<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<opml version='2.0'>
  <head>
    <title>Sitting of 3 March 1997</title>
    <dateCreated>Mon, 03 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0000</dateCreated>
    <ownerName>UK Parliament</ownerName>
    <ownerEmail>mail@robertbrook.com</ownerEmail>
    <ownerId>http://www.parliament.uk</ownerId>
    <docs>http://www.opml.org/spec2</docs>
  </head>
  <body>
    <outline id='3116780' text="&lt;i&gt;The House met at half-past Two o'clock&lt;/i&gt;" title='Preamble' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/preamble'></outline>
    <outline id='3116781' text='[MADAM SPEAKER &lt;i&gt;in the Chair&lt;/i&gt;]' title='PRAYERS' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/prayers'></outline>
    <outline id='3116797' text='Oral Answers to Questions'>
      <outline id='3116804' text='NATIONAL HERITAGE'>
        <outline id='3116806' text="Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to encourage more people to visit important heritage sites. [16695]&lt;br/&gt;The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): My Department, principally through the Historic Royal Palaces agency and English Heritage, is continually striving to develop its historic properties to make them more attractive and accessible to visitors.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Brazier: I welcome the England's Christian heritage programme of the Department, and I urge my hon. Friend to visit St. Augustine's abbey site in Canterbury, where much national lottery fund money is being invested in the 1,400th anniversary celebrations of St. Augustine's arrival in this country. I urge my hon. Friend to stress to his officials and to English Heritage the importance, when developing a monastery site, of showing its purpose and work, from prayer to alms giving and health care, rather than simply engaging in endless portrayals of dress, life style and so on.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend kindly invites me to visit the museum at St. Augustine's abbey, which is to be opened on 25 May by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I should very much like to be present on that day, if that is possible. My hon. Friend asks me to make sure that the Christian element of cathedrals, churches and so on is well demonstrated. He makes an important point, which I shall draw to the attention of Sir Jocelyn Stevens.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister set up a Thames estuary initiative? There are numerous heritage sites on the estuary in Kent and in my county of Essex which are undervisited, although they are rich in our history and heritage, especially in relation to the defence of the United Kingdom. I refer especially to the two forts in Tilbury in my constituency, one of which is owned by English Heritage while the other is managed by the local authority. They would be greatly appreciated by many visitors, both from within the United Kingdom and from north America and Australia.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman takes an admirable interest in defence matters and defence heritage matters. I&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;608&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;shall certainly look at the two places that he mentions; if he would like to talk to me about how we might best promote them, I shall gladly meet him." title='Heritage Sites' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/heritage-sites'></outline>
        <outline id='3116809' text='Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action she is taking to encourage young people to participate in sport. [16698]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sproat: The Government&apos;s sports policy document "Sport: Raising the Game", which was published in July 1995, sets out our strategy for encouraging young people to participate in sport. It particularly emphasises the importance of maximising sporting opportunities for young people within and outside formal education. Significant progress has been made in taking forward the various initiatives in the past year and a half. I made a detailed announcement of progress to the House on 14 February.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome answer. We in Somerset were delighted when Huish Episcopi secondary school received a grant of nearly &amp;#x00A3;50,000 for a national lottery multi-sports complex project, costing &amp;#x00A3;80,000 in all. Is that not precisely the way forward, and does my hon. Friend agree that it will encourage young people in Somerset and beyond to pursue sport with excellence?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The award for a multi-game complex was welcome, and I hope that many other schools, local authorities and communities will take encouragement from the success of that application and apply. The Sports Council for England now has a &amp;#x00A3;2 million bid fund to which schools and local sports clubs can apply to improve the links between local sports clubs and local schools.&lt;br/&gt;Miss Hoey: Is the Minister aware of the crisis that is looming over the future of the Crystal Palace national sports centre? Is he also aware that, in relation to encouraging young people into sport, Crystal Palace has a two-pronged purpose? First, it is the only indoor training centre in London and, secondly, it is the only place in the whole of the south of England where we can have international and domestic competitions. Is he aware that there is a real worry about what has been happening to Crystal Palace and how that will affect the future of those schools that use it as a facility for pupils? The Minister should be spearheading the drive to find a way forward between Bromley council and the Sports Council.