of their parents.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the change in staff numbers within the FCO between 1999–2000 and 2003–04 (planned); where additional staff will be deployed; and if he will make a statement. [98435]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office estimates that it will have an additional 553 staff (an increase of 9 per cent.) since 1999–2000. The deployment of the additional staff will be decided after it is clear exactly what funding is available based on the need in the FCO.

  External Reports
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the title and subject, (b) the total cost to his Department and (c) the commissioned author or organisation of each external report commissioned by his Department in each year since 1997. [103716]

  Mr. Rammell
  Budgets are devolved to individual Directorates within the FCO and also to posts overseas so we do not hold this information centrally. It would therefore be available only at disproportionate cost.

  France
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on bilateral diplomatic relations with France. [104710]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), today in the House (PQ104466).

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Spain regarding Gibraltar; and what subjects were discussed. [104632]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 250W.

  India
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what indication he has had from the Indian Government of when it will sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. [104881]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly discuss with the Indian Government the issue of their accession to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. To date, they have given no firm indication of an intention to accede.

  International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures the UK is taking in conjunction with the Serbian and Montenegrin governments and the authorities in Republica Srpska to bring Serb indictees to the war crimes tribunal in the Hague. [104332]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Government strongly supports the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) and its efforts to bring all indictees to the War Crimes Tribunal. We work closely with our international partners and in Stabilisation Force (SFOR) and Kosovo Force (KFOR) to trace and detain indicted war crime suspects in Bosnia and Kosovo. In March 2003, the Office of the High Representative, in co-operation with SFOR, froze the assets of two individuals suspected of being part of Radovan Karadzic's support network. The UK supports this action.
  125W
  It is entirely the responsibility of the Serbian and Montenegran (SaM) authorities to transfer any indictees on their territory to the ICTY. We urge the new SaM government to fulfil their obligations in this respect and will support them in doing so.

  Zoran Djindjic
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the assistance being offered to the Serbian Government in the aftermath of the assassination of Zoran Djindjic. [103936]

  Mr. MacShane
  HMG condemns the 12 March assassination of Zoran Djindjic and sends its condolences to his widow, his children and the people of Serbia.

  Since his assassination, HMG has funded the provision of equipment to the Serbia organised crime squad. On 19 March the EU GAERC supported the accession of Serbia and Montenegro to the Council of Europe on the basis of commitments requested by the Council of Europe including co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

  Over the coming weeks, the UK and our EU and other Partners will consider what further measures could be taken to aid progress on reform, including tackling extremists, ICTY and organised crime.

PRIME MINISTER

  Downing Street Staff
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Prime Minister what the(a) cost and (b) staffing of the (i) No 10 Policy Directorate, (ii) European and Foreign Policy Advisers Office, (iii) No. 10 Press Office, (iv) Strategic Communications Unit, (v) Corporate Communications Division, (vi) Prime Minister's Office and (vii) Research and Information Unit were in each year from 1995–96 to 2003–04 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [99896]

  The Prime Minister
  The total cost of the Prime Minister's Office was as follows:

  £million

  1997–98

  6.9

  1998–99

  8.7

  1999–2000

  10.4

  2000–01

  11.8

  2001–02

  13

  The number of staff on the No. 10 payroll was as follows.

  Number of staff

  1 April 1998

  121

  1 April 1999

  132

  1 April 2000

  153

  1 April 2001

  175

  1 April 2002

  190

  126W
  The No. 10 Policy Directorate was created in June 2001, following the merger of the No. 10 Private Office and the Policy Unit. At 1 April 2002, there were 27 policy advisers. The running cost for 2001–02 was £1,717,338.

  The European and Foreign Policy Adviser's Office was also created in June 2001. At 1 April 2002, there were five policy advisers, and Sir David Manning and Sir Stephen Wall who also head Secretariats in the Cabinet Office. The running cost for 2001–02 was £272,838.

  For the No. 10 Press Office, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 3 February 2003, Official Report, column 17W.

  The Strategic Communications Unit was created in 1998. It handles longer-term communications, including the scheduling of Government announcements, and liaison with the specialist and regional media. For each year the total running costs were:

  £

  1997–98 (for 3 months)

  77,633

  1998–99

  716,672

  1999–2000

  838,421

  2000–01

  957,302

  2001–02

  565,590

  The number of staff in the Unit was as follows:

  Number of staff

  1 April 1998

  7

  1 April 1999

  9

  1 April 2000

  6

  1 April 2001

  6

  1 April 2002

  8

  The Corporate Communications Division which includes the Direct Communications Unit was created in 2001. The Division deals with my correspondence and last year dealt with over one million letters. It also works with Departments on communications from Government to the public, stakeholders and staff and runs the No. 10 website. At 1 April 2002 there were 27 members of staff. The running cost for 2001–02 was £875,128.

  The Research and Information Unit was created in 1999. It provides a single information resource at No. 10, providing policy briefing, library resources and reference material for the Prime Minister and No. 10 staff. For each year the total running costs were as follows.

  £

  1999–2000

  255,575

  2000–01

  432,556

  2001–02

  413,472

  127W
  The number of staff in the Unit on the No. 10 payroll was:

  Number of staff

  1 April 1999

  2

  1 April 2000

  5

  1 April 2001

  8

  1 April 2002

  8

  Staff numbers and costs before these dates are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Media
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the complaints made by him and his staff against(a) individual journalists and (b) media outlets since July 2001. [104551]

  The Prime Minister
  We do not keep records of this kind. The Government have a good working relationship with the media.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will amend the Ministerial Code to prevent Ministers from attempting(a) to procure or prevent the appointment of any individual journalist to a position in the media and (b) to secure the promotion or dismissal of any individual journalist. [104550]

  The Prime Minister
  I have seen no evidence that any of the activities have occurred and therefore see no need to amend the code.

TREASURY

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the value of UK civil aerospace(a) imports and (b) exports was in each year since 1997. [104886]

  Ruth Kelly
  Imports and exports of aerospace goods for the period 1997–2002 are as follows:

  Aerospace goods*

  £ million

  Exports

  Imports

  1997

  2,135

  3,730

  1998

  2,434

  4,008

  1999

  3,723

  3,823

  2000

  4,637

  4,418

  2001

  4,811

  5,867

  2002

  4,308

  7,268

  * Includes the following where for civil use: powered aircraft, non-powered aircraft (e.g. gliders), helicopters, ground flying trainers; parts of the foregoing.

  Note:

  Data includes both EU and non-EU trade.

  Bee Discuss Insurance Ltd
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future regulation of Bee Discuss Insurance Ltd. by the Financial Services Authority. [104793]
  128W
  Ruth Kelly
  Under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the detailed operation of the regulation of financial services is the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority.

  Certified Wood Products
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the potential for revision of EU tax regulations to permit a reduction in the rate of VAT charged on independently certified wood products; and if he will make a statement. [104084]

  John Healey
  Under long-standing formal agreements with our European partners, we are only permitted to introduce reduced rates of VAT for a prescribed list of goods and services set out in Annex H of the Sixth VAT Directive. Independently certified wood products are not currently among the items included on this list. The provisions for VAT reduced rates are to be reviewed by the European Commission during 2003. We will consider any potential changes to these provisions in due course in the context of this review.

  Charities
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was paid in VAT by registered charities in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [104085]

  John Healey
  Customs and Excise does not hold data about the charitable status of VAT-registered traders and therefore has no estimate of the VAT paid by registered charities.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance he gives on interpretation of the terms(a) not ordinarily resident and (b) ordinarily resident, used in Part 6 of The Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2003 (SI 493 of 2003). [103917]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The term "ordinarily resident" is not new. It is used for working families tax credit now and will be carried forward for working tax credit and child tax credit from April 2003. As part of the alignment of the rules for child benefit with those for the new tax credits, the same test is to be applied to new claims for child benefit after 6 April 2003.

  The term "ordinarily resident" has been the subject of previous judicial interpretation and its meaning is well established. Essentially, it means that the person must have their settled home in the United Kingdom. For the vast majority of claimants, it will be obvious that their settled home is in the United Kingdom. For those with more complex circumstances, the Inland Revenue will ask any follow-up questions necessary to establish whether or not they are entitled to child benefit.

  Detailed guidance on the new residence rules for child benefit will be available on the Inland Revenue's website and from the Child Benefit Office (Customer Services) before the new rules come into force.
  129W
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), of 28 February 2003,Official Report, column 747W, on the child tax credit, what the source is for the estimate on child care tax credit take-up. [104534]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimate of the proportion of WFTC recipients using eligible child care who receive the child care tax credit is derived from table 2.9 on page 20 of the Department for Work and Pensions research report 181, "Working Families' Tax Credit in 2001". A copy is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Civil Contingency Planning
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his Department's(a) responsibilities and (b) assets with regard to civil contingency planning; what funds are committed; what action he is taking within his Department to improve such planning; and what action he is taking in collaboration with other departments. [102620]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 21 March 2003.

  In conjunction with the Cabinet Office, HM Treasury is reviewing its areas of responsibility with regard to civil contingency planning. Areas likely for inclusion in this review encompass:
  Protecting art treasures (supported by Department for Culture Media and Sport)
  Banks and financial services (supporting Department for Trade and Industry)
  Government finance
  Restricting finance for international terrorism (supporting the Foreign and Commonwealth Office)
  Sequestration of foreign assets (supported by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office)
  Transport co-ordination and support (supporting Department for Transport)
  Rationing (supporting the Cabinet Office, Department of Work and Pensions, and Home Office)

  HM Treasury's core asset is our staff expertise based in our Whitehall office accommodation. The department has substantially upgraded its business continuity arrangements and has established alternative back-up office accommodation and emergency working arrangements. These arrangements are periodically tested with a variety of crisis management scenarios to improve resilience. Resource for these activities continues to be found within the department's expenditure limit.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax was paid to the UK Treasury arising from the last fishing vessel decommissioning scheme. [105030]

  John Healey
  Grants payable for the decommissioning of fishing vessels may lead to increased taxable receipts by contributing either to a capital gain on the disposal of the vessel or to taxable profits arising from the trade.130W
  The amount of tax paid will depend upon the circumstances of the taxpayers concerned and cannot readily be estimated.

  Departmental Crèche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what crèche facilities are provided by his Department and at what cost. [104297]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury does not provide any crèche facilities. The Department is a member of the Westminster Holiday Playscheme, which operates during school holidays and is open to children aged 4 to 12. The Treasury has two bespoke Playscheme rooms. The cost per child per day is £30 and the Treasury subsidises the costs for its staff by 60 per cent. Around 10 members of staff take up places for their children. Staff can also reclaim additional child care costs incurred, including the tax liability, if they have to work longer or later than normal.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by his Department and which took place on non-departmental premises in the last 12 months, broken down by title, purpose, date and cost. [104280]

  Ruth Kelly
  Records are not maintained centrally. Information in the format required could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Phone Directory
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the most recent internal phone directory for the Department was published; how often it is updated; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [101783]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury directory is held in electronic format and is no longer published. Members of staff are responsible for updating their own entries in the directory.

  The Treasury's key numbers are available publicly through publications such as the Civil Service Year Book, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Inquiries can also be made via the Treasury switchboard on 020 7270 5000.

  Employment Status Definition
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to secure a common definition of employment status for tax, national insurance, tax credit and VAT purposes. [104725]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no statutory definition of employment or self-employment for income tax, national insurance, tax credits or VAT. The courts have considered the question on many occasions and have indicated the kind of factors which need to be taken into account in deciding whether a particular engagement is one of employment or self-employment. The common
  131W
  thread running through the case law is that no single factor is conclusive; for each engagement the whole picture needs to be looked at in the light of all the facts.

  The Inland Revenue interprets the courts' views consistently for the purposes of determining employment status for tax, national insurance and tax credits. Where the Inland Revenue has advised on a person's status that determination will usually apply for all three purposes. Customs and Excise generally follow the same interpretation and thus a consistent determination would apply for VAT purposes also.

  Euro
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what economic studies have been undertaken of the potential effect on the economy of(a) Jersey, (b) Guernsey, (c) Gibraltar and (d) the Isle of Man, of monetary integration with the European Union. [104792]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to my answers to him on 25 February 2003,Official Report, column 383W, and 11 March 2003, Official Report, column 126W.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the issue of Single European Currency has been discussed during meetings between government officials and representatives of Guernsey. [104879]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11 February 2002,Official Report, columns 104–105W.

  Health Inspectorates
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relationship between his Department and the(a) Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and (b) Commission for Social Care Inspection. [104209]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor announced the creation of two new independent inspectorates for health and social care in his budget statement 2002. The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection will be established as non-departmental public bodies, independent of ministers, operating at arms length from the Government. They will each have a duty to report annually to Parliament on the state of health and social care. These independent assessments will strengthen public accountability and provide annual benchmarks of the quality of health and social care provision, and of the effectiveness of investment in public services.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the landfill tax credit scheme funded projects in the Bury St. Edmunds constituency. [104822]

  John Healey
  Details of projects funded by the scheme are available from the scheme's regulator, ENTRUST whose address is as follows.
  132W

  ENTRUST Ltd.
  Suite 2, 5th Floor
  Acre House
  2 Town Square
  Sale
  M33 7WZ

  I have asked ENTRUST to write to the hon. Member with a response to his question.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what special arrangements are in place for the payment of national insurance contributions for supermarket employees. [104439]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No special arrangements are in place for the payment of national insurance contributions (NICs) for supermarket employees. Like all employees, their employer deducts NICs from earnings of £89 or more. These contributions are paid to the Inland Revenue and recorded on the individual's national insurance account, providing entitlement to state pension and other contributory benefits.

  Split Capital Investment Trusts
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to investigate mis-selling of split capital investment trusts; and what compensation is available for those who have been affected. [104730]

  Ruth Kelly
  The FSA has said that it is investigating allegations about both misleading marketing of split capital investment trusts and possible collusion between parties involved in this sector.

  Anyone who thinks they may have been affected by mis-selling should make a complaint to the authorised firm concerned. The firm will consider the complaint and may offer compensation. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the firm's response he or she may be eligible to take the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The Ombudsman can order firms to pay compensation if he finds that the customer was treated unfairly.

  Subsidiarity
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement as to the legal basis for his policy to repatriate regional funds and policies from the EU to the UK. [104984]

  Ruth Kelly
  The European Community does not have exclusive competence for economic and social cohesion. As a result, under the rule of subsidiarity, the Community's actions in this area should be limited to what cannot sufficiently be achieved by the member states. The principle of subsidiarity is set out in Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. EU regional funding and policies under the EU Framework for Devolved Regional Policy as proposed in the Government's paper "A Modern Regional Policy for the United Kingdom" would have a legal base in Article 161 and other relevant articles of the same Treaty.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list internal flights made by Ministers in her Department in 2002, including in each case the(a) cost, (b) departure location and (c) destination; and of these how many were (i) first class, (ii) business class and (iii) economy class. [103585]

  Margaret Beckett
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  I also refer the hon. Member to my earlier reply to the hon. Member for Chelmsford, West (Mr. Burns) on 11 February 2003, Official Report, column 645W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list each of the overseas trips made by herself and other members of her ministerial team in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost of each trip was. [101841]

  Margaret Beckett
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W.

  Imported Chicken Products
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance is issued by her Department regarding the import of chicken that has previously been frozen; what percentage of chicken products imported into this country she estimates have been previously frozen on slaughter; and what the health and safety risks of consuming previously frozen chicken are. [103508]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that the import of chicken from countries outside the European Union is covered by detailed legal requirements. Chicken must be slaughtered and processed in countries and premises that meet strict food safety standards at least equivalent to those required within the EU. This includes temperature control requirements. Chicken can only be imported into the EU through designated border inspection posts following prior notification and is subject to documentary and identity checks and prescribed levels of physical checks. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has responsibility for this legislation and for any guidance issued.

  Chicken produced in other EU member states can be traded freely with other member states and is not subject to routine checks at United Kingdom ports.

  All food on sale, including imports, may be subject to food safety checks by local authorities.
  134W
  In 2001, 45 per cent. of UK imports of poultry meat from non-EU countries was frozen poultry carcass meat (source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise).

  Frozen poultry meat may be contaminated with food-borne pathogens, such as salmonella and campylobacter, as a recent government survey of poultry meat on retail sale in the UK showed. Therefore it is important for consumers to be aware of the advice on safe storage, handling and preparation of raw poultry meat.

  Nuclear Power
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what matters from its work programme remain to be reported on by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee; and if she will make a statement on the future of the Advisory Committee. [104009]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's advisory machinery in the field of radioactive waste management is currently being reviewed in light of the decision to set up the new Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). Pending the outcome of this review, the existing Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC) is continuing with its current work programme. A joint study with the Health and Safety Commission's Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee (NuSAC) of current UK regulatory arrangements and a review of the potential of partitioning and transmutation techniques to aid radioactive waste management are the main items that remain to be published from this current programme.

  Public Service Agreements
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 13 February 2003,Official Report, column 884W, on Public Service Agreement, if she will publish the efficiency plans for each business area; and if she will make a statement. [104372]

  Alun Michael
  There are no plans to publish the efficiency plans of individual business areas as they are active management tools that contain sensitive staffing, commercial and operational information so It would not be appropriate to place them on the public record. This approach is consistent with part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. As part of the Department's business planning process, business areas have to demonstrate how they will make the efficiency savings that underpin the 2002 Spending Review settlement.

  Recycling
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of printed newspapers were recycled in(a) 1995, (b) 2000, (c) 2001 and (d) 2002. [103929]

  Mr. Meacher
  Information available from the Newspaper Publishers Association (NPA) show that recycled paper made up 63.5 per cent of the raw material for UK newspapers in 1995. The comparative figures for 2000 were 60.3 per cent and 63.5 per cent for 2001. Data for 2002 are not available.

  Special Advisers
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many special advisers in the Department(a) have left and (b) will be leaving to work in Scotland for the Labour Party in the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections. [103617]

  Margaret Beckett
  The rules relating to Special Advisers' political activities are set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Further guidance in respect of elections for the Scottish Parliament is set out at paragraph 13 of the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in UK Departments, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

  The reasons for a Special Adviser's resignation are a private matter between the Department and Adviser, and are therefore exempt from disclosure under paragraph 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Information.

  Volatile Organic Compounds
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress is being made in reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds from solvents. [104549]

  Alun Michael
  Total emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds were estimated to be about 2,686 kilo tonnes in 1990 and had fallen to about 1,676 kilo tonnes in 2000. The National Emissions Ceiling Directive (2001/81/EC) requires that the UK reduces emissions to 1,200 kilo tonnes by 2010, and we expect to achieve this target.

  Of these totals, emissions from solvent use in 1990 were estimated to be about 665 kilo tonnes and 445 kilo tonnes in 2000.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many countries will be involved in the reconstruction of Iraq. [104737]

  Clare Short
  It is too soon to say how many countries might be involved. UN mandate will be required to provide legal authority for the reconstruction effort, and to make possible the engagement of the International Financial Institutions and the wider international community. The Government is working to ensure such a mandate is put in place.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with her European counterparts regarding plans for humanitarian aid in Iraq following any military action. [104242]

  Clare Short
  My Department is in frequent contact with European Commission counterparts on these issues.
  136W
  On 21 March the College of European Commissioners proposed to release an additional 79 million euros from the Emergency Aid Reserve, increasing their total commitment to 100 million euros. This funding is still to be approved by the Council.

  Palestinian Authority
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the assistance the Government is providing for the reform of the Palestinian authority. [104483]

  Clare Short
  Institutional development, and capacity building, are key elements of DFID's programme of support to the Palestinian authority. We have worked with a number of ministries to help develop systems and skills which enable services to be better delivered. We have recently played a leading role in helping the Palestinian authority develop a comprehensive strategy for overall public administration and civil service reform. We are now discussing with them the detail of a further package of technical assistance which would support its implementation over the next three years. In addition we are providing legal advice and financial support for the development of a constitution for the nascent Palestinian state.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on humanitarian help for Zimbabwe. [104479]

  Clare Short
  My Department has provided over£51 million in humanitarian assistance for Zimbabwe since the crisis began in September 2001. We are helping the World Food Programme to feed 5 million people, and our direct NGO programmes are providing supplementary food to 1.5 million more—largely children, ex-farm workers, pregnant and nursing women, people living with AIDS, and the elderly.

  DFID has built technical capacity in local NGOs and the UN agencies and has funded vulnerability assessments. We have helped prevent avoidable disease through essential drug supply, and have distributed seed and fertilizers to 188,000 households in communal areas, affecting the, food prospects of 1 million people.

  Monitoring suggests that feeding interventions have been effective and have reached target populations. Malnutrition rates have been kept down, and mortality has not increased significantly despite the complete absence of food, other than food aid, in many districts. Despite high profile incidents at Insiza and Binga, there has been relatively little obstruction of food distribution. Politicisation remains a matter of concern in the Zimbabwe Government humanitarian programmes, but has not been a significant problem for donor-funded programmes.

  Sadly, it has been evident for some months that food production in Zimbabwe will be affected for a third year in succession. This is due to mismanaged land reform that has disrupted farming; economic policies and controls that are disincentive to production; the lack of agricultural inputs and credit; and erratic rains. We anticipate that continued international humanitarian

  137W
  assistance will be needed until 2004, and expect to maintain a significant role in protecting the vulnerable in Zimbabwe in the coming year.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost of his Department's website was in the last 12 months; and how many hits it received in the same period. [104205]

  Dr. Moonie
  Direct costs for the Ministry of Defence's departmental website: http://www.mod.uk are recorded for expenditure on hardware, contractual support and staff costs for the central MOD website team. Total costs for the financial year 2002–03 are £124,350.

  Usage of the MOD website began to be measured on a monthly basis in December 1997. The departmental website received 47,076,412 hits in the period December 2001 to December 2002.

  EU Defence Policy
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the European Common Defence and Security Policy. [104352]

  Mr. Hoon
  In co-operation with all other member states, we continue to make progress in developing the European Defence and Security Policy (ESDP).

  The detailed arrangements to implement the "Berlin Plus" agreement, giving the European Union assured access to NATO's planning capabilities and a presumption of availability of NATO common assets and capabilities, have recently been agreed by the EU and NATO. This is a major milestone in establishing the strategic partnership between the two organisations in crisis management that the UK has always envisaged. Agreement has enabled the EU to launch its first military mission in Macedonia at the end of this month, following on from NATO's Allied Harmony. The operation will be conducted with recourse to NATO assets and NATO Deputy SACEUR will be the Operation Commander.

  The EU has also indicated its willingness to lead a military operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina following SFOR. ESDP also includes civilian aspects of crisis management. The first civilian operation, the EU police mission to Bosnia, was launched on 1 January 2003.

  Progress has also been made on improving military capabilities. The European Capabilities Action Plan (ECAP) is addressing capability shortfalls against the targets in the Helsinki Headline Goal and the multinational panels proposing solutions to meet each shortfall are in the process of issuing their final reports. Member states will take these suggestions forward on a voluntary basis and steps are being taken to establish project groups to assist with this. The recently concluded Berlin Plus arrangements also include a mechanism for ensuring that capability development within the EU and NATO is coherent and mutually reinforcing.
  138W
  We are also actively engaged in the debate on the future of ESDP in the Convention on the Future of Europe. The United Kingdom has put forward proposals intended to strengthen ESDP's capacity to play a full role in support of the EU's CFSP objectives including by: modernising and extending the categories of ESDP operations, known as the "Petersberg tasks"; establishing a European defence capabilities development and acquisition agency to drive forward European military capability improvements; and indicating support for a "solidarity" clause through which member states would undertake to use all the resources at their disposal, both civil and military, to help another member state deal with the consequences of a terrorist attack or other major disaster.

  We await publication of the draft Treaty clauses on defence issues. Final decisions on the new EU treaty are a matter for the Intergovernmental Conference in 2004.

  Land Sales (Ashford)
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 530W, on Land Sales (Ashford), what the potential clawback in the sale of part of Ashford barracks to the Westbury Homes and Wimpey consortium was; and if he will make a statement. [104629]

  Dr. Moonie
  Templar & Rowcroft (Ashford) Barracks was sold to Westbury Homes and Wimpy Homes in April 2002 following a public competition. Full market value was achieved based on the site's allocation for residential and commercial development as set out in the adopted Ashford Local Plan 2000.

  I regret that my earlier answer of 17 March 2003, Official Report, column 530W, which referred to a clawback arrangement, was incorrect. The actual position is that £1 million was retained by the purchaser subject to no additional cost arising for clearance of contamination and noise issues. The payment of the retained sum is now subject to negotiation between the Ministry of Defence and the purchaser.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists in Shrewsbury and Atcham have been called up from(a) the health profession, (b) the education profession, (c) transport services and (d) emergency services. [104617]

  Dr. Moonie
  Generally, Reservists are not required to provide details of their civilian employment to the Ministry of Defence until such time as they are called-out. Historically, therefore, no central records have been maintained by the MOD of the numbers of Reservists working in particular professions.

  Information about how many reservists have been called-out from a particular area is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many mobilisation centres there are for each of the armed forces in(a) Middlesbrough, (b) Teesside and (c) the UK. [104670]
  139W
  Dr. Moonie
  Mobilisation centres vary depending on the operation undertaken. For Operation TELIC Royal Navy, Royal Marine and Army Reservists have reported for service at HMS Nelson or Reserve Training and Mobilisation Centre Chilwell. RAF Reservists have reported to the appropriate RAF unit. These are: RAF Coningsby, Cottesmore, Cranwell, Halton, Marham and Waddington.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average age is of reservists called up to each of the armed forces. [104672]

  Dr. Moonie
  The requested information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information is made available to Reservists at the time they sign up for Reserve Service in the armed forces about the financial measures in place following call-up. [104673]

  Dr. Moonie
  All Volunteer Reserve units should hold a copy of Joint Service Publication 516 (JSP 516) "The Reserve Forces Act 1996". This publication summarises the Reserve Forces Act 1996, and details the financial assistance available to Reservists when they are mobilised for permanent service. In addition, full details are included with a Reservists' call-out notice, and many Volunteer Reserve units conduct briefings prior to call-out.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what emergency measures are in place to ensure that reservists called up for regular service during times of conflict are not unduly penalised financially; and how these measures have changed since 1996. [104676]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no emergency measures in place. Instead, the Reserve Forces Act 1996 introduced a system of payments to ameliorate the impact of call-out on reservists. An initial call-out gratuity of £395 is paid to cover any immediate costs arising from mobilisation. In addition, a reservists whose military salary is less than his civilian earnings may apply for financial assistance. This consists of a Standard Award that makes up the difference (within banded limits related to rank) between civilian and military salaries. If this is insufficient to avert serious financial difficulties, a reservist can also apply for a Hardship Award to cover essential outgoings such as mortgage repayments, school fees, or childcare costs. There is no limit on the amount of money that can be paid in a Hardship Award.

  The regulations governing financial assistance for reservists are contained in Statutory Instrument 309 of 1997 ("The Reserve Forces (Call-out and Recall) (Financial Assistance) Regulations 1997"), and are currently under review.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what point in the call up process reservists are given information about insurance schemes available to members of the armed forces. [104678]

  Dr. Moonie
  Reservists are provided with information about available insurance schemes when they receive their call-out notice. In addition, information is 140W
  periodically given to members of the Volunteer Reserves about insurance schemes. Information is also held by most units of those forces.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists from(a) Middlesbrough, (b) Teesside and (c) the UK (i) have been called up, (ii) are in mobilisation centres for, and (iii) have been deployed to each of the armed forces. [104679]

  Dr. Moonie
  The requested information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  As at 18 March, 8,005 call-out notices had been issued, with 5,828 reservists having reported to their mobilisation point. 5,040 had been accepted into service. The overall requirement for reservists stands at 5,622.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) recommended and (b) average times are between reservists being called up for duty and their arrival at the designated mobilisation centre. [104680]

  Dr. Moonie
  Notice to report for compulsory call-out is set by operational requirements. Ideally, we would aim to give reservists 21 days notice to report for service. However, we cannot always achieve this and for Operation TELIC generally we were only able to give 14 days notice to report. We acknowledge that in some instances notice to report was considerably shorter, in the main this was due to postal problems or short notice changes in requirement.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) recommended time is and (b) average time has been between reservists' arrival at their designated mobilisation centre and their deployment. [104671]

  Dr. Moonie
  The time spent by Reservists at their designated mobilisation centre/unit before deployment is dependent on the training they require. The length of training is determined by the role of the Reservist and the operation they are to support.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what counselling and support services are available to the partners and families of reservists who have been called up for action in any of the the armed forces; and what plans there are to extend existing counselling and support services to cater for the partners and families of reservists who have been called up for action in the armed forces. [104677]

  Dr. Moonie
  Reservists are provided with information on the counselling and support services which are available to their partners and families when they receive their call-out notice. All existing welfare systems that are available for Regular service personnel and their families are available to Reservists. In addition, with the Reservist's permission, we maintain contact with their employers.

  Serbian War Criminals
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what actions are being taken by British forces on deployment in the Balkans to help bring Serb indictees to the war crimes tribunal in The Hague. [104331]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.
  141W
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him today.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Employment Protection
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to give people who choose to work after the age of 65 the same employment protection as younger workers. [104591]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: The great majority of employment protection legislation already applies to older workers, whatever their age. We intend to review upper age limits on statutory redundancy payments and general unfair dismissal claims in the light of responses to the next public consultation on age discrimination, due to be launched this summer.

  Pensions
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultation the Government will hold with business before abolishing mandatory retirement ages as proposed in the Pensions Green Paper. [104592]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: The Pensions Green Paper stated that "under the Directive, compulsory retirement ages are likely to be unlawful unless employers can show that they are objectively justified". By summer 2003, the Government will consult widely, including with business, on proposals around this and other aspects of the directive.

  Post Office
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices there are in each parliamentary constituency; and how many of them transact more than 40 per cent. of their work volumes on behalf of the Benefits Agency. [104847]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), on 9 January 2003,Official Report, column 299W.

  Small Firms (Loan Guarantees)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what review of the availability of the small firms loans guarantee scheme she has carried out; and what the outcome was. [104723]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Following a review of this scheme, its scope is being widened to include:expanding the sector coverage to include retail, catering, coal, hairdressing and beauty parlours, house and estate agents, libraries, museums and cultural activities, motor vehicle repair and servicing, steel and travel agents;
  increasing the maximum turnover limit for the service sector to £3 million;
  allow early borrowers to re-qualify for SFLGS support by excluding loans up to March 1993 from counting towards maximum loan amounts;
  142W
  currently we expect to guarantee 4,000 applications by the end of the financial year. In view of the chargea we expect a 26 per cent, increase in applications from 1 April 2003.

  The changes come into effect from 1 April 2003.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many loans were made under the small firms loans guarantee scheme in each region and nation of the UK in the last three financial years; and what the average size of loan was. [104724]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The following table shows the average loan size and the number of loans guaranteed under the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme in each region and nation of the UK in the last three financial years:

  Region

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  East Midlands

  368

  373

  284

  Eastern

  495

  397

  306

  Greater London

  325

  312

  301

  North East

  151

  126

  111

  North West

  396

  451

  376

  South East

  476

  517

  481

  South West

  475

  444

  341

  West Midlands

  406

  369

  333

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  320

  334

  263

  Northern Ireland

  36

  37

  51

  Scotland

  621

  698

  514

  Wales

  243

  211

  201

  Total

  4,312

  4,269

  3,562

  Average Loan Size

  55,765

  59,660

  68,496

  1 To end February 2003

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Domestic Violence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women pursuant to her answer of 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 804W, on domestic violence, if she will make a statement on the outcome of her correspondence with the Home Secretary regarding the central collection of domestic violence statistics. [103829]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: My correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on this topic has not yet reached a conclusion.

  A key issue for the collection of domestic violence statistics is under-reporting, and an inter-personal violence module was included in the 2001 British Crime Survey to obtain more detailed information on domestic violence using self-completion questionnaires. The preparation of a report on these findings is currently under way.

  Equal Pay
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women what Civil Service Departments and agencies are not on target for completing pay reviews to close any equal pay gaps; and if she will make a statement. [99048]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are in excess of 90 Departments and agencies undertaking an equal pay review. We expect all the reviews to have been completed during April 2003.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  A-level Courses
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students pursued A-level courses in(a) the public and (b) the private sector in each of the last five years; and what the average cost was to public funds of providing a place in each sector. [103311]

  Mr. Miliband
  The number of students who pursued A-level courses in(a) the public sector and (b) private sector in each of the last five years are as follows:

  Type of institution

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1598–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  (a) Public sector

  Maintained schools

  98,361

  103,337

  104,457

  104,786

  111,204

  FE Sector

  62,299

  62,409

  60,146

  57,912

  59,352

  Total

  162,657

  167,744

  166,602

  164,698

  172,557

  (b) Private sector

  Independent schools

  29,682

  29,867

  26,649

  28,578

  28,777

  The figures above are based on those students who were 17 years old at the beginning of the academic year in question.

  The following figures represent a range of funding per full-time student in different parts of the public sector. They are not directly comparable as they are not calculated on the same basis. The FE unit funding figure includes total public funding allocated for FE, while the schools' figures are based only on delegated funds and exclude other funding that schools receive centrally from LEAs that impact on post-16 students.

  Unit of funding in FE

  £

  Total unit of funding

  1996–97*

  3,050

  1997–98*

  3,070

  1998–99*

  3,120

  1999–2000*

  3,440

  2000–01**

  3,540

  * Actual

  ** Provisional

  Unit of funding in schools

  £

  Total unit of funding

  1996–97*

  3,200

  1997–98*

  3,240

  1998–99*

  3,370

  1999–2000*

  3,500

  2000–01*

  3,890

  * Estimate

  Percentage distribution of mode of provision of education for excluded pupils—England

  March 20001

  September 20012

  Key Stages 1 and 2

  Key Stages 3

  Key stage 4

  Total

  Key Stage 1 and 2

  Key Stage 3

  Key Stage 4

  Total

  Pupil Referral Unit

  40.8

  45.1

  39.1

  41.0

  44.7

  51.0

  46.6

  47.6

  Home Tuition

  32.3

  24.0

  11.0

  16.8

  30.8

  20.3

  9.6

  14.1

  Voluntary Sector

  0.2

  0.1

  0.8

  0.5

  0.0

  0.8

  1.5

  1.2

  FE College

  —

  0.4

  9.8

  6.2

  —

  0.1

  12.8

  8.4

  144W
  There is no equivalent information available for the private sector.

  Database Access
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which databases and data sets key agencies have appropriate access to, as referred to in the document "Making a difference—reducing Red Tape and Bureaucracy in Schools—Second Report", published in March; and which agencies have had such access since October 2002. [104416]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Key partner agencies, and local education authorities, have access to the National Pupil Database. They can also interrogate Edubase, a database of information on schools. Local education authorities can also access the related Key to Success service.

  Since October 2002, the following organisations have accessed data: the Office for Standards in Education; the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority; the National College for School Leadership; the General Teaching Council; the British Eductaional Communications and Technology Agency; 149 local education authorities; and Service Children's Education.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost of his Department's website was in the last 12 months; and how many hits it received in the same period. [104195]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Core programme cost for the Department for Education and Skills central website in the last 12 months (April 2002 to March 2003) is £1,747,000.

  There is now wide acceptance amongst professionals in the web industry that hits are not a measure of site performance. So the Department, in line with the Government as a whole, gives more importance to unique visitors and page impressions than hits.

  Estimated site traffic for the last 12 months is as follows:

  Hits: 98.8 million

  Unique visitors: average 175,000 per month

  Page views: 76.3 million.

  Excluded Children
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of excluded children(a) have received education in pupil referral units and (b) have had one on one home tuition in each year since 1995. [103691]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: The available information is shown in the table.
  145W

  Percentage distribution of mode of provision of education for excluded pupils—England

  March 20001

  September 20012

  Key Stages 1 and 2

  Key Stage 3

  Key Stage 4

  Total

  Key Stage 1 and 2

  Key Stage 3

  Key Stage 4

  Total

  Work related

  —

  0.1

  3.3

  2.1

  —

  0.1

  5.1

  3.4

  Mixed provision

  4.3

  5.6

  16.7

  12.3

  5.1

  4.8

  7.5

  6.6

  Other provision

  9.6

  8.7

  8.8

  8.9

  11.1

  9.0

  7.6

  8.3

  No Provision

  12.7

  16.1

  10.4

  12.3

  8.2

  13.9

  9.3

  10.4

  Total

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  1 Based on replies from 144 out of 150 local education authorities.

  2 Based on replies from 146 out of 150 local education authorities.

  Internal Directorates (Costs)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the allocated programme costs are for each internal directorate of his Department in(a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06. [104419]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Details of allocated budgets up to 2005–06 were put to the House in the written statement I made on 19 December 2002,Official Report, column 67WS, and the Higher Education White Paper "The Future of Higher Education" (Cmnd 5735) published on 22 January. Additional information will be published in the Department for Education and Skills 2003 Departmental Report to be published in the spring, including how budgets are allocated to deliver the Department's functions and objectives.

  Ministerial Visits (Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans Ministers in the Department have to(a) visit Scotland on official business, (b) announce public appointments and (c) make Ministerial announcements in April. [103657]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Departmental business during the campaign period preceding elections to the Scottish parliament will be conducted in accordance with the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in UK Departments in respect of elections to the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is on the continuation of nursery school development funding. [103028]

  Maria Eagle
  £7 million was provided nationally to develop and extend maintained nursery schools in 2000–01. £5 million per year has been provided nationally since 2001–02, and a further £5 million will be provided in 2003–04.

  Details of how the funding has been allocated and guidance on the use of the funding has been issued to LEAs.

  Public Sector Pension Schemes
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money he has allocated to compensate for deficits in public sector pension schemes. [104527]
  146W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The only public service pension scheme for which this Department has responsibility is the unfunded Teachers' Pension Scheme. The Government Actuary has recently produced his report on the valuation of the scheme as at 31 March 2001. As part of changes made to the long term funding arrangements of the scheme, the values of the assets and liabilities were determined to be equal at that date. As a result, the scheme has no deficit. A copy of the Government Actuary's report is available from the Library.

  School Admissions Policy
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what advice he has given to local education authorities with wholly selective admissions policies for secondary schools in respect of the operation of the se policies; and if he will make a statement. [104022]

  Mr. Miliband
  All local education authorities, including those with grammar schools in their areas, are required to comply with all relevant admissions and equal opportunities law, and the guidance in the recently revised School Admissions Code of Practice, when setting their admission arrangements.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear that he expects all LEAs and schools to take seriously their responsibility to raise standards of education for all children in their area.

  School Bureaucracy
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the cost of reaching each of the targets outlined in "Making a difference—Reducing Red Tape and Bureaucracy in Schools—Second Report", published in March. [104413]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The costs of achieving the 125 outcomes set out in the Report are considerably outweighed by the benefits to the school workforce. None of the agencies which have committed to delivering the outcomes have raised strong concerns about doing so for costs reasons. We are all committed to eradicating or reducing burdens in schools and to raising standards—all of the outcomes made in the report are commitments to do just this and all have been agreed by relevant agencies and organisations

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will place in the Library a copy of the memorandum of understanding between the Learning and Skills Councils and the Local Government Association referred to in "Making a
  147W
  difference—Reducing Red Tape and Bureaucracy in Schools—Second Report", published in March. [104415]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Copies of the 'Memorandum of Understanding' between the Learning and Skills Council and the Local Government Association have been placed in the Library.

  Schools (Internet Access)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures the Department has introduced to improve schoolchildren's access to computer technology. [104587]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Government investment through the National Grid for Learning programme has improved computer to pupil ratios in primary schools from 1:17.6 in 1998 to 1:9.7 in 2002: and from 1:8.7 to 1:6 in secondary schools. We expect this to improve further with an average computer to pupil ratio of 1:8 in primary and 1:5 in secondary by 2004. Annual Spend on ICT in schools will increase to over £700m in 2005-06 compared with £102m in 1998–99

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in(a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) south Tyneside, (c) the north-east and (d) the UK have access to the internet; and how many of these have access to the broadband internet. [104588]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  It is estimated from a sample survey of schools that over 99 per cent. of both primary and secondary schools and 99 per cent. of special schools in England were connected to the internet at 31 March 2002.

  From figures supplied by the Regional Broadband Consortia and local education authorities, by end December 2002, 26 per cent. of schools in England were connected to broadband with 87 per cent. of secondary schools and 16 per cent. of primary schools having broadband connections (defined as being at 2 Megabits per second—2Mbps—or faster). Of all schools in the north-east, 25 per cent. have broadband connections, a figure that is expected to rise to a minimum of 56 per cent. by August 2003. All secondary schools in south Tyneside including schools in the Jarrow constituency have broadband connections. By September 2003 all schools in south Tyneside including schools in the Jarrow constituency will have broadband.

  For information in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I refer my hon. Friend to the Ministers responsible for education in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will place a copy of the flowchart of the specialist schools application procedure in the Library. [104417]

  Mr. Miliband
  The 2003–04 edition of the guidance for specialist school applicants, to be published in May, will include a flowchart of the application process. The 148W
  chart will set out the stages which schools applying for designation in October 2003 and March 2004 need to follow as they construct their specialist school development plans. Copies of the revised guidance for specialist school applicants will be placed in the Library when it is published.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are residing in the Portsmouth area; how many have been placed in the Portsmouth area in the last three months; and if he will make a statement. [104237]

  Beverley Hughes
  This information is not available in the form requested. The availability of information on the location of asylum seekers in the UK is currently linked to the support the asylum seeker receives. Asylum seekers in the UK either receive support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), local authorities or the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), or are supporting themselves.

  As at the end of December 2002, the number of asylum seekers (including dependants) supported in NASS accommodation in Portsmouth was 340 and the number of asylum seekers (including dependants) receiving subsistence only support in Portsmouth was 351

  From grant claims sent to the Home Office by local authorities, as at the end of December 2002, there were 85 single asylum seekers and 25 asylum seeker families being supported by local authorities in Portsmouth.

  The number of asylum seekers dispersed by NASS to Portsmouth over the past three months is not available.

  Statistics on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS in each local authority and Government region are available on the Home Office's Immigration and Asylum Statistics website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.htnril.1
  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest five.

  Census accuracy
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the(a) 1981, (b) 1991 and (c) 2001 censuses. [104896]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Andrew Turner, dated 25 March 2003:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question on what assessment has been made of the accuracy of the (a) 1981, (b) 1991 and (c) 2001 Censuses.
  A traditional component of every census is to undertake an assessment of the accuracy of the results. In previous censuses, particularly those in 1981 and 1991, part of this process was to undertake post-enumeration surveys to measure the extent of

  149W
  coverage and question response that had been achieved. The detailed results of these assessments were published in a number of reports, and were summarised in the respective General Reports for these censuses, which were laid before Parliament under the provisions of section 4(1) of the Census Act.
  For the 2001 Census, the results have been subjected to a rigorous quality assurance process that followed an agreed strategy, which had been the subject of wide consultation with census users. Details of the procedures followed are set out in detail on the ONS website at www.statistics.gov.uk, and will also form the basis of a report to Parliament in due course. The usually resident population of each local authority by age and sex was considered in a consistent and detailed manner, involving comparison against diagnostic ranges derived from rolled-forward population estimates and aggregated data from administrative sources. We have assessed the consistency of each Local Authority's results with the information used for these comparisons. As well, an assessment of the quality of the diagnostic information itself is available. A series of evaluation reports on all aspects of the Census will be published this year.

  Community Punishment Orders
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are serving community punishment orders; and what estimate he has made of the cost of administration of community punishment orders. [104002]

  Hilary Benn
  The number of people starting supervision by the Probation Service under community punishment orders during 2001 was 52,186. The estimated expenditure on community punishment orders in 2001–02 was £92.2 million. This excludes expenditure on combined community punishment and rehabilitation orders.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, ref 3218/3. [102934]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 24 March 2003.

  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications for

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme Cases determined under the tariff scheme 1997–98 to 2001–02

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Applications Received

  77,326

  78,651

  78,742

  76,501

  78,202

  Applications Finalised

  57,814

  74,859

  75,917

  70,713

  74,818

  Money Awards

  31,528

  40,164

  39,700

  36,924

  39,813

  Refusals

  26,286

  34,695

  36,217

  33,789

  35,005

  Review Requests

  16,668

  18,486

  18,421

  18,002

  16,822

  Reviews Finalised

  6,100

  12,687

  13,665

  11,136

  11,197

  Money Awards

  2,533

  5,065

  5,692

  4,681

  5,032

  Refusals

  3,567

  7,622

  7,973

  6,455

  6,165

  Appeals Submitted

  2,555

  6,421

  7,054

  4,651

  3,683

  Appeals Determined

  1,425

  3,059

  5,052

  5,829

  5,777

  Money Awards

  409

  1,126

  2,147

  2,577

  2,705

  Refusals

  1,016

  1,933

  2,905

  3,252

  3,072

  Awards Made (tariff element only) Level 1—£1,000

  8,437

  10,103

  10,305

  9,370

  9,717

  Levels 2 to 13—£1,250 to £10,000

  22,785

  29,594

  28,830

  27,049

  29,231

  Levels 14 to 23—£12,500 to £100,000

  306

  464

  564

  502

  865

  Levels 24 and 25—£175,000 to £250,000

  —

  3

  1

  3

  —

  150W
  compensation were received by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in each of the last five years; and how many of these were (a) turned down and (b) accepted in each year; [104402]

  (2) how many cases where an application for compensation received by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was turned down, a review was requested in each of the last five years; and how many of these reviews led to an award being made; [104403]

  (3) how many appealed where an application for compensation received by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was turned down at initial consideration and at review; and of these, how many appeals were successful, in each year; [104404]

  (4) how many awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority were (a) under £1,000, (b) between £1,000 and £10,000, (c) between £10,000 and £100,000 and (d) over £100,000 in each of the last five years. [104405]

  Hilary Benn
  The available information, supplied by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), is summarised in the table. It relates only to applications lodged under the tariff based scheme effective for applications lodged on or after 1 April 1996. It does not include old scheme cases lodged before that date.

  The figures for the number of Review requests and appeals made include cases where a money award was offered at an earlier stage, but the level of award was not accepted. It is not possible readily to isolate for these purposes cases where the earlier decision was 'nil' award or a money award, nor, where the earlier decision was a money award if the reviewed or appealed decision resulted in a higher award, a lower award or the same award.

  The figures for the number of tariff awards made in various bandings relate only to the tariff element of the award. In up to 10 per cent. of cases additional compensation can be payable for loss of earnings and/or care costs and/or dependency costs. In the time available to answer the question it was not possible for CICA to design, validate and run the extensive query/report that would have been required to capture that data as well.

  Detention and Training Orders
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the Detention and Training Order sentencing policy; what measures he will take to punish juvenile offenders who commit less than £6,000 of damage; and if he will make a statement. [104345]

  Hilary Benn
  I have received no recent representations about the Detention and Training Order, (DTO), the main custodial sentence for young people aged 12 to 17. For criminal damage of £5,000 or more a DTO sentence may be imposed. For damage of any scale in custodial establishments, the Prison Service and Youth Justice Board have developed a joint re ward and sanctions strategy. This emphasises increased use of incentives, which can encourage positive behaviour and be withdrawn when negative behaviour is displayed. Most Young Offender Institutions have privilege schemes that are linked to sentence plans as well as institutional rules. For criminal damage of £5,000 or more a DTO sentence may be imposed. Where punishment is needed, this can include stoppage of earnings, restrictions on association and recreation, extra work and removal from normal Section.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on detaining the head of household in a detention centre in order to ensure that remaining members of the family abide by conditions; and when this policy was decided. [104600]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: There is no policy which directs that a head of household should be detained, but neither is there anything to prevent this where it is considered appropriate. Use of detention is an operational matter, is used only as a last resort, and is decided according to the circumstances of each individual case.

  Staff Shortages (Holloway Prison)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many teaching hours have been cancelled at Holloway Prison over the last 12 months owing to staff shortages. [103953]

  Hilary Benn
  The number of education hours cancelled at Holloway from February 2002 to January 2003 was 4,564.25 hours from a total ordered provision of 18,587.75 hours (approximately 25 per cent.). The loss of hours was due to a combination of staff shortages and operational requirements to staff hospital escorts, particularly bed-watches.

  Although Holloway still suffers from staff shortages, a re-profiling exercise has been held resulting in a new staff profile of 220 officers to deliver an appropriate regime. At the end of December 2002, the shortfall of staff at Holloway was 46.5 officers, which had reduced to 37.5 on 19 March 2003. A further, 10 to 15 staff from the most recent recruitment campaign are expected to be in post by the end of May. It is anticipated that Holloway will have a near full complement by late summer 2003. With a full complement of staff, Holloway aims to deliver a full programme of education to women prisoners subject to daily operational requirements.

  Home Start Schemes
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Home Start schemes in South Devon that have received funding; and how much was awarded as earmarked in the 2002 Spending Review. [103473]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]: Central Government does not directly fund any local Home Start in South Devon.

  However, three government departments currently provide funding for Home Start UK of £574,000. (Home Office £100,000; Department for Education and Skills £250,000; and Department of Health £224,000).

  Home Start UK provides support, advice on development and training for all local Home Starts including South Devon.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the expenditure incurred by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate was(a) in total and (b) by function in each of the last three years. [104396]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: Actual expenditure, excluding capital and cost of capital for 2000–01 and 2001–02 is as follows:

  1 2000–01

  1 2001–02

  2002–03

  (a)Total expenditure

  1,166

  1,580

  2—

  (b) Staff pay

  194

  272

  —

  Non pay 3

  194

  212

  —

  Grants

  35

  46

  —

  Asylum support

  747

  1,046

  —

  Other current expenditure

  13

  20

  —

  Receipts

  (17)

  (16)

  —

  Total resource

  1,166

  1,580

  2—

  1 Actual £ million

  2 The actuals for 2002–03 is yet to be finalised

  3 Including staff related expenditure, IT and accommodation

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what planned level of(a) total resources and (b) resources by function were allocated to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in the financial years (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03. [104395]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: The resource budget excluding capital and cost of capital is as follows:

  £ million

  Budget

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  (a) Total resource budget

  1,166

  1,666

  1,737

  (b) Staff pay budget

  227

  267

  343

  Non pay budget1

  200

  249

  306

  Grants

  40

  50

  48

  Asylum support

  702

  1,089

  1,040

  Other current expenditure

  10

  26

  25

  Receipts

  (13)

  (15)

  (25)

  Total resource budget

  1,166

  1,666

  1,737

  1 Including staff related expenditure, IT and accommodation

  Inspections (Police)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff employed by the Audit Commission were responsible for inspecting the work of the police force in each year since 1997. [104697]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  In addition to conducting national value for money police studies, the Audit Commission is responsible for the financial audit of Police Authorities and auditing best value performance plans. However, this question is directed at "inspecting the work of the police force"—responsibility for inspecting the police service rests with her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.

  Juveniles1 found guilty at all courts or cautioned for all offences, England and Wales, 1997 and 2000

  Found guilty at all courts

  Cautioned2

  Total known offenders

  Notifiable offences3

  Other offences

  All offences

  Notifiable offences3

  Other offences

  All offences

  Notifiable offences3

  Other offences

  All offences

  1997

  61,137

  18,014

  79,151

  98,239

  6,281

  104,520

  159,376

  24,295

  183,671

  2000

  70,140,

  21,283

  91,423

  93,590

  3,951

  97,541

  163,730

  25,234

  188,964

  1 Persons aged 10 and under 18.

  2 Given reprimands or final warnings from April 2000.

  3 Those offences covered by recorded crime.

  Note:

  Statistics for 2002 will be published in the Autumn.

  Juvenile Establishments
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to assist prison officers in juvenile establishments in preventing anti-social behaviour by juveniles within those establishments. [104348]

  Hilary Benn
  Juvenile regimes are designed to promote and maintain good behaviour, and to discourage antisocial activity. They are intended to provide a full, purposeful and active day, with 30 hours a week purposeful activity, focusing on education, training and personal development.

  More specifically, each juvenile establishment has a rewards and sanctions scheme; a system of adjudications for breaches of discipline; an anti-bullying strategy; and a personal officer scheme which assigns a member of staff to each young person on induction to act as contact point with outside agencies and family and, through example, to act as a positive influence on the young person's attitude and behaviour.

  Prison officers have a key role to play in the delivery of the regimes and in preventing anti-social behaviour, and the they will be assisted in that role by effective training and management. Governors of juvenile establishments are required to ensure that every member of staff taking up post receives, at an early stage, suitable training for working with juveniles. A team is currently being set up within Prison Service headquarters to support Governors in fulfilling that responsibility and to help improve the quality and delivery of training across the juvenile estate, both for prison officers and managers.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many juveniles were sentenced to a detention and training order in each month since April 2000; [104062]

  Juvenile Crime
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents involving juvenile crime there were in ( a) 1997,(b) 2000 and (c) 2002. [104346]

  Hilary Benn
  The information collected centrally on recorded crime relates solely to offences and does not contain any details of the alleged offender.

  The available in Formation is contained in the table and relates to juveniles found guilty or cautioned in 1997 and 2000.

  (2) what the average length was of the detention and training orders given in each month since April 2000. [104063]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Juveniles sentenced to detention and training orders by length of sentence and month, England and Wales, April 2000 to December 2001

  Month

  Number of juveniles sentenced to detention and training orders

  Average sentence length imposed (months)

  2000

  April

  454

  7.8

  May

  538

  8.1

  June

  622

  7.5

  July

  572

  7.3

  August

  619

  7.5

  September

  563

  7.6

  October

  581

  7.4

  November

  644

  7.6

  December

  481

  7.6

  Total 2000 (from April)

  5,074

  7.6

  2001

  January

  607

  6.9

  February

  629

  7.3

  March

  637

  7.5

  April

  530

  7.3

  May

  657

  7.2

  June

  578

  7.4

  July

  612

  7.3

  August

  616

  7.2

  September

  515

  7.5

  October

  637

  7.5

  November

  644

  7.6

  December

  407

  7.0

  Total 2001

  7,069

  7.3

  Note:

  Statistics for 2002 will be published in the Autumn.

  Naturalisation
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for naturalisation as a British citizen have been outstanding for(a) more than 13 months, (b) more than 18 months and (c) more than two years; and what the nationalities are of the applicants whose applications have been outstanding for over 12 months. [103937]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that the information requested on outstanding applications for naturalisation is not available except by examination of individual casefiles. This could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoners (Self-injury)
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of(a) the relationship between prisoner numbers and self-inflicted deaths in prison and (b) measures to prevent suicides and self-harm by offenders under the supervision of the Probation Service with particular reference to those living in probation hostels. [104217]

  Hilary Benn
  There are many reasons why a prisoner may self-harm or attempt suicide; the general prison population contains a large number of prisoners with a combination of psychiatric disorders, alcohol and drug dependency, family background and relationship problems, histories of self-harm and previous abuse, all of which raise their risk of suicide and self-harm. It is likely that the number of self-inflicted deaths is rising because of a combination of the effects of increased prisoner throughout and an increasingly risk-laden population.

  The current operating environment is very challenging because of more prisoners being remanded to prison and greater movement of prisoners. This puts a strain on resources and makes it harder to prevent suicides. Good care and support from staff saves many lives but such instances go largely unreported. The Prison Service's approach, in close partnership with other agencies such as the Youth Justice Board, and outside organisations such as Samaritans, is to better identify and support those who seem at greatest risk, with a stress on relationships, care and the physical environment. The Prison Service's suicide prevention and self-harm reduction programme includes a series of projects to improve pre-reception, reception and induction arrangements. It also includes the exchange of information; the care of prisoners; detoxification; prisoners supporting each other, and learning from investigations into deaths in custody.

  With regard to approved probation and bail hostels, the National Probation Service last year brought in strengthened reporting requirements on deaths of residents. They are also currently developing a national suicide and self-harm awareness and prevention strategy for staff in hostels, which will strengthen existing local procedures.

  Prisons (Vandalism)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of vandalism of prison property committed by juvenile offenders in(a) 1997, (b) 2000 and (c) 2002. [104347]
  156W
  Hilary Benn
  The information sought is not available centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government is taking to protect the general public from biological and chemical threats, with particular reference to smallpox. [102345]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statements I made on 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 72WS and 20 March 2003, Official Report, column 51WS.

  Up-to-date information on the threat and preparedness is also published on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism.

  Thai Nationals
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Thai nationals, married to UK citizens, have applied for leave to remain in the UK in each of the last 12 months. [103916]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available statistics are given in the following table.

  The information relates to grants of leave to remain on the basis of marriage to a British citizen in each month in 2001. Data for 2002 will be published later this year.

  Information on the number of applications lodged or the number of such applications which have been refused are not currently available.

  Nationals of Thailand granted leave to remain1 on the basis of marriage to a British citizen, by month, 2001

  Number

  January

  30

  February

  30

  March

  30

  April

  40

  May

  30

  June

  30

  July

  30

  August

  50

  September

  45

  October

  55

  November

  35

  December

  20

  Total

  420

  1 Excludes the outcome of appeals.

  Note:

  Data rounded to the nearest five; because of this sum of constituent items may not agree with the total as shown.

  Youth Offending Teams
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will incorporate the Commission for Health Improvement into the new inspection regime for youth offending teams. [103847]
  157W
  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on 7 March 2003,Official Report, column 1276W.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Border Security
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to increase security in the Border areas of Northern Ireland through(a) watchtowers and (b) troop deployments. [103250]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government are committed to seeing all aspects of the Belfast Agreement fully implemented including normalisation. Security is kept under review and the response adjusted to reflect the current assessment.

  Enniskillen Massacre
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the present status is of the investigation into the 1987 Enniskillen massacre; and what assessment he has made of whether the Police Service of Northern Ireland has the necessary resources to pursue this investigation to a successful conclusion. [103415]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Enniskillen Bomb investigation has been the subject of a recent internal review within the PSNI conducted by a senior detective. The results of the review are currently being considered by the ACC North Region, Sam Kinkaid. The Chief Constable is committed to providing adequate resources in the investigation of the Enniskillen bomb so that the perpetrators of this atrocity are finally brought to justice.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) full time and (b) part time police officers there were for North Belfast for each year since 1996. [103245]

  Persons charged with terrorist and serious public order offences* 1996 to January 2003

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Murder

  9

  24

  13

  3

  8

  7

  0

  0

  Attempted murder

  2

  26

  8

  6

  15

  0

  19

  0

  Firearms offences

  56

  55

  49

  65

  54

  47

  51

  6

  Explosives offences

  1

  9

  13

  12

  14

  15

  8

  0

  Armed robbery

  28

  32

  35

  28

  16

  18

  35

  7

  Other

  499

  259

  338

  182

  189

  170

  116

  9

  Total

  595

  405

  456

  296

  296

  257

  229

  22

  * Includes only the most serious offence with which a person is charged.

  Notes:

  1. 'Other' includes hijacking, petrol bomb offences, membership, arson, riot, withholding information etc.

  2. Includes 'terrorist type' or 'serious public order related' charges where there is no direct link with security situation and which cannot be classified as 'Loyalist' or 'Republican'.

