| Parliamentary & European Brief | |
| The
Bulletin of the UK Parliament and European Institutions |
January
2004 - June 2004
|
|
Below are short details about relevant parliamentary questions, debates, and bills which are of relevance to members. Every two weeks new questions and debates will be placed on this site. Should members require further information on any of the topics listed here then they should access the Parliament website on http://www.parliament.uk. The Parliament website contains the full questions, answers and debates. Parliamentary copyright material from Hansard is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office on behalf of Parliament. After the Parliament website has been accessed the following procedure should be followed:
 PARLIAMENTARY BRIEF Abbreviations: Questions
(Q)
Because
of the volume of information the Parliamentary & European Brief is
split into 6-monthly periods. To access please click on a link below:
Pornographic Publications Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): What her policy is on preventing pornographic publications from being sold to children. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): In answering, I welcome my hon. Friend - I mean the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), but she may, one never knows, become an hon. Friend - to her new duties on the Opposition Front Bench. Children must, of course, be protected from exposure to pornography, and I commend Bedfordshire county council and the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for their efforts in that area. The magazine industry has established voluntary top-shelf arrangements covering the display and sale of pornographic publications, and those are welcome. In practice, however, there may be difficulties in defining closely what is or is not deemed to be pornographic or obscene under the framework of the Obscene Publications Acts. There is a case for exploring what more might practically be done to safeguard children in the light of Bedfordshire county council's experience. I therefore intend to convene a meeting with the Local Government Association and other interested parties, including relevant Departments, to discuss the issue. Andrew Selous : I am heartened by the Secretary of State's reply. Bedfordshire's trading standards authority has clearly shown from its under-age surveillance work that children are being sold sexually explicit material, as is no doubt the case elsewhere. Will the Government make a commitment to pursue Bedfordshire's proposal that trading standards authorities be empowered to prosecute traders for selling sexually explicit material to children, just as they prosecute traders who sell them alcohol or cigarettes? Tessa Jowell: Having set out the position in my opening answer, I do not want at this stage to commit myself to the outcome of the discussions that we intend to hold. On the basis that we will examine whether the experience in Bedfordshire is a problem that faces local authorities more widely, we will engage in those discussions and produce proposals that are proportionate and practical, and we will, wherever possible, work with the industry. Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): Happy new year, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the problem is no longer a question only of the sale of these materials to young people; they are freely available on the internet. All right hon. and hon. Members seem to be particularly plagued by them. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that we are looking at how to shut down all manner of spam involving pornographic material on the basis that we should be prosecuting? I look forward to hearing how she intends to take that forward. Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend has a long-standing concern about and interest in this area. He will be aware of the Government's position, which was clearly set out during debates in both Houses on the Communications Act 2003. There are undoubtedly inconsistencies as regards the licensing of videos, the non-licensing of magazines and the unregulated status of the internet. I am committed to achieving the maximum protection for children while taking account of those inconsistencies and the increasing ease with which children are able to secure pornographic material. Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): Does the Minister recognise that one of the most serious problems is not the top shelf but the bottom shelves on which magazines such as More!, published by Emap, are readily on display and on sale to young children? If the Minister would take the trouble to read such magazines, she would find that they concentrate on the mechanics of sex and that they contain little moral content. It is little wonder that our children have no moral leadership in this country when that sort of material is freely available. Tessa Jowell: There is an important distinction to be drawn as regards the market for teenage magazines, which I believe provide a very important service, by and large, for many young people. Yes, those magazines provide entertainment, gossip and tittle-tattle, but for many young people - this is to be regretted - they are the principal source of information about sex, development and relationships. By and large, that is a responsibility that the magazines discharge responsibly, through the Periodical Publishers Association and other industry associations. There is all the difference in the world between those magazines and the kind of magazines to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which are pornographic and, in some cases, questionably obscene. Alcohol Marketing Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. - [Charlotte Atkins.] Ross Cranston (Dudley, North) (Lab): Marketing of alcohol, as with other products, has a real impact on consumers. Who does not know that Heineken refreshes the parts that other beers cannot reach or that Guinness is good for you? Those are extremely effective marketing slogans, part of our culture and, like other examples of the genre, about as true. I suggest in this Adjournment debate that it is time to draw a line. The consequences of alcohol abuse are now so great that there must be more effective controls over the marketing of alcohol. I declare my interest as chairman of the all-party group on alcohol misuse. Let me start with the public health costs of the more extreme cases. In September last year, one of my constituents and a hepatologist at Dudley NHS hospitals trust presented me with a petition whose signatures had been collected nationwide. The concern was with the effects of alcohol addiction, particularly with liver disease. Cirrhosis of the liver is an important cause of illness and death. In the year 2000 it killed more men than Parkinson's disease and more women than cervical cancer. There have been large rises in death rates from chronic liver disease in most age groups. Among 35 to 44-year-olds, there has been an eightfold increase for men and nearly a sevenfold increase for women. My Dudley doctors were not concerned only with liver disease and other medical problems. A psychiatrist attended the presentation because alcohol addiction relates to dependence and psychiatric conditions such as depression and anxiety. In all, alcohol dependence syndrome accounts for more than 30,000 hospital admissions per year in the UK. It is sometimes difficult to get a handle on the other social costs flowing from alcohol abuse. Domestic violence is a major problem. One in nine women experience domestic violence at any one time, with high rates of repeat victimisation. Importantly, there are other indirect consequences such as the psychological effects on children. The relationship with alcohol is complex. The Stella project, working under the auspices of the Mayor of London, argues that men can be violent to women with or without alcohol, but points out that perpetrators may help to create a dependence on alcohol as a tool of control and that victims may themselves become dependent on it to cope with the emotional trauma. I shall now deal with the night-time economy. At one level, it means the regeneration of city and town centres, but there is a dark underbelly, where an aggressive hedonism is fuelled by the excessive consumption of alcohol. Traditional pubs catering for a wide range of customers have been replaced by multiple vertical drinking establishments geared to a youth market. Too often the accepted norm in such places is that customers will drink to excess. Violence and antisocial behaviour on the streets is the inevitable consequence, making the lives of those living nearby a misery. It can also result in the exclusion from those areas of older people and others who find the atmosphere alien and threatening. Excessive alcohol consumption results in heavy demands for services such as ambulances, taking resources away from higher priority cases. Before Christmas, for example, West Midlands ambulance service announced that 80 per cent. of its cases during the previous festive period were drink related. During the period between 22 December 2003 and last Friday, the police reported that in Dudley, North there were 84 incidents of alcohol-related offending, from drunken behaviour to violence either at licensed premises or elsewhere in the constituency. What of the role of marketing in all that? George Orwell described advertising as the rattling of a stick in the swill bucket. The industry would say that the £220 million plus spent a year on alcohol advertising is a force for competition, innovation and consumer choice. The industry claims that the role of advertising is not to increase overall consumption, but rather to enable brands to compete with others in the sector and to gain market share as drinking fashions change. I beg to differ. I am not suggesting that advertising is the source of all evil, but discussing alcohol misuse and the public health consequences. Some marketing and advertising is clever, innovative and attractive, but the industry is selling a product that is not totally benign. It is a product that, in certain circumstances, has serious negative consequences for our health and society. The causal factors in alcohol misuse are many, and marketing is only one of them. Peer pressure can be a major factor among young people, for example. Nor am I suggesting that advertising always hits the target. I am also not suggesting that to ban advertising would solve the problem of alcohol misuse overnight. The Government's strategy unit, in its interim analytical report on alcohol, has collected a great deal of useful information on the implications of alcohol for our society. In relation to advertising, it cites a recent study that used a large sample of time-series data drawn from 20 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, including the United Kingdom. That study suggests that a partial or total advertising ban would be expected to lower consumption substantially. It contradicts earlier findings concluding that advertising bans would not reduce alcohol consumption. Page 130 of the interim analytical report is devoted to the susceptibility of younger people to advertising. For example, young people are more conscious of and more likely to follow rapidly evolving trends and fashion. Since they are early in their drinking careers, they are less likely to have established strong brand and drink preferences. One study cited in the report associates advertising with increased binge drinking by young people. It notes the significant amount spent on advertising youth brands. Of course, advertising is only one aspect of marketing. The interim analytical report quite rightly highlights sponsorships, product tie-ins and placements, contests and special promotions. It estimates that when those are taken into account, total spend on promotional activities in the UK could be in the range of £600 million to £800 million annually. There is also the use these days of the internet and mobile telephones in marketing campaigns. Then there are point-of-sale promotions, many of which are initiated by retailers. In early December, the Society" section of The Guardian reported on cut-price promotions in Newcastle and Manchester, but they are of course nationwide. The Nicholson report in Scotland identified such promotions as being of special concern in relation to binge drinking, a point to which I shall return. Let me summarise my concerns. First, the industry spends enormous sums on promotion. Then there is the worrying trend in advertising targeting younger people, especially younger women these days, and associating alcohol with sexual and social success. That type of marketing gives the lie to the industry's claim that marketing is about brand switching. If that were the case, it would have concentrated on the heavy drinking young male. Advertising is also designed to recruit new consumers and increase consumption, and that is why it has in recent years targeted the young, especially younger women. Secondly, we have one of the laxest regulatory regimes in the world. Television advertisements for alcohol are banned in France, and there are substantial restrictions in other European countries. Yet in the UK in 1995, we saw the end of the voluntary agreement among mainstream spirits producers not to undertake television advertising. We now have substantial advertising of premium, ready-to-drink products. Apart from self-regulation, there is virtually no control over marketing in magazines, at the cinema and on billboard advertisements. Thirdly, the mainly voluntary controls are not working effectively enough. It is all very well to pray in aid, say, the steps taken by the Portman Group, such as the obligation for merchandise not to contain alcohol brand names if aimed at children, but there are loopholes in the code. The drinks industry can sponsor as many sporting events and teams as it likes, leading to conflicting messages. In my view, some advertisements step over the boundaries of taste and decency. There is the notion of drinking to excess being an essential part of living life to the full. Some parts of the industry emphasise social responsibility. Some of the multinationals - the drinks industry is dominated by a limited number of multinationals, such as Diageo and Allied Domecq - have a social responsibility marketing section on their websites, but that is not the norm. What are the options? The Government's forthcoming alcohol strategy will be an opportunity to send stern warnings to the industry about its marketing practices. I hope that the Government will keep the door open to imposing statutory regulation if the industry does not become significantly more responsible in its marketing. The Government's message should be that if the industry wants self-regulation, it will have to make significant and immediate changes. We need not just the occasional socially responsible drinking campaign but for all drinks advertising to be such as to change the drinking culture. I hope that co-regulation of alcohol marketing on television and radio by Ofcom and the Advertising Association will result in a thorough re-examination of the current lax approach. If full regulation is to be avoided, the self-regulatory codes must be enforced in spirit, not just to the letter, if they are to survive. The British Medical Association has called for a ban on all television advertising. Unless the industry takes steps now, the case for a ban will be overwhelming. As part of a more responsible approach, particular marketing techniques need to be controlled. I have already mentioned some of the point-of-sale promotions that encourage binge drinking. Even the Portman Group, in its December briefing note, has seen the writing on the wall and calls for
The Nicholson committee in Scotland drew attention to some establishments whose extreme promotions were designed to attract customers regardless of the consequences to their health or to public order and the amenity of others. The committee proposed that there be a duty on all licensed premises to refrain from anything
Just before Christmas, the Glasgow Licensing Board adopted the Nicholson recommendations on promotions. I also urge the Government to consider other specific measures in the alcohol strategy. People need to have information about levels of alcohol that are bad for their health and to be able to relate that to the drinks they consume. I have supported the Dudley hepatologists in their call for compulsory labelling of alcohol containers with the number of units of alcohol inside clearly displayed. Some in the industry are already labelling their products along those lines, which is welcome. Cains brewery in Liverpool now labels its 2008 ale with the number of units per bottle and also places a warning on the label: ALCOHOL ADVICE: Robert Cain support responsible drinking. Excessive drinking can cause harm. Observe the daily guidelines for sensible drinking. Do not drink and drive." I commend the brewery for that. Yesterday, the Irish Government announced that they were seriously considering such warnings on all cans and bottles of alcohol. Labelling would need to be combined with an awareness campaign on the relevance of units of alcohol, which brings me to the use of marketing to campaign for responsible drinking. We are not far off the time when the Government should consider using the creative skills in the advertising world to good effect. The Prime Minister's big conversation contains the question:
Alcohol advertising is already subject to a levy of one tenth of 1 per cent. of expenditure to support the Advertising Standards Authority. So the big conversation question does not raise any new issue of principle, and a positive answer would accord with the notion that any industry must take financial responsibility for associated social costs. Alcohol, in the words of a recent WHO-sponsored publication, is no ordinary commodity. It has very serious costs. One in 13 adults is dependent on alcohol-some 280,000 in the west midlands alone. Among younger people, there is the particular problem of binge drinking, which is a cause of antisocial behaviour and violence, quite apart from the long-term health effects for them and costs to the NHS. Some marketing techniques encourage messages about unacceptable drinking. The industry, regulators, the Government and Members of Parliament must urgently address the issue. The forthcoming alcohol strategy provides an important opportunity for everyone involved to take up the challenge of encouraging a more responsible attitude towards alcohol. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) on his success in securing a debate on this important topic. As we know, about 90 per cent. of adults in Britain drink alcohol and most of them drink sensibly for most of the time, but we are all aware of the harms associated with alcohol misuse. My hon. and learned Friend knows that the Government are committed to tackling those harms, which is why we are currently developing an alcohol harm reduction strategy for England. In the national health service plan, we said that we would implement the strategy during 2004 and I am pleased to say that we are on course to achieve that timetable. This will be the first time that there has been a co-ordinated and joined-up effort to tackle alcohol-related harm in England and I am pleased to be involved in the current work. It is important to ensure that we develop a robust and effective strategy, so it is vital that we draw in the expertise of all the stakeholders, including the all-party group on alcohol misuse, which has contributed to the work to date. I thank the group for its contribution. Over the last seven months, since I took over the public health brief, I have been struck by the number of stakeholders, both inside and outside Government, involved in tackling alcohol-related harm. That demonstrates beyond doubt that a joined-up approach is needed, and that we will be able to build a successful strategy only if we recognise that the Government cannot tackle the problems of alcohol misuse alone. The contribution of the voluntary sector, the private sector and individuals themselves will be needed if the strategy is to make a real difference. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned some of the harms associated with alcohol misuse. As he noted, the Prime Minister's strategy unit recently published its interim analytical report, which gives a comprehensive account of the types of alcohol-related harm that are most prevalent in modern-day England. My hon. and learned Friend has mentioned some, and I, too, shall refer to a few of them. On the harm to health, we know that between 15,000 and 22,000 people die in England each year as a result of alcohol misuse, and that such misuse accounts for 150,000 hospital admissions each year. The strategy unit also commissioned research that indicated that about one third of all attendances at accident and emergency departments are alcohol-related. It is certainly clear that addressing health harms will need to be a cornerstone of the strategy. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. He will be aware that the strategy unit's interim analytical report noted that the cost of alcohol-related crime in England has risen to £4.7 billion per year. Action to combat alcohol-related crime will also need to be at the forefront of the strategy. Before moving on to other matters, I join my hon. and learned Friend in commending the Stella project. As he said, the project works with mainstream substance misuse services to ensure that they can offer non-judgmental help to both perpetrators and victims of domestic violence. The project provides a valuable resource for substance misuse services in the capital, and I add my praise to that of my hon. and learned Friend. My hon. and learned Friend referred to the evening economy and the problems generated by alcohol-related crime and disorder in an evening economy that often seems to exist only to serve younger people. Supporting urban regeneration by developing a diverse evening economy that caters for a range of ages and leisure tastes will be quite a challenge for the Government, local authorities and leisure providers to meet. I shall briefly mention some of the risk factors and the reasons why people misuse alcohol. Several factors were identified in the interim analytical report and without understanding what they are we shall not be able develop effective interventions. A number of individual risks were reported - personality, attitudes and beliefs, genetic make-up, age and gender, occupation and, indeed, even the region where people live-all of which have a role to play in whether someone develops a problem and misuses alcohol. Of course, those individuals do not live in a vacuum, and the report also identifies a number of other factors in an individual's immediate environment that increase risk: family structure and parental divorce, parental drinking and parental attitudes to drinking, relationships with parents and pressure from and relationships with peers and friends. Of course, risks are posed by the wider culture. The unit's analysis shows that culture and attitudes towards alcohol are driven by multiple influences. At various times, as we all know, many people will use alcohol to be sociable, to gain acceptance as part of a group, to relieve stress or to deal with trauma and to get drunk. The culture of getting drunk and going out to get drunk is particularly worrying, as my hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), who is also present, will agree. The strategy unit's analysis found that going out to get drunk was particularly associated with the 16 to 24 age group, and that, in turn, it could increase the risk of suffering certain alcohol-related harm, particularly alcohol-related violence. The interim analysis also considered the extent to which the market for alcoholic drinks can pose additional risks for individuals. The unit found that price and availability could influence alcohol consumption and, presumably, could therefore influence alcohol misuse as well, but an individual's relationship with the alcohol market and the extent to which the market shaped drinking preferences or was shaped by them was far less clear. That lack of clarity comes to the fore when we consider the marketing and advertising of alcoholic drinks. The relationship between marketing, advertising, attitudes and behaviour is, of course, complex. My hon. and learned Friend drew attention to the often conflicting evidence in that area, with one study noting that higher expenditure on alcohol advertising appears to be associated with higher alcohol consumption, while findings from other studies appear to suggest that an advertising ban would not lower alcohol consumption. Furthermore, the strategy unit found that seven in 10 people thought that advertising influenced the amount that others drank, but only one in 10 felt that advertising influenced the amount that they drank. I think that it has been worth while spending this short time considering those risk factors, as they serve to show us that the reasons lying behind an individual's alcohol misuse can be very complex, and they demonstrate the scale of the challenge that the Government and our partners face in tackling alcohol misuse. The unit is entering the final stage of its work on drafting the alcohol harm reduction strategy for England. I cannot yet discuss the detailed options that the strategy will contain, but I can say that it will be firmly based around effective interventions in the four main areas: education and communication, supply and pricing, health and treatment services and, finally, community safety and criminal justice. The final strategy will need to contain interventions in all four areas, and it will also need to ensure that the initiatives fit together into a coherent whole, as well as linking to other Government initiatives in the fields of health, crime, anti-social behaviour and so forth. My hon. and learned Friend has made some valuable suggestions on ways to tackle alcohol misuse, and I should like to discuss them. He suggested the tightening of the current statutory and voluntary codes on advertising, with the option to regulate alcohol advertising in the future; cracking down on irresponsible retail promotions that encourage excessive drinking; displaying sensible drinking information in licensed premises; ensuring that reasonably priced non-alcoholic drinks are available; unit labelling of alcohol containers; an awareness campaign to raise the knowledge of alcohol misuse and its potential for harm; and a levy on alcohol advertising expenditure. As ever, my hon. and learned Friend has come up with some interesting and innovative suggestions, which will be considered by the strategy unit team. We have seen that there is no evidence to suggest that there is a clear link between the advertising and the promotion of alcoholic drinks and alcohol consumption or misuse. However, as a society we believe that unrestricted advertising and promotion is not acceptable and, as my hon. and learned Friend has noted, we have a number of statutory and non-statutory codes that seek to ensure that the advertising of alcoholic beverages is not aimed towards young people, does not promote excessive drinking and does not suggest that alcohol consumption can be linked with physical, mental, social or sexual success. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned some recent advertisements that do not appear to be in keeping with the spirit of the codes, and I certainly agree with him. He noted that some drinks manufacturers have begun to take their social responsibilities more seriously and have taken steps to ensure that their advertisements are in keeping with both the spirit and the letter of those codes. Like him, I commend those companies that have chosen to take that action. However, as he notes, there is a growing concern that the self-regulatory elements of our framework are not working as well as they could or should. Ensuring that we can have confidence in our arrangements for alcohol advertising is crucial, and proposals in this area will certainly form part of the strategy. In relation to irresponsible retail promotions and my hon. and learned Friend's reference to the recent Nicholson committee review in Scotland, we too have read the report with interest and I am always keen to review the practices of and learn from others with an interest in tackling alcohol misuse. We will give careful consideration to the committee's proposals for dealing with those irresponsible retail promotions of alcoholic drinks that result in excessive drinking, even if they do not set out actively to encourage such drinking. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that we will be looking very carefully at his other suggestions. An examination of the best ways of getting information about alcohol misuse to the public will be one of the fundamental parts of the strategy, and our work in this area will also cover issues such as the display of unit information and the sensible drinking message. I am looking forward to hearing what people have to say about the proposals for an advertising levy set out in the Labour party's big conversation. In conclusion, I thank my hon. and learned Friend for the opportunity to discuss an interesting and useful topic and for the coverage that it has given to issues relating to the marketing of alcohol and to other issues that are crucial if we are successfully to tackle alcohol misuse. Again, I thank him and his colleagues in the all-party group for providing a valuable contribution to the ongoing development of our alcohol harm reduction strategy for England, and I promise him that it will not be too much longer before he will have the pleasure of seeing the finished piece of work. Question put and agreed to.
Employment Regulation Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): When he next expects to meet the chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force to discuss employment regulation. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): I have regular meetings with the chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force to discuss all aspects of the better regulation agenda. Mr. Bellingham : When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force, will he discuss with him the UK's individual opt-out from the working time directive? Does he agree with the CBI and the Forum of Private Business, which have recently stated that the opt-out is vital for the UK's competitiveness? Or does he agree with his Socialist colleagues in the European Parliament and Commissioner Diamantopoulou, who both want to scrap the individual opt-out as soon as possible? On whose side is he? Mr. Alexander: I certainly agree that the working time directive opt-out is important, not just for the United Kingdom but for several member states. The recent European Commission communication does not say that the opt-out should go; it identifies some abuses, and asks how those can be addressed. On the point of view of the CBI, however, I would certainly agree with its director-general in his concluding interview of the year, in which he stated: I am very pleased, well done to the Government you know, low inflation, low unemployment and some sustainable growth in an area of low interest rates. So probably the most successful economy in the developed world all up". Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley) (Lab): Is it not important that when we look at removing burdens, we do not equate that with removing worker protection, because many Conservative Members equate the two? Mr. Alexander: I find myself in full agreement with my hon. Friend. This Government make no apology for paid holidays, time off to attend to family matters, and, of course, the national minimum wage and the working time directive. Mr. Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con): The Minister will be aware that the TUC has today spoken of the massive hidden unemployment in Britain and has called on the Government to get a grip. Is not the reason for that that the Government are moving people from unemployment on to sickness benefits, thereby hiding the true extent of unemployment? Is not the background to that that the Government have so laden businesses with extra regulation that they are not producing the extra private sector jobs that are necessary? Mr. Alexander: I hardly know where to begin in answering that question. First, on the point of taking lessons from the Opposition on employment, they will of course be aware that there are historically high levels of employment in this country at this stage. Secondly, it is of course a matter of record that we have both low inflation and high employment at this stage. In relation to moving people off unemployment and on to disability benefit, again, the last people to lecture the Government are the Conservatives. Business Regulation Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): What action he is taking to reduce the burden of regulation on business. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government's updated regulatory reform action plan announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget report has over 650 deregulatory measures to benefit business, charities and the public services. Over 240 of those reforms have been delivered by Government Departments since the original version of the action plan was published in 2002. Bob Spink: Since much of the regulation originates from Europe and this regulation causes massive unemployment, particularly hidden unemployment, is it not time we looked again at our various agreements and opt-outs with the European Community and, for example, withdrew from the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy? Mr. Alexander: The UK has been leading the drive for better regulation in Europe. That is why I recently met the Spanish public administration Minister to press the case for further initiatives. It is fair to say that international observers recognise that Britain has played a leading role on the issue of better regulation, not just in the European Union but around the world. Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order may be raised after the statements. BBC Miss Kirkbride: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff in her Department are working solely on the BBC Charter review process. Tessa Jowell [holding answer 5 January 2004]: The Department will have a core team of five people working solely on Charter review. However there are many others in DCMS and other Government Departments contributing significant amounts of their time to what is a complex, crosscutting programme of work. Miss Kirkbride: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to ensure that the BBC meets its requirements with regard to the independent productions quotas. Estelle Morris: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently agreed amendments to the formal Agreement with the BBC to enable OFCOM to enforce the quotas from 29 December 2003, with the power to impose fines on the Corporation for failing to meet the quotas or require any deficit to be made up in the subsequent year or years. Miss Kirkbride: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the BBC about the BBC Charter review process; and if she will make a statement. [145478] Tessa Jowell: My Department maintains regular contact with the BBC with frequent discussions on a wide range of issues including Charter review process. Regional Broadcasting Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. - [Jim Fitzpatrick.] Mr. John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab): I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise concerns about the decision by Granada-Carlton, the new single ITV, to run down Meridian television, which is based in Northam in my constituency..... … Moreover, is the regional political coverage that Members of Parliament enjoy safe? It is easy to understand that a single ITV company might want to save money on its political coverage, but I suggest that that would be at the expense of the local knowledge that makes regional news and regional political coverage worth having. These changes are happening just as the new regulator, Ofcom, comes into existence. I shall end by raising some issues that should be of direct concern to the Minister: that constitutes an invitation to Members who may wish to intervene. Let me say that, as the Government move towards statutory consultation rights for UK employees, I hope the Minister shares my distaste for the way in which Granada apparently went off to the ITC to secure support for its proposals before informing any of its staff..... ….. Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue relating to, in particular, the new role of the new regulator. It brings me to my second point: the changes are taking place before Ofcom has decided how to interpret its requirements for regional production quotas and expenditure outside the M25. Ofcom recently wrote to me
That requirement was a key element of the Communications Act 2003. It seems that, by presenting a fait accompli at Meridian, the new ITV will effectively set its own baseline for Ofcom and reduce Ofcom's scope to set a challenging interpretation of those regulations. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister would respond directly on whether the reduction in Meridian's programme-making capacity can be held back until Ofcom has decided how to approach the issue. If that can be done, will she use every power that she has, either legally or by persuasion, to ask for that to be done? At the very least, it would be much better if the issue were looked at when those at Ofcom have got their feet under the table and have worked out how to approach the issue, which would ensure that it is considered properly….. ….. Mr. Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) on putting such a strong case, and I associate myself with all that he has said. I raised this issue first with the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, and our report will be out shortly. Although I cannot say whether this will definitely be in the report, there is one thing that we will ask: will Ofcom please handle the issue in the open? In other words, when it takes evidence from Meridian, the National Union of Journalist's chapels and other people, will it do so in the public domain, not behind closed doors? That is something about which the Minister might have a view. ….I am a moderniser and I understand modernisation issues, but once Maidstone has been stripped out, the local journalists will be stripped out, even those with cars, laptops and digital cameras. Within three years, if the company has not been sold already, the political correspondents will be stripped out. Look at what has happened with the political correspondents in Parliament. In fact, there will be no local service, no local knowledge-no local anything-and certainly nothing regional. That is what the company wants to happen….. ……. Every Member of Parliament understands the importance of regional media coverage. Indeed, I understood that importance better as an MP than as someone who was not especially actively involved in politics. I know that many issues that we raise on behalf of our constituents would never get back to them if it were not for regional broadcasting and journalism. Our constituents, as citizens, have the right to have their concerns raised here, so we need a channel of communication between this place and their homes to ensure that they know that we are acting on their behalf. I understand the anger that I sense and-without prejudging the issue-the feeling among hon. Members that they have been let down. It is for Meridian and hon. Members to talk about that, but I understand the strength of feeling and know what an important local issue we are debating. The irony, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) said, is that, having set up a framework and given the regulators the power to act, there is very little that the Government can do at this time. I therefore want to make a robust response, as hon. Members asked me to do, and make a few observations.... …. Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the Minister, as I did not get the chance to make a speech. Is she happy with the autopilot system set up by the Competition Commission and Ofcom, given the tragedy that is unfolding? …. Estelle Morris: Yes, I am. However, this may be a test case, and I expect Ofcom to act strongly, as I shall explain. The Communications Act 2003 has given extra protection to regional broadcasters. There is a framework of licences for regional programming and production, and the test will be whether Ofcom, the regulatory body, acts firmly if the terms of those licences are not adhered to. Having listened to right hon. and hon. Members, I believe that there are two particularly important issues. It is not appropriate for me to comment on one of them because the time to do so has passed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen said, the target or quota for programming used to be higher. There is now a quota of eight and a half hours for regional programming, and there is also a quota for sub-regional news coverage. Ofcom must ensure that those targets are adhered to, but it cannot intervene in respect of a quota that has been changed by agreement with the Independent Television Commission from 15 hours to eight hours. We have set a lot of store by Ofcom's regulations, but the time to comment on them has passed. Whether they are right or wrong, good or bad, and whether the ITC could have come to a different agreement, the time for comment has passed. However, the licence clearly says that Meridian has undertaken to produce eight and half hours of regional programmes, five and a half hours of which must be sub-regional news and three hours non-news. Ninety per cent. of those programmes must be made in the region, because that is one of the quotas in the framework. Ofcom is considering representations that it has received. If it is thought necessary, it could act to make sure that Meridian keeps to the terms of its licence. The bottom line is that those quotas or targets are in Meridian's licence, and I expect Ofcom to act to make sure that they are preserved. Members from all political parties must surely agree about that. The Government are trying to pull off the trick of giving companies flexibility and freedom to meet the competitive challenges that they face, to make changes to adapt to new technology and digital broadcasting, and to reorganise personnel as times change. Nobody wants things to stand still. My right hon. Friend generously said that Meridian, like any other company needs, from time to time, to make changes. As a media business, it needs to act quickly. No one wants to go back to the days when, to make change to, for example, patterns of employment, companies had to seek permission and jump a series of hurdles imposed by the ITC, Ofcom and the Government. Nobody wants to let that happen again. There is clearly a deal to be struck. If companies are to have the freedom that they need and want, we must make sure that Ofcom is empowered to act ferociously if they break the terms of their licence. This is a test case. The time to discuss whether the terms of the licence are sufficient to protect regional broadcasting has passed, but my robust message to the House is that I expect Ofcom to monitor the terms of licences and to take action if they are broken. I apologise for not answering all the questions asked by hon. Members, but I accept the importance of this debate. I can assure them that the Government will monitor what happens as far as possible. If things do not go as expected, we will have reason to comment in future. Question put and agreed to.