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sproat: I am aware of that concern. It is an important issue. The Sports Council is looking this minute at how best to solve the problem so that that part of England does not lack the sort of facility that Crystal Palace provides.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Alan Haselhurst: Given the obstacles in the way of sports being developed in as many schools as we would like, does my hon. Friend agree that the connection between sports clubs and schools is crucial, and that fresh efforts should be made to persuade schools that they should link with local clubs to open up more opportunities for young people?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sproat: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, not least because one particular sport that we have in&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0312"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;609&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;common, cricket, is still played in only 50 per cent. of state schools in England&amp;#x2014;a poor percentage, which I wish to see increase. My hon. Friend should draw the attention of all the schools and local clubs in his area to the benefits of the lottery for such schemes, and in particular to the &amp;#x00A3;2 million challenge fund that the Sports Council has for promoting links with local schools and local sports clubs.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Maxton: Does the Minister agree that the best way of encouraging young people to participate in sport is to allow as many of them as possible to watch those sports on television? Will he therefore take the opportunity to congratulate the Scottish Rugby Football Union and other rugby football unions, which have signed a long-term deal with the BBC for the benefit of the development of the sport, rather than for greed, so that matches will be shown to the widest possible audience? Is it not a matter of great regret, certainly to him and to me, that two years from now, when France meets England again at Twickenham, the match will be seen by only a small minority of the population?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sproat: I am happy to congratulate the Scottish Rugby Football Union, not only on its decision, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but on the tremendous result on Saturday in the match against Ireland. I also congratulate the Irish and Welsh rugby football unions on a decision that showed that they had the interests of the sport at heart. None the less, I would not criticise the English Rugby Football Union for anything that it may do, because it is up to sport itself to decide what is best for sport.' title='Sport (Young People)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/sport-young-people'></outline>
        <outline id='3116812' text='Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate she has made of the total earnings of the British film industry. [16699]&lt;br/&gt;The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): It is estimated that British films and co-productions earned &amp;#x00A3;39 million at the United Kingdom box office and that UK film companies earned &amp;#x00A3;495 million abroad in 1995. Now that British films and talent have won 30 nominations for the 1997 Oscars, the prospects for increased earnings are excellent.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Whittingdale: I thank my right hon. Friend for those extremely encouraging figures. Does she agree that the large number of academy award nominations received by "The English Patient" and "Secrets and Lies" is further evidence that the British film industry is going from strength to strength, and will she join me in wishing those films and all the other British contenders every success on Oscar night?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: Undoubtedly, the success to which my hon. Friend refers demonstrates the strength of the British film industry. Our studios are full, films are made here by companies from all around the world, audiences are up and investment is up. That is because we have an economy that is friendly to enterprise and to initiative and that allows people to keep the benefits of their success.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Wigley: The Secretary of State will be aware of the numerous film productions in Wales in recent years,&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;610&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;including some exciting developments in recent weeks. Is she aware that, whereas in Scotland there is a Scottish film production fund, which helps to develop indigenous film producers and to extend the range of films that can be produced in Scotland, we do not have quite the same facility available in Wales? Will she examine that matter to maximise the benefit that this promising industry can bring to the economy?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, I have taken an extremely serious approach to the film industry. I established the Middleton committee, which made 11 recommendations. We have acted on eight of them. The Arts Council&apos;s recent initiative with the franchise is part of that overall strategy. I shall certainly speak with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Anthony Durant: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that the British film industry&apos;s production rate is at its highest for some time, with some 127 films going into production. Does she agree that the lottery money recently allocated to the industry will encourage it? What other steps is she taking to continue this success story?