  3. Information beyond January 2003 is not yet available.
  158W
  Jane Kennedy
  The following table shows the number of police officers serving in North Belfast for each year since 1996. CID Officers came under the control of respective District Commanders upon the establishment of District Command Units in 2001 therefore they are shown in addition operational police officers.

  Regular

  F/T reserves

  P/T reserves

  1996

  343

  154

  139

  1997

  346

  139

  128

  1998

  355

  147

  121

  1999

  353

  145

  119

  2000

  336

  128

  108

  2001

  361 (+ 33 CID)

  130

  104

  2002

  323 (+ 26 CID)

  109

  100

  2003

  324 (+ 29 CID)

  85

  91

  Public Disorder
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland have been convicted of riotous behaviour where CCTV evidence has been used in each year since 2000. [103256]

  Jane Kennedy
  The research required to provide a full answer to this question represents a disproportionate cost when account is taken of convictions secured using town centre cameras, etc.

  The hon. Member may be interested to know that since the PSNI CCTV network in north Belfast became operational last year, 98 people have been convicted of various public disorder offences, including riotous behaviour, using CCTV footage as evidence.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been charged with(a) scheduled offences and (b) non-scheduled offences arising out of public disorder in Northern Ireland in each year since 1996. [103257]

  Jane Kennedy
  While the police collate a range of information on arrests and charges related to the security situation, they do not distinguish between those that are of a public disorder nature and those that are not except for the most serious of offences. The following table provides details of the number of persons charged for terrorist and serious public order offences since 1996 to the end of January 2003.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) shootings, (b) bombings and (c) other terrorist related incidents have occurred in (i) Belfast and (ii) the rest of Northern Ireland in each year since 1998. [103249]

  Jane Kennedy
  The tables below provide details of the number of shootings, bombings and other terrorist related incidents in Belfast and the rest of Northern Ireland since 1998.

  Security Situation Statistics 1 January 1998 to 28 February 2003

  Number of deaths as a result of the security situation

  Belfast area

  Rest of Northern Ireland

  1998

  11

  55

  1999

  1

  7

  2000

  9

  18

  2001

  4

  17

  2002

  4

  13

  2003 (to 28 February)

  3

  3

  Total

  32

  113

  Note:

  Includes all deaths due to the security situation

  Number of shooting incidents

  Belfast Area

  Rest of Northern Ireland

  1998

  90

  211

  1999

  52

  125

  2000

  139

  302

  2001

  185

  355

  2002

  169

  350

  2003 (to 28 February)

  21

  53

  Total

  656

  1,396

  Note:

  The following types of incidents are included:

  Shots fired by terrorists

  Shots fired by the security forces

  Paramilitary style attacks involving shootings

  Shots fired (and later confirmed)

  Other violent incidents where shots are fired (e.g. armed robbery)

  Number of Bombing Incidents

  Belfast area

  Rest of Northern Ireland

  1998

  16

  127

  1999

  20

  82

  2000

  22

  117

  2001

  171

  349

  2002

  120

  188

  2003 (to 28 February)

  14

  22

  Total

  363

  885

  Note:

  An individual bombing incident may involve one or more explosive devices. Incidents recorded include explosions and defusings. Incidents involving hoax devices, petrol bombings or incendiaries are excluded.
  160W

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings

  Belfast area

  Rest of Northern Ireland

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  1998

  20

  34

  34

  38

  1999

  24

  13

  47

  26

  2000

  42

  28

  86

  50

  2001

  54

  47

  121

  65

  2002

  43

  35

  117

  56

  2003 (to 28 February)

  11

  6

  22

  11

  Total

  194

  163

  427

  246

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style assaults

  Belfast area

  Rest of Northern Ireland

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  1998

  26

  21

  89

  55

  1999

  13

  17

  90

  44

  2000

  20

  25

  78

  54

  2001

  16

  19

  93

  53

  2002

  20

  25

  89

  50

  2003 (to 28 February)

  1

  1

  11

  2

  Total

  96

  108

  450

  258

  Note:

  Belfast Area includes those PSNI Stations covered by Belfast East, Belfast West, Belfast North and Belfast South District Command Units.

  Statistics are provisional and are subject to minor amendment.

CABINET

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what(a) code of conduct and (b) guidance governs (i) the placing of (A) speeches and (B) notes for speeches by Ministers (1) on their departmental website and (2) in the Library and (ii) the types of occasions and locations at which Ministers may announce new departmental policies. [104069]

  Mr. Alexander
  The decision on how and where to publish material is for individual Government Departments. When publishing material, Departments are required to act within the principles of propriety and effective use of public money set out in the 'Guidance on the work of the Government Information Service', the `Civil Service Code' and the 'Ministerial Code'. These do not differentiate between the various forms of publication. All of the guidance mentioned is available on the Cabinet Office and Government Information and Communication Service websites (www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk and www.gics.gov.uk)

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she intends to reply to the letter to her dated 4 February from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Anne Tucker. [103743]

  Tessa Jowell
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 20 March 2003.

  Departmental Crèche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what crèche facilities are provided by her Department; and at what cost. [104295]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department offers holiday places at four central London sites. The scheme operates during all main school holidays for children aged between five and 12 years. The cost per day is £30 of which the Department subsidises 50 per cent.

  Departmental Invoices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the occasions on which her departmental agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2001–02. [104307]

  Dr. Howells
  There were 270 occasions when valid invoices were not paid within 30 days by the Royal Parks Agency in 2001–02, and these are listed at the Annex.

  The Department is not able to list the occurrences of non-payment by its 41 non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) other than at disproportionate cost. Notwithstanding this, Treasury guidance requires all NDPBs to disclose in the foreword to their annual report and accounts a statement describing the payment policy adopted on the payment of suppliers, and performance achieved in the reporting period. The foreword should therefore provide an indication of the payment performance of each NDPB.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total cost of her Department's website was in the last 12 months; and how many hits it received in the same period. [104194]

  Dr. Howells
  The DCMS primary website, www.culture.gov.uk is managed in house. The only cost is for hosting the site, which was £20,000 for the server, which is also used to host a number of departmental websites.

  It received 365,305 unique visits and 5,920,848 page impressions between March 2002 and February 2003. The number of hits is not available.

  Digital Services (Disabled Access)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she will introduce to allow(a) hearing impaired and (b) other disabled people to use digital TV, radio and telephone services. [104528]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government recognise that disabled people often need terminal equipment with particular features if they are to be able effectively to access communications services. The regulation of these matters is decided at a wider European level and the standards established have effect across Europe.
  162W
  We are working with manufacturers, the disabled groups and the telephone regulator, Oftel, to draw together the expertise necessary to improve the range of equipment availably to disabled users.

  The Bill also extends the Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) targets for subtitling, signing and audio description to digital cable and satellite broadcasters for the first time.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with media outlets in Gibraltar. [104246]

  Tessa Jowell
  I have had no recent discussions with the media outlets in Gibraltar.

  Licensing Bill
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment her Department has made of the effect the Licensing Bill will have on the playing of(a) darts, (b) pool, (c) skittles and (d) other games in public houses. [104422]

  Dr. Howells
  The Bill will have no effect on playing of darts, pool, skittles or other games in public houses as we are not proposing any changes to the way these activities are regulated.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport what representations her Department has received on the impact of the Licensing Bill on games in public houses; and if she will make a statement. [104423]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport have received no representations with regard to the Bill's impact on games in public houses.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list internal flights made by Ministers in her Department in 2002, including in each case the(a) cost, (b) departure location and (c) destination; and of these how many were (i) first class, (ii) business class and (iii) economy class [103593]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 22 January 2003,Official Report, column 334W, to the hon. Member for Yeovil (David Laws). Detailed information about UK travel is not collected centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. With regard to the number of UK flights undertaken by Ministers since 2001. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 10 February 2003, Official Report columns 553–54W).

  Olympic Games
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessments she has made of those cities other than London who are bidding or are expected to bid for the Olympic Games in 2012; and if she will place copies of those assessments in the Library. [103851]
  163W
  Tessa Jowell
  The International Olympic Committee's rules of conduct for cities wishing to organise the Olympic Games expressly forbid any published comparison by one city with others. The Government has made clear that it would not support a bid unless London had a good chance of winning. Our assessment of winnability was published as an Appendix to the Culture Media and Sport Committee's Third Report of Session 2002–03, "A London Olympic Bid for 2012".

  Ministerial Vehicles
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for her Department in 2002. [101854]

  Dr. Howells
  The cost of ministerial cars and drivers for the Department will be addressed in a letter from Mr. Nick Matheson, the Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency to the hon. Member for Buckingham.

  The cost of taxis for the Department was £20,811 in the financial year 2001–02.

  Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many times she has visited Scotland on official duties each year since 2000; and what meetings were held on each occasion. [103620]

  Dr. Howells
  Visits to Scotland since Tessa Jowell has been Secretary of State are listed as follows:

  2001:1

  2002:2

  2003:1

  with reference to what meetings we re held.

  In line with exemptions 2 and 7 of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", it is not normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings or their content, as some of these discussions may have taken place on a confidential basis.

  Sport Funding
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she has taken to ensure that sportsmen and women in Northern Ireland who wish to compete as British competitors receive funding from the National Lottery; what measures she has taken to ensure that sportsmen and women in Northern Ireland who wish to compete on behalf of the Republic of Ireland do not receive funding from the National Lottery; and if she will list the occasions when funding from the National Lottery has been used to assist in the development of sport in a foreign country. [103942]

  Mr. Caborn
  National Lottery funding for Northern Ireland athletes who wish to compete as British competitors is available through UK Sport's World Class Performance Programme (WCPP). The criteria for the inclusion of an athlete from Northern Ireland on 164W
  the WCPP is the same as that for an athlete from any of the four home countries. Inclusion is based on sporting performance and future medal prospects.

  An athlete may have the option to compete for All-Ireland or for UK/GB. Where an athlete chooses to compete for All-Ireland, he/she would not receive funding from the UK programme.

  In addition, the Sports Council for Northern Ireland also provides National Lottery support to athlete development in Northern Ireland through Programmes such as Talented Athlete, Talented Athlete Next Generation and Talented Junior. This funding is provided for training and preparation for competition to enable the athletes to qualify for a variety of high profile tournaments eg the Olympic Games, the European Championships and the Commonwealth Games. As far as the Olympics and European Championships are concerned, athletes have a choice about which country they represent, either Great Britain or Ireland, and the choice often depends on the constitution of the Governing Body to which they are affiliated.

  However, all athletes in receipt of funding ultimately represent Northern Ireland in the Commonwealth Games, if selected.

  In accordance with the Good Friday Agreement, under which the British and Irish Governments recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, the Sports Council for Northern Ireland seeks to ensure that the structures of sport in Northern Ireland provide an equal and equitable opportunity to all to participate in a sport of their choice, for a country of their choice.

  Normally, UK Sport Lottery funding is confined to supporting the goal of "winning athletes" and the bidding for and staging of world class events in the United Kingdom. The UK Sport Council agreed to make a Lottery award in support of the joint bid by Scotland and Ireland to bid for the UEFA Euro 2008 Championships. It was agreed that it would be counter-productive to attempt to confine UK Sport's Lottery funding to just the Scottish element of that bid. This is the only example of its kind.

  Television Licence
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the cost of collecting the television licence in the latest year for which information is available. [104757]

  Dr. Howells
  Statutory responsibility for collecting the television licence fee rests with the BBC. The Corporation's licence fee collection costs for 2001–02, as stated in the BBC's Annual Report and Accounts, were £95.4 million. Central Government costs relating to the administration of the television licensing system in 2001–02 were £132,000.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total cost of the Department's website was in the last 12 months; and how many hits it received in the same period. [104192]
  166W
  Yvette Cooper
  Website related work is not differentiated from other work in the production and publication of departmental material. The total annual cost of my Department's website could therefore not be obtained without incurring disproportionate costs.

  For the financial year 2001–02, my Department's website, (www.lcd.gov.uk), attracted 469,683 unique visitors (a more reliable indicator of individuals accessing web pages than hits).

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pension Supplement
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will increase the 20 pence per week supplement for 80-plus year old pensioners. [105001]

  Mr. McCartney
  The 25 pence age addition for state pensioners aged 80 and over was introduced by the Conservative Government in 1971.

  The age addition will be maintained, but on its own it is not the most cost-effective way to help elderly pensioners. We have gone much further.

  We have introduced measures which, from October 2003, will mean that the poorest third of pensioner households will have gained over £1,500 a year in real terms.

  We have introduced free TV licences from age 75 worth over £100 a year, winter fuel payments of £200 per year for eligible households paid to some 11 million people in 8 million households, and the minimum income guarantee which means that no single pensioner has to live on less than £102.10 and no couple on less than £155.80 from April.

  We are going further still with the introduction of pension credit from October 2003.

  We have therefore found better and more effective ways to help pensioners with the lowest incomes.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he stopped paying attendance allowance

  Value of total overpayments recorded and recovered from 1997£98 to 2001£02

  £ million

  Financial year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Value of new recoverable overpayments

  327

  387

  313

  357

  310

  Value of recoveries

  122

  169

  184

  177

  188

  Notes:

  Data is based on recoveries shown on the Overpayments Recovery System and the Overpayment Recovery Computer System.

  Recoveries do not necessarily relate to overpayments identified in the same year.

  Source:

  Programme Accounting Computer System and Financial and Management Information System.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland and (d)Wales claimed (i) child benefit, (ii) unemployment benefit and (iii) incapacity benefit in each year since 1997. [102779]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the tables. Figures for Northern Ireland are not included, as social security matters in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  People claiming incapacity benefit at the dates shown

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  31 March 1997

  1,837,100

  298,500

  206,200

  31 March 1998

  1,805,200

  2.89,700

  197,400

  31 March 1999

  1,778,700

  280,600

  190,900

  31 March 2000

  1,762,100

  279,600

  186,800

  168W
  to people in Scotland who are receiving free personal care for the elderly; and how many people in Scotland are receiving attendance allowance. [76325]

  Maria Eagle
  Free personal care was introduced in Scotland from 1 July 2002. Attendance allowance continues to be payable to care home residents in Scotland who meet the costs of their accommodation without help from public funds. Those who do receive help from public funds are not eligible to receive attendance allowance.

  The latest available information is that 129,800 people in Scotland were receiving attendance allowance at 31 May 2002. This figure is based on a 5 per cent. sample of cases, rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the amount of recoverable benefit overpayments caused by fraud and error in each of the past five years; and how much of these overpayments has been recovered. [99067]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our most recent estimate is that the total annual amount of benefits overpaid due to customer error and official error taken together is around £1 billion and the total annual amount due to fraud is around £2 billion.

  We have not made an estimate of how much of these overpayments would be recoverable.

  Information on actual overpayments established and recovered for all benefits' over the last five years is in the table.
  1 Except overpayments in respect of housing benefit and council tax benefit, because they are recorded and recovered by local authorities.

  People claiming incapacity benefit at the dates shown

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  31 March 2001

  1,819,600

  283,600

  189,900

  31 March 2002

  1,857,600

  287,200

  191,600

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  Figures are based on 5 per cent samples of the incapacity benefit computer system and will exclude a small number of clerically held cases.

  People claiming jobseeker's allowance at the dates shown

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  13 March 1997

  1,387,500

  165,600

  84,500

  12 March 1998

  1,099,200

  137,600

  69,800

  11 March 1999

  1,040,900

  134,400

  67,300

  169W

  People claiming jobseeker's allowance at the dates shown

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  9 March 2000

  916,900

  121,500

  58,200

  8 March 2001

  784,300

  106,500

  53,400

  14 March 2002

  759,600

  103,100

  47,100

  Notes:

  1. Figures are seasonally adjusted.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  100 per cent. count from the jobseeker's allowance computer system.

  Number of families with children claiming child benefit at the dates shown

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  November 1998

  6,007,900

  603,800

  354,400

  November 1999

  6,021,100

  602,900

  354,500

  November 2000

  6,026,200

  598,500

  354,000

  November 2001

  6,016,000

  596,800

  355,400

  November 2002

  6,017,400

  594,700

  353,900

  Notes:

  1. Data prior to 1998 are unavailable broken down by country.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Source:

  Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of the child benefit computer system.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many roadside stops have been conducted by the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service in each of the last three years; and how many(a) investigations and (b) successful prosecutions resulted. [88447]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Details of amounts defrauded by the four people had been convicted of benefit fraud on two separate occasions since April 2002

  £

  Case

  Benefit

  Amount

  Total

  1

  First conviction

  Housing benefit/council tax Benefit (HB/CTB)

  2,088.58

  2,312.69

  Second conviction

  HB/CTB

  224.11

  2

  First conviction

  Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA)

  73.75

  127.70

  Second conviction

  JSA

  53.95

  3

  First conviction

  JSA

  103.86

  316.01

  Second conviction

  JSA

  212.15

  4

  First conviction

  JSA

  269.70

  345.35

  Second conviction

  Income Support

  75.65

  Source:

  Two Strikes Database, Professional Standards Unit

  Computer Fraud
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of computer(a) hacking, (b) fraud and (c) theft his Department recorded in 2001–02; and on how many occasions computer systems have been illegally accessed by computer hackers (i) within and (ii) outside his Department. [97567]
  170W
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people have been convicted of benefit fraud on two separate occasions since April 2002; [92501]

  (2) how many persons who were convicted of benefit fraud in each of the last four years for which figures are available had (a) one, (b) two and (c) more than two previous convictions for benefit fraud; [94001]

  (3) how many persons claiming benefit have (a) one, (b) two and (c) more than two convictions for benefit fraud; and what the total amount claimed by such persons is, broken down by type of benefit. [94002]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have taken powers in the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 to strengthen benefit fraud investigation and punish persistent offenders more severely. The provision to sanction people convicted of two separate benefit fraud offences in a three-year period, known as the 'two-strikes provision', came into force on 1 April 2002. This provision can only be applied to people who have committed, and then been convicted for, two separate benefit offences after that date.

  Information on the number of people who were convicted of benefit fraud and who had one or more previous convictions for benefit fraud is recorded only from April 2002. However, our research suggests that prior to April 2002 approximately five per cent. of prosecutions involved a person with a previous conviction for benefit fraud.

  By 28 January 2003, our records showed that four people had been convicted of benefit fraud on two separate occasions since April 2002. In two of these cases, one or more of the offences had occurred before 1 April 2002, so the 'two strikes' legislation does not apply. In the third case, sanctionable benefits are not in payment currently, but the case has been marked so that if the person reclaims benefit within the next three years a sanction will be applied. In the fourth case, sanctionable benefits are in payment and sanctions are being imposed. Information about the amounts obtained and the benefits defrauded in the four cases concerned are in the following table.

  Malcolm Wicks
  There were no cases hacking detected in 2001–02.

  The number of cases of fraud detected 2001–02. Of these, all were perpetrated by

  The number of cases of computer theft 89 in 2001–02. Of these, one was perpetrated by an insider and the remainder by persons Department or unknown.

  Hepatitis C (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his decision not to give evidence to the Scottish Parliament's Health Committee in connection with the Scottish Executive's Hepatitis C compensation proposals. [105035]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Scottish Executive's proposal to compensate Hepatitis C sufferers who contracted the virus through contaminated blood has raised issues broader than that of the interaction with the benefit system and the responsibilities of the Department. It would be inappropriate for me to comment until discussions have reached a conclusion.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many incapacity benefit claimants have been called in for medical assessment in each of the last five years; and how many have been reassessed as not qualifying for benefit. [103235]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The available information is in the tables.

  People claiming incapacity benefit (IB) called for medical assessment

  September 1998 to August 1999

  768,653

  September 1999 to August 2000

  616,071

  September 2000 to August 2001

  639,923

  September 2001 to August 2002

  783,294

  Notes:

  1. Figures prior to September 1998 are available only at disproportionate cost.

  2. Figures are for the number of invitations in respect of IB medical assessments. As some people will be unable to attend their assessments when first invited, these figures include second and subsequent invitations.

  Source:

  Figures are 100 per cent. count from Medical Provision and Contracting Team figures.

  Claims to IB disallowed following a medical assessment

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  199,290

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  202,680

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  181,895

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  152,085

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  161,125

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest five.

  Source:

  Figures are 100 per cent. count from the incapacity benefit computer system and will exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

  Incomes (Blackpool and Fleetwood)
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many individuals in the constituency of Blackpool, North and Fleetwood have incomes(a) up to £10,000, (b) between £10,000 and £20,000 and (c) over £20,000 per year. [98676]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much invalid care allowance would be if it had been indexed to earnings since its introduction. [101909]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated value of the weekly rate of invalid care allowance in April 2003 if it had been indexed to earnings from its introduction in July 1976

  £

  Weekly rate in July 1976

  Weekly rate in April 2003

  Weekly rate in April 2003 if indexed to earnings from July 1976

  7.90

  43.15

  54.75

  Notes:

  Average Earnings Index Whole Economy (Non Seasonally Adjusted) as published by the Office of National Statistics.

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest five pence at each uprating.

  Source:

  Information Centre, Information and Analysis Directorate

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the number of persons fraudulently claiming jobseeker's allowance while working in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [104936]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We estimate that, on average, during the year 2001–02, 32,000 people were committing fraud by claiming jobseeker's allowance while they or their partner were working. Corresponding estimates for previous years are not available.

  Notes:

  1. The above figure is the average number committing fraud at any one time during the year, and may therefore be compared to caseload figures. The total number of individuals committing the fraud over the year as a whole is likely to be considerably higher; however we do not have an estimate.

  2. These are central estimates and are subject to sampling error.

  Medical Services
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 25 February 2003,Official Report, column 496W, on medical services, what proportion of the audits carried out by medical services in the last five years were targeted audits carried out in relation to complaints from claimants about the quality of those medical reports; and what proportion of these targeted audits have been awarded grade C. [103118]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Medical Services management information does not allow for analysis of targeted audit that has arisen from complaints.

  Targeted audit is used when a problem has been identified with a particular doctor, as a result of random audit, a complaint, a rework, or as a chance finding. It involves consideration of a number of reports completed by the doctor concerned, in order to gauge

  173W
  the overall standard of his or her work. The percentage of C grades for targeted audit is therefore higher than for random audit.

  The total number of targeted audits carried out between September 1998 and February 2003 is 9,495, of which 1,704 (17.9 per cent.) were C grades.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the estimated expenditure will be on pension credit in 2003–04; and what he estimates this would be if it were claimed by all those entitled to the benefit. [103635]

  Mr. McCartney
  Pension credit will replace the minimum income guarantee from 6 October 2003. Combined expenditure on the MIG and pension credit for the financial year 2003–04 is estimated to be around £5.3 billion (in cash terms). This is projected to rise to around £6.2 billion in 2004–05 (in cash terms).

  The Department does not produce detailed forecasts of expenditure on the basis of different levels of take-up. However as an indication of the likely expenditure on pension credit, if all those entitled claimed it, DWP simulations suggest spending might be in the region of £7.5 billion for 2004–05. There is likely to be a wide margin of error around this estimate as it is based on survey data, which relies on individual responses and may be subject to non-response bias.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of(a) single men, (b) single women and (c) couples are expected to be entitled to pension credit in October 2003; and how many of these will be entitled to (i) guarantee credit alone, (ii) savings credit alone and (iii) both guarantee and savings credit. [103636]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is given is in the tables.

  Table 1: Number and proportion of single men, single women and couples that are expected to be entitled to pension credit in October 2003

  Numbers entitled to pension credit in millions

  Proportion (percentage)

  Single male

  0.60

  49

  Single female

  1.95

  61

  Couple

  1.05

  26

  Table 2: Number of single men, single women and couples that will be entitled to the guarantee credit alone, savings credit alone and both guarantee and savings credit

  Numbers in millions

  Guarantee credit

  Guarantee and savings credit

  Savings credit

  Total

  Single male

  0.15

  0.2

  0.20

  0.60

  Single female

  0.45

  1.0

  0.55

  1.95

  Couple

  0.30

  0.3

  0.45

  1.05

  Notes:

  1. The estimates were calculated for all pensioners using the Department's Policy Simulation Model based on the Family Resource Survey data for 2000–01 projected forward to 2003–04. This shows around 3.6 million households entitled to pension credit.
  174W
  2. The Policy Simulation Model excludes all pensioners in nursing or residential care homes. This is because the Family Resource Survey data do not contain information on these cases. We estimate that just over 200,000 pensioners in care homes will be entitled to pension credit. This means that total pension credit entitlement for 2003–C4 is estimated to be about 3.8 million households.

  3. The figures in the tables were rounded to the nearest 50,000 cases. The figures may not add up due to rounding.

  Company Pensions
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements exist to compensate employees who lose a significant proportion of their company pension when the company goes into liquidation. [104089]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government are sympathetic to the situation faced by members of pension schemes who find themselves in the unfortunate position of being in a scheme that has insufficient funds to secure all its liabilities when it is wound up.

  A compensation scheme already exists to provide compensation for losses caused by dishonesty where the employer is insolvent. However, our Green Paper, "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement", (Cm 5677), published on 17 December 2002, contains additional proposals aimed at improving protection for scheme members if their schemes wind-up. We are seeking views on removing the restrictions on the amount of compensation payable under the compensation scheme, sharing out scheme assets more fairly, insurance for schemes that are wound up due to employer insolvency and on strengthening the protection for members whose solvent employer chooses to wind up its scheme. The consultation period for the Green Paper proposals runs until 28 March 2003.

  Post Office Card Account
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to allow sub-postmasters to advise people on whether to open a Post Office card account for receiving benefit payments; and if he will make a statement. [103802]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Post Office card account is one of three account options that will be available to customers if they want to access their money at the Post Office. Because the Post Office card account has limited features it will not the best option for everyone.

  We will write to customers when it is their turn to change their method of payment. Customers will be supplied directly with information which clearly sets out their account options and enables them to decide which account is right for them. Sub-postmasters also have official Post Office leaflets, which provide factual information on the account options available, which they can give to customers.

  As neither Post Office staff nor staff in the Department are experts in giving financial advice, it would not be appropriate for them to do so. Sub-postmasters, therefore, should not advise customers on which account is most suitable. It is for customers to choose which account best meets their needs and circumstances.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 868W, on affordable housing, how many units of affordable housing (a) for rent and (b) for sale were

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  12001–02

  Region

  Rent

  Sale

  Rent

  Sale

  Rent

  Sale

  Rent

  Sale

  Rent

  Sale

  East Midlands

  0

  0

  5

  0

  24

  3

  125

  111

  15

  27

  Eastern

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  99

  23

  45

  2

  Greater London

  0

  1

  1

  39

  25

  55

  135

  231

  46

  85

  Merseyside

  0

  0

  5

  0

  6

  0

  11

  16

  2

  16

  North East

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  13

  10

  17

  10

  North West

  0

  0

  10

  0

  59

  0

  30

  28

  4

  12

  South East

  0

  0

  0

  19

  7

  17

  50

  64

  50

  52

  South West

  0

  0

  10

  16

  54

  3

  45

  0

  52

  0

  West Midlands

  0

  0

  55

  26

  75

  7

  100

  19

  75

  16

  Yorks and Humberside

  0

  0

  1

  0

  16

  0

  38

  0

  50

  9

  England

  0

  1

  87

  100

  271

  85

  646

  502

  356

  229

  1 As noted in the answer on 3 March, figures for 2001–02 are subject to validation. These figures differ slightly from the 3 March figures reflecting further validation work undertaken since then, but are still not final.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent estimate he has made of the cost of council tax collection and enforcement to local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [104516]

  Mr. Leslie
  The cost to local authorities of collecting and enforcing the council tax in England is estimated to be £319 million in 2002–03.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 609W, on council tax, what assessment he has made of the main components of the cost of collecting council tax; and if he will make a statement. [104754]

  Mr. Leslie
  The returns made by English local authorities to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister indicate about 30 per cent. of the gross collection costs are attributable to staff costs with the remainder being non-staff running expenses. No more detailed assessment of the cost of collecting the council tax has been made.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 609W, on council tax, whether the figures he provided were gross or net of council tax benefit; and if he will make a statement. [104755]

  Mr. Leslie
  The figures provided related to the council tax itself and did not include the cost of council tax benefit or its administration.

  Employment Records
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many employees of(a) the Social Exclusion Unit, (b) the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit and (c) the
  176W
  built with funding generated by recycled capital grant in each year since 1997, broken down by Government Office Region. [103270]

  Mr. McNulty
  The number of units completed by registered social landlords (RSLs) which have been funded, wholly or in conjunction with loans or RSLs reserves, from recycled capital grant fund since 1997 by region are shown in the following table:

  Homelessness Directorate have been (i) members of the Labour Party, (ii) previous employees of the (iii) previous employees of Labour. [103066]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not hold the information requested centrally. Previous employment records are held in individual staff files but extracting this information could be carried out only at disproportionate cost.

  Fire Services Act
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the impact of the partial repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 in relation to the Government's policy on decentralisation; [104904]

  (2) if he will publish the results of the consultation on the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947; [104902]

  (3) what recent discussions he has had with the Fire Brigades Union on section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. [104903]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The proposed partial repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 is a key element in the replacement of the existing over-centralised framework for fire cover and the early introduction of the new risk-based approach recommended by the Independent Review of the Fire Service chaired by Professor Sir George Bain. The Government believe that decisions on fire cover should be taken by democratically accountable fire authorities, acting on the professional advice of chief fire officers, and after taking account of the views of local communities. The proposed repeals are also consistent with the principles, set out in the White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", of giving local authorities
  177W
  greater freedoms and flexibilities by cutting back on consent regimes and red tape. The Bain Review, which recommended urgent repeal or amendment of section 19, invited evidence from all major stakeholders in the fire service. Since publication of the Review the Local Government Association and the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association have repeated their support for repeal. Draft guidance on the implementation of the new fire cover arrangements and on the consultation of local communities on significant changes in fire cover were placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 5 March, and are being circulated to a wide range of stakeholders for comment.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has met the Fire Brigades Union a number of times in recent weeks. At a meeting with Fire Service Employers and the Fire Brigades Union on 3 February the Deputy Prime Minister said that the Government had announced the proposed repeal of part of section 19 but that the Government would consult fully on the new draft guidance on the implementation of integrated risk management planning.

  Firefighters' Dispute
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of(a) the capacity of Shropshire's Fire Service to maintain fire cover during the Fire Brigades Union strike on 20 March and (b) the number of military personnel able to provide fire cover. [104619]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The proposed Fire Brigade Union (FBU) strike on 20 March did not go ahead. However, the emergency fire cover provided by the armed forces under Operation Fresco was once again made available to deal with the situation. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Ministry of Defence liase regularly at both ministerial level and official level, we are also in regular touch with other parties, such as Fire Authorities, to ensure that an appropriate level and range of emergency fire cover is available to minimise the risk to public safety caused by FBU strike action.

  Housing
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many vacant local authority dwellings there are in England, broken down by(a) local authority area and (b) region; and if he will make a statement. [104175]

  Mr. McNulty
  Information on the number of vacant local authority dwellings at 1 April 2002 in England, broken down by local authority area has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Numbers of vacant local authority dwellings at 1 April 2002 in England, broken down by region are tabled as follows.

  Region

  Number of vacant LA dwellings at 1 April 2002

  North East

  8,400

  North West

  18,400

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  15,400

  178W

  Region

  Number of vacant LA dwellings at 1 April 2002

  East Midlands

  6,200

  West Midlands

  10,800

  East of England

  3,500

  London

  10,000

  South East

  3,300

  South West

  2,200

  England

  78,100

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to nearest 100.

  2. England total may not equal sum of regional components due to rounding.

  3. Regional figures include estimates for numbers of vacant local authority dwellings owned outside a local authority's boundary.

  Source:

  ODPM's Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix completed by local authorities.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the housing stock is in each London borough in the(a) private rented, (b) council owned and (c) housing association sectors. [104180]

  Mr. McNulty
  Estimates of the number of housing stock in each London borough in the(a) private rented, (b) council owned and (c) housing association sectors as at April 2001, are shown in the following table:

  Housing stock by rented sector by local authority in London at April 2001

  Privately rented households1

  LA dwelling stock2

  RSL dwelling stock3

  London4

  520,900

  532,200

  271,100

  Inner London4

  271,900

  329,700

  149,900

  Camden

  25,400

  27,000

  8,200

  City of London

  1,300

  2,100

  200

  Hackney

  14,800

  28,400

  18,400

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  17,700

  14,400

  10,900

  Haringey

  22,000

  19,800

  8,900

  Islington

  15,300

  31,400

  10,600

  Kensington and Chelsea

  24,000

  7,300

  11,900

  Lambeth

  25,400

  35,800

  16,400

  Lewisham

  15,400

  31,400

  8,700

  Newham

  18,300

  23,800

  9,100

  Southwark

  15,900

  49,000

  11,800

  Tower Hamlets

  14,600

  27,100

  13,500

  Wandsworth

  28,900

  18,600

  9,200

  Westminster

  33,000

  13,600

  11,900

  Outer London4

  249,000

  202,500

  121,200

  Barking and Dagenham

  4,700

  23,000

  1,900

  Barnet

  23,500

  12,100

  5,300

  Bexley

  6,700

  0

  13,200

  Brent

  20,200

  10,800

  11,600

  Bromley

  12,200

  0

  17,400

  Croydon

  20,100

  15,300

  8,100

  Ealing

  21,400

  14,900

  8,000

  Enfield

  13,100

  13,700

  5,100

  Greenwich

  10,700

  27,600

  9,300

  Harrow

  10,800

  5,900

  2,300

  Havering

  6,100

  12,000

  1,600

  Hillingdon

  10,800

  11,600

  3,900

  Hounslow

  13,400

  15,100

  5,200

  Kingston upon Thames

  10,700

  5,100

  1,600

  Merton

  13,400

  7,200

  3,900

  Redbridge

  13,400

  5,300

  3,000

  Richmond upon Thames

  14,500

  0

  9,200

  Sutton

  7,900

  9,000

  3,000

  Waltham Forest

  15,500

  13,800

  7,500

  179W
  1 Source: Census 2001 Key Statistics Table 18. Figures are number of households as at 29 April 2001. Dwelling figures from census not yet available but the difference is not expected to be significant.

  2 Source: ODPM Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix 2001–02 return for stock at 1 April 2001.

  3 Source: Housing Corporation's annual Regulatory and Statistical Return for stock as at 31 March 2001.

  4 Figures may not add up due to rounding.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the administrative costs were of the Housing Corporation for each Government Office of the regions in each year since 1999–2000. [102681]

  Mr. McNulty
  In meetings its headquarters and field office administration costs, the Housing Corporation incurred expenditure as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  London

  South

  Central

  North

  HQ

  Total

  1999–2000

  3.825

  3.303

  2.997

  3.627

  16.195

  29.947

  2000–01

  4.179

  3.510

  3.159

  3.866

  15.892

  30.607

  2001–02

  4.372

  3.913

  3.379

  4.150

  18.287

  34.100

  2002–031

  4.853

  4.393

  3.698

  4.511

  18.245

  135.700

  1 The 2002–03 costs are based on current estimates.

  Local Government
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he is taking to improve the quality and range of applications for senior jobs in local government; and if he will make a statement. [100594]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government recognises and is taking steps to address the issue of recruitment and retention across the local government sector. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 13 February 2003,Official Report, column 93W, which sets out the wider work the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is engaged in recruitment and retention in local government and raising its profile as a good choice of career. On 19 February 2003, My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) announced the full programme of Capacity Building initiatives and committed £27 million to help fund this work. This programme will help draw in top quality people by improving the attractiveness of the sector as a potential employer, and ensure the long term development of effective senior management.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working closely with the Employers' Organisation (EO) on the development of key parts of this programme. This will complement the work already being undertaken by the EO into recruitment of senior management. This includes: a consultancy service to support local authorities recruit at senior levels; a comprehensive guide to recruiting senior posts, due to be published in April 2003; and a research project to identify the main barriers to recruiting senior management to inform future work.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many questions have been tabled for reply by his Department since May 2002; and on how many 180W
  occasions the reply given was that (a) providing the information involved disproportionate costs and (b) the information was not available centrally. [91631]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since its formation on 29 May 2002 till the beginning of March 2003, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has answered 1,952 Commons Parliamentary Questions. Information on 49 questions was not held in the form requested. A further 38 questions were given a "disproportionate cost" answer as the information was not held centrally.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [99429]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister uses a database that records and reports performance in answering Parliamentary Questions. This database records how many PQs are answered on time, one day late, between two and five days late, between six and ten days late and eleven or more days late. The details for Named Day PQs for the period 15 October 2002 up to and including 24 February 2003 is detailed in the table. Of the three PQs answered over 11 days after the Named Day, two were given substantive answers within 28 days and one over 28 days later.

  Named days

  PQs

  322

  On time

  273

  Percentage

  84.8

  1 day late

  12

  Percentage

  3.7

  2–5 days

  29

  Percentage

  9.0

  6–10 days

  5

  Percentage

  1.6

  11+

  3

  Percentage

  0.9

  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, Official Report, column 674W. The Report for 2002 will be published in due course.

  Rate Support Grant
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much the rate support grant was in(a) Suffolk county council, (b) Mid Suffolk district council and (c) St. Edmundsbury borough council in each year since 1997. [104817]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are two funding streams to help support revenue funding by local authorities. These are Revenue Support Grant (RSG) and redistributed non-domestic rates (NNDR). It is important to look at the
  181W
  total of these funding streams in order to compare support from central Government year-on-year, since the level of non-domestic rates can vary year-on-year.

  Since 1997 there have been many changes in local government functions and funding. To enable a like-for like comparison between years, we calculate adjusted grants. The percentage change figures have been calculated on the basis of these like-for-like comparisons.

  Until the introduction of Central Support Protection Grant in 1999–2000, there was no need to calculate grant on a like-for-like basis, and for this reason grant

  Suffolk County Council

  RSG (£ million)

  NNDR (£ million)

  Formula Grant (£ million)

  Percentage change in grant

  1997–98

  157.459

  127.736

  285.195

  1998–99

  159.540

  134.712

  294.252

  N/A

  1999–2000

  162.953

  147.267

  310.220

  5.4

  Adjusted 1999–2000

  162.951

  147.268

  310.219

  2000–01

  156.949

  167.715

  324.664

  4.7

  Adjusted 2000–01

  156.250

  167.339

  323.589

  2001–02

  172.189

  164.430

  336.618

  4.0

  Adjusted 2001–02

  149.248

  163.383

  312.630

  2002–03

  151.530

  180.585

  332.115

  6.2

  Adjusted 2002–03

  169.029

  180.585

  349.614

  2003–04

  191.530

  179.409

  370.939

  6.1

  Mid Suffolk District Council

  RSG (£ million)

  NNDR (£ million)

  SSA Reduction Grant (£ million)

  Formula Grant (£ million)

  Percentage Change in Grant

  1997–98

  1.480

  2.526

  0.031

  4.037

  1998–99

  1.428

  2.579

  0.000

  4.007

  N/A

  1999–2000

  1.424

  2.795

  0.000

  4.219

  5.3

  Adjusted 1999–2000

  1.424

  2.794

  0.000

  4.219

  2000–01

  1.249

  3.120

  0.000

  4.369

  3.6

  Adjusted 2000–01

  1.240

  3.158

  0.000

  4.398

  2001–02

  1.476

  3.145

  0.000

  4.620

  5.1

  Adjusted 2001–02

  1.272

  3.252

  0.000

  4.524

  2002–03

  1.176

  3.552

  4.728

  4.5

  Adjusted 2002–03

  1.081

  3.552

  4.633

  2003–04

  2.176

  3.036

  5.212

  12.5

  St Edmundsbury

  RSG (£ million)

  NNDR (£ million)

  Formula Grant (£ million)

  Percentage change in grant

  1997–98

  2.202

  2.955

  5.157

  1998–99

  2.101

  3.001

  5.103

  N/A

  1999–2000

  2.013

  3.229

  5.242

  2.7

  Adjusted 1999–2000

  2.013

  3.228

  5.242

  2000–01

  1.924

  3.702

  5.626

  7.3

  Adjusted 2000–01

  1.920

  3.747

  5.667

  2001–02

  2.050

  3.634

  5.684

  0.3

  Adjusted 2001–02

  1.822

  3.758

  5.580

  2002–03

  1.703

  4.114

  5.817

  Adjusted 2002–03

  1.576

  4.114

  5.690

  4.3

  2003–04

  2.656

  3.430

  6.086

  7.0

  Regional Chambers
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 12 March 2003,Official Report, column 327W, on regional chambers, what the total funding given to each chamber was for financial year 1999–2000; and what the total funding given to the English Regions Network was in each financial year since 1999–2000. [104640]
  182W
  comparisons in the years 1997–98 and 1998–99 are not available. There were no changes in funding and function between 1998–99 and 1999–2000 that needed reflecting in adjusted grants for 1998–99 to allow a like-for-like comparison; the actual 1998–99 values have therefore been used in this case.

  The table shows the amount of RSG, NNDR and formula grant (RSG, NNDR and the Standard Statements Assessments (SSA) Reduction Grant (where appropriate)) received by the authorities during the period. The tables also show the year-on-year changes in formula grant on a like-for-like basis.

  Mr. Raynsford
  No Government funding was given to regional chambers or the English Regions Network in the financial year 1999–2000. As already indicated in my answer to the hon. Member on 12 March 2003,Official Report, column 327W, the English Regions Network received £1 million in 2001–02, and has been allocated £200,000 for each of 2002–03 and 2003–04 on the basis of an agreed business plan.

  Right to Buy
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the guidance issued to district valuers about the determination of a valuation of a property being sold under the right to buy. [89523]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information will be available shortly on the internet at www.voa.gov.uk under "Publications—Our Operation Instructions—Right to Buy Manual".

  Copies of Valuation Office Agency's "Right to Buy Manual", which contains instructions and advice for their district valuers' staff who undertake such valuations, is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Tunbridge Wells and Kent Councils
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) type and (b) value of (i) specific and (ii) special

  Tunbridge Wells

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03 Budget only

  Emergency Planning

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Total ring-fenced specific grants

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Housing benefit administration

  158

  165

  164

  162

  150

  249

  Council tax benefit administration

  73

  74

  74

  93

  87

  —

  Total unring-fenced specific grants

  231

  239

  238

  255

  237

  249

  Revenue support grant

  3,242

  2,972

  2,872

  2,749

  3,103

  2,787

  National non-domestic rates

  3,279

  3,292

  3,503

  3,913

  3,871

  4,352

  Gross AEF

  6,752

  6,503

  6,613

  6,918

  7,211

  7,388

  Percentage ring-fenced of gross AEF

  0

  0

  0

  0.01

  0

  0

  Kent

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03 Budget only

  AIDS support

  —

  140

  50

  127

  115

  105

  Asylum seekers

  —

  4,955

  22,974

  49,176

  46,522

  34,003

  Building care capacity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,447

  Carers grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,169

  Child care and early years

  —

  —

  —

  1,405

  3,237

  16,041

  Children's services (Quality Protects)

  —

  —

  1,462

  2,302

  5,974

  10,442

  Civil defence

  —

  273

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Class size reductions

  —

  —

  777

  —

  —

  —

  Community care special transitional grant

  —

  9,045

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Deferred payments

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  977

  Education budget support grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  —

  Education of travellers and displaced persons

  275

  310

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Emergency planning

  —

  —

  273

  252

  375

  260

  Ethnic minorities achievement grant

  —

  837

  748

  —

  —

  —

  Former GM schools transitional grant

  —

  —

  —

  375

  42

  —

  Magistrates courts

  —

  6,055

  6,086

  6,093

  6,313

  5,884

  Mental health

  —

  1,317

  2,306

  2,594

  3,136

  3,235

  Nursery education grant for 4-year-olds

  —

  —

  5,861

  5,964

  —

  —

  Nursery education grant for 3-year-olds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11,203

  Other grants within AEF

  —

  19

  1,159

  9,252

  3,094

  591

  Performance fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,254

  Preserved rights

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30,044

  Probation (ordinary 80 per cent. grant)

  —

  8,221

  8,872

  9,781

  —

  —

  Promoting independence

  —

  —

  7,383

  7,451

  9,440

  3,958

  Provision for 3-year-olds

  —

  —

  —

  475

  5,242

  —

  Residential allowances

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,269

  Rural bus services

  —

  1,252

  1,230

  1,292

  1,644

  1,885

  School budget support grant

  —

  —

  —

  1,463

  —

  —

  Section 11 (ethnic minorities) grant

  895

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  184W
  grants have been provided by central government to (a) Tunbridge Wells borough council and (B) Kent county council in each year since 1997. [104694]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The tables give all the special and specific grants inside Aggregate External Finance (AEF) provided to Tunbridge Wells and Kent. The information is taken from the Reporting Officer forms returned on an annual basis by authorities to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The entries for 1997–2002 are actual figures. These are not yet available for 2002–03 and therefore budgeted figures have been given. The definition of ring-fencing was updated last year to reflect the types of grant which now exist. Some grants previously classified as ring-fenced are not now classified in this way. The key distinction made remains that ring-fenced grants are those which restrict local authority spending. For completeness the following list includes all special grants inside Aggregate External Finance. Further details of classifications are in an annex to the freedoms and flexibilities announcement of 26 November.
  185W

  Kent

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03 Budget only

  Social services training support programme

  —

  643

  514

  689

  791

  673

  Standards fund

  5,342

  6,264

  13,620

  26,207

  31,162

  35,137

  Supported employment

  —

  100

  24

  96

  103

  —

  Supporting people implementation grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  700

  Teachers' pay reform

  —

  —

  —

  2,896

  17,637

  12,000

  Teenage pregnancy local implementation grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  240

  Under-5s specific grant

  —

  5,709

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Young people's substance misuse grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  91

  Total ring-fenced specific grants

  6,512

  45,140

  73,339

  127,890

  134,927

  177,608

  The private finance initiative

  —

  331

  842

  885

  850

  —

  Total unring-fenced grants

  0

  331

  842

  885

  850

  0

  School standards grant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17,514

  17,975

  Revenue support grant

  451,972

  386,147

  389,996

  382,868

  427,589

  385,874

  National non-domestic rates

  301,690

  268,337

  292,938

  332,884

  327,578

  359,413

  Gross AEF

  760,174

  699,955

  757,115

  844,527

  908,458

  940,870

  Percentage of gross AEF ring-fenced

  1

  6

  10

  15

  15

  19

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many plans were(a) Tunbridge Wells borough council and (b) Kent county council required to submit to central government in each year since 1997. [104695]

  Mr. Leslie
  The number of plans submitted in each year to central government is set out in the following table. These figures include plans that are required from partnerships that include local authorities. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently announced a significant reduction in the number of plans that will be required from all authorities. Authorities assessed as excellent will themselves only have to prepare two plans, neither of which will be submitted to Government except in cases, such as Kent, in which the authority did not receive a three star rating in education. For these authorities, education plans will be required until the top rating is attained. The table, therefore, includes the three different types of education related plans that are required for 2003–04. The table assumes that none of the small number of other mandatory plans produced by partnerships of which Kent is a member fall due in 2003–04.

  Year

  Tunbridge Wells

  Kent

  1997–98

  2

  4

  1998–99

  3

  10

  1999–2000

  3

  17

  2000–01

  5

  21

  2001–02

  9

  28

  2002–03

  7

  31

  2003–04

  5

  3

HEALTH

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what accounting rules will apply to NHS foundation trusts; [104214]

  (2) whether foundation hospital trusts will be required to submit their accounts to Companies House; [104213]
  186W
  (3) what auditing system will be applicable to NHS foundation trusts; and if he will make a statement. [104211]

  Mr. Hutton
  Clauses 20-21 of Schedule Ito the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill published on 13 March set out arrangements for Public Benefit Corporations accounts.

  Imported Chicken
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the detection of beef and pork proteins in imported chicken. [103933]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency has recently published results showing that some frozen chicken products on sale in wholesale outlets in the United Kingdom are not properly labelled. Twelve of the 25 samples tested contained pork DNA, and one contained beef DNA. These findings do not raise any safety concerns, but they are unacceptable, particularly since 11 of the samples containing pork DNA were labelled as "Halal". The FSA is working closely with local enforcement authorities, who are now deciding what action to take against the wholesalers. It is also pursuing the matter with the competent authority in the Netherlands, where most of these products were processed.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the findings of beef and pork DNA in Dutch chicken on sale in the United Kingdom. [103878]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency has recently published results slowing that some frozen chicken products on sale in wholesale outlets in the United Kingdom are not properly labelled. Twelve of the 25 samples tested contained pork DNA, and one contained beef DNA. These findings do not raise any safety concerns, but they are unacceptable, particularly since 11 of the samples containing pork DNA were labelled as "Halal". The FSA is working closely with local enforcement authorities, who are now deciding what action to take against the wholesalers. It is also
  187W
  pursuing the matter with the competent authority in the Netherlands, where most of these products were processed.

  NHS Targets
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the system of targets for the National Health Service after the commencement of NHS foundation trusts. [104210]

  Mr. Hutton
  "Improvement, expansion, reform: The next three years Priorities and Planning Framework 2003–06", published in October 2002 set out the targets for all national health service organisations over the coming three years.

  2002–3

  2001–2

  Q3

  Q2

  Q1

  Q4

  12 month total

  Number of patients admitted through major A&E

  6,051

  6,068

  6,243

  5,812

  24,174

  Patients not placed in bed in a ward within four hours of a decision to admit

  252

  249

  260

  288

  1,049

  Percentage

  4.2

  4.1

  4.2

  5.0

  4.3

  Source:

  Hospital Activity Statistics, Department of Health

  Advertising Campaigns
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the advertising campaigns which(a) his Department and (b) the NHS have commissioned since 1997; and what the costs were in each case. [100505]

  Advertising campaigns

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  Antibiotics

  —

  —

  —

  0.91

  —

  0.44

  0.52

  Blood donation

  0.38

  0.60

  1.70

  0.222

  —

  —

  —

  CALM3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.05

  0.10

  Drugs

  —

  —

  —

  0.53

  0.5

  —

  1.5

  Flu

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.01

  1.45

  2.0

  Immunisation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.67

  0.63

  Maternity

  0.10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mind Out

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.13

  0.15

  National health service including nurse recruitment

  1.43

  1.30

  4.90

  4.21

  4.90

  5.0

  4.783

  NHS Direct

  —

  0.12

  0.78

  1.24

  0.11

  1.08

  0.58

  Organ donation

  —

  0.02

  0.77

  0.47

  0.43

  0.18

  0.21

  Prescription fraud

  —

  —

  0.38

  —

  0.18

  —

  0.30

  Sexwise/teenage pregnancy

  —

  —

  —

  0.39

  1.5

  1.6

  2.0

  Sexual health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.3

  1.5

  Social worker recruitment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.832

  1.236

  Smoking

  —

  —

  —

  6.184

  8.97

  7.79

  7.873

  TB awareness

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.30

  0.09

  Travel safe

  0.85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Walk-in centres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.17

  0.023

  —

  Winter

  —

  —

  —

  1.016

  2.03

  0.16

  0.35

  Total

  3.16

  2.04

  8.53

  15.166

  20.80

  20.005

  23.822

  1 Costs to date.

  2 The Department's spend on blood donation advertising reduced in 1999–2000 as this activity was funded directly by the National Blood Authority, who took over full responsibility for this expenditure on 1 April 2000.

  3 CALM-Campaign against living miserably.

  4 Prior to 1999–2000 advertising on smoking was undertaken by the Health Education Authority.

  188W
  NHS foundation trusts will have the freedom to decide how these targets are met.

  A and E Waiting Times (Hull and East Yorkshire)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients admitted to accident and emergency in Hull and East Yorkshire in the last 12 months waited longer than 12 hours prior to admission, transfer or discharge. [104526]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. The table shows the number of patients waiting more than four hours in accident and emergency prior to admission at Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

  Mr. Lammy
  The cost of major advertising campaigns commissioned by the Department's Communications Directorate are shown in the table.
  189W
  Information on National Health Service expenditure is collected centrally and published annually in the Health and Personal Social Statistics for England.

  Age Concern
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make funding available to Age Concern to continue the bathing and footcare service for elderly people in Sittingbourne. [104658]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: Information from the strategic health authority is that funding for this service is provided within the overall service to older people.

  Swale Primary Care Trust (PCT) provided Age Concern with funding of £24,189 in 2002–03 which included funding for the bathing and footcare service in the Sittingbourne area.

  The Swale PCT have confirmed they will continue to fund the services in 2003.

  Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 27 February 2003,Official Report, columns 695–6W, on scallop fisheries, why, when scallops in the Irish Sea were detected as containing in excess of 20mg/kg of ASP, the area of closure was not confined to the box in which the scallops were detected. [102615]

  Ms Blears
  When considering closure of areas of water off the coast of Northern Ireland in such circumstances, the Food Standards Agency uses ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) areas as a means of designating particular areas of water. In every case the aim is to include any area where there is reason to think there is a hazard. Because of the very mobile nature of marine algae, it is necessary to include a safety margin to ensure protection of public health.

  Smoking
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of his Department's expenditure on publicity and advertising in relation to tobacco issues, in each year from 1990–91 to 2003–04 (planned); what value for money assessment of it has been carried out; and if he will make a statement. [103702]

  Ms Blears
  For the period 1990–91 to 1998–99 public education campaigns were run by the Health Education Authority. The Department of Health took over this work in 1999–2000.

  The spend in the last four financial years is shown in the table. The total budget for 2003–04 is still to be confirmed.

  £ million

  Total spend on publicity

  Amount spent on advertising

  1999–2000

  15.5

  6.18

  2000–01

  13.73

  8.97

  190W

  £ million

  Total spend on publicity

  Amount spent on advertising

  2001–02

  12.3

  7.79

  2002–03

  13

  7.8731

  1 Amount currently scheduled to be spent on advertising

  The non-advertising expenditure funds campaign literature, specialist helplines for smokers, campaign website, research and specialist campaigns targeting other key audiences such as pregnant smokers and young people.

  It is difficult to isolate the success of the education campaign due to other factors at work such as prices, incomes, social trends etc. However, a number of different measures are in place to evaluate the effectiveness of the "Don't Give Up Giving Up" advertising campaign. These include prevalence surveys, quarterly tracking research, monitoring calls to the national health service smoking helpline, evaluation of media coverage and helpline referrals to local services.

  Aspirin
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to commission research into the effect of aspirin in reducing the risk of cancers of the mouth, throat and oesophagus. [103190]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]: The Department has no plans at present to commission research into the effectiveness of aspirin in preventing cancers of the mouth, throat and oesophagus. For all three types of cancer the main risk factors are known to be smoking and heavy drinking, and efforts to reduce these are the main preventive measures. But the Department has of course noted with interest the report published in the British Journal of Cancer of a study on the effects of aspirin undertaken at the Institute of Pharmacological Research in Milan. The Department is working closely with its partners in the National Cancer Research Institute to plan strategically national research efforts on the prevention of cancer.

  Cancer
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what dietary action he has recommended to reduce the occurrence of cancer in deprived communities; [101387]

  (2) what action the Government is taking to encourage people to increase their fruit and vegetable consumption. [101388]

  Ms Blears
  The Government's 5-a-day programme, an NHS Plan commitment, aims to increase access to, and availability and consumption of, fruit and vegetables particularly in low income groups. The 5-a-day message includes the health benefits of eating at least five portions of a variety of fruit and vegetables in helping to reduce the risk of some cancers. Resources bearing a new 5-a-day logo that explains the 5-a-day message and suggests ways of increasing fruit and vegetable intake are being distributed through primary care settings.
  191W
  Following successful piloting of the 5-a-day local community initiatives by the Department, the New is providing £10 million to support another 66 initiatives based in primary care trusts (PCTs) in the most deprived areas of England. The 5-a-day handbook will help staff in PCTs and other organisations to establish community-wide approaches to increasing fruit and vegetable consumption. The New Opportunities Fund is also providing £42 million to support the National School Fruit Scheme, which will be fully operational by 2004, when it will entitle every child aged four to six in infant schools to a free piece of fruit each school day, as part of a national strategy to improve the diet of children. We are also working with industry to improve people's access to fruit and vegetables.

  In addition, there are local initiatives to increase fruit and vegetable consumption, especially but not only in low income groups, in health action zones, sure start, healthy living centres and other PCTs.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  1,980

  2,100

  2,170

  2,200

  1,960

  Medical and dental staff

  130

  140

  140

  140

  160

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health 'visiting staff

  700

  750

  780

  770

  600

  All other non-medical staff

  1,150

  1,210

  1,260

  1,300

  1,200

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical work force census

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Department for Health and Social Care
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his decision to abolish the Department for Health and Social Care; and what he plans to replace it with. [97040]

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to disestablish NHS Directorates of Health and Social Care; and where each of their functions will be transferred. [100710]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 5 March 2003]: The Department has announced a change programme, which reflects the change in its role. This includes the integration of the functions and, responsibilities of Directorates of Health and Social Care into other parts of the Department, which will be completed by October 2003. The Directorates' public health function will remain co-located with the Government Offices of the Region, strengthening inter-departmental links on health protection, health promotion and inequalities.

  Departmental Capital Expenditure
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the information on capital expenditure by his Department in each month since March 2002 provided to the Office for National Statistics for the purposes of the public finances first release; and if he will make a statement. [103800]

  Mr. Lammy
  No.

  Cervical Cancer Screening
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what limitations there are on the hours of NHS staff screening for cervical cancer. [104188]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 March 2003]: National guidelines state that screeners can be safely and effectively utilised on cervical cytology microscopy for four hours in a normal working day1. The working day should be organised such that a break in continuous screening should be of at least 20 minutes' duration. This break should be taken after no more than two hours at the microscope.
  1 Laboratory Organisation: A guide for Laboratories Participating in the NHS Cervical Screening Programme (January 2003)

  Chorley Hospital
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors, (b) nurses and (c) other staff were employed at Chorley hospital in each of the last five years. [103842]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on digital hearing aid provision on the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [104561]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have invested £30.75 million on the first two waves of the modernising hearing aid services project. As a result, there will be 50 sites providing digital hearing aids as part of a modernised service by the end of March 2003 and a further 17 trained and equipped to provide digital aids from April.

  A further £94 million has now been allocated to ensure that a modernised service is rolled out to all national health service hearing aid services in England by April 2005.

  Drugs
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to discuss drugs treatment with primary care trusts. [103534]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 18 March 2003]: The Government recognises that primary care trusts (PCTs) have a crucial role to play in the delivery of effective drug treatment services. It is because of this that mechanisms have been set up to ensure that we have regular contact with PCTs and other key stakeholders.
  193W
  The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA) monitors the performance of all drug action team (DAT) members, including PCTs, via a DAT treatment plan, which is completed on an annual basis. Progress against this treatment plan is reviewed by the NTA, with all DAT partners, on a quarterly basis. These regular reviews ensure that all DAT partners are making a positive contribution to the effective delivery of drug treatment services.