Media Takeovers Mr. Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to ensure that, in relation to any takeover of a major national newspaper or media group, the procedures adopted by the regulatory authorities are transparent and impartial and that there is no ministerial involvement. Mr. Sutcliffe [holding answer 5 January 2004]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published a consultation document on 15 December 2003 seeking views on draft guidance which she proposes to issue on the consideration of media public interest cases under the Enterprise Act 2002 (as amended by the Communications Act 2003). The new regime is substantially deregulatory compared to the old, with a small number of narrowly defined public interest considerations approved by Parliament. In relation to the newspaper public interest considerations (accurate presentation of news, free expression of opinion and plurality of views), new legislation recognises that, for newspapers, there have historically been a small number of cases that have raised public interest issues beyond those that would have been considered as part of a competition assessment. It therefore allows the Secretary of State to intervene in certain newspaper mergers on these public interest grounds. The draft guidance sets out some indications of the general approach she expects to adopt in deciding whether or not to intervene in a particular newspaper case. However each case will be decided on its own facts. In relation to the scope of the broadcasting and cross-media public interest considerations, whilst in principle the Secretary of State may intervene on these public interest grounds in any media merger case where these considerations are relevant, the draft guidance notes that as a matter of policy she expects thatintervention on these public interest grounds will normally only be considered in those areas where media ownership rules have been removed by the Communications Act. The assessment of newspaper and other media mergers on competition grounds will be the responsibility of the competition authorities. All of the procedures for all parts of the process will be transparent and impartial. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the House Libraries. Flexible Working Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Minister for Women what assessment has been made of the take-up by women of the right to request flexible working. Jacqui Smith: Preliminary evidence, including hits on the DTI working parents website and requests for guidance, indicate that interest in the right to request flexible working by mothers, and fathers, is high. We recently published the top 10 questions asked by employees when calling the Acas helpline, and continue to gather evidence from a wide number of sources to build up a clear picture of the demand for, and uptake of, the new law. The Department undertook an employee Work-Life Balance survey in 2003 as a baseline for comparison with a repeat survey due in 2005. The results will contribute to the review of the law that the Government are committed to initiate in 2006. Preliminary employee findings are available on the internet, www.dti.gov.uk/er/emar, and we are expecting to publish the full report soon. We are working with key intermediaries, such as Working Families and Maternity Alliance, who are collating data through member/supporter surveys. These organisations are due to report their findings to coincide with the first anniversary of the new law to request flexible working in April this year. We are also working with Prima Baby magazine which is carrying out a reader survey, and aims to publish the results in the March edition. The Department has also commissioned questions on flexible working which currently appear in the Office of National Statistics monthly Omnibus survey. The results of these can be made gender specific and will be available in spring 2004. Pregnancy Discrimination Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Minister for Women what steps are being taken to tackle pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Jacqui Smith: Discrimination on the ground of pregnancy or maternity is a form of direct discrimination on the ground of sex. The courts have interpreted the Sex Discrimination Act as meaning that discrimination on the ground that a woman is, or might become, pregnant is unlawful. This is reinforced by the amended Equal Treatment Directive published on 5 October 2002 which says that less favourable treatment on the grounds of pregnancy and maternity within the meaning of the Pregnant Workers Directive constitutes sex discrimination. In 1999, the Government introduced specific protections to prevent women from suffering detriment and from being unfairly dismissed or selected for redundancy for reasons connected with their pregnancy, childbirth or maternity leave. We have also ensured a woman has a clear right to return to her job after maternity leave, on the same terms and conditions as if she had not been away.
Data Protection Act 1998 Baroness Greengross asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether, in light of the deaths of Mr and Mrs Bates of Tooting and the handling of personal data relating to Ian Huntley, they have any plans to clarify the way the Data Protection Act 1998 protects vulnerable people of all ages. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I have discussed those tragic cases with the Information Commissioner, who is responsible for ensuring the effective operation of the Data Protection Act. Our initial view is that no change is needed to the Act itself. But there is obviously a need to ensure that organisations properly understand the Act, have clear compliance procedures and exercise sensible judgments. The commissioner today announced a package of measures to help prevent future misunderstandings and provide improved access to advice. Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. I fully understand the points that he has made and that we must wait until Sir Michael's inquiry before we know finally what the outcome will be. In the tragic case of Mr and Mrs Bates, the Data Protection Act's vital interest exemption should be speedily clarified and perhaps broadened so that employees of firms such as British Gas or people working in statutory agencies do not feel, rightly or wrongly, that they cannot pass on their concerns. Does the Minister agree with me that we must not put the protection of data before the protection of vulnerable people? I hope that he will put that point to the Information Commissioner?
Employment Relations Bill (2nd reading) Employment Regulations (2004) The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): The Department of Trade and Industry is helping business and other stakeholders adapt to changes to employment law and practice. Beginning in 2004, the DTI will implement those changes, which arise from within the UK and on which the Department leads, on only two dates in each year. It will also say at the beginning of each year, through an annual statement of forthcoming employment regulations, what those changes are expected to be. The two common commencement dates are:
The harmonisation of commencement dates is intended to ensure that changes to employment policy are made in a co-ordinated fashion and to provide businesses, employee representatives and individuals with greater clarity and awareness about when changes will be made. This should assist all parties to plan for new measures and help implement them effectively. Other Government Departments are considering how they might follow the DTI's lead where appropriate. This first annual statement details changes to employment law and practice that are due to commence in 2004 where DTI has the lead. It comprises of four Sections:
Further information on employment laws and the supporting framework is available on the DTI website http://www.dti.gov.uk/er .
Regulations to
commence on 6 April 2004 6 April '04 Conduct
of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 6 April '04 Extension
of Acas Arbitration Scheme to Scotland 6 April '04 Maternity
leave and paternity, and adoption leave and pay regulations Technical
amendments to fine-tune the operation of the new laws for working parents
introduced in April 2003 6 April '04 Regulations
to amend the National Minimum Wage to introduce new fair piece rate regime
The amendments introduce a system of fair piece rates for output workers
(workers that are paid according to how many pieces they produce). Output
workers will either have to be paid the minimum wage for all hours worked,
or paid under a system called rated output work.
Regulations to commence on 1 October 2004 Section B details changes to employment law and practice that are due to commence on 1 October 2004. 1 October '04 Annual
revision of National Minimum Wage The Government have
also asked the Commission to report by February 2004 on the possible introduction
of a minimum wage for workers aged 16 and 17. It is possible that a new
minimum wage rate may be introduced for this group in October 2004. The
Government will not make any decision until the Commission has reported. 1 October '04 Dispute
Resolution Regulations 1 October '04 Discipline
and Grievance Code of Practice 1 October '04 Employment
Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Rules Amendment of existing EAT Rules arising out
of the Employment Act 2002 relating to the handling of costs and expenses.
The EAT President has also tabled proposals for changes to the appeal
process. The changes will only impact on employers and employees who are
resolving a dispute at the EAT. 1 October '04 Employment
Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations The new regulations
and rules of procedure will seek to modernise the tribunal system and
render it more efficient. The regulations will cover both England and
Wales, and Scotland and will impact on employees and their employers who
are seeking to resolve a dispute at an employment tribunal. 1 October '04 Employment
Tribunals: New application forms 1 October '04 Equal
Pay Act, Rules of Procedure in equal value claims The regulations simplify
and streamline the complex rules of procedure relating to equal value
tribunal cases. The aim is to speed up the independent expert procedure
that presently can cause delay. 1 October '04 Equal
Pay Act, "No reasonable grounds" provision 1 October '04 TUPE
Regulations (probable) Other regulations
arising from Europe which are not aligned to either common commencement
date. August '04 Working
Time: Junior Doctors 8 October '04 The
European Company Statute
Section D Other key activity
2004 Consultations
in 2004 2004 Employment Relations
Bill 2003 Annually (1 February
'04) Annual revision of Employment Tribunal award limits. Annually Revision
of the standard rates of Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP), Statutory (4 April
(04)) Paternity Pay (SPP) and Statutory Adoption Pay (SAP). Spring 2005 Information
and Consultation Directive 2005 Equal Treatment
Directive October 2006 Age
Discrimination legislation Implementation of the elements of the European
Discrimination Directive which will outlaw discrimination in employment
on the grounds of age. The aim is to make draft regulations by end 2004,
after further consultation in the Spring. To allow businesses and employee
representatives sufficient time to prepare for the changes, the regulations
will not be brought into force until October 2006. The harmonisation of the commencement dates of employment regulations stems from a recommendation in the Better Regulation Taskforce 2002 report "Employment Regulation: Striking a balance". The Taskforce reported that a common complaint by employers was that changes to employment policy seem to happen in an uncoordinated fashion. It proposed common commencement dates for employment policy. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 31 March 2003 that the DTI would take the following action: 6 April (the beginning of the tax year) and 1 October (when the minimum wage is revised) will become the two set commencement dates for domestic employment regulations for which the DTI is responsible. For European legislation there will be a three-stage approach:
Beginning in 2004, DTI will publish an annual statement of forthcoming employment regulations every January. The DTI will ask central Government to foster inter-departmental co-operation with these changes. In Budget 2003 the Chancellor said other Government Departments should adopt the same approach. An e-mail alert system (www.dti.gov.uk/email/subscribe.htm) is now available on the DTI website for users to subscribe. Over 3,000 people have already registered. Leak Inquiries Richard Ottaway: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list occasions on which her Department have conducted an inquiry into alleged leaks from members of staff since 1997; and if she will list the occasions on which the names of those persons accused of leaking information from her Department have been made public (a) by the Government and (b) by way of another source. Ms Hewitt: The information is as follows:
On no occasion has the name of any person accused of leaking information been made public. Leak Inquiries Mr. Lilley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list occasions on which his Department has conducted an inquiry into alleged leaks from members of staff since 1997; and if he will list the occasions on which the names of those persons accused of leaking information from his Department have been made public (a) by the Government and (b) by way of another source. Ms Rosie Winterton [holding answer 12 January 2004]: Since 1997 the department has investigated 37 suspected leaks. In line with exemptions 1(a) and 7(b) set out in Part II of the "Code of Practice" on access to "Government Information", it has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on the outcome of such inquiries in order to safeguard security and investigative arrangements. Other than cases where legal action has been taken we are not aware of any cases where names have been made public. LORDS Direct Marketing to Children Baroness Howe of Idlicote rose to call attention to the extent of marketing aimed directly at children and the case for limiting its effects on society, children and families; and to move for Papers..... So it should be no surprise that today marketing to children is very big business indeed. The UK pre-school market alone is worth no less than £4.3 billion a year. Given that 76 per cent of pre-school children watch two hours or more television each day, and children between the ages of four and 15 watch rather more than that, it is hardly surprising that the food industry, marketeers and advertisers regard children as such a good target audience. During my time at the Broadcasting Standards Commission, we researched various aspects of children's broadcasting - both its quantity and quality. In those days, only 15 years ago, there was near invisibility of pre-school material. Overall, we found that the quantity was certainly up and the quality down, with far too many cartoons and a paucity of good drama. Since then the number of children's programmes has grown significantly-from over 10,000 hours in 1996 to over 32,000 in 2001. That is largely due to the increase in dedicated children's channels such as Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network. It is hardly surprising that that greatly increases the volume of advertising to which children are exposed. Our newspapers, too, have grown considerably in size, as have the number of adverts and promotions that they contain. But it is advertising on TV - that additional member of the family in every household - where the effects are perceived as greatest. That, along with the growing emphasis on successfully promoting brand loyalty, the use of celebrity endorsement and what are called "tie-ins" - the "must have" Muppet or Lord of the Rings model and the like. That is not the only form of expansion that affects the situation. More than three out of four of those between five and 16 now have their own television…. ….. However, there have been complaints that the system has not proved effective. Regarding the print media the non-statutory Advertising Standards Authority, through its CAP Code is the industry's watchdog. It lays down strict provisions about what may or may not be marketed to children. A recent ASA report says that there is not a general problem with non-broadcast material targeted at children. Ofcom, the new communication industry's regulator, with the ITC's responsibility for TV adverts since the beginning of the year, is currently engaged in public consultation on how TV and Radio adverts should in future be regulated. Ofcom's overall policy is for lighter, not stronger, regulation and they hope to co-regulate the advertising aspects of their responsibilities with the ASA. Both bodies will have important powers if they choose to use them. So is that existing statutory regulation and self-regulation enough? To illustrate the way in which we might respond to that question, I shall give an example. One of the most worrying developments over recent years is the increase in obesity ….. ….. Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, when I introduced the debate I said that I was looking forward to hearing your Lordships' contributions. It has been an extremely wide-ranging and interesting debate in which a great many expert suggestions as to the way forward were made. We are not yet on the road towards new legislation but the precautionary principle is definitely out there and needs to be noted. For me, the most important thing to come out of the debate was a recognition of the need to involve parents. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has been a champion in this area for many years. He is right on every occasion to involve a partnership with parents. In the same way, a partnership between government departments and a partnership with the food industry is also crucial. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I particularly thank the Minister for his wide and comprehensive review and for indicating the Government's commitment in this area. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers. Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
Ofcom Miss Kirkbride: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport
Estelle Morris: These are matters for the Office of Communications (Ofcom). DCMS officials have, therefore, asked the Chief Executive of Ofcom to respond directly to the hon. Member. Copies of the Chief Executive's letter will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Newspapers and Periodicals: Price Cutting Lord Peston asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they are aware of any examples of price cutting of the cover price of newspapers and periodicals at the retail level; and, if so, whether they will identify the examples. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): Her Majesty's Government do not keep pricing information on individual publications. However, we are aware of occasional discount on cover prices as part of short-term promotions. Working Time Regulations: Right to Opt Out Lord Taylor of Warwick asked Her Majesty's Government: What steps they will take to ensure that British workers will not lose the right to opt out of the 48-hour working week clause negotiated by the United Kingdom in 1993. Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The opt-out is important to the UK as it maintains flexible labour markets and gives choice to individuals to work longer hours if they so wish. I, and my colleagues are working in Europe to stress the importance of the opt out to both employers and employees and to ensure that key decision-makers understand the benefits of an approach which provides protection to workers who do not wish to work long hours without restricting those who wish to make a different choice.
Government Communications
Review The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The full report of the independent review of Government communications, chaired by Bob Phillis has been published today. The Minister for the Cabinet Office is grateful to the review for its work and consideration of these issues. The Report builds on the Review Team's interim report published in the summer. The Government accepted the interim report's recommendations. Central to the process is the appointment of a new Permanent Secretary, Government Communications which the Cabinet Office is currently in the process of recruiting. Departments have the responsibility to devise and implement communications operations and strategies appropriate to their needs. Bearing this in mind, the new Permanent Secretary will take forward, in consultation with departments, recommendations relating to a redefinition of the overall role of Government communications, the structures necessary to deliver this activity and the improved training and development of all communications specialists. The Permanent Secretary will also consider whether the existing rules and guidance are fit for purpose and whether any additional clarification is required. We note the Committee's conclusion on ministerial involvement in the selection processes for communications professionals which will be taken forward in discussions already underway with the Civil Service Commissioners. The Government also agree that it must communicate with the public in the widest possible way, including greater use of regional briefings and electronic communications. It will look at how departments' websites could be better coordinated and structured to encourage greater public participation in the development and communication of Government policies. The Government remain committed to the principle, reflected in the Ministerial Code, that when the House is sitting announcements of Government policy should, in the first instance, be made in Parliament. It agrees that more Ministers should host lobby briefings and that these should be open and televised. The Government will now enter into discussions with the relevant public authorities, including Parliament, and the Parliamentary Lobby, on how best to pursue these proposals. The Government also note the review's recommendations on the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. A great deal of work is going on to ensure that departments are fully prepared for the legislation which comes into force on 1 January 2005 and the Government are fully committed to ensuring full and effective implementation of the Act across the whole of the public sector. The review's recommendations will be taken into account as part of this implementation process. On the use of statistics, the Government welcome the review's acknowledgement that some important steps have been taken to reinforce the independence of the statistical service. The Government note the review's recommendations on access to pre-release national statistics. Under the National Statistics Code of Practice and its associated protocol on release practices, issued in September 2002, there are already long-established and effective procedures in place to restrict early access to certain data to a small number of Ministers and officials, so that they are able to provide an authoritative response when questions arise at the time of release. There are no plans to change this. Regional Development Agencies Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what mechanisms are in place for evaluating the performance of projects undertaken by regional development agencies. Jacqui Smith: All RDA projects have to be appraised within the rules of Government Accounting and Treasury's "Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government" Guide (The Green Book). To supplement this higher level guidance, the Department has worked closely with RDAs, other Departments and the Office of Project Appraisal Training to produce the "Single Programme Appraisal Guidance". The guidance covers project appraisal and evaluation of completed projects. The appraisal itself must contain an evaluation plan specific to the project, and after the project is completed, the RDA to carry out a formal evaluation and report the results. In addition, DTI has reserved the right to call in any project for post appraisal and implementation monitoring. Now that RDAs have been in operation for four years, significant numbers of projects are entering their evaluation stages. To ensure compliance with the guidance, each RDA has a project performance and evaluation team of senior officers who are tasked with determining the success of the project, to identify lessons to be incorporated into other projects and to improve processes. Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria are used to measure the (a) success and (b) effectiveness of regional development agencies. Jacqui Smith: The Regional Development Agencies; funding is tied to a framework of targets relating to their functions, and responsibility for the monitoring and evaluation of progress towards achievement of these targets sits with the Government Office in each region. Their reports provide Ministers with the information required to measure the success and effectiveness of RDAs by assessing their progress towards achievement of targets and delivery of their Regional Economic Strategies and Corporate Plans.
Code of Practice on Consultation The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Today I am launching a revised Code of Practice on Consultation. It will come into force on 1 April 2004 and replaces the Code of Practice on Written Consultation published in November 2000. This revised Code will help in the Government's continued drive to improve consultation. It is shorter and clearer; it strengthens the commitment to providing respondents with feedback and to following better regulation best practice in developing policy options. The Code is supported by web-based guidance available at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/consultation-guidance. I encourage all Departments and relevant public bodies to use it effectively. Copies of the Code have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Freedom of Information Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what recent steps the Department has taken to promote (a) freedom of information, (b) data protection and (c) human rights. Mr. Lammy: Details of the steps taken to promote freedom of information in the last year are included in the annual report on bringing into force those provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which are not yet fully in force. This was laid before both Houses on 27 November 2003 and copies have been placed in the Library. The Department has also produced a model action plan to assist public authorities in their preparations for implementation of the Freedom of Information Act which includes sections on raising awareness of freedom of information with staff, stakeholders and the public. Copies are available from the Department and its website. The Department has regular meetings with the Information Commissioner, who has statutory responsibility for promoting the observance of the requirements of the Data Protection Act by data controllers and for disseminating information to the public about the operation of the Act. The Information Commissioner also has responsibility for the promotion of awareness and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. Both the Commissioner and the Department keep under review the operation of the Data Protection Act and closely monitor and contribute to the development of international initiatives in the data protection field. Officials at the Department have delivered eight awareness raising roadshows on human rights in the past year. The delivery of roadshows is on-going and with further dates already confirmed in Leeds and Oxford. The Department maintains a dedicated human rights helpdesk to assist members of the public and produces publications including a detailed "Study Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998", a leaflet entitled "An introduction to the Human Rights Act," which is available in nine different languages, plus an audio tape and a copy of the study guide in braille. The officials are also in the process of commissioning CD ROM guidance on the Act, a further edition of the study guide and special guidance for those with learning disabilities. The Department's human rights website attracts praise from a number of key stakeholders, and receive an average of 1,150 hits per week. The Department provides assistance to the Institute for Global Ethics and Citizenship Foundation in delivering the Impetus Project-encouraging children across the UK to learn about human rights as part of their citizenship education. I have written in my capacity as Minister for Human Rights to each Council Leader and Public Authority Chief Executive in England and Wales-enclosing a copy of an Audit Commission report on human rights. The Act can be a valuable tool for driving up standards of public service delivery. I am keen to ensure that the Department takes advantage of every opportunity to speak on human rights.
Draft Disability Discrimination Bill: Timetable Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government: What is their proposed timescale for the draft Disability Discrimination Bill. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the draft Discrimination Disability Bill will undergo pre-legislative scrutiny. We expect the committee to report at the end of April and that we shall publish our response in the summer. The legislative programme for the next Session of Parliament will be announced in the usual way. Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that practically all of the major disability organisations have given a very warm welcome to the Bill because of its important provisions and that practically all of these organisations are concerned that there may be an undue delay because it is only a draft Bill? In view of the fact that we have had consultations for more than four years with disabled people, business, trade unions and the public sector, will the Government try to expedite the enactment of the Bill so that disabled people can soon get the extra protection against discrimination that the Bill will afford? Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is our intention that the Bill will be passed this Parliament, although obviously I cannot pre-empt exactly what will be in the Queen's Speech. Lord Higgins: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, while the draft Bill is welcome, there is widespread concern that it has not been introduced as a substantive Bill at this stage? The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said that there have been years of widespread consultation and a general consensus seems to have been reached. Will she tell us which particular aspects of the Bill made it necessary to send it to a Joint Committee? Are we to understand from what she has just said that the substantial Bill will not be introduced in this Session and that instead we shall have procrastination in the Joint Committee? Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I would not use words such as procrastination; that is quite inappropriate. There are procedures, including roll-over, which are available to the usual channels, if that is what they want to pursue. To go back to the substance of the noble Lord's question, Bert Massie, who is the chair of the Disability Rights Commission said this month:
I think that answers the noble Lord. Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister give us some indication of the Government's thinking about the implementation of any final Bill? One of the problems with the original legislation was that it took so long to be implemented that it went from being a long-term project, to a medium-term project, to a panic. Can we make sure that there will be better planning over time for the final implementation of the Bill? Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. That is again where we would expect the support of the scrutiny committee. I am sure your Lordships are aware of the membership of that body. It includes, for example, from your Lordships' House - it will be on the Order Paper tomorrow - the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Carter, Lord Rix, Lord Swinfen and Lord Tebbit, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. Given that degree of strength on the scrutiny committee - I do not know about your Lordships but the committee certainly terrifies me - I am confident that they will not allow any such delay or hesitation in implementation as the noble Lord suggests. Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, for how long do the Government expect the Bill to remain a draft? Are the Government already receiving proposed amendments and additions? Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thought that I had attempted to answer that. I clearly did not. This is a draft scrutiny Bill. The committee will be receiving the evidence and reporting to the Government by the end of April. It is our intention that a Bill will be introduced into Parliament and completed before this Parliament ends. We are on track to meet our manifesto commitments in that respect. Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I, too, most warmly welcome the Government's enormous progress in this field and congratulate my noble friend and her ministerial colleagues, more especially, of course, Maria Eagle, as Minister for disabled people. But can my noble friend say whether the draft Bill will be available in all the different formats necessary to make it accessible to blind people and others in need of them? Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. My noble friend is right, it is important that, if one is having a draft scrutiny process, all possible stakeholders are aware of the issues involved. As a result, the Bill is already available in Braille, it is on the DWP's website and by the end of the week there will be an easy-reading version for people with learning difficulties. I have a draft with me. It has cartoons and so on and may be of particular appeal to your Lordships. Also, and more interestingly, if I may say so, by the end of the month we expect to have a video available in British Sign Language. All of the obvious formats are covered in ways that probably have not been done before in legislation. Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, as much as the Bill is enabling in nature, will my noble friend give an assurance that the draft regulations will be made available at the earliest opportunity so that the Joint Committee can give proper scrutiny to the Bill? Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my understanding is that the regulations will not be ready in draft form while the committee is sitting but that the officials intend to submit an explanatory memorandum describing the import of the regulations which I trust will be of value to the committee. Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the definition of disability could be improved to include people with mental health problems who currently have a lot of problems and suffer a great deal of discrimination in getting benefits and claiming protection under the DDA? Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. The definition of disability, as opposed to sickness, is that it is long-standing and has an adverse effect on daily life. It tends to mean, for example, that if somebody has severe mental health problems, they would normally have lasted perhaps 12 months or be of a recurring nature. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that it is one of the biggest growth areas, if I can use that phrase. Of the increasing numbers of people claiming disability benefit, nearly one third have mental health problems and learning difficulties. They are people who find it extremely difficult to re-enter work, whereas people with what would appear to be more severe disabilities, such as blindness or deafness, actually manage to re-enter the labour market more effectively. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that it is a very difficult area. I certainly compliment the Schizophrenia Fellowship and the Richmond Fellowship on the work that they do in trying to help people with severe mental health problems build their confidence and re-enter the labour market. As I say, this is an extremely difficult area. Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I am glad to hear what the Minister said about including cartoons for those who have difficulty reading. Is she aware that 10 per cent of the population have dyslexia? Is the Bill written in accordance with the recommendations of the Dyslexia Association whereby the correct fonts, the correct spacing and the correct colour of paper are used? Has she followed those recommendations? Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my understanding is that that has been done regarding font size and so on. However, I shall check on the point about colour as that also affects people with red/green colour blindness, not just dyslexics.
Working Hours Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of (a) total employees, (b) female employees and (c) male employees in the UK worked an average of more than 48 hours per week in the last year for which figures are available. Mr. Sutcliffe: According to the Spring 2003 Labour Force Survey 15 per cent. of employees usually worked over 48 hours per week. 6 per cent. of female employees and 23 per cent. of male employees usually worked over 48 hours per week. Working Time Directive Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place in the Library a copy of the research document commissioned by her Department on The use and necessity of Article 18(b)(1) of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom. Mr. Sutcliffe: The research document in question was not commissioned by my Department, but by the European Commission. They have not published it, but I understand they can provide copies of it on request. Gender Equality Directive Mr. Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): If she will make a statement on the implementation of the gender equality directive. The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui Smith): The Government welcome the draft proposal for a new gender equality directive. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women has spoken to Commissioner Diamantopolou to express our commitment to it and to share the positive UK experience of successful domestic legislation that outlaws gender discrimination in goods and services. The UK looks forward to working constructively with the Commission and other member states. Mr. Syms : Does the Minister know that there are concerns, especially in the financial services industry, about the directive's implementation? Car insurers judge women under 35 apparently to be better drivers and consequently give them better insurance premiums. There is anxiety that the directive might place higher costs on women drivers. Jacqui Smith: First, the hon. Gentleman is right that it is proposed that the directive, like the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, will rightly cover financial services. It is unacceptable that pregnant women could be disadvantaged when accessing mortgages simply because of their pregnant state. It is unacceptable that married women could access credit only if their husbands acted as guarantors, and that part-time workers, most of whom are women, should not be able to apply for loans. In all those cases, British women already enjoy protection rights under the Sex Discrimination Act. We want other European women, including British women who live abroad, to have those same basic rights. I am however aware of the specific anxieties of the UK insurance industry about the new directive and its effect on risk-based pricing on the basis of gender. I recently met representatives of the Association of British Insurers and we have heard and will continue to listen to their concerns and those of other stakeholders. We shall negotiate constructively when developing the directive to ensure that the final agreement fully reflects UK priorities and concerns, including those of UK business interests. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): Will the Minister join me in commending the Belgrave Beheno project in Leicester for its work on promoting the gender equality directive? It is in my constituency, but my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women has visited it many times. Will my hon. Friend condemn the decision of the Liberal-Conservative council to cut the grant of £129,000 to the project? That will have a serious effect on its ability to campaign on the directive and other women's issues. Jacqui Smith: I am reassured that the project must be very good if both my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women speak so highly of it. My view is simple: it is no good talking about a commitment to tackling inequality and discrimination if, as apparently happens with Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, when they are in power, they cut the money to support it. Mrs. Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con): All too often, the Government enthusiastically embrace European directives without doing a proper cost-benefit analysis or working out their impact if implemented here. Perhaps their enthusiasm for the directive may be tempered by considering the ways in which women in Britain will lose out. The financial services industry traditionally recognises the reality of the difference between the sexes, for example, through car insurance. It acknowledges the greater longevity of women and awards them an advantage. The directive creates an artificial position: it removes the differences, but also some of the financial advantages that women enjoy. Beyond simply listening and being aware, will the Government seek to derogate in line with the advantages of both sexes? Jacqui Smith: First, the hon. Lady makes an important point about ensuring that we push for full regulatory impact assessment, to which I referred earlier, of all European directives. We are doing that throughout Europe and will continue to do it. It is important to acknowledge that we already have a significant advantage in evaluating the effect of the directive because it replicates many of the rights for men and women that we already take for granted in the Sex Discrimination Act. However, alongside my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I undertake to listen to the insurance industry's concerns on the specific issue of risk-based pricing in relation to gender and, as I said earlier, to negotiate constructively to ensure that UK concerns are represented as the directive progresses. We must none the less make progress with the directive, because it will be an important step forward in terms of equality for men and women across the whole of Europe. Rural White Paper The Minister for
Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): Following
the publication of the review of the Rural White Paper, hard copies are
now available in the House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries. Trademarks and Origin Marking Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government: What is their view of any proposals to abolish national trading marks and replace them by a European Union-wide trademark. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, no proposals have been made to abolish national trading marks and replace them by a European Union-wide trademark. The European Commission has produced for discussion with member states and other interests a working document setting out options in considering possible EU origin marking for EU products. The working document does not suggest abolition of national markings such as "Made in Britain", but raises the possibility of an additional label. Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that the Financial Times has carried extracts from the working document that suggest that there are proposals for an EU-wide label of origin. Does the Minister agree that in a zone as disparate as an EU of 25 countries, a label, "Made in the EU", would be about as useful as a label saying, "Made in Asia"? Does he further agree that any such proposal might help manufacturers of Welsh whisky or dress designers in Barnsley hoping to be confused with designers in Milan, but would seriously undermine German, French and British manufacturers that rely on national characteristics to build brand and quality differentiation?