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: I particularly want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all that he has done to champion the film industry over the years. Last week, I was able to visit the British Film Commission at Berkhamsted to see its work and the archive, which has recently benefited from an additional &amp;#x00A3;13 million of lottery money. We have been using a range of measures, which are set out in the Middleton report, to promote the industry further. We are now looking at the definition of a British film. Above all, what the industry needs is to be able to have the rewards of its endeavours, a flexible labour market and low non-wage labour costs. The Government&apos;s strategy, quite apart from the Department&apos;s initiatives, is delivering just that in Britain today.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Skinner: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best British films of the past few months is "Brassed Off&apos;? It is about a mining community where the pit has shut and the community has been destroyed as a result of the Tory Government and where the pit band is trying to find enough money to continue playing. Is it not pretty clear that a lot of people on the Wirral saw it, because they were brassed off last week?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: I much appreciate the hon. Gentleman making that point. One of the things that has given me most pleasure as Secretary of State for National Heritage has been meeting many of those involved in brass bands which are now receiving lottery awards. Indeed, there have been 91 awards for brass bands; the Easington colliery band, which was the first brass band I met when I became a Minister nine years ago, now has new instruments as a result of the lottery.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;More significantly, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that many communities that faced great difficulties because of the loss of jobs in the mining industry now have more jobs in the new sectors, many of them related to the cultural sector and the major regeneration that has resulted from my Department&apos;s initiatives.' title='Film Industry' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/film-industry'></outline>
        <outline id='3116815' text='Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage to what extent the revised criteria for national lottery grants will support the work of British charities providing emergency medical relief in the developing world, with special reference to Merlin; and if she will make a statement. [16701]&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Charities based in the United Kingdom and working overseas, including Merlin, were eligible to apply for a grant from the National Lottery Charities Board under its international grants programme. In framing the priorities and policies for the programme, the board consulted British charities and voluntary organisations working overseas. Their view was that funds would be best spent in supporting long-term development to help people to help themselves, rather than on emergency provision, for which there were other sources of funding.&lt;br/&gt;Miss Lestor: In view of the declining aid budget, the effect of the lottery on small charities and the fact that the requirement to plan nine months in advance makes it difficult for organisations such as Merlin&amp;#x2014;which is, as the Secretary of State said, an emergency relief organization&amp;#x2014;should not the criteria be changed to include, say, training for staff, the stockpiling of medicine and the provision of infrastructure? That would enable such organisations to qualify for lottery money, and exclude them from the nine-month criterion. Will the Secretary of State consider that proposal?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady will be aware that these precise decisions are matters for the charities board. I think that it will examine the &amp;#x00A3;25 million of the first round to see what lessons can be learned, but I commend it on the fact that almost &amp;#x00A3;500 million has been allocated in virtually 7,000 awards. I am pleased that some charities about which the hon. Lady is concerned have benefited. I believe that the Red Cross, for example, has had about 12 awards; Oxfam, too, has received an award, and I know that it hopes for a substantial award in the new round. I wish Merlin well and greatly respect its work.' title='Lottery Grants (Charities)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/lottery-grants-charities'></outline>
        <outline id='3116818' text="Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate she has made of the number of anglers in the United Kingdom. [16703]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sproat: The National Rivers Authority commissioned a national angling survey in 1994 which concluded that there were 3.3 million freshwater and sea anglers aged 12 and over in Great Britain.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Ainsworth: I thank the Minister for that reply. Given that angling is clearly the most popular participatory sport in the country, why did it receive a miserly &amp;#x00A3;72,500 of development money from the Sports Council last year? Why was angling not even mentioned in its list of the top 22 sports? In the light of their appalling record, will the Government give a commitment to match Labour's commitment to oblige the Sports Council to give more assistance to angling for its administration needs?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sproat: The amount that the Sports Council gives in grant to angling or any other sport is a matter for the&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;612&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Sports Council. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that &amp;#x00A3;500,000 from the national lottery and &amp;#x00A3;100,000 from sportsmatch have gone to angling. He will be further aware of the Government's record of improving river quality, ending the problems caused by saboteurs through the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and reviewing predatory bird and other measures, which shows our commitment to the popular sport of angling.