  Dyspepsia
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the cost to the NHS was for treatments prescribed for dyspepsia; and what percentage of this amount was spent on(a) proton pump inhibitors, (b) H2 receptor antagonists, (c) alginates and (d) antacids in each year since 1997; [102999]

  Net ingredient cost (£ million) of products for treatment of dyspepsia dispensed it the community in England

  BNF description

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  1.1.2 Alginates

  20.2

  21.1

  21.5

  21.5

  21.5

  Alginates as a percentage of total dyspepsia drugs

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  1.1.1 Antacids

  3.1

  2.9

  2.6

  2.5

  2.4

  Antacids as a percentage of total dyspepsia drugs

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1.3.1 H2-receptor antagonists

  169.8

  139.2

  124.2

  83.8

  53.5

  H2-receptor antagonists as a percentage of total dyspepsia drugs

  36

  31

  26

  19

  12

  1.3.5 Proton Pump Inhibitors

  279.1

  291.1

  323.1

  327.8

  364.4

  Proton Pump Inhibitors as a percentage of total dyspepsia drugs

  59

  64

  69

  75

  82

  Grand total

  472.2

  454.3

  471.5

  435.6

  441.7

  Notes:

  1. The therapeutic classifications are based on British National Formulary sections 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.3.1, and 1.3.5.

  2. The data are based on prescription items dispensed in the community, ie by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England.

  3. The data do not cover drugs dispensed in hospital or private prescriptions.

  4. The net ingredient cost (NIC) refers to the cost of the drug before discounts and does not include any dispensing costs or fees. It does not include any adjustment for income obtained where a prescription charge is paid at the time the prescription is dispensed or where the patient has purchased a pre-payment certificate.

  Source:

  Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) data from the Prescription Pricing Authority

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department is conducting into the management of dyspepsia. [103000]

  Ms Blears
  The Department funds research to support policy and delivery of effective practice in health and social care. The Department's health technology assessment (HTA) programme commissioned a systematic review of the management of dyspepsia that reported in 2001.

  The HTA programme has four current projects related to dyspepsia. These are:
  randomised trial comparing the efficacy and costs of endoscopy with Helicobacter pylori testing versus non-invasive Helicobacter pylori testing alone in the management of dyspepsia;
  systematic review and modelling of the cost-effectiveness of screening for Helicobacter pylori to reduce mortality and morbidity from gastric cancer and peptic ulcer disease;
  the place of minimal access surgery amongst people with gastrooesophageal reflux disease—a UK collaborative study: and
  comparison of the cost effectiveness of four strategies for the prevention of non-steroidal anti inflammatory drug induced gastrointestinal toxicity—a systematic review with economic modelling.

  194W
  (2) what cost savings have been made to the NHS drugs bill for proton pump inhibitors since July 2000. [103001]

  Mr. Lammy
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) published its guidance on the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in the treatment of dyspepsia in July 2000. The guidance made a number of recommendations intended to achieve the most clinically and cost-effectiveness use of PPIs. NICE estimated that its advice, if fully implemented, could lead to a reduction in the use of PPIs. Such a reduction has not yet occurred. We anticipate that the impetus to better target these treatments will increase when NICE publishes its clinical guideline on the primary management of dyspepsia, due later this year.

  Information on the net ingredient cost of all drugs used to treat dyspepsia that were dispensed in the community in England from 1997 is shown in the table.

  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding from the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology. The MRC is not currently conducting any research into the management of dyspepsia but spent an estimated £4 million in 2001–03 on a wide range of basic and clinical research into disorders of the digestive system. The MRC always welcomes high quality applications for support of research into any aspect of human health, and these are judged in open competition with other demands on funding.

  Emergency Departments (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on waiting times in emergency departments. [104235]

  Mr. Lammy
  Cutting waiting time in accident and emergency departments to improve the patient experience is a top priority for the national health service. The NHS Plan target is that no patient should wait over four hours in A&E from December 2004.
  195W
  The NHS is engaged in a widespread programme of reform to deliver this, supported by the major £30 million Modernisation Agency emergency care collaborative programme.

  Employee Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the(a) cost and (b) number of employees working in (i) research analysis and information, (ii) human resources, (iii) finance and investment, (iv) corporate affairs, (v) policy and planning, (vi) the Strategy Unit and (vii) the Communications Unit of his Department for each year from 1991–92 to 2003–04 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [103705]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is not possible to estimate the cost and the number of employees working in the areas listed in the question because of the changes that have occurred in the make up and structure of the Department since 1991.

  Figures for the cost of employees working for the Department are contained within the Departmental Report, which is published annually and available from the Library (Command Paper 5403).

  Full-time equivalent numbers for staff in all civil service departments and agencies are released twice-yearly by press notice. The latest data for April 2002 was published on 31 October 2002. Copies of the annual publication are available from the Library.

  The Department's Permanent Secretary has recently initiated a major change programme, with an expectation that the number of posts in the Department—excluding its agencies—will reduce by at least a third by 1 October 2004. The precise implications for the number of employees working on different functions during 2003–04 will become clearer as the programme develops.

  Expenditure (Thames Valley)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the most recent estimates collated by the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority for the forecast overspend or underspend by each NHS trust and primary care organisation in its area for 2002–03. [103764]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Regular financial reports are presented to the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority board and these can be obtained from the Chairman of the Health Authority. Board papers can also be viewed on the health authority website at www.tvha.nhs.uk

  External Consultants
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on(a) external advisers and (b) consultants by his Department in each year since 1996–97. [103815]

  Mr. Lammy
  Expenditure by the Department for each year from 1996–97 is shown in the table.
  196W

  Expenditure

  £ million

  1996–97

  14.699

  1997–98

  12.694

  1998–99

  7.332

  1999–2000

  8.132

  2000–01

  6.531

  2001–02

  6.8

  The Department's accounting systems do not distinguish between consultants and external advisers and the provision of a separate analysis could be secured only at disproportionate cost.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of consumers(a) confident and (b) not confident in food labelling claims in each of the last 10 years. [102863]

  Ms Blears
  The Government do not collate detailed information on consumer confidence in food labelling claims. However, over the last three years the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has conducted an annual survey, "Consumer Attitudes to Food Standards", which asks consumers whether they are concerned about the accuracy of food labelling.

  A copy of the latest survey for 2002, which contains comparative material from the previous two years, has been placed in the Library and is available on the FSA's website at www.food.gov.uk. The responses show just over a third, or 34 per cent., have concerns about the accuracy of food labelling.

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Concern about accuracy of food labels

  Yes (percentage)

  35

  35

  34

  No (percentage)

  62

  62

  63

  Number questioned

  (3,152)

  (3,120)

  (3,173)

  Level of concern

  Very Concerned (percentage)

  22

  19

  23

  Fairly concerned (percentage)

  57

  56

  54

  Slightly concerned (percentage)

  21

  23

  22

  Number questioned

  (1,042)

  (1,041)

  (1,135)

  Food Standards Agency
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlay the decision by the Food Standards Agency to run a parallel exercise to the GM public debate run under the auspices of DEFRA. [103955]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 20 March 2003]: The Food Standards Agency is taking forward its genetically modified debate activities as part of its responsibility under the Food Standards Act 1999. The activities are in line with the FSA's remit by focussing on the consumer acceptability of GM foods. The Chairman of the GM public debate steering board has been kept informed of all the FSA activities since summer 2002.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role the chairman of the Food Standards Agency had in approving the promotional booklet for the Food Standards Agency GM debate. [103956]
  197W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 20 March 2003]: The Food Standards Agency Chairman commented on the booklet, which was written by FSA officials and approved by the FSA's Chief Scientific Adviser. The booklet was produced to provide public information after FSA consumer research revealed very little public understanding of genetically modified food.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS trusts' applications for NHS Foundation trust status will be made publicly available. [100844]

  Mr. Hutton
  Second stage applications for national health service foundation trust status will be made available to the public as part of each NHS trust's wider consultation with their stakeholders and local community.

  Fruit and Vegetable Consumption
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government is taking to increase awareness about the health benefits of fruit and vegetables in preventing cancer. [101389]

  Ms Blears
  Action to increase awareness of the 5-a-day message, which includes the benefits of fruit and vegetables in helping to reduce the risk of some cancers—as well as what counts towards the 5-a-day target and how much is portion—is being taken forward through the 5-a-d ay programme.

  The 5-a-day programme aims to increase fruit and vegetable consumption through targeted action to improve awareness of the health benefits, and access to, fruit and vegetables, particularly in disadvantaged areas. Through the communications programme, one strand of the 5-a-day programme, resources to explain the 5-a-day message and ways of increasing fruit and vegetable intake have been produced and will be distributed through primary care settings. The National School Fruit Scheme, another strand of the 5-a-day programme, provides information materials for parents and children that also promotes the 5-a-day message. Also, a 5-a-day logo has been developed, for use in all settings, as a way of ensuring consistency in the 5-a-day message. 66 local 5-a-day community initiatives, another strand of the 5-a-day programme and supported by £10 million from the New Opportunities Fund, will also increase awareness through local media campaigns and work with schools, primary care, community groups and workplaces. Other activities include working with the food industry to ensure consistent and clear 5-a-day messages.

  FSA (Illegal Imports)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often since 31 March 2002 the Food Standards Agency has inspected the work of(a) local and (b) post health authorities in relation to the illegal import of animal and plant products at each relevant port. [103773]

  Ms Blears
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that it undertakes an audit programme of local authorities which aims to ensure effective and 198W
  consistent local authority enforcement of all legislation relating to food safety and standards, including that which applies to imported foods. Since 31 March 2002, the FSA has carried out audits of 89 United Kingdom local authorities, covering the full range of local authority food law enforcement activity.

  Following the Cabinet Office review of imported food controls, the FSA has been asked to lead on a project to deliver a 'step change' in the co-ordination of local authority responsibilities for the control of the legal trade in imported food products. As part of this project the FSA is extending the audit programme to include audits of port health authorities.

  All products of animal origin being imported direct to the UK from non-European Union countries must be imported via a border inspection post (BIP). The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has policy lead for BIPs.

  Haemophilia
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2003,Official Report, column 1209W, on haemophilia, when the strategy will be put in place to roll out access to recombinant clotting factors. [103528]

  Ms Blears
  The strategy will be put in place as early as possible in the 2003–04 financial year once key stakeholders, including patient representatives, have been fully consulted. As this process has recently started, it is too soon to give a precise date.

  Health Services (Children)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many on-site nurseries are operating in NHS establishments; how many have closed since the scheme started; and how many are expected to open this year as part of the NHS child care strategy. [100501]

  Mr. Hutton
  A national baseline survey of national health service child care provision, undertaken early in 2001, found that 114 NHS trusts provided some form of nursery facilities for their staff. The NHS child care strategy has provided central funding over three years to develop up to 150 on-site nursery facilities by 2004. In the first two years of the strategy, 120 nursery schemes, including both new and extensions to existing nurseries have been funded. Of these, we estimate that around 30 have already opened and that a further 40 will be open by December 2003. The rest will open from January 2004 onwards. We intend to do a further survey of NHS child care provision in 2004.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to the NHS is of the(a) diagnosis and (b) treatment of HIV and AIDS in the latest year for which figures are available. [103547]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 March 2003]: The cost to the national health service of the diagnosis of HIV and AIDS is not separately identified. For 2001–02, the NHS received a separate allocation totalling £279 million for HIV prevention and treatment and

  199W
  care. From 2002–03 funding for HIV/AIDS was included as part of NHS main allocation and is not separately identifiable.

  Home Care
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) average and (b) maximum home care charges made by each local authority in the Eastern region are. [104827]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on home care charges levied by local authorities is not held centrally.

  Hospital Food
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Better Hospital Food Programme in NHS hospitals; when he last met the

  Acute hospitals—Better Hospital Food implementation update—June 2002

  All acute hospitals (360)

  London region (54)

  Midlands Eastern region (90)

  Northern (121)

  Southern (95)

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Ward kitchen services

  256

  71.5

  38

  70.4

  65

  72.2

  85

  70.2

  68

  71.6

  Snack box service

  210

  58.7

  32

  59.3

  44

  48.9

  71

  58.7

  63

  66.3

  Additional snacks

  183

  51.1

  31

  57.4

  37

  41.1

  59

  48.8

  56

  58.9

  Main meal evening

  280

  78.2

  46

  85.2

  70

  77.8

  96

  79.3

  68

  71.6

  Leading chef dishes

  142

  40

  21

  38.9

  22

  24.4

  52

  43

  47

  49.5

  Note:

  The table shows the number of hospitals meeting the key targets of the Better Hospital Food initiative by June 2002.

  Human Cloning
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made towards developing an international consensus on the issue of human cloning. [103970]

  Ms Blears
  The United Kingdom already has a legal ban, the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 that prevents any attempts to carry out reproductive cloning.

  The United Nations is working towards a convention to ban reproductive cloning. The UK is very much in favour of this initiative but does not agree with those who wish to see an extension of any ban to cover therapeutic cloning.

  The UK Government agrees with the House of Lords Select Committee report on stem cell research in 2002 that there is a powerful case for the use of therapeutic cloning, under strict regulation, as a research tool. Such research is permitted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2001.

  International Nurse Recruitment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 5 February 2003,Official Report, column 225W, on international nurse recruitment, how many overseas nurse recruitment agencies have been invited to sign the international nurse code of conduct. [97271]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has invited 115 commercial agencies who internationally recruit healthcare professionals to sign up to the code of
  200W
  chairman of the programme; and how much funding he has allocated to the programme for (a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06. [96117]

  Mr. Lammy
  Details of the numbers of hospitals meeting the key targets of the Better Hospital Food initiative by June 2002 are shown in the table.

  To date £28.5 million has been allocated in support of this programme. Final decisions regarding funding for 2003–06 have not yet been made.

  The Chairman of the Better Hospital Food panel, Mr. Loyd Grossman, meets regularly with Ministers to discuss the Better Hospital Food programme. The most recent meeting took place on 5 December 2002 with my noble Friend, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Both my noble Friend and Mr. Grossman also participated in the Better Hospital Food conference on 21 January 2003.

  practice for national health service employers who are involved in the international recruitment of healthcare professionals.

  Midwifery
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 10 March 2003,Official Report, columns 103–05W, on midwifery, (1) what the attrition rate was for midwifery students in each year since direct entry to midwifery was introduced; and what proportion of midwives who completed their training and became eligible to register as midwives (a) registered and (b) practised in each of those years; [104055]

  (2) how many individuals are (a) eligible to register as midwives, (b) registered as midwives and (c) practising as midwives. [104056]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department holds information for attrition from direct entry midwifery courses from the 1994–95 cohort onwards. A table showing information on students' progress for each complete cohort from 1994–95 is shown as follows:

  Midwives training progress as at October 2001

  Percentage

  Year

  Eligible to register1

  Discontinued (attrition)2

  Interrupted3

  Active4

  1994–95

  81.2

  17.2

  0.1

  1.5

  1995–96

  76.9

  17.9

  0.5

  4.7

  1996–97

  73.0

  21.8

  1.5

  3.7

  1997–98

  76.3

  17.1

  0.9

  5.7

  201W
  1 Those midwives who have completed their training and are eligible to register with the English National Board and therefore apply to join the NHS.

  2 Students who have left the course (attrition).

  3 Students whose training has been interrupted (for individual reasons)

  and may continue at a later date.

  4 Students who are still in training

  Source:

  English National Board for Nursing and Midwifery

  Information from the Nursing and Midwifery Council on midwives on the register and intending to practise is available from the website at www.nmcuk.org.uk. Information on midwives going on to practise in the National Health Service after completing training is not collected centrally.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the rights, acquired during accession negotiations, of Polish midwives to practise in the UK and elsewhere in the European Union; what consultation took place(a) with relevant UK bodies, including the Royal College of Midwives and (b) within and between government departments; what representations he has received regarding this; what assessment he has made of its impact on public health; and if he will renegotiate what freedom there is to this matter during the remaining stages of the accession process. [104057]

  Mr. Hutton
  The agreement on Polish midwifery qualifications was reached at the Copenhagen European Council in December, as part of an overall package that came within the budgetary ceiling for enlargement agreed at Berlin in 1999. Negotiations on the Treaty are now closed. Once ratified, the Accession Treaty, which will be signed by Heads of State and Government in Athens on 16 April, will provide for the recognition of Polish midwifery qualifications on the same basis as for those awarded by other member states.

  Qualifications awarded following training begun after accession will comply with minimum community requirements and be automatically recognised. In other cases, evidence of recent and substantial professional experience in Poland may be required.

  The Department has neither consulted United Kingdom bodies nor received representations from them on this matter. I very much welcome the contribution to public health made by overseas-qualified staff. Once registered in the UK, all midwives are subject to equally demanding standards of conduct, practice and local statutory supervision.

  Military Service (Salisbury)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many clinicians from Salisbury District Hospital, by speciality, have been called up for military service since January; and if he will make a statement on the implications for health care in Salisbury. [103475]

  Ms Blears
  Two members of staff from Salisbury District Hospital have been called up for military service. One is a consultant orthopaedic surgeon and the other is a senior nurse. Salisbury National Health Service Trust has put in place contingencies to cover the immediate situation and currently does not expect a202W
  major impact on services provided as a result of call-ups for military service. Contingency planning is on-going between the Department and the trust to minimise the effect of any call-up.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment has been made of the effects of mobile phone masts on human health; what current research he has commissioned on the effects of mobile phone masts on human health; what comparison he has made of the level of emissions from mobile phone masts in the UK with those in other European countries; and what plans he has to regulate the level of emissions from mobile phone masts. [103706]

  Ms Blears
  The public health implications of mobile phone base stations were assessed by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), chaired by Sir William Stewart. Their report, issued in May 2000, was a comprehensive review of relevant research and can be found on the Group's web site at www.iegmp.org.uk. A main conclusion was 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.

  Measurements undertaken, since publication of the IEGMP report, by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) and the Radiocommunications Agency (RA) have confirmed that public exposures are very much lower than the international guidelines: www.nrpb.org— see publications NRPB R-321 and www.radio.gov.uk— see mobile phone base stations.

  The Stewart Group proposed that gaps in knowledge were sufficient to justify a precautionary approach to the development of this technology and recommendations were made for further research. A comprehensive research programme has now been established under an independent programme management committee. Information can be found on the web site at www.mthr.org.uk.

  The UK uses the same GSM/mobile phone technology and frequencies as other European countries. Measurement programmes exist in a number of European countries. Wide variations in emissions data are noted, but the measurements show emissions are significantly inside the exposure guidelines. Similar results have been obtained by the RA base station audit programme and by the NRPB in the United Kingdom.

  Mobile phone and mast emissions fall within the Radio equipment and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment Directive (R&TTE). The European Commission issued a mandate requesting the European standardisation bodies prepare and adopt harmonised standards covering the aspects of emissions of electro-magnetic frequencies covered by the R&TTE Directive. It was stated that standards should take into account the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) limits laid out in the Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC to allow presumption of conformity to Article 3.1(a) of the R&TTE Directive.
  203W
  Three groups of standards on measurement of exposure from mobile phone masts have been, or are in the process of being agreed. Upon completion of this family of standards the mobile operators will have clear obligations to comply with the ICNIRP Guidelines though the European Council Recommendation on exposure, the R&TTE Directive and the relevant standard. In the absence of a final harmonised measurement standard, the obligation under the R&TTE Directive and the Recommendation would still apply.

  Neonatal Intensive Care
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of neonatal intensive care provision; and if he will make a statement. [104234]

  Jacqui Smith
  A national review of neonatal intensive care provision has been undertaken, which addresses how best to assure equity of access to intensive care for premature and critically ill babies and support for their families. Ministers are currently considering the report following from this review and expect to determine the next steps in this process shortly.

  We are also currently developing the children's national service framework, which includes maternity services and will set national standards of care for antenatal, intrapartum and post natal services as well as for the care of children in hospital.

  NHS Dentists (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) adults and (b) children in Buckinghamshire are waiting to go on to the list of an NHS dentist. [103770]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not collected centrally.

  North Staffordshire Hospital
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors, (b) nurses and (c) other staff have been employed on (i) an agency and (ii) a non-agency basis at the North Staffordshire hospital in each year since 1999–2000. [104147]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested on agency staffing is not collected centrally. The data for non-agency staff are shown in the table.

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): Staff employed at the North Staffordshire hospital on a non-agency basis; 1999–2001

  1999

  2000

  2001

  All staff

  5,980

  5,990

  6,420

  Medical and dental staff

  530

  530

  530

  All non-medical staff

  5,450

  5,460

  5,890

  Of which:

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  1,940

  1,950

  2,120

  Other non-medical staff

  3,510

  3,510

  3,770

  204W
  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. Figures exclude agency staff as this data is not collected.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical workforce census

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Nursing Care (Elderly)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the recent report by the Ombudsman on the funding of nursing care for the elderly. [104317]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government has welcomed the Health Service Ombudsman's report, "NHS funding for Long Term Care", published on 20 February. We have since asked strategic health authorities to report back to their Directorate of Health and Social Care (DHSC) by 28 March, with details of:Whether continuing care criteria in use since 1996 were consistent with the Coughlan Judgment.
  If criteria were not consistent with the Coughlan judgment, when was this identified and what action was taken.
  An estimate of the number of people who may have been wrongly assessed under criteria not consistent with the Coughlan judgment.

  We have announced our intention to amend the regulations to be made under the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill, to ensure that assessments for fully funded continuing National Health Service health care are carried out before discharge from hospital. This will ensure that nobody is issued with a clause 2 notice (notice from the NHS to say that a patient requires social services on discharge from hospital) before an assessment for continuing NHS health care, informed by the single assessment process, has been carried out.

  We have written to the Commission for Health Improvement and asked that continuing care is included within the inspection of the national service framework for older people, due to begin in 2004.

  Nursing Vacancies (Thames Valley)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many three month vacancies there are for nursing posts in each NHS trust in the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority area; and what the three month vacancy rate is in each case. [103769]

  Ms Blears
  The Department's three-month vacancy survey has been collected yearly since March 1999. The most recent number of three-month nursing vacancies in each national health service trust in the Thames Valley Health Authority area is shown in the table.
  205W

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2002 Vacancies in NHS Trusts in England and in the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority area, qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff 3 month vacancy rates, numbers and staff in post

  3 month vacancy rate percentage

  3 month vacancy number

  Staff in post (whole-time equivalent)

  Staff in post (headcount)

  March 2002

  September 2001

  England (excluding HA staff)

  3.1

  8,394

  265,717

  329,981

  Thames Valley

  3.7

  362

  9,653

  12,885

  Berkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  2.9

  17

  676

  850

  Buckinghamshire Mental Health NHS Trust

  0.7

  2

  344

  401

  East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust

  6.2

  13

  226

  341

  Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Trust

  10.6

  94

  893

  1,213

  Milton Keynes General Hospital NHS Trust

  7.8

  49

  564

  818

  Nuffield Orthopaedic NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  244

  335

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospital NHS Trust

  1.7

  37

  1,952

  2,350

  Oxfordshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Oxfordshire Learning Disabilities NHS Trust

  7.0

  6

  91

  106

  Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  390

  470

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust

  0.9

  11

  1,214

  1,713

  Royal Berkshire Ambulance NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  4.8

  40

  783

  1,090

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital NHS Trust

  5.9

  36

  547

  750

  Two Shires Ambulance NHS Trust

  0.0

  0

  54

  70

  3 month vacancy notes:

  1. Three month vacancy information is as at 31 March 2002

  2. Three month vacancies are vacancies which Trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents)

  3. Three moth Vacancy Rates are three moth vacancies expressed as a percentage of three moth vacancies plus staff in post

  4. Three month Vacancy Rates for non-medical staff are calculated using staff in post from the Vacancy Survey, March 2002

  5. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place

  6. —' figures where sum of staff in post (as at 31 March 2002) and vacancies is zero

  7. n/a = did not receive a return.

  Staff in post notes:

  1. Staff in post data is from the Non-Medical Workforce Census, September 2001

  2. Staff in post data excludes staff employed by Health Authorities, as vacancy information was only collected from Trusts, PCTs and Special Health Authorities

  3. '—' figures where staff in post (as at 30 September 2001) is zero

  General notes:

  1. Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number

  2. Calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates

  3. Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  4. StHA figures are based on Trusts, and do not necessarily reflect the geographical provision of health care

  Sources:

  Department of Health Vacancies Survey, March 2002

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census, September 2001

  Obesity
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many obese people there are in the UK population; and what evaluation he has made of the average resultant cost to the NHS per individual. [102656]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 March 2003]: The Health Survey for England 2001 shows that the prevalence of obesity continues to rise and that 21 per cent. of men and 23.5 per cent. of women were obese. Analysis of the Health Survey for England 1999 showed the prevalence of obesity in children was 10 per cent. at age six rising to 17 per cent. at age 15.

  Information is not available on the direct cost for each individual to the national health service of treating obesity. However, the National Audit Office report "Tackling Obesity in England", published in February 2001, estimated that the direct cost to the NHS of treating obesity in 1998 was £9.4 million. Treating the consequences of obesity cost the NHS approximately £480 million per year, or about 1.5 per cent. of the total NHS expenditure for that year.
  206W
  The Government are committed to halting the current trend of increasing overweight and obesity in both children and adults through cross-government work on diet and physical activity.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were diagnosed in each region as being clinically obese in each of the last 10 years. [103803]

  Ms Blears
  The prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing in children in England. Information is not collected centrally on how many children are diagnosed as being clinically obese in each region. However, analysis of the Health Survey for England 1999 estimated the prevalence of obesity to be 10 per cent. at age six rising to 17 per cent. at age 15.

  Orthodontic Treatment (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting time is for(a) primary and (b) secondary orthodontic treatment in Buckinghamshire. [103771]
  207W
  Ms Blears
  The information on waiting times for orthodontic treatment that is available is the number waiting for a first outpatient appointment at a hospital and the number waiting for admission to hospital for orthodontic treatment.

  At 31 December 2002, 59 patients were waiting for a first outpatient appointment for orthodontic treatment in Buckinghamshire. 39 of these patients had been waiting less than 13 weeks; the remaining 20 of these patients had been waiting 13 weeks or more.

  There were no patients waiting for admission to hospital for orthodontic treatment in Buckinghamshire at 31 December 2002.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average figure is for the number of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth for children aged 12 in Buckinghamshire. [103772]

  Mr. Lammy
  The British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry (BASCD) carries out surveys to monitor the dental caries experience of 12-year-old children. The most recent survey of 12-year-olds was carried out in 2000–01. The results of this survey for Buckinghamshire are shown in the table.

  Average number of decayed, missing and filled teeth for children aged 12 in 2000–01

  Buckinghamshire Health Authority

  0.62

  South East

  0.68

  England

  0.86

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average figure is for the number of decayed, missing or filled teeth for five-year-olds in Buckinghamshire; and what percentage of five-year-olds in Buckinghamshire have no dental decay. [103774]

  Ms Blears
  The British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry (BASCD) carries out surveys to monitor the dental caries experience of five-year-old children. The most recent survey of five-year-olds was carried out in 2001–02. The results for the Buckinghamshire area are shown in the table. Information is given for three of the four primary care trusts (PCTs) in the former Buckinghamshire Health Authority area and also for the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority.

  Average number of decayed, missing or filled teeth

  Percentage of five-year-olds with no tooth decay

  Aylesbury Vale PCT

  1.11

  69.4

  Milton Keynes PCT

  0.97

  66.8

  Wycombe PCT

  1.02

  75.2

  Chiltern and South Buckinghamshire PCT

  n/a

  n/a

  Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority

  1.23

  66.4

  England

  1.47

  61.2

  Peto Institute
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial support he has given to(a) the Peto Institute and (b) connected institutions in the last 10 years. [103392]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government contributed £1.75 million towards the capital costs of a new International Peto Institute in Budapest in 1991, in return for benefits for United Kingdom residents. Due to lack of progress on construction, the funding remained, unspent and accruing interest, in Hungary until 1997 when it was agreed that what was then approximately £2 million would be used to extend and refurbish the existing Peto Institute.

  In addition, the Department of Health provided a grant of £40,000 in 1995–96, under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, to the National Institute of Conductive Education in Birmingham for computer equipment.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that pharmacies are located conveniently for(a) those living in rural communities and (b) patients and their relatives who do not have access to a car; [103789]

  (2) how many pharmacies (a) opened and (b) closed during each of the past six years; and what progress has been made in expanding the number of pharmacies in the UK; [103791]

  (3) what progress has been made in broadening the range of services and advice provided by local pharmacies; [103790]

  (4) what discussions he has had with primary health care trusts on the role of local pharmacies. [103792]

  Mr. Lammy
  Under the National Health Service Act 1977, it is the responsibility of national health service primary care trusts (PCTs) to arrange the provision of pharmaceutical services in their area. This includes determining whether it is necessary or desirable to secure adequate provision of services by granting applications to open new NHS pharmacies. Additionally, the Health and Social Care Act 2001 empowers PCTs to devise contracts for local pharmaceutical services which address particular local needs, including access to a NHS pharmacy.

  We launched "Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan" in September 2000. This sets out the Government's programme to maintain and improve access to and the range and quality of services offered by NHS pharmacies. Three waves of the medicines management collaborative are under way, involving 106 PCTs. All NHS Direct sites are now able to refer callers where appropriate to their local community pharmacy. Repeat dispensing schemes in selected sites which enable patients to get their pharmacy to dispense medicines for up to a year, rather than going back to their general practitioner for a new prescription each time and new arrangements for pharmacists to prescribe on the NHS in accordance with an agreed clinical management plan start later this year.
  209W
  We are currently discussing with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and the NHS Confederation, which represents NHS bodies including PCTs, a new national contractual framework to further support these objectives.

  The table shows the number of pharmacies opening and closing in England and Wales in the last six years. Over three in five pharmacies opening were more than one kilometre from the nearest pharmacy. Over one in two pharmacies closing were within 500 metres of another pharmacy.

  Year ending 31 March

  Number of NHS pharmacies opening

  Number of NHS pharmacies closing

  1997

  66

  55

  1998

  48

  46

  1999

  51

  56

  2000

  27

  37

  2001

  36

  40

  2002

  30

  34

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many independent pharmacies are located in mining villages; and how many he expects to be located in mining villages in five years' time. [104444]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 24 March 2003]: Under the National Health Service Act 1977, it is the responsibility of primary care trusts to arrange the provision of pharmaceutical services in their area. There is no national planning of pharmaceutical services. We do not, therefore, collect information centrally about which industries are locally significant in towns and villages where pharmacies are located. Nor do we predict either where pharmacies are likely to be located in the future, or whether there will be changes to the nature of local economies in towns or villages where pharmacies are currently located.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified pharmacy staff there are in(a) the Portsmouth area and (b) the UK; and if he will make a statement. [104236]

  Mr. Hutton
  The available information on national health service employed pharmacists in England and the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire area is shown in the table.

  Information on the number of community pharmacists is not collected centrally and information for Scotland and Wales is a matter for the devolved Administrations. While the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Between September 1997 and 2001, there has been an increase of 2,140 or 26 per cent. in the number of qualified pharmacists employed in the NHS in England. As at 30 September 2001, there were 10,630 qualified pharmacists employed in the NHS.

  The Government are looking to achieve an increase in staff numbers across all scientific, therapeutic and technical staff groups, including hospital pharmacists. "'Delivering the NHS Plan", published in April 2002, set out the Government's latest forecast for growth. By 2008, we expect the NHS to have net increase over the September 2001 staff census of at least 30,000 therapists
  210W
  and scientists, including pharmacists. To support this, we are increasing the number of pre-registration pharmacy training places in NHS hospitals. Over 550 were planned for 2002–03–—at least 60 per cent. more than were available 10 years ago.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff within the pharmacy area of work in England and Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA area, by organisation, as at 30 September 2001

  Whole-time equivalent

  Headcount

  England

  9,372

  10,633

  of which:

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA total

  117

  135

  Isle of Wight PCT

  *

  *

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  *

  *

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  94

  106

  Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust

  20

  25

  * Five or less and greater than zero

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  2. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  3. HA figures are based on Trusts, and do not necessarily reflect the geographical provision of healthcare.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS prescriptions were dispensed(a) in total, (b) through community pharmacies, (c) through hospital pharmacies and (d) through GP surgery pharmacies in each of the last six years. [104950]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Million

  Total (all dispensers)

  Community Pharmacy and Appliance Contractors1

  Dispensing Doctors and personal administration2

  Items prescribed in hospital and dispensed in the community3

  2001

  587.0

  533.1

  53.9

  3.7

  2000

  551.8

  500.5

  51.3

  3.1

  1999

  529.8

  481.9

  47.9

  2.7

  1998

  513.2

  467.1

  46.1

  2.4

  1997

  500.2

  454.3

  45.8

  —

  1996

  484.9

  441.0

  43.9

  —

  Notes:

  1. The data are for all national health service prescription items that were dispensed in the community in England.

  2. It is not possible to separate figures for community pharmacists from those for appliance contractors.

  3. Includes all items that are personally administered by GPs.

  4. These items are included in total (all dispensers).

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of prescriptions currently dispensed by community pharmacists are for pensioners. [104949]

  Mr. Lammy
  In the 12 month period to September 2002, 56 per cent. of the prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors were to people aged 60 and over.

  Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research(a) has been conducted and (b) he intends to commission into (i) the causes and (ii) potential treatments for reflex sympathetic dystrophy. [103568]

  Mr. Lammy
  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its funding from the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology. The MRC is not currently funding any research on reflex sympathetic dystrophy. The MRC always welcomes high quality applications for support into any aspect of human health and these are considered in open competition with other demands on funding.

  The Department funds research to support policy and delivery of effective practice in health and social care. The Department is not currently funding any research on reflex sympathetic dystrophy and has no plans to commission such work.

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital (Contingency Provisions)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contingency plans the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital is making for(a) cover for health professionals called up to serve in the Territorial Army and (b) the possibility of terrorist attacks. [104618]

  Mr. Lammy
  All national health service bodies are required to develop contingency plans to enable them to cope with the current international situation. The Department of Health is working with the Ministry of Defence to minimise disruption to NHS services. In common with all NHS organisations, the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust has robust plans for dealing with the aftermath of any possible terrorist attack.

  Special Advisers
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many special advisers in the Department(a) have left and (b) will be leaving to work in Scotland for the Labour Party in the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections. [103607]

  Mr. Lammy
  The rules relating to special advisers' political activities are set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers. Further guidance in respect of elections for the Scottish Parliament is set out at paragraph 13 of the Guidance on Conduct for Civil Servants in United Kingdom Departments, published by the Cabinet Office on 10 March.

  The reasons for a special adviser's resignation are a private matter between the Department and adviser and are therefore exempt from disclosure under paragraph 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Information.

  Seroxat
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of comments made by the coroner in the case of Mr. Whitefield about the drug Seroxat; and what plans he has to request a review of the safety of Seroxat. [103843]

  Ms Blears
  Following the tragic death of Mr. Whitefield two weeks after commencing treatment with paroxetine (Seroxat), an antidepressant of the Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) class, the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) has taken careful note of the comments of the coroner for Brecon. The MCA has also written to the coroner to obtain further details of Mr. Whitefield's case.

  Since it was authorised in 1990 the safety of paroxetine (Seroxat) has been closely monitored by the MCA and the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). The CSM has considered the question of suicidal behaviour in association with Seroxat on a number of occasions and carefully assessed any new data. CSM has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to confirm a causal relationship between SSRIs and suicidal behaviour.

  CSM has advised that it is general clinical experience that patients taking any antidepressant may develop an increase in suicidal behaviour in the first few weeks of treatment. Product information for prescribers and patients for all SSRIs has been amended to include warnings that suicidal behaviour may increase in the early stages of treatment with any antidepressant. In September 2000, an article was published in the drug safety bulletin, Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance, which is distributed to all doctors and pharmacists.

  An expert working group on the safety of SSRIs has been set up by the CSM to review the current available evidence relating to the safety of SSRIs, including paroxetine, particularly in relation to suicidal behaviour and withdrawal reactions. The expert working group will report its findings to CSM in due course.

  Sexual Assault
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what compulsory training school nurses undertake in(a) sexually transmitted infections and (b) sexual assault; and what training they undergo designed to ensure that a comprehensive advice and referral service is available to pupils. [101334]

  Ms Blears
  While there is no compulsory additional training for school nurses specifically around sexually transmitted infections and sexual assault, as registered nurses they would be expected to have knowledge and understanding of these issues as well as details of local services should referral be appropriate. Standards for qualification as a specialist practitioner in school nursing specify that the practitioner should be able to:Empower children, adolescents and their families to influence and use available services, information and skills to the full and act as advocate where appropriate.
  Initiate the management of cases involving potential or actual physical or psychological abuse and potentially violent situations.

  Urological Cancers (NICE Guidance)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to provide instructions to strategic health authorities and local cancer networks to take account of the possible whole service impact of their interpretation of implementation of the NICE guidance on improving outcomes in urological cancers; and if he will make a statement. [102796]
  214W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 17 March 2003]: In line with the principles of Shifting the Balance of Power, the Department of Health has issued no specific requirement to Strategic Health Authorities or cancer networks about interpretation or implementation of this guidance. It will be for cancer networks, in collaboration with local stakeholders including StHAs, to decide how best to implement this guidance.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fire Authority
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  The Annual Report and Statement of Accounts for the Fire Authority of Northern Ireland for the financial year 2001–02 were published today.

  Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Illegal Imports
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  The Government has today published a draft revised Action Plan on illegal imports for 2003–04.

  A core element of the action plan reflects the transfer of responsibility for anti-smuggling controls to HM Customs and Excise, which will take effect from 11 April. The new arrangements will make a significant difference as Customs will bring to bear their resources, skills and experience in intelligence, prevention and detection of prohibited goods to help reduce the flow of illegal imports of meat.

  The draft action plan takes account of experience gained in implementing the action plan in 2002–03, and of insights gained from the risk assessment for the import of illegal meat and meat products contaminated with foot and mouth disease virus into Great Britain and subsequent exposure of GB livestock, which we are also publishing today.

  The report on the risk assessment makes clear that there were significant deficiencies in the data available and therefore there are large uncertainties associated with the results. We are therefore publishing the report as "Work in Progress" and inviting further expert comment or data that might help refine the risk assessment.

  These developments reaffirm the Government's commitment to strengthened controls on illegal imports. We have shown that we are willing to play our part. But it remains the case that those who use the countryside also have a responsibility to help prevent the spread of pests and diseases.

  Copies of the revised draft action plan and the risk assessment report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Defra Illegal Imports website (www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/illegali/).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Export Licences (Bosnia)
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  The Government have approved the export of four military-listed portable explosive detectors to the NATO Stabilisation Force (SFOR) headquarters in Sarajevo. Bosnia-Herzegovina is subject to an EU arms embargo, from which only de-mining equipment and the transfer of small arms to the police are specifically exempt. The embargo was put in place to ensure the safety of international troops and civilians deployed locally. SFOR requires this equipment for the protection of its premises and personnel.

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

  HMG fully supports SFOR and recognises its legitimate need for the right equipment to carry out its job safely and effectively. The decision underlines HMG's continued support for the work being done by SFOR in maintaining security and development in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Export Licences (Iran)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  Previous statements to his House have indicated that all export licence applications for strategically controlled goods to Iran are considered at a regular meeting of specialist officials, the Iran Working Group. The recommendations made have then been given ministerial consideration within each relevant Department. Ministers in the relevant departments, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, have decided they no longer need routinely to consider these recommendations. The routine meeting will no longer convene to consider export licence applications.

  Officials will now consider any export licence applications for Iran within their relevant Government Departments, meeting and submitting to Ministers only where necessary. This is in common with processing for other countries, including those of weapons of mass destruction concern.

  This is solely procedural change in order to streamline the export licensing process and to reduce delays for UK exporters. The Government will continue rigorously to assess Iran export licence applications on a case by case basis against the UK's national restrictions, with special attention paid to the risk of weapons of mass destruction proliferation, and against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government Finance
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  I have today placed tables containing the council tax figures for England for 2003–4 in the Library of the House. These show the average council tax per dwelling will be £908 in 2003–4, compared with £804 in 2002–3.

  The average council tax in 2003–4 for band D dwelling (occupied by two adults) will be £1,102, compared with £976 in 2002–03.

  This equates to an average increase in council tax between 2002–03 and 2003–04 of 12.9 per cent.

  Firefighters' Dispute (Armed Forces Emergency Cover)
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)
  I am pleased to announce that the Armed Forces personnel deployed on firefighting duties have been stood down on the grounds that no further strike dates will be announced before the Fire Brigades Union re-called conference on 15 April. The FBU would then be required to give seven days' notice of any further strike.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  In December, the Government published for consultation a draft of the guidance that we intend to give the Boundary Committee for England in the event that we direct them to carry out local government reviews in any of the English regions.

  The draft guidance indicated that for the purpose of assessing the relative cost differential of different unitary structures of local government, we would develop a cost model, which would be made available to the Boundary Committee, and others, should they choose to use it. We said that we would consult on any model before it was finalised. Accordingly, I yesterday sent a paper with details of the work undertaken for us by Price Waterhouse Coopers, to the Local Government Association (LGA), the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting (CIPFA) and the Boundary Committee for England. This sets out proposals for a model, which we will be discussing with those bodies.

  I have placed copies of the paper in the Libraries of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Service Agreement
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  Technical notes, for the Home Office Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets for the 2002 Spending Review period, have been published today. Copies are available in the Library and online at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/.
  8WS
  In common with those of other Government departments, the Home Office technical notes define the terms used in the targets, their territorial scope, measurement systems which will be used, and criteria for success. The purpose of the technical notes is to enable Parliament, and the public, to judge progress against the Home Office targets. The measurement systems will be used by the Department, and its partners, to manage delivery of the new, challenging targets.

  The Home Office PSA targets were presented to Parliament on 15 July 2002 as part of the Command Paper "2002 Spending Review: Public Service Agreements" (Cm 5571).

WORK AND PENSIONS

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

  The report finds administrative problems and poor performance in the council's Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit administration and counter-fraud service. This dates back to the installation of a new Housing Benefit processing IT system in February 1999, and the Large Scale Voluntary Transfer of its housing stock to a Housing Association in September 2000. The report concludes that the council had not planned, managed or implemented these changes effectively.

  The council had not adopted the Verification Framework, verification of claims to housing benefits was weak, and management checks of work were inadequate. The council gave priority to processing new claims with only 12 per cent. of renewal claims processed on time and, to avoid gaps in payment, claims were allowed to overrun the maximum benefit period.

  The report finds a backlog of work, with over 9,000 items outstanding at the time of the BFI on-site inspection in October 2002. There were also delays in dealing with appeals and overpayments, and the amount of outstanding debt had risen to £4.6 million.

  Although the council's Benefit Fraud Unit had been restructured in October 2001, the quality of fraud investigations was poor and there were delays throughout the process, including at the prosecution stage.

  Members and Chief Officers are aware of the failings and are actively trying to improve the service.

  The report finds some good practices, including the security of payment cheques and a Benefits Advice Line open 5½ days a week giving welfare benefits advice.

  In 2001–02, Coventry City Council administered approximately £87 million in housing benefits, approximately 28 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure.
  9WS
  The report makes recommendations to help the council address the remaining weaknesses and further to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.
  10WS
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Healthcare Associated Infections
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will issue guidance to general practitioners, primary care trusts and other groups providing healthcare on dealing with MRSA (Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus) infection.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has developed evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare-associated infections in primary and community care. These guidelines are currently out for consultation and are due to be published in the summer.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that the guidelines will be carefully thought out before being issued. Obviously, that is a long, slow process. But what if there is an emergency? I refer in particular to SARS—severe acute respiratory syndrome—the current deadly form of pneumonia of which there are believed to be three cases in the United Kingdom already. How does the department react quickly when it wants to avoid cross-infection or transmission of any particular disease?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we have robust and well tried procedures which can be brought into action immediately to alert public health professionals and GPs. The Department of Health and the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) have issued information and advice on management and reporting of suspected cases to all GPs, trusts and public health professionals through the rapid public health link system. That happened on Thursday 13th March. We also issued advice on SARS to the public and to travellers to south-east Asia. Full information and advice has been kept up to date on the PHLS website. Doctors can refer to that as often as they want. It is continually updated. I stress that that is a unique situation and an emergency situation whereas the NICE guidance to which I referred concerns chronic conditions. As the noble Baroness said, the guidance is very much concerned with controlling MRSA and preventing healthcare-associated infections.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the real significance of MRSA is that it is by definition resistant to antibiotics? Therefore, every case should be reported wherever it occurs, in or
644
outside hospital, and guidelines should be provided. Is my noble friend disturbed that two weeks ago today a Minister told this House that there were no centrally held records or statistics of the incidence of MRSA in care homes? When will that be rectified?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we have taken a major step forward. For the first time, MRSA is now subject to mandatory surveillance. We have one year's worth of data on MRSA in hospitals. We shall have a further year's data very soon which will enable us to make comparisons. But, as the noble Lord points out, we have not yet extended that system to care homes. We do not believe that there is a great deal of MRSA infection in care homes. The guidelines to which I referred will certainly be beneficial to care homes. I am sure that they will profit from improved hygiene techniques as a result of the guidelines.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, does the Minister agree that MRSA and other hospital-acquired infections are a major cause of delayed discharge in acute hospitals? Does she further agree that it would be far better to tackle, and make a national priority out of tackling, MRSA and other hospital-acquired infections, as has occurred in Scotland, rather than passing punitive legislation such as the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we have made the control of infection and of MRSA a priority. I referred to the development of surveillance. In 2000, the Chief Medical Officer published an action plan and a strategy for the control of infections which is now generating action plans. The Minister has recommended that MRSA control and infection control become two new performance indicators which will be introduced in July. I do not agree with the noble Lord that we have not made this a priority area.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, has the noble Baroness any new and encouraging up-to-date information about new antibiotics and antibacterial agents to which the MRSA agent may be sensitive?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the treatment of MRSA depends on the type of antibiotics used. Some antibiotics are successful. The most useful thing I can say to the noble Lord is that we have put out a call for research. We have allocated another £2.5 million for research. We shall be looking at ways of treating infections as a result of that.
Lord Chan: My Lords, although we are interested to hear that a report will be published soon, will it include preventive measures such as pharmacists giving expert advice to doctors, particularly in primary but also community and secondary care, on the correct and safe use of antibiotics in order not to make the situation of resistant MRSA worse?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, there is a strong case for our continually emphasising the point about prudent prescribing. I am sure that pharmacists have a role to play. The latest information we have indicates that there has been a decline in the prescribing of antibiotics which is good news. A public education campaign with a cheerful character, Andybiotic, is appearing in surgeries to help people to understand why they should not ask for an antibiotic every time they visit the surgery. GPs will give a non-prescription pack to patients explaining why antibiotics have not been recommended and referring to a better method of treating, for example, a severe cold or severe cough.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that some hospitals have a worse reputation for MRSA than others? Have the Government considered setting up special teams to visit such hospitals to deal with the prevalence of MRSA?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, it is true that some hospitals are worse than others. It is an interesting fact that they do not correlate with hospitals or trusts that under-perform or even hospitals that are dirtier than others. I am pleased to say that we have made extremely good progress in terms of improving cleanliness. The Commission for Health Improvement makes regular inspections and clinical audits, and it is its task to advise on such issues if it comes across outstanding cases, such as that described by the noble Lord.
Lord Rea: My Lords, despite part of her last answer, does my noble friend agree that the state of cleanliness and waste disposal in many hospital wards is deplorable? That is probably a factor in the spread of M RSA in some cases. Does she not regret the day when the ward cleaning staff were taken out of the direct control of sisters and matrons and contracted out and privatised?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, what is important, frankly, is not who does the cleaning but how well it is done. We know that an incredible effort has been made, and all credit to the staff involved. Two years ago, in August 2000, the standards of cleanliness were unacceptable in one in three hospitals. Now we have none in that category, but many more assessed amber and many more green and therefore attaining the very highest standards.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, at a wheelchair service unit, the physiotherapists were returned a cushion from the community with a note stating that the patient died of MRSA, and they did not know what to do with it? How long does MRSA infection stay virulent?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am afraid that I am simply not qualified to answer that question. If the noble Baroness would like to give me further details, I shall certainly see whether we can find out.

Firearms: Central Register
2.44 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made with implementing Section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 concerning a central register; and whether they can now give a date when this register will be fully operational.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the solution adopted is to deliver a national firearms licensing management system that interfaces to the police national computer. The necessary police national computer software for the register, which is the first stage, is being developed and will be available by October 2003. Invitations to tender for the national firearms licensing management system and to develop the interface to the police national computer have been issued to those companies shortlisted from the recent expressions of interest. The aim is that the system should be operational in summer 2004.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, and I congratulate him on being the first person to show some progress on the matter. Does he recognise that we shall close the book only when the system is up and running, and that it is five years since Parliament put it on the statute? Does he agree that there are many simple ways in which the security of the people of this country, from both crime and terrorism, can be improved by the use of simple electronics, as my noble friend Lord Wade showed last week in his fascinating report, Chips for Everything? Does he also recognise, for example, that a lot of work needs to be done—it is a different subject but the same theme—on passport control as regards which there is virtually no computer-based administration at all?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I recognise that a great deal can be done, that computers have a large contribution to make, and that the scheme that was added by an amendment to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 can make a real contribution. The noble Lord is right to imply or expressly to say that it has taken too long to reach this point, but we are making progress. One reason for the delay was to ensure that the scheme that we adopted would actually be used by police forces across the country. Instead of police forces having to deal with their own local systems and a national system, the right solution to adopt was one where they would all be able to use a national system and get the sort of coverage that the noble Lord had in mind when he proposed the amendment that was eventually made to the then Bill.
Earl Peel: My Lords, notwithstanding the Minister's encouraging response, he must show some embarrassment that it is five years since the provision

647
became part of the 1997 Act and that the Government have failed to implement it. Is that not an extraordinarily bad record?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have indicated that matters have taken too long. The critical thing is to identify specifically the progress that we are now making, to identify a target date by which implementation can be achieved, and to make sure that we introduce something that the police actually use. There must be a proper database of firearms certificates, and of individuals who have applied for firearms certificates and been refused.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the Minister who last replied from the Home Office on the matter was the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. He indicated the need to establish not only a PNC link, but a DNA link with the register itself. Will the noble and learned Lord confirm whether the link has now been established?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think that my noble friend referred to the fact that the PNC's development of a DNA link, particularly in relation to acquittals, had delayed the building up of the process. I cannot say precisely where matters have got to, but I offer to write to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, does the Minister agree that his department should have given much better leadership early on rather than waiting for some individual police forces to come forward with their own computerised systems, which have ultimately been incompatible with one another? Is he aware that in Northern Ireland we have had a computerised register for some time? Even that is having to be modernised to come into line with what the Government might wish to see. However, I believe that the specifications are by no means clear, which is causing a lot of disruption among police forces. Matters should surely have been carried out from the top down.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, one has that problem in relation to a large number of areas of public service. The position on local firearms registers is that 42 out of 43 areas have one of two proprietary systems available. Much of that situation built up over time before the amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. It is unfair to say that the system could have simply been imposed from the top down. One constantly has to try to develop a system that embraces where agencies have got to. That is what we are doing in relation to the national management system.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the Minister accept that 13 Questions on this subject have been answered in this House since December 1998? On that occasion, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, replied and, most recently, in January this year, the noble and learned Lord himself responded. In their replies, all Ministers have said that this is a high
648
priority issue. Indeed, in November 1999, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that it was a priority development, and, in February 2000, he said that the system would be in place in the summer of 2001. Who is in charge of this project? Is it civil servants or Ministers, and who accepts responsibility for the five-year delay?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have not counted the number of Questions, but I entirely accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says. She is waving the piece of paper at me in order to prove that there have, indeed, been 13 Questions. I accept that. It is the responsibility of Ministers, working in conjunction with officials, to deliver the register. I have made it clear that the process is taking too long and I have set out in detail the steps that we shall take.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord has reached the target date, will he be able to say how many convicted criminals are holders of firearms licences?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, one of the benefits of adopting a national licensing management system is that one will be able to draw national statistics from the system, including the one to which the noble Lord refers.

Fishing: Dolphin and Aquatic Bird Bycatch
2.51 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to reduce the number of dolphins and other cetaceans and aquatic birds illegally caught and killed during fishing operations in United Kingdom-controlled waters.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, my colleague, Elliot Morley, the Minister with responsibility for fisheries, has recently launched a consultation exercise on a UK strategy for the reduction of cetacean bycatch. Of course, other member states are involved in cetacean bycatch in UK waters and, therefore, reduction measures for bycatch require EU action. Commissioner Fischler has been encouraging in his response, but we shall continue to press the matter. Bycatch of aquatic birds is not understood to be a significant problem in UK waters.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that more than 300 dolphins, whose post mortems proved that they died in terrible agony, have been washed up on the beaches of south-west England? Does he also understand that people are very frustrated by the fact that more consultations seem to be necessary when the

649
facts are so well known? For example, nets have been banned in American waters for six years. The aquatic birds to which I referred were albatrosses in the Falklands.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with regard to the last point, we are about to ratify an agreement on the conservation of albatrosses and petrels in the South Atlantic and elsewhere. On the question of dolphins and cetaceans in UK and nearby waters, we recognise that there are serious problems. They are not caused only by UK vessels, and we recognise that there is a need to find technical solutions to some of them. That is why we are considering the fitting of pingers to fixed nets and are looking at the various ways that we can modify the mobile gear used by trawlers. We have funded the SMRU, the Sea Mammal Research Unit, which is examining possible adaptations of trawling gear. Part of the consultation exercise is to consider the way that that could be adopted.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the North Sea drift-net fishery is using nylon monofilament gill-nets? Not only are they taking the salmon which are going north to their spawning rivers; they are also taking dolphins because the gill-nets are so strong. Why do we not stop or ban the gill-net?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I believe my noble friend knows, EU standards place limitations on the size of the grid but, frankly, there needs to be a rather large mesh in order to avoid catching dolphins. Therefore, it is necessary that we adapt the gear either to distract or repel the dolphins or to ensure that they can escape. We are considering research on grid separators to go within the nets so that dolphins and other cetaceans can escape from them.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as has been pointed out, dolphins are caught accidentally in drift-nets, which are intended to catch fish such as tuna. Is the noble Lord aware that dolphins drown because they cannot return to the surface to breathe?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. That is why we are looking either to provide within the net structure a pinger, which sends a signal to the dolphin with the intention of repelling it and stopping it entering the net in the first place or, in the case of non-fixed nets, the ability to provide within the nets a way for dolphins to get out. That is precisely the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, in its press release, the Minister's department states that pingers may be part-funded. Can he assure me that the Government are considering helping fishermen in UK waters to fit the pingers, which will help to solve the problem, as I believe Denmark has done for its fishermen?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is but one issue that the consultation exercise will address. If any help is available, it will apply to UK fishermen but, of course, there are other fishermen in UK waters.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can the Minister say anything about the dolphins currently being used to detect mines in the Gulf?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret to say that, so far as I am aware, that is classified information.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, is the Minister disappointed that, for the second time today in response to Questions, we are being told of a delay? There was a delay of five years in connection with the first Question and a timescale delay on this very important Question, as the Minister acknowledged. Can he tell the House who is carrying out the research, how quickly they will report and how soon we shall see some action?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the consultation exercise will be completed within the normal three-month period, but the research has already started and most of it will be completed by this time next year. However, I do not believe that there is a delay in terms of decisions being made on the basis of the information that we have received over the past year. Indeed, we have started the process of discussing this matter at EU level. Ultimately, whatever regulations apply to minimise damage to dolphins within UK waters need also to apply to vessels other than British ones.
Lord Elton: My Lords, do I deduce from the last answer and from the one given a moment ago to the Liberal Democrat Benches that the Government have no writ running over the use of nets in British waters by non-British trawlers? Do we understand that the Government can control only what British trawlers fish with in British waters and that they have no say over what, for example, Spanish trawlers use?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. That is the wrong implication. The question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was whether we would provide funding for pingers, which send a signal to dolphins to avoid the nets altogether but apply only to fixed nets. That would be a UK decision. The regulations on mesh size are EU regulations. They should be enforced on all EU and other vessels fishing in EU waters.

Energy Efficiency
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they have in mind to stimulate householders to achieve greater energy efficiency in accordance with the objectives set out in the energy White Paper (Cm. 5761).
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the energy White Paper indicated, we need a step change in energy efficiency to deliver big increases in energy efficiency in order to meet the demands on the economy and the environment that energy policy requires. The White Paper contains a diverse range of measures and some are already in place. They include the energy efficiency commitment, upgraded building regulations, higher product standards targets, VAT reductions, the Warm Front programme, the Home Energy Conservation Act, and the provision of targeted advice and information. The energy White Paper will reinforce these measures and set out plans to consult on others.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that detailed reply. However, bearing in mind that the Government's objective is to double the rate of improvement of energy efficiency in the home and that substantial market barriers, such as relatively low prices and wide consumer choice, stand in the way, can he give an indication of the additional measures, apart from those already in place, that the Government have in mind to introduce and can he say how soon they will be introduced? In that connection, can he indicate when we are likely to hear the result of the domestic energy efficiency consultation launched by the Treasury last year and completed in October, to which many people, including myself, responded?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the additional measures announced in the White Paper include: the extension of the energy efficiency commitment beyond 2005—the first time that that has been committed to—bringing forward to 2005 the next revision of the building standards; discussion with the industry about the skills required to deliver energy efficiency—that is, so far as concerns the installers and so on; setting out commitments on procurement and energy efficiency for the Government's own estate; reviewing current policies on the climate change levy; and the commitment to publish next year an implementation plan on how demand-side mechanisms would interact. They include areas on which the Treasury consulted and which effectively are a way to bring economic and fiscal measures to bear on the issue.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, what progress is being made on existing houses—the older stock houses—to bring them up to date in terms of energy efficiency as compared with new-build houses?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the latest range of building regulations require, for example, a higher specification of boiler in the refurbishment of existing buildings. The next range, to which I referred in response to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on improved buildings standards to operate from 2005 will include standards relating to existing as well as new buildings. The noble Baroness is right: the major advance so far has been in new build rather than existing build.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, given the Government's commitment to energy efficiency, is it
652
still their intention to cut the amount of money being spent on the Warm Front programme, which actually goes to help those who are in fuel poverty and in most need of energy efficiency measures in their homes?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret to tell the noble Baroness that I am as yet not in a position to announce the details of the Defra budget for next year, to which she referred. However, I can assure her that the target set for the number of homes treated will be met for the five-year period over which the Warm Front programme runs.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one step to alert householders to the importance of energy efficiency would be to establish a nationwide energy efficiency rating scheme, based on the Government's own standard assessment procedure, which it is estimated demonstrates that the energy efficiency in the average British home is about half what it really should be?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. In the context of housing legislation and information required on sale of houses, we are looking at the way in which energy is rated for the building. Of course the building itself is not the sole contribution towards the energy use of buildings; domestic appliances of all kinds are very important. While we have made some progress in the white goods sector, in terms of labelling and therefore steering—if you like—consumer choice, we need to make more progress, particularly in electronic goods and, as I mentioned earlier, on boiler installation. The totality of the domestic contribution towards energy use will be reduced as a result of these energy efficiency measures.