Working Parents' Rights Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries) (Lab): What steps she will take to ensure that the recently introduced rights for working parents will be fully implemented in small and medium-sized enterprises. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): The Government have consulted small and medium-sized enterprises fully on these important rights, and are running an awareness campaign that includes the direct mailing of SMEs with full details of the benefits. ACAS has been running employer training seminars. Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Maternity and paternity leave can occasionally cause small businesses cash flow problems. Can he offer them any help with that aspect of the new support that we want to give to working parents? Nigel Griffiths: Yes. To tackle cash-flow problems, small businesses can claim money up front from the Inland Revenue for maternity and paternity pay, and the Chancellor is increasing the threshold for small employers' relief to £45,000 from 6 April. Mr. Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con): Does the Minister recognise that implementing working parents' rights is not a problem for large, wealthy corporations-they might not want to do it, but they can certainly afford it- but that, unless the arrangements are implemented flexibly, it could be the difference between a small business surviving and going under? Will he give us an assurance that there will be flexibility for small businesses, which do so much to create new jobs? Nigel Griffiths: Yes. Ms Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op): Small businesses in my constituency tell me that one of their problems when introducing new rights or responding to new regulations is that, although information may be provided initially, they do not have the benefit of large personnel departments subsequently to provide the information. What are the Government doing to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises have ready access to advice and information on these rights and on other regulations? Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Minister for Employment Rights, Competition and Consumers, the Secretary of State and the Department have been at pains to ensure that proper advisory services and guidance notes are available. I have seen the guidance note pack that is being sent out, and it is excellent. It was drawn up in full consultation with the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and others. I know that the Minister for Employment Rights, Competition and Consumers is grateful for their input and takes the point made by my hon. Friend very much to heart.
Equal Pay Mr. Woodward: To ask the Minister for Women what the Government's policy is on transparency of remuneration in relation to equal pay; and what plans the Government have to achieve equal pay for men and women performing the same job description where women are paid less than their male counterparts. Jacqui Smith: The Government are taking the issue of transparency of pay seriously. We believe that secrecy can perpetuate the gender pay gap. Employers must ensure that pay systems and practices do not lead to pay inequalities between men and women. This is particularly important with discretionary performance pay and bonuses. We have introduced the equal pay questionnaire to help people who think they have an equal pay problem find out from their employers whether this is the case. We believe that carrying out an equal pay review should be good business practice for every employer and have developed a number of initiatives to help them, including funding the Equal Opportunities Commission to develop equal pay toolkits. We are working in partnership with business, trade unions, the EOC and Opportunity Now to ensure that 35 per cent. of large employers have done pay reviews by 2006. We are also improving the way the Equal Pay Act works in practice and will be consulting shortly on proposals to speed up and simplify complex equal value cases. Bullying/Harassment John Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
Mr. Sutcliffe: The Government take bullying at work very seriously and believe that employees should be able to work without fear of being bullied or harassed from employers, fellow employees or anybody else. There is a safety net of legislation already in existence that employees can turn to. This includes the: Sex Discrimination Act, Race Relations Act, Disability Discrimination Act, Protection from Harassment Act, Health and Safety Act, Employment Rights Act and the Employment Act 2002. In addition New Employment Equality Regulations came into force last December protecting those experiencing discrimination, harassment and victimisation at work on grounds of sexual orientation or religion or belief. We are working to support the dissemination of high quality best practice information on the new regulations to employers, individuals and - importantly - advice giving organisations and agencies through the funding we have allocated in the current financial year. The Health and Safety Executive are producing a set of management Standards. The Standards are designed to provide a yardstick for organisations by which they can gauge the levels of stress and other associated problems among staff thereby helping them to identify where action is required. One of these, the Relationship Management Standard, focuses on bullying. Assisting with the development of best practice operations is a group, under ACAS management called Race and Equality Advisory Service (REAS). This team of advisers deliver practical, best practice equality advice to organisations. This complements ACAS's wider role of providing services to organisations to help their businesses to flourish. Continuing the promotion of best practice is the Partnership at Work Fund administered by DTI. This has provided grants to support organisations wishing to focus on best practice initiatives specifically encouraging employees and employers to work together to resolve issues. A number of projects have focused on reducing bullying, while others have included it as part of their wider objectives. Bullying and harassment is an area of growing importance in the work of ACAS. It uses multiple channels for dissemination of guidance including: publications (available in hard copy and through the internet); face to face training and seminars; advice via the ACAS National Helpline; and also more in depth focussed work within workplaces Two publications - 'Bullying and Harassment: A Guide for Managers and Employers and Bullying and Harassment: A Guide for Employees' with an annual distribution of approximately 26,000 copies offer guidance and form the basis of training programmes and seminars organised by ACAS. In 2003, around 200 seminars and training events were run focussing on the subject of bullying and harassment. The feedback from delegates to ACAS events is overwhelmingly positive with, across the board, 97 per cent. reporting that they were satisfied with the quality and content of their training. Follow up work with delegates in 2003, around 200 seminars and training events were run focussing on the subject of bullying and has also shown that the guidance offered by ACAS has positive and lasting benefits with 60 per cent. saying that they review policy and practice after attending ACAS events and around a third actually implemented change or introduced new policies after attending events. The ACAS National Helpline also plays an important role in disseminating guidance. Around 600 calls are received monthly on this issue. Overall the feedback on the helpline is found to be extremely beneficial with 92 per cent. reporting satisfaction with the service received from the Helpline and 84 per cent. of callers reporting that they found the information provided was valuable in fully answering their inquiry.
Lord Hutton's Report The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement following Lord Hutton's report into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly…… Traffic Management Bill - Standing Committee A Clause 18 Guidance to local traffic authorities Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Knight: I seek some information from the Minister. He referred to the language used by lawyers, and in this clause, the first sentence states that the
What does he mean by the word ''publish''? Legally, something is published if it is given to a person other than the author. Does he envisage that the guidance will be published only for local traffic authorities, or will it reach a wider audience? I sincerely hope that it is intended for ''publish'' to be interpreted in the widest sense. Every local library and local newspaper should have a copy of the guidance. I should like to see to a copy when it is published, so I hope the Minister will agree to put one in the Library. I say that because subsection (2) says:
now we have the word ''shall''
In other words, if the local traffic authority does not follow the guidance, it is in breach of a duty. If the guidance is not widely published, how will the public know whether their traffic authority is in breach of the duty under which they are supposed to operate? I hope that the Minister will reassure the Committee that a copy of the guidance will be available to any member of the public on request. It would be unfair to expect the Minister to tell us everything that he thinks will be in the guidance today. Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): Why? Mr. Knight: I think it is fair that the Minister listens to arguments that are adduced as the Bill progresses through Parliament. That may cause him to put more into the guidance than he would do otherwise. I do not criticise him for not producing a copy of the guidance today. However, I hope that when he and his officials consider the framework of the guidance, he will be willing to take on board my suggestion that whenever roadworks involve the closure or narrowing of a carriageway, a complaints telephone number should be affixed to a temporary sign so that aggrieved motorists have a point of contact through which they can express their concerns. Reference was made this morning to local authorities sometimes not being on the ball and causing more disruption than when the utilities companies dig up a road. It would be worth while for the motorist to know who to call with a valid complaint about what is happening. I hope that the guidance will require those who undertake work on the highway to display such a number. Mr. McNulty: I may have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's last point and it can be thrown in the pot for discussion. I make no apology for having no guidance here now, not least for the reasons that he suggested. It would have been presumptuous of me-nay, arrogant-to produce such guidance before the Committee had even started. The last Government governed by diktat every now and then, but we seek to be as expansive, involving and inclusive as possible. We want the guidance to emerge with the Committee's collective wisdom. In addition, as I think I said before, we seek to hold the widest possible consultation with interested parties, such as utilities, local authorities and local government associations. We shall undertake to conduct that process as quickly as we can. I have laid a paper before the Committee that describes roughly what will be in the guidance, but that by no means includes an exclusive list. We certainly intend to publish that information in the widest sense of the word, not the narrow sense. I am sure that it was a great honour for my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) to receive a copy. The information is due to be published. We seek a far wider dissemination of it in the consultative stage and, ultimately, in the final stage. Quite what the form will be beyond the normal practice of ensuring that highway authorities have the information, putting it on the website and whatever else, I do not know. However, I undertake to ensure that the information will be published in the widest sense. The document will be a public document. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) is right that the ''shall'' in subsection (2) is supposed to apply with force rather than be optional. Regardless of whether obtuse things prevail in Cumbria and not in Cornwall, all the relevant parties under the Bill will be obliged to satisfy us with their network management duty. They have no choice or flexibility other than in how they do that, but the fact that they must do it is provided for in the Bill. With those assurances, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Knight: I am grateful
to the Minister. He has provided me with the assurances that I sought.
Question put and agreed to. Mobile Phone Masts Mr. Mitchell : Does the Minister agree with the following quote taken from an article in the South Wales Evening Post on 11 December 2003? In it, a spokesman for Tetra Airwave mentioned that it was up to the Home Office to decide on the safety of the system, saying:
Do the Government agree that technology providers have a specific responsibility for the safety of the technology they provide? Will the Minister clarify exactly who is responsible for setting precautionary guidance in these matters? I have given the Minister prior notice of those questions, and I am grateful to her and her officials for considering them. Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): My constituents have asked me how Airwave can say that safety is not its concern when the suppliers of drugs, such as thalidomide, found themselves responsible for the consequences of supplying them. Mr. Mitchell : My hon. Friend makes a good legal point and, although I am neither a scientist nor a lawyer, it sounds right. Airwave's attitude is not acceptable in providers of such equipment, as he said. Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I am sure that every MP has the same problem. Local newspapers, such as the Evening News in Norwich, have taken up the clarion call, and people like me are targeted by Orange. I expect that on returning home I will find a mast in my garden, because I have asked for mobile-free zones. It is said that people like mobile phones. What would they do if they went home and found a mast in their front garden?
Hutton Report The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall make a short Statement on the Hutton report and then repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. This morning I received formal delivery of the report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, into the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Dr Kelly. Perhaps I may first pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, for the exemplary way in which he and his team conducted this inquiry. The inquiry was carried out in a meticulous and fair manner in little over six months. The report runs into 328 pages plus appendices and stands as a testament to the unstinting efforts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. The report was laid before the House at 12.25 p.m. today. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, delivered a summary of his conclusions immediately afterwards, in the Royal Courts of Justice. At 2 p.m. the Prime Minister made a Statement in the other place outlining the Government's view in relation to the conclusions of the report. With the leave of the House I would now like to repeat that Statement….. Inland Revenue: Disclosure of Information Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts asked Her Majesty's Government: Under what circumstances the Inland Revenue can lawfully pass on information which they have received in the course of their duties. Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The position under successive governments has been that the law on taxpayer confidentiality only allows the Inland Revenue to pass on information outside the department if it has the individual's consent or the disclosure is otherwise permitted by law.
LORDS BBC Chairman The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat the Answer to an urgent Question asked and answered in another place earlier this afternoon. The Question was to ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a Statement on the process of appointing a new chairman of the BBC. The Answer is as follows:
My Lords, that concludes the Statement. Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for being flexible on the timing of this Statement. The Opposition join the Government in wanting to put on record our appreciation of the outstanding contribution made by Gavyn Davies as vice-chairman and as chairman of the BBC. We, too, very much regret that a new chairman must now be appointed. We agree that the fact that Gavyn Davies felt that he had to resign is a mark of his honour and integrity. It also shows his overriding concern for the interests of the BBC. I also take this opportunity to join the Minister in paying tribute to Greg Dyke. I entirely agree with the Minister's comments about Greg Dyke as an inspirational leader who has brought to the corporation a great deal of excitement, change and challenge. We accept that it is the governors who must now appoint his successor. The corporation needs strong leadership, stability and the capacity to engage fully with the charter review process, which is already under way. We welcome the fact that the new appointment will be overseen by Dame Rennie Fritchie. She comes with a distinguished record of having already exposed the Government for packing health quangos with their own placemen. Does the Minister accept that if the Government had accepted our amendment during the passage of the Communications Bill to place the BBC fully under the remit of Ofcom, this whole sorry business of having to find a new chairman might not have arisen? Does he also accept that the public are rightly concerned at the very powerful accusations by Greg Dyke that he and other journalists at the BBC were systematically bullied and intimidated by the Government and that that makes it all the more important that the process of appointing the new chairman is impartial? As morale at the BBC is clearly extremely low, will the Minister ensure that the appointment of a new chairman takes place speedily, as the BBC needs clear direction at a critical time? Will the new independent process for selecting the chairman of the BBC be made permanent? Will this very welcome transparent process extend to all other board members of the BBC in future? Finally, I return to the DCMS document, Review of the BBC's Royal Charter, published in December 2003. Page 24 makes the position clear. It states:
We on these Benches have always argued that the BBC board of governors cannot both run and regulate the BBC. There is now an even stronger case for independent regulation of the BBC. The role of chairman is a tough challenge. Let us hope that the events of the past week will not deter the right candidate from coming forward. Lord McNally: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Baroness on a number of her points, including whether the Ofcom magic would have worked. I suspect we shall return to those issues, perhaps on Wednesday and certainly at later discussions about the BBC Charter. I hope that the willingness of the Government to respond to this Question today indicates that it has dawned on them over the weekend that winning a game 26-nil is not always the best outcome, even for the victors, and that there is therefore a new sense of realism about what should happen at the BBC. We only have to imagine how we would have looked at a happening abroad where there was a spat between the prime minister and the state broadcaster that resulted in the removal of the chairman and the director-general of that state broadcaster. One would say that that would be quite understandable in Mr Berlusconi's Italy or perhaps even in President Putin's Russia, but not in a country that has taken pride in the robust independence of the BBC from the government of the day for over three-quarters of a century. Therefore, any hint of the "berlusconisation" of the BBC is something that is not only difficult to say but to be resisted. We welcome the reference to the Nolan rules and the scrutiny panel in the Answer. We also welcome the assurances that the final choice will be free from political influence. Does the Minister agree with me that politicians should not necessarily be barred from applying? We can think of very good examples - Lord Hill of Luton in the BBC, my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth in the IBA - who have managed to carry out these responsibilities with great skill. It is important to get the right person rather than to worry about their politics. I share the noble Baroness's concern about speed. Of course, the process should be thorough, but there is a need for somebody to be at the helm as quickly as possible. There is also a need - we welcome the mention of it in the Statement-for a commitment to an independent, well financed BBC as the iron pole of our public service broadcasting. Vested interests and the enemies of the BBC have certainly seen their opportunity in the past few days. It is important that those of us who value a commitment to this organisation should be prepared to fight for it. That also goes for the Secretary of State and for the Minister's department, the DCMS. All too often over the past months there has been an impression that, in Lord Willis's immortal phrase, the DCMS has been like a cushion bearing the imprint of the backside that sat on it last. If we are to defend the BBC, the first line of defence must be a robust Secretary of State and a robust departmental responsibility for its integrity. The commitments in this Statement are extremely welcome. By their deeds we shall now judge them. The sooner a good, independent chair of the BBC is in place, the better for all concerned. Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Statement was about the process of appointment of the chairman of the BBC. I shall depart so far from the subject matter of the Statement as to welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said about Gavyn Davies's work as chairman and Greg Dyke's work as director-general. I know the Secretary of State will be very grateful to hear those views expressed in this House. A number of the other points made do not relate directly to the process of appointment of the chairman of the BBC. It would not be appropriate for me to respond to them, other than to say that many of these issues will come up over the next couple of years in the consideration of the charter review. It is entirely appropriate that those views, which have been expressed, should be expressed now but the Government should respond to them only in the context of the charter review. I can confirm, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, that it is the duty of the governors to appoint a successor to Greg Dyke as director-general. She asked me about speed and urged it on the Government. I entirely agree with her. My understanding is that press advertisements will appear within the next week. We have no intention of losing time or leaving the BBC in a position of uncertainty. I do not think that there is anything else I need to respond to, other than to reaffirm, as did the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that it is the intention of the charter review process to land up with a strong, independent BBC. I think that that is welcomed all round the House. Lord Barnett: My Lords, as oppositions do not like to congratulate governments too often, perhaps I could. I am happy to congratulate the Government on deciding to use the Nolan rules, even though I was appointed as vice-chairman by the then Prime Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. She also appointed me acting chairman on the occasion when, sadly, the chairman died. I am sure that the Government are right to press ahead as quickly as possible. I hope that they will not rush into accepting the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that an independent regulator might have avoided a lot of these or any other troubles. I am not sure that Gilligan's error would have been spotted any quicker by an independent regulator. I hope all of us are concerned about a truly independent BBC with an independent chairman. In my experience, whichever political party held the chairmanship of the time, there was never any problem with its independence, even though the chairmen were not appointed under the Nolan rules. The Nolan rules are an improvement and I congratulate my noble friend. Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for those congratulations. Lord Puttnam: My Lords, given that the entire thrust of the Government's statement seems to be about independence, impartiality and the creation of an atmosphere of trust, does the Minister agree that very important people, such as chairmen of select committees, would do well to temper their expressions of prejudice during this difficult period? There is a real danger that in displaying prejudice they could discredit the entire system of evidence-based select committee scrutiny. Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in so far as that question relates to the process of appointment of the chairman of the BBC, I would say that everyone involved in the process of selecting the new chairman of the BBC should exercise the maximum restraint. Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, how will the panel that is to make the selection be compiled? How will the role specification be alighted upon? Will there be any external consultation, particularly with the governors, on both those matters? Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not normal to name those who take part in the interviewing process other than to say, as the Statement says, that there will be an independent assessor. The answer to the second part of the noble Lord's question is that Dame Rennie Fritchie is already involved and will be involved throughout the process including in the selection of the panel of three Privy Counsellors and of the independent assessor. Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I understood the noble Lord to say that the process will be carried out according to the Nolan rules, that it will be scrutinised by the scrutiny panel and that a name will be put forward to the Prime Minister that he will put before Her Majesty. Will the Prime Minister be able to decline to put that name forward? Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Nolan rules are very clear and we shall observe them in detail. They involve publishing a role specification against which all candidates will be assessed, advertising the post as widely as is necessary and, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, shortlisting candidates who will be interviewed by a panel, including an independent assessor, who will be involved throughout the process. The final part of the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is answered under the Royal Charter which says that the appointment will be made by the Queen in Council following this process on the advice of Ministers. It does not mention the Prime Minister specifically. Clearly, the Prime Minister has at least a formal responsibility for any advice that he tenders to Her Majesty, but that is true of all appointments; there is nothing particular about this one. Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I hope that I may follow that up. Can Ministers decline to put the name forward? That was my point. Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that in theory they could. Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, given the grave circumstances under which these resignations of two such distinguished people have taken place, is it not appropriate that all the people who are to be on the scrutiny panel are named in the interests of greater transparency and, indeed, independence? Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have said that we shall involve the Commissioner for Public Appointments right from the very beginning and that she has agreed to be involved. She will be assisted by a panel of three Privy Counsellors from the three major parties. If she wants to make recommendations about the process-so long as those recommendations do not involve a departure from Nolan procedures-of course we shall listen. Lord Jopling: My Lords, while it must be right that Mr Davies and Mr Dyke resigned, will the party leaders be consulted in this process? Does the noble Lord not agree that there is some advantage in choosing a chairman with no political baggage? I say that as the noble Lord will know that over the years there have been a great many accusations from both sides of this House and another place that the BBC has been guilty of bias. I seem to recall that often that was attributed either to Labour "luvvies" or to Conservative contributors. Does he not agree that it would be an advantage if someone could be found to lead the BBC in the future who had sufficiently tough managerial experience and no political baggage? Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it would be most unwise for me to respond to suggestions regarding the right kind of person to lead the BBC whether it is the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that he or she should not be a politician or the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that he or she should be a politician - I did not quite think that that comment constituted the job application when he said it. I shall not respond to that point if the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, will forgive me. However, the noble Lord asked me a specific question regarding consultation with party leaders. We have said that Dame Rennie Fritchie will convene the scrutiny panel of Privy Counsellors. Who she consults in doing that is a matter for her. The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, why will the names of those on the scrutiny panel not be published? Will the noble Lord give an undertaking that even though theoretically the Prime Minister can decline to accept the nomination and pass it on to Her Majesty, he will not do so? Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say that the names of those on the scrutiny panel would not be published. The names of the three Privy Counsellors will be published. I said that it was not normal practice for the names of those on the interviewing panel to be published. My answer regarding the powers of the Prime Minister was a theoretical answer. It has always been the case that when the Prime Minister submits names to Her Majesty he has the power in theory to reject names. Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, in view of recent events, will the noble Lord ensure that no judge is involved in this process? Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall not comment on the qualifications or background of any potential candidate for the job. Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept an anecdotal reminiscence that the procedure outlined seems likely to be an improvement on the one that was followed when I was remarkably present in the early 1970s and suggested a name that provoked the Prime Minister to comment that the named person had much too high an opinion of himself, which led my noble friend Lady Thatcher to retort, "But most men do, Prime Minister"? That led to the appointment of Sir Michael Swann, who was not at all a bad choice in the circumstances. The present method seems more orderly than that which was then adopted. Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to have that wise contribution. It will have been noticed that I avoided doing what the Secretary of State did in the Commons, which was to read out the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, was appointed chairman of the board of governors of the BBC in a manner that was a long way from Nolan procedures. Lord Jordan: My Lords, I welcome the speedy moves to replace the director-general and the use of the Nolan procedures. A strong character is needed. The acting director-general, Mark Byford, is such a strong character. I hope that his name will be put in the hat. A strong character is needed not only to maintain the world perception of a BBC that is independent of the pressures of government but also to counter the culture of contempt and arrogance that emerged from within its ranks and gave birth to the problems that led to the departure of the director-general and the chairman. I hope that such a character emerges. Noble Lords in this House who side with those who declare their opposition to political interference must bear in mind that the present culture of contempt extends to everyone within the parliamentary system-there are no sides in that regard. I hope that the next director-general will recognise that such contempt does the BBC an injustice and will certainly undermine its attempts regarding the renewal of the charter. I hope that the procedure we are discussing will result in the director-general recognising that the BBC's arrogance regarding an anti-war campaign does not endear the British public to what is after all the best broadcasting system in the world. Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, I am conscious that throughout these brief proceedings I am resisting any temptation to talk about candidates or the qualifications for candidates. In other words I am saying very little positive in response to the questions, but I am sure those who have taken part in asking questions will realise that those who are responsible for this process will inevitably be reading Hansard today. Therefore what they say is not running into the sand. In response to the noble Lord's specific question, the appointment of a Director General is the responsibility of the Governors and not of the process I have been describing today. Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, on the Homeric precedent of Achilles and his Myrmidons, I declare an interest as being a Myrmidon of the BBC at a modest level. My question is about process. I am not quite clear whether I caught a response from the Minister to the question of my noble friend Lady Buscombe about whether this process which we are now adopting will be applied in future to governors at large. Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I did not answer that question because it is wide of the question of the appointment of the chairman of the BBC. Lord Bragg: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister entirely confident that once the new chairman or chairwoman has been appointed, the existing governors will be the right or the best people to determine the future of the BBC in the light of their performance over the past few months? Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that question is certainly wide of the process of appointment of the chairman of the BBC!
BBC Charter Charles Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the budget is for implementing the young people's version of the BBC Charter Review consultation; and if she will make a statement. Tessa Jowell [holding answer 2 February 2004]: There is no separate budget for consultation of children and young people. The current consultation stage is expected to cost around £325,000 (not including staff costs) and part of this will provide for events, currently being planned, for children and young people. The consultation was translated by the Children's Rights Alliance for England at no cost to the Department. Graphic design of the accompanying leaflet and an initial print run of 5,000 copies cost a total of £2,454. We are publicising this consultation via existing relationships, as well as with around 150 organisations with an interest in increasing young people's participation in decision-making. The consultation will also be publicised in the DfES publication, Spectrum, which is distributed to schools. Food/Drink Advertisements Mr. Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress her Department has made in reviewing the code of conduct relating to food and drinks advertisements in order to encourage the promotion of healthy eating. Estelle Morris: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has a responsibility only in relation to broadcast advertising. It is currently participating in the consultation being undertaken by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) on food promotion to children, and the Department of Health's Food and Health Action Plan group, both of which are exploring ways to promote healthy eating. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also written to Ofcom asking them to examine the adequacy of their codes regulating the content of broadcast advertising of food, in light of the conclusions of the work undertaken by the FSA, the Department of Health and the Health Select Committee's inquiry into obesity. It is principally the responsibility of Ofcom to ensure that there is an appropriate code for the regulation of broadcast advertising and the Secretary of State looks forward to the outcome of their work.
BBC News 24 The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): On 5 December 2002 I placed the independent review of BBC News 24 by Richard Lambert in the Libraries of both Houses, together with a letter setting out my response. In response to the review, I attached two further conditions to the approvals of BBC News 24. These required the Governors to publish their response to the Lambert report by the end of March 2003, and to promulgate revised commitments for the service, taking account of Richard Lambert's recommendations, by the end of May 2003. In addition, I was minded to attach a third condition requiring the Governors to report more fully on the delivery of News 24 in the BBC's annual reports. I stated that I would reconsider the intention in the light of the BBC's formal response and subsequent 2003 annual report. I have judged that these two documents provide enough information and demonstrate sufficient improvements to remove the need for a further condition on the approval. Post Office Closures Michael Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure that there is adequate consultation with relevant hon. Members and other interested parties when an urban post office is nominated for closure. Jacqui Smith: Proposals for closures of sub-post offices under the urban network reinvention programme are put out to public consultation, including relevant Members of Parliament, in accordance with the code of practice agreed between Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch. In preparing closure proposals, Post Office Ltd. collect a range of information relevant to the provision of post office services in an area. This includes local authority plans, environmental and transport information, local shopping habits and other local developments and features. With the move to area plans, the public consultation period has been extended from four to six weeks during which comments and representations, including new or additional information, can be submitted for consideration by Post Office Ltd. before they reach a final decision. Recent experience of the programme has shown that there is a clear need for Post Office Ltd. to respond promptly to issues raised during the consultation and to explain its decisions more fully. The Government has impressed on the company the urgent need to improve its performance on this aspect of the programme.