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that country sports in general, and angling in particular, are enjoyed by a wider cross-section and by more people than any other sport in the country? Does he agree that the last thing any of them want is Government interference?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sproat: They quite like Government money from time to time. None the less, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the most pleasing aspects of the past few months has been that the three bodies representing game, coarse and sea angling have come together for the first time, and the Sports Council will be keen to help.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Pendry: Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) is absolutely right about the fact that anglers are furious with the Government for ignoring their legitimate claims to recognise angling as a major sport? Is it any wonder that the president of the National Federation of Anglers wrote to the Prime Minister to bemoan the fact that the Government had no policy on angling, in contrast with the Labour party, which has a clearly defined charter for angling? The NFA president concluded by stating the obvious&amp;#x2014;that anglers are coming to the view that Labour cares about angling but the Government do not. Will the Minister, at the very least, dissociate himself from those in his party who claim that Labour will ban angling after we win the general election? Furthermore, on behalf of the Government, will he match our firm commitment to the sport?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sproat: In anticipation of some major exaggeration of the contents of Labour's so-called charter for angling, I reread its few pages this morning, and I was surprised by how little it said.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I mentioned earlier some measures that the Government have undertaken. We have also abolished non-domestic rates for angling riparian owners&amp;#x2014;a measure that was welcomed by the angling community. That underlines the fact that the Opposition are basically hostile to country sports, and that no angler who wants his sport to be maintained should be so foolish as to vote for the Labour party.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Peter Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the worst threat facing angling is Labour's policy to give an unrestricted right of access to riverbanks, canal banks and lakesides, which would make the management of fisheries impossible and would destroy the opportunity for anglers to enjoy their sport quietly?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right: the Labour party poses a serious threat to angling, and he has mentioned one aspect of that threat." title='Anglers' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/anglers'></outline>
        <outline id='3116821' text='Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received in respect of the Plymouth millennium fund. [16704]&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Millennium Commission, of which I am chairman, has received representations from the Port of Plymouth, the West Country tourist board, the Plymouth marketing bureau and five individuals on Plymouth 2000 Partnership&apos;s bid "Plymouth Waterfront&amp;#x2014;A Celebration of Discovery". The bid is still under consideration. The commission is always pleased to receive representations on a project, whether supportive or otherwise. Representations are one of the key criteria used in assessing applications for funding.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jamieson: Does the Secretary of State accept that, because it reflects the area&apos;s maritime history, the Plymouth 2,000 millennium bid is most deserving? Will she ensure that it is considered in its entirety? Will she also clarify the purpose and role of individual commission members in trying to change individual bids?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: The commission is looking extremely sympathetically at Plymouth&apos;s proposals. Not only the hon. Gentleman but my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) have spoken at length to me about the proposals. Mayflower harbour, Plymouth and the Royal William yard, Plymouth are being considered in particular. I have also had discussions with Baroness Cumberlege, the sponsor Minister, who has been extremely helpful in relation to Plymouth&apos;s cause and concerns. Sutton harbour, Plymouth, the national marine aquarium and other projects have already received substantial funding, and I hope that the Millennium Commission can add to the &amp;#x00A3;4.5 million of lottery money that is already being spent on 35 awards in the Plymouth area.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&#x000A;Individual commission members may have their own views and opinions, but they will simply refer those back to commission meetings, when matters are debated carefully by all the individuals concerned.' title='Plymouth Millennium Fund' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/plymouth-millennium-fund'></outline>