Emergency Planning
3.3 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether emergency planning has considered the case for a special national warning system in the United Kingdom.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the emergency services warn and advise those in the immediate vicinity of an incident. Away from the incident the public will be advised if necessary in line with the Government's "Go In, Stay In, Tune In" doctrine. We have made arrangements for the media to transmit detailed warning advice and guidance to the public by TV, radio, Teletext, Ceefax and through websites as appropriate. Such arrangements are appropriate to existing and anticipated threat levels.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his Answer. Is he aware that his department—the Home Office—put out on its website last week suggestions that we all should buy bottled water, have a torch and buy tinned food? Is he also

653
aware that many of us do not spend all our time surfing the Home Office website? If that advice was supposed to be taken seriously, does he not think that it should have been put out by other means as well?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Home Office website put out a series of sensible tips in relation to what to do, which included having a radio, batteries and some canned food at home. That is not a suggestion to stockpile. It is sensible. It has been widely promulgated. It is the sensible way forward. Remember that when an incident occurs the emergency services will give directions to those in the immediate vicinity. That is the right approach.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I remind the noble and learned Lord that I have been asking questions for almost two years now about the National Attack Warning System, which is not yet fully operational. It seems extraordinary that, when a threat to homeland security has never been higher in a long time, this system is not yet fully operational. Does the noble and learned Lord think it would be better to set government targets for their own performance and not levy them on all other bodies?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we think the ability to warn and to respond to an incident is appropriate to the level of threat at the moment. As to the question of whether one can evacuate an area, for example, in the middle of a town, I simply draw the attention of the House to what happened in Manchester in the mid-1990s when there was a major threat; 75,000 people were evacuated from the centre of Manchester in 90 minutes. That shows how efficiently the emergency services operate.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, on a point at a more modest level of sophistication, will the Government note the importance of simple clarity on public address systems? While within trains the PA has dramatically improved over the past five years, on mainline and underground stations the PA remains very bad and potentially dangerously bad. Should not those making announcements be given specific training in empathising with the unfortunate listeners—their passengers, customers and the public at large—who are unable to understand what is always important and may in the current context of terrorism be potentially lifesaving?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I could not agree more with the proposition that if one has a public address system, whether on a train, in a railway station or anywhere else, the announcement being made should be audible to the listener. I agree with the noble Lord that there is nothing more irritating than having an announcement going on which you cannot quite hear because the system is not quite up to it. That is particularly important in relation to public transport.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, one of the recommendations made by the national steering
654
committee was that there should be a computerised system by which messages are sent to all telephone lines and mobile phones. The Government rejected that. Has any progress been made on that front rather than simply to relying on messages on television or radio?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as regards the current level of threat, messages would be disseminated by, as I have indicated, television, radio and website. Messages can also be disseminated through mobile telephones. That is something that the emergency services are developing.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in Answer to a Written Question the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, said:
"Further work on procedural documents is scheduled for completion by the end of the current financial year".—[Official Report, 12/3/03; col. WA188.]
That was in connection with the attack warning system. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us—as it is only four weeks away—whether that work is complete? Will he also comment on the fact that the Minister for homeland security has resigned from the Government and has not yet been replaced? Is this not a very bad time to have a vacancy in that particular post?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as far as concerns the noble Baroness's first question, perhaps I may write to her. As regards her second question, the Home Secretary is the Secretary of State responsible for internal security. He remains in post.

Public Services (Disruption) Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Health (Wales) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before we start the Second Reading debate on the Communications Bill, perhaps I may mention to the House the usual arithmetic on the subject. It is a Second Reading so there are no time limits. There are, however, 49 speakers on the list of speakers. For the debate on Iraq a week ago there was a suggested time of eight minutes per speech. If we were to apply that today, the House would rise around 10.30 p.m. Obviously, every extra minute that each speaker takes adds around 45 minutes to that time. I shall leave the rest of the arithmetic to your Lordships.

Communications Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Media and communications have a powerful reach. They touch our lives everyday with both subtlety and strength. They are vital to the way we live, the way we do business and the way our democracy functions.
The Communications Bill will transform the regulation of those important industries by creating a new framework: a framework that is rooted in competition; balanced by tough safeguards to protect the interests of citizens and consumers; and flexible enough to respond to a rapidly changing business environment.
The Bill is a delicate balancing act to preserve the best of what we have, while ensuring that we do not close off future opportunities. It will sweep away regulation in many areas, but it must also protect the quality, diversity and plurality of the British media. At the heart of what we want Ofcom to do will be its role to uphold the long tradition of public service broadcasting in this country.
The Bill is the result of close co-operation between my department and the Department of Trade and Industry. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who will wind up the debate. I will therefore concentrate on how the Bill will affect broadcasting; my noble friend will cover in his closing speech the provisions about electronic communications networks and services and the radio spectrum.
Before I turn to the substance of the Bill, I should like to acknowledge those who have helped to shape it. The Bill has been carefully consulted on and has benefited greatly from pre-legislative scrutiny. Under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Puttnam, the Joint Committee worked tremendously hard. I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords in thanking him and my noble friend Lady Cohen of Pimlico, the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell, Lord Hussey of North Bradley, Lord McNally and Lord Pilkington, for the part that they played in making a good Bill better. The Government took their report seriously and accepted more than 120 of their recommendations. We continue to listen and to welcome improvements.
Part 1 contains details of the functions that will be transferred or assigned to Ofcom, bringing together functions currently exercised by: the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission, the Director-General of Telecommunications, the Radiocommunications Agency and the Radio Authority. This part of the Bill sets out the general duties of Ofcom and the establishment of the consumer panel and the content board.
Ofcom's general duties will be its touchstone. They will be crucial in determining how Ofcom operates. As a result of continuing consultation and review, the Government made changes in another place to leave
656
no doubt whatsoever that Ofcom will have a duty to further both the interests of consumers and the interests of the wider community.
The consumer panel will be the independent voice of consumers—close enough to influence but with the right degree of separation and independence to represent their interests and to carry out research. The content board will ensure that there is proper provision for public interest representation on content issues of citizens, viewers and listeners, and especially of the different nations and regions of the UK.
As I said, my noble friend Lord McIntosh wall set out the provisions in Part 2. Part 3, covering public service broadcasting, is where I want to focus. Public service broadcasting is an essential feature of our heritage. High quality television and radio programmes free at the point of use and available to all are the cornerstones. Programmes that inform, educate and entertain while reflecting the views and needs of all listeners and viewers help to shape our society. They are essential to our democracy as well as being a key part of the broadcasting ecology.
Public service broadcasting is not only part of our heritage; it is part of our future. Our commitment to public service broadcasting is unequivocal. But we must make changes in the way that it is regulated if it is to survive in this digital, multi-channel, multi-media age. We want public service broadcasting to do more than just survive—we want it to thrive and flourish.
The Bill introduces a three-tiered structure for the regulation of broadcasting. Tier I will ensure guaranteed standards across all broadcast services—public service or not. Tier 2 will ensure a healthy, diverse production industry capable of delivering high-quality, original programmes from around the UK. Ofcom can take firm action against any public service broadcaster who is in breach of the requirements.
Under tier 2, there are quotas for all public service broadcasters covering: the amount of independent productions, original and regional productions and regional programming; the provision of high quality national and international news and current affairs programmes in peak times; the provision of party political broadcasts; and the provision of schools programming.
Tier 3 sets out for the first time in legislation a clear account of the kind of programmes that make up public service broadcasting. While the broadcasters are given vital flexibility in how to deliver the remit, Ofcom has a duty to ensure that audiences are guaranteed high-quality public service programmes.
Our aim is to establish a common framework of regulation across broadcasting. We are therefore providing for the BBC to be covered by obligations that are broadly similar to those applying to other broadcasters. The BBC's obligations are set out in the agreement between the BBC and the Government. In that way, we can ensure that the BBC's constitutional relationship and accountability to Parliament are maintained.

657
We have published the text of our proposed amendments to the BBC agreement to assist Parliament's consideration of the relevant provisions of the Bill. The effect of the amendments is to impose new obligations on the BBC that mirror the corresponding provisions in the Bill, to the appropriate extent. Under the revised agreement, the BBC will undertake to be bound by most of the same rules as other broadcasters.
It is in the context of those provisions, which ensure quality of content and the protection of public service broadcasting, that I shall set out our proposals for changing the rules on media ownership. Foreign ownership of UK broadcasting licences exists now. There are no foreign ownership restrictions of any sort on certain UK broadcasting licences, such as cable and satellite television licences. Where foreign ownership restrictions apply, they apply only to non-European Economic Area countries.
The anomaly of the current rules would allow a huge EEA-based company with significant operations around the world to buy anything that it wanted, whereas similarly global firms such as AOL/Time Warner or Viacom are barred. That does not make sense in the global market. It cuts us off from a potential source of increased investment at a time when our media industries could benefit most.
The amendments brought forward by the Government in another place as a result of the Independent Television Commission's review of the UK programme market strengthen Ofcom's powers to regulate content with quotas to retain the vitality of our independent and regional production industry. There is no threat of programme dumping or lowering of standards on change of ownership.
On ownership of Channel 5, we must recognise the clear difference between its position and that of Channel 3. Channel 5 has only 6 per cent of audience share, compared with 24 per cent for ITV. Channel 5 reaches only around 80 per cent of the UK population.
In the spirit of the Bill, we want to remove unnecessary restrictions wherever possible to promote competition and investment, so that consumers can benefit from better programmes. That is not about giving favours to anyone; it is entirely proprietor-neutral. It is about giving Channel 5 access to a wider pool of potential investors so that it can compete on a more even footing with the other public service channels.
Ofcom has the power to review the public service obligations of Channel 5 whenever it feels it appropriate to do so. If Channel 5's audience expands to a level comparable with ITV's the Secretary of State could introduce a nominated news provider system, with or without the advice of Ofcom. Ofcom will also be required to undertake a review of Channel 5's original and regional production, news and current affairs programmes if there is a change of control of the channel. Those are substantial safeguards.
658
We are removing the ownership restrictions that prevent a single ITV. There have been calls for us to abolish at the same time the nominated news provider scheme for ITV. I shall set out why we have resisted that, as it is particularly relevant in the current circumstances. When 59 per cent of the population consider television to be their most trustworthy source of information, we must ensure that high quality and editorially independent news is available on free-to-air television from more than one source. ITV news, as the BBC's main competitor, must provide it. The nominated news provider system, together with the associated ownership limits guarantee both quality and independence.
So far, I have talked only about television, but a vital part of our broadcasting industry is radio, which will be a key part of Ofcom's remit. We are radically changing the radio ownership rules in a way that will bring significant benefits to listeners and the industry. There are new freedoms, but, to balance any future consolidation in the radio industry, the Bill introduces a new duty on Ofcom to protect the localness of local radio. Those are the key issues that the Bill addresses in respect of broadcasting.
The Bill also reforms the newspaper merger regime contained in the Fair Trading Act 1973. We are modernising the existing newspaper merger regime and integrating it with the new merger regime in the Enterprise Act 2002. We are deregulating, where we can while continuing to protect the public interest. Where the Secretary of State intervenes in a newspaper merger, Ofcom will have a purely advisory role specifically related to the impact of a merger on accurate presentation of news, free expression of opinion and the plurality of views in the press. We believe that the involvement of Ofcom will bring greater transparency, independence and depth to the process of advising Ministers, and can only enhance the quality of decision-making under the new regime.
I have not been able to make a statement of compatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of one provision of the Bill. I am grateful for the view expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its fourth report of this Session that our position in this matter is considered to be both legitimate and respectful of human rights.
For many years, successive governments have maintained a complete ban on advertising of a political nature on television or radio. The Government intend to continue with the current ban—a ban that was supported by the Neill committee when it reported on the funding of political parties in 1998—and to define more precisely what is meant by "political" so that Ofcom may continue to use the broad reading of the word used by the existing regulators.
Some noble Lords are no doubt aware of the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights against Switzerland, which maintained an apparently similar ban. Having examined all the facts, and following extensive legal advice, I have concluded that very strong arguments could be advanced in favour of the ban contained in the Bill being compliant with the

659
ECHR. However, the Government apply testing standards to their consideration of the compatibility of their legislation with the convention. Given the existence of the Swiss precedent, I must ask the House to consider the Bill with a Section 19(1)(b) statement attached to it.
That does not mean that we believe the Bill to be incompatible with the ECHR We would mount a robust defence if it were legally challenged. Of course, if that defence subsequently failed before the domestic courts, we would need to reconsider our position. Beyond that, we take our international obligations seriously. There is no question but that we would amend the ban in accordance with any judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that ruled against the UK legislation. As things stand, however, the Government believe it right to ask the House to continue that ban.
In response to the European Court's judgment and to the JCHR's initial concerns, we looked closely at the current ban to see whether some minor changes would make it more certain that it was human rights compatible. Unfortunately, any such changes would have allowed substantial political advertising. I hope that all noble Lords will agree with me that that would not be a desirable outcome. The present ban denies powerful interests the chance to skew public debate, thereby safeguarding the public and democratic debate and protecting the impartiality of broadcasters.
Broadcasting and electronic communications have advanced rapidly over recent years. The Bill seeks to prepare the way for some of the changes that lie ahead. Some of those changes may be evolutionary; some, no doubt, will be revolutionary. The only certainty we have is that change will happen. This Bill will preserve the best of what we have and open the way for more investment, better and new services and a digital future that we can all look forward to. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we welcome and support the Bill. We welcome the creation of a new framework for the communications industries, including the liberalisation of ownership of the media.
There has been an almost unprecedented amount of debate in advance of the Bill. That was partly to be expected, given the nature and character of the industries involved and the detailed scrutiny of the draft Bill undertaken by the Joint Committee, which was so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I wish that the same could be said of scrutiny in another place. I know that I speak for all my honourable colleagues, who feel a deep sense of frustration that a good 25 per cent of the Bill was not considered at all by elected representatives.
Notwithstanding the overall attention given to the Bill, I wish to make it absolutely clear now that scrutiny to date does not, in our view, obviate the need for noble Lords properly to consider the Bill in its
660
entirety. Although we support the Bill in principle, there are a number of important issues on which we do not agree with the Government. We hope to persuade the Government to change their minds on those issues as we proceed. Given the list of eminent speakers today, I have no doubt that we can look forward to some eloquent, lively and, it is to be hoped, constructive debate that will assist the Government in their thinking.
Although we support the general thrust of the Bill in its approach to economic regulation, we are also aware that the EC directives dictate significant aspects of it. It is to be noted that the Government have said:
"As competition becomes more pervasive in the supply of communications services, it is expected that OFCOM will be able to rely increasingly on [competition] powers, rather than powers specific to the sector, in addressing concerns about competition. However, many aspects of the sector-specific framework, e.g. universal service provision, will remain necessary and will not disappear or become redundant in the foreseeable future".
The noble Lord, Lord Currie, chairman of Ofcom, said:
"Where competition is reasonably robust or where it can be developed to be so, it is usually better for sector regulation to withdraw and reliance placed on competition policy".
We urge those responsible for executing the provisions of the Bill to keep firmly in view the aim of using competition law powers wherever possible rather than ex ante regulatory powers. In particular, even if the Government are right and certain sector-specific aspects will need to remain, they should, wherever possible, be universal obligations and not company-specific conditions. Significant market power conditions, which, by definition, are imposed on some undertakings and not on others, and., in particular, price controls should play an ever-smaller part in the sector because of their inevitably distorting effect on competition. In addition, it should be noted that the EC directives are more prescriptive than most economists think appropriate. We believe that Ofcom should make the greatest possible effort to reach a deregulatory outcome when working within those provisions.
It is vital that the regulatory framework to be established by the Bill is capable of dealing with a fast-changing and market-led environment. No one can predict the mix of communications products, services and technologies that will capture consumers' interest in the future. Nor should government or communications regulators attempt to pick winners, be they technologies, services or particular players in the marketplace.
I turn to the specific duties of Ofcom. We are pleased that the Government have seen fit to respond to pressure from Her Majesty's Opposition by including the interests of the community in Clause 3. That said, we ask the Government how that duty to facilitate the interests of the community will be met. In addition, we shall seek clarification that advertisers, who are by far the biggest source of funding for the UK's commercial media, are consumers of the "relevant markets" referred to in Clause 3(3).

661
Regulatory uncertainty remains in Clause 3. Although the Government endorsed the principles set out by the Better Regulation Task Force that regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed, Ofcom is not under a duty to apply those principles in all its functions. It need have regard to them only as appears to be relevant in the circumstances. The principles of better regulation should properly underpin Ofcom's general duties. An example of an industry that would benefit if we got that right is mobile telephony. It is a significant success story, but that continued success depends on the right regulatory environment. The industry developed quickly through intense competitive rivalry that has benefited consumers beyond anyone's expectations.
I turn to media ownership. The Bill is intended to be deregulatory, but, although we welcome the move to liberalise existing restrictions prohibiting media convergence, we believe that the Government's approach to ownership is prescriptive and timorous. That is well illustrated by the prohibition on shareholders owning more than 40 per cent of the nominated news provider or NNP. The statutory imposition of a fragmented ownership structure on any core business is bound to undermine its ability to grow and innovate. Limited ownership will act as a disincentive to shareholders in the NNP to invest in its long-term future. Concern has been expressed that, without those rules, the NNP might fall into US hands. That is not a sustainable argument, as the rules do not eradicate that possibility, as practical experience has already shown.
The removal of restrictions on the ownership of national terrestrial broadcasting licenses will open up the broadcasting media to new sources of investment and ideas. Foreign investment has already enabled cable and satellite television to grow in this country. What is there to fear? The concern that liberalisation will lead to a flood of foreign content is misplaced. Commercial companies in a competitive marketplace simply cannot afford to ignore consumer demand. All the evidence suggests that domestic programming is popular in the UK. Any media company that wants to be successful here must provide the local content that people want, or it will not survive. In essence, content is driven by consumer demand, not by ownership. The two issues should not be confused. We should have more confidence in our culture and allow the consumer to choose.
On a separate note, although the restrictions governing ownership of different media could previously be justified with reference to the scarcity of available spectrum, the media have changed exponentially in the past decade, with the advance of new technology and communications. The provisions in the Bill should reflect that change and the different climate in which we now live and work.
Although the Government have decided to lift the restriction prohibiting a newspaper proprietor controlling more than a fifth of the national newspaper
662
market from owning Channel 5, their decision not to disapply that restriction in the case of Channel 3 appears arbitrary and discriminatory. The argument advanced for the limitation by Kim Howells MP in another place was that it was necessary to retain the balance of different media viewpoints. What evidence do the Government have to justify the distinction between the role of Channel 5 and Channel 3? It has been suggested that Channel 3 is universally accessible and has the largest audience share of a commercial broadcaster. That may be the position this week or this month, but what will happen if Channel 5 too becomes universally accessible, as indeed it is likely to? What if Channel 5's audience share increases significantly? What action do the Government envisage taking in such circumstances?
That said, we are supportive of the Government's approach to "must carry", "must offer" and "must distribute" provisions that enable Ofcom to impose conditions requiring particular services to be carried on broadcasting networks that are used by a significant number of end-users as their principal means of receiving television. However, we are concerned by the introduction of a general duty to maintain plurality of providers. That is of particular concern to the newspaper industry, which is wholly united in its objection to the involvement of Ofcom in the newspaper merger regime.
Despite the Government's protestations to the contrary, Ofcom will inevitably have a role in determining newspaper content. That is because, as the Bill is drafted, Ofcom will be inextricably involved in the merger regime at several stages of the merger process on the issue of public interest considerations. How is it possible to judge public interest and thereby test plurality, without taking into account the key players, whose editorial and political stance will be known?
The duties of political impartiality, so integral to the broadcasting field, do not exist in the newspaper realm. Indeed, strong opinion is a mainstay of newspaper publishing. Given the highly subjective nature of the assessments that Ofcom will be required to make before determining its advice to the Secretary of State, is it not probable that its experience and, more importantly, its instincts in broadcasting will influence its advice on newspaper mergers?
I turn to the BBC. I shall set the scene by emphasising our support for the BBC. Any suggestion during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House that Her Majesty's Opposition are anti-BBC will be instantly refuted by me. The BBC belongs to us all; its future is the responsibility of all of us, and its relationship with all other broadcasters and viewers alike is intrinsic to the effectiveness and success of Ofcom. That effectiveness will be measured from day one, not 2006 or thereafter.
The UK broadcast media ecology must be kept in a delicate balance that satisfies the needs of public service and commercial elements. The pace of change in a paradoxical era of simultaneous media fragmentation and convergence is rapid and its future

663
direction hard to forecast. Steering the right course and maintaining the balance is a subtle task and one that can be carried out only by a single, independent helmsman—Ofcom. The ecology is out of kilter, given the over-commercial, ratings-chasing approach of the BBC, a combined result of an extraordinarily generous licence fee and a weak advertising market. That is the source of much of the debate about and criticism of the BBC, which, unlike its rivals, operates in a virtually risk-free environment, allowing it, for example, to trial programmes on niche channels, build audiences for them and then promote them on mainstream channels. That is the stuff of dreams for the commercial players, who cannot compete on those terms.
If Ofcom is to act efficiently and fairly, it must be allowed to take an entirely holistic approach, unfettered and uncompromised by having a different set of rules and a different timetable for the public service broadcaster with, by far, the biggest market share. I cannot resist a quote from the Financial Times:
"Not having the BBC fully under OFCOM is like having the Simpsons without Homer".
It has been suggested that Ofcom will have enough to cope with at the outset without the BBC fully on board. The Liberal Democrat MP, Nick Harvey, said that it would be a "huge gamble" to give it—an as yet unproven body—full responsibility for the BBC. That is saying that Ofcom may not be up to the job, but that it is fine to use the commercial sector as guinea pigs while Ofcom gets its act together. That is simply outrageous. The Government have said in response—and I quote Kim Howells MP—
"the BBC does a pretty magnificent job in most respects, but there is no question but that there is room for debate".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/03: col. 217.]
The Government have entirely missed the point and in so doing invite and encourage animosity from all quarters, causing great damage to the industry and, most particularly, to the BBC.
We shall also be addressing the need to enable the Comptroller and Auditor General to have full value for money access rights to the BBC and thus to open it up to the same scrutiny on Parliament's behalf as all other bodies that are funded by tax. There is total consensus among members of the Commons Public Accounts Committee on this issue. This scrutiny would not impinge in any way upon the editorial independence of the BBC. What it would do is give some measure of accountability and transparency and that must be in the best interests of the BBC.
Extracts from the recommendations of the Independent Review Panel reporting in July 1999 on the future funding of the BBC, a panel chaired by Gavyn Davies, encapsulate our position. I quote:
"The Government should amend the Royal Charter to give the National Audit Office inspection rights to carry out periodic financial audits of the BBC's accounts and its fair trading arrangements; and it should focus only on administrative efficiency and on proper financial management and accounting and not question policy objectives and programming issues and matters of editorial or artistic judgement".
I turn now to radio. This is an industry that has achieved fantastic growth in the past 10 years and is a world leader in digital radio. We need to show our
664
pride in this industry and to give it room to consolidate and grow, particularly bearing in mind that it has a tough competitor in the BBC. We are concerned that certain provisions in the Bill that micro manage the industry are unnecessary and restrictive. Ofcom should allow the industry to concentrate on what listeners actually want—not what politicians and Ofcom might think they want. We believe that the focus should be on outputs, not inputs—namely, what the listeners hear—and not where, how and by whom it is produced, let alone where those producers live.
While commercial radio understands the importance of localness—indeed, the entire industry has been built on that—it does not need regulation to ensure that localness is retained or what this should mean. The Bill also introduces new restrictions on the development of radio where previously there were none, including a limit on ownership of digital multiplexes in overlapping areas. Similarly, the ownership regime for digital radio licences is more restrictive than for analogue. Surely there must be some mistake.
While we welcome the. Government's moves so far to relax the restrictions on the involvement of religious bodies or individuals in broadcasting, the Bill retains a complete ban on religious organisations holding national analogue radio and television licences and multiplex licences. We believe that this is a clear case of discrimination against people holding a religious office in local churches or religious charities and we shall seek to reverse it.
There are many more issues in the Bill which I fear time does not allow me to address today, including for example, spectrum use and conditions and appeals procedures for the provision of networks and services. In addition to the Internet, there are two issues of real significance which, while not captured by the Bill, are central to the development of communications. The first is broadband; an extensive debate in another place highlighted the crucial importance of balancing the need for investment in a competitive market. Investment is vital to ensure that universal access is achieved as expeditiously as possible. This technology will facilitate greater accessibility and social inclusion and must be encouraged.
The second issue is analogue switch off. We believe that it is incumbent upon the Government to act now, as a matter of priority, to raise public awareness of the timetable and implications of digital switch. It its not reasonable to expect industry, which is striving to remain at the forefront of digital technology worldwide, to continue to invest in the future, without proactive support, as opposed to words, from Government.
The communications industry is flagship to our nation and deserves our serious attention. In order to assist Ofcom in carrying out its duties, we need to ensure that the Bill is sufficiently robust to endure change while flexible and deregulatory to allow all our communications industries to thrive for the benefit of us all.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, although approaching this Bill in the same constructive manner as I heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, having heard the explanations given by the Minister on how the public interest will be protected by this Bill, I think that I shall advise my three children to become communications lawyers. Ofcom will certainly need them in abundance to match the serried ranks ranged against them when it tries to enforce the provisions of the Bill. But the first thing to say about the Bill is that anyone who has been involved in it during the past 18 months will have gone neither hungry nor thirsty.
The extent of the lobbying and consultation is both a tribute to the Government in the way that they have approached this legislation and an indication of public interest and concern about its final shape and outcome. The very size and complexity of the Bill is the give away about the importance of communications. The communications industries cannot be regulated like other parts of our economy because they occupy a different place in the scheme within our society. They determine how we speak to each other and to the world. They underpin our culture, our democracy and our regional diversity. That is why in addition to enterprise and competition in these industries, we insist on quality, diversity and choice.
The concept of a super-regulator for the converging communications technologies was conceived at the height of the dot.com boom. To some extent, this legislation creates a structure for a convergence which has not yet happened. During our examination of this legislation we shall look again at what has been described as the "techie" end of the Bill, and look in particular at such matters as the roll out of broadband, competition in the telecom sector and the effective use of spectrum. In this scrutiny, I shall be aided by my noble friend Lord Razzall on competition matters and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, I have the commonsense to leave the technical issues to someone else—namely, my noble friend Lord Avebury who, as noble Lords know, is an engineer and therefore well acquainted with wires, valves, crystals and the like.
On matters of cultural and regional content, domestic music and drama production, the distinctive roles of Welsh language and Scots Gaelic, as well as the need to recognise and protect the rights of the citizen, I shall be supported, as the speakers list demonstrates, by a positive galaxy of experience and talent from these Benches.
Today, I want to make one clear declaration of intent on behalf of my party and to flag up a number of areas in which we shall seek fundamental changes in the Bill during its passage through the House. That declaration is clear and simple: it is the intention of my party that there should emerge from this legislation a strong, independent and well-funded BBC, which will be the iron pole around which we shall construct our commitment to public service broadcasting. That does not mean that we shall not sometimes criticise the BBC or urge on it reforms which provide for more transparency and greater accountability. We shall do both.
666
But we shall defend the BBC for what it is—a great broadcasting organisation with a name recognised throughout the world as synonymous with accuracy, quality and trust—and we shall resist and oppose any proposals which weaken or undermine that position. I noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said about the position of the Official Opposition on these matters. We shall see where our respective parties stand when push comes to shove in defending the integrity of the BBC.
As to our overall approach, my honourable friend in another place, Nick Harvey, gave a broad welcome to the overall intentions of the Bill. As in other parts of the economy, we welcome attempts to lift the burden of bureaucracy from entrepreneurs and to regulate with a lighter touch.
The House must ask itself whether the Bill as it stands gets the balance right between giving entrepreneurs freedom to exploit the market for personal and shareholder benefit and the responsibility of Parliament and government to protect the wider interests of the citizen.
I am sure that the name Mr Rupert Murdoch will come up from time to time in our discussions. I am not sure as yet that the Bill, unamended, reflects the same burning ministerial desire to protect the public interest as Mr Murdoch shows when promoting his shareholder interest. Indeed, there is an almost blind faith on the part of Ministers that deregulation to promote competitiveness and investment will produce the most dynamic and competitive communications industry in the world. Maybe so—or it may result in concentrations of power in the hands of multi-media global conglomerates which will pose a threat to programme quality, cultural diversity, regional identity and the effective workings of our democracy.
I have had the pleasure on a number of occasions of listening to Dr Kim Howells, the Minister who took—some would say steamrollered—the Bill through the Committee stage in another place. On the scale of Pauline conversions, his must come fairly near the top. His faith in the market now seems total and, like many late converts, he can be disturbingly belligerent in his commitment to the new faith.
But in fact he reflects only in its more brutalist form a more general weakening of commitment to wider public interest in favour of market-driven solutions, which is now found inside No. 10, in the DTI and in the DCMS and is reflected in the Bill.
Take, for interest, the attitude towards the fate of ITV Channel 3. There is an almost naïve belief, quite unsubstantiated by fact, that by allowing American companies to buy Channel 3 we will, according to Tessa Jowell,
"end up with the best of both worlds: their money and our standards".
I am tempted to remind the House of when George Bernard Shaw met Jean Harlow and it was suggested that their union would produce the perfect child, with her beauty and his intellect. "But", said the great man, "what if he ends up with my looks and her brains". It is

667
a legitimate question. AOL-Time Warner, Disney and others would be interested in making money from us and working to their standards.
The British-born but American-based expert on communications, Professor Richard Tracey, gave a warning in an essay written for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Campaign for Quality Television. He said:
"The whole story of the US media since 1981 has not just been the elimination of costly high-quality programming—an essential part of public service broadcasting—but the progressive elimination of any programmes which do not maximise profits".
"Why", as Nye Bevan memorably said, "look in the crystal ball when you can read the book?" I challenge Ministers to read Professor Tracey's essay and then to tell the House why there is such a determined rush headlong into American ownership of ITV, without any reciprocity on the part of the United States and without, as the Puttnam committee recommended, giving Ofcom the opportunity to examine the merits of the case. It is a pig in a poke solution and should be resisted.
The Liberal Democrat study group into broadcasting advocated that ITV should be consolidated under single ownership. We believe that ITN should be wholly owned by the channel so that the ITV news provider can be sustained and nourished by its owner in the same way as the BBC and Sky nourish their news channels. When that process is over and Ofcom has had an opportunity to study the merits of any further opening up of the market, then and only then should other changes be contemplated.
As for Channel 5 and its possible purchase by Mr Murdoch under the weakening of cross-media rules, I simply ask Ministers committed to a dynamic and competitive communications industry the same question as the one posed by Mr Chris Mullin, the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place, who said:
"[Would not] removing the cross-media ownership rules from Channel Five enable a newspaper proprietor who already owns, say, four national newspapers and one television channel to purchase Channel Five and use it to subvert ITV and Channel 4, in the same way that he has subverted much of the rest of Fleet Street?".
It would be a concentration of power unacceptable in any industry at any time, and certainly unacceptable in the communications industries in a democracy. The House should insist on an amendment which prevents such a gross distortion of the market.
The so-called ratchet solution is no solution at all. Ministers seem unwilling to comprehend that it is the concentration of media power which should be resisted in a free society. Simply attempting to tie down such power with post facto service requirements ignores the real threat that the concentration of ownership presents to our society.
As regards both the print media and radio, the Bill again promotes relaxation of ownership rules in order to promote competition and investment. We should examine these proposals very carefully in Committee.
668
I was recently invited to a meeting of the All-Party Media Group to meet Mr Ralph Bernard, the chief executive of the GWR Group. The invitation told me that the company operates Classic FM, Core and Planet Rock, 32 local radio stations, the commercial national digital radio multiplex company and 16 digital radio licences. That, I remind the House, is before the further consolidation allowed by the Bill.
I have no particular axe to grind about GW R, which runs some excellent stations, but it all seems to be a long way from local radio, with the local news, local music and local content we were once promised by the commercial sector. Now we have news hubs, central programming and what has been described as the "blanding" of content to dilute the local distinctiveness of local radio. I hope that we will have time in Committee for a thorough examination of these issues, including proper protection and promotion of access radio, an issue on which my noble friend Lady Walmsley will speak further.
As regards the print media, as well as looking at the cross-media ownership implications of the Bill I hope that we will be able to give Ofcom the power to run its self-regulation accreditation slide rule over the Press Complaints Commission. The evidence of the newspaper owners to the Puttnam committee was churlish and defensive. The reaction of our newspapers—the editors of the Guardian and the Independent being notable exceptions—to the modest examination of their record by the DCMS Select Committee under Mr Gerald Kaufman was what I can only describe as the Violet Elizabeth Bott reaction —they scweemed and they scweemed and they scweemed.
Yet the print media, local and national, is part of convergence. I recently heard the editor of the Guardian say that the paper now has more readers on the Internet than buy the printed version. Among younger people that trend is likely to continue. So there is no doubt that the print media falls within the context of the Bill.
Indeed, the newspaper organisations seem very willing to take the benefits of conversion where it suits them. If they are to have the benefits of self-regulation, then Parliament and the public have the right to insist that such self-regulation is conducted in the public interest, to the highest standards and with genuine transparency. I shall bring forward an amendment to bring this about and enable the House to have a thorough debate in Committee on the workings of the Press Complaints Commission.
This is a vast Bill and we shall need a long time in Committee to do it justice. We shall have to examine in detail issues such as "must offer/must carry", religious broadcasting, children's programming, media literacy, protecting the rights of disability groups, protecting content quality, protecting regional distinctiveness and genuine independent production and creativity in radio and television for both music and the spoken word. All these causes have champions on these Benches and across the House. These and the technical and competition issues to which I referred earlier must be thoroughly scrutinised in Committee.

669
When doing so, I hope that the House will keep in mind the warning of the distinguished American broadcaster, Ted Koppel, when speaking of the American experience. He said:
"We are ripping down those institutions, large and small, within which democratic culture was intended to be undertaken. Institutions that once destroyed, amidst the whimsical destructiveness of the market, will be extraordinarily difficult to reconstitute".
The charge against Ministers and against this Bill from these Benches is that, unamended, the Bill puts too much faith in the whimsical destructiveness of the market and pays too little attention to the protection of the interests of the citizen and the wider cultural and democratic responsibilities of the industries involved.
Recently I visited Swansea, the birthplace of Dylan Thomas, whose most famous work, "Under Milk Wood", was a play for voices commissioned by the BBC. Running through my head in relation to the Bill are the lines Thomas wrote:
"Do not go gentle into that good night, …
Rage, rage against the dying of the light".
I believe very strongly that, without amendment, the Bill does mark the dying of the light for a communications ecology which, for all its faults, is still the envy of the world. We still have quality, diversity and choice. We still have public service broadcasters who seek to educate and inform as well as to entertain.
That is what the legislators of the 20th century bequeathed us. The Conservative Party in particular can take pride in what Conservative governments have done. It was a Conservative government which founded the BBC as a public body protected by a licence fee and independent governors from day to day government interference. It was a Conservative government which established commercial television and radio with strong local, regional, news and public service commitments, and the name of Lord Whitelaw will always be associated with Channel 4. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in all her pomp, never contemplated the abeyance to the market contemplated in this Bill.
It is because Ted Koppel is right that institutions once destroyed will be extraordinarily difficult to reconstitute that we shall fight hard to change the Bill. We will not rage against the passing of the light, but we shall argue with passion and conviction so as to preserve the bright beacons of public service broadcasting and the diverse and pluralistic media which is our legacy from the past, and which it is now the responsibility of this House to safeguard for the future. In that task, we shall be looking for support from all parts of the House.
4.2 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, in some respects this is a courageous Bill and the Government deserve praise for trying to make our unique public service broadcasting ethos compatible with commercial interests and deregulation. But as it stands, with the Bill's central thrust of economic policy
670
as the prime motivator, public service broadcasting is a secondary concern. One can understand why, but for all the Government's good intentions, the Bill's effect, by strengthening rather than containing market forces, could be to put public service broadcasting on the margins.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has already quoted the phrase of the Secretary of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport: "their money, our standards". As he indicated, the Government's hope that they can promote high-quality television through market forces and "light touch" regulation is not helped by the American experience: the progressive elimination of good programmes because they do not boost ratings or maximise profits; an increase in programmes that hurt, humiliate and appeal to greed, as well as stifle diversity of view and impartiality of reporting. That is why a strong and effective codification of the public service remit, both for the BBC and the independent broadcasting sectors, is so important.
But are the Bill's provisions strong enough? A review of public service broadcasting is proposed only once every five years. The ITC recommended that it should be annual to be effective. I am concerned, too, about the "taken together" basis which allows a channel to be excused its obligation to an area of its public service remit if another channel has produced an above-average output. The effect could be to let certain channels off the hook in terms of, say, the religious remit. Another clause permits a public service licensee to be excused public service broadcasting commitments in unfavourable economic circumstances.
On these Benches, we should like to see specific obligations written into the legislation in such a way that minimum requirements have to be kept, for example, for art, science, religion and children's programmes, not only on the BBC but also on each individual commercial channel. It would be a tragedy if such key aspects of our cultural heritage and future were to be lost from the main free-to-air channels or pushed to the edges.
Earlier government proposals would have diluted specific legislation on religion. The White Paper placed it in the third tier as a part of education, thus endangering broadcast worship and overtly spiritual presentations of faith, so I am glad that religion has now been, as it were, upgraded to sit alongside science as a subject in its own right.
However, there remains a vagueness of definition. Broadcasters are to provide a, "suitable quantity of religion". A similar phraseology is used for regional content, which has to be of, "appropriate range and proportion". How does one measure those things? How is Ofcom to hold broadcasters to account if almost anything can be explained away as suitable or appropriate, unless there is to be endless wrangling and possibly litigation? The public service provisions will need to be more specific and more robust if the Government are to succeed in their finely balanced task of maintaining and strengthening these elements of our culture alongside increased commercial competition through deregulation.

671
Here I come to a vexed matter. On these Benches we have welcomed the relaxation of regulations for licence ownership by religious organisations to include digital local and national sound programme licences and digital local TV licences, but we continue to believe that that does not go far enough. I share the concerns forcefully expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that religious groups and their officers cannot own licences for national AM/FM radio frequencies, a nation-wide analogue TV channel, or more than 5 per cent of a multiplex from which the new radio and TV digital programmes are broadcast.
There is a blanket disqualification on religious organisations of all faiths from even being able to apply. I suggest that that is an arbitrary prohibition, one which has inhibited the development of an independent Christian broadcasting industry. The Government's arguments for the prohibition have now settled solely on spectrum scarcity, but they have used other arguments which, for a government that have often encouraged faith communities in other spheres, suggest a strangely ambivalent attitude towards religion.
In the White Paper the Government claimed that religious ownership requires special treatment because,
"religious content has a capacity to offend".
As a letter from the DCMS put it last month,
"if we were drafting the White Paper today, we would not use the same language".
Quite so, for if anything has the capacity to offend on British television, it is the level of gratuitous sex and violence. I hope the commitment to toughen powers for content regulation properly addresses that, although I have to say that there has been a backing-off from what used to be termed "taste and decency" with phrases such as "generally accepted standards". How are those standards to be set, and ought there to be an appeals procedure over Ofcom decisions rather than only judicial review? Certainly the content board must have strong powers to protect not only the adult citizen, but also children from hearing and seeing harmful and offensive material.
No sooner had the DCMS distanced itself from the offensiveness of religion as the reason for its uniquely stringent regulations and exclusions over religious ownership than it was quoted in the Daily Telegraph as saying that the prohibition was,
"to avoid giving one religion an unfair advantage".
That sounds like the kind of hot-cross-bun political correctness that is based on little or no understanding of any faiths. My experience of working with other faith leaders indicates that they would like the Christian faith to be more strongly owned by this country.
But perhaps the Government are using the pluralist argument as a cloak for an underlying secular agenda. For how does all this square with the fact that, in the privacy of their homes, 72 per cent of the population noted their religion as "Christian" in the census. Of course they are not all in church; but almost all of those 42 million have a radio and a television. Incidentally,
672
the British Social Attitudes Survey had predicted that 40 per cent would put down "no religion". In fact, only 15 per cent—8 million—did so. An editorial in the Guardian on this matter said:
"The census figures are reminders that religion in general, and the church in particular, are not marginal anachronisms doomed to terminal decline in modern society. On the contrary they seem to be remarkably resilient and enduring parts of the social order".
From these Benches, we seek to ensure that that remarkably resilient and enduring part of the social order has its rightful place in this Bill. We will press for the strengthening of protections for public service broadcasting—and especially that part of its remit that reflects the strength and diversity of the nation's cultural and religious richness. We will press for moves to strengthen standards of taste and decency; and we will press for the remaining disqualifications on religious ownership to be lifted.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, the Government quite rightly have very high ambitions for this Bill. We have just heard these ably set out by my noble friend the Minister in her introduction.
When introducing the Second Reading debate in another place, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said:
"The Bill deals with the means by which our society speaks to itself and, as it were, hears the echo. It is the means by which we talk to the world. It is a shaper of our culture, our identity and our values. For the Government, therefore, the Bill is not simply a device to regulate or deregulate an industry: it plays a vital role in every one of our wider aspirations for Britain. It will give consumers choice—the variety that they demand and deserve—and will give citizens the information that they need".
The Bill, the Secretary of State went on to say, would prepare the UK for "a digital era" and,
"preserve what has always been our proudest boast: that we have the best free broadcast media in the world".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/02; cols. 782–783.]
Those ambitions were shared in every respect by those Members of your Lordships' House who sat on the Joint Scrutiny Committee—which makes it all the more regrettable that they are so badly let down by two significant, possibly even fatal, flaws at the centre of the Bill.
To paint a balanced picture, overall the Government have listened. They have amended and improved the Bill, in some respects almost beyond recognition. But there remain a number of minor, and in some cases not so minor, improvements for which we grizzled veterans of the Joint Scrutiny Committee will continue to press. These range from complex issues, such as the appropriate use of secondary legislation, to the plain daft, as in the case of the proposal to allow advertising agencies to become major media owners.
At Committee stage, I, and others, will wish to go into some detail regarding the future relationship between the BBC and Ofcom. I shall certainly be nagging away regarding the provision of training for an industry that is so reliant on highly skilled people. I also look forward, like the noble Lord, Lord McNally,

673
to what I anticipate will be a lively debate on the future of the Press Complaints Commission. It is certain that your Lordships will be hearing more on this and many other issues as the debate progresses.
In the short time available to me, perhaps I may focus on the two "fatal flaws" that I mentioned. Surely, if this legislation has any one overriding objective, it is to put in place a new and highly effective regulatory body. Ofcom, with the statutory reach and the resources to guide a volatile, complicated and incredibly "noisy" communications industry through the next decade of its technology fuelled development.
When taking evidence, it became overwhelmingly apparent to the Joint Scrutiny Committee that the recent history of regulation in this country was, at best, patchy. As to what had gone wrong, the arguments were many and varied, but one consistent theme emerged: regulation in Britain had always suffered, like so much else in public life, from an insufficiency of resource, in terms of both Treasury and troops.
Speaking of troops, it is my sincerest hope that the Ofcom board will not be deflected from seeking out and hiring the very best people that money can buy. If recent history has taught us one thing, it is that entanglement with the big battalions of any "dominant incumbent" has, for regulators in most sectors, proved an unequal struggle—in some cases laughably unequal. I can only hope that the quality of the Ofcom team, led by my noble friend Lord Currie, will, over time, find itself more than a match for the scale and complexity of the challenge.
Unless Ofcom is more than adequately resourced, with a clear underpinning from the public purse, it frankly begs the question: why bother with the Bill in the first place? I find it utterly baffling that the funding of Ofcom's competition powers failed to receive any attention whatever when the Bill was in Standing Committee in another place.
The second fundamental flaw in the Bill results from a confusion of aims and means. The achievement of "plurality and diversity" is not just the stated aim of this particular government; it must be a core ambition of any plural democracy. It tends not to happen by accident and, when it does occur, it can, and to my mind should, be supported by intelligent and sensitive regulation.
What is absolutely certain is that plurality and diversity are not a natural by-product of unregulated market forces. That is particularly true of a market in which the "cost of entry" has become all but entirely prohibitive. For that reason, I shall be opposing in every respect the provision that would allow Channel 5, or any terrestrial channel, to be wholly or partially owned by any large newspaper group. This is the issue of so-called "cross-media ownership".
The existing regulations, thoughtfully inserted into the 1990 Act by the then Conservative government, and avidly supported by my own party, have up until now sensibly prohibited this form of market dominance.
674
Where did this unwelcome provision come from? Who on earth sought it? Try as we might, the Joint Scrutiny Committee could never get any sensible answer beyond an unattractive repetition of free market dogma and the mumbled plea that "poor little under-capitalised Five"! was too small to worry about. Under-capitalised? Its principal shareholder is five times the size of Granada and Carlton put together.
Most frustrating of all to the committee was an almost wilful refusal on the part of the Government to study or discuss the myriad competitive implications of well-orchestrated "cross-platform" promotion.
Perhaps I may set out one possible example of what that could come to mean. Should News Corp. or any of its associates, under the proposed provision, acquire, say, 35 per cent of Channel 5, its capacity to cross-promote that channel using its dominant satellite position and its newspaper holding would be entirely without precedent. The bleat that "Five" has only 6.4 per cent of the market would very quickly become history, as "Super Soar-away Five" dug deep into the market share of Channels 3 and 4.
Both of those channels, constrained, as they might see it, by significant public service obligations, would complain bitterly at their inability to compete on equal terms—at which, government, on the advice of Ofcom, would almost certainly release Channel 3 from at least some of its obligations.
Goodbye to 40 years of commitment to regional programming, and almost certainly a good deal more besides. Another uproar would quickly be inevitable: and to placate the market a by now damaged Channel 4 would be required to take on a slew of additional public service obligations—underwritten, in all probability, by top-slicing the BBC's licence fee. So, here we have the entire ecology of the Secretary of State's,
"best free broadcast media in the world",
turned on its head; and for what? To allow Britain's most powerful media groups the opportunity to become that much more powerful?
The very notion that you stimulate plurality and diversity through the encouragement of market dominance is, frankly, risible. Recent history points only one way—towards the inevitable consolidation of conformity and power.
Your Lordships should not simply take my word for it, but should listen to the words of the noble Lord. Lord Birt. In his excellent and prescient New Statesman lecture, delivered in July 1999, shortly before he left the BBC, he said of regulation in the digital age:
"Let me say, with all the force I can muster, that now is the time to act and to apply, with rigour, clear regulatory principals for the digital age. It will be even more difficult later than it is now to dislodge those who will benefit massively from their grip on the gateway … Let me suggest what Governments should do; let no group, in any distribution system, both control the gateway and be at the same time a substantial provider of services".
Those were wise words then and they are wise words now, and I look forward to hearing more from the noble Lord in a moment.

675
Like the noble Lord, Lord Birt, my noble friend Lord Bragg and many others in this House, I have fought all my life for a media environment in film, television and the press that we can all be truly proud of. Like most of us in this Chamber, I am a fortunate inheritor of a remarkably successful public broadcasting system. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, the Conservative Party, to its great credit, can lay far and away the best claim to having nurtured that system. I hope that the Conservative Party remembers that as the debate progresses through the House.
I have long felt that the most valuable service that we can fulfil for future generations is to ensure that the finest qualities of our analogue age are shepherded intact into their digital future. That can be achieved only by offering the best possible example in our programming output, supported by the best and most sensitive regulation possible. That is why the Bill is so overwhelmingly important.
The Bill has so much to commend it. I beg the Government to think again on the two crucial issues that I have attempted to highlight. Should they decide not to listen, only one of two things will happen. Either the House will, in its wisdom, require the Government to think again, or the law of unintended consequences will bear down and never again will any Secretary of State be able to celebrate Britain as the home of the best free broadcast media in the world.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Birt: My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to McKinsey's global media practice, and as chairman of Lynx Capital Ventures, which invests in the communications sector.
We are moving through an age of explosive possibility, driven by the extraordinary, still developing and unstoppable power of digital technology, which does not use valves, transistors or even crystals. This new technology will have a profound impact on both our capacity to create wealth and our national culture.
Many media consumers, once largely passive, are now intensively active, involved and mobile. They face expanding choice from a multiplicity of services from home and abroad, increasing opportunity to watch what they want when they want: to interact, to chat or to play games with one another online; to communicate energetically by a variety of means; or to use the magical power of the Internet to uncover information, to find their own personal needle in a worldwide haystack. Increasingly, consumers will be able to do all those things, on whatever multipurpose device they favour, whether at home, at work, or out and about around the globe. The world is at their fingertips, just a click away.
The challenges for the legislator and regulator in this converging universe of technology, media and telecommunications are to foster the greatest possible diversity of choice—real choice for the consumer; to encourage a plurality of providers of content and services of all kinds; to facilitate ease of use and
676
simplicity of access for users; and, lastly, to ensure that there is effective competition to drive innovation, quality and efficiency at every link of the value chain, from consumer to producer. For the regulator, it is the consumer—the user, the viewer, the listener, the citizen—that needs to be centre stage, and not, important though they are, the leviathans and Goliaths who most press for our attention.
There are legion issues for your Lordships to address, but I shall focus on three that may receive insufficient attention. First, a number of powerful players have already won a dominant position in the digital universe, some through admirable foresightedness and boldness, at a whole series of new gateways—on the desktop, or providing new network services via satellite or wire-based systems. The task of the regulator will be to ensure that competing service providers can always reach the consumer through these gateways on equitable and non-discriminatory terms, whether as suppliers of software, of new television networks, or of online services.
Secondly, we need to ensure that the customer interface is designed in the user's interest. In digital television, that means the electronic programme guide. Just as we have more than one television magazine guide, and not only the Radio Times, so we should encourage competing electronic guides. That would enable consumers readily to uncover what is available in a genre of their choice—their selection of movie, sports event or science programme, for instance, on any channel. We cannot do that now, but we should be able to.
Improving the functionality of the electronic programme guide in this way is likely to be resisted as long as some systems are highly vertically integrated, bundling access, guide, and service provision from a single owner. In the short term, the regulator needs to use its powers to open up the system to competition at every point. In the long term, the drive of regulation must surely be, subject to investors first receiving a proper reward for the real risks that they have taken, to unbundle ownership and to have different owners as well as meaningful competition at each point in the value chain.
Thirdly, the UK has been a proud pioneer in broadcasting, and in digital television and radio in particular, but we have made a sluggish start as a nation in achieving broadband connectivity. We seem now, at last, to have turned the corner, but our inauspicious broadband beginnings seem to have been a material failure of regulation, from which Ofcom needs to learn. A key challenge for the new regulator must be to ensure, if we are to maintain a national competitive advantage, that there is sufficient competition to drive infrastructure, penetration and innovation, and to enhance functionality in the home and at the desktop.
If Ofcom can get a grip on those issues and create a level playing field for competition, we will have a thriving economically vibrant, commercial communications sector in the UK. That will not be enough, however. If we want our unique national culture to flourish; if we want to maintain the vitality of original British

677
expression in every cultural domain; if we want an informed debate on crucial matters of national significance; if we want widespread exposure to illuminating and thought-provoking programmes which extend understanding of nature, science, history or the arts, we will need to maintain, in a very different era, the tradition of public service broadcasting fostered by successive governments in this country more successfully than in any other.
As we move towards a period of spectrum abundance, with none of the privileged access to the consumer that characterised the analogue age, the blunt if uncomfortable likelihood is that we are not many years away from a world of such intense competition that the public service light will soon be extinguished in commercial broadcasting in the UK. That will be a sad day—for the ITA's, then the IBA's, then the ITC's nurturing of public service in commercial broadcasting has been a triumph of regulation admired the world over. We should delay the moment for as long as we can, fostering original British production in the commercial sector for as long as possible, but we should not kid ourselves that the moment will not one day come.
Maintaining the British public service tradition in the longer term will fall in part to Channel 4, but overwhelmingly to the BBC. The key issues for the next BBC Charter are what the role and scope of the corporation should be in this very different environment; and, equally important, how the BBC should be regulated to ensure that it fulfils its charter remit. Those fundamental and critical questions are best settled in the charter review process that is about to begin, and not as part of the consideration of this Bill—the prime focus of which is, and should be, the commercial sector.
In conclusion, the UK has an unequalled if not unblemished record in regulating the communications sector. This well-considered Bill in the generality chimes with new needs and is to be welcomed. It should enable the UK to optimise the opportunity of the new technologies, to reap the digital dividend. It gives Ofcom clear and tough powers to address the issues that I have identified. But the new regulator will need to be bold and courageous to use those powers in the consumer interest—for if and when it does, Ofcom will certainly rattle some cages. The noble Lord, Lord Currie, should convey to his colleagues not only our hopes, but our good wishes and support for the awesome tasks that lie ahead.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I support the Bill, but I do so with considerable reservations—and even before the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has had a go at it. I suspect that we shall have some very lively exchanges in the latter stages of the Bill.
This is the first time that I have risen to take part in a debate on the media without having to declare an interest. As noble Lords will know, I was for seven years the chairman of the Press Complaints
678
Commission. During my time, I sought to encourage press self-regulation and press freedom—which in my view is fundamental to a free society. I did my best to see that it worked in the interests of ordinary people. Self-regulation is like any aspect of freedom: it has rough edges and it is not perfect. But it does work and it has no doubt raised standards of reporting over the years. My concern with this massively important Bill is that contained within it are all the ingredients necessary to undermine a free press, self-regulation and the quick, common-sense resolution of complaints. The damage will be, in my view, to ordinary people who at present complain to the PCC—and that is 95 per cent of the complaints that I had over those seven years. The rich, the famous and the crooks will be able to look after themselves.
There is a great deal in the Bill that I fully support. I think that it is sensible from the point of view of the public as well as of the industry for there to be one regulator for radio, television and communications. I instinctively support the deregulatory aspects of the Bill. In an age in which communications industries are developing and evolving day by day, it is quite right that we should be cutting away at the red tape that stifles innovation rather than adding to it.
I wish that I was more reassured by Ministers' statements that there is no way that Ofcom will have a significant role in press freedom or in the editorial content of newspapers. Although I am quite sure that they mean it, the problem, it seems to me, is that Ofcom will be responsible for advising on newspaper mergers. Its remit, in that case, is too wide. It is hound eventually to lead Ofcom into the territory of press regulation, which is precisely where it should not be.
First, I am concerned about the extent of Ofcom's responsibility on the issue of mergers themselves, which will hit regional and local newspapers—the lifeblood of all local communities—particularly hard. The vast majority of existing newspaper companies, large and small, seeking to make even the most modest of newspaper purchases are likely to be caught by the criteria in the Bill for the exceptional public interest test. That will give the Secretary of State substantial powers to refer the vast majority of newspaper acquisitions to the Competition Commission for scrutiny, and will also mean public consultation, with the uncertainty and problems that that brings. My fear is that that will have a profound impact among local newspaper companies, which need a substantial market share to survive and compete. That in turn will affect their economic vibrancy. The loser, over time, will of course be the local communities and ordinary readers throughout the country. The Government should look at that again. Again, I do not believe that the Government intend that that should happen, but that is what I fear in practice will happen.
Secondly, in discharging its functions relating to newspaper mergers, Ofcom will inevitably be dragged into the whole area of editorial content and the work of the PCC. For, in advising about a range of issues such as fairness, accuracy and opportunity to reply, it will of necessity need to form a view about a newspaper or magazine publisher's record in implementing the

679
Editor's Code. That would inevitably place Ofcom as a statutory overseer of the PCC and self-regulation. That is statutory press control by the back door, something against which the Government—like the previous government of whom I was a member—have quite rightly set themselves.
Worse still, there is I think a danger that someone will try to use the courts, via the Human Rights Act—which has profound implications for public authorities such as Ofcom—to drag the print media within the scope of that Act. The courts—which have rightly fought shy of using the Act as a backdoor privacy law, and all credit to them for that—will be back in an arena in which they do not wish to be. The whole business of dispute resolution by the PCC, and the common-sense manner in which it administers the code, both to the advantage of ordinary people, will be under threat yet again. It may take some time for that threat to develop; it may happen more quickly; but unless something is done to ensure Ofcom has no role whatever in newspaper merger matters, develop it surely will, for the Bill puts the entire apparatus in place.
I have never argued that self- regulation is perfect, but I am greatly concerned that this good Bill will have consequences that I do not believe the Government want. My profound interest in this matter is—as it has been all along—to ensure that where newspapers and magazines are concerned, ordinary people who have a grievance will have some effective, non-legal and free redress. They have it at the moment. Although it is not perfect, it is far preferable to any of the alternatives. The Bill could end up by damaging self-regulation, and that must not happen. I therefore urge the Government to look again at that part of what I think is a very good Bill.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, this enormous Moab of a Bill is, in fact, several Bills rolled into one. I intend to concentrate, as my noble friend Lord McNally said, solely on Part 2 which is concerned with network services and the radio spectrum. In doing so, I disclaim any technical expertise my noble friend attributed to me. He rather gave the game away when he referred to valves, wires and crystals, because those were the most advanced technologies when I was learning my engineering, some 60 years ago.
That part of the Bill covers every electronic means of disseminating information, including the Internet, local area networks, wide area networks, cable, radio and television. One might imagine, considering the extensive consultations which have taken place on the Bill, referred to by every noble Lord who has spoken so far, and the wide discussions throughout Europe on the four directives which are the basis of the legislation, that there would have been very little to say by the time it reached us. That, evidently, is not the case, from the speeches we have heard so far and given that 51 noble Lords are taking part in the debate. There seem to be a few matters requiring your Lordships' attention in this part of the Bill in particular.
680
First, there is the Government's change of policy on the "must carry" provisions, which have been referred to briefly. In the draft Bill, these applied to both cable and satellite, but now they extend only to cable. What is termed a general condition under Clause 42, including the "must carry" condition, is no such thing. Under Clause 43(2)(b), it can be applied only to a provider of a network or a service of a particular description. Although no indication is given either on the face of the Bill or in the explanatory notes of how this discrimination is to be exercised, we understand that the "must carry" condition is not to apply to Sky, thus imposing a competitive disadvantage on cable.
NTL does not object to the list of services it is obliged to carry under Clause 61, but it fears the power that Ofcom is given to add to the list, pointing out that every additional channel it is required to carry means half a million fewer broadband connections. Therefore, the provision could conflict with the Government's declared policy of wanting to roll out broadband to every consumer in the country.
NTL also says that the adoption of proprietary technical standards by Sky for its subtitling and audio description services imposes additional costs on it, and it would like Ofcom to have a duty to promote the use of common standards in this area. Apparently, the promotion of common standards in general was not an objective of the EC directives, but that does not prevent us from considering it here. I ask the Government to think about incorporating into the Bill some power for Ofcom to promote standards in general, and in this area in particular, to benefit the cable industry and equalise competition between cable and satellite.
Sky was proposing to charge the BBC £85 million for encryption and other services over the next five years, for the privilege of transmitting its programmes through Sky decoders. The BBC therefore decided not to renew the contract when it expires in May 2003. Instead, it will spend £40 million of the savings on buying additional satellite transponder capacity, so that all the regional variations of BBC1 are available on satellite, as they are on cable. It is moving to a different satellite operated by Astra, which has the additional advantage of a footprint aimed closely at the UK, so that overspill of rights to neighbouring countries of their free-to-view services will be relatively small. It also plans to make all regional and national services available to terrestrial digital viewers in all parts of the country.
The BBC is the first to move to unencrypted broadcasting in the UK, although many public service broadcasters have done so in other European countries. The way is now open for other PSBs to follow their lead when their contracts with Sky expire. Theoretically, viewers could buy a satellite box and a dish and receive dozens of programmes, including all the BBC's free-to-view channels, without paying a further subscription. That would be of particular benefit to viewers in areas not covered by Freeview, in which 25 per cent of the population live. To be able to do that, the BBC still has one requirement to make its programmes easily accessible to viewers. Sky's

681
electronic programme guide, which is like a combined Radio Times and channel selector, needs to be modified so that viewers can select which national or regional version of BBC1 and BBC2 they want to appear when they press 101 or 102 on the guide.
The current EPG regulation, which is over five years old, requires "due prominence" to be given to public service broadcasting, but it says nothing about facilitating the choice of regional variations or about the price that can be charged for amending the software. Under Clause 71(2), Ofcom has a power to impose an obligation on the providers of EPGs to secure that the guides are provided on terms that are fair and reasonable, but this may be too general. I suggest that in Committee we might consider how the requirement could be tightened to deal with the particular circumstances in which Sky might be looking to recover some of the revenue it is losing through the non-renewal of its BBC contract.
Our next concern is with recognised spectrum access, or RSA. We understand the arguments in the consultation document and we note that Ireland and Portugal already have systems of spectrum charging. We are also aware that some 26 representations have been made to the DTI opposing the principle of the scheme, and that the Minister, Stephen Timms, has agreed to meet representatives of the UK and European satellite industry on 8th April. The additional costs of some £20,000 per channel will have to be passed on to users, and Professor Martin Cave, who originated the idea of RSA in Britain, acknowledges that the effect could be harmful to channels like Discovery Channel 27. The IEEE says that RSA should be introduced at the same time throughout Europe, to avoid putting our own satellite service operators at a competitive disadvantage.
The Select Committee in another place was scathing about RSA. It found little support for the Radio Authority's proposals, and said that charging for RSA was an attempt to extract payment from operators using spectrum for which licence payments could not be levied. Select Committee members agreed with a witness who said that this was like a protection racket. The Government's response rejected this categorically, but went on to make what sounded rather like a threat—Ofcom would allow users to encroach on the frequencies of any operator which declined to make the so-called voluntary payment.
If there is no RSA, which is concerned entirely with satellites and was intended to put the use of satellite and terrestrial on an even footing, where does that leave spectrum pricing and trading? Here the Select Committee recommended the allocation of frequencies by means of auctions, as in the past, but with conditions attached to prevent the hoarding of spectrum or to specify roll-out and usage obligations. It was not clear how pricing of the broadcast spectrum would allow for the intangible value of public service broadcasting, nor how the pricing of the radio astronomy spectrum could serve any useful purpose.
682
I have run out of time, but I wanted to say one thing about broadband. There is nothing specific about it in the Bill but it is important that your Lordships consider not only how to promote its roll-out but whether the regulatory framework is such as to encourage it. We must look to the future when the reception of programmes via television or via computer will be a matter of consumers' choice, and when video on demand is a normal, everyday matter. The regulatory framework must ensure that those matters are taken into consideration. The convergence that has been predicted for so many years is only a few years away. I hope that this can be taken into consideration.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, I add my voice to those of other noble Lords who have expressed their welcome for this Bill. I must at the outset declare an interest as the chairman of Ofcom. It is both a considerable privilege and responsibility to have that position. My interest in the Bill could not therefore be keener. The Bill sets out the duties that Parliament is to lay upon Ofcom, and the powers that Ofcom has to fulfil those duties. And it sets out a great deal more beside for which Ofcom must have regard. The final shape of the Bill when it becomes law will provide the framework for all that Ofcom does over the coming years.
It is therefore a source of considerable comfort to me that the Bill is in such good health as it comes before your Lordships' House. This contrasts with the Bills that established the FSA and Ofgem, the two previous examples in other sectors of the converged regulator that Ofcom will be in the communications space. Its health is a testimony to the effectiveness with which the two sponsoring departments—the DTI and the DCMS—have worked together. The Bill team has done an excellent job in stewarding the Bill and in working closely with existing regulators and with the nascent Ofcom organisation. I can personally attest to the effectiveness of that team led by Chris Woolard.
The two Secretaries of State have provided the leadership and vision for this excellent example of converged government. The Joint Scrutiny Committee played a key role in improving the Bill and was so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. And I look forward to observing the skill with which the ministerial team—the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Davies of Oldham—steer the Bill through your Lordships' House. I wish them safe passage.
This Bill comes in excellent health and I hope that it leaves in similar good health. I am conscious that many noble Lords have plans for the Bill: to remove a digit or a minor organ here and transplant an additional limb or organ there. At this stage of your Lordships' consideration of the Bill, I would merely enter a plea that it leaves your Lordships' House in at least as good health as it enters. In broad terms, the Bill incorporates the right balance of powers and regulation for Ofcom to do its job.