LORDS Hutton Inquiry The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton) rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the inquiry by the Lord Hutton into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly. The noble and the learned Lord said: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, into the tragic death of Dr David Kelly. I particularly welcome and look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ryder of Wensum, who will obviously have a lot to contribute to the debate this afternoon. The report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, repays careful study. I intend to consider it in a little detail, both in relation to its conclusions and its findings. Also, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, asked me, in the Statement last week, to indicate what the Government's responses are to the criticisms made of them in the report. But it is right, as well, that I speak about the inquiry announced yesterday into the issue of intelligence, and the threat of weapons of mass destruction generally. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, agreed to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances leading to the death of Dr Kelly. The noble and learned Lord is a former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. He was a serving Law Lord when he accepted the task. His appointment was greeted with widespread approval. His conduct of the inquiry has been regarded as exemplary because of the transparency of the process, and the clarity with which the evidence unfolded. His report is an outstanding piece of analysis. There is a generalised complaint, however, that it criticised the media and was not balanced in its attacks on the Government….. Perhaps I may lay one more canard to rest. It has been suggested that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, has enunciated a doctrine that greatly inhibits press freedom. It is said that this is new law. We do not accept that that is right. Obviously, we regard the independence of the BBC as critical. But the relevant findings are set out in the report. The first is: do not publish false allegations. In support of that, the noble and learned Lord relies on well-known decided cases and quotes Reynolds from this House. Secondly, he says that it is necessary to ensure that the editors of media outlets know the terms in which a serious attack is going to be made on the Government before it is broadcast and consider whether it is right in all the circumstances to broadcast it. Thirdly, he concludes that, where an allegation of inaccuracy is made, the management should normally investigate it before dismissing it. Finally, he concludes that, where the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee allege to the governors of the BBC that a broadcast is false, the governors should investigate it. None of that is either new law or bad practice. …. ……… Baroness Williams of Crosby: The assessment of the Hutton inquiry ran into considerable difficulties on two fronts. The first was the context in which people would read its conclusions. I give one example. If one does not set it in the context of the extraordinarily high standards of accuracy of the BBC's journalistic output, one could not understand why 56 per cent of the public said that they did not believe the judge's findings with regard to the BBC. Nor could one understand why the public, in such polls as that commissioned by YouGov and the Daily Telegraph, have said by a ratio of 67 per cent to 31 per cent that they trust the BBC more than the Government. The public are not fools. They have reached those conclusions precisely because they set them in the context of their knowledge of some of the organisations involved. Similarly, the Government were being judged by the public on the basis of several years during which, rightly or wrongly, Mr Alastair Campbell was regarded as a somewhat dubious and devious figure in the way in which he used the power and street-reach of No. 10 to influence outcomes in the media. One cannot understand the reaction to the recommendations and conclusions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, if one does not realise that it was set against that background. That background is significant and it was not mentioned in the report. In that context, one of the conclusions that was reached widely in the media-not in this case by the BBC, but by newspapers-and indeed in comments made since the inquiry was published, was about the distinction, perceived by many, between the conclusions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, about the likelihood of the journalists and other public bodies being at fault compared with what appeared to be the giving of the benefit of the doubt to the Government and specifically to No. 10. I shall give an example. All of us know-and we on these Benches have never denied it - that Mr Gilligan made a serious mistake by raising the possibility that the Government had knowingly included false information in the September dossier. We do not question that. It was a serious mistake, all the more so in that the allegation was made by a journalist from a corporation that has such a fine reputation. Understandably, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, made it clear that, in his view, the editorial control over Mr Gilligan at that time was weak and had to be improved. As we all know, the result has been disproportionately great, with the departure and resignation of the chairman and director-general of the BBC, both of whom are highly regarded in their own field….. ….. Lord Ryder of Wensum: My Lords, I declare interests as a former chairman of a regional radio company and as the paid acting chairman of the BBC. I would like to thank all the present and former officers and officials of the Palace of Westminster for showing nothing but great personal kindness to me during my 29 years here and, in particular, those members of the palace staff who gave such outstanding support during my five years as Government Chief Whip in another place. The departures of Gavyn Davies and Greg Dyke are sad losses for the BBC. Mr Davies is an outstanding public servant with supreme integrity and a deep affection for the institution. Mr Dyke is an inspirational leader and his charisma reached every corner of the BBC. It was necessary for the corporation to apologise for the BBC errors highlighted in the Hutton report. Most of the mistakes were, of course, conceded during the inquiry itself. Mr Davies accepted ultimate responsibility by resigning as chairman of the board. Mr Dyke also offered his resignation to the governors and the board accepted it. As Mr Dyke said himself, in his e-mail to BBC staff last Thursday:
Now the BBC must set its eyes on the future in the public interest. Mark Byford has taken on the role of acting director-general. He has the total support of the governors and the executive. Mr Byford has worked for the BBC for 24 years. He is steeped in public service values and commands wide respect inside and outside the organisation. He has shown formidable skills as head of the World Service and is a strong, proven leader. Mr Byford has stressed that his role is to provide collective leadership with the executive to ensure that the BBC emerges from this difficult time a strong, independent and vibrant organisation, building on the legacy of Mr Davies and Mr Dyke. Mr Byford will undertake a review of the lessons the BBC must learn from the past few months, including how the corporation investigates and corrects editorial mistakes. Impartiality, accuracy and trust have always been core BBC values designed to serve the public. Brave, independent and rigorous journalism will be maintained under Mr Byford's leadership. This includes investigative reporting set within robust editorial frameworks. The board will never interfere with this work and nor shall I, while acting chairman, allow any external body to interfere with the BBC's crucial independence. The BBC is experiencing a busier time than ever. Over the next few months it faces the Graf review of online services, the Ofcom review of public service television, the DCMS review of digital services and, of course, the charter review process. The BBC's major document on charter review was due to be published in March. It has been agreed to postpone publication until soon after a new chairman and permanent director-general can take personal ownership of it. The DCMS has assured me that the vacant chairmanship will be filled by the middle of April. I am not a candidate and intend to keep the department to this timetable. The advertisement for the job will appear in Sunday's newspapers. Meanwhile, the governors, solely responsible for the appointment of the director-general, will invite applications. A short list will be drawn up and a final choice made soon after the new chairman assumes office. I have always believed that the BBC's prime purpose is to enrich people's lives with programmes and services which inform, educate and entertain. This is done in the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, as well as throughout the world. Recent turbulence has been borne with true professionalism by the 29,000 people working for the BBC. They are devoted to a great institution which exists to serve the public. In particular, I want to pay a tribute to journalists for upholding the highest standards of objectivity when covering the outcome of the Hutton report. I venture to suggest that no other news organisation in the world could have achieved such balance in reporting itself in the eye of a storm. I believe that the BBC must remain as an independent organisation that serve the public above all else. I believe that the vast majority of the British people are proud of the values and traditions of the BBC. It is their BBC. And let no one forget, it belongs only to them............. … Lord Birt: My Lords, I should say at the outset that I am currently the Prime Minister's strategy adviser, on a part-time basis. However, I speak today above all as someone who worked at the BBC for 13 years, and who is deeply troubled to see an institution I so revere suffer the worst setback in its history. I am reassured that the noble Lord, Lord Ryder of Wensum, who is a deeply thoughtful and conscientious person and who I have long known, is holding the reins at this difficult time. At the root of this crisis was a slipshod piece of journalism. Let us be clear: it was not "mostly right". The central thrust of the story was unfounded. But let us also be clear: the subject of the reporter's inquiry, the Government's dossier, was entirely legitimate. It was the treatment of the story that was deeply unsatisfactory. Faced with a tip-off on a contentious matter, experienced journalists test their sources rigorously. They proceed with watchful scepticism, scrutinising the emerging information from every angle. Through further inquiry, they build up their knowledge. They put the allegations to those involved. Painstakingly, they build up the fullest possible picture. Had all that happened in this instance, and had an accurate, fair and contextualised story resulted, it would manifestly have been in the public interest. One reason why this did not happen is that the programme itself failed to exercise due editorial scrutiny over its reporter. Moreover, when grave allegations are to be made-and especially when there is a risk of libel-the programme's senior editorial staff need to bring into play the organisation's best editorial and legal minds. That did not happen either. All organisations make mistakes. But the BBC was damaged in this instance above all by its failure to respond properly after the story was broadcast. When the coverage was challenged, it should have been rigorously investigated by BBC executives. But-transfixed as they were by outside attack - they did not. Rather, we had blind defence and sophistry. We heard the story being supported on the grounds that it was sufficient to report a source, provided that the source was reported accurately, whether or not the story was true. Indeed, the word most missing during this saga was "truth". Absolute truth in journalism or in any other sphere may be unattainable, but we can all recognise journalism that is honestly engaged in the pursuit of truth-journalism that is rigorous, fair-minded and questioning; journalism that is committed to getting it right. When the governors finally became involved, they focused on a key principle - the independence of the BBC. They were right to do so, for the independence of the BBC - we will all agree-is sacred. It has been fought for by boards and directors-general since John Reith successfully resisted Churchill's demand for the government to take over the corporation in the general strike. Of course the BBC must be willing to stand up to the powerful. Of course it must investigate and reveal. But the governors' failure-under fire-was not to focus at the same time on another, equally vital, principle: the need to safeguard the integrity of the BBC's journalism, to try to discover whether the story complained of was actually true. Last week, the governors finally did act. But they took far too long to exert a grip as the crisis rumbled on. They failed for too long to act as the BBC's regulators - and, in the process, they have brought into question the institution's 1920s system of governance. The story in question in the form it took was at odds with the corporation's own high and stated standards - the standards that history has set it. It should not have happened, and it should not have been defended. From top to bottom a series of grievous errors was made. And it is those errors that damaged the BBC. The BBC can and, no doubt, will pick its way out of this dreadful imbroglio. But it can do so only by truly coming to terms with - facing up to - what really happened. For some within - still in denial; understandably shocked, bewildered and confused by the crisis-that will be difficult. But I assure your Lordships that throughout the BBC, at every level, there are many who do appreciate the significance of what occurred, who are deeply committed to journalism of the highest standard. The powerful "Panorama", put out in the week before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton reported, is one testament to that. It is on the firm foundation of its own best people that the BBC can re-stake its claim to offer journalism of challenge and integrity; can embrace the rigour that goes hand-in-hand with robustness. Your Lordships' support will be needed, too. The BBC has taken tumbles throughout its history. The institution can be infuriating, even for those of us who have led it! But at its best, the BBC has offered a vital, democracy-enhancing national debating chamber, unique in the world. It has nourished our lively, creative, national culture. It has given space to Britain's most innovative talents to express themselves - and, in the process, to engage, stimulate and entertain us. It has extended all our horizons, delving into our history, opening our eyes to the wonders of the arts and science and nature. The task of the coming months is to rebuild the BBC's confidence, health and strength; to encourage this great institution - of which the noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Ryder, spoke - to pursue its highest purposes: to restore and revitalise its historic commitment to public service................. ....... Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I propose to limit my remarks to one specific issue, which is important, although it was dismissed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. That is the potential impact of the Hutton report on freedom of the media. Some of the noble and learned Lord's comments can be read as supporting the restriction of media freedom. At paragraph 280, the noble and learned Lord said:
That passage is repeated
at paragraph 291. The noble and learned Lord seems to be saying that the media must not make allegations of misconduct about issues of public importance unless they are satisfied that they can verify the truth of those allegations. If he means that - it is not wholly clear whether he does - he plainly goes too far. The media, like the Government, must not make allegations that they know or believe to be untrue, but the media - again, like the Government - should be free to make and publish allegations that they believe to be true, even if it later turns out that they are not. Except in a few cases, such as contempt of court, there is and should be no control by public authorities over the publication by the media of allegations of misconduct. Instead, that is a matter for the civil law of defamation. The party accused of misconduct can protect his reputation by an action in court. But media bodies that act responsibly and in good faith may be protected by the law even if they make allegations of misconduct that turn out to be untrue. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, refers to the Reynolds case and sets out extracts from it in appendix 17. That is indeed an important case; it was a libel action brought by Albert Reynolds, the former Taoiseach, against the Sunday Times, which had made serious allegations against him about the performance of his duties. That case was decided in your Lordships' House by a 3:2 majority on the actual facts, but there was broad agreement on the principle. The principle was that where, on an issue of public importance, a newspaper or broadcaster makes defamatory allegations of fact that cannot be proved to be true, in some circumstances, it is still not liable to pay damages for libel. That is the defence of qualified privilege. What circumstances give rise to that defence must be decided, so the House of Lords said, on a case-by-case basis, but it is summarised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, at page 202 of the official report of the Reynolds case. He said:
The extracts in appendix 17 are, I fear, selective. They are passages that concentrate on the need to protect people's reputation, but they do not include passages from the same speeches that hold that a newspaper or broadcaster may have the defence of qualified privilege even where the allegation cannot be shown to be true or is shown to be actually untrue. The passages that I have in mind are those from the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, reported at pages 202 and 204 of the official report and that from the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hobhouse, that immediately follows the extract cited in appendix 17. In this case, there is no libel action, but the test for the BBC is the same: was it guilty of irresponsible journalism; not, was it making allegations that have turned out to be untrue? Was it guilty of irresponsible journalism? So far as Andrew Gilligan is concerned, the answer is plainly yes, for reasons set out in the report and repeated by previous speakers. What about Andrew Gilligan's superiors? I am sure that many of your Lordships regularly listen to the "Today" programme. It is live and unscripted, often dealing with up-to-the-minute news. Indeed, those are essential features of the programme. That system can work only if the reporters and presenters on "Today" have a good deal of freedom of action. But the BBC must be able to trust its reporters before it can give them that freedom. It may be that Gilligan was known to be untrustworthy before 29 May. That is the implication of the e-mail from Kevin Marsh cited at length at paragraph 284 of the report, but that was sent a month after the original broadcast and, unfortunately, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, did not investigate Gilligan's previous record as a reporter. So the case against the BBC is, shall we say, not fully proven by the report. The noble and learned Lord's criticisms of how the BBC handled the issue after 29 May are, I fear, clearly justified. But freedom of speech is not to be prejudiced because the BBC made mistakes. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will find an opportunity to clarify what he meant in paragraph 280 and agree that responsible reporting of matters of public importance is protected even if the alleged facts turn out to be untrue. Nothing can possibly be of higher importance than information on the basis of which the country has gone to war. That may be the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton. The report does not suggest that Susan Watts acted improperly in broadcasting what Dr Kelly said, even though the noble and learned Lord concluded that those allegations were untrue. It is clear that Susan Watts acted entirely properly and nobody at any stage has suggested anything to the contrary. The noble and learned Lord cleared the Government of acting improperly in publishing a dossier, even though the allegations about Saddam's possession of chemical and biological weapons, on which the dossier was based, were in all probability wrong. It cannot be right to apply a lower standard to the Government than we apply to the media. The report must not be used to attack the freedom of the media in general, nor of the BBC in particular.................. .............. Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I wish to concentrate entirely on the relations between the Government and the BBC in the light of the Hutton report and particularly on the report's impact on the future of the BBC. I should perhaps declare an interest as a former chairman and present pensioner of the regulatory body of commercial broadcasting in this country as well as the father of a member of the BBC's board of management. I am particularly happy in concentrating on the BBC to follow the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ryder. He did a service to the House by taking the courageous decision to make his maiden speech at this belated stage in the present circumstances. I found great value in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who brought to our debate his experience as a great director-general of the BBC. Perhaps some of the BBC's problems in the present situation would have been avoided if it had been able to stick to his famous exposition of broadcasting as a mission to explain; a mission to report the news rather than to make the news. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, presided with Olympian distinction and clarity over what amounts to a bitter dispute between two of the nation's major institutions: Her Majesty's present Government and the BBC. As it turns out, the balance of his magisterial report leaves the main body of criticism at the BBC's door. Certainly the Gilligan story is an unhappy one, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, made clear. However, it is unfair that the totality of the BBC - to use one of the Prime Minister's recent favourite words-should be judged by this particular aberration. The Government and the BBC should both realise that great damage has been done to them both by this recent chapter of events. For the nation as a whole, the trust in two of our most important institutions has been seriously damaged and the sooner a line is drawn by both politicians and broadcasters the better. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State's assurance the other day that this episode does not change the Government's view of the importance of preserving the BBC's independence in the forthcoming charter review. I was glad to hear the Minister on the Front Bench repeat a Statement the other day setting out the careful arrangements for approving the new chairman of the BBC. It is a recognition that when all passion is spent, the BBC, warts and all-and it has a fair share of warts-is a uniquely valuable national asset. In that tired cliché, it is one of the rare British institutions that is undoubtedly regarded as world-class and does us credit all around the world. Its contribution to the quality of civilised life stretches far beyond the inevitably controversial frailties of current affairs into education, music, sports and all the creative arts. It is the benchmark for the nation's standard in public service broadcasting and indeed for other broadcasters in the country. Compared to the pay-TV subscriptions that I happily now pay to enjoy sports and films, the BBC licence fee - leaving aside the fact that I now receive it for free as an elderly pensioner-remains extraordinary value for money. The Hutton report may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for the BBC if it is able to work with the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, and his ultimate successor, and Mark Byford, whom we all wish well, to deal with some of the consequences of recent events. They should help it to concentrate on sustaining its unique qualities in the multinational world of telecommunications now regulated by Ofcom. In my view, the key area for necessary changes lies in the role of the BBC board of governors in relation to the BBC's programme makers. The first task for the new chairman must be to equip the board of governors to be a more effective regulator and public trustee in the interests of the listeners and viewers. The BBC board of governors has the difficult dual role of being the public regulator, on the one hand, and being the non-executive directors of a huge creative enterprise, on the other. It is a demanding role but not an impossible one. It is infinitely better than the alternative of transferring the public trustee role to a new and untried Ofcom, most of the regulatory responsibilities of which lie in the field of commercial competition. In any event, Ofcom will have quite a difficult time over the next few years in settling down to its wide range of responsibilities. As the legendary left winger Jimmy Maxton once said about parliamentary and governmental affairs:
That is the advice that I would pass on, in all modesty, to the governors of the BBC. The Hutton evidence reveals the dilemma very clearly. On page 211, one of the inquiry's barristers said:
It was on that basis that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, concluded that:
But the Governors were ill provided to make any independent investigations of their own. The lesson is that under the new charter they should be equipped with their own distinct unit that will enable them to establish the public interest independently when the need arises. That would be to adapt the framework that I enjoyed as chairman of the old IBA, where we were proud of the creative work of the companies that held our franchises but we were at arm's length from them when something went wrong and we had to adjudicate on matters such as these. That model could be usefully explored. I believe that Gavyn Davies was a chairman of quality and integrity who found himself, with his fellow governors, stranded between the bullying harassment of Alastair Campbell and the opportunistic reporting of Andrew Gilligan. In a vivid phrase in his own evidence, at page 211, Mr Davies said:
The infant Ofcom cannot fill that gap, certainly without undermining the coherent character of the BBC that has served Britain well over so many generations. It will be for Gavyn Davies's successor to reshape this aspect of the governors' role to preserve the BBC as the world's most trusted broadcasting organisation....... Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, the theme I wish to develop is that outlined earlier by my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon. He is quite right and astute in saying - if I may paraphrase him-that the situation now reached in the fourth estate of the realm, as the press is sometimes called, has uncanny resemblances to the position of the trade union movement in the 1970s. The perception of its role at that time was one of power without responsibility. I have in mind the famous quote from Baldwin about the press in the 1930s-power without responsibility - which he said was,
In that case, rightly or wrongly, there was some redress through the political process. In many respects the laws dealing with trade unionism were badly handled, but in the case of the media, if the analysis is correct, is there any corresponding way forward? I shall come in a moment to the propositions from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, with which I disagree. Let me establish what some leading authorities are saying at the moment about this situation being a crisis for the media. On Saturday, there was an outstanding article by Andrew Gowers, the editor of the Financial Times. He stated:
and so on. He continued:
In the Times on 3 January, Sir Harold Evans, a distinguished journalist, stated:
Finally, Mr Geoffrey Goodman, the distinguished former industrial editor of the Daily Mirror and the founding editor of the British Journalism Review, stated:
I hope the House will forgive his pun -
The central problem is that we now have new tribunes of the people who, objectively speaking, seek to replace the tribunes of the people in Parliament but without having the same responsibility. We are all schizophrenic about the media - we need them but are they really trying to catch us out? While wearing one hat, even Dr Kelly himself was apparently, if not encouraged, not discouraged from talking to the media, as an expert, about his knowledge of Iraq. He was perhaps talking about matters to one of his contacts, dropped his guard and certainly said - he may have set out to say it - something that he should not have said. "There but for the grace of God go I", was my thought at the time. Surely we have all been there. It is the idea that we are all in thrall to the press that forces us into these uncomfortable situations. But it is not a one-way argument about politicians and the press. We, as parliamentarians, have to be very careful about how we put issues to witnesses giving evidence to Select Committees. We also have our responsibilities. There should be some kind of restraint on the way in which the media develop their role in the governance of the country. I said that I wished to respond to an interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. As a lawyer, he has pointed out that the reporting of an allegation that one believes to be true but turns out not to be true is legally protected. But I hope that I am not doing him an injustice by saying that he would not wish to declare that that fine legal point is the basis of a proper relationship between the media and governance of the country-because we cannot have a civilised or constructive relationship on that basis. In conclusion, there should be an open study between leading journalists and leading politicians to see how we can find a way forward. It is not a question of having another Royal Commission. It is to build on what the Hansard Society's commission, under my noble friend Lord Puttnam and its vice-chair Jackie Ashley, is doing to look at how that problem of lack of respect and constructive relationship can be improved. That is an important conclusion from the Hutton inquiry............ Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, I was a Law Officer. The Law Officers, in their current modern form, have been rightly extraordinarily astute to ensure that their advice is not normally disclosed. If it were to be disclosed as a matter of course, exactly the sorts of blandishments the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, puts so persuasively would be put in every case. My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith rightly agreed that there should be a summary of the legal basis for using armed force. It was utterly clear what that basis was and international lawyers are able to evaluate and debate the issue fully on the basis of that advice. I should say, although I do not express it as a concluded view, that the terms of reference of the inquiry are to look at discrepancies in the intelligence and what has now been found in relation to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Superficially, it is quite difficult to see at this particular point the connection between that and the legal advice of the Attorney-General. But no doubt at some stage the connection would be made in a clearer form. Finally - and I am sorry I have spoken for so long - the BBC. Everyone knows that there was a row with the BBC. Please no one take the view that the Government have any view other than they want to see a strong, independent BBC holding us to account, being the glory of the world in relation to the quality of what it provides. But, equally, if we think the BBC has told the wrong story and maligned us, it does not mean that we cannot object in relation to it. All that we would expect is not that the BBC withdraws in relation to the story, but takes the trouble just to look at it. The noble Lord, Lord Ryder, in his powerful speech, made it clear that many of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, in relation to the BBC were on the basis of an acceptance by the BBC of the various problems that have arisen as a result of what has happened. It was not that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, made findings against, in many cases, the wishes of the BBC. There was a mature acceptance of the fact that things could get better. In relation to both the Government and the BBC there needs to be that mature acceptance. That entirely depends upon people accepting the report, rather than trying to cherry-pick bits of it to make political points. The whole point of asking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, to make his report was so that that would not happen. On Question, Motion agreed to.
Post Office Urban Reinvention Network The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): The urban re-invention programme aims to create a smaller, more viable network of post office branches adequate in number and suitably located to ensure accessible delivery of service to customers. At the end of the programme, within the UK as a whole, 95 per cent. of the urban population will still live within a mile of the nearest Post Office branch. It is supported directly by Government funding. This programme is absolutely necessary. If the Post office does not adapt to changing customer demands it will spiral into terminal decline. During recent weeks Members of Parliament and Postwatch have become increasingly concerned about some aspects of the urban re-invention programme. In particular, the consultation arrangements have been criticised. There has been mounting evidence that in too many cases Post Office Limited has not handled them appropriately, or with sufficient sensitivity. Accordingly I asked Post Office Limited and Postwatch to review urgently the arrangements for the consultation currently employed and to propose changes to make them more inclusive and appropriate to achieve a viable network to serve the public after the programme is concluded. They have responded to this challenge and I am pleased to announce the following changes applicable to the remainder of the programme which will take immediate effect.
The above new arrangements will be reviewed by Post Office Limited and Postwatch one month after commencement to ensure that the implementation is satisfactory. Post Office closures will inevitably continue to be contentious. However, these changes to procedure should ensure that there is confidence in the consultation process. Post Office Limited is committed to the successful implementation of the new arrangements and to working with Postwatch to ensure an effective consultation process designed to maximise the quality of judgment and transparency, and to produce a fair result for customers and the Company. Broadcasting (Rules of Coverage) [Relevant document:
First Report from the Broadcasting Committee Session 2002-03 HC 786.]
Mr. David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion): It is many years since a report of the Select Committee on Broadcasting was debated in the House of Commons, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss our report on the rules of coverage. At a time when media coverage of the business of this House, political events and politicians, especially by the broadcasting media, is a subject of daily controversy, our debate today has a narrower and-I suspect-less controversial focus. The rules recommended by the Broadcasting Committee on behalf of the House cover the sort of shots that may be used in providing pictures of proceedings in the Chamber, Westminster Hall and Select and Standing Committees of the House. This is perhaps a less controversial broadcasting debate than some others, but it is especially topical following events in the Chamber yesterday afternoon, which I shall come to later. Although the immediate focus is narrower, the Committee's report also touches on issues that I believe should be of interest to all hon. Members, and especially to those serving on other domestic Committees and the Modernisation Committee, which is considering the crucial issue of reconnecting Parliament with the people on whose behalf we are all here. I believe that our report is very much in tune with the important decision of the House of Commons Commission that improving access to and understanding of Parliament should be a priority in the strategic plan for House of Commons administration that was adopted in June 2002. For many years, Parliament was wary of allowing its proceedings to be broadcast. Following the refusal of John Reith's request on behalf of what was then the British Broadcasting Company to broadcast the state opening of Parliament in 1923, some 55 years passed before the first experiment with radio broadcasting, and 67 years passed before regular television broadcasts began in July 1990. In 1990, the Select Committee on Broadcasting, chaired by the then Leader of the House, established two main principles to govern those broadcasts, and those principles still underlie the rules that are the subject of our debate. They are that the House will at all times have the principal and final say in any matter concerning television in the House and that the dignity of the House will be protected at all times. The rules of coverage were devised to ensure that the House retained control over how it was portrayed. The statement of objectives in annexe 1 refers to
The rules are essentially guidelines to help the television director to ensure that the shots that he or she selects preserve the dignity of Parliament and have regard to its function as a working body rather than as a place of entertainment. The rules are set out in full in annexe 1 to the report. In essence, they require the camera to present a head-and-shoulders shot of the Member speaking, although cut-away shots are allowed to show the reaction of Members to whom the Member speaking has referred. Medium-angle shots, including over-the-shoulder shots, are allowed to show both the Member who has the Floor and another Member intervening or attempting to do so. There can be occasional use of group shots or wide-angle shots to show the reactions of a group of Members and to establish the geography of the House. Whenever the occupant of the Chair rises, the director should cut to show that that is happening. The Press Gallery and the Public Gallery, officials' and visitors' boxes and the area behind the Speaker's Chair should not be shown other than unavoidably in a wide-angled or other authorised shot. If there is disorder on the Floor of the House, the shot should show the occupant of the Chair, although some use of wide-angle shots is allowed. As anyone who was watching BBC Parliament or the House of Commons monitor at approximately 1.10 pm yesterday or who saw the item on the news later will know, a similar rule applies to disorder in the Strangers Gallery or - the likelihood is remote, of course - in the Press Gallery. There has been little substantive change in the rules since 1990, although the Committee, under powers delegated to it by the House, has from time to time allowed some relaxation of them. For instance, even though the Prime Minister might not refer by name to the Foreign Secretary when giving a reply on foreign policy during Prime Minister's questions, it is acceptable to cut to a shot of that Secretary of State during that reply. Post Office Urban Reinvention Network The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): The urban re-invention programme aims to create a smaller, more viable network of post office branches adequate in number and suitably located to ensure accessible delivery of service to customers. At the end of the programme, within the UK as a whole, 95 per cent. of the urban population will still live within a mile of the nearest Post Office branch. It is supported directly by Government funding. This programme is absolutely necessary. If the Post office does not adapt to changing customer demands it will spiral into terminal decline. During recent weeks Members of Parliament and Postwatch have become increasingly concerned about some aspects of the urban re-invention programme. In particular, the consultation arrangements have been criticised. There has been mounting evidence that in too many cases Post Office Limited has not handled them appropriately, or with sufficient sensitivity. Accordingly I asked Post Office Limited and Postwatch to review urgently the arrangements for the consultation currently employed and to propose changes to make them more inclusive and appropriate to achieve a viable network to serve the public after the programme is concluded. They have responded to this challenge and I am pleased to announce the following changes applicable to the remainder of the programme which will take immediate effect.