        <outline id='3116823' text="Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will reintroduce section 4 grants for the tourism industry in England. [16707]&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Government have no plans to reintroduce section 4 grants in England. Tourism is a highly successful industry and is increasingly making use of many opportunities to benefit from public money. Those opportunities include challenge funding, the single regeneration budget and, in eligible areas, the European regional development fund. Moreover, the national lottery is playing a major role in financing exciting new capital projects, many of which help to encourage tourism and bring widespread benefits to communities across the country.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Waterson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, like me, many hoteliers and guest house owners in my&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;614&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;constituency remain puzzled about why those grants are payable in other parts of the United Kingdom but not in England? Is she also aware that those same constituents very much welcome the fact that, under the National Heritage Bill, funding will now be available for great examples of our national heritage, such as Eastbourne pier?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: I know the concerns of my hon. Friend's constituents. If the Labour party had its way, there would of course be no coherence in what happens in the different parts of the United Kingdom, and I think that would be very much more alarming. I well recall the visit to Eastbourne pier, and the inconsistency of piers in private ownership being unable to benefit from lottery money, unlike those in charitable or local authority ownership. I am delighted to say that, last Thursday, the National Heritage Bill received Royal Assent. Therefore, my hon. Friend's pier, like other piers in the realm, will now have lottery assistance available when appropriate.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State realise that tourism is rapidly developing in industrial areas such as Lancashire and Yorkshire, and that section 4 and other grants to help the industry develop are very important for their employment prospects and for taking advantage of existing tourism facilities?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: Old Labour shows its face once again. Of course a cheque from the centre is always helpful to those who apply, but the Government believe that the reason why we have had the incredible boom in the tourism industry is that we keep taxation and regulation to the minimum. We have been able to boost the many national assets which are such an attraction for people around the world. There is no doubt, however, that well over &amp;#x00A3;1 billion has gone from the national lottery to many massive regeneration projects, such as the Lowry centre and redevelopment of Newcastle's Sunderland glass centre. Across the United Kingdom, city centres are being restored. Only last week, a massive &amp;#x00A3;140 million was awarded to museums, and the key awards were in Manchester. I think that everyone will agree on the awards' importance and significance for the tourism industry." title='Tourism Grants' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/tourism-grants'></outline>
        <outline id='3116826' text='Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what responses she has received to her strategy document "Success through Partnership: A Strategy for Tourism". [16708]&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: "Success through Partnership: A Strategy for Tourism", published on 5 February, has been extremely well received. It has received much positive press coverage and we have had many letters welcoming its overall comprehensive nature, its key targets and its specific points for action. Work on the action plan has already begun, both within my Department and elsewhere.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Coombs: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that 1995 was a record year for British tourism and that 1996 is likely to exceed that record when the figures are finally available? Does she agree that the proceeds&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0315"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;615&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;of the national lottery are making possible a massive increase in our tourism infrastructure, whether it is the new railway heritage museum in Swindon in my constituency or the new Tate gallery of modern art in the Bankside power station in London? In the context of the development of the south bank, can my right hon. Friend tell the House when we are likely to get a positive decision on the redevelopment of the south bank centre itself?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: I can confirm my hon. Friend&apos;s comments. We have reversed a 10-year decline in our world tourism share. In 1995, earnings from overseas tourism grew by 9 per cent. in France and by 15 per cent. in Spain and Italy. In the United Kingdom, there was 26 per cent. growth, with earnings now amounting to more than &amp;#x00A3;22.5 billion. That is a formidable achievement and I anticipate that next year will be even better.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I also commend my hon. Friend&apos;s comments about investment in many heritage, arts and culture-related projects, such as those in Swindon in his constituency. We want to boost domestic tourism further. The south bank project is another major renaissance of the Thames initiative which will be of lasting value and which will lead up to the millennium year, when we shall see opportunities for our arts, our heritage and our cultural life as never before. Those behind the south bank project, like other applicants, must be sure that they have completed the necessary processes, paperwork and business plan before their applications can be properly considered.&lt;br/&gt;Dr. John Cunningham: The right hon. Lady forgot to mention that the Government&apos;s policy document on tourism had to be withdrawn because it was full of spelling mistakes. It turned out that those who wrote it could not even spell "Prime Minister".