683
I hope that your Lordships will avoid the temptation to add many more specifics on one aspect of the Bill or another. Ofcom needs some freedom of manoeuvre to carry out its duties in the interests of all consumers and citizens, in a proportionate way that ensures that we have a thriving and dynamic communications sector.
It is tempting, to shift metaphor, to see Ofcom as a Christmas tree on which to hang one's favourite decoration. But let us ensure that those decorations enhance Ofcom and do not weigh its branches down. And let us not destroy the balance of Ofcom by lopping off some branches.
There will also be a temptation to wish to tie Ofcom down on a number of dimensions. I urge against this course for it will pre-empt the outcome of discussions that Ofcom needs to have on key and complex issues with all its stakeholders. There may be the fear that without legislative compulsion Ofcom will not behave sensibly. But l can assure your Lordships that Ofcom will consult, will reflect carefully and will be answerable for its considered, measured and evidence-based decisions.
Ofcom recognises that it is essential to find effective ways of interacting with the very real interests of the nations and regions, of consumers and citizens, of disability groups and of many other of its crucial stakeholders. Stakeholders can be assured that Ofcom will be listening to them.
Ofcom will also be developing effective ways of answering to Parliament for the exercise of the powers that Parliament has laid upon it. Recognising the very substantial powers and responsibilities that Parliament has given Ofcom, Ofcom will be to the fore in looking for effective and powerful mechanisms of consultation and accountability.
One of the principal arguments for Ofcom is that within a converged regulator, and only within a converged regulator, it is possible to ensure that both citizen and consumer interests are properly heard and balanced; that economic imperatives are balanced against broader cultural and social issues; and all within the context of a big picture overview of the modern communications sector. The Bill is carefully crafted in this regard. The content board will manage the high-profile content issues within a strategic context set by the main Ofcom board, so that the main board will not be diverted from its crucial role as a strategic competition authority for the communications sector.
Indeed, in an area of huge importance for the UK economy and business—namely, management and oversight of spectrum—the Bill specifically and correctly requires Ofcom to have regard to the interests of all users, ranging from the 3G mobile operators who paid more than £22 billion for their licences, through the broadcasters and the emergency services, down to the small taxi firms, the yacht radio owners and the amateur enthusiasts. The challenge, to which Ofcom will rise, will be to look after this breadth of interest while promoting market mechanisms to improve the efficiency of spectrum use and keep Britain among the world leaders in the effective use of this scarce and crucial medium.
684
There are many examples that I could adduce for the need for this convergent approach to regulation. But one good example is the programme supply market for television. This involves the business of broadcasting and programme formats, but it is equally concerned with creativity and innovation in content. The ITC's review of this market in the autumn has rightly drawn praise and has led to broadcasters and producers working together to produce codes of practice for commissioning. Ofcom is ready to ensure that this process, including what is laid down in the Bill, is carried forward seamlessly.
I look forward to the rest of this debate and your Lordships' consideration of this Bill in Committee and on Report. I will listen to as much of the debate as I can and will read those contributions that I cannot hear in person. I trust that noble Lords will understand if I do not intervene in some of the substantive debates that will occupy your Lordships' House. Ofcom's role is to discharge the responsibilities laid on it by Parliament, not to determine those responsibilities. It will generally, though not always, be unhelpful for me or other members of Ofcom to comment on the desirability or otherwise of the arrangements to be determined by Parliament.
This Bill and the creation of Ofcom provides a unique opportunity. We are creating a new regulator, with a new culture and a new approach to effecting regulation. We have a real opportunity to look afresh at the way we do regulation and to be world class in all that we do. We will look at regulatory process anew. We will put in place consultation processes which ensure that the voice of all key stakeholders is heard. We will establish a rigorous research base for all that Ofcom does. We will ensure that its people and processes are of the highest calibre to ensure that what Ofcom delivers matches the excellence of the sector that it oversees. We will foster a regulatory discourse that allows Ofcom to engage with consumers, citizens and the communications sector in a professional, constructive and, where necessary, robust manner.
A high-quality, converged regulator of this kind will not be the cheapest, though it will deliver value for money and be subject to scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. But most stakeholders to whom I speak tell me that it is worth footing the bill for high-quality regulation, because ineffective, poorly resourced regulation imposes a high commercial cost on regulated companies. This Bill allows us to create a world-class regulator for a world-class communications sector and we must seize that opportunity.
The process of creating the new, converged Ofcom is well under way and we are on track for Ofcom to be fully operational before the end of the year. And this leads me to the timing of the Bill. It is right and proper that your Lordships should subject this Bill to full and robust scrutiny. But Ofcom has been long in the making and this has meant a lot of uncertainty for many in the communications sector as well as for the staff of the five regulatory bodies that are merging into

685
Ofcom. I hope that your Lordships' scrutiny of this Bill can be timely and does not extend this uncertainty yet further.
In parallel with your Lordships' consideration of this Bill there will be other lines of inquiry germane to Ofcom and its functions. The Constitution Committee is examining the question of the accountability of independent regulators to Parliament—an issue on which Ofcom places great importance. Ofcom looks forward to giving evidence on this matter to the Constitution Committee. This issue becomes all the more significant with the development of co- and self-regulation. The Bill enjoins Ofcom to promote effective co-regulation, and Ofcom will take this responsibility very seriously indeed. As part of this, we need to think through and address the additional issues of accountability that this raises.
Similarly, a Select Committee in another place is considering the issue of privacy in the broadcast and print media. I look forward to giving evidence to that committee. But I say to noble Lords now what I shall say to that committee about Ofcom and the press. First, if Ofcom is entrusted by Parliament—as the Bill proposes—with the advisory function to the Secretary of State on newspaper mergers, after due consultation Ofcom will put in place a transparent and clearly defined regime that is not unduly burdensome and which gives the industry maximum predictability. Secondly, I shall express my personal view that the Government are right to limit Ofcom's involvement with the press to that role. Some noble Lords may argue that the press needs a more effective self-regulatory or co-regulatory arrangement than that currently in place. But it would be unwise to extend Ofcom's content powers further to include the press.
The Bill provides us with the basis for modernising communications regulation and making it fit-for-purpose for the rapidly changing communications sector of the 21st century. With it, Ofcom will be able to regulate the sector in a proportionate way, intervening robustly where necessary and letting go of regulation wherever appropriate. It will allow this vital sector to develop in a dynamic and creative way to the benefit of consumers and citizens.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the convergence of the media and telecommunications industries clearly demanded an end to the split of responsibilities between five regulators. I therefore support one of the principal objectives of the Bill—the creation of Ofcom—the question to which my noble friend Lord Currie of Marylebone returned us. Everyone in the House will wish him well in the onerous duties that lie ahead of him as he chairs Ofcom.
If this one-stop regulator is to be able to withstand huge vested interests and not be swamped by them, it could indeed become the guardian of consumers' interests and a watchdog with real teeth. However, before setting the seal to the Bill, we would do well to consider carefully the two fatal flaws identified by the
686
noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. He rightly homed in on how best to deepen further the quality of programming.
Within the public service and private sector Ofcom will need to be the guardian of the public's access to a wide spectrum of good quality programmes. In Committee we shall no doubt debate the efficacy of the BBC's Board of Governors and the desirability or otherwise of additional accountability to the National Audit Office. There is a good argument for revisiting those two questions in the context of the renewal of the BBC Charter in 2006 once we have evaluated the impact of Ofcom. I also wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will tell us when he replies to the debate what more the Government might do to provide the right of appeal against contested decisions of Ofcom.
Ofcom will not only need to weigh the conflicting and competing demands of broadcasters, it will also have to be far more engaged in issues of quality and accountability. Last year I hosted a lecture by Greg Dyke at Liverpool John Moores University where I hold a chair. I declare that interest. Echoing something of what Sir John Reith said in 1931 when he dedicated the BBC to the service of the nation, Greg Dyke said:
"The role of the BBC is to inform, educate and entertain. The first two are quintessential values of citizenship. I would also argue that the third is also citizenship. It is about the quality of our lives. Robust democracy depends upon a healthy sense of citizenship. Broadcasting plays an essential role and provides an analytical tool for making informed decisions".
In 1931, when Sir John Reith and the other governors of the BBC dedicated Broadcasting House to the service of the country, he said—these words are on the wall of Broadcasting House as one enters its foyer—
"It is their prayer that good seed sown may bring forth a good harvest and that the people, inclining their ear to whatsoever things are beautiful and honest and of good report, may tread the path of wisdom and righteousness".
Those are timeless values which we need to continue in both public and private broadcasting.
Like it or not, the media have become one of the most potent forces in our personal lives and one of the most powerful influences on our communities and their values. That can, of course, have a corrosive as well as a benign effect. Bruce Gyngell, as managing director of Tyne Tees Television, understood that well when he said:
"What we are doing to our sensibilities and moral values and, more important, those of our children, when, day after day, we broadcast an unremitting diet of violence … television is in danger of becoming a mire of salaciousness and violence".
In saying that he sounded the same kind of warning that we heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester earlier.
Undoubtedly, Ofcom and its consumer panel will need to do far more to curb the exponential increase in gratuitously violent material which is broadcast on television. One of the central recommendations of the Joint Scrutiny Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, was that Ofcom's primary duty should be,
"to serve the interests of all citizens".

687
It is a pity that those who drafted the Bill chose the language of consumerism rather than duties towards citizens and the community. Here I endorse much that was said by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who rightly said that we should not rely so much on market forces. Clearly, an individual consumer may desire, for instance, to see an unremitting diet of violence, but is that in the community's interests?
Only last week the Broadcasting Standards Commission and the ITC published a report indicating that more than half of the public believe that there is too much violence on TV, and that the level is increasing. That report coincided with a study published on 9th March by Professor Jeffrey Johnson of Colombia University, and the New York State Psychiatric Institute. It concluded that children exposed to violent programmes are at greater risk of becoming aggressive young adults. He said:
"Media violence contributes to a more violent society".
One year ago the US Surgeon-General concluded that,
"televised violence, indeed, does have an adverse effect on certain members of our society".
As television, the flickering box in the corner, has replaced the flickering fire around which families once sat and conversed, the line between fantasy and fact, reality and unreality, truth and lies is often blurred. An average adult in Britain spends at least 27 hours a week in front of the television. The television hierarchy insist that there is no correlation between what people watch—unreality—and how they subsequently behave—reality. Yet the advertising industry spends a colossal £4 billion a year trying to sell us its wares via television. Clearly, it believes that what one watches affects how one behaves; otherwise, that phenomenal outlay would be a monstrous waste of money. Professor Elizabeth Newsome, and nearly 30 of the UK's leading child psychologists, psychiatrists and paediatricians said that they had been "naive" in underestimating the link between what children see and how they behave.
Ten years ago I was successful in another place in securing amendments to the Criminal Justice Act that curbed video violence. At the time in a letter to me, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, got to the heart of the matter when he asked:
"What proof are we looking for? Does the railway company wait for someone to be killed by a train before fencing off the railway line?"
I was sorry that a further amendment that I promoted, which sought to allow viewers to purchase TV sets with a "V" chip (V for violence)—a chip that automatically screened out violent images—was narrowly defeated. I hope that Ofcom will return to that issue and carefully assess programme output and issues such as the watershed.
However, violence should not be Ofcom's only concern. It will also need to be proactive on issues such as taste and tolerance. I give the House one example. Channel 4's recent programme, "Beijing Swings", which included an adult eating part of a dead unborn child, should have led to significant penalties against
688
the programme makers. I invited the chairman of Channel 4, Vanni Treves, to come to your Lordships' House to screen the programme and to take part in a discussion with your Lordships about the motives in screening that barbarism and the extraordinary justification of the programme as art. In a letter declining that invitation, Mr Treves stated:
"More generally, however, these works are not only of interest in themselves but represent significant works in the Chinese avant-garde art movement. 'Eating People' by Zhu Yu was staged and photographed in Beijing at his 'Open Studio' and was exhibited in the Shanghai Biennale later the same year. It was also featured in a show curated by the artist Ai Wei Wei and widely seen as the most important show of contemporary art ever staged in mainland China … The finished programme was referred to the Director of Television who viewed it before transmission. It was his view that though deeply shocking and disturbing it exemplified the dark message of the Season as a whole".
It seems to me that that plumbed new depths.
In addition to the high hopes that many of us have for Ofcom in dealing with these questions of taste, tolerance and violence, the Bill also encourages a more competitive broadcasting environment. I have no intrinsic objection to that. A more coherent and efficient ITV should not be feared and with appropriate safeguards would continue to provide strong regional programmes. ITV's ability to own ITN outright would also enhance its news coverage and should not be feared either.
Paradoxically, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, Clause 337's impediment on religious broadcasters runs counter to that spirit. It also runs counter to European convention rights and international experience. It will mean that Ofcom will be undermined if there is one law for the Medes who declare themselves openly to be religious, and another for the Persians who omit to declare themselves as religious. In that regard, I very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said earlier. If it comes to a Division, I will most certainly support her on that question.
Ofcom will have the power to grant, refuse or revoke licences, to impose fines, and to implement broadcasting codes including criteria on fit and proper persons to engage in ownership or broadcasting. That is exactly how things should be. Ofcom will be in a position to evaluate which people should hold licences. Parliament's job should surely be to insist on common standards of diversity, tolerance, quality and decency. In so far as the Bill sets out to achieve those objectives, I will support it. Where it does not, I hope that it will be challenged and amended in Committee.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, those of us who served on the Joint Committee feel that we have been sentenced to a second spell of hard labour as we grapple with this enormous Bill. I am grateful at least for the fact that it is a much better Bill than that considered by the Joint Committee, and that the Government responded positively to many of the suggestions that we made. However, once again the time for scrutiny in another place has been inadequate, so there will be a major job for us to do in this House.

689
Among the most important amendments to which I intend to put my name are those dealing with the duties of Ofcom, the charging by it and the funding of its regulatory powers—the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, pointed out that that was amazingly not discussed at all in another place—media plurality and public interest considerations, foreign ownership, regional broadcasting and the BBC. Noble Lords may have noticed that my list is largely concerned with media and broadcasting issues. That is not to suggest that the part of the Bill concerned with electronic communication is less important. On the contrary, it deals with crucial nerve centres of our national economy. To give credit where credit is due, my apparent neglect of that part of the Bill may well be due to the fact that the Government engaged in a thorough process of consultation and succeeded in producing a much broader consensus than might have been thought possible at the outset.
I very much welcome the fact that the Government have responded to the criticism of the original Clause 3 that set out Ofcom's duties. In particular, I welcome the fact that there is now the duty to further the interests of the community as a whole and not only of consumers, that Ofcom must have regard to the desirability of encouraging investment and innovation and of the principle that its activities should be,
"transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed".
Much better that than the original catch-phrase of "light touch" regulation.
Despite those and other improvements, the House will want to consider whether the Government were right to reject the Joint Committee's proposal that there should be a principal duty, achieved whenever possible by promoting effective competition. The annual report that Ofcom will be obliged to produce about how it reconciles tensions between its duties in important cases will certainly make interesting reading.
I turn to the part of the Bill that covers the media and broadcasting. I agree that we will need to discuss the restrictive rules that apply to the nominated news provider. In its report, the Joint Committee stated that,
"given the current uncertainty surrounding the ownership structure of ITV and its commitment to investment in news, we have concluded that the Government is right to include a nominated news provider clause in the Bill".
However, we also said that we were not convinced that that was a safeguard for the quality and impartiality of news,
"that could not be provided by licensing and networking arrangements".
We urged early review.
I suspect that, apart from ownership issues, the Government's attitude was influenced by irritation over the change made to the timing of the main evening news and doubts about the TV companies' commitment. Time has moved on. I do not think that that commitment can now be in doubt. The fragmented ownership of ITN, with some of the
690
smaller investors reluctant investors, undermines ITN's ability to be a strong alternative force to the BBC and Sky. The ITC's recent commentary on that is unconvincing. It is also misleading when it implies that existing contracts with other channels would be at risk if the restriction were lifted.
The Bill seeks to guarantee access for public sector broadcasters to cable and digital terrestrial homes. ITV argues that the Bill does not include sufficient safeguards to ensure access to satellite platforms in terms that protect the public interest. The Bill relies on the community rules designed to require access on.
"fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms".
The accusation is that those rules give platform operators too much scope to include unrelated costs and almost unlimited flexibility to raise conditional access charges. Of course. Sky argues exactly the opposite case. It is an issue that we must explore because access to the satellites on reasonable terms is absolutely vital if a digital service is to be provided over a very large part of Britain.
One amendment to which I will put my name concerns the relaxation of the cross-media ownership rules as they apply to Channel 5, and which have been mentioned by a number of speakers so far. The Joint Committee concluded,
"that the case for lifting the prohibition on joint ownership of Channel 5 and a major national newspaper group has yet to be made".
The Government have rejected that advice, basically on the grounds that Channel 5 is very small compared with Channel 3. My belief is that the counter-arguments about concentration of power in particular advanced by ITV, and in the debate today extremely powerfully by the noble Lords, Lord Puttnam and Lord McNally, are very strong indeed. If we proceed on the present basis, there could be serious consequences for Channel 4, ITV and even the BBC.
Clearly that is something that we shall have to consider very carefully. We shall also have to look at another ITV concern about the current definition of an "independent production", which excludes programmes made by local ITV licence holders for other channels. That is an important issue for my old company, HTV, and others that want to see strong production units right round the United Kingdom.
On the BBC, the House will want to ask how we can have an effective regime supervising public sector broadcasting if the largest broadcaster, funded by £2.5 billion of public money, is left outside crucial areas of that supervision. Essentially, the Government's position is that everything must await charter renewal at the end of 2006. The case was strongly pressed in another place that even if it were right to wait until charter renewal to make changes, scope should be taken in the Bill to obtain by regulation any consequential statutory authority rather than wait for the opportunity provided by some future broadcasting Bill. We shall need to press the case that a great deal of future-proofing is required for the BBC.

691
Of course I acknowledge that UK and European competition law applies to the BBC. It is true that the BBC will come under Ofcom on tier I regulation for taste and decency and on tier 2 regulation for regional and independent production, and that Ofcom will be able to fine the BBC for breaches. It is also true that the BBC has its own fair trading commitment, the aim of which is to see that it complies with competition law. The difficulty is that, confronted by complaints, the governors are the rulers of the BBC and they cannot, at the same time, be independent adjudicators.
Even greater difficulties are likely to arise because Ofcom has the job of reviewing, on a regular basis, the overall public sector broadcasting obligations of the BBC and other broadcasters. Ofcom will be able to enforce the conclusions that it reaches in relation to every other public sector broadcaster but not the BBC, whose governors may take a wholly different view of their obligations. Mr Gavyn Davies, in a speech on 18th March, said that there may be occasions when Ofcom may helpfully jog the elbows of the governors. The truth is that those whose elbows are jogged very often do not think it at all helpful.
Mr Davies also quite substantially misrepresented the Joint Committee about what he called,
"the delicate relationship between Ofcom and the BBC which has emerged",
and which he said was a compromise,
"'supported by Lord Puttnam's scrutiny committee".
Anyone who reads our report—I re-read the section myself this morning—will see that on this issue we took a very non-committal stance indeed.
I now turn to a final topic where I fear I part company with my own Front Bench. We are confronted with the remarkable fact that the subject of ownership by non-EU companies was not discussed at all in another place. It was set to be debated in Committee, but the Liberal Democrat Members did not arrive in time to move their amendments. During the Report stage, the amendments were not reached. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry commented at Third Reading;
"I have no doubt … that it will be debated … in another place".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/03; col. 776.]
Indeed, it will be.
We are told that we need investment and overseas management skills. I do not need lessons about the importance of inward investment for many industries and for the economy. I spent a very large part of my eight years in Cabinet rather successfully working to encourage it. Within the scope of this Bill, it has made a vital contribution to the development of cable networks. But it is far less obvious that there is an urgent need for it in the case of the ITV companies. The Government have strengthened the licence regime and content obligations designed to protect regional production and the fulfilment of licence obligations. I am absolutely satisfied that, with those safeguards, further consolidation of UK ownership is not only acceptable but desirable.
692
However, when we reach the Committee stage, I shall set out my reasons for thinking that those safeguards may be much less effective if our regional licence-holders are controlled by the major US players, who have an overriding priority to produce homogeneous output that can be sold in a wide variety of forms in every market in the world. Perhaps current conditions and the financial state of those companies will provide the protection that I seek during the period when Ofcom's eye may not be on the ball because of the immensity of the job that it will have to do during the first years of its existence. None The less, like the noble Lord, Lord. McNally, I see no reason why we should rush recklessly down this road, and without reciprocity, when the alternative is to allow Ofcom time to review the position and to establish itself as an effective regulator.
Having said that, perhaps I may make it clear that, on the whole, this is a good Bill with the right objectives. I believe that the Government have chosen well in selecting the noble Lord, Lord Currie, to lead Ofcom. I wish him well.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, my contribution to the Bill will be rather narrower than many of those that have gone before me. I want to concentrate primarily on the legislative scope provided by the Bill to cash in on the opportunities that are expanding for those with disabilities to access the global network of the communications revolution, which we hear so much about and which is growing around us.
I hope that my noble friend Lord McNally will not mind my quoting, or misquoting, a conversation that he had with some of us earlier. He described us as breaking down into two groups: the "fluffies" and the "techies". The techies were those with an interest in wavelengths and so on; and the fluffies were those who would worry about contact. This is an occasion where the techies have allowed the fluffies in.
All the opportunities that I have seen for expanding access for the disabled have come about because the technical revolution has reached a point where such access can be made in various formats. Effectively, the technicians have given the broadcasters a problem, but something can now be done. We have established in law over many, many years that the disabled should not be excluded merely on the ground that they are disabled. I do not suggest that we take an overwhelming step forwards, but appropriate action should be taken to allow people in. For a shopkeeper, that involves installing a ramp and being prepared to carry out a box to someone in a wheelchair or being prepared to talk slowly and clearly to someone who has a hearing problem.
For broadcasters, who are dealing with a very technical subject, the answers themselves are more technical. The Bill does take steps forward and, indeed, measures have been taken in areas such as sub-titling and audio description. Indeed, in Clause 3, although I cannot remember the exact words, the Bill states that there will be regard to the disabled.

693
I shall now go into Oliver Twist mode: we wanted more. We wanted stronger commitments in the Bill that the disabled would be consulted more thoroughly. I could list the areas where I believe that that should happen, but I suspect that we shall spend many hours in Committee going over that issue. I simply give notice that we are considering the matter. We need to become involved in the Bill to ensure that Ofcom knows what is going on and expands its services for the simple reason that it has the capacity so to do. It must persuade people to listen to it on this occasion. If we work only on existing technology, we shall be able to expand on what we are already doing.
There are also certain areas where circles need to be squared. Audio description is one of the oddest things that I have ever come across. The technical ability is there to deliver a service which means that those who have no, bad or even slightly impaired eyesight can gain a good experience from television and need not be excluded. But the problem is that we do not produce the necessary box for terrestrial broadcasting, although Sky can provide the service. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for saying something nice about Sky.
The fact is that one broadcaster—the one you pay for—can provide the service, but the one to which you contribute through a licence fee does not allow you in. It is not the fault of the broadcasters—they are producing audio description titles. The problem is that only about 45 people in the country can access the service because the boxes are not being produced. I do not know whether it is technically possible to do so within the Bill, but I say to the Government that they should do something to get those boxes produced. I am referring to an item that costs less than £200, although I forget the exact figure.
It would be a major step forward if we could get those boxes on to television sets. It will not be easy because unfortunately, by definition, the disabled are more likely to have lower incomes or, indeed, to be unemployed than those who are able-bodied. That is simply the way that things stand at present. But surely we can call upon the Government to act through the agencies and then perhaps the BBC, for example, can become involved in some way. It has considerable commercial experience. Surely it, or another broadcaster, can become involved in ensuring that such items are produced. It would mean that the hours of broadcasting that are prepared would be available to those with sight difficulties.
Following on from that is the run-in time for subtitling. When one sets a long run-in time of say 10 years it becomes a long-term project. Then it becomes an intermediate-term project and then it becomes a short-term panic. Often the longer-term projects tend to get put off because they are someone else's problem, or not enough is done. That has happened in many other services relating to disability legislation.
Surely, we could bring these issues together. We now have the technical ability. It would concentrate the mind. The halving of a 10-year run-in period would
694
surely not overly extend any of the huge bodies involved. As regards the granting of exemptions for subtitling or audio description, I would hope that smaller broadcasters are treated fairly roughly, especially if they happen to be a small broadcaster in a bigger chain or if they happen to produce, for instance, a cheap programme that is repeated about 20 times on certain channels, which I have seen by scanning through the broadcasting schedules of many TV guides. Can we make sure that there is no great flood to grant exemptions because it might be inconvenient and only do so when it would stop the programme?
In order to obtain the full benefit of this service, surely we should provide—at least as vigorously as we do in other commercial services—for the fact that you must have an incredibly good reason not to do so, and not merely because it is slightly more inconvenient. That is the standard that we apply in other parts of life.
5.31 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, as no. 13 out of 49 speakers, I am clearly one of a great many who are glad that the time has at last arrived for your Lordships to bring your considerable expertise and experience of the communications industry to bear upon this important Bill. You have heard some brilliant examples of that expertise already.
As some of your Lordships know, I would have preferred two separate commissions —one that was responsible for the economic and telecommunications side of the industry and the other responsible for public service broadcasting standards and content issues. But, there comes a point when it becomes fruitless to pursue an issue that falls upon continually deaf ears.
As a step in the right direction, however, I congratulate the Government on their decision specifically to include a content board in the legislation, and, indeed, the pre-legislative scrutiny committee on its role, both in persuading the Government to accept that point and in securing the adoption of so many other improvements to the Bill.
However, I remain sure that the establishment of a content board will not stop internal arguments as to which aspect of the commission's work should take precedence or secure the lion's share of resources. That kind of concern is certainly not imaginary; it has already surfaced in another place. Of course the old Radio Authority knows that only too well from its own experience as part of the Independent Television Authority, before it was liberated—with its own budget and priorities—in the 1990s. Now, of course, it is due to be swallowed up all over again.
Neither does the establishment of a content board really meet my other major concern. Will complainants alleging unfair portrayal or unwarranted infringement of privacy, accept as unbiased the judgments of a regulator who also licenses the broadcasters and sets the terms under which those licensees operate? Will those decisions be seen as "transparently independent" from the point of view of human rights legislation, as were those of the BSC, for example? Sadly, but honestly, I very much doubt it.

695
No doubt the content board will try to be as open as possible in its dealings with the public. So I hope it might think of referring complaints on taste and decency and fairness and privacy which reach its level for decision by an outside, and more visibly independent, panel. If, as I suspect—and wrongly I think—it decides against that and keeps this responsibility "in house", then surely it should be content board members themselves and not staff who decide the majority of complaints. It should, in other words, continue with the current practice of the BSC, rather than follow the unconvincing ITC's example, where decisions on many complaints were made by staff members. Charges of "agency capture" are far less likely to be made, and less likely to be justified if it follows the BSC's precedent. Having said all that, I am not sure whether it is a good or a bad thing that I have the noble Lord, Lord Currie, sitting directly in front of me.
I now want to turn to one or two specific issues. First I deal with diversity. Equal opportunities for women has been a constant theme with me over the years. The racial aspect of diversity—of equal opportunities—is at least as important as that for women and for the geographical and ability/disability diversity, which are specifically written into the Bill as Ofcom's duties, particularly when one remembers the ever increasing range of nationalities and religions that today make up the UK population. I hope the Minister will address that point.
Next, continuing the religious theme, there are the restrictions on licence ownership for those with religious backgrounds. The Government are to be congratulated on removing certain of those restrictions in the draft Bill. But, inexplicably, some remain. I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester—who put the case so compellingly—in calling unreservedly for all such restrictions to be removed. The conditions on which such licences are granted and the regulations which have to be complied with are quite sufficient to deal with any possible breaches that might occur.
I turn to the BBC, which is clearly still controversial. It is right that it should be subject to, and fined for, any breaches of tiers 1 and 2 of Ofcom's regulatory system, should that become appropriate. It should also be required to publish an annual statement of programme policy, and be judged against that by Ofcom and be subject to competition law. And, of course, we should all continue to expect, and press for, the very highest standards of public service broadcasting from all its programmes.
However, I remain unconvinced that the BBC should be regulated in exactly the same way as commercial TV and radio, from which we expect considerably less public service broadcasting. I am also unconvinced that there is a need for it to come within the remit of the National Audit Office. None of us should forget, however critical we may be of some aspects of current BBC policy or programming, that the BBC, with its proud history, is still—much more often than not— the bench-mark. It is the bench-mark
696
against which others, and especially terrestrial channels, can match themselves, and, on occasions, surpass the BBC with the quality and originality of their own public service broadcast programmes.
Next I deal with taste and decency. I am glad, of course, that the structures of Ofcom are being designed with far more emphasis on light touch/self regulation. But equally, I have no doubt that what we see does influence our behaviour to some extent, often of course for the better, but not always. That is why issues of bad language, sexual behaviour and, above all, the portrayal of violence on the screen will continue to cause considerable citizen anxiety. One has only to look at the recent ITC/BSC research, The Public's View, which was published in 2002, to realise that concern about taste and decency issues—55 per cent felt that they had got worse—will not disappear with the establishment of Ofcom, or even with the establishment of the content board. Concern remains high about children's programmes and the viewing to which they are subject. So, though we must of course beware of over-nannying, it remains vital for society to retain some effective balancing influence on unbridled consumer demand.
However, if judgments are to be balanced, they need to be well-informed. So it is quite right that Ofcom should be given the duty to commission and publish research. That duty must surely be delegated to the content board.
Will the Minister assure the House that Ofcom, alongside its commitment to more detailed and in-depth research, will continue to research and monitor changes in citizens' attitudes about what is broadcast—not just from time to time, as the Bill provides, but year on year? It will surely be more important in future to have that information regularly available if Ofcom is to know whether the degree of self-regulation permitted is working satisfactorily for the community interest.
Lastly, I share the concern about Channel 5 and cross-media ownership. That has clearly fuelled ongoing unease about whether the press media should be subject to some form of statutory—as opposed to voluntary, Press Complaints Commission—regulation. I am sure that views will remain divided on the issue, not least because of the historic importance of freedom of speech, which of course remains. However, perhaps there is a need for some kind of half-way house—some more public accountability. That is why I am especially glad that both your Lordships' House and the pre-legislative scrutiny committee have accepted the proposition that a House of Lords communications Select Committee, which will include the print media, should be established once the Bill is enacted.
As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, this is a vast Bill. I am sure that as a result of that, and of what we have heard today, we can all look forward to many hours of stimulating debate.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I probably fall into the category of a "fluffy". However, I must first declare

697
the following interests. I am a director of a number of independent television production companies, including Shine Limited and Castaway Television; I was a senior executive of Carlton Television; and I have some, although not significant, holdings in a number of media and radio companies. I refer your Lordships to my entry in the register of interests.
Lord McNally: Oh, you are a fluffy!
Lord Alli: But I am a fluffy.
We have some of the finest television in the world. If it is not the envy of the world, it should be, and we should be proud of what we produce. Why do we have such a great creative heritage? Is it because our airwaves are different from those of our competitors? Is it because the equipment on which we receive our television pictures or radio broadcasts are different from those of our competitors? Or is it because the owners of our media are nice and more philanthropic than our competitors? I would say, probably not.
The reason is our strong tradition of public service broadcasting. We have not just the BBC and Channel 4 but, through our regulatory system, our commercial broadcasters have a set of public service obligations. The Bill must safeguard those public service obligations and, in some cases, probably strengthen them.
I welcome the Bill. It seems to have struck the right balance between regulation and protection of our media industry. I shall concentrate on three areas: First, content and content regulation; secondly, public service broadcasting; and, thirdly, the structure of regulation.
Content occupies much of my working life. I am a television producer and, when not in your Lordships' House, spend my energies thinking about how to entertain and make people think, producing programmes that I believe will stimulate the British public, as well as people abroad.
Like my noble friends Lord Puttnam and Lord Bragg, I take ideas—concepts. We add words to pictures and, at the end of it, we produce a bit of magic. So great is that magic that the Bill must regulate the people who publish, broadcast and seek to own it.
I want to talk about the independent production market. It provides some of the best, most popular and challenging television programmes world-wide. The independent production market was established with the advent of Channel 4 and it has developed by the application of a quota system.
It is clear that one of the points of contention about the Bill is that of the proposed changes to the media ownership rules. If we are to accept ever greater vertical integration and investment from overseas—that is a big if—the responsibility to protect and strengthen the UK's creative sector becomes ever more important. The real danger is that the UK production industry becomes dominated by vertically integrated,
698
risk-adverse broadcasting organisations. This is why the quota system becomes ever more important and, in my view, needs further strengthening.
It is with that in mind that the ITC's recently published programme supply review was so welcome. I shall not bore your Lordships by repeating its recommendations, but I hope that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will keep her beady eye on the broadcasters as we develop the codes of practice that it recommends.
I also give notice to my noble friend Lady Blackstone that I intend to press to change the quota from being based on hours to being based on value and volume. I also intend to ask her to include BBC Radio, which is currently excluded from the quota system. I hope that she will sympathetically consider those changes.
While we are dealing with quotas, I have just one complaint. Here is my bauble for the Christmas tree. It is totally unacceptable for the BBC not to meet its quota obligation for the second year in a row. I hope that Ofcom will look long and hard at how the quota system is operated by the BBC.
Enough of quotas, and back to ideas. As producers, we trade in ideas. Ideas are the life blood of the creative industry. There has been an alarming rise in the number of ideas from independent producers and others that find their way onto the screen because an enterprising broadcaster feels that it does not need to reward the originator. That is the biggest threat to the creative industry.
It was a situation not dissimilar to that which led to the establishment of patent laws in the 18th and 19th centuries. Energetic engineers were spending large amounts of time and money overcoming problems and coming up with solutions to problems, only to find that their ideas were being easily copied and sold by companies who did not have to spend a penny on development.
For a short while, that benefited the big guys. But our wiser ancestors realised that it was not in anyone's interest—people would just stop inventing. So they came up with the idea of registering people's ideas.
It is time for us to consider a system for registering TV ideas. I wonder whether the Minister would consider working with Ofcom to develop such a register of ideas, which would at least provide the basis of protection.
I am a great advocate of public service broadcasting, and I have one warning for noble Lords when considering the Bill. It is easy to denigrate the BBC and Channel 4. Only a few years ago, the cry from the commercial sector was that the BBC was failing and that we should redistribute its licence fee. How things have changed. Much is due to the foundations laid by my noble friend Lord Birt, the inspired leadership of Greg Dyke and the commitment to public service broadcasting of Gavyn Davies.
Now the cry is that the BBC is too successful and should be further regulated. Let us recognise that cry for what it is: commercial self interest. I do not believe

699
that it is healthy in a democracy for there to be a single content regulator, and I ask your Lordships to resist the temptation to put the BBC under the National Audit Office or further extend its accountability to Ofcom—for the time being.
The BBC, like Channel 4, is there, as has been said by countless speakers, to inform, educate and entertain. Greg Dyke recently tried to develop those values and came up with six values that he believed should guide the work of the BBC. I think that they are as applicable to the Bill as to the BBC.
First and foremost, he said that trust is the foundation of everything that we do, that we should safeguard independence, impartiality and honesty; secondly, that the audience should be at the heart of everything we do; thirdly, that we should take pride in delivering quality and value for money; fourthly, that we recognise that creativity must be at the centre—the life-line—of the organisation that we try to build; fifthly, that we respect and celebrate our diversity; and, lastly, that great things happen when we work together.
If we can work together on the Bill, I think that we can safeguard those values. That is a task of which we could all he proud.
That brings me, finally, to Ofcom. It has a heavy responsibility to safeguard those values. I have worked with regulators in the past—primarily the ITC but also the Radio Authority, the BSC and many others. It is a tough job and the temptation to give in to commercial pressures is great. Witness the consolidation of ITV or the "News at Ten" fiasco.
We must make sure that the noble Lord, Lord Currie—he is no longer my noble friend—and Stephen Carter, the new chief executive of Ofcom are given the best opportunity to make Ofcom work. But they must he resourced properly. The idea that putting together a number of regulators under a single office should yield synergy savings is misguided. Arbitrary talk of a 25 per cent reduction in costs is dangerous. Cheap regulation is just that. It will be pliable, easy to manipulate and, in the end, a busted flush.
I urge the Minister and her colleagues in the DCMS to ensure that Ofcom is properly resourced, for it has a monumental task. This Bill has been a long time in the making. I wish it safe passage and look forward to dealing with more of the detail in Committee.
5.50 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, like the noble Lord. Lord Addington, I shall comment more narrowly than many others. I wish to concentrate on clauses that have not yet been mentioned—Clauses 117 to 121. They are a small but important part of the Bill. The regulation of premium rate services is of crucial importance to consumers who suffer considerable distress when those services are misused. I declare an interest as a member of the Independent Committee for the Standards of Supervision for Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS). For the past 17 years, it has been the regulatory body responsible for premium rate services (PRS).
700
By way of background, PRS services are used by an increasingly cosmopolitan group of service providers. Services include voting on TV shows, competitions, chat and adult services, horoscope lines, Visa, government agency services, sport, weather and directory enquiries. PRS was the mechanism used for allocating tickets for the Golden Jubilee concerts at Buckingham Palace last year. PRS is also used for pay-to-play charges for game channels on digital television. Services can be accessed on land lines, mobile phones, interactive digital television and the Internet. At present, calls cost from 10p per call to £1.50 per minute. The money paid for calls is shared by the telephone companies carrying the service and the organisation providing the content.
ICSTIS is the largest co-regulatory body dealing with converged services in the communications field, It is funded by a levy on the industry and currently receives back-stop support from Oftel through telecom licences. Those licences place certain obligations on telephone companies when making available premium rate services.
ICSTIS regulates the content and promotion of services through its code of practice, which allows it to investigate complaints, to fine companies and to bar access to services. In 2002, ICSTIS dealt with 150,000 enquiries and investigated more than 10,000 complaints dealing with 99 per cent plus of all PRS complaints. As a result, it closed down around 100 services and levied fines totalling around £1 million. However, that should be set against a background of an industry that has tripled in value in three years to be worth nearly £1 billion. The UK PRS market is the largest in the world. It is now significant in its own right in the communications sector. Regulatory failure would be commercially significant.
I make those points, first, because there is a lack of knowledge about what PRS is, but, perhaps more importantly, to illustrate how crucial it is that the Bill continues to allow absolute protection for consumers using premium rate services.
The creation of Ofcom has implications for the regulation of premium rate services. Although not part of Ofcom, ICSTIS will need to establish new relationships to replace existing ones with Oftel and the other bodies merging to form Ofcom. It is crucial that the arrangements underpinning the effectiveness of ICSTIS's regulatory regime are recreated in the Bill. It is particularly important, because the means by which ICSTIS currently receives support from Oftel—through telephone licences—are being swept away under the Bill.
The Bill will affect ICSTIS in several ways, as defined in Clauses 117 to 121. Ofcom will assume statutory back-stop powers in case a network fails to fulfil its obligations to ICSTIS under the Bill. The Bill will also affect ICSTIS's funding and the definition of the stakeholders—networks and service providers— that it regulates. To ensure continuity of regulation, ICSTIS has worked with mobile phone companies in tabling amendments that received cross-party support

701
in another place. It was encouraging to see that the Government took those amendments on board at Report stage.
So far, the amendments have ensured that the Bill maintains ICSTIS's holistic approach to effective regulation in so far as it deals with premium rate promotions, the marketing of services and the content of services. They have also ensured that the legislation maintains the important role in effective regulation played by the telephone companies when it is necessary to terminate access to services and to withhold revenues. However, the Bill requires further changes to ensure that their effectiveness is not undermined.
By parliamentary convention, the Bill is limited to activities undertaken in the UK by providers of premium rate services. However, many of the problems that ICSTIS deals with emanate from the global market-place. All too often, they involve services providing such material as child pornography, which must be dealt with speedily. Recently, ICSTIS had to stop the operation of Internet services in Spain and Germany using deeply offensive marketing and "corrupt" dialer technology designed, without doubt, to trap people into incurring bills of several hundred pounds. If the Bill and the supporting code of practice cannot address that, there is a serious threat that many providers of such services will simply, and at little cost, relocate outside the jurisdiction, thus creating grave consumer harm in a way that will be unregulated. That would damage the reputation of companies that provide useful services to the public.
The Bill is also designed to ensure that all companies in the value chain providing premium rate services are clear that ICSTIS regulates "service providers"—companies that contract with telephone companies for their numbers. But the system does not allow for regulatory evasion through the creation of intermediary bodies. All companies contracting telephone numbers from networks must remain under ICSTIS's authority if it is to continue to be effective. If the draft provisions appear not to achieve that, I hope that the Government will be ready to make any further necessary amendments.
A key focus of ICSTIS's work in 2003 will be increasing media literacy among consumers and those working with them. That means informing and empowering consumers so that they are better able to understand how premium rate services work on a variety of platforms and a range of devices—the Internet, digital interactive TV and mobile messaging services. ICSTIS wants consumers to know what to look for when deciding whether to use a premium rate service. It also wants them to know how to protect themselves and their families from unwarranted contact or harmful content by using call-barring or filtering devices.
An informed, confident consumer is the key to preventing consumer harm and increasing confidence in PRS as a billing mechanism. When the pace of technological development outstrips consumer knowledge there is potential for consumer harm.
702
There must be concern over unauthorised use, serious, wilful consumer deception and the inappropriateness of some services, particularly sexual entertainment.
Child protection from consumer harm, inappropriate content and contact with strangers, especially through the Internet, is of particular concern. It is not easy to wrestle with the difficulties raised by the Internet dimension, but they must be faced. We must foresee a time when the analogue signal is turned off and practically every house in the country has a digital TV with Internet access. Such sets will soon find their way into children's bedrooms.
Because the future can be seen so clearly, we should also put the industry on notice that it should produce a code of practice, as with video on demand, to show how it intends to grapple with the child safety agenda raised by the ease of Internet access. I appreciate that the content board will have the responsibility of considering that area, as will the Home Office Internet task force on child protection. Child protection would benefit, if the sentiment were included in the Bill, and there may be amendments to that effect. We cannot let such an important matter slip out of sight.
It is important to the consumer that effective regulation be maintained and, where necessary, enhanced. As the Minister, Stephen Timms, said in Committee in another place,
"ICSTIS does an excellent job, and is a good model of effective self-regulation without, until now, any legislative support. We recognise the success of ICSTIS, and want to support and strengthen its work".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 7/1/03; col. 321.]
To my noble friends on the Front Bench, I say that, bearing that in mind, I hope that the Government will ensure, by further amendments to the Bill, that we maintain the scope and general structure of a regulatory regime that has served consumers well in rapidly changing times.
6.1 p.m.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as a governor of the BBC. As such, my desire today is to listen to the great range of expertise in your Lordships' House, including to those on whom, I hope, the BBC governors can count as candid friends.
But I also hope that your Lordships will allow me to make three brief points. The first is a personal tribute from one whose years of journalism were conducted from the safety of an office desk. At a time when our thoughts are with our Armed Forces, we are also reminded that the job of war correspondent is dangerous, as well as difficult. It is also an essential part of the apparatus of a free democracy. Technology has not made warfare or communication free from personal risk.
Secondly, in welcoming the creation of a single economic regulator and the appointment of its excellent chairman, I must make clear my view that the remit should cover the BBC. Economic regulation, which is essentially concerned with the way in which organisations compete, must embrace all of them. I make a distinction between that and the BBC's public

703
service responsibilities, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, rightly said, are greater—not less—than those of other broadcasters. It is the governors' job to monitor and maintain that part of the BBC's role.
My third point is about that system of independent governance. I declare a specific interest, as a member of the audit committee of independent governors of the BBC. As members of other boards have discovered, the authority of the audit committee over the management of an organisation is crucial to good governance. Authority over the audit process is critical, as are the board's right to appoint external, independent auditors and the responsibility of those auditors to the audit committee.
I am concerned, therefore, at the suggestion that the right to appoint independent and external auditors might be taken away from the governors. We must be clear: that would be the effect of putting in the National Audit Office instead. The NAO would not, and could not, be accountable to the audit committee of the governors. It would not, and could not, take instructions from the audit committee, whose authority over the audit process and the management would be severed. I am advised that it would create a line of accountability from the director-general of the BBC to the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Culture. Media and Sport. That would be a significant change in the governance of the BBC.
I have the greatest respect for the NAO and the work that it does in investigating whether government departments deliver government policy cost-effectively. But the BBC is not a government department, and I am anxious that, even with the best of intentions, your Lordships should not push it further under the wing of Whitehall. Moreover, the BBC needs a range of expertise in its external auditors that the NAO does not, and could not, have. Indeed, the NAO might have to call on such expertise, possibly from the auditors that we use at present. In passing. I would add that Sir Robert Smith, the Government's chosen expert on audit, has joined the BBC audit committee and has given me permission to say that he shares my concerns.
I do not claim perfection for the BBC's system of governance, by any means. I believe and hope that, at charter renewal, the checks and balances of independent governance will be thoroughly evaluated. That will be the proper moment to consider the big step of bringing the BBC within the ambit of the NAO, should that be your Lordships' view. In the mean time, I point out that an independent review of the BBC's financial reporting was carried out for the DCMS in 2000, and that there was a review of its fair trading arrangements in 2001. There is, however, still more that the BBC could do to publish information on how value for money is assessed. With the chairman of the audit committee, I have recently been involved in leading some work on that for the governors. If he were here, I could assure my noble friend Lord Crickhowell that some elbow-jogging would not be unwelcome. Perhaps we can return to that in Committee.
704
I hope that I have not tried the House's patience by raising the point at so early a stage. It is up to Parliament to decide whether, at charter renewal, it wants to overhaul the BBC's governance. Meanwhile, in building up a strong audit committee, I believe that we are not only following best practice but strengthening the hand of the governors. I ask noble Lords, in considering the Bill, not to chop off that hand at the wrist.
6.6 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I shall concentrate on two subjects. The first is the matter of access radio. The Bill takes tentative steps towards assisting the development of community media in the UK. It provides for the introduction of a new type of not-for-profit radio licence. That is what is commonly called "access radio".
Community media have developed in exciting ways in the UK in the past few years. Radio stations have been established by not-for-profit organisations right in the heart of communities and have forged productive partnerships. It is the residents themselves who run the radio stations, make the programmes, present the local news and run community campaigns. They offer something different from what is offered by commercial radio stations. If the Government's objective is to promote social inclusion and give people a voice and a chance to make a difference in their community, there can be no better tool than access radio. The Bill presents an opportunity either to support and stimulate it or to strangle it at birth. I trust that it will be the former.
Noble Lords may be aware that I am a BBC widow. My late husband was a BBC radio producer with GMR, the Manchester-based local radio station. Nearly 15 years ago, GMR ran an experiment in neighbourhood radio. For three months, my husband ran a station based in a large caravan trailer in a school playground; it was called Radio Trafford. Although he had a long and distinguished career in local radio, he found it one of the most enjoyable and rewarding periods of his career. That was because of the warm response of the local people and their appreciation that their local radio station had made the effort to come to them. However, it was a short experiment and did not have the chance to achieve the social benefits that the recent pilots in access radio have done.
Today, we are addressing the need for licences and wavebands—not for BBC experiments but for the not-for-profit stations that have already shown their power to deliver social change. I shall give your Lordships some recent examples, also from the Manchester area. In 2001, Nadia Ali, an unemployed single mother from Longsight, responded to a flyer about a two-week trial broadcast for ALL FM. Soon, she was presenting a daily afternoon show, playing music and discussing the concerns of her neighbourhood from the point of view of someone who had lived there all her life. She raised the sensitive issue of forced marriages in the Asian community and, when she interviewed city council leader, Richard Leese, her questions came from the neighbours on her

705
street. She enrolled as a Radio Regen trainee, and, before she finished her course, she successfully applied to join the staff of ALL FM. Last month, sadly for ALL FM, she joined a new local Sure Start project, nearly doubling her salary. However, she is about to become a trustee at Radio Regen, an organisation run by a former colleague of my late husband that provides training and support for the stations. Nadia is not alone. At its peak, ALL FM has over 120 active programme makers involved every week.
Longsight is part of the target area of ALL FM and has at least two active armed street gangs. These are not "organised" criminals, but young men who have embraced a criminal lifestyle in which loyalty and fear is enforced by the gun. There have been many deaths and woundings of both gang members and innocent passers-by. There is now a backlash from families and friends of the dead; these good people have been given an unparalleled platform by ALL FM which has contributed to the recent success of their "Gangstop" march and associated public meetings.
Part of Wythenshawe FM's "patch" is Benchill ward, which has the dubious distinction of being the most disadvantaged ward in the country. The whole area is beset by social disadvantage, including appalling levels of domestic violence. When women were killed by their partners in Wythenshawe over Christmas 2001, the groups and agencies concerned decided to increase the support available to women at risk. They teamed up with Wythenshawe FM to publicise these services. Last December, the station ran an intensive campaign on the subject for a week, with programmes made by local people. The station knows of at least nine women who asked for assistance as a result of that work and one of them even dropped in to give her personal thanks to the team that helped her to get away from her abusing partner.
Those three stories are only the tip of the iceberg. The evaluation report of the Wythenshawe Partnership commented on how engaged local people are with their community radio stations. It stated:
"We have more volunteers here than you can shake a stick at".
For those noble Lords who do not understand, that is a northern expression.
Local people know the value of access radio, but there has also been an independent evaluation of its benefits by Professor Anthony Everitt. His recently published report stated that this kind of radio will be one of the most important cultural events of recent years. And no wonder; look at the benefits.
First, these stations develop individual skills in members of the local population and boost self-esteem and ambition. Secondly, they provide an effective information infrastructure for the locality, address negative images and provide a voice for under-represented groups. Thirdly, they provide an acceptable and effective delivery mechanism for mainstream services, such as the police, schools and social landlords.
706
Given all those good things, there can surely be no opposition to the further development of this sector. However, there are threats in this Bill. The first and most significant is the lack of priority for frequency allocation. There is a shortage of FM frequencies available for any new stations, but surely we do not need any more commercial ones playing the same old chart hits.
Secondly, there is a wastage of frequency capacity due to BBC control of significant parts of the waveband, particularly in its reserving frequencies in its national sub-bands. That allows BBC national stations to be heard on different frequencies in different parts of the country, without allowing other use of the unused bits of frequency. I am a gardener and am very familiar with the concept of planting radishes between the cabbages to use all available ground in a small vegetable patch. Perhaps we should envisage the FM waveband as a small vegetable patch and allow small community radio stations, broadcasting to a small geographical area, to use those bits of unused FM frequency—the bits between the cabbages. The benefits will be huge. I call on the BBC to co-operate with this idea and on Ofcom to promote it.
Given the massive delivery of social gain and the protection of regional diversity demonstrated by these stations, what reassurance can the Minister give me that Ofcom will recognise this and prioritise the provision of enough FM frequency for access radio?
Finally, I turn briefly to the plight of Britain's music creators. Our songwriters, composers and musicians are the envy of the world. We must do everything we can to protect them and enable all of us to benefit from their talents. However, there is much concern about the impact upon them of deregulation in the radio sector.
For the music industry, further consolidation in the commercial radio sector will only increase the risk that there is less diversity of music on independent local radio and mainstream airwaves. However "local" is defined, local radio must be a vital route to national exposure for musicians and writers. I am therefore anxious that local music-writing and performance is protected. We must ensure that there is a counterbalance to the power that deregulation might give to the larger commercial radio players to control access to, and thereby success in, the UK music market.
As drafted, the Bill gives Ofcom a general duty to promote and protect the local "content and character" of local radio, specifically news. However, the current definition of "local material" in the Bill regrettably fails to provide the crucial safeguard for music creativity and diversity.
What does the Minister believe will be the impact of this legislation on our music makers and how does he intend to ensure that our music industry continues to thrive for the benefit of us all following the passage of this Bill?
6.16 p.m.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, this vast and complex Bill is needed because of changes in communication technologies and their uses and it proposes large changes in their regulation. The regulation is charged to Ofcom, and to the noble Lord, Lord Currie, to which the Bill assigns—to Ofcom rather than to the noble Lord—only two general duties. Those duties are set out in Clause 3(1):
"(a) to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition; and
(b) to further the interests of the community as a whole in relation to communications matters".
I do not believe that I shall be the only Member of your Lordships' House who is concerned that these are the only general duties, that duties to the consumer play a more fundamental role in the Bill than duties to the public, or that in this central clause, even in its present form, duties to the public are reduced to an extremely opaque duty,
"to further the interests of the community as a whole in … communications matters".
We shall have failed in this legislation if we do not build in a clearer and more robust view of the public interest—namely, build it into the general duties of Ofcom.
As we all know, the communications industry and the media are not businesses like any other. They are fundamental to culture and to politics and their products are not mere items of trade. Their power is enormous. I believe that it is also widely recognised that, at present, the ways in which that power is exercised are not entirely satisfactory. Writing in Prospect last October, the distinguished journalist John Lloyd observed that,
"The media have become startlingly uncivil—intrusive into private lives, scornful of politics, hugely arrogant in their power",
I believe that as we debate this Bill we must consider how it needs changing if freedom of the press is to serve the public interest rather than to inflate media power. Press freedom traditionally has been prized for three reasons: as a means to the discovery of truth, as a concomitant of freedom of expression, and as an element or bulwark of democracy.
I do not think that many of us today would judge press freedom alone an effective means to truth. Professor Sir Bernard Williams pointed out in Truth and Truthfulness:
"… in institutions that are expressly dedicated to finding out the truth, such as universities, research institutes, and courts of law, speech is not at all unregulated. People cannot come in from outside, speak when they feel like it, make endless irrelevant, or insulting, interventions, and so on; they cannot invoke a right to do so, and no-one thinks that things would go better in the direction of truth if they could".
So press freedom is not justified as a means to truth today.
Freedom of expression also sits ill with some current uses of press freedom. Freedom of expression is a protection for the individual, for the powerless and, above all, for the citizen. I know of no good reason to suppose that powerful corporations, including media conglomerates, should have unrestricted freedom of
708
expression. They have, so to speak, borrowed it from individuals and citizens. Press freedom is important in so far as it secures freedom of expression for individuals, but it is not acceptable if it is used to limit or channel individual freedom of expression.
Nowadays it is the third argument for freedom of the press that is most compelling. The most serious aim in configuring freedom of the press is to ensure that it serves democracy by fostering robust debate in which a plurality of voices can make themselves heard. Any configuration of freedom of the press that does not serve this aim is not adequate.
We shall have to ask ourselves whether the proposed regimes for cross-ownership and foreign ownership, and other safeguards contained in the Bill, are robust enough to secure these fundamental aims. We should also ask whether Ofcom should be charged with an explicit and general duty to further the public interest by ensuring that a plurality of voices can be heard and take part in all forms of public communication. I believe that citizenship is more fundamental than consuming.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, it has been a long time since December 2000 and the publication of the White Paper. However, I venture to suggest that we have all benefited from the delay in the production of the legislation and its postponement by the Government from a previous parliamentary Session to the current one.
It has been beneficial for two reasons. First, the world has changed in that period. When the White Paper was produced we were at the height of the dot.com bubble; we were all talking about convergence and that it was all going to happen tomorrow. We all know now that it will not happen tomorrow. The take-off of digital radio is still painfully slow. We all hope that it will happen, but it is not happening at a very fast rate. Secondly, it has yoked together DCMS and DTI for another Session, where they will have to work in tandem to safeguard the Bill. That will be highly beneficial.
It has become fashionable to quote Mr Nick Harvey in the debate in the House of Commons. As regards Ofcom and the BBC—I am not making a point about the BBC at the moment—he said:
"As Ofcom is a predominantly economic regulator and secondarily a content regulator, it has not evolved or matured enough for it to have ultimate responsibility for the BBC".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/02; col. 805.]
Whatever we may think about the BBC issue, I would be concerned if we viewed the duties of Ofcom and the purpose of the Bill solely in economic terms. The reason we are all concerned is that we are not talking about baked beans or paper tissues but about our media, which are a vital link in the democratic chain. Unless we have an educated and informed electorate, democracy will be a failure. We look to our media to educate and inform. Content is therefore a vital function for Ofcom.