Commission for Equality and Human Rights Mrs. Humble: To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on how she intends to contribute to the creation of a Commission for Equality and Human Rights. Jacqui Smith: Establishing the Commission for Equality and Human Rights reflects this Government's commitment that equality matters to everyone-it is not a minority concern. The Commission will give greater support and joined up advice to individuals, businesses and communities to crack down on discrimination and to promote equality and diversity. This afternoon I will be chairing the third meeting of the Taskforce that we have brought together to consider the priorities and role of the new Commission. It brings together people with experience, expertise and knowledge on equality and human rights issues
BBC (Current Affairs Coverage) Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Prime Minister
The Prime Minister: In the last 12 months, my office will have had many discussions with all sections of the media, including the BBC, as part of their normal day-to-day duties. A list of all such discussions is not maintained centrally.
Communications Regulation Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements she has put in place for (a) monitoring and (b) reducing the administrative costs of communications regulation through (i) the running costs of Ofcom and (ii) the compliance costs of business. Estelle Morris: Parliament has given Ofcom a large degree of financial autonomy appropriate to its independent status. That is normal with sectoral regulators and especially important in media regulation. Nevertheless it is also subject to a number of measures to ensure proper scrutiny of its expenditure, and that its own costs, and the compliance costs of regulated businesses, are no more than necessary to fulfil its statutory duties under the Communications Act 2003. Ofcom is required to set its charges in a transparent way and justify them to industry. In exercising all its statutory functions, Ofcom is also required to have due regard, among other things, to the desirability of encouraging investment and innovation, and to the principles of good regulation such as consultation, proportionality and selectivity - all of which are very relevant to compliance costs and overall expenditure. In addition, where it plans to introduce significant new regulation, Ofcom is required to carry out and publish an assessment of the likely impact of the measure, allowing a period for consultation, and to take account of responses to it. Furthermore, Ofcom must produce an annual report and accounts (the latter subject to certification and report by the Comptroller and Auditor General) to be laid before Parliament; its activities can be scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee and the relevant departmental Parliamentary Select Committees, and by the National Audit Office; its use of public funds is governed by, among other things, a financial memorandum agreed with the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Culture, Media and Sport; and its expenditure is subject to resource 'caps' agreed with HM Treasury.
LORDS Supreme Court The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement on the proposed new United Kingdom Supreme Court…. Independent Regulators: Government Response to Better RegulationTask Force Report Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr Douglas Alexander) has today published the Government's response to the Better Regulation Task Force's report Independent Regulators, which the task force issued on 15 October 2003. Mr Douglas Alexander would like to take this opportunity to thank them for the work they have undertaken in producing their report, and to welcome the recommendations they have made, all 14 of which have been accepted by the Government. In our response, we have emphasised our support for regulators to adopt the five principles of good regulation, and the code of practice on consultation; and to produce regulatory impact assessments for any new policies or initiatives which they originate. We commend the use of the enforcement concordat by relevant regulators. The Government will consider very carefully the scope and scale of existing regulators before establishing a new one, and assess regularly their continuing effectiveness once established. We are to carry out a review of the variety and complexity of public bodies sponsored by central government departments, and this will encompass consideration of regulatory bodies. The task force has
rightly highlighted the point that the subject of the report was "independent"
regulators, so the Government's role is to encourage, support and guide
the regulators in their tasks, not to enforce rules and procedures. It
is also the case that independent regulators are a very disparate band
of bodies, so it would be impossible to produce a one-size-fits-all set
of very detailed responses. We must also be wary of increasing the costs
of and burdens on the regulatory community, and those whom they regulate,
unless we can be satisfied of the value of the outcomes achieved. Copies
of the report and the Government's response are available in the Libraries
of both Houses, and will be available on the Better Regulation Task Force's
website at www.brtf.gov.uk
Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20 January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, disputes at work are expensive, stressful and disruptive for all parties involved. But everyone agrees that early, constructive discussion can produce solutions before problems escalate and working relationships break down. With that in mind, the Government introduced, in the Employment Act 2002, new measures to improve the handling of individual disciplinary and grievance issues in the workplace. The main aim of those provisions can be simply put. It is to encourage employers and employees to resolve disputes through workplace dialogue, rather than through litigation. The new procedures are minimum standards. We are, of course, aware that many employers already operate more comprehensive procedures, and it is not our intention to undermine such existing good practice - far from it. The Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service has for many years offered advice and guidance on this matter, in particular through its code of practice on discipline and grievance issues, and that will continue to be of great importance. It is widely respected and followed, but not by all employers. At present, around 800,000 firms have either inadequate procedures in place or no procedures at all, which means up to 7.2 million employees have no clear right to discuss any grievances in the workplace. Research undertaken by the DTI in 1998 showed that, in more than a third of cases that went to an employment tribunal there had been absolutely no prior discussion of the dispute between the claimant and his or her manager. That is why the introduction of minimum standards is warranted. Employment tribunals should not be the first resort for resolving workplace problems. They should be the last resort, when attempts by the parties to resolve a problem together in the workplace have failed. This House debated the substance of the new procedures, and the principles underlying them, at considerable length during the passage of what is now the 2002 Act, and the Government are convinced that the principles are sound. The regulations before the House today set out the detail of when and how the procedures established in the Act should apply, and it is to those details that I now turn. The regulations establish that the standard, three step dismissal and disciplinary procedure should be used when an employer contemplates dismissing or taking relevant disciplinary action against an employee. Relevant disciplinary action is defined as action, short of dismissal, which the employer says is based wholly or mainly on the employee's conduct or capability. Suspension on full pay and the giving of warnings - both oral and written - will not count as relevant disciplinary action for these purposes. That is because they are part and parcel of existing workplace procedures to address disciplinary and grievance issues, not the causes of such issues, and can rarely give rise to employment tribunal cases in themselves. The circumstances in which the modified, two step, dismissal procedure will apply are very narrowly defined. They represent a small subset of gross misconduct dismissals. It is almost always unfair for an employer to dismiss an employee instantly, without first going through some form of procedure or carrying out some form of investigation, even in a case of apparently obvious gross misconduct. That will remain the position. However, tribunals have occasionally found such dismissals to be fair, when they have concluded that prior investigation could not have affected the decision to dismiss. Regulation 3(2) will avoid the new procedures cutting across that in existing case law. However, even in that very small subset of gross misconduct dismissals, the employer will in future have to go through the modified dismissal procedure after the event - otherwise, the dismissal will be automatically unfair, and the employee will receive an enhanced award of compensation. This therefore represents a tightening of the law in relation to gross misconduct dismissals, not a relaxation of it as some might have feared. The Government recognise that, in certain exceptional circumstances, it would be inappropriate for the parties to have to follow the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures. In those circumstances, set out in Regulation 4, the procedures will not apply. I will not go through them one by one, but, in summary, they cover cases when there already exists legal provision for collective dialogue about a particular issue; when the dispute or issue involved is a collective rather than individual one; or when, exceptionally, workplace dialogue may serve no useful purpose. There are also certain circumstances, specified at Regulation 5, in which the parties will be treated as having complied with the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures, even if they have not. These are; first, trade union dismissal cases where the employee presents an interim relief application to an employment tribunal, within the very tight time limit for doing so, before the appeal stage of the applicable statutory procedure has been completed; and, secondly, where there exists a collectively agreed procedure for consideration of dismissal appeals at a level above that of the individual employer, and the employee has availed himself or herself of that procedure. I turn now to the statutory grievance procedures. The standard three step grievance procedure will generally apply whenever an employee has a grievance about any action by the employer that could form the basis of a tribunal claim under a jurisdiction listed in Schedule 3 or Schedule 4 to the 2002 Act. Failure to initiate the procedure will normally mean that the employee is barred from making such a claim. The modified two step grievance procedure will be reserved for a very limited set of circumstances, when the employee's employment has ended and the parties mutually agree that it should be followed, in preference to the standard procedure, in relation to a particular grievance. There are, again, a number of exceptional circumstances in which the parties will be treated as having complied with the applicable statutory grievance procedure, even if they have not. These are set out at Regulations 7 to 10. Regulation 7 deals with what have been referred to as "overlapping" disputes. On occasion, separate disputes can become intertwined. The guiding principle we have followed is to avoid the parties having to go through unnecessary multiple procedures, or iterations of procedures, in relation to "overlapping" disputes. It may be helpful if I go into this in some depth, as it is a key feature of the regulations. When the action taken by the employer is dismissal-leaving aside constructive dismissal-the onus will be on the employer to initiate workplace dialogue under the applicable dismissal and disciplinary procedure. The employee will not, in any circumstances, have to initiate separate discussion under a statutory grievance procedure, before he or she can complain about that dismissal to an employment tribunal. Employers should know that it is incumbent upon them to have a fair reason for dismissal, untainted by any unlawful discrimination, if they contemplate such a serious step. Thus only one statutory procedure will apply where the disputed action is dismissal. If the employer takes action short of dismissal against the employee for reasons other than the employee's conduct or capability, then the employer will not need to follow any dismissal or disciplinary procedure. Such action would not normally be recognised as disciplinary action. The employee will instead have to initiate dialogue under the applicable grievance procedure, if he or she wishes to dispute the action and it could form the substance of an employment tribunal claim. Again, only one statutory procedure will apply. If the employer takes action short of dismissal against the employee and asserts that it is on the basis of the employee's conduct or capability, the applicable dismissal and disciplinary procedure will have to be followed, as I have previously described. The grievance procedures will not normally apply in such cases. If, however, the employee either considers that the action is unlawfully discriminatory or disputes that it is on grounds of conduct or capability, we believe that it is right, and in line with the principles underlying this legislation, that the employer should be entitled to prior notice of that before the employee can make it the basis of an employment tribunal claim. Otherwise, the issue might not be aired and there might be no opportunity to resolve it through workplace dialogue. In such circumstances, therefore, the employee will be required to put the grievance in writing to the employer. Provided that is done before the appeal meeting under the disciplinary and grievance procedure, it will be sufficient, as the matter can then be discussed at that meeting. If that meeting has already taken place, however, the full grievance procedure will have to be gone through in relation to the grievance. That is the only circumstance in which two separate statutory procedures will have to be followed, arising out of the same matter. Regulation 8 allows for the standard grievance procedure not to be completed but to be treated as such in certain circumstances when the employment has ended and the employee has put the grievance in writing to the employer, but it has since become not reasonably practicable for either the employee or the employer to attend a meeting. Regulation 9 provides for the applicable grievance procedure not to be completed, but to be treated as such, if the substance of the grievance has been raised collectively-that is, by a trade union official or other employee representative acting on behalf of two or more employees. Furthermore, under Regulation 10, if a collectively agreed industry-level grievance procedure exists, there will be no requirement to go through the statutory procedures. Regulation 11 provides for a number of general circumstances in which the procedures - in this instance, both the dismissal and disciplinary procedures and the grievance procedures - will either not apply at all or, when they have already been commenced, will be treated as having been completed. These are circumstances in which one of the parties reasonably believes that following the procedures would give rise to bullying, violence, harassment and other intimidation. Regulation 11 also covers cases in which it is not practicable for a party to commence a procedure or take a subsequent step within a reasonable period. That might arise, for instance, when one of the parties suffers a long-term illness or is out of the country for a prolonged time. Regulation 12 makes clear which party is to be held at fault, and in what circumstances, when a statutory procedure is not completed. Regulation 13 makes allowance for the situation in which a meeting under one of the procedures is arranged, but it subsequently becomes not reasonably practicable for one or other of the parties - or the employee's companion, if the right to be accompanied applies - to attend. The employer will be obliged to rearrange a meeting in such circumstances, but only once. In order to allow time for the parties to go through the statutory procedures, without them being cut short by the employee making a tribunal claim simply in order to avoid being out of time, the normal time limits for making tribunal claims are to be extended by three months in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are specified in Regulation 15. The remainder of the regulations deal with relatively minor and technical matters, and I will not go into them in detail. The regulations will apply to every employer in Great Britain. They are designed to be operable in all different types of organisation, from the largest to the smallest. Particular thought has been given to the special circumstances of small businesses. We know that the smallest firms are least likely to use proper procedures already. In preparing the regulations, the DTI has carried out full and extensive public consultation. That process began with some six months of informal pre-consultation, including consultation with key organisations that represent employees and employers. A four-month formal public consultation took place between July and October 2003 on draft regulations. Before, during and after that consultation, discussions took place with an advisory group of 19 interested stakeholders established specifically for the purpose. There were also numerous bilateral discussions with stakeholders. In addition, a "roadshow" seminar event was held in various locations around the country to promote engagement in the consultation. Some focus groups were also held with representatives of small firms and others. That was one of the most thorough and far-reaching consultations to have been conducted by the DTI, and we are satisfied that, having taken account of the many comments and representations received, we have here a set of regulations that will operate effectively. But that is only part of the picture. We recognise that employers and employees need to be aware of the new rights and responsibilities placed upon them. To ensure that they are, over the coming months, the DTI, along with ACAS, will carry out a well-targeted publicity campaign aimed at all businesses and their employees, and in particular those in the small business sector. A critical element of the campaign will be the provision of user-friendly guidance both for employers and employees. To allow time for that, the Government has laid these regulations before Parliament well before their intended coming into effect date of 1 October 2004. Also coming into effect on that date, to form a coherent package of measures, will be the revised rules of procedure for employment tribunals, revised Employment Appeal Tribunal rules, and a revised ACAS code. Together, that package of measures will, we believe, bring about the biggest improvement in the handling of workplace disputes in decades. I commend the regulations to the House, and beg to move. Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20 January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee]. - (Lord Sainsbury of Turville.) Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of very complex regulations and for his department's very detailed Explanatory Memorandum. The regulations that we are considering today cover 10 pages, while the Explanatory Memorandum issued by the DTI is 30 pages long. No wonder the DTI, in its paper entitled Dispute Resolution Regulations: Government Response to Public Consultation admitted that they were "not simple, but necessary". Indeed, that sentiment has been echoed by a senior partner in a leading firm of solicitors specialising in labour relations. She asked whether they were,
She went on to comment:
A specialist partner in another firm wrote that,
The annual recurring costs of using the statutory procedures are estimated by the department as being between £35 million and £48 million, without taking into account the time cost of what is described as a "companion" to accompany a claimant. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment Relations certified in the Explanatory Memorandum that he was satisfied that the benefits justified the costs. The claimed benefits range from "better employment relations" and "lower recruitment costs" on the employers' side to allegedly "improved employment prospects" and "reduced stress" on the employees' side. Let us hope that that is the effect of them. Ephemeral as the claimed benefits are, the Government claim that they will range from £697 to £922 million a year over the first 10 years. Included in that figure is the number of tribunal applications, which they put at between 74,000 and 75,000 a year - more than 1,400 a week. They arrive at those figures - and I very much hope that your Lordships will be able to follow this - by, in square brackets, multiplying 9.64 per cent by 76 per cent and then by 900,000, then adding 18.06 per cent multiplied by 5 per cent and again by 900,000. I invite those of your Lordships who are better at algebra than I am to review those footnotes on pages 22 and 23 of the Explanatory Memorandum. However, I am sure that someone was scraping the bottom of the barrel in dredging up those figures, because I found them very difficult to follow. It will not surprise your Lordships to hear that, on the other hand, the costs estimated by the Government are more or less 45 per cent to 50 per cent of the benefits. I shall not comment any more on the figures relating to costs and benefits, except to invite your Lordships to draw on your own experience as to whether the Government's estimates of costs may be generally far too low. Their estimate of benefits may verge on the over-optimistic-but I hope that I am not right. A major defect in the Employment Act 2000 was the refusal of the Government to accept an amendment that I proposed that an application to an employment tribunal should be accompanied by a deposit against possible costs. In one stroke, this would have deterred the launching of frivolous claims without merit or speculative claims in which the employee hopes that the employer will pay out rather than fight. The Government's own consultation paper admits that the cost to employers of each claim is around £2,000 - I note that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is smiling as he recalls the debates we had upstairs in Committee. Many employers put the figure considerably higher and that is without taking into account the distraction to management in having to find time to deal with the claim. Then there is the fact, which is admitted on all sides, including by the Government, that the procedures in these regulations are extremely complex. They contain a number of traps which will lay the unwary employer open to severe penalties by an arbitrary increase in any compensation that the tribunal thinks fit to award of between 10 and 50 per cent. Conversely, an employee would possibly lose the same percentage of compensation for failure to comply with disciplinary or grievance procedures. Problems of precise compliance with the very detailed timetables and procedures will undoubtedly fall heaviest on small businesses whose needs are often ignored. I quote what the CBI said in its brief on these regulations:
The regulations do not distinguish between the obligations they impose on a company in the FTSE 100 on the one hand and the corner shop where the employer and the employee work side by side. Employees who do not have the benefit of trade union representation will be disadvantaged in the same way. I can only hope that when deciding whether to inflict penalties for procedural failures on small employers and on unrepresented employees the tribunals will be merciful. The Government have made an optimistic forecast that their proposals will cut applications by a quarter. This forecast is presumably arrived at by the convoluted calculation that I mentioned to your Lordships a little while ago. Significant costs will undoubtedly fall on small employers. This is acknowledged in the regulatory assessment made in connection with the Employment Act. This Government have extended employment rights to whole new categories of workers, have shortened qualifying periods before cases can be taken to employment tribunals and have increased the ceiling on compensation payments. At the same time, the newspapers frequently report tribunal decisions that can only be described as bizarre and awards of compensation that are out of all relationship to what is awarded, for example, by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to persons who have suffered serious physical traumas as distinct from merely injured feelings. Therefore, it is right that employees will be required to use internal grievance to resolve disputes in the workplace before going to the tribunal. The requirements of the new regulations have been significantly watered down from what the unions and Government Back-Benchers in both Houses were advocating when the Bill was first published and found its way through Parliament. We welcome the fact that in these regulations the Government have decided not to implement Section 30 of the Act, which would have required employers - large, medium and small - to make the new procedures part of the specific contractual terms. I shall take a moment or two to quote what the CBI said on that point:
The implication that the laws of the United Kingdom apply to all contracts should be sufficient for anyone. We are also pleased to note that the definition of "relevant disciplinary action" excludes warnings and suspensions on full pay. Otherwise we would find employers dragged through this complicated procedure merely for a severe reprimand on the shop floor or in the office. The Government have also sensibly, in our opinion, excluded, in Regulation 3, dismissals where collective consultation is already required by redundancy regulations. Despite the complexity of the regulations, which the Government admit, and the cost to business, which perhaps they do not, in the interests of giving effect to the Employment Act, we shall not oppose the regulations. Indeed, we believe that any measures that help to resolve more disputes in the workplace without the need to go to litigation are truly to be welcomed. Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving a clear exposition of the background to these regulations. Listening to the noble Baroness, and seeing the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, in his place-welcomed, I am sure, by all of us - brought an awful sense of déjà vu about the endless discussions we had on the Bill itself. Before I make one or two comments, I wish to remind the Minister that, as he will remember, we on these Benches were fundamentally in support of the Government's proposals, which was not the case for the Conservative Opposition and not always the case for the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who was normally coming from a slightly different perspective from that of the noble Baroness. Having put in that slight admonition, on this occasion I agree with a good deal of what the noble Baroness has said, particularly with regard to the costs. Having studied the numbers in the regulatory assessment in some detail, I have doubts. It may significantly underestimate the costs to employers and significantly overestimate the savings to the taxpayer. As an aside, when we debated a number of these issues in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, endeavoured to persuade us, and I listened with interest, that the major motivation for the Government with regard to this legislation was to reduce the number of cases going to tribunals and to bring a saving to the taxpayer by fewer tribunal claims. I have no knowledge whether that was the Government's objective; in debate, the Minister denied that it was. I share the noble Baroness's scepticism. I do not think that they will succeed. For reasons that the noble Baroness has indicated, I suspect that the figures on savings from fewer tribunal claims, given in Table 2, on page 19 of the regulatory assessment, are significantly overstated. The most fundamental reason is set out in paragraph 50 on page 15 of the regulatory assessment - which the Minister has touched on - regarding the position of small businesses. A policy decision has been taken, which I support, that these regulations and the procedures they set out should apply to every company, from the Shell oil company down to the corner shop. I think that that is absolutely right. But I also think there is a danger that the Government will underestimate the impact that it will have on the myriad small businesses which, as indicated in paragraph 50, do not have a specialised personnel function. The type of situation covered by the regulations will often arise only when something peculiar arises in their business such as-the example given in paragraph 50-parental leave following an adoption. Paragraph 51 states that the DTI,
I think the Government will find that although that is an easy sentence to write, it will be a very difficult sentence to implement. Although we listened with interest to the Minister's very clear exposition of the regulations' meaning and implications, I suspect that it will be very difficult and defy even the best brains in the DTI to reduce them to a form that is easily understandable by every small business. That is going to be a significant challenge for the department. This is really the first time that anything like this has been attempted in this country. I applaud the intent to do so because there is no reason why an employee in a small business should be treated any differently in terms of employment rights from an employee of the Shell oil company. However, it will be a serious challenge to explain business obligations and employee rights to the corner shop owner - I do not know why we are picking on the corner shop owner - or to any other very small business in a way which achieves the effect that the Government seek. It may be difficult for the Minister to give a definitive answer to my final question. However, it would be useful if we could know what were the especially difficult areas on which there was significant disagreement among consultees in the consultation exercise. I absolutely accept that these regulations result form an extensive consultation exercise with employers' organisations, representatives of small business and so on. It would be helpful if the Government could indicate the difficult areas. On which issues was there no real agreement among consultees? The Government had to take key decisions on matters such as Section 30, to which the noble Baroness referred. Clearly the consultation exercise led the Government to decide that they were not going to implement Section 30. It would be useful if the Minister could indicate those areas. I am perfectly happy for him to write. It would help if we could have the background to these areas of controversy by the time we reach the implementation phase of the regulations. Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I rise to welcome the regulations and to ask my noble friend the Minister three questions. I preface them by acknowledging that the regulations contain many directions of approach to the complexity and difficulty which arose on the way in which the Bill was drafted, by including improvements that go beyond some of the suggested answers to the difficulties made by Ministers in the rather long Grand Committee and on Report. They are certainly far better than any of the suggestions made by the official Opposition whose industrial relations policy, as we have heard again this evening, goes back to demands to keep workers away from employment tribunals by imposing deposits. That arises not from what they said on the Bill a year or two back, but from their demands of 1983. They do not make much progress, and I congratulate the Government on not listening to such industrial relations chatter. I also congratulate the Government on insisting that the procedure demanded of employers and employees should apply across the board. They have not given way to pressure from some quarters to allow small employers to continue to be bad employers, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. My first of three questions relates to the figures in Annex A on pages 21-23. My question comes not from a failure to understand the algebra, as has been suggested, but it is about the figures themselves in their estimate of the number of employment tribunal applications. The 2002 Act was predicated on the basis that there had been, and continued to be a dramatic rise in the number of tribunal applications. By the year before, the figure had reached 130,000. My noble friends and I tried to convince the Government that that year was a rather unusual one. It might be thought that there was some merit in that argument as, in the two subsequent years after the 130,000 figure, the number of tribunal applications fell by 25 per cent each year. By the time we reached 2003, employment tribunal applications were down to 98,600. In that event, is the Minister entirely happy with the calculation that there will be roughly 110,000 employment tribunal applications per year, including 10,000 from new jurisdictions? That is based on the same research that the Government disclosed to us only two days before the Bill was debated on Report, and which they relied on before. Is it the case that the calculations of the number of tribunal applications that will be saved, which they say will be 35,000 to 36,000, is based on a very good assessment of the research, especially as they appear to quote the survey on employment tribunal applications of 1998 and onwards, when everyone in their position said that the number of tribunal applications was rising and would rise? Leaving aside new jurisdictions, it has been shown that apart from the Act, which is not in force, the number of tribunal applications has fallen. How far have the Government taken account of that fact and the reasons for the fall? I shall not try to explain that now, but plenty of explanation in the debates in Committee and on Report of the Bill appear to have been justified. My second point is to express surprise that Government statements and explanatory notes omit all reference to a series of issues of which the most important is Section 30 of the Act. The Bill proposed by the deliberate choice of the Government, which we asked about again and again, to make disciplinary and grievance procedures implied terms of every contract of employment in the land. The debate on the Bill took place on that desire - to make the procedures part of the employment contract. Yet the Government suddenly leapt backwards into the arms of the CBI when they saw the response to their consultative document, and they refused to bring Section 30 into effect at all. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, perhaps was not wholly fair to the Government because they published in response to the consultation the reasons why they took their sudden new view. I shall quote only a few words of paragraphs 121 to 123 of the response document in which the Government say that the,
We have heard the same argument from the official Opposition. The Government also say:
We had much debate during the passage of the Bill on the complex legal issues that might arise, but the Government never told us that they would not implement Section 30. The view of the CBI was,
That is all we are told in terms of the arguments. The Government's conclusion stated:
They go on to say that,
But Section 30 will not operate in practice. Section 30 gave workers the right to say, "These procedures are obligatory and if you, the employer, do not implement them, you are in breach of contract". It gave the employer the right to say to employees, "If you do not implement the procedures, you are in breach of contract". The mere fact that it might give workers a right to sue in the tribunals as well as in the ordinary courts is no reason for completely emasculating and destroying those rights. At the very most the logic of the argument is that those rights should not exist in the tribunals where the one-year period applies. The one-year period does not apply to breach of contract actions in the courts. Why have the Government suddenly destroyed the rights of workers to enforce the obligation to have the procedures properly observed? Complex legal issues arise in all parts of the Bill. The only argument mentioned was that of the CBI, which was strongly opposed by the TUC. The Government have given no extra reason at all for not implementing Section 30. My second question is: do they have some new unstated and unknown mysterious reason whose objective is simply to deny the right of workers to enforce the employers' obligations in the courts? My third question is a very simple one: what is the meaning of Regulation 3, especially paragraph (2) of Regulation 3? Regulation 3(2) deals with the modified dismissal procedure. That is important for a worker. My noble friend the Minister said - I think that I am right in summarising his words as follows - that the modified procedure, which is scarcely a procedure at all, would apply where the employer could dismiss for misconduct. But with respect to him, Regulation 3 is a little more difficult than that and raises all sorts of issues which, like so many of the other problems, we were told would be clarified in the regulations when we raised them as problems during the passage of the Bill. For example, to take one of the many difficulties, the employer is permitted to use the modified procedure when,
We were told almost precisely that during debates on the Bill. The Government then said, "Oh, that will all be clarified in the regulations", like so many other issues. One could make a list of them, but I refer to this one because it is perhaps the most important to the workers concerned; namely, whether they can simply be shoved out on the spot with no procedure-the modified procedure is scarcely worth anything - when,
We do not have greater clarification than we had in the Bill; we do not have greater clarification than we had in the debates. I give that one example, but in a more general sense is not Regulation 3(2) so uncertain in its terms that it will be very difficult for a worker to challenge the use of the modified procedure by the employer? It is no good saying, "Oh well, that can all go to the tribunal" because what the worker wants to know is whether he can challenge the use of an immediate dismissal or a summary dismissal at which he loses his job, which has not merely employment but also social security implications and results. If my noble friend could say a word about such problems, not forgetting that I have paid tribute to some of the improvements that one finds in the regulations, my welcome for the regulations would be even greater than it is. Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I have listened with interest to all the points that have been made and I am grateful for them. I shall endeavour to respond to as many of them as I can. However, I make the point that these regulations offer a positive way of improving dispute resolution in our workforces. We can all agree that it makes sense to discuss problems at an early stage before they escalate out of control. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to the complexity of the regulations. Of course, they will apply to all workplaces and to all situations that arise in workplaces. Inevitably, employment disputes can be highly complicated and dealing with them appropriately necessarily requires some complexity. However, the regulations were drafted with input and support from a wide range of stakeholders and the Government have tested them during a lengthy period of consultation to ensure that they meet the needs of a full spectrum of workplaces and employment disputes. The noble Baroness raised the issue of deposits on costs. A better way to deal with the problem is to get people to talk, rather than to have a system of deposits. In 2001 we consulted on whether tribunals should charge users, and the strong response from the consultees was that charging would deter claims from applicants. The Government accept that position. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, in this case it is not our objective simply to reduce tribunal work. On the contrary, we want to improve industrial relations. We believe that an employment relations system is better if people talk early on. It is better for the employer in terms of keeping experienced workers if problems can be sorted out; it is also better for the employee in terms of keeping a job if problems can be sorted out. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, made the point that the regulations do not distinguish between small companies and large companies. The whole point of the regulations is that we have set a minimum standard, and we have applied them so that they bring in a large number of employees who are not currently protected by adequate dispute resolution procedures in their workplaces. We accept, right from the start, that many companies will quite rightly have more complex and more detailed arrangements. We have not applied those arrangements to all businesses because we believe that that would not be possible or right for small business. I believe that is the right way to approach the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, challenged the DTI to produce simple material; it is a challenge that we accept and we shall seek to do that. He also asked what were the stakeholder responses to the regulations consultation process. As always, it uncovered a wide range of opinion from key stakeholders. This is an important and challenging area of law. Employer and employee organisations often take very different viewpoints. We have tried to take those on board; for example, the CBI has broadly supported the aim behind employment dispute resolution reforms; it felt that the procedure was generally sensible; it thought that the exemptions were appropriate; and said that the changes were timely and broadly acceptable. The TUC welcomed the extension to time limits for grievance cases, as one would expect, and approved of the ability to resolve collective grievances. Small businesses councils generally endorsed the Government's approach in that area. The two major issues, particularly for the TUC, were, first, that we were not implementing the implied contractual right and, secondly, the definition of disciplinary action. I turn to the three questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. I thank him for his thanks-they are much appreciated in the light of all the comments he made during the 40 hours of debate. He raised the interesting question of the movement of employment tribunal caseload figures. We always accepted that the figures were particularly high in 2000 and 2001 because of the raised level of cases caused by new European part-time pension rules. The noble Lord was right to say that in 2001-02 the figure went from 130,000 to 112,000, and then down again in 2002-03 to 98,000. But the latest figures look likely to be around 113,000 in 2003-04, so they appear to be increasing again. The main reason that we were concerned was not the peak year of 130,000 cases, but that between 1990 and 2003 the caseload roughly trebled. I return to the point that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. This is not simply about keeping down tribunal costs but about improving the employment relations system. The second question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, related to the implied contractual right and why we were not bringing that in. I shall try to make the Government's position clear. These statutory procedures will be a major change for many workplaces. So that their impact is controlled the Government do not at this time intend to commence the provision contained in the Employment Act 2002, which would make the statutory dispute resolution procedures an implied contractual term for all employees. There are those people, of whom I believe the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn is one, who fear that not commencing that provision will emasculate the procedures because there will be no sanction if the employers do not follow the dispute resolution process. Of course that is not the case. If employers do not follow the procedures and the dispute subsequently escalates to employment tribunal proceedings, they will suffer the adverse consequences provided for in the 2002 Act. In dismissal cases they will face a finding of unfair dismissal. In all cases, if a failure to start or complete a statutory procedure was the employer's fault the tribunal will increase any award by up to 50 per cent if it finds in the employee's favour. It is important to recognise that these statutory procedures will be a major change for the 800,000 or more firms that have inadequate or non-existent procedures in place at the moment. Because of the burden of applying new operating procedures, the Government's view is that it is best to proceed in stages, starting with these regulations, which apply procedures to disputes that involve employment rights. I should make clear that our approach is not set in stone. The Government are committed after two years to a review of how the procedures operate in practice. If there is evidence to suggest that the procedures have not been universally adopted, then it would be appropriate to consider introducing the implied term, so that the employees can make breach of contract claims if their employer fails to follow the procedures. The decision to proceed in such a way was strongly endorsed by a majority of the respondents during consultations. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, also had concerns about using the modified dismissal procedure. But, as I explained in my opening remarks, the modified dismissal procedure will apply only in a limited subset of gross misconduct dismissals. Extensive feedback during consultation has helped us to tighten up the drafting of the provision to ensure that we do not create a loophole to allow unscrupulous employers to sack instantaneously. Of course, for the most severe gross misconduct cases, it is surely right that employers retain the right to sack instantly, especially as tribunals can find that to be fair. In those cases, the shortened procedure must be followed after dismissal. In conclusion, the draft regulations laid before the House today set out a sensible, and I believe valid, way of encouraging dialogue in workplace disputes. They are based on rational, reasonable principles. Employers and employees should discuss problems before acting hastily. I believe that this is an even-handed package which balances rights with responsibilities for both employers and employees. The regulations are practical and workable for even the smallest employers and, above all, they will ensure that up to 7.2 million employees are covered by basic dispute resolution procedures. I should also say that the regulations have been tested in a very thorough consultation exercise supported by extensive discussions with key stakeholders and 16 weeks of public consultations. Implementation will be supported by an extensive guidance and awareness campaign. We are working with ACAS, the TUC, the CBI, small firm representatives and citizens advice bureaux to ensure that they meet the needs of all end users. On Question, Motion agreed to.