&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;As there has been considerable reference to lottery funding, will the right hon. Lady explain why about 90 per cent. of lottery grants remain in the bank unspent? Is it not because the matching funding conditions are too onerous even for some of our major national institutions? Does that not mean that, in areas of less affluence, many people are being excluded altogether from successful applications because they have no chance of meeting the matching funding requirements?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: The Labour party is a great believer in preaching the need for homework to everybody. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman does his own homework a little better. So far, partnership funding has been running at about &amp;#x00A3;1.41 for every &amp;#x00A3;1 necessary; in other words, partnership funding has exceeded expectations. In areas where difficulties may emerge, there is the flexibility for all the lottery distributors to vary the funding required. The Sports Council, for example, will provide 90 per cent. of funding, if necessary; the arts and heritage fund also has flexibility. If money is unspent so far, it accrues interest which then goes to the good cause.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I will investigate any matters concerned with the tourism strategy. I suspect, however, that the right hon. Gentleman&apos;s comments are just another fanciful fairy story invented by the Labour party.' title='"Success Through Partnership"' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/success-through-partnership'></outline>
        <outline id='3116829' text="Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to encourage private sector sponsorship of the arts. [16709]&lt;br/&gt;Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions she has held on promoting business support for the arts. [16711]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sproat: The Government's national heritage arts sponsorship scheme, otherwise known as the pairing scheme, was established in 1984 to bring new sponsors into the arts. It continues to be a great success. To date, it has brought more than &amp;#x00A3;115 million of new money into the arts and more than &amp;#x00A3;37 million of awards matching more than &amp;#x00A3;77 million of business sponsorship.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Richards: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that, although the North Wales music festival attracts widespread support from the private sector, it is continually looking for new sponsors? Will he join me in congratulating North Wales Blue Grass festival&amp;#x2014;&lt;i&gt;[Laughter.]&lt;/i&gt; Opposition Members may laugh, but it is not a festival to celebrate the French victory over England at Twickenham on Saturday. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating North Wales Blue Grass festival on attracting sponsorship from North Wales Independent Press?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sproat: Yes, I shall certainly join my hon. Friend in doing that. This year in Wales there have been 39 awards totalling &amp;#x00A3;125,000, leading to a total injection into artistic schemes of well over &amp;#x00A3;250,000.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister of State accept a joint invitation to St. Asaph's cathedral, where the North Wales music festival takes place? If he does, he will discover that the cathedral's acoustics are perfect; many of our regional orchestras play there. How can he help the festival, which is in dire need of sponsorship?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sproat: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind invitation to the festival. I am more than willing to take it up, given that he invited me to the Liverpool Philharmonic a couple of years ago and I greatly enjoyed myself. I shall gladly consider the hon. Gentleman's point about the shortage of funds to see whether I can give advice on how to find help." title='Arts (Private Sector Sponsorship)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/arts-private-sector-sponsorship'></outline>
        <outline id='3116832' text='Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions she has had with the Office of the National Lottery regarding the introduction of additional weekly national lottery draws. [16710]&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: None.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Banks: That is a great pity; it shows just how out of touch the Secretary of State is with the way in which people feel about the second weekly draw. Camelot could have used separate numbers for the second weekly draw, but it deliberately chose not to do so. Some 50 per cent. of people who play the lottery use the same numbers, so they are automatically dragged into the lottery.&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0316"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;617&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Camelot is now talking about a third weekly draw. When will the right hon. Lady get a grip on the matter? This is her last appearance as Secretary of State answering questions on national heritage, and all Opposition Members are very pleased about that, but she still has a few weeks left to get a grip on Peter Davis, the toothless Oflot watchdog, and to try to ensure that Camelot looks after the people who play the lottery, not itself.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: There is no question of the lottery being anything other than extremely carefully regulated. Parliament laid down the regulator&apos;s duties: he must protect players&apos; interests, ensure propriety and ensure that the return goes to good causes. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman&apos;s constituency has already benefited from 13 awards of more than &amp;#x00A3;1 million. In his area of London, another nine awards for well over &amp;#x00A3;1 million are providing regeneration and worthwhile activities and opportunities for the young. So far, there has been no evidence of excessive participation&amp;#x2014;the average household spends about &amp;#x00A3;2.40 a week, which is much less than a packet of cigarettes. There will be no further activity if it might jeopardise the good name and effectiveness of our very successful national lottery.