709
The fact that the Bill has been around for a long while and that there have been various seminars and so on over the past couple of years does not mean that it has been subjected to a great deal of scrutiny. Obviously the Puttnam committee did a great job. If ever we needed a positive advert for pre-legislative scrutiny, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and the members of his committee have provided it. I thank them for their efforts. It is perhaps unkind to say that if ever we looked for a negative justification for pre-legislative scrutiny, it would be the absence of it in the Licensing Bill which recently passed through the House. In much the same way, finishing at 2.26 a.m. today, as I did, was a negative justification for the reforms I am glad the Leader of the House introduced last year which ensure that we normally finish at about 10 o'clock.
A great many things have changed since the Puttnam committee sat and some clauses have not been subjected to scrutiny at all. I declare an interest as chairman of Scottish Radio Holdings. Clause 307 had never been heard of until after the ownership rules were changed. It was then brought in to define in micro-detail the inputs required to produce localness. In my view, we should scrap that clause in its entirety and go back to the way in which we all thought Ofcom was going to work—and, indeed, the way in which I believe it wants to work. It will need to define the objective—that is, the presentation of localness—and work together with the industry, through co-regulation, to deliver that objective.
The powers given to Ofcom to enforce localness-which includes ensuring that studios are in the right place, that there is enough local advertising, that enough local people are employed and so on—amount to micro-management. That is not the business of Ofcom. However, that is what has been laid down. In defending it in another place, Kim Howells said that the fact that Ofcom may do it does not mean that it will do it. On that basis you could give local authorities the nuclear deterrent to enforce planning decisions. We do not want it to operate in that way.
I fear that there is also a Parkinson's law of regulation, which means that regulators will increase to fill every regulatory post and still ensure that they are understaffed. Regulation will multiply. Despite the considerable efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Currie, there will be a tendency for people to say, "Lord Currie. I must point out that the statute requires that X, Y and Z must be ticked, ticked, ticked before we do anything".
I take issue with my friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I feel that I am coming from the same place as they are and it distresses me that we are seeing things from a totally different viewpoint. I have mentioned my connection with Scottish Radio Holdings. If I now speak in its praise it is not by way of boasting of achievement but simply to say that Radio Clyde in Glasgow, which I started some 30 years ago, has a bigger audience than Radios 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Radio Scotland put together.
710
Why is that? Is it because I have chosen better disc jockeys, better music, better news reporters than anyone else?
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, it is a nice thought, but I would not like them to hear that because they will be looking for a rise.
The answer is that we concentrate on such earth-shattering issues as Glasgow traffic rather than London traffic. Believe it or not, the people of Glasgow are more interested in hearing about that than the fact that the Blackwall tunnel may be blocked. It is in the self-interests of an operator to concentrate on local activities because that is where he can beat the BBC. Frankly, the BBC is such a professional organisation that we could not take it on at doing what it does extremely well on Radio 1 and Radio 2, and on Radio 4 for that matter. But where we can beat the BBC is by being more local than it is and by appealing to the local community. On that basis, self-interest and public interest coincide. That is what I would like to see happen.
We should not regard common ownership as a bad thing. If I owned three radio services, it would be in my interests to make them all different. I would not want them to be the same. If, on the other hand, three different people owned them, we would probably all zero in on the one most attractive part of the audience and sound very much the same. Let us be quite clear that ownership itself does not adversely affect quality of output. It probably enhances it.
There is another example of a clause where provisions have been slipped in which are in excess of current regulation. I am in the presence of the current chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority. I bow to him and I will put my name to an amendment if he brings one forward. But, as regards advertising, in addition to the provisions already in the Bill that it must not be misleading, harmful and offensive, which are in the 1990 Act, the Government have inserted a catch-all provision of "unsuitable". In other words, if we cannot think of another reason against it we can get it under the heading of unsuitability. That is the kind of catch-all provision from which we are trying to get away.
I take issue on the question of the BBC for three reasons. If someone came down from the planet Zog and we said, "We are trying to converge regulation on all our media but we are going to leave out the biggest player in television and radio", he would think we were off our heads. Yet that is what we are doing.
I also take issue as a strong supporter of the BBC itself. The Government have argued the point by saying, "Yes, we will do it, but we will do so when we come to renew the Charter", which, it should be borne in mind, will take place next year. I am worried that if it is delayed, there could be a backlash against the BBC. It would be much better to do it now, under Ofcom.

711
I say that for a further reason; that is, it will improve Ofcom itself. It may require changes to the staffing or even the structure of Ofcom if it becomes responsible for the BBC. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, when opening the debate for the Opposition Benches earlier today, mentioned the point made by Nick Harvey MP that Ofcom can muck around with ITV and ILR as much as it likes, but that it is not good enough to touch the BBC. That is quite a frightening statement. If that is how little we think of independent broadcasting in this country, then we are in a very bad way.
I shall canter quickly through some further points on which I shall either move amendments or support other noble Lords in their amendments. As regards foreign ownership, my sole but extremely important objection to that is reciprocity. Others may think that it leads to dumping; I do not know enough about it. What I do know is that if we are going to give up something that the Americans will not give back to us, then frankly we should not do it.
I turn next to ITN. I cannot see the public interest argument against allowing ITV to own ITN as it used to when I was a television reporter. Indeed, it is probably a good thing for the principal customer also to be a shareholder. The customer will then have an interest in the quality of the service as well as the profits generated by it. Incidentally, the question of 20 per cent ownership for control again seems daft. Under that definition the current ITV had five shareholders, all of whom controlled it. That cannot he right. Surely it would be better to return to what is the case with the Radio Authority; namely, a 30 per cent holding. That is what the Stock Exchange regards as triggering a bid.
On the issue of Channel 5, again, I am agnostic about ownership. However, I cannot understand the inconsistency here. In introducing the debate the Minister said that Channel 3 and Channel 5 were very different. Channel 5 has only 6 per cent of the audience while ITV has 24 per cent. Furthermore, Channel 5 has coverage of 80 per cent against coverage by Channel 3 of 100 per cent. Those figures are variable. If Channel 5 were being run by someone with considerable media interests and who chose to promote, the odds are that the figures could be remedied very quickly, at which point the distinction drawn by the Government would he meaningless.
On "must carry/must offer", the Government put clauses into the Bill and then took them out. It should be possible for Ofcom to fix a tariff which would be binding on everyone. BSkyB says that that would not give sufficient flexibility. I would reply to that in the manner of Harold Wilson: one man's discount is another man's premium. There is an interest in us all knowing where we are.
I hope also that Ofcom will regard itself as having a duty of care to ensure that we do not flood the market with more services than it can support, thus reducing quality overall. In the area of broadband the body will have to be proactive if we are to go beyond the two-thirds of the country that even have the possibility of
712
ever accessing it. I live just outside Glasgow, hut I am not getting broadband. I have my name down on BT's waiting list and once the list reaches 200 names, BT might think about providing it. While I fully understand the economic rationale, we can forget the idea that broadband is going to sweep the country. It is not going to reach beyond two-thirds of the population unless someone takes action. In the first instance, that someone should be Ofcom.
I doubt whether any other speaker will touch on my final point. The business of licence renewal, whether it be for ITV or radio, has been parked, as it were, by putting it so far in the distance that none of us is exercised about it. That is a daft way to do things. The termination of a contract is a recipe for drying up investment and nothing happening. I should like to see a return to what we had in local radio at its inception: that is, rolling contracts. If you are doing badly, you are given a yellow card. If you have not smartened up within a year, you are off the park. That safeguards the public interest, is fairer to contractors and, I suggest, is the way ahead.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Gordon, all the more so because I agree with much that he said, although perhaps not all. Perhaps I may first declare an interest. I am chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission and for a time two or three years ago I was deputy chair of the Independent Television Commission.
The Bill is probably one of the largest pieces of legislation in British parliamentary history. It is enormous and it has received a great deal of pre-legislative scrutiny, very ably conducted by the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Puttnam. Despite that, I understand that we are not going to consider the Bill in Grand Committee; it is to be taken on the Floor of the House. To be frank, I think that is absurd. We can spend more time on it in Grand Committee and go into great detail. We would be able to vote to our hearts' content on Report and at Third Reading. Why in heaven's name are we going to try to debate it in Committee on the Floor of the House? Anyone who has served on a Grand Committee knows that we can better put the arguments and discuss any points raised in more detail. Often we receive a more sympathetic response from the Minister. Except for reasons of a wider political scheme on the part of the Opposition, I cannot understand why the Bill will not be taken in Grand Committee.
Let me give Ofcom a warm welcome. I think that it is a good thing that we have Ofcom, that we shall have one regulator rather than a multiplicity of regulators which could occasionally overlap and come to differing conclusions. That is not helpful to the cause of broadcasters. I welcome too the fact that the Ofcom board is small. I resist the arguments that it should be representative of all the nations and regions of the country, which would then require 12 to 15 non-executive directors. That is not a good idea. It is right that Ofcom should be small, lean and hungry. I believe that the biggest threat to the effective working of

713
Ofcom would be that, given its size, it might become a little bureaucratic. I know that my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Currie, is well aware of that. I am delighted that he has been appointed as the chair of Ofcom; it augurs well for the body. Under his chairmanship it will go from strength to strength. However, there is a danger that it could become overly bureaucratic and so it is important, when seeking to move amendments, that we test them to see whether they could make the organisation more or less bureaucratic.
I turn now to an issue that has not been raised so far; that is, cultural diversity. The Bill currently sets out that Ofcom has a general duty to have regard to,
"the different interests of persons in the different parts of the United Kingdom and of those living in rural and urban areas".
That is fine as far as it goes, but I should like to see the duty extended to include people of different ethnic origins and communities. We could debate the details of the proposal in Committee, but it would be a worthwhile improvement to the Bill if such an amendment could be introduced.
On the question of media literacy, I welcome the fact that under Clause 10 Ofcom will have a duty to promote media literacy. That is extremely sensible. We live in an increasingly electronic age. Electronic media have changed out of all recognition from what they were only 10 or 15 years ago. It is important therefore for Ofcom to be responsible for educating and informing people—individuals in the community—so that they know how to work their way through the multiplicity of electronic media and how to exercise effective and informed choices. That is all part of the democracy argument referred to a few moments ago by my noble friend Lord Gordon.
The content board will be an excellent feature of Ofcom. I hope that it will take to itself the best experience and practice of the Radio Authority, the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Commission. However, I was a little puzzled that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester thought that the Bill ought to take a tougher approach to standards on television and radio. I dealt with this for some years while chairing the BSC. It is not an easy area and I would not want to see us become so restrictive that we begin to nanny the entire British population. Equally, I would not want to see us move the other way to a society where "anything goes" on television. The balance is just about right and I look forward to debating with the right reverend Prelate his views when we discuss the point in Committee.
I was a little concerned by the remarks of the right reverend Prelate about religious broadcasting, not so much as regards what is now in the Bill, but as regards his wish to see it widened. I am not clear what constraints the right reverend Prelate would apply to stop all different kinds of religious broadcasting. He will understand what I mean by that. I do not refer to the mainstream religions, but other, smaller religions. How would he stop them from owning radio stations and perhaps using those stations to propagate a particular aspect of their beliefs? We have seen that
714
happen in the United States and I would not be happy to see it in this country. One needs certain constraints. When the right reverend Prelate spoke he did not refer to constraints, but I am sure that he will develop the point in Committee.
I turn to the BBC. Like so many Members of this House, I respect the BBC enormously. I have great affection for it and believe that it is a great British institution. However, in turn, the BBC must expect its most fervent supporters to utter words of criticism from time to time. We do so because of the respect and affection in which we hold the corporation, and because we want to ensure that it remains as good as it possibly can be.
I have argued in earlier debates that all tiers of control of the media and Ofcom should cover the BBC—tier 3, as well as the others. I did so for one main reason: I believe that it is better for the independence of the BBC that it should be regulated by Ofcom rather than by the Secretary of State. That said, I am bound to say that the weight of argument appears to be that we should leave that point until charter renewal rather than argue it in relation to this Bill. I accept that point; but it will remain an important argument when we debate charter renewal.
In that context, perhaps I may refer briefly to the role of the BBC governors. I am sure that they do an excellent job. I have the highest possible regard for those whom I know personally. However, I wish that they were rather more open and transparent in the actions that they take on behalf of citizens. They are there, in their own terms, to protect the interests of citizens. They are there to protect us—in the same way as Ofcom will protect us in other respects. I believe that they are doing a good job, but why do they not tell us, and put us in the picture? That would not be too difficult, and it would lessen the fervour of the arguments when we debate charter renewal.
I am in some difficulty as regards the National Audit Office. I understand the force of the argument that the NAO should not get mixed up with editorial matters. Of course it should not. On the other hand, I cannot help thinking that an organisation as large as the BBC could benefit from some form of scrutiny such as the NAO could provide. If we can find an amendment which protects the editorial autonomy and independence of the BBC, but allows for the possibility that bureaucracy is creeping in and efficiency is not all that it might be, I should welcome the chance to bring the NAO into the picture.
I strongly agree with the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Gordon on Clause 307. It is extraordinary that, when talking about broadcasting output, we should suddenly look at the internal workings of a broadcaster. To subject what may be very small radio stations to that type of scrutiny—for example, asking where the staff live, where they come from, and so on—seems to me to exercise not a light regulatory touch but a very heavy one. I hope that the Government will reconsider that provision.
I want to make two further brief points. Under the Good Friday agreement signed up to by the Government, quite a lot was said about the British

715
Government's responsibilities in Northern Ireland as regards Gaelic language broadcasting—both in terms of funding such programmes and in terms of the coverage of TG4 in Northern Ireland. Some commitments have been made on this. Perhaps the Government will be able to elaborate on those.
In conclusion, we all believe in public service broadcasting. We believe that it is something positive which has made broadcasting in Britain better than that in many other countries; it has set standards which other countries have not been able to emulate through their different systems. I fully accept that there is a difficult trade-off, which Ofcom will have to referee, as between public service broadcasting and allowing market forces to enable individual broadcasters in the commercial sector to develop their potential to the full. I look forward to seeing the way in which Ofcom will rise to that challenge.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Fowler: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, with his experience of these matters. My background is in journalism. I worked for The Times in the 1960s, and in the dozen years from 1990 to last year, I was chairman of two regional newspaper companies. I am also a lifetime member of the National Union of Journalists—although the union did at one stage say that, although it valued my membership, it wished that I would take some notice of its policies!
I shall confine my comments at this stage to the news organisations and how Britain can strengthen its position in this area. I shall approach the subject from the ground upwards rather than from Whitehall downwards.
Emergencies, conflicts and wars bring out the best in British journalism. The war in Iraq is no exception. I pay tribute to Terry Lloyd and to the ITN crew. They were obviously very brave men. It is worth making the additional point that, were it not for the efforts of war reporters, the public could simply be manipulated by the propagandists. Objective and skilled reporting is essential for public understanding of what is happening on the ground and is an indispensable foundation for democratic debate. It also throws a light on what we are discussing today; namely, the source of news for the public.
I remember reporting on the Middle East war in 1967. It was not always easy to discover what was happening, particularly if you were reporting from the side which was obviously going down to defeat. One image that stays in my mind from the time I was in Beirut is of an American correspondent, out in the open, a transistor to his ear, listening to the BBC World Service. Coming forward to 2003, a Times reporter waiting with the US Marines to go over the border commented:
"Still wearing flak jackets, helmets and gas-mask holsters, we listened to the BBC World Service and waited for the war to begin".
It makes one point about our discussion. We in this country are capable—a point made on the regional side of the debate—of providing a service which is
716
recognised as authoritative, objective and, above all, professional. In the true sense of the word, it is world-class.
The media world has changed radically in the past 30 years. Methods of communication have been transformed. The old cable office is something of a distant memory and powerful news companies such as Sky and CNN have emerged. Nevertheless, both in radio or television, the BBC remains a major force which, if we have the slightest sense, we shall want to preserve and develop. It provides news in depth, and it provides balanced news. By any measure, it is among world leaders. Its reporters—I stress that I am talking about its reporters—are among the best in the world.
Yet, for some reason, there is an antipathy to the BBC which turns confirmed deregulators into strong interventionists when it comes to looking at the affairs of the corporation. So far as concerns this Bill, I shall not support measures that weaken the BBC.
Nor do I think it enough to say that the Bill is deregulatory, and assume that that simply finishes all argument. For one thing, as with newspapers, it is anything but clear that it does sweep away regulations. For another, it would appear that one undoubted act of deregulation is likely to leave the rest of the world looking on in wonder at this magnificent act of generosity on our part which it has not the slightest inclination to reciprocate.
We should do much better to look at the Bill and ask what is in the best interests of UK plc, and to do so in an objective and non-political way. I say that because, whenever politics and issues of media control come together, independent judges should look exceptionally hard at the position. Currying favour with powerful media owners is not exactly unknown in our political system. I make that point quite irrespective of political party. The role of this House must be to look behind some of these proposals, particularly because—and I deplore the fact—so much of the Bill has been left without scrutiny in another place.
At this stage, I have four areas of concern. The first is the ownership of ITN. I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in a spirited speech. ITN was at one stage a worthy rival to the BBC. It is, frankly, no fault of the journalists that their position has weakened in the past few years. To move the news about as it has been defies all common sense.
There is no guaranteed solution, but time has moved on, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said. The most hopeful way forward would be for ITV to take ownership; there should be one ITV company, made up of Carlton and Granada together, with one news company. That would be in the best British interests.
That brings me to my second point—the ownership of Channel 3. The proposal in the Bill that a United States company should be able to take over here while we are barred there is frankly extraordinary. I am not entirely reassured by the hope expressed by Ministers that, in future, the United States will relent. I cannot believe that these tactics of negotiation were taught at any sensible business school in any country, nor that

717
any American company that might benefit would contemplate these tactics for one moment. I give notice that I shall certainly not support that provision.
Thirdly, like others I have doubts about the policy proposed for Channel 5. It is certainly deregulatory—one cannot complain on that score—but it is a form of deregulation that benefits only one company. As the other independent television companies point out, News Corp could take full control of Channel 5, with the effect that it is the single owner of the largest newspaper group in the UK, the UK's dominant digital platform, our most-watched 24-hour news channel and our lightest regulated national commercial terrestrial channel. I would need some persuasion that that was in the interests of the United Kingdom.
Fourthly, I am not convinced that the Bill has done anything to improve the position of newspapers—especially the position of regional and local newspapers. That point was touched on by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. The Newspaper Society believes that the Bill will give the Secretary of State discretion to refer a substantial majority of newspaper acquisitions to the Competition Commission, however small. Note—however small.
There is a 220-page report from the Competition Commission from May 2002. It is not an examination of the transfer of one national group taking over another but the transfer of eight free newspapers, distributed under titles ranging from the Northampton Herald and Post to the Derby Trader. The one point not in contest was that the most that could be said financially was that they broke even. Indeed, by the time of the reference, they were clearly in loss. Nevertheless, after an elaborate investigation, the Competition Commission found against and the merger was scotched. I am doubtful whether that was in the interests of the regional press.
The regional press should be taken seriously, and should not be underestimated. Like regional radio, it remains trusted by the public and financially sound when able to make its own decisions.
I unreservedly applaud one procedure used to examine the Bill—the pre-legislative scrutiny—and I congratulate the chairman and all members of the committee. Some of the issues have been teased out precisely because of that examination. However, it has often seemed to me that what is needed with much legislation is not only pre-legislative scrutiny but post-legislative scrutiny, to see how the Government's plans have worked out in practice. In my experience, it is the lack of objective checks after the legislation has been passed that too often runs us into trouble. I suspect that such a process would benefit this legislation, whether by a special committee or a permanent Select Committee, as advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.
I would like to be enthused by the Bill, and I support some aspects of it with no difficulty. However, on several important points, I am decidedly sceptical about it.
6.54 p.m.
Baroness Michie of Gallanach: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate on the long-awaited Communications Bill, because it gives me a chance to reflect once again on the future of Gaelic broadcasting in this age of modern technology, with particular reference to Clauses 205 to 207.
The survival of the Gaelic language in Scotland and the needs of those who speak it in its heartland and in the many communities to which the Gaelic diaspora has contributed is very important. Against a background of global attrition of world languages, the endurance of Gaelic is remarkable. Its continued use as a daily medium of communication is even more significant when we consider that its most direct competition is English, the world's fastest-expanding and most dominant language, which is hugely supported by government policy and institutions.
Under the pressures of anglicised education, social and economic changes and political ill will, the use of the Gaelic language in Scotland has declined over the centuries. Yet it lives, and with the will of the community and the nascent political support of the past 15 years, new initiatives have emerged in education, the arts and broadcasting, which give hope for the future.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who when a Minister at the Scottish Office had the courage to see to it that the television fund set up in 1991 was given £9.5 million a year. I also commend the Government, who in July 2001 ratified the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
I hope that the Bill opens the way for a dedicated digital Gaelic television channel. Scotland has no equivalent to the Welsh S4C, which has played such a significant part in helping to develop an interest in Wales and increasing the numbers speaking Welsh. Many of your Lordships have said that we must celebrate diversity. Although Gaelic television programmes are few in number and often shown in the middle of the night—insomniacs welcome them—they are successful, with average audiences of more than 300,000. One such programme is "Eorpa", which examines current affairs in Europe in a distinctive way. The audience figures for that programme can be as high as 86,000, compared with the figures of 71,000 for "Newsnight UK" and only 35,000 for "Newsnight Scotland". Those figures show that Gaelic television programmes are of interest to many who are not native Gaelic speakers.
The Bill establishes the Gaelic media service. I hope that we will hear from the Minister, if not tonight then at Committee stage, that it opens the way for a dedicated Gaelic digital channel. I hope, too, that there is provision for the transmission of programmes available to people in Scotland and elsewhere. For example, thousands of Gaelic speakers live in London, and there is a long established and active Gaelic society. Three per cent of the population of Corby are Gaelic speaking. Asda has even put up Gaelic signs in the supermarket in Corby, or so I am told.

719
Will the Minister also confirm that the new service will be able to distribute programmes via the Internet, which would be of huge interest to Gaelic speakers throughout the world, to say nothing of the potential for the economy—especially the tourist industry in Scotland?
I return briefly to the matter of resources, which is always a thorny issue. It is not addressed in the Bill, and I believe that that is a grave omission. A successful service must have continuity and guaranteed levels of funding which should be index-linked. In its 10 years of existence, the grant has already decreased by just under £4 million. From an initial target output of 200 hours of television per year, the fund can now deliver only about 160 hours per year. There is no point in saying that funding is a matter for the Scottish Parliament, because this is UK legislation. This is a UK Bill. The United Kingdom reserved broadcasting to the United Kingdom Parliament and should therefore take responsibility.
I should like to touch on other matters such as the membership of the Gaelic media service, but time does not allow. I conclude by saying that although the recent census showed a further decrease in the number of Gaelic speakers, the decline has slowed. With the many new initiatives and the interest in the language, we believe that there is hope for the future of this precious asset. Gaelic television broadcasting must play its part.
7.1 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it is a fascinating paradox of the Bill that it deals with the fastest moving, most rapidly evolving part of economy and yet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, has just said, it has been a very long time in gestation. I agree with my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane that that time has been very well spent, particularly in the pre-legislative scrutiny so ably led by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, which has been widely referred to by speakers today. I think that the point brought out by that scrutiny is that various points have been taken, dealt with and appropriately referred to and amended by the Government. However, I think that we have to return to some of the other issues that have probably either been put aside by another place or inappropriately dealt with.
I have two special interests to declare. I am a non-executive director of British Telecom and a non-executive director of the Independent News and Media Group. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, in being a member of the NUJ.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, my most serious policy concerns lie in Part 3 and Part 5 of the Bill, particularly as they affect media ownership. However, before I speak about the media, I should like to touch on the immense importance of the telecoms industry, which is the subject of the earlier part of the Bill and has perhaps had less attention today. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord McIntosh will, I believe, focus on that industry in his reply from the Front Bench.
720
It has indeed been a long two-and-a-quarter years since the White Paper, and much has changed. As we heard, the so-called dot.com boom has gone bust. At the same time, however, the telecoms industry has faced static or, in some cases, falling demand for some of its other principal products and services. My noble friend Lord Gordon spoke of being unable to access broadband outside Glasgow. I should perhaps tell him that, just today, I was told that there are now 40,000 new connections every week. So broadband must be rapidly moving up even towards him. Some 42 per cent of the population—three times as many as in 1999—are now operating online. That is an enormous difference to the way in which people organise their lives. It also brings with it, as noble Lords are well aware, new social problems—the so-called "digital divide".
We cannot underestimate the fact that the UK's success in the 21st century will depend crucially on the telecoms industry. I do not think that it is inappropriate that the telecoms infrastructure is sometimes called "the central nervous system" of the whole new economy. Telecoms are also crucial to delivering improved public services. We know about e-government, but education and health are also now dependent on innovation in ITC systems. Our knowledge-based prosperity will grow only if we exploit the power of the converging technologies and, of course, ensure that they are appropriately regulated. Until very recently, the regulatory mantra for this sector of the economy was "light touch", but that has now been replaced in the Bill by the concept of "proportionality". I think that we need to wait to see how that concept will develop. It may indeed he one of the candidates for the post-legislative scrutiny that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, suggested.
Fortunately, under its general duties, Ofcom is to have regard,
"to encourage investment and innovation".
That may turn out to be fundamentally important to expanding telecoms, at a time when many companies are suffering from sector-specific capital problems as well as global uncertainties. I think that there are some particular ways in which the Bill could he improved to encourage an environment of positive development in this area. Overall, however, I think that the proposals provide a realistic and balanced approach. If, as is intended, the Bill becomes law next summer, it will come into force at the same time as the new EU directives. I think that those directives, together with the Bill, will provide a very good platform for Ofcom to deal with what I think we will very rapidly be calling—pace my noble friend Lord Gordon—"The Broadband Age".
However, I expect that our debates in this House will be dominated less by the possibilities of broadband than by the current issues of broadcast. The BBC has been the focus of much scrutiny today. Unlike some of my political colleagues as well as members of the Opposition parties, I am content with the balance of the Bill's proposals on the regulation and governance of the corporation. I think that the new obligations to Ofcom sit well with the governors'

721
continuing responsibility for the standards of public service. At this point I must congratulate Gavyn Davies, who, since he became chairman of the BBC, has reinforced the governing body's independence and capacity to meet its core tasks. As we heard, both the internal and the external regulatory arrangements will be reviewed in 2006 when the Royal Charter comes up for renewal. Until then, it seems sensible to allow the regulatory compromise time to develop.
Overall, I am anxious that the BBC should not be diverted from its role as the most successful public broadcaster in the world. Public service broadcasting, both by the BBC and, as we have heard, by ITV, has been rather like the NHS—one of this country's greatest contributions to the quality of people's lives for the past 50-odd years. As parliamentarians, I feel that we have a special role, to try to ensure that those high standards continue and strengthen into this century. That is why I am alarmed by some of the proposals in the Bill about the ownership, and therefore the governance, of commercial companies.
My first concern is the issue of foreign ownership—that is, extending the capacity to hold broadcasting licences beyond the European Economic Area—in other words, letting the Americans into our broadcasting business, as my right honourable friend Tessa Jowell readily acknowledged in the Second Reading debate in another place. As we are aware, the Government have advanced various economic reasons for allowing such American ownership. However, I agree with the words of the Joint Scrutiny Committee when it unanimously responded that each of those arguments "variously lacked force". We will no doubt return to those economic points in detail. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and other noble Lords, I will also want to raise the question of reciprocity.
In addition, however, I am perfectly happy to admit to a cultural prejudice against a huge number of imported American programmes that could be screened here by US channel owners and—this is the economic point—at marginal cost to themselves. The enthusiasts constantly tell us that we will have more "West Wing" and further versions of "Friends". My fear is that the mass of programmes would probably more closely resemble early evening viewing in, let us say, Des Moines or Detroit, and I have certainly experienced both. That would certainly be the best business case for any US owner.
The noble Lord, Lord Birt, whom many of us seem to be quoting this afternoon, put this succinctly in his seminal New Statesman media lecture in 1999 when he said:
"There is a risk to our national culture. We have already seen in this century the emergence of a global culture that is essentially American…The coming globalisation of media … may intensify this trend, undermining the uniqueness of national cultures".
I was therefore surprised that the Government rejected the proposals of the Puttnam committee to defer the issue of foreign ownership at least until Ofcom had established itself and been able to review the general questions of media ownership. If my noble friend
722
Lord Puttnam or any other noble Lord proposes an amendment to give force to the Joint Committee's recommendation, I will support it.
I would also support amendments which could protect Channel 5 from a takeover by major newspaper businesses. Like earlier speakers, I am uncomfortable with the proposals to lift the so-called 20/20 restrictions on cross-media ownership. Again, I think the Joint Committee's recommendation to delay this change was very sensible.
I am attracted to the idea of a new plurality test to be used in connection with all mergers and takeovers across the media. In the same way as Parliament has a duty to try to promote high quality public service broadcasting, we must try to promote diversity of ownership. It may he a cliché, but it is none the less true, that we will maintain a vigorous democracy and vigorous political debate only if citizens receive information and opinion from the widest possible variety of sources.
My final point relates to another concern about the apparently all-powerful newspaper industry. As several speakers have said, the Bill has stimulated a vigorous debate on whether and how Ofcom should have any relationship to the Press Complaints Commission. The opponents of the debate, let alone of any change, have been led by various newspaper proprietors, journalists and editors crying "Censorship" from the rooftops. But recently one or two press voices have been raised expressing different views. In a recent article, Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian, acknowledged that,
"even the most vocal defendants of the PCC will privately admit to reservations about its workings".
Simon Kellner, editor of the Independent, has expressed his reservations publicly. In his evidence last month to the House of Commons Select Committee inquiry on privacy and media intrusion, Kellner said:
"I do not have any problem with some sort of press ombudsman who sits above the PCC, possibly under the umbrella of OFCOM, because there are real problems with the PCC … it should have more teeth, it should be less cosy".
In another place, my honourable friend Clive Soley tabled a new clause, which was not debated, giving Ofcom the function of reviewing the PCC. Mr Soley was advised that this was within the scope of the Bill, and it seems a fruitful area for us to explore. I expect to return to this issue as the Bill progresses.
In conclusion, I emphasise my overall welcome for the direction of the Bill and, in particular, the powers and responsibilities of the new single regulator. The Government are to be congratulated on introducing such all-encompassing and forward-looking legislation in one of the most important areas of 21st century life. My concerns—to borrow again from my noble friend Lord Puttnam—are to make a better Bill the best yet.
7.13 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Jay, whose views on the importance of the telecoms industry for our economy and for our democracy I share.

723
Apart from my interest as the deputy chair of the Independent Television Commission, I welcome this Bill as a private citizen. To many, television, in particular, is culture. It is also, as my noble friend the Minister said, the most widely used and trusted source of news and information. For those reasons, it needs a framework which enables creativity, and it must affect our democratic values. The Bill does pretty much all that; and I also welcome measures to encourage competition, investment and growth.
I propose to focus on a couple of citizens' needs from broadcasting—the reflection on what is going on in our society and accurate knowledge of the real world around us. At a time when we mourn the death in action of the ITN reporter Terry Lloyd, news still needs protecting. Its total audience has been in decline for the past eight years, although those for good individual programmes, like Channel 4 News, have increased. The advent of more and more specialised niche channels tends to marginalise news. The decline is even more marked in the United States. The National Geographic magazine found last year that fewer than 20 per cent of young Americans could locate news-making countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel on a map, although perhaps they could now. Is there not a connection with America's foreign policy here?
Although this turning away from news in the USA is serious, it would be additionally damaging if it happened significantly in this country. The USA has a large internal market, but the UK is a small trading nation. It needs to be at home in the wider world, informed, unprejudiced, open to change and understanding change. This simply cannot be achieved nationwide without radio and, particularly, television news—not because television news is better but because more people watch it.
So, for the present, I welcome the proposed obligation on ITV to ensure that the nominated news provider is properly funded to fulfil its role, continuing the requirement for "a sufficiency of news", independently sourced, in peak time, and keeping—again, for the time being—the proposed restrictions on ownership. Ofcom will be able to keep its eye on this as the broadcasting ecology develops.
What could be done now, as the voluntary sector pressure group Public Voice recommended, is to strengthen ITV's remit to require factual programming as well as entertainment; and, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester also said, to remove exemptions for penalties on grounds of economic conditions for channels which cannot meet public broadcasting standards. For factual programming is another endangered species. Television can contribute uniquely to the understanding of recent history, as in Brook Lapping's programmes over more than two decades from "The Death of Yugoslavia" onwards. But there is a decline, in particular in the coverage of hard issues in the developing world, well mapped in another report, Losing Reality. Noble Lords might remember that before October of last year, Bali was presented as a holiday destination and that the BBC once did a three-part programme on the Congo which omitted any
724
mention of the war and its 3 million dead. I should add that hard issues are not necessarily bad news—VSO's report, Live Aid Legacy, sets out many examples of harmful stereotyping of developing countries as places uniformly of poverty and despair.
So it is welcome that my right honourable friend has accepted the arguments of the Public Voice campaign to include "matters of international significance" and "science" in the remit for public service broadcasting. Ofcom could well report on this with the rest of these aspects of public service broadcasting much more frequently than the five years that the Bill proposes.
By news, we mean impartially delivered information. We need to be sophisticated about impartiality. Shared values can be narrow values, which present events with a particular focus In ITC research carried out by Professor Ian Hargreaves, only 65 per cent of ethnic minority groups thought they were well served for local news, as against 83 per cent of white people; 46 per cent of black people said that much of TV news was not relevant to them. That is an argument for plurality as well as diversity. Both need to be safeguarded in the Bill. Ofcom could also assess how well broadcasters have reached under-served groups. I hope that is not too much on the Christmas tree of the noble Lord, Lord Currie.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, recommended that the Government should respect freedom of religion and belief by lifting some restrictions on religious organisations, which they did. I assume, although the Bill does not say so, that it includes non-religious ethical organisations like the British Humanist Association or the National Secular Society. Balance is wanting here, too. It is a matter of regret that the BBC continues to deny any slot in "Thought for the Day" for the long-standing humanist movement, thus repressing any reflection of the great European traditions of sceptic morality.
A sizeable proportion of people in the UK say that they have no religion—more than some of the faiths. Do they not deserve the occasional programme on topical moral issues which reflects and illuminates their views? In another place, my right honourable friend undertook to look at this. I should be grateful if my noble friend could tell me what her conclusions are.
I have two anxieties, the first of which follows the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the Government should have to set out criteria for those exceptional cases when they may direct broadcasters; that is, eliminate freedom of expression—the sort of thing we associate with war; a massive terrorist attack or other national emergency. At present, in Clause 329, no such context is given. The Government's power is completely untrammelled. It is unattractive in a democracy and we can do better.
My second anxiety concerns the continued criminalisation of BBC TV licence defaulters. Most people who refuse to pay for the purchase of a service are sued by the creditor, not prosecuted as a criminal. The fee takes a progressively larger proportion of the living standards of the poorest viewers since it rises by one-and-a-half times more than inflation, and benefits

725
rise only according to prices. When I used to sit regularly as a magistrate, TV licence defaulters were almost uniformly poor; often so poor that they had to choose whether to have their electricity cut off or to pay their TV licence. Many were lone parents, for whose children TV was almost the only entertainment. We can have different views about what other opportunities parents of such children could provide, but to criminalise their mothers for a civil fault seems to me wrong. There are other ways to obtain the licence payment.
In conclusion, we are a nation which knows the characters of "EastEnders", though not those in politics, and where more watch the weather than the news and more watch "Coronation Street" than either. This Bill provides most of the basic framework for the broadcast media to grow, and grow soundly, in the citizen's and the community's interest.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am the penultimate member of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee to speak today. Before turning to my major points, I want to say first how successfully the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, managed to rally together a diverse committee so that party allegiances were forgotten. Noble Lords need only look at the votes of the committee to see how we abandoned the ideology of our parties.
On the whole, like many other noble Lords, I was pleased with the response of the Government, who accepted many of our recommendations. It may seem uncharitable if I then concentrate on the recommendations that they did not accept; but that is the way of the world. Like other noble Lords, I feel that the Bill could be improved if some attention were given to some of the areas where our recommendations were rejected.
I begin with the content board, a very important element of Ofcom. I must confess to a slight worry. I welcome the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Currie, but I share the worries of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that although we are at an early stage in the making of appointments there is a tendency for the competition element of the body to prevail over the content aspect.
As a former chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, which was later incorporated into the standards commission, I am very concerned that its functions—the old broadcasting standards complaints—with regard to fairness and the infringement of privacy should be protected. These are not the most sexy parts of broadcasting regulation, but they cause enormous distress to individuals. They demand a great deal of time. It is a ombudsman-like role and I must confess to noble Lords that I fought on the committee to have included in this board a ring-fenced, ombudsman-like role—and I lost. I am therefore expressing a view that I lost in the committee, but many of my fellow members accepted what I was saying.
726
I would therefore support additional independence and power being given to the content board. In particular, I will support amendments which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, will table to give the body executive responsibility for the regulation of tiers 1, 2 and 3. I would support one other non-executive member of the main committee being given a place on the content board in addition to the chairman. I am worried about the fact that preliminary investigations seem to show that such an enormous amount of work can be done in about three days a month. On the broadcasting standards and broadcasting complaints bodies we were doing it every week. We must remember that individuals are suffering—and that it is not just a question of the whole business of standards of taste and decency. Therefore, the ombudsman-like role needs protection. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Currie, will cast his mind occasionally from competition to the very important element of content.
I am afraid that I join other noble Lords and part from my Front Bench on the issue of non-European Union ownership. I hope that the Government will take note of our recommendation that before we allow foreign—in other words, American—ownership of television, without reciprocity, Ofcom should examine the issue. My goodness, it was a modest suggestion. We do not ask for an amendment because it is the most modest suggestion one could make—our Lord himself would be pleased with it. But, lo and behold, the Government rejected the recommendation.
It is a modest but important safeguard. I am not plugging the book written by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, but I read it. It is a history of America's relationship with the media in the past 100 years and it shows that in no sense was it ever kind to foreign owners. Certainly, our film industry suffered and lost. If the proposal goes through, I would not he happy to be an independent producer in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government believe in creativity and will take note of our recommendation.
I am afraid that I also have to be difficult—again I part company from my Front Bench—and say that I will support amendments from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, which would restrict ownership of Channel 5 by a major newspaper group. Our committee considered the matter and took evidence on it. Ultimately, it decided that there was no justification for it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and other noble Lords that considerable problems would be caused to the British broadcasting organisations. I find it amazing that people believe that Channel 5 —I reiterate the view of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam—is so bad when there is powerful money behind it. I look at it myself and enjoy it—in fact, I enjoyed a breakfast on its behalf today.
On the BBC, I accept the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I believe that it must be approached in the next two years with sensitivity. I should like to remind noble Lords that the reason we are in this regulatory position—I ask noble Lords to cast their minds back to the late 1970s—is because the Annan commission said that the BBC was so cavalier with regard to complaints that it set up the

727
Broadcasting Complaints Commission. Therefore, any development of relationships between Ofcom and the BBC demands sensitivity on both sides. The noble Lord, Lord Currie, must show sensitivity, but so must the mighty BBC. As it moves more and more into commercial activities, it must show sensitivity to complaints. Its destiny will be created by itself and by Ofcom.
On the business of spectrum charging, I am glad that the Bill also allows Ofcom to consider that. It is a difficult matter. My own belief, for what it is worth, is that some spectrum charging might be beneficial. The Ministry of Defence has given up some of its large hand of the spectrum. If there is money involved, the Treasury might demand that it gives up more. The BBC tends to take a little more of the spectrum than it needs. It is like a vegetable garden where lettuces are planted but not radishes in between. For example, Classic FM has less of the spectrum than some of the BBC channels. It is a matter to which Ofcom ought to be allowed, and be prepared, to give attention. It is not a matter on which I have made up my mind, but it needs to be considered.
As regards financing, I totally agree with noble Lords who say that the body that we are discussing must be adequately financed. When I presided over the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, the Treasury was very mean towards it. We were dealing with the giants of industry who could employ lawyers. If they liked our lawyers, they offered them a higher salary and employed them as well. The body needs to be properly financed. If the Government think that a saving of 25 per cent or whatever will be made through amalgamating various bodies, the powerful media giants will produce 25 lawyers to their one. As I say, those media giants will say to a good lawyer, "Come and work for us. We shall double your salary".
Those are all the points I want to make. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in replying to the debate, might, like the committee, abandon ideology and welcome our proposals. Again I say, patting the members of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission on the back, that we did a decent job. We united—Tories and socialists voted together. That was the first time I had voted with socialists. It might be worth while for the Government to listen to us; otherwise their amendments may be contested. I say that not as a threat, but as a fact.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, for about 15 years I was chairman of an independent local radio company which broadcast to about 2 million people across north Wales and Cheshire. Therefore, I know a little about the problems that the Bill throws up.
First, I turn to Welsh representation on the Ofcom board. Broadcasting plays a vital part in cultural and public life in Wales. The devolved National Assembly is a democratic policy-making forum which both creates and implements public policy in many of the areas where Ofcom will also have responsibilities. So there is a great need for mutual understanding between
728
the two. We feel that the position of the National Assembly is not sufficiently spelt out in the Bill. It is a unique broadcasting environment using both English and Welsh. The reporting of news and of politics is very distinct in both languages. Although we have at the moment representation from Wales on the ITC, the Radio Authority and the Broadcasting Standards Commission, there is none proposed at Ofcom level in the Bill. The appointments that we already have have ensured that the organisations have the ability to deal with linguistic aspects unique to broadcasting in Wales.
S4C has commissioned very successful programmes in Welsh—contemporary drama, children's programmes, animation (the recent Mabinogi feature, and the Gogs, which I once saw in Hong Kong to my great surprise as it is a Welsh animation film). The Gogs come from Y Gogledd in north Wales. We are known as the Gogs to the southerners. Serious documentaries are covered. Recently Ann Clwyd was followed to Iraq in Y Byd ar Bedwar. Y Stryd won an ITC 2003 award for its programme on drug misuse in north Wales.
Ofcom will be a public body for the purposes of the Welsh Language Act 1993 which will require it to produce Welsh language schemes indicating its compliance with the Act. There are also in Wales ongoing problems with broadcasting reception difficulties due to topography. A large proportion of the population receives signals from English transmitters. Indeed, it is very difficult to pursue, for example, an election to the National Assembly when 40 per cent of the viewers or listeners have their aerials turned to English programmes. The signals come from English transmitters and that affects the commercial viability of television in Wales. If it is intended to loosen the ownership of broadcasting, there is a danger that the specific needs of Wales will be brushed aside by commercial companies.
We do not feel that our distinctive interests are adequately protected by the content board proposed in Clause 11 which provides equal representation to all regions of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as they have different problems. The functions of the content board in Clause 12 are woolly and non-specific. Although there may at the moment be a member from Wales on the current Ofcom board, that may not always be so. We believe that there is a need to promote consultation with the National Assembly with a firm guarantee that Ofcom will contain a Welsh member.
I turn to access to services. The Bill does not do enough to secure that all public service channels, including the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and S4C are easy to access. There should be a clear "must carry" obligation on BSkyB to carry public service broadcasts on digital, with Ofcom empowered to regulate a fair price for them. Electronic programme guides are already used by those people with access to digital television to choose which channel they would like to watch. With the growth in channels to 200 and beyond, the regulation of EPGs will be more important in the future than it is today.

729
The Welsh language broadcaster, S4C, is particularly concerned that its place in this new digital universe will be secured and that the Government will ensure that Ofcom has sufficient powers to ensure that S4C remains easily accessible for those viewers, both in Wales and beyond. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that nearly 200,000 people a week watch Welsh language programmes—not just rugby on Friday night—on S4C's digital service in other parts of the United Kingdom.
NTL in Cardiff has relegated S4C to channel 752. NTL neither lists S4C's programmes in its marketing nor does it provide any information on its availability to its customers. Consequently viewers are deprived even of the opportunity to find out what is offered by S4C. We know that many Welsh-speaking families in Cardiff now watch far fewer Welsh programmes than in the past.
S4C remains the only public service television service not to have received any sort of financial recognition from this Government that broadcasting in the new digital age does lead to additional costs. Every single one of our terrestrial public broadcasters has been helped in some way. But S4C's funding formula is determined by statute and, although this legislation makes some changes to allow the Secretary of State to increase S4C's funding to take account of the new digital environment, there is no undertaking as yet in the Bill that that funding will be made available. S4C has done a magnificent job over 20 years of broadcasting. It has had five Oscar nominations and awards from the Royal Television Society. It can compete for audiences and succeed in the future only if the Government provide it with sufficient funding.
It is essential that the cultural diversity which makes the United Kingdom such a very special place is reflected on our screens and through our radios. For us in Wales, our national identity and our particular cultural expressions, whether in the English or Welsh languages, are of great importance. BBC2W is coming on-stream on digital, but more effort needs to be made in having programmes in the English language that deal with Welsh matters.
As my noble friend Lord McNally pointed out, too much of the debate around the Bill has focused on all those issues which may well be of great interest to the powerful, the institutional shareholders, and the great global and international corporations. However, that forgets that we want a broadcasting ecology which can deliver programmes of excellence to people across the UK to provide not only the lazy entertainment, but inspire them and enrich their lives. We feel that there is a great opening for broadcasting in Wales, both on television and radio, and we will do our best to ensure that the Bill provides the framework in which that broadcasting can be carried out.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, there is clearly much to welcome in the Bill. I particularly rejoice that it proposes a further measure of
730
liberalisation in the market by loosening or removing state regulation. We have seen that process already in telecom, as we have heard, and in energy, air travel, financial markets and similar dynamic spheres of economic activity, of which broadcasting and the printed media are leading examples.
I have often regretted that the House is not more backward-looking. Who now cares to remember, and draw lessons from remembering, the world of the 1950s, when what we called "wireless" was jealously monopolised by the dear old BBC? The menu was confined to Home and Light Services, with restricted hours of broadcasting, later supplemented by the Third Programme for high-brows. The BBC defended its monopoly on grounds of limited wavelengths, which was largely bogus even in the days before the introduction of frequency modulation. The only competition was from Radio Luxembourg and sundry pirate radio stations. On television, the peasants were permitted two BBC channels until the 1950s, when Churchill dared to permit a commercial programme, which old Labour instantly pledged to abolish the moment that it came into power.
It is central to my analysis, and to my challenge to much that we hear from the Liberal Democrats, that all the remarkable progress that we have seen in communications in the past couple of decades owes absolutely nothing to politicians or governments of any party, not even the Liberal Democrats. Like all material advance, the progress starts from innovative engineers, scientists and others. Yet their groundwork would be barren until fertilised by entrepreneurs—they are fearsome characters in Liberal Democrat eyes—prepared to invest their capital in the hope of profit, but at the risk of loss.
Of course, governments have a vital role in setting the framework within which the competitive system best operates. The Bill is part of that legal framework, and our chief task is to judge whether the proposed rules are appropriate to one of the most dynamic fields of economic endeavour. In exercising that judgment, our watchwords should not be caution and safety first, but confidence and freedom. Above all, we should avoid the risk of weakening the springs of future enterprise.
On the controversial issue of foreign ownership of broadcasting licences, the Bill removes antiquated restrictions. I gather that the Liberal Democrats wish to reverse that, yet what could be more liberal or democratic than opening a market to the widest possible global competition and talent, without nervous, narrow, tit-for-tat governments trying to exclude other nationalities?
The Bill has gone some way towards liberalisation on newspaper mergers, by removing the need for prior consent of the Secretary of State and the threat of criminal sanctions. But why should the Bill include a role for Ofcom, which has neither the knowledge nor the experience of the industry and, as a statutory regulator, can control the content of licensed media? I caught a whiff of anxiety on that in something that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and my noble friend Lord Currie said earlier.

731
As an economist, I enormously welcome the whole idea of trading in the radio spectrum, long delayed and overdue. I also welcome the power of Ofcom to fine the BBC for unfairness and infringements of privacy. However, I oppose the provision that the BBC governors should have the last word on its commitment to impartiality. Why should the BBC be judge and jury in its own court? On a central issue in British politics—a referendum on the euro, which would dwarf all other issues—the BBC must be checked from continuing as what my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch calls "the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation". He has repeatedly presented what seems incontrovertible, independent and professional evidence of sustained bias from the BBC on the European Union, yet the governors have blithely continued to display a total lack of interest.
In our debates at later stages of the Bill, dare I venture to urge the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and what he said was his serried army of supporters, to ponder how far it is either liberal or democratic to seek to punish pioneers in the competitive TV stakes such as Sky, which has succeeded most conspicuously in widening choice? In responding to the Queen's Speech, a Liberal Democrat spokesman in another place acknowledged:
"Technology is changing fast and Britain must keep up with the game".
However, on Second Reading, the same MP hinted heavily that Mr Rupert Murdoch should be kept out of Channel 5 at all costs, despite its low viewing figures that he might be able to improve.
I find myself wondering, from a Liberal Democrat perspective, whether the aim of broadcasting is to serve customers or exclude entrepreneurs of whom party men frequently disapprove? In much the same spirit, a leading Liberal Democrat said that,
"the Government still relies too much on a rigorous competition regime to deliver the goods. Radio, television and newspapers cannot rely on market forces alone to deliver quality, diversity and choice".
Rigorous competition? Market forces alone? I find myself wondering what would be left of either if the Liberal Democrats had their paternalistic and restrictive way.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, I wish to begin by declaring an interest. I work as a programme maker for Granada Television. I also work as a broadcaster for BBC Radio 4. I have worked in radio and television for more than 40 years, all of it in public service broadcasting. Like many noble Lords, I greatly welcome the broad and complex Bill, and wish it well.
It is to the public service heartland of television that I will address my remarks. My aim is to test the Bill against what in my opinion are the interests of public service broadcasting. I shall put it through that prism which I and millions of others believe has served and continues to serve viewers and listeners in this country so well.
732
Public service broadcasting in our society, after a patrician beginning, has come to stand for a system that guarantees, among other things, that it will deliver at all times a diversity and quality that the market may or may not deliver, often understandably. It is also based, crucially, on the conviction that the public service sector should be big and powerful.
Our broadcasting system is founded on the belief and the positive evidence from practice that an appropriate degree of regulation is necessary for the widest choice to be offered to the public, and for the public to be, unashamedly, offered opportunities for continuing education and enlightenment, original entertainment and comedy. It is also founded on the belief that the public should be properly informed about civic and political matters, domestic and international—a vital part, as my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane said, of the democratic process. It is an ideal uniquely conspicuous for its proven performance and its wide acceptance in our country.
One of the strengths of public service broadcasting has been the competition for public service broadcasting. Over the past 40 years at least and increasingly since the 1980s, the BBC—the licence fee-funded cornerstone—has had to compete with ITV and then Channel 4, which has competed in strict public service terms in money, manpower and commitment. I believe there is no reason why that cannot be maintained. It could be said that the BBC needs ITV and Channel 4 every bit as much as Wellington needed Blucher at Waterloo.
The BBC is the overwhelmingly mighty and key public service champion and it holds the ring. Under its present bold leadership, it holds it well. Greg Dyke was rightly praised in the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Alli. But I would argue that its own public service reach is buttressed by—perhaps even dependent on—the public service commercial broadcasting channels. ITV and Channel 4, whose interests, I believe, have been rather neglected with possibly serious unintended consequences in the Bill. Were the BBC to be left as the sole public service broadcaster, it would, I am convinced, gradually wither into an over-worthy marginal player, overburdened with public responsibility and isolated from the mix of market and regulation which has helped it to thrive.
A key question is whether the BBC should be a full part of Ofcom, to which all good fortune, and to the noble Lord, Lord Currie, all good fortune. The BBC is already included in tiers 1 and 2. It runs its programmes subject to the usual laws of the land; its own form of governance has served it long and, on the whole, well; and there is evidence that recently it has been strengthened. This is a difficult one, especially as the BBC Charter review and renewal will soon be upon us. And it can be argued that Ofcom, in its first years, will have enough to do without attempting to absorb the governance in one swallow of more than 40 per cent of British broadcasting which is already working well.