Local Government Members (Code of Conduct) The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Government have today published a consultation paper setting out its proposals for draft Regulations under section 66 of the Local Government Act 2000. These proposals will make provision for local government monitoring officers in England, in cases where ethical standards officers of the Standards Board for England deem it appropriate, to investigate allegations that local authority members have breached their code of conduct. The Government are consulting on this issue over the next three months, and at the same time the Standards Board for England is consulting on draft guidance for monitoring officers on how they can best undertake their duties under the proposed Regulations. We need to ensure the highest possible ethical standards in local government. But we need a system, which is efficient and workable. This approach is a sensible, effective and proportionate way of handling allegations of misconduct at a local level. Copies of the consultation paper are being sent to local authorities and will be available in the Libraries of both Houses, as well as being made available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website at www.odpm.gov.uk.
Public Audit (Wales) Bill - (Grand Committee Lord Davies of Oldham: We are in danger of being at crossed purposes. We agree about the objectives. We believe that within the framework of the Bill the amendment is not necessary because electronic publication is permitted. The danger with the amendment is that it appears that it rules out other forms of communication. We certainly would not want to have electronically transmitted information at the exclusion of all other forms. I am sure that the noble Baroness does not intend that, but the amendment would have that effect. Even if I have misinterpreted the noble Baroness's amendment, I assure her that I am on her side. I assure her that the Bill provides the opportunity for e-mail and the Internet to be used. We do not need an amendment to this clause in order to do that. Baroness Noakes: I shall accept the Minister's assurance that electronic methods are covered by Clause 48. I confess that, after looking again briefly at Clause 48, I still see it drafted wholly in terms of the written word and not the electronically published word. Because the Minister seems so certain, I shall take the issue away and look at it again to see how my amendment sits alongside what he has said. I record for today that I am mystified by his response and may well want to return to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn. Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 54:
"( ) the Assembly," The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 54, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 55. Under Clause 47, the Auditor General will give directions to local authorities in Wales about publishing their performance standards. Before issuing a direction imposing a new requirement, under Clause 49(3) the Auditor General must consult associations of relevant bodies and any other persons that he thinks fit. Amendment No. 54 requires the Auditor General to consult the Assembly. The Auditor General may well conclude that he wants to consult the Assembly - I hope that he would do so - because it has a clear interest in the publication of performance data. We believe that there should be no ambiguity about this and that the Assembly should be consulted. Similarly, when the Auditor General publishes his direction under Clause 49(6), Amendment No. 55 will ensure that a copy is laid before the Assembly. I do not consider that these amendments violate the constitutional position of local government in Wales. They are designed to recognise that the Assembly will have legitimate interests in the performance of local government in Wales and therefore should be explicitly within the processes that are envisaged under the Bill. On that basis, I beg to move. Lord Davies of Oldham: The publication of performance standards information is essentially a matter for the Auditor General and local government in Wales. There is no requirement on the Audit Commission to consult the National Assembly for Wales under the present arrangements. Local government might consider it an encroachment on its constitutional independence if, in fact, such a report were given to the Assembly. The information which the Auditor General considers should be the subject of a direction can be informed by studies that he is required to undertake or promote under Clause 41. As the noble Baroness said, under Clause 49(3) the Auditor General would be required to consult any persons he thinks fit, other than the associations of relevant bodies, before imposing a new publication requirement. This could, of course, include the Assembly but there is no cause to impose a specific duty for him to do so. A requirement to lay a copy of any direction before the Assembly would run counter to other measures relating to the Bill that underpin local government's independent democratic accountability, which we discussed extensively on a previous occasion. There is no requirement on the Auditor General, for instance, to lay a report on the financial audit of a local government body before the Assembly. Under Clause 49(6) the Auditor General is in any event required to publish a direction in order to bring it to the public attention. Therefore, I believe that the issues of public awareness and public information are covered so far as the work of the Auditor General is concerned. However, to include the Assembly in the measure would have significant implications so far as local authorities are concerned. On that basis I do not feel able to accept the amendment. Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for giving the Government's reasons for resisting the amendment. We consider that the Assembly has a legitimate interest in local government, local government performance and perhaps even local government financial audit too. The Minister raised the interesting question of whether or not there ought to be a different information stream to the Assembly. However, on the basis that nothing would prevent the Auditor General consulting the Assembly-we can trust to the good sense of the Auditor General in that regard - and that nothing would prevent him, in interpreting his requirement to publish the direction, ensuring that that was drawn to the attention of appropriate members of the Assembly, we are content with the Minister's response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn. Schedule 1 [Best value audit and inspections]: Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 63:
The noble Baroness said: I shall be extremely brief. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 inserts a new Section 2A into the Local Government Act 1999 to deal with the Welsh dimension of best value audit. Our Amendment No. 63 proposes the deletion of subsection (4) of new Section 2A. This is a probing amendment to find out exactly what the Government have in mind. Clearly, they intend to disapply or exempt from a functional duty certain best value authorities. The probing amendment is designed to ask the Minister to give us an example of how that might work in practice in Wales. I beg to move. Lord Davies of Oldham: As the noble Baroness said, the measure would limit the powers of the Assembly in a certain way. She will not be surprised if I therefore resist the amendment. Its effect would be to take away a power which the Assembly already has under the Local Government Act 1999. This is not, as I understand it, an exemption in the context of a relaxation of the best value authority's responsibilities. The power would be exercised if the Assembly had fundamental doubts about the exercise of a function by a best value authority and was contemplating making alternative arrangements. The Assembly has not used the power but that does not detract from its validity. We want to retain the power and we do not think that we should remove a power which the Assembly already has. Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that reply. I had understood that subsection (4) would have the effect of taking a body outside the ambit of best value. My probing amendment is to find out why that would happen in relation to a particular function or functions. I am not sure I understood what the Minister said in response to. Lord Davies of Oldham: I was indicating that the power which would be taken away by the amendment would be exercised only if the Assembly had fundamental doubts about the exercise of the functions by a best value authority. The power has not been used, so I cannot quote an example to her. However, we want to preserve that power - it is one which the Assembly already enjoys under the Local Government Act. That "reserve" power has validity and might be used in exceptional circumstances in respect of a best value authority when the Assembly has fundamental doubts about what is happening. Baroness Noakes: I will need to consider carefully the Minister's comments. It seems that having doubts about performance would be more likely to leave an authority within the best value framework, so that all that could be exposed and explored through the best value process. Having doubts about performance would seem more likely to leave a body within that process. So, I am unsure about the Minister's response, which I will carefully consider between now and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 64:
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, who is again unavoidably absent through illness, I move the amendment standing in his name. The amendments correct the fact that the draft Bill inadvertently resulted in the full provisions for consultation, approval and revision set out in Clause 16 not being applied to the code of practice in respect of best value audit. I can see from the amendments that have been tabled that our weaknesses were about to be exposed by Opposition amendments, and the Government amendments have been tabled to recognise our weakness. The amendment reflects the fact that approval of, and consultation on, a draft code are dealt with in the full provisions of Clause 16. I beg to move.
Katharine Gun The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): This morning, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General made a statement in another place about the prosecution of Katharine Gun. I apologise to the shadow Attorney-General and to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on these issues, for the lateness in getting the Attorney-General's statement to them. His statement is as follows. Yesterday, at the central criminal court, the Crown offered no evidence in the case of Katharine Gun. Ms Gun had been charged under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1989. The effect of offering no evidence was that the case against Ms Gun was discontinued. Before I answer the questions that hon. Members will put to me today, I hope that it will help the House if I explain the process in respect of prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act. Prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act are governed by the normal rules applied by the Crown Prosecution Service when considering any prosecution: the code for Crown prosecutors. There is an additional requirement for the Attorney-General's consent before a prosecution can go ahead under the Official Secrets Act. May I say at the outset that when making decisions under the code for Crown prosecutors, the CPS acts in the public interest? It takes independently the decisions for which it is responsible. I also remind the House that when making decisions on whether to consent to a prosecution, the Attorney-General makes his decisions in the public interest, not in the interest of the Government. When the CPS is considering a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, the normal code rules require that it first consider the sufficiency of the evidence - evidence to make out the case and evidence to rebut any defence that might be available and that might be raised. It will not take further action if it thinks that there is insufficient evidence. If its view is that there is a realistic prospect of conviction - that is, the evidence is sufficient to make it more likely than not that a jury would convict - it then considers the public interest test. In the Gun case, the evidential test was met in the view of counsel instructed by the CPS, and in the view of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The evidential test having been met, the CPS next moved on to the public interest test. That test is, quite simply, to ask whether the prosecution would be in the public interest. As this prosecution was taking place under the Official Secrets Act, it also required the consent of the Attorney-General. When considering whether to consent to a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, the Attorney-General carries out a Shawcross exercise, whereby he seeks the views of any ministerial colleagues who may have an interest in the case. That is so that he can be informed of their views on the public interest considerations of the case within their ministerial or departmental responsibilities. When those ministerial views are expressed, the Attorney-General takes them into consideration when deciding whether to give his consent. In the Gun case, the view of the independent prosecutor, senior Treasury counsel Mark Ellison and his junior Ed Brown, on the review of the evidence available at that time was that the evidence afforded a realistic prospect of conviction. The Crown Prosecution Service applied for the Attorney-General's consent, and he undertook a Shawcross exercise by way of a Shawcross letter to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in view of his departmental interest. That letter was copied to other interested ministerial colleagues. Views were expressed that, as always with the Shawcross exercise, the decision was the Attorney-General's. He gave his consent to the prosecution on 13 November 2003. Under the code, it is the obligation of the prosecutor, as a case progresses, to keep under review the prospects of a conviction resulting. If, on that review, the prosecutor forms the view that the evidence is such that there is no longer a realistic prospect of conviction, it is his or her duty to withdraw the prosecution. Counsel reviewed this case. The decision not to proceed with the prosecution was made by the CPS, after consultation with the Attorney-General. It was based on the advice of senior Treasury counsel in the case. The evidential deficiency related to the prosecution's inability within the current statutory framework to disprove the defence raised on the particular facts of the case. The view of senior Treasury counsel and the DPP was that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. The prosecution consulted the Attorney-General before offering no evidence in this case. However, the decision not to pursue the case was that of the Crown Prosecution Service, as it was based on the view that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. The Attorney-General made it clear, however, that he agreed with it. At the central criminal court on 25 February 2004, senior Treasury counsel informed the court that the prosecution was offering no evidence, as there was no longer sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. Perhaps at this point I may tell the House of a statement made this morning by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald. He said:
That was the DPP's statement. I recognise that many in the House will want to know more about the detailed basis on which counsel concluded that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. However, as the matter concerns issues of intelligence, it is not appropriate for me to go into that, even to this House. As for the impact of the decision on the conduct of future prosecutions, the substantive law is always kept under review, and the effect of particular prosecutions on the substantive law considered. Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): May I first thank the Solicitor-General for giving me an advance copy of the statement? I make no criticism of the slight lateness of its arrival, and I accept her apology for that. I should also like to say at the outset that I see no reason to express any criticism whatever of the conduct of the Attorney-General, on the facts as they are available at present, or indeed of the Solicitor-General. Nevertheless, this case raises some very important and worrying features. It is an unusual feature of the case, as the Solicitor-General will confirm, that the facts of Miss Gun's actions were not in dispute. The defence that had been raised was one of necessity. When was that defence first expressed? Was it, as has been suggested and as I believe to be the case, in the numerous interviews that took place between Miss Gun and her interviewers, under caution, in the spring and summer of last year, leading to her being charged with this offence in November? Was it the case that, prior to charge, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General were consulted, so that the Shawcross exercise of which the Solicitor-General spoke was carried out? If so, why did the evaluation of the chances of conviction change so dramatically between the date of charge in November and the events yesterday? When did it become clear that the case would not succeed? When was it decided by the Attorney-General that it should not go ahead? I have heard what the Solicitor-General said about that decision being made prior to a request for further material from the prosecution on 24 February, but will she be more specific about that? I understand that the Attorney-General had discussions with the Foreign Secretary on 14 and 24 February. Will she amplify from that when the decision was taken? Why was the view changed? There is no suggestion in this case that a defence statement had yet been served, because none was required prior to the plea and directions hearing. It was suggested by the Attorney-General in his statement in the House of Lords that new material had come to light. I appreciate that the Solicitor-General will not be able to comment on specific material, but will she tell the House why that material was not available earlier? Was the material produced for the prosecution by those supplying it with information within the intelligence services, or was it served by the defence? I understand that the Attorney-General properly consulted Cabinet colleagues, as he is entitled to do under the Shawcross rules. As I said earlier, I believe that he consulted the Foreign Secretary on at least two occasions. Will the Solicitor-General tell us whether, in addition to that, the Prime Minister was consulted about this case at any time between its first investigation and its discontinuance? It has been widely suggested and publicised that the discontinuance followed a request by the defence for a copy of the Attorney-General's advice on the Iraq war. I cannot see a reason why the Solicitor-General cannot indicate whether such a request was made prior to discontinuance yesterday, and I would be grateful if she would tell the House whether that was indeed the case. I would obviously agree with her if she were to confirm that that document would be covered by privilege and therefore be unobtainable, unless of course the Government chose to waive the privilege upon it. The Attorney-General made an important point in his statement, which was repeated by the Solicitor-General:
That is a very serious statement, and if that is so, is the Solicitor-General saying that, under the Official Secrets Act, no defence of necessity can be rebutted, so that in future no such prosecution can ever succeed, allowing anyone who chooses to leak official documents - potentially causing great damage to our freedom - to escape conviction? Or is she saying that, as Official Secrets Act prosecutions usually require the withholding of certain material from a jury under public interest immunity, resulting in the acceptance by the jury of the good faith underlying the prosecution process brought by the state, that the current state of public distrust of the Government over their actions in Iraq has rendered the process of justice impossible in this instance? Whichever is the case, this is a disastrous state of affairs for the due process of justice in this country. In the House of Lords, the Attorney-General suggested that a review of the Official Secrets Act was to be conducted. Will the Solicitor-General tell the House when that might happen, and when a statement might be made to the House of the implications of this case? There have been previous requests by many people to see a copy of the Attorney-General's advice. There are perfectly good legal reasons for not making it available, but does the Solicitor-General agree that it is open to the Government, if they so choose, to waive their privilege and to allow the advice to be made available to the public? Will she consult her Cabinet colleagues about whether that might help to restore faith in the administration of justice in this country? There are very serious matters that go way beyond the issues surrounding the case in the Solicitor-General's and Attorney-General's statements. I very much hope that the Solicitor-General can clear some of these matters up. The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman asked whether the defence of necessity was disclosed at an early stage and therefore considered by those who had conduct of the prosecution. It is clear that it became evident at an early stage, if not from the outset, that it was a realistic prospect that Ms Gun might raise the defence of necessity. That was known and considered before the charge. Prior to the charge, the Shawcross exercise was undertaken. The Attorney-General has to consent to a prosecution going forward. The hon. Gentleman asked why the evaluation had changed. That is a difficult question for me to answer as fully as I would like to. He will know from his experience at the Bar that evidence comes and goes, and that a case has to be kept under constant review. If at any point counsel with the conduct of the case decides, on the balance of all the admissible evidence that might go to the proving of the charge or the rebutting of the defence, that there is no longer a realistic prospect of conviction, it is counsel's duty to make his view known that that is the case. The hon. Gentleman asked when the Attorney-General decided not to go ahead with the case, but I can tell the House that it was not decided by the Attorney-General. He was told of the view of Treasury counsel, with which the Director of Public Prosecutions concurred, relating to the lack of sufficiency of the evidence. The Attorney-General was told about, and agreed with, the view of Treasury counsel, but it was actually the decision of the prosecuting authorities, not the Attorney-General. I ask the House to understand the separate nature of the Attorney-General's discussions with the Foreign Secretary. The Shawcross exercise means that the Attorney-General will consult his ministerial colleagues in deciding, as part of his consideration, whether a prosecution is in the public interest. He will do that because the prosecution might affect the Departments for which they are responsible. That is quite separate from the issue of evidential sufficiency. As the Attorney-General explained in the other place this morning, the discussions that he had on 14 and 24 February were about the evidential questions. As a matter of courtesy, he was reporting to the Foreign Secretary on the evidential issues that had arisen, and discussing them with him. He was not asking for the Foreign Secretary's views on whether the prosecution was still in the public interest, nor was he giving the decision on the sufficiency of evidence to the Foreign Secretary. He was not consulting the Foreign Secretary; he was simply explaining to him, and discussing with him, the evidential position. No defence statement had been served-this brings us back to the issue of the defence of necessity-but obviously counsel for the prosecution, and the prosecution as a whole, are under a duty to anticipate what any defences might be. The hon. Gentleman asked whether any request by the defence for the Attorney-General's legal advice to the Prime Minister on the legal basis for the use of force in Iraq would have been covered by privilege. That question did not arise, and therefore the question of whether the Attorney-General had to decide whether he would claim legal privilege did not arise either, because the request for disclosure had not been made. The hon. Gentleman asked about the future of section 1 of the Official Secrets Act. He asked whether it was now the case that no defence of necessity could ever be rebutted. All I can say is that before we rush to any conclusions about where this case leaves the state of the law, careful consideration must be given - and no doubt will be given - by the Home Secretary. It will be for him to come to the House if he has any views that he wishes to convey to it about the state of the Act. As for whether the prospect of a conviction receded because of the anticipation of public distrust of the Government-I think that that is what the hon. Gentleman was alleging-that was not an issue in relation to the discontinuance of the case. The hon. Gentleman asked when the Official Secrets Act would be reviewed. I think that that is a matter for the Home Secretary. As I have said, in all cases in which there has been a significant event in the course of a prosecution, the implications for the substantive law that might arise from that prosecution are always considered. I said no more than that. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government should waive confidentiality - whether either the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General should waive the normal rule, which is that legal advice to Government is confidential. He suggested that it should be waived. I remind him that because of exceptional public interest in the question of the legal basis for the use of force in Iraq, the Attorney-General did, on 17 March, set out the basis on which he believed in the lawfulness of the use of force in Iraq; and he was able to reaffirm this morning, in another place, that his opinion of whether his view of the law was right had not changed. No doubt many people will have examined the law on the use of force, and, as we know from lectures and newspapers, many of them do not agree with the Attorney-General. I should point out that when the Prime Minister appoints the Attorney-General, he cannot shop around for legal advice. If the Attorney-General tells him that he cannot do something, he cannot do it. He is obliged to take the Attorney-General's advice: that is the basis and the nature of the appointment. Similarly, if the Attorney-General tells the Prime Minister that he is entitled to do something, the Prime Minister is entitled to rely on that, irrespective of whether many other people take a different view. I realise that I have left many questions unanswered, but I can at least explain to the House what the Attorney-General's responsibilities are under this procedure, and make it clear that he fulfilled them with integrity………. …….. Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): On the public interest test, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, through the Enterprise Act 2002, the Department of Trade and Industry has virtually scrapped public interest concerns in its area of responsibility? How safe is the public interest in the Government's hands? In her statement, my right hon. and learned Friend referred to ministerial colleagues who may have an interest in the case, because of public interest considerations. Is not there a distinction between ministerial interests and the public interest? The Solicitor-General: Ministerial interest is not a question of curiosity, but whether Departments are affected by the scope of the issues in any particular prosecution. My hon. Friend asked whether the Department of Trade and Industry takes the public interest sufficiently into account. I was not aware that DTI prosecutors no longer operate the evidential and public interest tests. If that is so, I will correct the position, but that is not the situation as I understand it……….. Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): Is not it plain that Katharine Gun was going to allege that what she did was necessary and justified? Is not it astonishing that the Government did not feel able to rebut that contention? Does not the right hon. and learned Lady understand that many of us who opposed the war strongly suspect that in the Government's possession are documents that they would have been obliged to produce that would have shown that the war was unlawful and unnecessary? It was because of their reluctance to put such documents before the court that they felt unable to rebut the defence. The Solicitor-General: No, that was not the case. It is not a question of a judgment having been made that if we went ahead it would have involved us putting forward these documents, so we decided to pull the plug. That was not the case. All I can refer to in relation to the evidential obstacles is what I said in my opening statement, and that is the position. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): The trial of Katharine Gun would inevitably have had to address the question whether Mr. Frank Koza, senior official of the United States National Security Agency, had requested the Government's help on an eavesdropping "surge" on delegates from six non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. This is a matter of the gravest public interest, which has been heightened today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), who was asked whether British spies were
and she replied, "Yes, absolutely." What route is available to us now to seek the truth before the House? The Solicitor-General: I can at least reassure my hon. Friend that, in all respects, the Government act within international and domestic law in their dealings at home and abroad. Mr. William Cash (Stone) (Con): I hope that the Solicitor-General will understand when I say that I found much of what she said pretty unconvincing. Surely it is in the public interest to prosecute such a blatant breach of the Official Secrets Act. The Shawcross exercise seems to have played an enormous part in the decision making process. It certainly leaves me unconvinced by the explanation that we have just been given. With respect to the right hon. and learned Lady's assertion that the Prime Minister is obliged to take his law from the Attorney-General, I refer her to a letter I received from the previous Clerk of the House, Sir William McKay. He quotes Balfour in 1901, and says:
Therefore, it is open to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to release the opinion of the Attorney-General, and should do so. The Solicitor-General: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the decision on any action by a Department of State or the Prime Minister is for the Minister concerned or the Prime Minister. The legality of the action is a question for the Attorney-General. That is quite straightforward. It is not open for a Minister to obtain the Attorney-General's legal advice, for the Attorney-General to say "That is not within domestic or international law" and for the Minister then to go ahead and do it. That is not what happens. If it did, it would be unacceptable. I emphasise that that is not what happened. There is not a take it or leave it attitude about the legality of Government actions. There is not a shopping around for whose advice to take. The Government have made it clear that they will not act in breach of international or domestic law, and they have only one authoritative source of legal advice, aside from the courts, and that is the Attorney-General. Mr. Cash: And Balfour? The Solicitor-General: I am sorry. I cannot comment on Balfour. That would take too long. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman found what I said unconvincing because I have tried to be as clear as possible. He says that it seems that the Shawcross exercise played a large part in the discontinuance of the case. I do not know how many times I have to repeat it, but neither the Shawcross exercise nor any considerations arising from it played any part in the discontinuance. The Attorney-General spoke to the Foreign Secretary on both 14 and 24 February; it was not a secondary Shawcross exercise along the lines of "Shall we drop this case? What do you think?" It was simply a matter of reporting to him about evidential developments that had been identified by Treasury counsel in the process of the case and that materially affected the case to the extent that, as we now know, the prosecution decided to discontinue it. Denzil Davies (Llanelli) (Lab): Given the reasonable assumption that the defence of necessity must have been based upon a belief by the defence that the war was illegal, and since my right hon. and learned Friend has said that the Government would not be able to rebut that defence, does it not follow that the Government are not able to disprove the assertion that the war was illegal? The Solicitor-General: No. The defence of necessity can be based on many issues. Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): As one who deeply deplores the actions of Katharine Gun, and is somewhat bemused and disappointed by the Attorney-General's decision, I should like to ask the Solicitor-General what steps can be taken to preserve the trust and confidence that are and must be at the heart of any civilised Government in a democratic society. In that context, how soon can we have a review of the Official Secrets Act? The Solicitor-General: I cannot add to what I have already said, except that the question of the implications for the Act will have to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) (Lab): Many of us must surely still be puzzled as to what was new; what of fundamental importance happened between the initial decision of the Attorney-General and the decision to discontinue. We know that the defence of necessity was anticipated. We know that any public anxiety about the legal basis of the war was a constant. We know that the defence had not yet made any request for particulars. What is the lacuna in the law that has been revealed? Will it be stopped? Is there not otherwise a great danger that other people in a position similar to that of Ms Gun will feel that they can disobey their obligations under the Official Secrets Act and talk to newspapers? The Solicitor-General: It was an issue of evidence in this case, not of a lacuna in the law. I agree with my right hon. Friend; he is right to say that it was not a question of any late identification of the likelihood of the defence of necessity being raised. That had been anticipated from the outset. I repeat also that he is right that it was not a question of whether the disclosure of the Attorney-General's legal advice would be requested. That was not an issue. I apologise to the House, as I appreciate that without being able to go through all the intelligence that comprised all the evidence forming not just the basis of the charge, but the basis on which the defence would be rebutted, hon. Members will not feel fully in the picture. But one of the characteristics of the security services is that people are supposed not to be put fully in the picture. Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) (UUP): The Solicitor-General has necessarily left some questions unanswered. None the less, she has been able to answer certain questions, and the House will have noticed the emphasis with which she has answered particular questions. Does she agree that it is a very good thing that she, and the Attorney-General in another place, are in a position to come to Parliament so promptly to deal with these matters and to be able, as she and other hon. Members have, to steer their way round those areas that have to be kept to, as it were, the discretion of the prosecuting authorities? Would it not do enormous damage to the House and its standing in the country if, as a result of some jejune notions about the separation of powers, these issues could not be ventilated here? The Solicitor-General: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I should like time to reflect on whether it was a thoroughly good thing for me to come to the House today to make this statement. Certainly, the Attorney-General takes very seriously his accountability to Parliament, through another place, and I take very seriously my responsibility to be accountable to this House. For the most part-nearly wholly, but not exclusively so-we exercise our responsibilities in the public interest, not in a party political way and not in the Government's interest. To the extent that we can, we are open with Opposition Back-Benchers and Front-Benchers, as we are with our ministerial colleagues and Back-Benchers. Law Officers are in a special position. That is why I emphasise that there are procedures, that they are robust and that they have been followed. Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central) (Lab/Co-op): You will be pleased to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I cannot speak lawyerly language, and do not wish to do so. Is not this case a very simple one, in that the Government decided that they could not convince a British jury that they had gone to war legally? The Solicitor-General: That is not the case. My hon. Friend is entitled to assert it, but I ask hon. Members at some point to believe what I have said, which is that it was not an issue about the Attorney-General's advice on the legality of war or about second-guessing the extent to which the jury trusted the Government. I ask my hon. Friend to believe that that is the situation. He might well be mystified as to what happened, but that certainly is the situation. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) (Con): The Solicitor-General has said many times what the reasons were not for there being no realistic prospect of conviction. She said that she could not give a detailed basis for that, because it concerned intelligence issues. Is it fair from that to reach the conclusion that it was for matters of intelligence that she reached that conclusion? The Solicitor-General: As I have said, it was a question of what evidence was available within the normal limitations, including statutory limitations, not a question of what evidence was comfortable, both to prove the charge and to rebut the defence. It was not the case that the Government looked at the evidence and decided that they did not want it in court and therefore pulled the plug. Were it the case, the Director of Public Prosecution's statement would not be true. Mr. Hogg: That is exactly what happened. The Solicitor-General: I say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is intervening from a sedentary position: the Director of Public Prosecutions has made a statement, which I have read to the House. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accept that he has made that statement and that it is the truth. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): The Solicitor-General said that many questions remain unanswered and that further questions perhaps need to be asked. May I ask her one more? Given that the case against Katharine Gun was dropped and no evidence was put forward, can we all assume that the Solicitor-General and the Government accept Katharine Gun's defence of public interest overriding her loyalty - or not - to her employer, and that she will now be reinstated in the service? The Solicitor-General: That is a very good question and I am actually going to answer it. The Government do not accept the public interest defence, of necessity. As my hon. Friend will know, in the Shayler case a decision was taken in the Court of Appeal that did not then go to the House of Lords, in which the Government made their position clear on that issue. On whether this was an eleventh-hour, last-minute discontinuance, perhaps I should remind the House that this case had not been set down for trial and no trial date had been set. This was not an eleventh-hour decision; in legal terms, it was taken quite early in the morning. Mr. Michael Weir (Angus) (SNP): The case against Katharine Gun arose initially because of allegations that GCHQ was involved in spying on members of the UN Security Council, as has been amplified this morning by the former Secretary of State for International Development. Does the Solicitor-General accept that any such action is a clear violation not only of the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, but - perhaps more importantly-of the 1946 general convention on the privileges and immunities of the United Nations? Article 2(3) of the convention states:
So if such operations did take place, those who authorised them and carried them out were themselves in breach of the law. Will there be an investigation, and will action be taken against those who authorised and carried out these surveillance operations? The Solicitor-General: I am afraid that all that I can say in response to the hon. Gentleman is that the Government comply at all times with their international treaty obligations, as well as with domestic and international law. That is not just a throwaway line - it is a very serious process. Mr. Colin Challen (Morley and Rothwell) (Lab): While we are left in this mystified state, it is fair for Members to speculate about the reasons why this prosecution was withdrawn. I wonder whether, à la Clive Ponting, there was a fear that no jury in the land would actually find this woman guilty. Echoing the points made earlier, I wonder whether the substantive issue is being buried under the various legalities. The substantive issue is whether or not we acted at the behest of the American Government, and perhaps it should be referred, at the very least, to the Intelligence and Security Committee, so that these questions can be investigated in the usual way and we can have a report on that substantive issue. The Solicitor-General: Obviously, the question of what the Intelligence and Security Committee decides to look at is a matter for that Committee, which regularly hears from the Attorney-General in person. My hon. Friend wonders whether no jury would ever have found this young woman guilty. The nature or characteristics of this particular defendant did not contribute to this decision, so I can reassure him that his speculation on that point is wrong. Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con): Has the right hon. and learned Lady any notion at all-she certainly has not expressed it this afternoon-of the enormous damage that this shambolic incident has done to the credibility of the Official Secrets Act and therefore to the credibility of our ability to keep our secrets, and to the confidence that our allies and partners have in that ability; and to our national security and safety in an age of international terrorism? Does she agree that this morning, even greater damage was done to those essential elements, and will she tell the House now whether the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) has herself signed the Official Secrets Act? The Solicitor-General: I think that Ministers are covered by the Official Secrets Act whether or not they sign it. The hon. Gentleman will know that the substantive law is a matter for this House, and that the operation of the law is a matter for the independent police activities and prosecution service. If there is to be a discussion of the substantive law, so be it, but so far as the independence of the police investigation, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions is concerned, that must remain. Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): If the view was reached that there was no longer sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, and if the defence of necessity was known to the Crown at the outset, does that mean that the Crown decided that it could no longer rely on evidence on which it was initially going to rely, for reasons of admissibility, credibility or reliability? How on earth does the defence of necessity have any bearing on the decision to discontinue proceedings? The Solicitor-General: The defence of necessity has to be looked at in respect of the evidence in any particular case. I am afraid that I cannot add to what I have repeatedly said: when counsel reviewed the case-that happens on an ongoing basis-his view was that there was no longer sufficient evidence. Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent) (Con): Does the Solicitor-General accept that the Government's inability to prosecute a civil servant who leaked state secrets to the press - particularly given that she worked at GCHQ - will send a shiver down the spine of every man and woman who works for our intelligence services? What steps are the Government going to take to ensure that, in their review of the Official Secrets Act, the security of those people is paramount? The Solicitor-General: The issues that the hon. Gentleman raises are ones for reflection on the part of the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary. He speaks of the Government's inability to prosecute, and without labouring the point I should perhaps remind him that it is not the Government who prosecute under the Official Secrets Act; it is the prosecution service, and that is indeed what happened in this case. The Official Secrets Act has a long history, which I shall not go into. Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Directive Janet Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's policy is on Article 10 of the draft EU Enforcement Directive. Ms Hewitt: We support the compromise text for the draft EU Enforcement Directive sent by the Council to the European Parliament on 16 February. In this text Article 10 (provisional measures) provides for a right holder to apply for an interlocutory injunction:
There is also a specific reference to provisions already available under the Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC. We believe this text preserves the balance achieved in the earlier Copyright Directive and between the interests of right holders and intermediaries such as internet service providers. Janet Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the protection of intellectual property rights afforded by the draft EU Enforcement Directive to UK businesses. Ms Hewitt: We have been assessing the EU Enforcement Directive as it has developed in discussions in the Council Working Party on Intellectual Property and the Permanent Representatives Committee taking account of the various views expressed by interests in response to the Patent Office consultation and informal discussions. We intend to present a report on the compromise text for the EU Enforcement Directive to the Parliament's Scrutiny Committees. Janet Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reasons underlie the Government's decision to seek amendments to Articles 10 and 15 of the draft EU Enforcement Directive. Ms Hewitt: We support the compromise text for the draft EU Enforcement Directive sent by the Council to the European Parliament on 16 February. We believe this text preserves the balance achieved in the earlier Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC and between the interests of right holders and intermediaries. Janet Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations the Government are making to other EU member states to ensure that the draft EU Enforcement Directive offers the best possible degree of protection to UK businesses. Ms Hewitt: The compromise text sent by the Council to the European Parliament on 16 February was the result of intensive discussions with the Council Working Party on Intellectual Property and the Permanent Representatives Committee together with informal discussions with other member states and the interests in general. As stated in the Council's letter, the compromise proposal received broad support in the Permanent Representatives Committee, and I believe that if this text is adopted, it will significantly assist UK businesses with the enforcement of their intellectual property rights across the European Community. LORDS Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations Lord Wedderburn of Charlton asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will provide an opportunity for Parliament to debate the draft Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations before the coming into force of pending legislation which will give them power to make those regulations. Lord Sainsbury of Turville: A public consultation on draft regulations took place in 2003. Members of both Houses will be able to debate the regulations as the Employment Relations Bill proceeds through Parliament and the regulations will then be subjected to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Draft Disability Discrimination Bill The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): When I published the draft Disability Discrimination Bill on 3 December 2003, (Cm 6058), I emphasised a priority to meet our 2001 manifesto commitment in the lifetime of this Parliament-on extending rights of disabled people and removing barriers to their participation in society. I also announced our intention to publish a further clause which would protect disabled local councillors from discrimination by the local authority of which they are a member. This meets the commitment in "Towards Inclusion", the Government's response to the recommendations of the disability rights taskforce. I am pleased to announce
that I have today laid before Parliament the draft clause which becomes
clause 15 of the draft Disability Discrimination Bill (Cm 6126, Draft
Disability Discrimination Bill-Clause 15: relationships between locally-electable
authorities and their members). Alongside the clause are published explanatory
notes, prepared by my Department, to assist the Joint Scrutiny Committee
of Parliament which is considering the draft Bill. The draft clause and
notes are also available on
LORDS Ofcom: Pornographic and Paedophilic Images Baroness Howe of Idlicote asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether Ofcom has been given any statutory duties or powers under the Communications Act 2003 to receive or act upon complaints about pornographic and paedophilic images shown on the internet. Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Ofcom has no direct duties or powers to receive or act on complaints about images of child abuse or other pornographic images shown on the Internet. However, Ofcom has responsibility for approving the industry code for premium rate services, which is administered and enforced by the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS). Ofcom also has the power to enforce breaches of the approved code by imposing fines or ultimately suspending the right to provide services. The Government believe that co- and self-regulation are more appropriate than statutory regulation of content specific to the Internet. We support the role of the Internet Watch Foundation, which was established by the Internet industry in consultation with the Government. The Internet Watch Foundation works in partnership with Internet service providers, telecommunications companies, mobile operators, software providers, police and Government, to minimise the availability of illegal Internet content, particularly child abuse images. Their Internet hotline deals with reports of potentially illegal Internet content, such as websites, newsgroups and online groups that contain images of child abuse anywhere in the world; adult material that potentially breaches the Obscene Publications Act in the UK; and criminally racist material in the UK. One measure of the success of this self-regulatory approach is that less than 2 per cent of the illegal content reported to the IWF relates to material hosted in the UK.
COMMONS Katharine Gun Mr. Ancram: To ask the Solicitor-General whether (a) she and (b) the Attorney General had discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions about the case of Katharine Gun before the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to offer any evidence against her. The Solicitor-General: I have not discussed the case of Katharine Gun with the Director of Public Prosecutions. For certain offences, including those under the Official Secrets Act, the Attorney General's consent is required by statute before a prosecution can go ahead. The Director of Public Prosecutions discussed the case with the Attorney General before the CPS took the decision to offer no evidence against Katharine Gun on evidential grounds. Mr. Cash: To ask the Solicitor-General for what reasons the Attorney General did not issue a nolle prosequi in the case of Katharine Gun. The Solicitor-General: Under the Code for Crown Prosecutors, it is for the prosecution to keep under review the prospects of a conviction as the case progresses. Counsel in this case did so and the CPS decided not to proceed with the case, on the advice of counsel and after consultation with the Attorney General, because the evidence was such that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction. A nolle prosequi would not normally be entered where the reason not to proceed with the case is, as here, an evidential deficiency. Flexible Working Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Department expects to conclude its review of the legislation on flexible working. Mr. Sutcliffe: Following on from the detail I provided in my answer to my hon. Friend on 3 February 2004, Official Report, columns 777-78W, we continue to gather data which will form the evidence base for the review scheduled to commence in 2006. However at such an early stage it is inappropriate to speculate on the nature of the review itself, and therefore the length of time it may take. Katharine Gun Mr. Ancram: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with the Attorney-General concerning the case of Katharine Gun before the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to offer any evidence against her. Mr. Straw: Because I have statutory responsibility for GCHQ, I spoke with the Attorney General by telephone on 14 February and at a meeting on 24 February about the Gun case. The purpose on both occasions was to learn about the position of the prosecuting authorities relating to the continuation of the prosecution. I took no part in the decisions relating to discontinuation of the prosecution. I was earlier consulted by the Attorney General, in accordance with the Shawcross procedure, about public interest issues relating to the case, before he took the decision to initiate the prosecution.
COMMONS Cold Calling Mr. Paul Truswell (Pudsey) (Lab): I do not intend to cover every aspect of cold calling. My objective is to secure three things from the Minister: first, a recognition of the scale of the problem; secondly a readiness to take serious and robust measures; and, thirdly, an assurance that the Government will take a joined-up approach. Cold calling covers a multitude of sins and some not so sinful activities. I shall concentrate on the unquestionably criminal activities of distraction burglars, con merchants and fraudsters, as well as those activities that although not necessarily illegal, are immoral in the true sense of the word…… …..Cold calling is called the Leeds crime because it started there in the 1960s following heavy, destructive storms. The resulting damage presented con men with a heaven-sent opportunity. It is fitting that Leeds should remain at the forefront of tackling the crime. My involvement with cold calling and distraction burglary goes back about six years. I have been closely involved in a campaign against a rogue company called Midland Coating. Its tactic was to offer people free property surveys, to scare them into believing that their homes were about to fall apart, and then charge the earth for unnecessary, negligible and often shoddy work. As a result of a successful campaign to get Midland Coating closed, in which the Yorkshire Evening Post played a brilliant role, I was contacted by Claire Morrow of the Leeds distraction burglary project steering group. It soon became clear that although Midland Coating represented the bad side of doorstep calling, distraction burglary was downright ugly. I was pleased to assist the project in lobbying the Home Office for a grant of £500,000. That was money well spent on a wide range of valuable initiatives. I am sure that a great deal can be learned nationally from that experience. I was delighted that lottery moneys enabled a successor project, the Leeds community distraction burglary initiative, to follow in its footsteps. It was a privilege to be asked to launch it a few weeks ago. My involvement brought me into contact with Brian Steele, a former detective chief superintendent, who became the project's co-ordinator. His infectious, crusading spirit and his advocacy played a key role in moving distraction burglary up the agenda, not only locally but nationally. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Minister knows Brian only too well. When the project came to an end, Brian's obvious expertise was snapped up by the astute head of North Yorkshire trading standards, Stuart Pudney, on behalf of a consortium of northern trading standards authorities. I am now working with them and the Trading Standards Institute on a parliamentary campaign for a law to ban cold calling for the purpose of offering property repairs. That would help to address the favourite modus operandi of distraction burglars and other criminals. It would also deal with those whose unscrupulous activities, while not necessarily illegal in the strict sense, are designed to fleece vulnerable and unwary people. My hon. Friend will be aware of early-day motion 219, and the Property Repairs (Prohibition of Cold-Calling) Bill, adopted by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), which is due to have its Second Reading on 12 March. I look forward to that. He will also be aware of the excellent and hard-hitting newspaper campaign undertaken by the Yorkshire Evening Post in our area. Indeed, newspapers throughout the land have conducted impressive campaigns, including the Nottingham Evening Post and The Northern Echo…… The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe) : …..the problems associated with the cold calling practised by various types of rogue trader do not exist in a vacuum. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey is aware that the Government are already committed to a thorough review of the doorstep selling market as a whole. He referred to NACAB, now called Citizens Advice. It published "Door to Door", a report on doorstep selling, in 2002. The report contained evidence of the problems experienced by clients of citizens advice bureaux with a range of goods and services. It also contained several recommendations for improving consumer protection, which included the recommendation that traders trading in consumer goods should be under a general legal duty to trade fairly in the United Kingdom and in all other European Union states. That should be enforceable through stop now orders. The report also recommended that the regulations on doorstep selling should be changed to provide a cooling-off period of 14 days for all contracts made in consumers' homes, irrespective of whether the visit was solicited by the consumer. Another recommendation is that the provision in the regulations on doorstep selling, under which the right to cancel in effect falls if a purchase is incorporated into the home during the cooling-off period, should be changed so that the cancellation right remains for the full period. In addition to the obligatory mention in the sale contract, consumers should get a separate notice explaining their right to a cooling-off period and to cancel a contract. All consumers should be given a standard leaflet during any doorstep sale. It should be independently produced and include key information about the consumer's rights, questions to ask the salesman and sources of further information and advice, including how to complain and report traders who do not comply with the law. The NACAB report was submitted to the Office of Fair Trading as a super-complaint under the terms of the Enterprise Act 2002. During national consumer week 2002, the OFT announced that it would investigate the super-complaint. The investigation has considered practice in other European Union member states and the problems of bogus and exploitative trading. Possible outcomes of the investigation include: enforcement action by the OFT's competition enforcement and consumer regulation enforcement divisions; referral of the market to the Competition Commission; recommendations for changes in laws and regulations; recommendations to regulators, self-regulators and other bodies to consider changes to their rules; and campaigns to promote consumer education and awareness. As my hon. Friend said, the investigation has taken longer than expected. That is partly because it has been necessary to consider many issues across various sectors in the doorstep selling market as a whole, but the OFT is expected to publish its report and recommendations in April. I look forward to the report and assure hon. Members that any recommendations will be carefully considered. There is no doubt that cold calling by certain types of rogue traders may be a source of consumer detriment and distress. However, we must also recognise that although unscrupulous traders operate in the doorstep selling market, there are also a great many legitimate and reputable traders conducting business. Of course, it is clearly in the best interests of legitimate traders if the rogues are put out of business, not least because that would remove unfair and unscrupulous competition. When the OFT first announced that it would investigate the doorstep selling market in response to the super-complaint, it made it clear that it did not consider doorstep selling intrinsically wrong and that it could even be useful for some people, such as the housebound. I agree with that. By way of example, the Direct Selling Association, which imposes stringent codes of practice on its members, estimates that that form of trading is a distribution channel which in the UK accounts for sales in excess of £4 billion per annum across a wide range of products and services. The DSA also estimates that almost 500,000 people are engaged in direct selling either full or part-time. Those are significant figures. Mr. Truswell : We accept that it is because of the arguments that the Minister deploys that the Property Repairs (Prohibition of Cold-Calling) Bill is narrowly and specifically focused on those who solicit work for property repair or maintenance purposes. As such, it has the support of the Federation of Master Builders. Mr. Sutcliffe : I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend, who acknowledges the need for that narrow focus. I just wanted to describe the market's wider position. The consumer protection measures that are in place provide the context for the OFT investigation and the NACAB report. Consumers purchasing goods or services at the door are directly protected by legislation known as the doorstep selling regulations, which consist of the Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) Regulations 1987, as amended by the Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) (Amendment) Regulations of 1988 and 1998. My hon. Friend knows those regulations well. Collectively, they give consumers the right to a seven-day cooling-off period during which they may cancel an agreement to buy goods or services worth more than £35 from a trader whose visit was unsolicited. The regulations also provide that consumers who agree to a visit following an unsolicited doorstep approach retain their right to a seven-day cooling-off period. In addition, traders who fail to inform consumers in writing of their right to a cooling-off period commit a criminal offence. Door-to-door sellers must provide a notice setting out cancellation rights when any agreement is made. Failure to do so makes the agreement unenforceable, whether a deposit is paid or not. Since the first set of regulations implemented the doorstep selling directive in the UK in 1987, the protection for consumers has been further improved by subsequent regulation. I would expect the OFT to consider the effectiveness of the protection that the regulations now provide. The Government are committed to placing empowered consumers at the centre of an effective competition regime. That means that consumers should be properly protected and informed to promote effective competition. Bogus or exploitative traders represent unfair competition to legitimate businesses. To help achieve their objective, the Government have introduced several new measures to protect and inform consumers. The Enterprise Act 2002 introduced the new concept of super-complaints and provided the legislative framework for the Office of Fair Trading to conduct an investigation of the doorstep selling market. It also included provisions to strengthen the powers available to enforcement authorities to tackle the activities of rogue traders. Stop now orders, which were introduced in 2001 by implementing the injunctions directive, created a new enforcement regime across a wide range of consumer protection legislation. Designated enforcement authorities could then apply to the courts for stop now orders to stop the practices of rogue traders if they went against the collective interests of consumers. The Act has extended that protection across an even wider range of consumer protection legislation, particularly in the service sector. Another way in which we are informing and empowering consumers is to develop consumer support networks, which bring together organisations to plan and deliver better, more accessible and more joined-up support for local consumers. Throughout Britain, the networks are helping to raise awareness of consumer issues. That includes placing considerable emphasis on issues relating to sales in the home, particularly where vulnerable or older consumers are involved. The Government have also made up to £30 million of new money available over a three-year period to roll out a new national consumer helpline - Consumer Direct - which is perhaps the most exciting development in consumer advice for a generation. With a single, widely publicised number, it will be a powerful tool for providing consumer advice throughout Britain. No matter where consumers live, they will be able to access reliable, independent help on consumer matters via their own phone for the price of a local-rate call. For those who prefer it, the service will be available online. At the beginning of the year, I announced the four regions that would start operating as pathfinders for the Consumer Direct service this summer. They are Scotland, Wales, the south-west and - my hon. Friend will happy about this - Yorkshire and the Humber. Taken together, those measures strongly demonstrate the Government's real commitment to protecting the interests of consumers-particularly vulnerable consumers - from the activities of rogue and bogus traders. My hon. Friend will know that the Trading Standards Institute launched a national survey on cold calling at the same time as the Office of Fair Trading announced its market study of doorstep selling. The result of the TSI survey was a report entitled "Door to Door Cold Calling of Property Repairs, Maintenance and Improvements-Long Overdue for Statutory Control". The report concluded that there was clear evidence to demonstrate significant consumer detriment from cold calling in relation to property services. In addition, the TSI concluded that the sector attracts criminal elements who, as my hon. Friend said, are willing to take advantage of consumers and to engage in more direct criminal activity. The report's recommendations included introducing a statutory prohibition on salesmen calling on householders unannounced to offer home improvements. The report has provided the OFT market study with important input by highlighting problems in the property services sector, and I commend the institute on its valuable work. As my hon. Friend said, the report led directly to the private Member's Bill to be introduced by the hon. Member for Blaby. The Bill calls for a ban on cold calling to offer property repairs and maintenance. We are all looking forward to its Second Reading on 12 March. I have had two useful discussions with the hon. Gentleman about the Bill and its aims. I have not yet seen it in its published form and it would, in any case, be inappropriate for me to comment on it before Second Reading. However, the Office of Fair Trading expects to make public both its position on a cold-calling ban and its full market study report in anticipation of next week's debate. I cannot anticipate what those will say, but they will clearly help to inform the debate, and I welcome the its action. I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend and his associates for their excellent work in focusing attention on the serious problems associated with some types of cold calling. I assure him that I am sympathetic to their aims. As the Minister with responsibility for consumers, I take all forms of rogue trading, and the detriment and distress that they cause, very seriously. The impact of such practices on consumers-not least vulnerable consumers-is unacceptable and we must make every effort to put the rogues out of business. The Government have shown a strong commitment to protecting consumers' interests. In keeping with that commitment, I can assure my hon. Friend that all the options for improving protections for consumers from bogus or exploitative cold callers will be carefully considered. LORDS Government Advertising: National Press Lord Higgins asked Her Majesty's Government: What analyses they make of the cost-effectiveness of taking full page advertisements in the national press; and whether decisions on advertising are made by individual departments or centrally. Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the cost-effectiveness of full-page national press advertisements is measured by cost per response-that is, the cost of the advertising space divided by the number of responses that can be attributed to the particular advertisement. Decisions on the size of advertisement to be used are made in consultation between the government department concerned, the Central Office of Information and the specialist advertising and media planning agencies appointed to the campaign. Key factors considered include the nature of the message and the audience being targeted by the advertising. Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. The Government's pensions credit is so complicated that barely half the people entitled to it are actually claiming it. So I can certainly agree that there is a strong case for advertising the Government's pensions credit. But the full-page advertisements that are being used are both wasteful and misleading. The whole of the top page contains absolutely no information whatever. The bottom half of the page says that a certain group of pensioners will get extra cash, when in fact they will simply be allowed to keep a little more of their own money. Can the Minister tell us the cost of this campaign, and whether the content has been approved by the Advertising Standards Authority? Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware whether the content has been approved by the Advertising Standards Authority. I should have thought it was more appropriate for it to receive responses from the public over criticisms of advertisements placed. I think that the noble Lord misses the point. That campaign has been extremely effective; it is a very eye-catching advertisement. It is likely that 75 per cent of pensioners every month who get an award will benefit in the sum of at least £43.50-that is the average award-on top of their basic state pension. That is a very large sum of money in my view. Two-thirds of those receiving the benefit will be the poorest women in our society. Its aim is to reach some 3 million households in all, and some 2.5 million are already in receipt of it. I think this is an excellent campaign and I am surprised that the noble Lord seeks, perhaps by undermining the effect of the advertising campaign, to deprive millions of pensioner families of money to which they are rightly entitled. As to the cost of the campaign, at £12 million I think it is extremely good value. Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when Mr Alastair Campbell had overall control of government advertising, the "Panorama" programme accused the Government of jiggery-pokery in terms of government advertising prior to the last general election? When Mr Alastair Campbell left his job, it was split, very correctly: Mr David Hill took over his position immediately, and we were promised a senior and independent civil servant who would keep an eye on government advertising to prevent any more jiggery-pokery. When will we get this civil servant? Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has asked a question along those lines in the not-too-distant past. I explained to him on that occasion that the recruitment of the Permanent Secretary, not for advertising but for communications across government, was in process. Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, who paid for the full-page advertisements for changing the system of getting numbers from the GPO? Was it the GPO or was it the Government? Two rather ridiculous young men came galloping through the pages of our national papers frequently. Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not know for sure, but I suspect it was the commercial organisation that was changing the numbers. Viscount Goschen: My Lords, what is the Government's total expenditure on advertising and how does that sum compare with the amounts spent before they came to office? Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, prices in real terms, adjusted for inflation, from 1986-87 to 2002-03, are available. The spend in 2002-03 in real terms was £160 million, which is somewhat short of the £190 million recorded for the year 1986-87. For 1996-97, the sum was some £81.7 million. Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have stressed constantly in debates that I am strongly in favour of people taking up the Government's pensions credit, but wasting paper in this way is not an ideal way to do it. Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord is in favour of take-up campaigns for benefits. I am hoping that he will add his enthusiastic voice to that end. I am sure that the company which has advised the Government on providing advertising support for that campaign will be more than happy to advise the noble Lord further, should he so wish, of the success of that campaign.
COMMONS Cabinet (Disclosures) Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what (a) advice and (b) guidance is given to former members of the Cabinet concerning disclosures of (i) Cabinet deliberations and (ii) classified documents. Mr. Alexander: The obligations on former Ministers are set out in paragraph 18 of the ministerial code. On leaving office, Ministers are reminded of these obligations.
LORDS Executive Powers and Civil Service Bill (Second reading)
Employment Regulation Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many recommendations were made by the recent Better Regulation Task Force report on employment regulation; how many have been implemented by her Department; and by what methods. Nigel Griffiths: The
Better Regulation Task Force (BRTF) made 12 recommendations in its report
of May 2002. The Government published their response to this report, accepting
the recommendations, in August 2002. This explains how the recommendations
are being taken forward and is available from the Libraries of the House.
Gender Equality Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to ensure equality between men and women in the workplace. Ms Hewitt: The Government are taking action on a number of fronts to ensure equality between men and women in the workplace. We are continuing to improve the workings of the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act, for example through the introduction of the Equal Pay questionnaire in April 2003 and our planned consultation on speeding up and simplifying equal value tribunals. The Government are taking forward policies to tackle the pay gap that help secure equal pay, and broader causes of the pay gap, such as women's lower level of work experience and the part-time pay gap. The Government have led by example in committing all Civil Service departments and agencies to review their pay systems and produce action plans to close any equal pay gaps. The Government have also provided funding for the EOC to develop equal pay tool kits so all organisations can carry out equal pay reviews. In addition, we are working to remove existing barriers to equality, such as our work to promote women's access to sectors where they are currently under-represented, and to increase diversity in the boardroom. We have introduced measures to help parents maintain links with the world of work and better balance their work and home lives, which will contribute to a reduction of the pay gap. The Government have provided funding to expand childcare provision to meet the changing needs of families. The Government also welcome the EOC's investigation into modern apprenticeships and the concentration of men and women in different professions.
COMMONS Iraq (Attorney-General's Advice) Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): I beg to move, That this House believes that all advice prepared by the Attorney-General on the legality of the war in Iraq should be published in full………………….. Question put,
That the original words stand part of the Question: -
Government Information and Communication Service Mr. Heald: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to change the level of expenditure on the Government Information and Communication Service. Mr. Alexander: Members of the GICS work across government. Individual departments are responsible for their own expenditure on Communications. Within the Cabinet Office, funding for existing GICS central functions will be maintained at current levels, pending the transfer of responsibilities to the new Permanent Secretary of Government Communications, whose appointment was recommended by the independent Phillis Review of Government Communications.