733
Then there is a concern about the monopoly of taste. Logic says that both the BBC and Ofcom would be mutually stronger were they to merge. But for two or three years I would be like Mr Asquith and would wait and see. Nor am I persuaded that the BBC needs the attentions of the NAO, but it, like much else, must wait for the Committee stage.
The merger between Carlton and Granada is going ahead, subject to the Competition Commission. It is an anomaly at least and extraordinary at most that, of all the major advanced democracies, Britain is the only one not to have produced an international television company, other than the BBC, whose primary purpose is to serve the British licence-fee payers at home—those who support it. Whether or not your Lordships approve of the major European and American companies, the fact is that, outside the BBC, we are far too small to compete. Our historical regional structure has tied us down in this area and held us back. I believe that keeping the BBC as the sole international player puts an unfair and potentially damaging burden on its raison d'être and its resources.
That merger has been referred to the Competition Commission, which is to judge the size of the market. But what market do we mean? Do we mean only the terrestrial television market or the whole media market? Some advertisers have expressed anxiety, of course, and their views deserve to be heard. Yet I believe that advertisers themselves surely need, and will appreciate, one big commercial public-minded company which delivers the unique portfolio of massive audiences and cracking public-service specialist programmes.
So what is the best for the public good here? Is it to continue with relatively small and inevitably fractious players—pawns on any international chessboard—or to give the Carlton-Granada couple the benefit of the doubt and, suitably regulated, as they are so used to being, encourage them to be fast at home and let loose abroad?
I move on to the question of whether ITV should own its own news—again, like every other major broadcaster in the world and, again, I suspect, there is prejudice that ITV is not quite to be trusted. That puts it at an unfair disadvantage. Both ITV and ITN believe that, in retaining rules that guarantee a fragmented ownership structure for ITN, independent news is less likely to be sustained as a proper competitive force to the BBC and, now, Sky. ITV also believes that, were it to own ITN outright, it could combine national and international news more effectively with the wholly owned regional news service, which is very important in this country, providing a full competitive and comprehensive news alternative to the BBC.
One role of public service, regionally anchored commercial television is perhaps to be the third force between what could otherwise be a bare-knuckled contest between BskyB and the BBC. Much of that is highlighted in the ownership rules for Channel 5. My noble friend Lord Puttnam, whom I congratulate on his scrutiny committee, has been eloquent and
734
passionate on the matter and I am in his camp. So it seems are my noble friends Lord McNally and Lady Jay, who also gave powerful speeches.
My fear is the domino effect. By massive and unprecedented cross-promotionߞand why not?—and combined buying and selling—and why not?—a News Corporation take-over of Channel 5 could quickly double or even treble its current 6 per cent share. That could only have severe effects on the public service remit of the BBC, ITV and, most crushingly of all, on Channel 4, which would have nowhere to go. Briefly, I believe that all of them would have to jettison most of their expensive and restrictive public service obligations to keep audiences and just to survive. They cannot be expected to conspire in their own obliteration.
Finally, I turn to the subject of the regions. Noble Lords will have heard often enough that ITV makes more regional programmes than BBC1 and BBC2 combined. At present, and more importantly I believe, more than three-quarters of all television production is in London. Surely that matter must be addressed. One way is for the BBC to allow ITV regional companies to bid for programmes as independents. We hear that the BBC is under-quota. From working for Border Television and Tyne Tees Television, I know how much it means for people at a local level to receive other national channels.
There will be no conflict of interest. I have heard the BBC complain that there are not enough good independents. There are in the regions, and a generous pro-bono BBC would look at this possibility with an open mind. Regional television enriches us all. It provides skilled employment; it fortifies local identity; it keeps talent near its roots; and it can produce work of a flavour found nowhere else.
There is much more to be said on a range of subjects, but that will have to wait for the Committee stage. My basic concern—one which is, I know, shared by many of your Lordships and by many people in this country—is that in our broadcasting the very best be encouraged and that excellence be given space and resources. We should show all that is finest in our culture and make it available on the most democratic medium ever known.
How do we retain the system that produces that? How do we let it breathe and grow and not simply preserve it and make a Miss Havisham of public service, but enrich it further and, above all, pass on what we have had to succeeding generations? The Bill, with some amendments, makes that possible.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Bragg. Whether it is 8 p.m. in this House or 9 a.m. on another media, he invariably has something of great interest and substance to say.
Clause 3 of the Bill says, among other things, that Ofcom must have as one of its objectives the desirability of promoting and facilitating the

735
development and use of effective forms of self-regulation. I mention that because, since last year, the Advertising Association has convened a task force of advertisers, broadcasters and others to devise a scheme of self-regulation to control advertisement content appearing in the broadcast media—television and radio—modelled on the scheme that operates for the non-broadcast media under the aegis of the Advertising Standards Authority.
I declare an interest as chairman of the ASA for the past two years. My predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, brought about a number of significant changes, including the application of Nolan principles to the appointment of the independent non-industry members of the ASA Council, who constitute the majority, and for an independent review of the adjudications made by the ASA Council.
Even before the time of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgersߞunder the chairmanship, I believe, of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth—the vital matter of adequate financial resources was secured, as they have been continuously over the years, by the very successful device of a levy imposed on advertisers and agencies. The task force to which I referred has undertaken to submit to Ofcom a viable properly resourced scheme for broadcast advertising in the next month or so for Ofcom's consideration.
My experience of the Advertising Standards Authority is that effective self-regulation is by no means the same thing as deregulation. It may be a lighter touch, but it is not a soft touch. Advertisers in the non-broadcast field have a healthy respect for the independence and objectivity of the ASA and for the system's ability to secure compliance with its adjudications.
One of the advantages of self-regulation, whether it be in the field of print advertisements or—I dare to suggestߞbroadcast advertisements, is a commitment to the system. Another is flexibility to respond to change in fast-moving media landscapes. The current code of practice has just been revised to cover e-mail, text messaging and the Internet. Imagine having to await primary legislation to keep abreast of developments in the new media, now or in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Currie, the chairman of Ofcom, has thrown down a challenge to the advertising business and commercial broadcasters of all kinds. I believe there is every chance that an effective scheme will be presented for broadcast advertisement content control that is worthy of Ofcom's support and as being very much in the public interest, which is of course what counts.
I now want to say something about cross-media ownership because I am keen that we in the United Kingdom should have the maximum plurality in the media; but I am not too keen on the retention of a priori detailed prohibitions. I accept the Government's view that to allow a major newspaper proprietor to own a major stake in a Channel 3 provider is undesirable.
736
The Minister has pointed out that Channel 3 is currently the only television channel, apart from the BBC, that has a mass audience. She quoted a 24 per cent audience figure. But any fixed limit on who can or who cannot take over that, based—for example as the Government have doneߞon a 20 per cent market share, is bound to be arbitrary. Why not instead trust Ofcom and the Competition Commission to reach what I suppose would be an appropriately adverse conclusion if News International bid for a Channel 3 service?
What the legislation needs—which it does not have in its current state—is a provision for intervention by the Secretary of State, on Ofcom's advice I suggest, referring any takeover proposal to the Competition Commission. It needs public interest criteria set out for the Competition Commission to follow, similar to those contained in the newspaper merger provisions of the Bill—which of course are not new; they have been around for a long time, but in the narrow field of newspapersߞsuch as the value of diversity, plurality and so on.
Given the right statutory criteria the Competition Commission is well capable of looking beyond classic competition concerns of dominance, as it has done over the years with the aid of a number of special people appointed to a newspaper panel when dealing with newspaper mergers.
The Bill is meant to last For some years. The Minister must surely not wish to return in a year or two and propose amendments. Television audiences have a tendency to be not static. Indeed, such broader provisions in the Bill for exceptional public interest references to the Competition Commission would also be of value in the case of any newspaper takeover of Channel 5. Channel 5 may have only 6 per cent—some people say 6½ per cent—audience share now, but what about the future? Even now, as my noble friend Lord Puttnam pointed out earlier today, a newspaper takeover would provide opportunities for cross-promotion that should be looked into critically, not as it is now when the audience share is relatively modest, but how it may change over a relatively short time.
An arbitrary prohibition on a newspaper proprietor owning a Channel 3 service and an equally arbitrary free-for-all in respect of a newspaper proprietor owning Channel 5 are both unattractive.
Noble Lords will gather that I am rather fond of the public interest desiderata listed for the Competition Commission's consideration of newspaper mergers set out in Clause 368 of the Bill. They talk about the,
"accurate presentation of news",
the
"free expression of opinion",
and the plurality of ownership. They are, as I have indicated, not new. They even predate the Fair Trading Act 1973 to an Act of Parliament of 1965—a Labour Government I am happy to point out to Members of your Lordships' House opposite—but they could be given a wider application than just newspapers buying other newspapers. They could be given an application to one kind of media taking over

737
another kind of media. We should put in place machinery and criteria that will satisfy the test of time and prevent the kind of dominance in this country to various platforms and various media that Mr Berlusconi enjoys in Italy, which is such an offence to democracy.
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, first I declare an interest. I am chairman of a radio station called Club Asia, which will cater for the needs of young Asians in the London area. I am also involved in an application for a limited licence in another area.
My remarks will be restricted to radio because that is a subject I know a little about. There is anxiety in our field because we wonder whether, without a dedicated regulator, as much attention will be paid to radio as at present. That is understandable, because radio forms a relatively small part of the whole regulatory field.
Radio has expanded hugely and beyond expectations. It must be looked after and regulated carefully for the future. Radio is the one medium that must cater for local needs. I am talking about independent local radio, in case people think that I am talking about the BBC, which does not have to do anything, because we pay for it. Independent local radio must generate its own funds. If it does not cater for local needs, it cannot generate its own funds and therefore cannot keep the business going.
I have concerns for the future. There are now two or three large companies in the field that own huge numbers of radio stations and also multiplexes, which are, as we have heard, the gateways to other licensees. In that climate, there is deep concern about whether ethnic minority stations will ever be able to flourish or increase in number.
There is no ethnic minority—or minority—station on FM in the London area. There are two or three smaller stations in the Midlands, but none in the London area. When we consider the ethnic minority population of London, that is clearly a big worry. There is no level playing field, but I would further say that there is no playing field at all for minority stations.
On the one side, we have the BBC, which is extending its reach through new stations and channels and, in fact, doing many of the same things that other people outside want to do. In fact, some of the ideas have been taken from other people, but I shall not go into that now. On the other side, the big companies have the clout, money and so on and are anxious to obtain as many licences as they can. That is understandable.
The Radio Authority has told us that access radio should provide ethnic minorities with a means of having something of their own, but access radio is very small-scale although we are not now dealing with so few people. Access radio has a limited ability to cater for any sophisticated matters; it is about community news and issues. We deserve better than that.
738
We are often concerned because small stations have little voice in the Commercial Radio Companies Association. That is not because we are excluded, or told that we are excluded, but because of circumstances. Usually, small stations cannot either afford or find personnel who can spend their time attending the meetings where the issues are discussed.
I shall say a few words about religious broadcasting. It is interesting that so much has been said about it, but there is religious broadcasting at present. There are several stations airing religious broadcasting. There are restrictions on certain religious bodies or officers of those bodies owning radio stations, but there is no restriction on religious content. I should have thought that that met many of the points that have been made in the debate.
Several local analogue, satellite and cable licences have religious broadcasting as their main content. Once the Bill is enacted, there will also be digital sound programme service licences for religious broadcasting. So that anxiety exists without it having been properly considered what is currently possible and whether it is really necessary to extend provision to specific groups that set out to perform a certain kind of religious broadcasting. Then, of course, we enter the problem of having a level playing field. There are lots of religious groups; should they not all have the opportunity to own stations? That is a deep concern.
I see that my noble friend Lady Wilcox is nodding, but we could get into difficulties there, because not every group is perhaps middle of the road, if I may put it as gently as that. We must be a hit careful about what may happen when everyone thinks well of everyone. Some things may not work when certain issues are involved.
My plea is based on the concern that thought must be given to some small radio stations if they are to survive and flourish; otherwise we will have just three, four or perhaps only two big companies. The CRCA does not like to think along those lines, but it is practically the case now.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I commend the work of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, as did others. It has been a remarkably effective and useful prelude to this massive piece of legislation. My noble friend Lord McNally gave a bravura performance and expressed much of what I and most on these Benches would have wished to say. Although I have been a practising solicitor throughout my life, I have had close involvement with the media. For 26 years I had a slot on a BBC Radio 2 programme. I also presented "The London Programme" for London Weekend Television and a series for Anglia Television. For a decade, until last year, I was a trustee of the Scott Trust, which owns a large media group including the Observer and the Guardian. My interest could be said to be semi-informed but very intense.
The first thing that strikes me about this wonderfully complicated Bill, which at 570 pages will be a bonanza for my profession, is that only a handful

739
of people will ever really understand it. I wonder whether yet again both Houses—the other House must have its share of the blame—have come up with a measure so complicated that, to some extent, it will be self-defeating in time, and whether we are placing on Ofcom a wholly unrealistic burden. I hear the arguments about isolating and giving power in one hand, but, as we go through the Bill, we must keep a canny eye on it to see whether it can be simplified. I wholly concur with the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for a downstream impact assessment.
I am strongly in favour of the 20:20 rule in relation to cross-media ownership and Channel 5. It would not be remotely effective to try to achieve public interest protection through powers given to Ofcom that can be used only after such a merger. Our statute book is littered with such powers and discretions, which are often unexercised or exercised capriciously or ineffectively. The threat of a distracting, expensive legal action against the regulator by big media battalions is a real deterrent to effective operation.
Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Bill deals with newspaper mergers. I hope that I have not got the wrong end of the stick, but it seems to amend the Enterprise Act 2002, which has been in force for only less than a year. That Act retained the special provisions on newspaper mergers first introduced by the Fair Trading Act 1973. They were relatively concrete and relatively effective. When Tiny Rowland and Lonrho took over the Observer in 1981, the Secretary of State was able to impose a severe, effective network of provisions. Those provisions controlled Tiny Rowland when, in 1985, he tried to cajole the independent directors into undermining the position of the then editor. When he did not get his way, he withdrew all the advertising that came to the newspaper from his empire. Still that did not achieve the trick. Those provisions will be much weakened by the new measures.
In her opening speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, called the provisions in Clause 368 "advisory" requirements on the part of Ofcom to ensure, -accurate presentation of news", "free expression of opinion" and,
"a plurality of views in newspapers".
I suggest that that is much too insubstantial to be an effective constraint.
The other broad issue underlying my opposition to weakening the newspaper and cross-media ownership rules is the already powerful effect on our national life of the giantism that has grown out of the original ITV concept. Although I agree with everything else that the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said, I must part company with him in that regard. It says it all that we are awaiting a decision on whether or not to allow the amalgamation of the only two survivors of the great ITV experiment. From the "let regional flowers bloom" concept based on independent regional television companies that are regionally staffed, independently directed and have regional studios and production, we are now in thrall to two giants. Of course, they would say that they are not giants and that only by joining can they punch their weight in world markets.
740
I accept that there is a conflict between that aspiration and the regionalism or localism in favour of which the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, spoke so eloquently. Perhaps we cannot have it both ways, but I would have thought that if we can build Airbus in two disparate countries, we can surely combine to achieve some of the great programming that we all want to see. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, called the contrary a risible idea.
It is certain that the centralisation of power that has, in my view and that of my party, so damaged our society in recent decades is no less a commercial than a political phenomenon. Those who want to see the BBC on a so-called level playing field ignore the massively distortive effect of modern commercialism on life in general. Unrivalled as an allocator of goods and services, the market should not be the sole determinant of the shape of British television. I blanched at the prediction made by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, that, in not many years, the sole significant provider of public interest broadcasting would be the BBC.
I suppose that that view is based on what I agree to be the reality; namely, that modern financial markets are morally and culturally indifferent to everything but money return. The very workings of the City are anti-cultural. The efforts of those markets have destroyed regional television. I think of my local TV channel, Anglia, swallowed up a few years ago by Meridian, a vehicle of the noble Lord, Lord Hollick. In spite of assurances given at the time that the level and quality of local productions would be maintained, both have in fact been decimated. Today, Norwich is a shadow of its former self.
The need to salvage and sustain what is left of regional production makes me oppose letting the ITV companies further off the hook by treating them as independents when making programmes for broadcasters outside ITV. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester who criticised the "taken together" judgment allowed to Ofcom in its oversight of the public interest test. I also share the view of Public Voice that it is laughably vague for Ofcom to be able to require Channels 3 and 5 to source merely a "suitable" proportion of programmes outside the M25.
As my noble friend Lady Walmsley said, British Music Rights has effectively drawn attention to the plight of independent music makers. Capital, Chrysalis, Emap and GWR operate a central playlist for their local stations, with an overlap of approximately 90 per cent in the records that they play. That is vastly destructive of the diversity and local talent that is the seed-bed for the stars of tomorrow.
I concur wholeheartedly with what the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill of Bengarve, said. She drew attention to the extraordinarily reductionist goals of this mammoth Bill, set out in Clause 3. We must give a less dispiriting view of what the Bill is all about, and I look forward, with your Lordships, to doing just that.
8.23 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I welcome the Bill, but I welcome it in the same way as I greet my doctor's recommendation to do 100 press-ups twice a day. I am sure that it is good for me, but, as I look at the 403 clauses and 19 schedules, I cannot help, like the noble Lord. Lord Phillips of Sudbury, wishing that there was an easier way.
Of course we must recognise that the creation of a single regulator -there are five now—and, through that, the establishment of an integrated and, I hope, consistent regulatory regime for the communications industry represents the construction of an edifice that, like Rome, cannot be built in a day. But it should be a clear objective that for every hour that your Lordships spend on considering the Bill, many thousands of hours of subsequent regulation will be eliminated. A complex Bill covering a complex and important subject should not lead inexorably to more burdensome regulation. Time invested wisely now in Parliament should give a return of more time for the companies and bodies which Ofcom will regulate to serve their customers and their audiences.
Extraordinary amounts of time have already been given by my noble friend Lord Puttnam and his colleagues on the committee to the benefit of the Bill and, hence, to the benefit of all of us who enjoy the relevant services to be regulated by Ofcom.
Among my interests listed in the register are some which relate to this Bill. In particular, I am a shareholder and a former director of a company providing broadband television and video-on-demand services over BT's ADSL network. I am a director of a company, owned by two major advertising agencies, which provides the principal ratings research for the UK television industry. My only interest in broadcasting itself, however, is in a Russian television network. While I should welcome Ofcom bringing a little rationality to its regulation, I suspect that my noble friend Lord Currie would regard that as being several steppes too far.
I previously suggested to your Lordships that debating broadcasting regulation induces the sensation of being in the recurring world of "Groundhog Day", trying to remember whether this great issue or that was central to the Act of 1996—or was it the 1990 one? In 1996, there was not one single digital television home and now over half the country's homes are multi-channel—most of them digital. How many homes then had PCs, let alone Internet connections, even narrow hand ones?
When we return like clockwork to the issue of broadcasting and communications regulation, the perennial challenge is to think what these worlds will be like at the end of the useful life of the legislation, not just at the beginning. What will be the landscape in, say, 2010 when next this House (however composed) considers new legislation?
Therefore, the underlying approach of Ofcom allowing emerging competition, whenever appropriate, to supplement regulation is absolutely correct, precisely
742
because of the dynamic markets and the vibrant creativity—which my noble friend Lord Alli described so well—that characterises this industry.
Ofcom, mandated through this legislation, will be responsible, on the one hand, for ensuring a ferociously efficient communications infrastructure for consumers and businesses; and, on the other hand, for preserving all that is so good about our public service broadcasting heritage, which other noble Lords have described far better than I can.
Even if the highest ratings are likely to be achieved for the passion and the fury with which the latter issues are debated in the weeks to come, we must not neglect the less glamorous areas of telecommunications. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, the market for mobile telephony is a remarkable story which we should be careful not to harm unnecessarily. More than that, we should learn from the success of that market when we seek to stimulate other and new markets, such as broadband.
The economic regulation which Ofcom will undertake will run alongside that of the OFT, under what I think is the medieval doctrine of concurrence. Reluctantly, I accept that there is no alternative to this duplication if we want to afford any special protection for our media. But, as has always been the case in the past, we must be ready for it to create endless confusion.
Today, the noble Lord, Lord 'McNally, cried that the combination of newspaper and television interests which he feared would follow from the provisions of this Bill would represent, I think he said:
"a concentration unacceptable in any industry-.
Fear no more noble Lords, I suspect that such a level of concentration, even if it was not forbidden under this legislation, would be swiftly despatched by the OFT under the terms of the Competition and Enterprise Acts.
In the short time available, I am not sure that I can bring any new perspectives on the ecology of public service broadcasting. I believe that the BBC and Channel 4, extraordinary and unique organisations that they are, lie at the heart of British television's excellence. Every change that is contemplated should. inter cilia, be considered in the light of its possible impact on those broadcasters.
On the other hand, I am deeply wary of perpetuating an overly prescriptive regulatory regime which attempts to design the garden rather than to foster the ecology. I cannot agree with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, that the ITA, the IBA and the ITC successively presided over a "triumph of regulation". The history of ITV's regulation has been a story of regional promotion and protection, coming at a devastating cost to achieving the full potential of the nation's television and—film—industry.
Ironically, that does not make me sympathetic to the proposed merger of Carlton and Granada which, whatever the final form of the Bill, will be determined, in a classic example of concurrence, by the Competition Commission. ITV has squandered its

743
extraordinary inheritance largely through its own devices, like a wastrel son in a—probably BBC— costume drama, and is owed no special favours.
I believe that the Competition Commission faces an unusually difficult task in assessing the concentration of advertising revenue attributable to the two companies. ITV's share will, I am sure, continue to decline. I have long believed that by the time it has reached a level which may be acceptable under the Competition Act, the penetration of digital may have reached a level where it would be feasible for the two companies to compete nationally on digital networks rather than cosily merge, thereby separately stimulating new programming and production far better than would be the case together.
My noble friend Lord Alli cited trust as the first principle of public service broadcasting—I believe that he was quoting Greg Dyke—and, in the end, the best resolution for the shape of television may come through placing trust in Ofcom to exercise its judgment and powers in a way that strikes the best balance between commercial market forces in its economic regulatory role and the preservation of public service broadcasting values.
Could that create a very litigious environment as the noble Lords. Lord McNally and Lord Phillips, fear? Possibly. But if we do not believe that Ofcom is strong enough for the fight perhaps we should all pack up and go now. In any case, if this leads the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to putting his children to work as communication lawyers, it conjures up the prospect, with a little help from a noble friend, of a distinguished new firm—McNally, Alli and MacBeal.
I shall end by flagging one specific issue for the later stages of the Bill in the area of training. Declaring one extra interest as a former governor of the National Film and Television School. I very much hope that the provisions in the Bill for Ofcom's promotion of training may be fine-tuned to ensure that the broadcasting industry's support for the NFTS will continue to allow its extraordinary work to be safeguarded.
8.33 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I welcome the Bill. Our communications regulation is outdated and in need of reform. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and his Joint Committee on the fine work that they have done on the draft Bill. They have produced an excellent report on an enormous piece of legislation in a very tight timescale.
A year ago I would have had to declare an interest as a director of ITV Digital. Sadly that company is no more, leaving the Government's digital terrestrial ambitions badly dented and the prospect of analogue switch-off now some years away.
Its collapse demonstrated quite clearly the need for a single regulator. Attempting to improve digital terrestrial television coverage in conjunction with a plethora of different regulators, all with competing
744
agendas, proved impossible. Of course there were management failures, but these alone did not put the company out of business.
Broadcasting is not a licence to print money; it is a risky business. ITV Digital cost its shareholders about £1 billion. But BskyB lost around that amount on Open, and even more on its investment in Kirch. Cable companies in this country have lost many billions of shareholders' funds in establishing their networks.
However, I want to look forward and to address six areas of concern raised by the Bill. I shall start with the BBC. The BBC is a wonderful institution which produces fantastic programming both on television and radio. Under the charter and agreement, the BBC should be answerable to Parliament., but there is no adequate mechanism which currently allows that to happen. I have no issue with the licence fee and believe that when the current charter and agreement ends, the licence fee should form the basis of any new agreement. However, I take issue with the lack of parliamentary scrutiny over how the licence fee is spent. We are considering £2.5 billion-worth of public money that is raised via a compulsory, levy.
It is no longer sustainable for such a large sum of money to be beyond public scrutiny. Both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee should carry out value-for-money and financial audits of the BBC. Opponents argue that that could undermine the editorial independence and governance of the BBC. I have to say that I believe those arguments to be very weak. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee will not examine the editorial policy of the BBC, but whether licence fee payers' money is being spent effectively.
The position is similar to that of government departments. Both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee know that they cannot question the merits of any particular policy, but they can investigate whether the money used to implement any policy has been spent effectively. I believe that the BBC' has nothing to lose; in fact it has much to gain. Parliamentary scrutiny would not affect the role of the governors, and to those who say it would, I say this: it is like claiming that shareholders at an AGM inhibit the role of a board.
In 1999 Gavyn Davies's own committee of inquiry recommended that the BBC should be audited by the National Audit Office. The alternative would appear to be more scrutiny by the Government, in particular by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. That would risk political interference in the management of the BBC. I should have thought that scrutiny by an independent auditor and by Parliament, conducted in an open and transparent manner, would be far preferable.
There is also the risk of widening the debate when the BBC's charter comes up for renewal in 2006. The BBC should be independent of government but answerable to Parliament in the same way as other bodies funded by taxation. As a compulsory levy, the licence fee is in fact a tax.

745
My next concern relates to the BBC and Ofcom. As drafted, the Bill limits Ofcom's remit over the BBC to the second and third tiers. The BBC is a large player in the market and a strong competitor to commercial operators. Like the other public service broadcasters, ITV and Channel 4, it should be brought fully within Ofcom's remit. The defence put forward that the backstop should reside with the governors of the BBC is not good enough. We need independent scrutiny and that should be conducted by Ofcom. The BBC has the ability to cross-promote via television, radio and publications like no other broadcaster. Ofcom should also have overall responsibility for approval of any new BBC services and scrutiny of existing digital channels. That is not to downgrade or inhibit the role of the governors. I believe that it would make life easier for them and it would protect the BBC as it faces charter renewal.
I turn next to the issue of media ownership. The proposals from the Government lack consistency. They agree that, subject to competition law, ITV should be one company. I agree with that; ITV needs to consolidate in order to survive, otherwise it will remain a minnow in comparison with its European competitors. Let us take RTL, owner of 35 per cent of Channel 5. It is worth £3.5 billion—double the combined market capitalisation of Carlton and Granada—and a staggering £11 billion less than BskyB is currently worth. Those figures put the values into perspective.
As we have heard, the Bill prevents single ownership of ITN. Every other major television channel in the world is allowed to own its own news supplier, but apparently not ITV. Single ownership of ITN would provide focus, secure future investment and strengthen rather than diminish it.
The cross-media ownership rules in the Bill are arbitrary. For example, they would allow a newspaper proprietor with just under 20 per cent of circulation to own Channels 3 and 5, with a combined audience share of around 40 per cent. But on the other hand, they would restrict a proprietor with just over 20 per cent of newspaper circulation share to Channel 5, which has an audience of only 6 per cent. Can the Minister explain the discrepancy? How can the rules be "proprietor neutral", as the Minister claimed in her opening remarks?
Will the Minister explain why some regulations on media ownership are in the Bill or are governed by Ofcom, but other cross-media ownership issues are left to the competition authorities? What are the principles, the rationale, governing these policies? What is the reason for that split? How did the Government decide which body should govern what?
Rights of appeal are vital if operators in the communications business are to have the confidence to invest—as they guarantee an independent decision on flawed decisions. I have some concerns that the Bill as drafted does not give broadcasters sufficient rights of appeal. It allows telecoms operators to appeal to an independent tribunal against any Ofcom decision
746
made under Part 2 of the Bill, but limits appeals by broadcasters under Part 3 to decisions made for competition purposes only. For example, a mobile phone operator would have a guaranteed right of appeal against an Ofcom decision to regulate the packages it offered or the prices it charged; yet, were similar restrictions to be applied to a broadcaster, that broadcaster would have no right of appeal if Ofcom purported to make the decision on consumer protection grounds.
The Government have introduced a series of amendments to the Bill bolstering the position of the independent production sector. I welcome those. However, it appears that there are still a few gaps.
Two weeks ago, the OFT announced that the BBC had missed its statutory obligation to ensure that at least 25 per cent of its qualifying programmes were made by independents. One way of helping both the BBC and the independent sector would be, as we have heard from many speakers, to allow regional ITV productions to count towards the quota. So, for example, Border Television could bid to make BBC programmes which would count as part of the BBC's independent production quota. That would help the BBC and would have the added benefit of boosting regional production.
I am also concerned about the situation in radio. The independent radio supply market is dominated by the largest commissioner—the BBC. That puts the BBC in a powerful position over independent radio producers. One solution would be to extend the 25 per cent independent production quota provisions to BBC Radio. Another answer could be for Ofcom to be given responsibility for regulating the terms of trade between independent producers and the BBC. That would introduce an element of external scrutiny into the process.
I turn to the "must carry/must offer" rules in the Bill. There seem to be a number of inconsistencies which I should like the Minister to explain. Will the Minister explain why cable operators, which are subject to "must carry" obligations, cannot charge public service broadcasters for carriage on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis? Why do the "must offer" obligations not cover the BBC? As drafted, they apply only to public service channels licensed by Ofcom. Will the Minister explain why?
Finally, will the Minister explain the Government's position regarding regulations covering electronic programme guides (EPGs)—the on-screen TV listings? Current regulations require that public service broadcasters must be given due prominence and the system is regulated jointly by the ITC and Oftel. The current regulatory regime appears to work well. Is there a need for change? The BBC is pressing for change. Could that be connected with its decision to broadcast unencrypted—without making use of Sky's conditional access facilities—on satellite?
Will the Minister confirm that the BBC will be able to broadcast in the clear without regulatory change? If change is needed, how will that affect ITV? A requirement for satellite and cable broadcasters to give

747
due prominence to every permutation of public service broadcasters' regional Output could severely affect ITV.
I apologise to the Minister for asking so many questions, but the Communications Bill is a huge piece of legislation. I do not expect all the answers this evening, but I hope that the Minister will be able to write to me before Committee stage.
We have heard a great diversity of views from all sides of the House. Many issues need to be resolved. I look forward to debating them in more detail in Committee.
8.44 p.m.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico: My Lords, I should declare that I was a governor of the BBC from 1994 to 1999, at which point, in the endearing BBC terminology, I expired. I was also a member of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee that considered the Bill. In that context, I would dearly like to wring your Lordships' hearts with an account of our trials and tribulations, hut it would take time and, anyway, it should really be set to music.
Suffice it to say that we received nearly 300 written pieces of evidence of varying quality and length. That was before we took evidence from some 50 witnesses and participated in several breakfast seminars. At times it seemed like a continuous session, lasting for three and a half months. Through it all, my noble friend Lord Puttnam kept his head, his manners and his good temper and extended such a warm welcome to all contributors that they found the process a pleasure rather than a burden.. He also formed his little group into a stroppy organisation that took no account of party politics.
Those of us who speak at number 34 in a debate have a duty to throw away those parts of their speech that someone else has already given. I have done that, but I cannot bear not to make three quick points.
Given the care and thoroughness with which the committee considered the key provisions of the Bill which relaxed the conditions of cross-media ownership and removed all prohibitions on foreign ownership of our major TV channels, it is the more surprising that the Government took no real account of our views. The idea that the owner of four major newspapers and one major television channel could also own a majority of Channel 5 struck the committee as more than peculiar. I, at least, shall join my noble friend Lord Puttnam in tabling amendments in Committee; indeed, I shall probably go further than him. Perhaps the prohibition should be for ever, rather than allowing Ofcom a crack at it in three years' time.
The Government have continued to insist that only good and new capital can come from allowing any overseas company to own our major television companies. That seems equally daft. Anyone who has ever dealt with or thought properly about major American television companies knows that, like the good businessmen they are, they seek to sell their programmes in as many markets as possible. Being American, they make their programmes in English—
748
that may have escaped people's attention. That means that there is little additional cost in selling the programme that they have already made. It is especially easy if the same company owns the channel on which the programme would be transmitted. In business terms, the turnover drops straight to the bottom line. Anyone who believes that we as audiences will sensitively reject material not specifically made for us in a foreign land cannot have watched much television lately, and certainly not in the daytime.
The committee did not believe that quotas for local production would not be eroded, almost immediately, by the continual legal challenges and salami slicing that powerful companies would deploy in a businesslike pursuit of their best interests. I cannot except the United States in that regard. The realistic protection against all this lies, as it always has, in protecting the ownership of channels.
On the subject of salami slicing, I have listened to a variety of attacks on the BBC, usually prefaced by the profession of unqualified admiration for this jewel in our midst. I believe that the Bill has the balance right Ofcom should regulate tier 1 and 2 services but regulation of content should stay with the governors. As my noble friend Lord Alli observed, one needs to look carefully at where the sniping is coming from. In my experience, a commercial experience is usually involved, at least in loading the rifle. I commend leaving the BBC where it is in terms of regulation.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as chairman of the Cumbrian Newspaper Group, which owns several local newspapers in northern England and some commercial radio stations throughout the United Kingdom. We have several concerns about the contents of the Bill, but it is not for me to argue them this evening.
This Bill's predecessor was the Broadcasting Bill, subsequently the Broadcasting Act 1996. I think that the debate surrounding that legislation may have been dazzled by the shiny newness of digital technology's application to radio and television and the possibilities that it offered. Perhaps we were less focused titan we should have been on the economic and social consequences of the changes that we were discussing. The tentacles of this Bill—with its overall embrace of telecommunications—spread deeper into the economy and society. Its impact on everyone in Britain today will be enormous. Show me someone who does not have a television set, a radio, a mobile phone, access to the internet or a credit card, or who is not in some way affected by all those things, and I will show you someone who will not be affected by it. In reality, it is going to affect all of us, probably in more ways that we do not immediately recognise than in those that we do.
Let us not forget that the sector of the economy which we are discussing is very important. Telecommunications and television broadcasting revenues alone amount to about 5 per cent of GDP. No serious business in Britain is going to be

749
unaffected. The aggregate of the differences between getting it right and getting it wrong are going to be quite significant; indeed, I would say enormous.
We are discussing matters not only domestically to Britain. Particularly in the telecommunications sector—perhaps personified by Sir Chris Gent and Vodafone, with its takeover of Mannesman—UK business has established very valuable holdings abroad. Equally, we are world leaders in certain aspects of television and radio. It is therefore very important that we create a sound domestic framework for these industries here at home which will enable them to flourish and to expand abroad.
During the forthcoming discussion in your Lordships' House we shall hear a lot about quality in our media, and quite rightly so. However, we must not overlook the connection between prosperity and quality. In all areas of life, better quality goods tend to cost a bit more than shoddy wares. If we want good quality television, radio and telecommunications, they are going to have to be underpinned by thriving businesses supplying them.
As for free-to-air services funded by advertising, there has to be enough advertising to generate the necessary money. I think that we sometimes tend to gloss over the fact that, apart from the BBC, all other free-to-air public service television and radio is funded by advertising. So their performance is inevitably directly linked to the advertising market, which in turn is not infinitely elastic.
As I previously explained to the House, I believe in public service broadcasting as a benchmark in the domestic broadcasting scene and as a means of providing a component of quality television and radio. However, no one has to look at or listen to it. Nevertheless they, like the National Gallery and the Victoria and Albert Museum, are there for those who want them. Equally, I think that it is far too easy to assume that public service broadcasting alone is worth while and that everything else is not. There is plenty of top-rate television on satellite and cable, and much of it comes from abroad. I think that we should acknowledge that and do so ungrudgingly.
Equally, there are plenty of good things on public service broadcasting that I do not think much of. But, after all, many of those are not intended for white, 50-year-old men in suits who sit in the House of Lords—which by any analysis is a very niche sector in the market. Indeed, I recall one of my daughters rebuking me for moving to turn off a well-known Australian soap with the words, "It's my news, Dad". As noble Lords may gather, I do not much care for soaps—but I dare say that that was what Jane Austen wrote.
Anyone who travels by train or air has the chance at the terminus bookstall to buy a wide range of books and magazines, on most of which I would not want to spend my time or money. But if others do, why should they not? Surely the same is true of television and radio. Surely we should be relaxed within the framework of the rules regarding
750
defamation, privacy, taste and decency, bias and so on, not least when there is a vein of public service broadcasting available.
In today's world, with its globalising media marketplace, especially in the English-speaking world, I believe that the BBC, the only UK business of a size to be a global force by itself, is right to have moved into the production of commercial services. But of course that poses a series of questions about fair competition, transparency, accountability and regulation. These questions are already widely canvassed, but it does not make them any easier to deal with. Suffice it to say, however, that although I do not think this Bill is the place for dealing with many of them— that is for the charter and agreement renewal in 2006—I am increasingly coming to the view that changes in the constitutional and legal status of the corporation may be appropriate, and that its regulatory and accountability arrangements are becoming anachronistic. In fact, I think such changes might well enable the BBC to be better able to get on with its prime purpose—broadcasting.
As for cross-media ownership rules, I believe it is appropriate to have safeguards above and beyond those afforded by competition policy alone. Equally, those rules should be as unintrusive as possible and address real abuses in a realistic way that is proportionate to the mischief they are intended to combat.
As I have already pointed out, the media and telecommunications sectors are commercial and are always changing, stimulated by the marketplace. This is generally good and delivers for society, although that is not an invariable outcome. In particular, for as long as the proposed merger between Carlton and Granada is subject to a Competition Commission inquiry, I would not want to express a view about where the balance of advantage lies, but such a move clearly has some benefits. Equally, were it to proceed, I cannot see why the merged company cannot have its own news provider if it wants, despite the Minister's rather flimsy attempt earlier to persuade me otherwise.
Just as all politics is local, so is the media. What affects or interests us as individuals is what matters most. Hence the regional component to Channel 3 is important, although increasingly in the contemporary world, the distant is ever-closer, as the coverage of the Iraq war shows so vividly.
Now that the United Kingdom public service broadcasters are finding ways of transmitting all their regional channels by satellite, it is important that they are all accorded appropriate prominence on electronic programme guides. I welcome this extension of regional services. It is depressing enough waking up in a hotel room in Brussels, but then to turn on the television and be told what is happening in Gravesend when you are more interested in Carlisle does not make it any easier.
Moreover, while on the subject of regionality, can the Minister say what plans the Government may have for the roll-out of broadband through the more distant and sparsely populated parts of the United Kingdom, particularly given Commissioner Monti's recent

751
remarks that he accepts that it will be legitimate under state aid policy for public money to be used to assist this process?
There is one aspect of the media and telecommunications industries which often tends to be overlooked—the huge significance of the regulators. The aggregate impact of the myriad decisions they take will have a very material effect on the future well-being of the industries. The noble Lord, Lord Currie, and his colleagues are shouldering onerous burdens and taking on great responsibilities. As parliamentarians, we should recognise their independence from us and exercise our responsibilities as the body to which, ultimately, they must give an account.
One particular area in which Ofcom will be engaged will be in the transposition and implementation of the considerable body of European legislation that affects this part of the single market, since United Kingdom policymakers are quite tightly constrained by decisions taken at EU level in a number of areas which we are discussing this evening. I hasten to add that I am not complaining about that, but I hope that the House will carefully watch these developments as part of its wider scrutiny role. Certainly, as the Minister responsible for much of the negotiation of the last Television without Frontiers directive, I felt I was hardly held to account by Parliament regarding what I was doing on behalf of the country. It is to be reviewed again quite soon, and while I know the noble Baroness has plenty of things to fill her day, I hope that she may be able to keep us up to speed as and when these negotiations are put in hand.
I hope that the Communications Bill, when enacted, will not have a long life on the statute book in its present form, just as the Broadcasting Act 1996 is now being unpicked. No sector of the economy is moving faster than telecommunications, the media and broadcasting and legislation must guide its evolution, not kill it off.
This Bill proposes some good things, but it could do more. I hope that the noble Baroness may be able to find it in her power to enhance its benefits and to mitigate its shortcomings during its passage through the House.
9 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Cohen, I recognise that at this time of night the only chance of a hearing is to be brief. But I cannot resist making one short preliminary remark. It is 31 years this year since I first worked in these Houses of Parliament. For the bulk of that time I watched with alarm as it seemed to me that Parliament was moving from what Bagehot called the efficient part of the constitution to the dignified part of the constitution, counting for less and less.
With the Joint Committee, so magnificently chaired by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, for the first time I feel a genuine hope that that process has been reversed. Here, through the evidence and the report and the debate, we saw Parliament right at the centre of a
752
national debate on these matters. Whatever the outcome, therefore, this is a great victory for Parliament and we should celebrate it today.
The only substantive issue I want to talk to today also concerns Parliament, in particular the relationship between Parliament and the BBC. As a young student of politics, I was taught that the textbook role of Parliament was the scrutiny of supply; that is, the voting and monitoring of public spending. The Public Accounts Committee is the parliamentary committee charged with this task. It is chaired by a leading member of the Opposition—currently, Edward Leigh. It is serviced by the National Audit Office, itself headed up by an officer of Parliament, the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
It is not—and this is crucial—concerned with policy. It is concerned with whether, given the policy, public money is spent efficiently for the purpose for which it has been granted. But it is not concerned with all public money, for the BBC is outside its remit. That anomaly was rejected by the committee on the future of the BBC licence fee, chaired by my good friend, now chairman of the BBC, Gavyn Davies, on which I sat. However, I see that he has now told noble Lords that he was opposed to this particular recommendation in the report which he signed.
It was authoritatively rejected by the committee on the audit of public spending, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. The whole PAC, irrespective of party, has asked that it be lifted. And now we have a Secretary of State who is not the BBC's messenger girl in this matter. Ministers have made it clear that if Parliament decides the restriction should go, go it will.
I understand the BBC's concerns in this matter. However, I believe that some of them are down to misapprehension. The noble Baroness, Lady Hogg—I am sorry she is not in her place—seemed to believe that the National Audit Office would be auditing the BBC's accounts, appointing its auditors and interfering with her audit committee. It has no such intention. Some people seem to believe that it is a Trojan horse for Ofcom. I backed PAC responsibility towards the BBC for precisely the opposite reasons. I fear that Ofcom will take too large a role too soon in this and that unless the public have some guarantee that the BBC is accountable to someone for the public money it spends, it will speed up that process. That is why I oppose it.
Most seriously—and this is a genuine concern—the BBC worries that the NAO will interfere with the editorial content of programmes. I, too, believe that concern to be misplaced. Every noble Lord will agree that there is no part of the BBC whose independence is more important than that of the World Service It is a beacon of impartiality throughout the world, particularly at times such as these. Yet by a quirk— it is funded by a grant in aid from the Foreign Office— the World Service is subject to NAO and PAC scrutiny. Needless to say the BBC fought a rearguard action to the last drop of Chablis to persuade Members of both Houses to get it exempted. Fortunately, they failed.

753
There is no suggestion anywhere, including from the BBC, that this has led to any meddling with its editorial independence. Yesterday I checked with a former distinguished head of the World Service, Sam Younger, who now runs the Electoral Commission. Mr Younger confirms not only that there was no illegitimate interference but also that NAO scrutiny was a spur to the efficiency of the organisation he ran.
But it is a case of belt-and-braces and the BBC needs reassurance. Let us see what we can do. I understand that the NAO is perfectly happy to sit down with the BBC and discuss with it how it would plan to conduct its scrutiny should the rules change. I believe that it will do so—having had some insight into its thinking—in a way that satisfies any legitimate concern that the BBC and its supporters may have.
As the Davies committee found, the BBC licence fee is by far the best way to finance the kind of services that the BBC provides. But it is a particularly onerous tax. It is a poll tax, one that it can take a low paid worker a whole week of labour to earn. Parliament has decided to be generous with the BBC and to increase the fee each year by 1.5 per cent more than inflation. That is why the BBC can achieve so much today. I signed up to that on the Davies committee and I do not resile from it in any way today. I was persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, that every penny was justified. But I do argue with all the force I can muster in your Lordships' House that we can do that and continue to do that only if we can assure the people that that money is being spent efficiently and not frittered away, as in the pre-Birt days I fear much of it was.
I want a BBC that is independent. I believe in an independent BBC as strongly as any Member of this House. But I also want a BBC which is accountable, and accountable above all to this Parliament. By asserting the rights of the PAC subject to the sound assurances that it is prepared to give, this House will, with the Bill, have an opportunity to strike a blow for an efficient Parliament as well as an efficient BBC.
9.7 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I wish to address issues that are a little more local than those addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. The idea of replacing five separate regulatory boards with one single regulator has a nice tidy administrative feel about it. It will particularly give reassurance that there is not some element of communications that is going to fall outside the net as it exists at present. The element that we shall need to guard against is that with communications being handled by one large body it does not start to lose touch with the grass roots, although I realise that that is not perhaps the view of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
There are three issues I can think of that will be of concern particularly to those who have a stake or an interest in Scotland: national and regional consumer representation; regulations governing the electronic programming guide; and the development of broadband in remote areas. Given the time of night I shall touch on just two of those matters.
754
Noble Lords will be well aware that Scotland has distinct social and cultural characteristics. The higher than average number of households living on low incomes might also be a factor, but I refer more particularly to the numbers and remoteness of some communities. Large swathes of the country are still subject to an effective BT monopoly as far as fixed line telephony is concerned. Scottish research has shown that outside the cabled areas of the central belt over half the customers are unable to name a single competitor to British Telecom. They may even be like me and not really want to know of a competitor while having to rely on BT for the maintenance of overground lines in our rough northern maritime climate. I certainly hope that by having to deal with only one company as a supplier, it may be possible to achieve a speedier remedy to any problems that I face.
We heard a most interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, on the advantages of regional emphasis in communications. Currently the need for regulation to recognise Scotland's special characteristics is allowed for by the statutory Scottish board members on both the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Commission. In addition, there is the Scottish Advisory Committee on Telecommunications. I certainly accept that the Bill as drafted allows for Ofcom to set up an office in Scotland, and for the content board and the consumer panel each to have a member for Scotland appointed by the main Ofcom board.
Of course, I am delighted to see in Clause 205 the transmogrification of the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee into the Gaelic media service, although I would wait for details from those more familiar with its work, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Michie of Gallanach, who spoke earlier, to know whether and where the provision can be improved. On that point, I have to declare an interest as having been signed up as a life member of An Comunn Gaidhealach in the days before I could even walk.
All that will make it extremely difficult for only two Scottish positions to be filled by individuals who can adequately represent all the different stakeholders. Have the Government given consideration to requiring the consumer panel to have a committee for Scotland? It would perhaps be constrained by the remit of the consumer panel itself, but would go some way to replacing the Scottish consumer input currently provided by the Scottish Advisory Committee on Telecommunications.
Now that the multiplicity of channels and what I believe are called platforms are moving into double figures—the noble Lord, Lord Birt, termed the way in which they are doing so as a spectrum of abundance?— we already have experience in this country of regulating the provision of electronic programming guides. My noble friend Lord Inglewood referred to that a few minutes ago.
In speaking to some of the representatives of the BBC, I have been made aware that it no longer has a policy of encrypting its public service programmes

755
when providing them for satellite broadcast. With the money saved from the encryption process, the BBC proposes to make all regional variants of its programmes and news available on satellite. If that becomes the norm for all Scottish broadcasters, it means that enthusiastic Scottish football supporters in London will be given the chance to watch their own regional football coverage on a Saturday evening, as if they were watching one of the Scottish regional channels. That recommends itself to many Scots.
Because the construction of the electronic programme guides is very much subject to the whim and financial interest of the provider, the role of the regulator becomes extremely important. It has to see that the public service element does not become completely buried and that viewers have ready access to the right regional version of the public service channels provided for them. All that means that Ofcom must be given the clear objective of updating and maintaining the regulation of electronic programming guides to protect the public interest.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Bill, with its wide-ranging remit, but I must say frankly to my noble friend on the Front Bench that quite a few amendments will be required before it is satisfactory to some of us.
I propose mainly to deal with the Bill's effect on disabled people, as did the noble Lord, Lord Addington. On a more general issue, I hope that the Bill will be made to work for the benefit of consumers now and in the longer term.
I am anxious to make a specific point. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on the proposed changes to media ownership laws. I hope that the Government will accept his suggestions, which I very strongly support.
I particularly welcome the Bill's proposals to extend subtitling and signing requirements to cable and television services. Their exemption showed a scandalous disregard for disabled people, and is a classic example of the naivety of governments in the face of commercial lobbying which claimed that subtitling was too expensive. That is an absolutely nonsensical claim. Goodness knows why Ministers bought it.
The basic fact about subtitling of television is that, without it, television simply does not exist for people with a serious hearing impairment. For them, it is a silent or mumbling box of moving pictures, devoid of all sense and substance—a teasing reminder of our greatest medium of communication but rendered meaningless by the absence of subtitles. It is a ridiculous situation when subtitles can transform the understanding of television for profoundly deaf people. If subtitles are not available, such people cannot watch television because they cannot understand it.
756
The targets proposed in the Bill for subtitling are reasonable—for example, 90 per cent every week for Channels 3 and 4, and 80 per cent every week for other services. But we should not lose sight of a 100 per cent target, which is the eventual aim.
Many of the 50,000 profoundly deaf people whose first language is British Sign Language do not have the necessary language skills to allow them to follow subtitles. They need on-screen signing, and the targets for that are inadequate and certainly need to be revised in the Bill.
However, if the targets for subtitles are reasonable, the target date of 10 years is laughable and absolutely nonsensical. IT companies, which often aim at target dates of 10 weeks or 10 months, must be laughing at the Government's target of 10 years. By then, of course, we may well have television sets on our watches or even our spectacles! Providing subtitles should be child's play. Whoever put the case for 10-year targets and persuaded the Government to accept them was skilful at pulling the wool over the eyes of Ministers.
That is yet another example of commercial interests pleading poverty, regardless of the fact that, if successful, they would damage the interests of deaf people. I urge the Government to change their minds, and I shall give them an opportunity to do so with amendments in Committee and on Report seeking a five-year absolute maximum within which subtitling should be at 100 per cent.
Another source of concern is the proposal for exemption from the suggested provisions for subtitling. Many factors will be taken into account in considering whether a channel should be exempt, and Ofcom will properly make some exemptions. I presume that it will not readily dish them out like confetti, but there is a danger that it will allow them on flimsy grounds, to the detriment of deaf people. Again, I shall be making suggestions at a later stage of the Bill.
I turn briefly to some issues that affect people who are blind as well as those who are deaf and, indeed, those with other disabilities. Equipment design that includes meeting their needs is very important. Many products connected with television, such as video recorders and subtitle access, are more complex than they need to be and they create major difficulties for disabled people. What we call "add-ons" are costly and expensive, but if we have inclusive design— that is, if such add-ons are prepared at the manufacturing stage—the costs to the manufacturer are minimal and the disabled person gets a better product.
Another issue that affects people with all kinds of disabilities is the issue of an advisory committee with a special remit on disabled and older people. Without that, the problems encountered by such people could easily be overlooked—indeed, they will be—despite the provisions in the Bill, which I regard as inadequate. Such an advisory committee to the consumer panel should be set up to articulate the needs of disabled and older people.
Much of what I said earlier applies to audio description and other problems for sight-impaired people. Audio description provides a commentary to

757
fill in the picture for those who are blind and cannot see it. It is a very valuable exercise and one that is indispensable for blind people. We should have far more of it.
The provisions of the Bill will affect the lives of people with sensory disabilities. With appropriate amendments, which I am sure the Government will look on kindly and sympathetically when we reach the Committee and Report stages, the Bill can be of enormous value to them or it can leave them still excluded from some of the wonders of television. I am optimistic that the Government will help.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I was fortunate enough to have an Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House on 11th March last year, to ask the Government whether the BBC was fulfilling its duty to produce political programmes which were impartial, wide-ranging and fair. I have a feeling that at this late hour your Lordships might appreciate it if I do not repeat again now what I said then, so I shall refrain from so doing, but I should like what I said in that debate at cols. 654 to 656 to be taken into account by the Government in their consideration of the Bill.
That debate took place because the Euro-sceptic movement in this country believes that the BBC is guilty of consistent Euro-phile bias. Because bias, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder, the noble Lords, Lord Harris of High Cross and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and I decided to commission genuinely independent research to find out if those fears were justified. So, through our research unit, Global Britain, we commissioned Minotaur Media Tracking, which is run by Mr David Keighley, a former publicity officer for BBC TV news and current affairs and a former director of corporate affairs at TV-am, to analyse the BBC's political output.
By 11th March last year, we had received six surveys of the BBC's political coverage of the European issue. Those reports showed alarming Euro-phile bias, some of which is detailed in our debate that day.
Since then we have commissioned four further reports, which, alas, continue to show the same picture. The nature of broadcast monitoring is obviously laborious, and the 10 surveys we have so far commissioned run to some 507 pages for the main reports, supported by 674 pages of background analysis and 1,412 transcripts, which run to a further 2,750 pages. The first six reports can be judged for themselves because they are on the www.Globalbritain.org website, together with our contemporary correspondence with the chairman and management of the BBC and with the Secretary of State, going back to Minotaur's first survey of the BBC's coverage of the European Parliament elections in 1999.
We have not put on the website any of the later reports or correspondence since March 11th last year because we have been trying to get the BBC to honour its public service remit by changing its editorial stance, but I fear we may have failed.
758
I am aware that a number of your Lordships may share the BBC's view that the European Union is an obviously benign institution and that our membership of it is so clearly in the national interest that anyone who disagrees must be mad. Now is not the time to debate that question and I hope it will not cloud our consideration of the Bill. What is beyond dispute, and what is relevant to this debate, is that a substantial proportion of the British people do want to leave the European Union, and even if the BBC thinks they are all mad, it has a duty to air that significant strand of public opinion.
For instance, according to opinion polls, some 30 to 40 per cent may want to leave the EU, sometimes more, depending on the question asked. But so far the BBC has refused to represent their view. The BBC does not deny that. In his latest letter to me of 25th February this year, the chairman writes as follows,
"it is accepted that the euro-sceptic point of view that Britain should withdraw from Europe deserves inclusion in the BBC's coverage, but the fact that none of the main political parties has adopted this position will inevitably influence the prominence with which it is covered".
Fair enough, except that it is not a question of the prominence which the BBC accords to this subject; the fact is that the BBC has never permitted or encouraged serious debate about whether we should stay in or leave the European Union. It is also disingenuous, to put it politely, of the BBC to imply that it gives only minimal coverage to positions which are not shared by the main political parties.
For instance, the BBC gives plenty of airtime to those who oppose GM crops and food and to those who favour the legalisation of cannabis and other drugs. It also gave ample airtime to the anti-monarchist view in the run-up to last year's Jubilee. None of these positions has been adopted by the main political parties as far as I am aware. Of course, there are other examples with which I do not have time to trouble your Lordships now.
I gather that the BBC's defence for giving so much time to republicans before and during last year's Jubilee may be that the Jubilee was a major national event and that it was therefore required by its public service remit to reflect all shades of public opinion. Fair enough, one accepts that. But the BBC has, by comparison, almost completely ignored the new EU constitution emerging from Mr Giscard D'Estaing's Convention on the Future of Europe. That has fundamental implications for the future of our democracy and may therefore turn out to be much more important than the Jubilee. So that excuse does not wash either.
Our second complaint, which I made on 11th March last year but which I repeat because the BBC refuses to do anything about it, is that the Minotaur reports are passed by the chairman to the BBC's management, and not to the governors. Yet it is the governors who are responsible for the BBC's duty to be impartial, wide-ranging and fair; to educate and inform. Not surprisingly, on every occasion, the management tells the chairman that the report's conclusions are unfounded and he duly reports the message to us.

759
In an attempt to be helpful, we have therefore twice suggested that the reports should go to an independent arbiter for adjudication. The chairman has twice turned down that suggestion flat, presumably because the BBC fears the result of such independent Validation. That is a pity from our point of view, because independent adjudication would also reveal whether the reports find that the BBC is indeed guilty of Euro-phile bias just because they have been commissioned by such well-known Euro-sceptics as the noble Lords, Lord Harris, Lord Stoddart and myself.
That suggestion was even advanced, I regret to say, by some of your Lordships in our debate on 11th March last year—understandably, perhaps, because he who pays the piper often calls the tune. But it is a bit more worrying when the BBC's only defence to the press against the Minotaur reports is that they were commissioned by arch-Eurosceptics and must therefore be unreliable. That appears to be the case. Anyway, we have offered to put them to the test but have been turned down.
It is also not frightfully helpful when the chairman suggests, as he has on more than one occasion, that we should address our complaints to the BBC's Programme Complaints Unit, or even to the Governors' Programme Complaints Committee, because both those committees deal with complaints about specific programmes or items and are not geared to hearing complaints about consistent editorial bias.
Perhaps partly in answer to that impasse, the chairman last year set up a new Governance and Accountability Department, to support the governors' public service role. A week ago he made a speech about the Bill and BBC independence, which I expect has been circulated to most of your Lordships. It reached me this morning, and contains one error of such fundamental importance that I feel that I should put it before the House. The chairman says:
"The need for the Board of Governors to act as a buffer between the services of the BBC and outside forces in the worlds of politics and business remains as great as ever".
Quite so. He continues:
"We have completely revamped the way in which the Governors set objectives for the organisation, and then hold the executive to account. We have established a new department to give the Governors entirely independent advice and support in these areas, and in ensuring BBC compliance with the law … For the first time, the Governors are now supported by a substantial body of professionals, who work outside the control of the executive".
The fundamental misconception about those statements is that the people who work in the new Governance and Accountability Department are not independent of the BBC. They may show up in a separate box on the BBC's organisation chart, but they have merely been shuffled across from other departments and are still employed by the BBC. They therefore still owe their prospects and careers to Mr Dyke, Mr Damazer and the other top brass, whom they would be most unlikely to offend by, for instance, advising the governors that the Minotaur reports should be taken seriously. It is not surprising that we have seen no sign of that new department bearing fruit in the year since it was introduced.
760
So we made another helpful suggestion: the new department should be employed by separate trustees to guarantee the independence of their advice to the governors. The chairman also turned down that idea, but it may be worth airing it in Committee.
There are other areas on which the BBC stands accused of editorial bias. But those claims are not supported by such a substantial body of research as that which underpins the accusation of institutional Euro-phile bias for a long time. If the BBC cannot cure the problem, it might as well go under Ofcom.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Commercial Radio Companies Association, which represents virtually all commercial radio companies, large, medium and small.
Radio is the Cinderella medium in the great communications debate. Yet radio listening is rising as TV viewing declines. As a consequence, radio employs more people than television does. Commercial radio is a £500 million business providing three national stations and almost 250 local stations. By comparison, the BBC manages only 40 local stations. Commercial radio is a very local medium. Almost half of commercial radio stations serve communities of fewer than 300,000 people, and a fifth serve fewer than 100,000 people. It is the responsibility of Government and the task of the Bill to ensure that that wonderful local medium flourishes. In many ways, that is exactly what the Bill achieves.
The radio industry welcomes the philosophy of regulation embodied in the Bill. It welcomes the commitment to light-touch regulation and the fundamental theme of competition-based regulation. The commercial radio industry welcomes and is most grateful for the manner in which the Government have approached the construction of this complex measure, both through the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and the extensive opportunities for consultation offered by Ministers and civil servants.
An important outcome of the consultation process was the Government's acceptance of the radio industry's concerns about restrictions on the ownership and scale of local radio. The Government have made clear that Schedule 14 will be used to create a framework for a listener-friendly consolidation of the local radio industry, providing a wider range of programming and on the scale to provide the truly local services that benefit listener and broadcaster alike.
That will come about by means of the Government's proposed two-plus-one rule, which provides that within a listening area of appropriate size there must be at least two different owners of commercial radio stations plus the BBC. I pay tribute to Ministers for the manner in which they were prepared to debate their concerns on the issue with the industry, to work hard to gain a full understanding of the industry's character and needs and to elicit assurances that the consequent deregulation of radio ownership would enhance diversity in local markets.

761
In the light of those achievements, it is all the more disappointing to find that at the last moment the Government have introduced to the Bill an entirely new layer of micro-regulation without any consultation whatever. I refer to Clause 307, on which the noble Lords, Lord Gordon of Strathblane and Lord Dubs, commented. The clause is apparently designed to ensure localness. It is totally redundant.
Has the Minister ever paused to reflect why there are so many local commercial stations? They exist because localness is a successful competitive strategy. Any local station that ceases to be local will soon lose its listeners. No local station needs either the Government or the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to tell it to be local. None the less, the Government already have belt-and-braces powers to ensure localness.
Clause 306 reaffirms and strengthens the regulatory powers contained in the Broadcasting Act 1990. Those powers ensure that, when issuing radio licences, Ofcom will be able to specify the format of local radio stations' activities. As currently practised, format control determines matters such as where programmes are made, how much news is broadcast, the type of music to be played, community information broadcasts and so on. Clause 306 ensures that those controls will remain in place in the future. The radio industry supports format control and supports the development of a clear localness code.
Given the competitive imperative for localness and given the fact that all the necessary powers for defining localness already exist in Clause 306, will the Minister tell the House what Clause 307 is for? Precisely what powers does it add to the Bill that are not already there in Clause 306? More generally, what will Clause 307 require local radio stations to do that they are not doing now? Can the Minister, in his winding-up speech, give the House a couple of examples of how the content of local programming will be changed by Clause 307?
Although Clause 307 is redundant, it embodies a worrying indication of the approach that the Government intend Ofcom to take to the regulation of localness. One might expect that a localness strategy would be concerned with the range and content of programmes that are available to listeners—not a bit of it. Clause 307 expresses no concern about the quality and content of programmes. It is concerned entirely with inputs.
We must examine the content of that peculiarly intrusive piece of micro-management. Subsection (1)(a) refers to the need for "local material". That seems reasonable enough, until we consider what it might mean. We might consider the case of a station broadcasting modern music. What does "local material" mean? Can my noble friend Lady Blackstone of Stoke Newington tell the House what, in Stoke Newington, is distinctive local modern music? Can my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey comment on the local musical heritage of Haringey?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Kurdish.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, what is a local music station to do, if there is no distinctive local music? What is the local station to do, if the local music is so had that to broadcast it would result in everyone switching off?
That is not all. As we read on, we see that the micro-management becomes even more bizarre. Subsection (3)(b) includes in the definition of localness,
"the extent to which … local advertisements are included in the services".
By "local advertisements" are meant advertisements for,
"goods or services manufactured or supplied by a person whose business is carried on from premises in the area or locality",
or,
"goods or services which are supplied primarily to persons living or working in that area or locality".
Does the clause apply, for instance, to the local branch of Sainsbury's or the local garage, run by BP? In both cases, they supply goods,
"primarily to persons living … in that area".
Is the firm in Buckinghamshire that produces vellum primarily for use by this Parliament a firm that is local to Buckinghamshire or Westminster, or both? Will Ofcom have an army of advertisement wardens, armed with detailed Ordnance Survey maps, checking up on whether advertisers are truly local or are a few feet across Ofcom's imaginary boundary?
Clause 307 goes on to say that there must be local premises and local training programmes. It even specifies where local employees must live. They cannot live a few feet across the boundary; they must move house to get a job. It is all about inputs, and there is nothing about the quality of local programmes. Why? It is the programmes that matter. The Government should not tell companies how to run their business. They should aim to meet the needs of the local listener, not to create a lazy, box-ticking regulator.
Clause 307 represents a serious regression in government thinking away from the bold philosophy of light-touch, competition-led regulation that distinguishes the Bill. Such a clause could have been introduced only under cover of darkness, without any consultation. I am sure, now that it has seen the light of day, that it will be dropped, which will enhance the coherence and good sense of the Bill.
I would like to draw to your Lordships' attention one other aberration in the Bill. Clause 350 sets out the definition of "control" of the company—an important issue in economic regulation. The key element is paragraph (2) in which a person is assumed to have control if he or she is a participant with a 20 per cent interest in a company,
"unless the contrary is shown".
In other words, the onus of proof is on the shareholder, not on Ofcom. A person is guilty unless he can prove himself innocent.