Copyright Directive Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made with ensuring compliance with the EU Copyright Directive; and if she will make a statement. Ms Hewitt: The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 No. 2498) bringing UK law into full compliance with the EU copyright Directive came into force on 31 October 2003.
LORDS Law Officers: Disclosure of Advice to Government Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether the disclosure to the courts in the Factortame litigation of the advice given by the law officers of the Crown to the Government about the compatibility of the Merchant Shipping Bill with European Community law was in accordance with constitutional convention. The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): Yes. The longstanding convention, observed by successive governments, that the fact of and substance of the law officers' advice is not disclosed outside government is not an absolute rule, although exceptions to it are rare. Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Goldsmith: The statement that I made on 17 March 2003 setting out my view of the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq was not an "excerpt from" my advice to government. The statement that I made was in accordance with constitutional convention. The longstanding convention, observed by successive governments, that the fact of and substance of the law officers' advice is not disclosed outside government is not an absolute rule, although exceptions to it are rare. Freedom of Information Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will publish their project initation document referred to in Freedom of Information (annual report on bringing fully into force those provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which are not yet fully in force) November 2003. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): The Department for Constitutional Affairs' project initation document on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act will be published on the department's website, www.dca.gov.uk, in March 2004. Copies will also be made available in the Library of both Houses. Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government: Which departments have not produced detailed training plans for their staff under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Lord Filkin: The most recent annual report on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, published in November 2003, includes a progress report on cultural change, training and awareness. The report states that a majority of departments have begun the first stages of their training programmes and many are embarking on a training needs analysis to examine precisely what training will be required. Some departments have already produced detailed training plans for their staff and all are confident that by 2005 all staff will have received Freedom of Information training in one form or another. The report goes on to provide a number of examples of departmental FOI training. Since the end of 2003, I have been holding bilateral meetings to discuss departments' preparations for full implementation of the 2000 Act. Bilateral meetings have been held with Ministers responsible for implementing freedom of information in the following departments:
In addition, I am due to host a bilateral with my ministerial colleague from HM Treasury on 10 March. On the basis of the information I have seen, I am satisfied that all departments are taking steps both to raise general awareness about the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and to give detailed training to staff as appropriate. Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:When they will publish a model action plan on the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for use across the public sector. Lord Filkin: The department published the model action plan for the preparation for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act in December 2003. It is aimed at all public authorities covered by the Act. Copies have been placed in the Library of both Houses, and are available on the department's website. Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will publish the Information Commissioner's project plan referred to in paragraph 3.1.2 of the Freedom of Information (Annual report of bringing fully into force those provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which are not yet fully in force) November 2003. Lord Filkin: The Information
Commissioner's project plan features as part of the Information Commissioner's
publication scheme. It is also available on the commissioner's website:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will publish the minutes of proceedings of the Advisory Group on Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Lord Filkin: Minutes of the proceedings of the Advisory Group on Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 feature as part of the department's publication scheme in the class: "Agendas, papers and minutes of the meetings of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Group on Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000." They are also available on the department's website: www.dca.gov.uk/foi/map/modactplan.htm Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government: What measures they will take to ensure that, where Government departments and other public authorities within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 decide not to supply information to the public free of charge, they will impose only charges in respect of costs reasonably attributable to the supply of information, and will make publicly available details of the charges to be levied. Lord Filkin: The Government will make regulations under the Act in relation to fees as prescribed by the Act. It will be for the Information Commissioner to adjudicate on complaints that public authorities, including government departments, have instituted charges not in compliance with the regulations. Any charges that are levied will be a matter between the public authority and the applicant and the Government have no plans to require that these be made public. However, my department will be monitoring government departments' performance in relation to compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. Data on fees will be collected as part of this. Equality Legislation Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they intend to introduce legislation to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 along the lines of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): The Government have committed themselves to introduce a duty on public bodies to promote equality of opportunity for women and men generally when parliamentary time allows. In taking this forward, the Government will be considering the experience gained with the duty to promote race equality introduced in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act (2000). Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will amend the Equal Pay Act 1970 to strengthen the right to equal pay for men and women. Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Government are continuing to take action to improve the way the Equal Pay Act 1970 works in practice. We are intending to amend the Equal Pay Act to remove the "no reasonable grounds" defence in Section 2A(1)(b) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and limit the circumstances in which a tribunal could refuse to consider an equal value claim. We consulted on proposals in the consultation Equality and Diversity: The Way Ahead published in October 2002. Subject to parliamentary approval, these changes are due to come into effect on 1 October 2004, at the same time as new tribunal procedures for the complex equal value cases, on which we will be consulting shortly. These form part of a wider package of measures to speed up and simplify equal pay cases and include a number of amendments that were made to the Equal Pay Act in 2003 to introduce the equal pay questionnaire, and make changes to time limits and payment of arrears.
COMMONS Redundancy Money Vera Baird: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the threshold at which tax is paid on redundancy money. [159882] Dawn Primarolo: As with all taxes the threshold at which tax is paid on redundancy money is a matter for the Chancellor to consider as part of the annual Budget process.
COMMONS Media Intrusion [Relevant documents:
Fifth Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): On behalf of the members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, let me say how much we appreciate the opportunity to debate the report. Although it was issued last year, its resonances are still with us, which is not surprising given that this is not the first time that a Committee under my chairmanship has dealt with the issue. It is almost 11 years to the day since the National Heritage Select Committee published a report entitled "Privacy and Media Intrusion". It is remarkable - two Parliaments and two Select Committees later, with a new Government in a new century - that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee should feel it necessary to carry out a further inquiry on precisely the same subject. That shows that this remains a live issue, which will not go away, regardless of the reactions of those responsible to our report. I welcome the presence of Committee members from both sides of the House, who put a great deal of work into the report. Although advances in technology, such as mobile phones and computers, may have increased the possibility of intrusions into the privacy of individuals and families, the basic issues remain the same as they were more than 11 years ago, and the two Committees approached them from the same starting point. Like the House and the wider public, my colleagues and I believe in a free press - one that is privately owned, unshackled, able fearlessly to probe wrongdoing by individuals and organisations and able to hold Governments to account. We believe in self-regulation, not legislative shackles. In approaching their inquiries, both Committees sought to establish whether self-regulation could be made to work better, although the latest report acknowledges more clearly than we could in the previous report that there have been considerable improvements in the results obtained by the Press Complaints Commission. I very much welcome the breath of fresh air introduced by Sir Christopher Meyer, and I pay tribute to Lord Wakeham, with whom I worked on the royal commission on the reform of the House of Lords and keep in touch on several issues. Basically, although not solely, both reports recommend ways in which self-regulation might work better. The second point that I want to make clear is that neither Committee was concerned with celebrities and public figures. Such people are generally able to take care of themselves. They are familiar with the media and its practices and, as I shall point out later, some of them have quite a lot of money with which to pursue their grievances. However, we do take the view that celebrities and public figures are as entitled as anyone else to a private life, provided that they do not try to have it both ways by exploiting their privacy for publicity or financial gain. When we conducted our previous inquiry, I recall saying how much I resented, on his behalf, the intrusions into Norman Lamont's private credit-card transactions. He was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, but no one had any business to know anything about how he conducted his private finances. The Committee's overriding concern is for private persons, who do not seek publicity, but who may suddenly find themselves on the receiving end of publicity through circumstances not of their choosing and which they would prefer not to have occurred. Because they are private persons, whose only acquaintance with the media is to buy and read a newspaper or to turn on their television and radio, they have no idea how to cope with the way in which an interested media can confront and surround them when, for example, something distressing happens to their family that can put them on the front pages of the newspapers. Eleven years ago, the concerns of the National Heritage Committee included intrusion into the lives of rape victims and of families of servicemen killed in Northern Ireland. Happily, servicemen are no longer killed in Northern Ireland, but our inquiry last summer focused again on victims of crime, as well as families of servicemen in Iraq. On both occasions, we welcomed the work being done by the PCC and sought, through our recommendations, to enhance the effectiveness of that work. For example, in our National Heritage Committee report we recommended that compliance with the PCC code of practice should be written into every journalist's contract of employment. The immediate reaction from the PCC was to oppose that recommendation and to say that it was not practicable. However, that provision now forms part of most, if not all, journalists' contracts of employment. It therefore behoves us all, including members of the Committee, to keep open minds when something new is put to us. Sometimes our recommendations are vindicated. Last year, when the inquiry report that we are debating today was about to be published, it was anticipated, in some quarters, with dire forebodings. It was denounced in advance as "a censor's charter." Mr. Guy Black, the then director of the PCC, who has now moved on to higher things, was particularly blunt about what he thought we were up to. Just before the report was published, the PCC even gave a warning that it might lodge a complaint against us with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards-the whole Select Committee would have been up for judgment. However, once the report was published, all was sweetness and light. The Mail on Sunday, which was one of the newspapers most worried about what the report might say, welcomed our approach. So did The Sun. If I may say so without being patronising, which I have no right to be, the Committee was particularly impressed with the evidence and the approach of Rebekah Wade, the editor of The Sun. If some other witnesses had comported themselves with the dignity of Rebekah Wade, our sittings might have been a little less convulsive. We went from being seen as malevolent spoilers to being thoughtful and constructive overnight. The chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, Sir Christopher Meyer, whose appointment to the commission I have already welcomed, welcomed our report and stated that he was ready to consider implementing some of our recommendations. The letter that he sent me and the PCC response were predominantly constructive. That does not mean to say that it accepted everything that we propose, as I shall point out. Nor did we expect them to do so. However, the tone was calm and dispassionate, and I particularly welcomed Sir Christopher's response to our suggestion that we might have periodic catching-up sessions with the PCC that are similar to the ones that we have with the chairman and governors of the BBC and the chairman of the Office of Communications. That might be a very useful development. The PCC welcomed our suggestion that its code of practice should be updated to take account of developments in communications and of relevant legislation, such as the Data Protection Act 1998 - an Act that in some ways has made it more difficult to obtain information but which acts as a protection to private citizens. Certainly, it should protect private citizens. The PCC agreed with our recommendation-indeed, it acted in advance of it - that lay members of the commission should be appointed for fixed terms and that the lay majority should be increased by one. It also agreed that the appointments system for lay members should be much more open and give more opportunities to people who might not usually be regarded as the great and the good. The PCC shared our view that the appointments commission should appoint an independent figure to implement a procedural appeals process. Earlier this year, it appointed its first charter commissioner. Again, that is progress. The PCC is consulting the industry on our proposal that the text of a PCC adjudication should be clearly and consistently set out. Many people - I am one of them - have found that a newspaper can cause an offence against someone and be found to have breached the code or to be otherwise at fault, but that the apology is not necessarily in proportion to the offence. I was blackguarded all over the front page of the Sunday Express. The entire front page was given over to my crimes. When it was acknowledged that those crimes did not exist, the apology was buried somewhere in the middle of the newspaper such that one almost needed a magnifying glass to find it. As I said, I can stick up for myself, but the aggrieved feelings of ordinary citizens placed in that predicament are not so easily assuaged. The Committee proposed that the text of the PCC adjudication should be clearly and consistently set out. The PCC has not accepted outright that a taster for an apology should be published on the front page of a newspaper, but we hope that it will. It does, however, favour what it calls "due prominence" and is keeping the matter under review. Importantly, it agrees that the press archives should be annotated so that offending material is removed from publicly available databases. We all know what happened in the past if something inaccurate, intrusive or objectionable were published about someone. Tagging was not available. Anyone looking up the story either in newspaper clippings or on the internet would find it and use it. Therefore, we welcome the PCC acceptance of the annotation decision. Rosemary McKenna (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that an apology on the front page would go a long way to allay people's fears and address their concerns? It would also make journalists and editors who put such articles on the front page think again about doing so unless they are sure of the facts. Mr. Kaufman : I agree entirely. When members of the PCC appeared before us in this inquiry and on the previous occasion, it was said again and again that journalists and editors have a feeling of shame if a complaint against their newspaper is upheld and they have to publish an apology. That would be more emphatic if due prominence were given to it and particularly if it was mentioned on the front page of a newspaper. I hope that the PCC will come round to our recommendation. It would be misleading to imply that the PCC has simply rubber-stamped our report. There are aspects with which it disagrees or which it rejected outright. For example, it does not agree with our view that journalists should be entitled to refuse assignments that they believe would violate the code. I hope that the PCC will reconsider that as, on a previous occasion, it reconsidered the question of inserting the code into contracts of employment. The PCC is not as firm as we would like about reminding newspapers about taking special care in advance with events and issues-for example, the Iraq war-that may generate intense media activity. I acknowledge immediately that most sensible newspapers would take great care in such situations. However, one of my hon. Friends who represents a Plymouth constituency drew to the attention of the House her concerns that before the Iraq war the families of servicemen who had gone to the Gulf were already being approached by newspapers. Any family would be vulnerable at that time, and a little over-fastidiousness is appropriate in such circumstances. The PCC does not accept our view that it should publish annual league tables showing how publications have fared in relation to complaints and adjudications. I suppose that we could all compile a database, but such league tables would be yet another weapon in the PCC armoury, in that persistently offending newspapers would once a year be held up for attention. That would improve self-regulation. Nor does the PCC accept our view that in some cases successful complainants should be compensated financially, that offending publications should be fined when appropriate, or that complainants' costs, for example, in obtaining transcripts of trials, should be reimbursed. Of course, our Committee accepts that any such penalties should be administered sensibly. It would not be a good idea, for example, to pay expenses to somebody whose complaint was not upheld. Nevertheless, and taking into account the wealth of some newspapers, we believe that the ability to use both fines and compensation would be an appropriate weapon - not invariably to be used, but available if the PCC felt that a publication had offended particularly seriously. Although we are gratified with the general response of the PCC to our report, we believe that the PCC and the Government could be more responsive on two major issues.The first is media scrums. We are pleased to see that the PCC has accepted our recommendation that it should co-operate with the Office of Communications in preventing them. Of course, our report dealt with radio and television as well as with the printed press. We have a completely new body in Ofcom, and we will all be watching to see how it deals with complaints. However, there are far fewer complaints of intrusions on privacy from radio and television than from the printed press. When it comes to doorstepping, however, all public figures who have suffered from it know how intimidating can be an agglomeration of microphones - those woolly things like huge cats - when thrust into one's face; but such people are often surrounded also by a mass of journalists with notebooks calling out for comments. It must be incomparably more alarming for private individuals, whose predicament as victims of crime or as bereaved relatives is hard enough to bear in itself. It is made worse by the sieges that can sometimes take place, with pavement mobs, access to and from their homes blocked and telephone lines jammed by incessant, unwanted calls. All that can range to remote members of their families. The National Heritage Committee report drew attention to fairly old legislation that deals with besetting, suggesting that it could be brought back into use. It was meant to deal with picketing trade unionists, but it ought to be used again because we believe that the sheer burden of doorstepping, particularly for private individuals, should be deal with by the police. Secondly, there is the issue of payments to police for tip-offs. It is true that such action is a criminal offence, but that ought not to relieve the Press Complaints Commission from reminding editors that they should not do it, either directly or through private detectives. The growth in the use of private detectives is something that was brought to our attention repeatedly when we were carrying out our inquiry. With admirable frankness, some editors conceded that they have done it, but it is wrong. It is corruption; it is bribery; it is a breach by those police who do it of their terms of employment. Even though it is a criminal offence, it would not harm the PCC to insert a prohibition in its code of practice and to remind editors about it. Nor ought its illegality preclude the Government from reminding chief constables and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to enforce the prohibition. I have to say, with all good will to the Minister for the Arts, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), that the Government's response to our report was a good deal more passive than that of the Press Complaints Commission. I know from many years' experience that Governments are wary of offending the press. When we published our report in 1993, the then Conservative Government could have been very worried that if they took action that was offensive to the press, it would turn against them, but the press turned against them anyhow. Who knows when the general election will be? The Government, which as everyone knows have my total support, may be worried that taking action in this sphere could offend newspapers. I pick up my newspapers every day and it does not seem to me that it needs very much to cause them offence, so the Government might as well take action. It is no good saying that legal recourse is available to victims of intrusion who feel that they should be compensated, as I fear that the Government did in response to the report, because that requires resources. Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones, and Sara Cox had recourse to redress in the courts. When photographs of Sara Cox and her husband on their honeymoon, bathing unclothed, were published in The People - the editor is a member of the Press Complaints Commission - Mr. Guy Black implied that Sara Cox was a spoilsport for going to the law. But the Press Complaints Commission obtained a 63-word apology from Sunday People for the gross way in which the privacy of Sara Cox and her husband had been violated. The couple received £50,000-worth of damages and the legal action cost £250,000. That was a useful lesson. It is why, 11 years ago, we recommended consideration of a privacy law with a strong public interest defence. The National Heritage Committee report listed in an appendix the provisions of the privacy laws of states in the USA. They were not brutally restrictive; they all provided a public interest defence. Many journalists in this country believe that journalists in the United States have much more freedom than ours do here and that they are not inhibited by legislation of that kind. Taking into account the United States, such laws are not regarded as licences for big brother to swoop or snoop. We believe that that should be considered, not to be oppressive or to limit the freedom of the press, but always with the strong public interest defence that enabled a jury to acquit Clive Ponting of violating the Official Secrets Act when he was prosecuted for doing so. We expressed our concern that the Human Rights Act 1998, under which Sara Cox took legal action, is becoming by default a privacy law, but it is a privacy law only for the rich, made by judges, not by Parliament. Press and public reaction to our report acknowledged that even when we do not agree, the issues we considered are important for a free democracy. Whether we wait another two Parliaments before returning to the subject under my chairmanship may depend on progress meanwhile. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on the reasonableness of his approach and on his elegance. I am glad that our debate is likely to be broadcast on radio rather than television, as I would not have his boldness in making the Select Committee recommendations or in respect of how his tie and shirt complement each other. I ought to declare that I have, on occasion, taken defamation proceedings against newspapers. I hope never to do so again, whether justified or not, because it is not a nice experience. I have also made some use of the Press Complaints Commission in relation to a member of my family. I am putting that on the record, rather than trying to develop an argument from it. When Sir David Calcutt's report came out, I thought that he was wrong. From what I recall of the National Heritage Committee's report, I thought that it went too far. The present report is better balanced, although I prefer the Government's response and some of their recommendations that do not agree with the report. I do not regard myself as an expert on the detail of such issues. I think that it is important that there are always people in Parliament who will defend the role of the media to suck up all the dirt, to sift it and to decide what is true, what matters and what is publishable. There is a danger that the action of the Data Protection Act 1998 is leading a number of people to withhold information from the media - that includes official bodies such as courts. In Worthing, one of our local newspapers, the Worthing Herald, has found it difficult to persuade court officials to allow information about what has happened in court into the open. People can argue that data protection or privacy allows them to withhold information that ought to be made available to all. The role of the media is to make available to all what is known to a few. I recognise that the debate is primarily about privacy and not about defamation, but the issues can come together for those who want to maintain their privacy or to maintain a degree of privacy about actions that they have taken or are thought to have taken. The press need to have the right to be wrong; they need to have the right to do what is wrong, and they need to be robust enough to take the criticism or the exposure when that comes. The best way of dealing with that is generally for broadcasters to be prepared to be robust about the printed press and for the printed press to be robust about the broadcasters. I regret that some programmes-I think that "Hard News", with Ray Snoddy, was one of them - are no longer available that could give a running commentary, not quite in real time but within a week, on what has been going on. Some newspaper articles are good, but in general one needs to have a programme and a set of columns that are prepared to go into issues as though they are as interesting as debates in Parliament are at times. Too often, the herd instinct of the media leads to the kind of scrum that has been properly referred to in the Select Committee report. It is curious, and it has been observed elsewhere, that the number of pickets that can be outside someone's house is limited, but that there is no limit on the number of media people who can be there. I do not think that there is a statutory answer to that, besides in extreme cases getting an order from a magistrate banishing people to a certain distance. The PCC and the broadcasting regulators should be able to take the kind of action to which the Select Committee referred. It is a practical problem that is capable of resolution, but there have been some disasters on a fairly grand scale, and it is difficult to see how that can happen in the short term. For example, with the terrible consequences of the bombs in Madrid today, where hundreds have been killed and injured, it is ludicrous to believe that there will not be some intrusion into privacy. I can think of four other examples: the King's Cross tube disaster, the Kegworth plane crash, the Heysel stadium disaster and the funeral of Oscar Romero in San Salvador. Where the media are either present or attracted, the intrusion will cause a great deal of shock and horror to some families when they discover that someone that they are close to has been involved. That is unavoidable. However, some intrusion is avoidable, and the Press Complaints Commission, or perhaps the local police and a certain sense of restraint among the media, managed to achieve that in Soham. That is an example where there were very few substantiated complaints of serious intrusion. The problem for the media is where to draw the line between investigation and the herd instinct: the mentality that they need to be there because everybody else is there. I defend the media most on the issue of what I call digging for dirt. For example, if one of my constituents were to say that the insurance for his block of flats appeared to be coming out at six times the rate at which an ordinary insurance company would cover it and wonder whether the freeholder, who takes out the insurance and then passes the cost on to the leaseholders or tenants, is ripping them off, obviously, it is possible to ask the police to take an interest in whether there might be a fraud, or, on a larger scale, to ask the Serious Fraud Office to investigate, but it is often just as easy to find a local or regional newspaper that will investigate the matter and then raise the question in the open, while insurance companies will say that it is a privacy or data protection issue. The media should be encouraged to take on such cases, because the disinfectant quality of investigation by a newspaper or broadcaster, or the transparency effect of a report, can be mighty impressive. That is what Esther Rantzen used to do on "That's Life!", and what some of the consumer protection programmes on television, and a fair number of people in the press, especially the financial press, have done. The Select Committee's main concern is for people in their private lives rather than in business: for people to whom something happens that leads to interest from the media that they do not welcome and that many would say is not justified. I agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee that the newspapers can be pretty arbitrary in some of those cases and can give them a prominence that is not justified in the minds of most people. The question of proportionality is least susceptible to regulations laid down in the Press Complaints Commission or by the courts. It is far better to have strong arguments, criticisms and rebuttals, or attempted rebuttals, and to have the process go around again than ever to get to the stage at which we seriously believe ourselves to be at the last-chance saloon. Rosemary McKenna : We heard evidence in private from people who had been seriously damaged by the media. What would the hon. Gentleman say to someone like the person who told us about a completely inaccurate report that was published on the front page of a newspaper, which was incredibly damaging to their family, and although they eventually got an apology, they still felt that they and their family had lost out? Peter Bottomley : If that happened to me, I hope that I would think, "We are prepared to accept casualties in wartime, yet the open society in peacetime will not be casualty free." It is arbitrary and it is unfair. The question that we have to face is whether a system guaranteed to prevent that from happening would have a higher cost overall, and whether there would be many more innocent victims if the press were unable to go in for things that are wrong and disproportionate. In such a situation, I should hope that proprietors would admit that the complaints were justified, and would tell the editor or duty editor responsible, "You were wrong, and I'd like you to go and see the family and explain how it happened, why it happened, and that not only are we, the organisation, sorry, but that you are as well." The number of occasions on which proprietors have done that, or ensured that it happened, is limited. I can think of only one such example - or possibly two - involving Rupert Murdoch, and I can think of a few occasions on which newspapers have clearly got things disproportionately wrong or have been incredibly offensive to groups. What the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna) rightly says is that that happens to individuals, and individual families, and one needs to have a way of getting people to say openly, "I'm sorry, we made a mistake," if not shaming them. If people are prepared to say that, they are less likely to make the mistake in the first place. I do not want to put too much into this debate because of the level of detail that the Select Committee went into, but I reiterate that whoever helped the Ministers to draft their reply was right: the Government are correct to be reluctant to go as far as the Committee has invited them to go. Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak in this debate, not least because the Committee went through a fascinating process. Many of us approached the debate from the beginning with an open mind, because we recognise that a free press is one of the most important bulwarks of a free society. More than that, the right to publish one's version of a story is an essential part of a modern democracy, even though it may sometimes conflict with an individual's desire to enjoy their privacy, and the desire of their family, extended family and those whom they love to do likewise. We did not want to examine the issues with the minds of politicians who might at any moment be subjected to all sorts of interest. Perhaps I should declare an interest myself. We also wanted to ensure that our approach would be of significant value to our constituents. I think that every member of the Committee had constituents whose story had been told, normally in a local newspaper, rather than a national newspaper. Sometimes the story had been reported fairly calmly, albeit slightly intrusively, in the local newspaper, but when it was translated into a national newspaper, the reporting was less calm and more hysterical, and carried a bigger headline. Obviously, the story also received much greater publicity, because it was in the national arena. The intrusion into people's lives that was felt during that transition from a local newspaper to a national newspaper, sometimes without the facts having been checked a second time, added to the sadness and the sense of being violated that the individuals concerned felt. There was one such case in my constituency, although I shall not recount the details, because for me to do so would to repeat the original breach of that family's privacy. That is an example of the biggest difficulty in trying to introduce a system that matches the rights to privacy with a free press and freedom of expression. Once a newspaper or broadcaster publishes a story that breaches somebody's privacy, how can the system given that person redress without the problem being put into the public domain again? Probably every debating society in the land holds a debate at least once a year about whether public figures have a right to a private life, but the Committee tried to stick clearly to the understanding that that was not the issue for us. We were concerned with those who, without prior knowledge or desire, were unwittingly thrown into the limelight, such as victims of a tragedy. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) referred to today's tragedy in Spain. Many people in Spain, and doubtless in the UK too, who watch the images of Atocha station on the news today, will be worried that they are about to see people whom they know and love in distress or injured-or, for that matter, dead. In addition to that, however, many journalists over the coming days will understandably want-I do not mean to use a pejorative word-to crawl around, trying to find people who have been hurt or families that have been affected. In that process, the original hurt and damage can be made that much worse for families and individuals, but I do not think that any of us would want to condemn journalists for wanting to do that. They are simply trying to tell the story of a great tragedy on the European mainland. However, there must be a sense of decency, so that people are allowed to live their lives and recuperate from an event such as today's. A similar example concerned Soham. The horrific events that we all know about were reported at some length, and that was understandable. However, in the desire to tell the fullest possible story of what had happened there, many newspapers were almost camped out in Soham. It took the local vicar, Tim Alban Jones, to stand up for the community and say, "Hang on. This community is having a very difficult time living through this process. We need a bit of space to be able to get on and rebuild it." Soham was very fortunate in having Tim Alban Jones, someone who obviously had depth of insight into the workings of the media, and courage and independence, to speak up in that way. However, many communities would not have that. In my constituency, there have been two double murders in the past 18 months, in one small part of the Rhondda, in Tylorstown. The media, including the BBC in Wales, HTV and local newspapers, have dealt quite well with that community, trying not to pry too much into the private lives of neighbours and distant relatives of those affected. However, it is difficult to get the balance right, and a story of national or international renown makes the difficulty for the media even greater. Peter Bottomley : The point that I want to make is slightly disconnected, but is prompted by the hon. Gentleman's remarks on Soham. Part of the report is about the media and the police. Discussion between the media and the police is often important. It may be - and I am not just speaking with hindsight - that had the police and the media talked more on previous occasions, the Soham murderer's circumstances might have drawn more consistent and persistent attention. That is another example of a need to put something in the balance-not allowing payments to police, which are wrong, but recognising that the police and the media can interact for the benefit of society. Chris Bryant : The hon. Gentleman makes a wise point. It is true that the relationship between the police and the media must be constant and trusting. I shall come on to the issue of newspapers' attempts, by payments to police officers, to gain information that they should not have-which is different from the right and proper process of enabling a good dialogue to take place between the police and local media. Indeed, often, background briefing of the media by the police is essential if the media are to play a proper role in enabling the police to do their job effectively. Sometimes, that goes wrong. Privacy is an issue not only when someone is a victim of crime or tragedy, but also sometimes when they have had a great success, such as winning the lottery. That is another interesting area in which the Press Complaints Commission has acted, although, in the end, somewhat ambiguously. From 1993 to 1995, there was a lengthy debate between the PCC, the Government, Camelot and the courts about whether it was right, first, for a newspaper to offer a reward for the name of someone who had won a multi-million pound lottery award, and secondly, to name such an individual, despite the fact that that person had sought anonymity. The PCC produced an interesting paper, but the issue still, in the end, relies on a hinge point on public interest in the PCC code of conduct. Broadly speaking, the PCC and many people would argue that where there is a public interest it is all right to breach the anonymity that an individual who has just won the lottery might want to maintain. The difficulty arises over the question whether, while everyone is interested in who has won, that means that there is genuinely a public interest. Sometimes those two issues are conflated. I have already said that the report was not at all about public figures' right, or lack of a right, to privacy. The report was about ordinary members of the public. That means that it was not about the right to privacy, although we reached a view on that, but primarily about the standards and methods used by broadcast and print media to tell news stories. My |