763
Everyone knows how difficult it is to prove a negative, particularly in advance of even making an investment. The result will be that Ofcom will be flooded with requests for advice and "pre-judgments" and minority investments will be actively discouraged—just the type of investments that were crucial to getting Classic FM off the ground. Someone has clearly made a mistake here, and it needs to be put right.
The radio industry welcomes this Bill and the philosophy that informs its main measures. With the removal of a couple of aberrant clauses that betray the spirit of the Bill, it will provide a firm foundation for a prosperous industry providing a service to the listening public of which we can all be proud.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, first, I express my admiration of the Government's Front Bench team—namely, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—and of my noble friend Lady Buscombe. To transfer from the Licensing Bill to the Communications Bill within one or two weeks is remarkable. The Communications Bill is far more complex, although it has had the advantages of starting in another place and the pre-legislative scrutiny of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. At Third Reading, there was agreement that the Bill had been improved during its passage through the Commons, but several speakers criticised the level of scrutiny—some even described it as grossly inadequate.
As in the Licensing Bill, I support the music creators and will comment on how the transition between the Radio Authority and Ofcom is causing difficulty for new commercial radio stations. I declare my interest as a part-time "music creator"—or is that musician? In the old days of quotas, when some live music was compulsory, I recorded for commercial radio stations, but never made a commercially available record. Recently, I became chairman of Banbury Local Radio—a company applying for a local radio licence at the end of the year.
The radio industry is valued at £500 million and the music industry at £4.6 billion annually. I know that the Musicians Union (MU) is deeply concerned that there is little or no consideration for music creators in this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who, sadly, has just left her place, made that point strongly. I wish that she had been here to speak in similar terms on the need for musicians and the abolition of the "two-in-the-bar" rule a couple of weeks ago. The MU believes that further consolidation in the commercial sector will mean less diversity of music on independent local radio and mainstream airwaves. The Bill gives Ofcom a general duty to promote and protect the local content and character of local radio, but it fails to provide a safeguard for music creativity and diversity.
The expansion of the radio environment should promote cultural diversity. The music creators are concerned that if the access is controlled by too few players, choice and competition are endangered. I
764
regret the remarks of Lowry Mays, chief executive of the Clear Channel in Sunday Business on 2nd March. He stated:
"If anyone said that we were in the radio business, it wouldn't be someone from our company … We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customer's products".
What he did not say is that commercial radio must attract listeners and that local input is essential for local stations.
The music creators fear that the Bill may increase the risk to diversity and say that there should be safeguards for music creativity as regulation evolves. There is a concern that radio operators can walk away from licence obligations relating to music programming when ownership is transferred. Given that the deregulatory nature of this legislation is likely to lead to further consolidation in the radio sector, it would seem sensible to specify the need to assess the impact of such changes upon music provision in the Bill itself.
Unpopular music does not sell well and does not help music radio. The job of the radio industry is to serve its listeners with a relevant and popular product. The fortunes of the UK local commercial radio industry and the UK music industry are closely entwined. Local radio stations reflect local choice of "national" pop music and the success of local bands where they exist. Given that local commercial radio in the UK is likely to come out at the end of this process with rather more content regulation, I am concerned that Ofcom should not be given still more powers to stipulate, for example, who should schedule the music on commercial stations. It was precisely that kind of over-intrusive regulation which statute forced the IBA to apply until the 1990 Act came to the rescue of UK independent radio.
Stations need to remain local in order to distinguish themselves from their better-funded BBC and national competitors, and format regulation that is already required under existing legislation—and will be under Clause 306—ensures that local content is broadcast.
Perhaps I may emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, about the concern of local commercial radio in regard to Clause 307. There was no consultation over this new approach which introduces an extra and unnecessary layer of regulation. Why should Ofcom be able to determine who a radio station employs, where its office is, where its managers work and how it generates its income? I support regulation to ensure that local listeners receive relevant local content, but there has been no indication that the present legislation is deficient in any way. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, made a very strong case for local content earlier.
The new rules proposed in Clause 307 have no relevance to listeners but allow Ofcom to interfere with the running of the business. These rules will stifle innovation rather than safeguard the product that listeners receive. There is no need to regulate the amount of local advertising on local radio and it is inappropriate to regulate how radio stations make

765
their programmes and run their businesses. I will support any amendments that seek to change this at the Committee stage.
The Radio Authority has overseen a commercial radio industry that has grown beyond all recognition. When it took over from the IBA there was no national commercial radio and no regional commercial radio as we know it today. At the same time, local commercial stations were struggling against heavy losses. The industry was taking only 2 per cent of the advertising market. The position has now changed with, I thought, more than 260 stations—the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, says 250 stations—on air, with a 6 per cent share of the advertising market that is continuing to rise. New licences are being granted by the Radio Authority at the rate of one per month and the industry is expected to increase its advertising market share to 7 per cent or 8 per cent.
During recent years the Radio Authority has produced an annual "working list", identifying the areas that will soon be given their own local stations. The most recent list was published on 21st May 2002 and confirmed the intention to advertise new licences at a rate of up to one per month.
Based on this list, groups have formed throughout the UK and have spent considerable sums on research and trial broadcasts. I am aware of prospective stations that have worked towards specific dates for their licences being advertised and awarded, with trial broadcasts and promotions already planned. But the Radio Authority has now decided that the last licence it will advertise will be in April 2003. The remainder of the list will be handed over to Ofcom.
I appreciate that there has to be a point where the Radio Authority has to stop and Ofcom has to take over, but it is important that any delays are kept to a minimum. The Bill is legally too complex for me to suggest specific changes at this time, but I may take advice on whether it will be possible to ensure that the changeover does not slow down the new licence system. Any period of stagnation could limit the growth and expansion of an industry that is one of the success stories of the past 10 years.
9.49 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, having worked for about 20 years as a presenter and producer in documentary television, I welcome the introduction of the Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on his pre-legislative scrutiny. I shall take the advice of my noble friend Lady Cohen and not repeat material which has already been covered in the debate. Your Lordships will be glad to hear that I have scrapped most of my speech. My noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, have covered most of the points that I wish to make so admirably that they do not need repetition. I shall therefore speak briefly.
My media career started in the early 1970s with a "World in Action" programme questioning whether the building of a segregated village in Holland for
766
severely disabled people should be replicated in Britain. At the time I was about to start work at MIND with a politically-minded social worker called Tessa Jowell as my assistant director. How much has changed since then.
One of the most important changes for disabled people is that our full inclusion in all areas of life has become central to government policy. The Bill holds the potential to further or to threaten that full inclusion. In order to take part in this information society that grows faster and more complicated every day, we must all have access to and be able to afford the digital communications technology that is our future. It is a prerequisite for equal citizenship and full inclusion. But there is a widespread fear among disabled and older people that we face increased exclusion.
Digital technology provides a two-edged sword for disabled people. It holds the potential to do things undreamed of by former generations but, as my noble friend Lord Ashley showed so clearly, it can shut us out from even the most basic communications services when our needs are not taken into account. If disabled and elderly people are not to be made the second-class citizens of the information society, I believe that the Bill must lay down watertight regulation to ensure that the broadcasting and telecommunications industries do not exclude disabled people. Ofcom needs to be given powers on the face of the Bill to eliminate that risk of exclusion.
In addition to the amendments forewarned by my noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I should like to add one more. I seek a guarantee of continued access to a text-based teletext service. Teletext is a vital source of education, information and news to thousands of blind and deaf-blind people. It is accessible on analogue through equipment which turns the text into Braille or large print. But digital is based on pictures and no device can read a picture. It is essential that this vital lifeline for deaf-blind people to the world around them is not simply cut away, leaving them at the mercy of the market-place.
This threat to deaf-blind people exemplifies how essential it is that specific duties to ensure the full inclusion of disabled and older people are laid on the face of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Currie, emphasised, Ofcom is a creature of statute. Therefore what the Bill does or does not make explicit really matters if issues such as these are not to be lost along the way. The future inclusion of disabled people in the information society is too important to leave to ad hoc arrangements, the discretion of officials or, most important, the whim of the market.
The Government have done much to meet the needs of disabled and older people in the Bill, but I am afraid that it is not enough. The Bill will set the standard for many years to come. It must ensure that disabled people are fully included if we are to take part in the information society as equal citizens.
9.53 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, at this late hour I do not want to dwell on the broadcasting aspects of the Bill, but to focus on what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to as its "techie" side, and to join other noble Lords in commending the work of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and his joint committee on the pre-legislative scrutiny of this complicated piece of legislation.
At the outset I should declare an interest in my capacity as chairman of the trustees of Citizens Online, a charity committed to universal access to the Internet throughout the United Kingdom. I am also a consultant to a NASDAQ-listed Internet service provider.
As the Minister outlined in her introductory speech, the Bill aims to create in the United Kingdom the most dynamic and competitive communications industry in the world. I naturally applaud the objective, although to be frank I have one or two reservations as to whether it is achievable, and I certainly have reservations about cross-media ownership. While I have always opposed attempts to regulate the Internet and favour self-regulation of the industry, I wholeheartedly support the important role of Ofcom and the role it will play in encouraging competition, thereby promoting the long-term interests of consumers.
My particular interest lies in the promotion of affordable broadband services. Whereas these services were relatively expensive a year ago, the price of high-speed access to the Internet is now falling dramatically.
With that in mind, I had hoped that the Bill would incorporate new measures to support the roll-out of broadband access across the United Kingdom. While 63 per cent of UK households and businesses are able to receive A DSL services, my understanding is that there has been a comparatively low take-up of these services, largely as a result of the historically high cost of broadband. Fortunately, with the advent of WI-FI, broadband access has become far more affordable. Can the Minister provide the statistics relating to the current level of take-up of broadband services, as well as outlining exactly what is being done to ensure that rural communities also have affordable broadband?
Further, will the Minister elaborate on how the Government plan to spend the pledged £1 billion which has been committed to broadband connectivity in the public sector between 2003 and 2006?
I wholeheartedly support the work of the UK Broadband Task Force, created by the Government. With 30 per cent of UK households currently beyond the reach of terrestrial broadband services, satellite broadband could potentially accommodate those areas.
However, concern has been expressed that the proposals in the Bill for spectrum management will not help to encourage the business plans of emerging satellite broadcast companies, and the additional "tax" on satellite spectrum being sought through these measures risks undermining UK broadband initiatives as well as opportunities for the business sector.
768
The new obligation for all "electronic communication companies" to pay for a licence and to comply with its conditions will result in a significant additional cost, particularly to the smaller Internet service providers.
There has been a great deal of commentary on digital television and analogue switch-off. I believe that this evolution—or perhaps I should say technological revolution—needs to run its course in tandem with broadband roll-out.
The rapid expansion of broadband services will inevitably lead to massive changes in the way the Internet is used. We have already seen rapid changes and advances in webcasting.
Finally, I am aware that concerns have been expressed by the British Internet Publishers Alliance (BIPA) regarding the lack of effective regulation of the BBC's activities on the Internet. While accepting that the BBC's Internet services are of high quality, BIPA is concerned that the lack of effective regulation of the BBC's activities on the Internet has distorted and inhibited the market for commercial publishers and has crowded out potential competitors.
It is currently the role of the BBC governors to adjudicate on how the BBC's Internet activities impact on commercial markets, but BIPA feels that this body lacks the impartiality and the specialist commercial skills required. It has been recommended that Ofcom, being the overarching regulator of the converging media sectors, is best equipped to take on the task of providing an informed and impartial overview of all the interests involved in Internet publishing.
I certainly have sympathy with the view that Ofcom will have the expertise and authority to guarantee the free and fair environment in which both the BBC and its commercial competitors will be able to deliver a wide range of choice to the British public.
Will the Minister, in replying, explain how Her Majesty's Government will ensure that Ofcom exercises its competition powers with regard to the BBC, and what role the new regulator will play in ensuring that the BBC's Internet interests do not distort growing media markets?
10 p.m.
Lord Bernstein of Craigweil: My Lords, I should declare an interest. I used to be chairman of Granada Group, which is the parent company of Granada Television. I receive a pension from Granada and still hold shares in the company.
This is a good Bill which has benefited from wide consultation and from the work of the joint scrutiny committee under my noble friend Lord Puttnam. However, I have two matters of concern—the role of the BBC and the issue of cross-media ownership. Both those matters are vital to the success of television in this country.
The BBC will be subject to some regulation by Ofcom, but its governance and public service role will remain with the governors. That is recognition of the fact that it is one of Britain's most important and

769
successful institutions, which is why successive governments have agreed to maintain the licence fee system and, no doubt, why the present Government agreed a licence fee annual increase in excess of inflation. The BBC is doubly privileged. It has been permitted to maintain its method of governance and has been guaranteed a large and growing income, which is the impossible dream of any public institution. Even Lord Reith, who was notoriously difficult to please, must be rejoicing in whatever region of the afterworld is reserved for ex-director generals of the BBC.
With that privilege comes responsibility, however. Does the BBC fulfil those responsibilities as it should? The answer, sadly, is not as much as it used to. I recognise that the corporation's essential problem is that, to justify its licence fee, it must gain high ratings. If it does not, the public can question why they should finance a service that is not attracting an audience. Equally, however, the BBC must maintain a public service ethos. If it does not, why should it be treated any differently from a purely commercial organisation? That is a narrow line to follow, and I have some sympathy for the BBC's dilemma—but not a lot.
What has happened to current affairs on BBC 1? "Panorama" is shown only very late on Sundays and, more importantly, there are only about 25 programmes a year. That does not represent a serious commitment to current affairs. What has happened to arts programming? There have been no regular series of arts programmes on BBC 1 for the past couple of years. I was glad to read that Alan Yentob will be presenting a new arts series, but, even so, it will be a series of only 10 programmes, compared with the 22 programmes of the "South Bank Show" on ITV.
Why is the BBC not honouring the agreement to commission 25 per cent of its programming from independent companies? The BBC has missed that target two years running, while ITV, with all its difficulties, has met the target. Is that a responsible position for a publicly funded service?
What is the BBC's vision? It used to see itself as providing creative leadership, nurturing new talent and as a powerhouse for new writing. Does it still believe in that? Can it show that its role is to be distinctive rather than merely popular? Gavyn Davies, the chairman of the governors, accepts that the governors need to set strategy and regulate output. In his most recent annual report, he states that he does not,
"have any desire simply to replicate services which can be provided equally well by the private sector".
That is obviously right. Unless the BBC can show that it has a unique role, why should it he treated any differently from its commercial competitors, which fall under the full remit of Ofcom?
On balance, I do not believe that the BBC should come under Ofcom, but I am glad that Tessa Jowell has announced a comprehensive review of the BBC and its funding as part of the charter review. If it is to
770
retain its independence, the BBC needs to state its vision, provide transparency into the way it works and show us in its programmes that it means what it says.
I turn to the issue of cross-media ownership, particularly as regards Channel 5. I know that several previous speakers have referred to this issue, and it is getting late, but it is important. I hope that noble Lords will not mind my spending a few minutes on it.
The Bill maintains the current position whereby newspaper companies that have more than 20 per cent of the national market are forbidden from holding more than 20 per cent of any Channel 3 company. It concludes, quite rightly, that it would he wrong for a newspaper group to own what Tessa Jowell calls "a mature universal broadcaster". There is no similar provision for Channel 5, on the basis that it is "a much smaller enterprise". So any major newspaper group could acquire it.
I see no possible justification for that. Why reduce the diversity of media control? Newspapers already have considerable political power which they do not hesitate to use. Why should they be granted more political power and a stronger commercial base? It is true that Channel 5 has less than a 7 per cent share of the market. But that is not set in stone. What would happen if it doubled, even trebled its share? Obviously what would happen is that it would become a mature broadcaster. It seems to me that the Government have got themselves into a completely untenable position. In principle they assert that a newspaper group should not own a mature broadcaster. In practice, they are giving it the means to do so.
It is true, of course, that Ofcom will have the power to impose certain conditions if the Channel 5 audience grows substantially, but that is just tinkering. It will still leave a newspaper group with substantial cross-media control. If the purchaser of Channel 5 were to be News Corp, it will then control the largest newspaper stable in the UK, the country's dominant digital platform and supplier of premium pay TV content and, with Channel 5, the country's lightest regulated national commercial terrestrial channel. That cannot be right.
This is not an attack on Mr Murdoch, who is a courageous and outstandingly successful businessman. If he is able to dominate the media scene. "Then good luck to him", you may say, "Why should be not benefit from his investment and hard work?" But that is not the point. The point is whether it is right for one company—and not one man, for even Mr. Murdoch is not immortal—to have so much power. It cannot make sense for a democracy to permit that. What other country would allow this amount of media control to rest in the hands of one owner?
With News Corp's enormous financial strength and its ability to market its services across the media, it is likely that it could greatly increase the ratings for Channel 5 and therefore its advertising revenue. That could have a disastrous effect on two of the elements which the Government hold most dear. First, they have stated their firm belief in a strong regional broadcasting base. Independent television has a

771
commitment to the regions and in fact produces vastly more regional broadcasting than the BBC. If ITV were to become beleaguered by a cross-media giant, finance for regional broadcasting would certainly become a casualty of a media war, as would some of its other public service obligations.
Secondly, the Government are committed to an independent Channel 4, with its brief for distinctive programming. Pressure on its advertising revenue from Channel 5 would inevitably force Channel 4 to respond by dropping distinctiveness in favour of popularity. Do we want to put regional broadcasting and Channel 4 under threat? I cannot believe that we do.
Finally, I believe that the future success of television in this country rests mainly on two pillars. One is the ability of the BBC to take its leading role in presenting quality popular programming and supporting public service broadcasting. The second is the ability of the independent sector to support the distinctiveness of Channel 4 and the quality of regional broadcasting.
For all its good points, the Communications Bill will be judged severely if it undermines these two pillars and lets the edifice of a vibrant and diverse television industry collapse.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, despite the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, about certain aspects of the BBC, I believe that it is the most important cultural institution in the country. So many speakers have praised public service broadcasting, and it is the BBC which has created such respect for it. Because of its very existence, it has been operating as a benchmark which has set so many of the standards throughout the broadcasting media. Kofi Annan has said that the BBC World Service was Britain's greatest gift to the world in the 20th century. This is the great legacy from 80 years ago which we must cherish and defend against those who see the BBC as a privileged organisation in the fiercely competitive trade of media businesses.
The BBC is at the heart of our broadcasting system and the licence fee is inseparable from its success. In the 1980s, the then government were determined to open up the BBC to their uncompromising glorification of market forces. The description given was that the BBC succeeded only by means of a compulsory levy with criminal sanctions. That is what they called it. That was how the then government described the way in which the BBC occupied its world-wide eminence.
Fortunately, at the BBC at that time were Joel Barnett and Duke Hussey—now my noble friend Lord Barnett and the noble Lord, Lord Hussey of North Bradley. Duke Hussey was the chairman and Joel Barnett was the vice-chairman. In meeting after meeting, they played the role of Scheherezade. The House will recall that Princess Scheherezade was to entertain the sultan and at the end of evening was to lose her life. By rolling the discussion along until the following evening, she saved herself night after night from the execution that was to be her end.
772
In a less glamorous but very effective way, my noble friend Lord Barnett and the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, managed to keep the discussion going until the anticipated weakening of the corporation was lost in the more immediate problems facing that government. While accepting other valuable contributions that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, have made to our national life, I believe that this was their greatest service. Their greatest achievement has been the essential task of saving the BBC as we know it and as we have been fortunate in receiving itߞthe civilising, broadcasting medium which would have been most seriously damaged if the government then had had their way and the events of 20 years ago had worked out differently.
The BBC does not fit into the usual pattern of non-governmental organisations. When the World Service was examined by the Public Accounts Committee in 1987, I was the chairman, and concluded that it should be examined by the National Audit Office—it is financed largely by the Foreign Office—but it also took no action to change the arrangements for the examination of the BBC. Section 6(3)(d) of the National Audit Act 1983 enables the National Audit Office to undertake value-for-money reviews with the agreement of the BBC and the Minister. It already has that power; it is there to be used if it wishes. That would be a safeguard for the future. Sir John Bourn was the NAO's outstanding Comptroller and Auditor-General. We must beware future situations about which we have no knowledge.
I always thought that the power of examination by the Minister and the Comptroller and Auditor-General was sufficient. I would have wished to see that position maintained and used. After all, what has gone wrong? Many other aspects of the press, radio and television could easily be improved. That would be no problem, and attention should rightly be focused there. But the BBC remains one of the outstanding successes in public service. That has been achieved over a period of 80 years, during the many changes that we have witnessed in our national life. In peace, war, prosperity and recession, in all our national successes and failures, it has survived them all with its reputation intact. Survived? I would say triumphed. It has been the outstanding feature of our national life and we should be most careful when we play around with such a body. It has done extraordinary well. We have heard people condemning it, but some of them may not have the most obvious of motives.
I turn to cross-media ownership about which we need to be careful, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, reminded us. Currying political favour with media owners is not unknown in the relationship between politicians and the media. As Chris Mullin said on 3rd December at col. 806 of Commons Hansard, the Bill allows the United States companies to own ITV and other commercial broadcasters; a company with four national newspapers and a TV channel may purchase Channel Five and subvert ITV and Channel 4 in the same way as much of Fleet Street has been subverted.

773
Some of us have long memories and remember when the Sun newspaper was sold off because it had a small circulation. We saw what happened to that. The whole of Fleet Street's standards were reduced and the Sun was the benchmark of all those that tried to compete with it.
One contrast between newspapers and the broadcast media is that many people buy only one newspaper, but with the different television channels and the different radio stations, different viewpoints are set out. Viewers see more than one outlet. Added to that, it is the BBC which over the years has set the standard for impartial sources of ormation. The BBC, after all these years, still sets the benchmark for impartiality, quality and innovation.
I want to deal with one further aspect of the Bill: the removal of the restrictions on religious bodies. I am concerned about this. There are many ways in which the religions of our country can get their messages across. There are also many ways in which the religions can come into conflict with one another. There is the serious risk that television will exacerbate the religious and cultural differences which are now playing a more dangerous part in the life of our country, as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has mentioned. As the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, said, not all religions are middle-of-the-road religions—as she rather delicately put it. I feel that at a sensitive time, this development should not proceed.
In conclusion, the BBC is one of our very greatest national institutions. It is also one of our greatest national successes. Nothing we should do in this Bill should imperil it in any way. This should be our dominant concern.
10.18 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, when I helpfully told the usual channels that I would not mind speaking fairly late on in the debate, I did not expect to be the 46th and last speaker. With that in mind, it is inevitable that many of the points which I would have made had I spoken earlier have been made by others. However, one subject has not been covered by previous speakers and I want to concentrate on that. It is my concern about the provision of sports coverage and the need to match the understandable desire of sports bodies to maximise income with the legitimate expectation of enthusiasts to obtain as much free television and radio coverage of their favourite sports as they can.
Clauses 294 to 297 of the Bill relate to listed sporting events and provide for the continuation of the present arrangements whereby listed events are divided into two groups; group A and group B. The group A events are sometimes described as the Crown jewels and include the Olympic Games, the FA Cup Final, the Grand National and the Wimbledon tennis finals. Three further events were added to that list in 1998. Group B events include cricket Test matches played in England, the Commonwealth Games and the Ryder Cup.
774
It was unfortunate that there was no live TV coverage, or even proper highlights, of the recent cricket World Cup in South Africa on anything other than Sky's subscription only channels. It meant good business for pubs with large screens but a pretty rotten deal for other cricket fans who did not have Sky. Had England progressed beyond the first stage, there would still have been no live coverage on a free-to-air channel as the cricket World Cup is a Group B event, unless the Secretary of State had chosen to move the England matches into group A.
It will be important that the listed events are kept under constant review. The Government must he prepared to resist pressure from sports governing bodies which want to sell their events to the highest bidder rather than make them universally available to broadcasters on a free-to-air basis.
I should make it clear that I am a big fan of the BBC's sports coverage. I think that the quality of its football and rugby commentaries leaves its competitors in the shade. Like millions of football supporters, I mourned the departure of Gary Lineker and Alan Hansen from Saturday night's "Match of the Day", and I even miss John Motson's commentaries.
As a relatively new digital TV customer, I am also impressed with the way the BBC uses new technologies to provide an integrated and improved service in its sports coverage. I mention that in the context of the Bill because it shows what we need to safeguard in regulating our public service broadcasters, and why the regulatory framework must recognise the differences between purely commercial broadcasters, the commercial public service broadcasters and the BBC. Here I disagree totally with my noble friend Lord Bernstein but agree completely with my noble friend Lord Sheldon in the views of the BBC they expressed just a few moments ago.
The Government want to ensure that all broadcasters are subject to common external regulation at its tier 1, covering basic requirements such as standards of taste and decency under Ofcom. At tier 2 all public service television broadcasters—the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5—should be subject to quotas to ensure a proper amount of original UK programming, programmes for audiences in different parts of the UK, and so forth. At tier 3, broadcasters will effectively self-regulate with Ofcom having back-stop powers over the commercial public service broadcasters and the BBC Board of Governors, subject to the Secretary of State, ensuring that the BBC meets the public interest. Have the Government struck the right balance in establishing the three tiers? I believe that they have. There needs to be a common framework over competition policy where all broadcasters are subject to Ofcom. But at the same time the BBC, as Britain's principal public service broadcaster, must continue to have the headroom to innovate, and the income to bid for events which the public wish to watch.
I share the view that others have expressed that the board of governors acts as a buffer between the BBC's programming and the outside pressures of politicians

775
and commercial interests. Like other speakers I am also unpersuaded that anything would be gained by subjecting the BBC to the National Audit Office. That could undermine both the governors' independence and the BBC's ability to innovate and take creative risks. The reasons the BBC should stay subject to its governors rather than to the Public Accounts Committee remain: the BBC works because its independence allows it to develop a strategy and implement it free from changing political priorities and short-term political irritations.
More than a few Members of your Lordships' House who have held high office when Members of another place have complained in their time long, hard and bitterly about the political bias of the BBC. What is remarkable about those allegations is that they come successively—and occasionally simultaneously—from members of all three political parties. Sometimes they arc genuine complaints about things that the BBC could have done better. Sometimes—and I certainly name no names tonight—the charges are brought in an attempt to intimidate or silence the broadcasters.
I hope that the BBC continues to resist the interfering politician and continues to develop its role as a world-class broadcaster, competent, accurate and efficient—yes, all those three—but also objective, fair and authoritative.
My noble friend Lord Sheldon referred to the comments of Kofi Annan about the BBC World Service. Similar comments are made by Nelson Mandela in his autobiography. The role of the BBC World Service is of immense importance, and it is vital that nothing is done to affect the coverage that it provides and the respect in which it is held all over the globe.
If we are to change the relationship between the BBC and its audiences, or between the governors and the Government, we should do so through the charter renewal process, and not in the context of the Bill. The Government have got the balance in the Bill between regulation and innovation about right, and I wish the Bill well.
10.25 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, does well as the 46th speaker to introduce a new topic. Most of the other topics have been covered, but I congratulate him on that.
I cannot follow my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who had a long list of qualifications to speak about broadcasting. I have been interested in the subject ever since I was a small boy when my mother bought a house just after the war in which a Belgian refugee was a tenant. He took kindly to me, and left me a zither and a crystal set. The zither was a bit beyond me and I shelved it very quickly, but I went on to use the crystal set. I regretted that later on due to "The Third Man", a film that many noble Lords will recall,
776
which had a background of zither music. I wished then that I had thrown away the crystal set and taken up the zither.
A noble Lord: Sing it!
Viscount Falkland: No, my Lords, I shall not sing it. The hour is too late. The crystal set soon developed into a one-valve piece of equipment, which I took to a terrible boarding school to which I was sent. I had headphones, and hid in the evening and listened to theatre and other broadcasts. When I was at home, I became a film buff as a result of listening to someone called Peter Noble. Those who are old enough will remember him. He had a programme on films every Sunday, which incidentally is something that we need now. It gave quite lengthy reviews of films and played their soundtracks, a concept that we might revisit. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, nodding at that.
The debate has been very interesting. In winding up, it would be invidious to single out any of the speeches. Usually when I wind up, I have a few remarks written on the Order Paper. On this occasion, it is absolutely black and blue with comments on what noble Lords said in all their excellent speeches.
I absolutely share the views expressed about pre-legislative scrutiny, especially as I have just been through the Licensing Bill, which clearly needed pre-legislative scrutiny. Such scrutiny will probably be a thing of the future. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, who recommended post-legislative scrutiny. That is an excellent idea.
There has been a lot of talk, not only in the Chamber tonight, but particularly by the noble Baroness's right honourable friend in another place, Mrs Jowell, about consumers and citizens and the balance that needs to be created between those two groups. Consumers are citizens and vice versa, of course. It is a curiously bold move of the Government to introduce much of what they have suggested since the White Paper, which includes the enabling of foreign broadcasters to come into our market without any reciprocity. The Government seem confident that they can control the standards that we have long enjoyed in the light of those developments. Many noble Lords have expressed at least their scepticism about that.
We had an excellent speech, one of the most notable of the debate, by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. He chaired the committee that conducted the pre-legislative scrutiny so admirably. I shall try to paraphrase the remark that he made in the middle of his speech and which I considered to be at the absolute core of it. I am sure that many of your Lordships would agree with me about that, but not, I venture to suggest, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. Incidentally, the Liberal Democrats have had a very good evening—we have been mentioned by many speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said that it was absolutely certain that plurality and diversity, which most of us would agree are desirable aims, are not a natural by-product of unregulated market

777
forces, particularly where the cost of entry is so prohibitively high. That struck me as being the key part of his speech.
As noble Lords would expect, another excellent speech was made by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, who has experience in broadcasting. He drew attention to the importance of the independent TV production market, in which he has played an important part. He gave some of the strongest praise to the BBC—our public service broadcaster—of any speaker in your Lordships' House. I was interested to hear him say that much of the denigration of the BBC places it in a position where it cannot possibly win. I agree with that. If the BBC is successful, then everyone starts to squeal and squeak and whinge about it being too successful. I understood him to say that when the BBC is not successful, then we hear the cry that perhaps we should put an end to our public service broadcaster and open up what it does to the rest of the market. I agree with the noble Lord about that.
Many people attack the BBC, for example, for using licence payers' money for film production. I am not particularly interested in film, but I hold the BBC in high regard, as I do Channel 4, for the way that it produced a quality hybrid product which held what we called our "industry" together. That product could be shown equally in theatrical exhibitions as well as on television screens. The BBC, in particular under Mark Shivas, its director of production, carried out such work during the difficult times encountered by the film industry in this country. The BBC still seeks to play a part in our film culture and I do not believe that it should be attacked for that.
I also agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alli—as mentioned by several other noble Lords—that one of the worst things that could arise from the regulation through Ofcom, which it seems we all welcome, would be if it were done on the cheap. We see the dangers of large multinational media companies coming into our arena. If undoubted struggles take place with expensive law cases, that will not happen on the cheap. They will steamroller us. That is one scenario which I hope we shall discuss.
Incidentally, I took very seriously the point made, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that many of the issues discussed by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, were thrown out by the Government, and we have not had the privilege of hearing about them yet. I believe he said that it would be far better if the next stage of the Bill were held in Grand Committee.
I agree that many of the issues could be better explored within that environment because there is much common ground between the Government and those who have doubts; for example, in relation to the business, which we broadly favour, of the National Audit Office and the BBC's auditing. We are not absolutely certain about that. We tend to favour it, but there may be strong arguments against it which perhaps could be better explored in Grand Committee.
778
I say that particularly in the light of an interesting remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg. I am sure that she had good reason for saying that the result of scrutiny by the National Audit Office would lead to a new avenue of transparency or responsibility between the director general and the Secretary of State. I had not heard that argument before. It is a worrying thought that the conducting of the BBC audit and its effect would effectively disappear and that the director-general would have a responsibility to have a closer relationship with the Secretary of State. That would be in no one's interest.
I do not wish to continue for much longer. I had much more to say, which happily I shall not have to say now because much of it is very pompous. In an advanced society such as ours there is the economic and the cultural imperative. It seems to me—as it may to other Peers—that the economic has rather taken precedence over the cultural. Noble Lords may agree that that is reflected in our society, in what is commonly known as the "yob culture". There is a lot of confrontation and disaffected young. If that is translated into the communications world, it could lead us down the path that has been experienced in the United States.
The United States is not fortunate enough to have our public service broadcasting background. It is absolutely central to our culture, and comes from our literary culture. In the US 10 major conglomerates have consolidated. Noble Lords may say that there is a lot of high-quality television. There is indeed quality television in terms of the basic concepts. The creative urges that drive them are quite different from production values that one sees on the screens.
There is never anything wrong with American production values, whether in cinema or on television. They are superb. The "Sopranos", which is a home box office programme, is always held up as an example of American television. It is superb. No one would deny that. But there is a great deal of scurrilous stuff on American television which panders to the lowest possible taste. I mention just a few. There is Reality TV, much of which sets out to humiliate people. It plays on people's sense of schadenfreude, the enjoying of other people's suffering. There is celebrity boxing. Whoever has heard of anything so ridiculous? I was tempted, like most people, to look at a celebrity boxing match. It was ludicrous, disgusting and awful, and, incidentally, an insult to boxing.
Voyeurism and narcissism is rife in this country and in the United States in the way that programmes are developing and catering for demand. I part company with the noble Baroness when she gives a great welcome to the market forces and customer demand. This field must be tempered with a great deal of—I think she said—"delicate balance". Otherwise, we will have an increase in brutal images on our screens and the presentation of facile, sexual images, and populism and civic values will conflict one with the other.
However, what is more important, especially to Members of your Lordships' House, is apathy, both political and moral. Political apathy is represented by

779
the number of people who do not take any interest in politics whatever and who will not vote. To say that people do not like voting is ridiculous. They will vote on anything except politics because politics and what underlies our democracy has become boring to young people. Somehow we must liven it up. Perhaps I should run through those things again about voyeurism and narcissism and hope that it will get reported to liven it up.
That is the end of my speech. I welcome the Bill on behalf of these Benches. I do not need to mention my colleague in another place because that has been done by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane. Liberal Democrats have been given a very good evening. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, has mentioned us several times. We have had, as they say, "a lot of column inches" from him. It is much better being noticed than not. So I thank him for that.
Broadly, I wish the Bill well, but there are matters of great concern. I am quite sure that we who have concerns, and the Government, do not have any major differences. I am quite sure we all agree that we need to retain the high-quality broadcasting that we have in this country as well as moving into the modern digital era. I wish the Bill well.
10.39 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, for me, winding up the debate feels a bit like opening the envelopes at the Oscar ceremony. The House has been full of stars. We have witnessed some wonderful performances from veterans of the industry. The bravura performance of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as master of ceremonies for the Liberal Democrats, set us off by introducing what he called the galaxy of experience and talent supporting him. I am sure that that has been vindicated tonight.
My noble friend Lord Wakeham spoke about press freedom and Ofcom's role in mergers. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, spoke about consumer choice and electronic programme guides. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, spoke about licence renewal and rolling contracts. My noble friend Lord Fowler spoke, as a journalist, about what is best for UK plc. The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, cantered through a paeon of praise for public service broadcasting. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, urged us to trust Ofcom and the Competition Commission—I am with him on that. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, gave us historic perspectives of open competition. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, led his high-stepping group of grizzled veterans.
We heard from new kids on the block. I have decided that our new kids today have been as follows. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, talking of his magic and of creativity; my noble friend Lady Flather, discussing minority stations and Radio Asia; the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, discussing access radio; and my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who spoke bravely for his daughter getting her news from the soaps and the viral text transmissions so favoured by the young. We have
780
learned from the Government that the old production houses have been merged into one huge block-buster: a new, independent, super-regulator called Ofcom.
From these Benches, we generally welcome and support the Bill. As my noble friend Lady Buscombe said in her opening remarks, we welcome the creation of a new framework for the communications industries, including the liberalisation of ownership of the media. Although we support the Bill in principle, like many of your Lordships who have spoken, we do not agree with the Government on a number of issues. We hope to persuade them to change their mind in the days and weeks ahead.
As a spokesman on trade and industry, I am passionately for the consumer and believe in free trade. For the consumer, I fear that the Bill does not go far enough to promote access for all. For consumers who are deaf or visually-impaired, insufficient information has been provided on the availability of subtitles and more effort should be made to encourage formats and design that are user-friendly for disabled consumers. The noble Lords, Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, spoke with great experience as campaigners on that subject.
On free trade, as chairman of the National Consumer Council, I spent two long, hard years researching the fairest possible provision of goods and services to advantaged and disadvantaged consumers throughout the world. Free trade, open doors and the greatest possible liberalisation won hands down.
The Office of Fair Trading does an excellent job, as does the Competition Commission for industry, although my noble friend Lord Fowler may not agree with me, from his example report into free newspapers that he brandished earlier. I do not view this industry as any different from any other, and I am encouraged in that by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Currie, the chairman of Ofcom, when he said:
"where competition is reasonably robust or where it can he developed to be so, it is usually better for sector regulation to withdraw and for reliance to be placed upon competition policy".
So foreign ownership of national terrestrial broadcasting licences should hold no fears for us, and I support the removal of the ownership qualifications. Let the investment and innovation flow; it brought us cable and satellite. British consumers need the widest possible choice. Our culture is deep and strong and I have confidence in our people's stubborn ability to look, listen and make up their own minds. We have no reason to feel threatened by Johnny Foreigner.
We welcome the Government's move to resist one recommendation made by the Puttnam committee: that foreign companies should not be able to own British licences. We believe that a lack of reciprocity does not justify protectionism.
Other recommendations from the committee, as so eloquently expressed by my noble friends Lord Pilkington and Lord Crickhowell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, have already been accepted by the Government, and we support many of them. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, as did

781
noble Lords around the House, on the informed, painstaking work undertaken by the committee under his fine leadership. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, commented, Parliament is the better for it.
We believe that the BBC belongs to us all and has served us long and well. I have a long list of noble Lords' comments on the BBC, but it is a little late to repeat them all. I am certain that the BBC provides the best public service broadcasting in the world. I was privileged to serve for six years on its advisory committee under the noble Lord, Lord Birt. My experience with the Beeb leads me to believe that it will damage itself if it insists on staying outside the full regulatory regime of Ofcom. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell spoke convincingly on that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and my noble friend Lord Astor.
Like other bodies funded by tax, the BBC must open its books to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General for full value-for-money access rights. What has it to hide? I am delighted that someone as experienced as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is prepared to debate the issue during the passage of the Bill, and that my noble friend Lord Astor and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, regard such scrutiny as beneficial to the BBC. I encourage the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, to read in Hansard tomorrow the reassurances of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about her role on the BBC audit committee.
We are concerned that certain provisions to micromanage the radio industry are unnecessary and restrictive. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, made a wonderful speech on that—I could say it no better than he did—and so did the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, expressed concern about access radio; the noble Lord, Lord Alli, spoke about radio quotas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, spoke about minority stations.
What sort of discrimination is it to ban religious organisations from holding national analogue radio and television licences and multiplex licences? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester spoke passionately and convincingly of the unfairness of that arbitrary prohibition. Many in the country will be heartened to hear that he will press for the remaining disqualification on religious ownership to be lifted. We on these Benches will do the same. The right reverend Prelate has been supported by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. If nothing else, the ban is surely a restriction of consumer choice.
I make a small plea for a voice for business—the new generation of communication companies. Multimedia goods and services sectors are still young and barely established. The formation of Ofcom could help to reduce red tape and enable UK businesses to develop innovative commercial relationships and competitiveness. Yet those huge strides forward that have demonstrated the crucial value of new technologies are under serious jeopardy because businesses will be unable properly to scrutinise, and provide advice on the activities and decisions of the regulator and because of insufficient transparency, predictability and openness in Ofcom's decision-making
782
process. The current version of the Bill ensures, rightly, that established media and consumer groups can voice their opinions on the content board and the consumer panel. That was expressed very well tonight.
By contrast, businesses will have to rely solely on the good will and discretion of the Ofcom board. The current Government may appear to have good will and good intentions to develop a competitively oriented regulatory environment, but that may not be the case in the future. It is vital that that paternalistic bias is rectified in the Bill.
Today this House has reflected upon the wonder of our age. It would not be an exaggeration to say that communication has undergone a revolution in my lifetime. An example is the access and immediacy of the war being waged in Iraq as we speak. Images of it are beamed to us in real time.
If I look back, I can remember my son as a baby staying up to see the first man walk on the moon. Like me, some noble Lords might remember a black-and-white television set with a nine-inch screen and the snowstorm that cleared just enough to show us the coronation of our dear young Queen. Before that, I listened to Dick Barton on the wireless. Before that, I sat in silence with my parents to hear Winston Churchill speak on the BBC to give us courage during the Blitz.
Now we have a new wonder to explore. The noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, hopes that the Bill will leave the House in good health. I hope that, by the time that it leaves the House, it will be an even better Bill than the fairly good one that it is today.
10.50 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, one would not know it from today's debate, but broadcasting is only a subset of the wider issues covered by the Bill. The "fluffies" have crowded the "techies" out of the debate, with the noble exception of the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord St John of Bletso, and my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington, and a few chance remarks by others.
The Bill is not just about broadcasting; it is about the networks that carry voice, data, pictures and a range of news services. It is about radio spectrum—the lifeblood of communications. It is about a communications industry that has grown at the rate of 10 per cent every year for the past 10 years and employs tens of thousands of people. It is about getting the right regulatory framework in place so that that growth is sustained and sustainable, now and in the future.
Part 2 of the Bill puts in place a framework for electronic communications networks and services and for spectrum that can respond better and more rapidly to markets that are evolving and technology that is developing and converging, although, as my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, that is not happening as fast as we once thought. A key part of the new regime is the implementation of four European Community directives on electronic communications that the UK was

783
instrumental in negotiating: the framework directive; the authorisation directive; the access directive; and the universal service directive. That will remove the need for 400 telecommunications licences—the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, ought to be in raptures about that, but I suppose that, because the licences were removed by European directives, it will be only modified raptureߞand replace them with a flexible system of general authorisation and specific obligations to protect consumers and guarantee competition. Implementation by all member states will provide a harmonised framework for regulation of those activities throughout the European Union, and that must be the right approach. The markets for electronic communications networks and services, unlike the markets for the content that they carry, do not recognise national boundaries or cultural differences; neither should their regulation.
The new framework is based on competition for the benefit of consumers. Ofcom will be able to tackle potential abuses by companies that have significant market power in communications markets. Work is already being carried out by Oftel to review the competitiveness of the relevant markets, and it has launched consultations on the specific obligations that it proposes to place on companies. Once it is up and running, Ofcom will be required to review the key communications markets systematically and to remove obligations where it finds that a market is effectively competitive. That is good news for the industry. Over time, the removal of regulation will reduce the costs of compliance with the UK regime.
Ofcom will be a powerful regulator, which is why Part 1 of the Bill contains a series of checks and balances to ensure that it will also be a good regulator. When regulating, Ofcom must have regard to the principles of good regulatory practice: its activities must be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed. The Bill imposes a duty on Ofcom to review the carrying out of its regulatory functions to ensure that it is not imposing or maintaining unnecessary burdens. For any proposals that are likely to impose a significant impact on business or on the general public, Ofcom will have to carry out and consult on an impact assessment. Ofcom must publish promptness standards and keep to them. We have given powers to the Secretary of State to intervene and require Ofcom to revise the promptness standards, if she believes that that is appropriate.
Those are significant balances that should reassure the business community. In addition, Chapter 3 of Part 2 gives a full right of appeal against Ofcom's decisions on matters connected with networks and services or with spectrum.
Of course, unless we make the best possible use of the radio spectrum, the vision that we have for the digital future cannot become a reality. As we move to a culture in which people want mobility in their communications, spectrum is becoming increasingly important. We need to ensure that it is managed efficiently and effectively and that it balances the needs of users—from the private astronomer, to mobile telephone customers, to the military.
784
Ofcom will be responsible for the management of this valuable resource and the Bill will give it tools to ensure effectiveness and efficiency. Spectrum trading offers flexibility to make spectrum available faster. Giving a financial incentive to sell or lease unused spectrum should encourage the development of new services and innovations.
Trading will be an effective tool, but it needs to take place within a framework of regulation—to maintain competition, ensure compliance with international obligations and prevent harmful interference.
But there are other ways of managing the spectrum, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred. We want to be sure that Ofcom will be able to make use of them as well. The Bill therefore provides for a scheme for recognised spectrum access, which will deliver enhanced security and spectrum quality for satellite and other services which, for whatever reason, cannot be licensed. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, to be in support of that.
It will also enable Ofcom to treat different groups of spectrum users as equitably as possible. I stress that those powers in the Bill are enabling powers—we are not waving the starting flag on either trading or RSA. Ofcom will carry out full and considered consultation on the detail of what these schemes would mean for all spectrum users affected by them, before it puts any new regime in place.
Having tried to rush through some coverage of the "techie" side of the Bill, it is my duty to respond to the debate as best I can. I do so knowing that there have been responses which have been mutually contradictory, which are sometimes helpful to the Government in Division Lobbies. But I suspect that it may not always be so in this case.
First, from this Bench we must say that we are pleased to have such a strong board in place—namely, to have my noble friend Lord Currie as an excellent chairman; to have a chief executive, Stephen Carter, with a strong business background; and to have non-executive directors who bring a range of skills, knowledge and experience. My noble friend Lord Puttnam described us as needing the best that money can buy; my noble friend Lord Currie said that this would not be the cheapest regulator in the business. But I assure my noble friend Lord Puttnam that there is not really any problem of the funding of competition costs. It has been agreed by Ofcom, by the DTI and by Her Majesty's Treasury. That is set out both in this Bill and in the paving Bill.
Ofcom will also, of course, be accountable. My noble friend Lord Currie recognised that these great powers require accountability to Ministers and to Parliament, as well as to the stakeholders. Therefore, Ofcom must be transparent, in keeping with the principles of good regulatory practice. That is set out not just in Clause 3 but also in Clauses 6,7 and 8, which concern publication.
As regards the issue of citizens and consumers, we do not use the word "citizen" because it has a special nationality sense in this country. I think that talking about consumers and about the community does the

785
trick fairly well. It is not a simplified system set out in Clause 3; it is a very complicated system, which I should be glad to discuss with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who had concerns about it.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. There is a sense of the word "citizenship" in which it is tied to the possession of a passport and is exclusive. The more normal, the more traditional and the deeper notion of citizenship is not tied in that way. It covers the broad civic culture of this and other advanced societies. It does not exclude those who are not citizens but who are members of the community. I believe that we have reason to introduce a notion of citizenship into the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not disagree with that at a philosophical level. But we are talking about legislative language. It is important that even though there are, in some senses, harmonics—which one might call it in our language—about citizenship, it is better not to run the risk of being confused with issues of nationality. Again, I shall be glad to debate these matters in Committee.
If your Lordships will forgive me I shall resist the temptation to give way to interventions. I have been speaking for nine minutes and I have hardly started to reply to the debate.
In addition to the simple provisions in subsection (1) of Clause 3, a complicated argument needs to be discussed in regard to its subsequent subsections. I also recommend that noble Lords look at Chapter 4 of Part 3 of the Bill, in particular at Clause 260, which defines the public service remit in much greater detail than ever before.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester referred to the clause and objected to the use of the phrase "taken together" in parts of the definition. But that phrase simply means that you cannot require all channels to be identical. If you did not have the phrase "taken together" to ensure that the service provided to consumers and the community conformed to the public service remit and did it in another way, you would be arguing against diversity and plurality.
Some noble Lords wished to add further provisions to Clause 260—the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, referred to international affairs and science and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred to sports—and those issues can be discussed.
The most controversial issues of foreign ownership and cross-media ownership come down largely to the question expressed clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen—that is, will we seek to restrict ownership or will we rely on regulation to achieve the objectives that we all want, whatever our view on these matters. We already allow foreign ownership of UK broadcasters. The Bill seeks to remove an anomaly that allows big European countries to invest but not investors from elsewhere.
There is no dispute that when you operate in global markets you need the widest possible opportunities for new investment, initiatives, skills and management. If
786
we did not have American investment in Classic FM, for example, we would not have Classic FM, and 6.7 million listeners a week would be worse off.
It comes down to whether you want to restrict ownership or look to standards. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, was scathing about the phrase "their money and our standards". Incidentally, it was George Bernard Shaw and Mrs Patrick Campbell, not Jean Harlow, who were the subjects of the noble Lord's story. It happened long before Jean Harlow came to prominence.
Many noble Lords were sceptical about the argument on reciprocity. The noble Lords, Lord Gordon, Lord Fowler and Lord Pilkington, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Cohen, thought that we should not extend the possibility of investment to the United States if it would not reciprocate. I take a purely pragmatic view. Our interest in the Bill concerns British broadcasting. If it is a good thing for British broadcasting, it is worth doing even without reciprocity.
The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to content regulation. We believe that it is tough enough to protect programming, with requirements for origin in the European Union, original productions, regional productions and programming, and independent productions. If necessary, all of those can be ratcheted up if it proves that the protection is not good enough.
I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Bragg and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, about the suggestion that regional TV should be treated as independent from the point of view of the BBC. An ITC study was conducted on this which concluded that if that was done, it would disadvantage the real independents; that is, those producers who are independent of broadcasters.
Of course I have sympathy with those who want to increase the plurality of provision of media, whether it is print or broadcast media. I spent a year in Columbus, Ohio, where there was only one television station and one main radio station, both called WBNS and owned by Wolf Brothers News and Shoes, the company which ran the shoe factory in the town. It also ran one of the two newspapers, the only other newspaper belonging to William Randolph Hearst. We had a pretty poor choice and I do not want us to get anywhere near that position.
However, I am interested in the conflict that has arisen today about Channel 5. My noble friend Lady Blackstone set it out: Channel 5 is small, with a 6 per cent share of the audience. If it is to have a future, then while it is small it must continue to have more freedom from regulation than others. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, wanted not only to lift any restriction on Channel 5, but to extend that relaxation to Channel 3. That was a step forward, or backward, in Conservative thinking which I have not heard before—until I heard my noble friend Lord Borrie agree with her. My noble friend was against any fixed limits on ownership, whether for Channel 3 or for Channel 5. I have to say, however, that both noble

787
Lords were in a small minority. A large number of speakers, starting of course with my noble friend Lord Puttnam and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and extending to acknowledged agreement around the House, remarked that the lifting of restrictions on Channel 5 could cause a concentration of ownership which a number of noble Lords thought very dangerous. No doubt we shall discuss this at length in Committee and so I shall not express any further views tonight.
I turn briefly to electronic programming guides. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, made an interesting point when he said that there should be competing guides because of the danger of a single owner bundling programmes with the guides. The principle behind that view is sound; namely, that we should seek objectivity in the guides and that it has to be enforced in some way.
On the issue of "must carry" and "must offer", again strong differences were expressed by noble Lords. The Bill will allow the imposition of "must carry", "must offer" and "must provide" obligations, but they have huge implications for industry and for viewers. We have received strong and conflicting opinions. We have said "allow" because cable operators and public service broadcasters have struck deals so that they do not need to have the regulation. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that it is not true that the Bill now covers only cable and not satellite. It could be electronic communications networks delivering satellite TV, but of course anyone can buy into satellite, although in order to access the conditional access system, under the access directive they would have to be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. That offers some protection.
The issue of the BBC also caused huge disagreement, which I shall not be able to resolve tonight. It is clear that the BBC is subject to extra obligations and constraints which do not apply to other broadcasters. The overall effect of our approach is that, given the new responsibilities that we are conferring on Ofcom, referred to by my noble friend Lord Bernstein, along with other noble Lords, alongside the continuing role of the governors, the Secretary of State and Parliament, the BBC will emerge as the most heavily regulated of all broadcasters. I think that my noble friend Lord Dubs recognised that. It is regulated in tier 1—bound by Ofcom's codes—but the regulation of impartiality is left to the governors. In tier 2, it must have quotas under the same headings as other public sector broadcasters; and it must agree those quotas with Ofcom—although I note what my noble friend Lord Alli said about the quotas not being kept for two years running and I was interested in his suggestion about other ways of calculating them.
Tier 3 is regulated by the governors rather than by Ofcom, but the characteristics of the system are identical. The BBC has to produce a statement of programme policy for each of its channels, with the Secretary of State rather than Ofcom having the backstop powers if the requirements are not met. Of
788
course, there is the provision for the BBC to be fined if necessary. I have some lovely quotations about the BBC, but I shall spare the House hearing them again.
On the issue of the National Audit Office, there were hugely mixed messages. My noble friend Lord Gordon, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and my noble friend Lord Lipsey all say: do it now; put it under the National Audit Office. My noble friend Lord Alli says: do not do it at all. My noble friend Lord Faulkner, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, my noble friend Lord Bragg and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, all think that our proposal to leave it to the Charter review is the right approach. I think that my noble friend Lord Lipsey was right. It is not the proposal to carry out the audit; it is the value-for-money study that is being proposed. That would not affect the Audit Committee of the BBC, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, is a member.
Without pursuing the argument on broadcasting competition, I should say that we are giving Ofcom a suite of powers to regulate competition within the broadcasting sector—concurrent powers with the OFT under general competition law—and providing for a continuation of the sector's specific powers. I note the welcome given to this proposal by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that no amendment of the Enterprise Act is involved. This is an implementation of the merger provisions in the Enterprise Act.
On disability provisions, I hope it is recognised that the Bill delivers many benefits for disabled people. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, recognised that when he spoke about the general duties of Ofcom, which cut right across the remit. It must have regard, where relevant, to the needs of persons with disabilities, the elderly and those on low incomes. The consumer panel in particular has the duty of carrying that out.
On the particular issues of audio description we are sympathetic, but I understand that there are still technical problems. I am glad to have the support of my noble friend Lord Ashley for the extension of subtitles. I note his dissatisfaction with the time targets. But I have never known my noble friend to welcome anything and not then ask for more I do not blame him. That is how he has made his remarkable reputation—by asking for more, and getting it. I heard what my noble friend Lady Wilkins said about a text-based Teletext service, and we shall have to consider that.
On the nations and regions, we had eloquent pleas from my noble friend Lord Dubs about Gaelic broadcasting in Northern Ireland, from the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, on Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland—although that is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament; reserved matters are only for cross-UK provision—and from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about Welsh broadcasting. The Bill contains provision for offices to be maintained in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and for the content board and the consumer panel to have designated members to represent the interests of people in Scotland, Wales

789
and Northern Ireland. I say to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, that there is provision under the paving Bill for a committee for Scotland if that is required.
On ITN as a nominated news provider, again there were very mixed messages. It is worth saying to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that Ofcom will be free to recommend the removal of the system of a nominated news provider when it feels that the time is right. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, "Then and only then" in a menacing way. Ofcom will have to review the arrangements every three years; there is nothing to stop it reviewing the arrangements earlier if it wants to.
I was surprised by some of the debate about religious ownership, because the Bill delivers the main aim of those who have campaigned against religious broadcasting ownership restrictions. The only restrictions that remain are for analogue radio licences, of which there are only three, and national TV licences, of which there are only two. Ownership of multiplexes does not affect any actual channel. I cannot believe that there is any mileage in some of the comments made by noble Lords.
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, I cannot believe that there is much more scope for removing restrictions. On the contrary, I listened carefully to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, on the need to secure plurality of religious coverage and diversity—a wide variety of religion and belief. That is what the Commissioner for Racial Equality said, and it is an important consideration.
On the subject of newspaper mergers, we are modernising the regime to bring it in line with the Enterprise Act 2002. We are deregulating where we can. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that we were amending the Enterprise Act 2002; we are not doing that. We are continuing to protect public interests when they are at stake. We have no plans for the OFT to have a role as regards newspapers, beyond the functions in relation to the newspaper merger regime. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that ministerial statements could not have been clearer about the threat of content regulation over newspapers, even though some noble Lords would have wished it to happen.
On local radio, some changes will have to be made because there is a change in the radio ownership rules that will allow greater concentration. I listened to what the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said about the risk that that might reduce localness, but there are many reasons for believing that
790
will not happen. The noble Lords, Lord Gordon and Lord Eatwell, expressed that view. Surely, good local radio stations will strive to be local; they will have to be, because they will not survive unless they are.
We saw a head-on conflict between the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on one side and the noble Lords, Lord Gordon and Lord Eatwell, on the other, about Clause 307 and protections for community radio and for music. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, were concerned about that. Clause 307 says that there must be a code of guidance, but it does not say what the code should comprise, because that is a matter for Ofcom. There is scope for many happy hours of debate on Clause 307.
On broadband, of course it is our strategy that there should be an increase in broadband from the present 67 per cent coverage and 1.4 million take-up. However, there must be commercial considerations in the speed at which that happens. We did not mention broadband in the Bill because the terminology in the Bill has to last a good deal longer than many technologies last. That does not mean, however, that there is any lack of determination to ensure that broadband expands.
I listened to the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Gordon, on broadcast advertising, but I do not think that the situation is that much changed. "Unsuitable" simply means that advertising could be unsuitable for certain times and certain audiences. It is very similar to the ITC powers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, certainly is going to table amendments on premium rate services. I can confirm that the Bill does provide statutory backing for co-regulation by Ofcom and ICSTIS and that content services charged through the telephone bill can be regulated. However, I shall listen with interest when I see the amendments themselves.
I think that I can give the noble Baroness. Lady Howe, the assurance that she seeks on privacy. We shall be consulting on the privacy directive and we will implement it by updated regulations under the European Communities Act. That comes back to something that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, said. Where newspapers are concerned, it is a matter for the courts to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the provisions of the Human Rights Act and the right to privacy and, on the other, freedom of expression and a free press.
With that race through the very wide number of contributions, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and his committee. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this lengthy debate. I look forward to the Committee and subsequent stages.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Regional Assemblies: Functions
  Regional Assemblies: Functions
  Fire Dispute: Armed Forces Cover
  Fire Dispute: Armed Forces Cover
  Home Office PSA Targets
  Home Office PSA Targets
  GM Public Debate Steering Board
  GM Public Debate Steering Board
  Beta Interferon Risk Sharing Scheme
  Beta Interferon Risk Sharing Scheme
  Dentistry
  Dentistry
  Demonstrations in the Vicinity of the Palace of Westminster
  Demonstrations in the Vicinity of the Palace of Westminster
  Northern Ireland Civil Service
  Northern Ireland Civil Service
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Ministerial Council
  North/South Ministerial Council
  Freight Facilities Grants
  Freight Facilities Grants
  Drivers: Eyesight Standards
  Drivers: Eyesight Standards