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Nigel Evans: I partly support the idea of using a different set of numbers for the mid-week game, but does my right hon. Friend get as brassed off as I do by the moaners and whingers on the Opposition Benches who can see no good in the national lottery? We have the most successful national lottery in the world; it has raised more than &amp;#x00A3;1 billion for good causes, some of which involve small rural activities that have never received grants in the past. At one stage the Opposition wanted to cap the limit on prizes, but they changed their mind when they discovered how successful the national lottery was. Is it not about time that they started to spread the good word about the national lottery and stopped moaning and complaining about it?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: Good news is always bad news for the Labour party. Its attitude to the national lottery is an example of its endless meddling and tinkering. Labour Members could not bring themselves to support the national lottery on Second Reading.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Tony Banks: We did.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: No. They sat on the fence and abstained. What we are now hearing is a "united" Opposition who are only too keen to demonstrate that they all did different things&amp;#x2014;I believe that to be true, and I think that many others do too. They deeply resent Camelot because it makes a profit&amp;#x2014;they are hostile to success and want to penalise anybody who has made a profit. They said that they would cap the prizes, but now believe that that is unpopular. Most of their suggestions about the lottery look like applications for a Sports Council kite-flying prize. As for the rest of us, we thank goodness that the national lottery was introduced by this Government, that it was this Prime Minister&apos;s idea and that it is enormously benefiting the towns and cities of this country.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Maclennan: What action does the Secretary of State propose to take to deal with the legitimate concerns&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;618&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;of the football pools industry about the impact of the mid-week draw on its fortunes and, in particular, on the Foundation for Sport and the Arts? Does she believe that she can save that valuable institution?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: I accept the difficulty that many of the pools organisations have had, and it is important to ensure that we can support the various initiatives that they were assisting. However, at a time when &amp;#x00A3;441 million has already been spent on 2,603 awards for sports, we can see that sports in this country are benefiting as never before.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Donald Thompson: Did my right hon. Friend hear any complaints about the national lottery when she visited my constituency a few Fridays ago, and met business women and some of the ladies and gentlemen who have benefited from the &amp;#x00A3;2 million of lottery money and millennium money that my constituency has received in the past few years?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: I enormously enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend&apos;s constituency. I was delighted to meet carers and the group from the nursery class. Last week, I was struck to learn that, apparently, 277 playgroups have already received lottery awards, and as the figures come through, it becomes progressively more exciting to see the difference that they make. Above all, I commend my hon. Friend&apos;s youth council. Last week, we launched our "Young people make a difference" strategy, which is intended to ensure that all young people who want to volunteer can do so. There is now up to &amp;#x00A3;500 million available for youth volunteering initiatives, and I also announced up to 130 posts at volunteer bureaux with youth facilitators. I believe that that will make a lasting difference to our young people and our communities, which I know will be extremely welcome to all responsible citizens.&lt;br/&gt;Dr. John Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the football world will be deeply disappointed by her response in respect of the Football Trust? The trust&apos;s income has decreased by two thirds as a consequence of the huge success of the national lottery in raising funds; that in turn has prevented the essential safety work on football grounds that the public, fans and all those who love our national game want. Is it not clear that there are extenuating&amp;#x2014;indeed, very special&amp;#x2014;circumstances, and should she not join the Labour party in our commitment to make up that shortfall with money from the national lottery so that essential ground safety work can proceed?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: As ever, Labour Members look for a cloud over every silver lining&amp;#x2014;they are desperate to look for the downside. If ever anybody had any doubt about how Labour Members would treat the national lottery, they have heard this afternoon that there would be meddling, tinkering and interference. There have been 355 lottery awards for football&amp;#x2014;never has so much gone into sport and into football in particular. Those of us with slightly longer memories than the right hon. Gentleman will recall that Euro 96 was a spectacular success and that our stadiums are among the best in the world, which had a great deal to do with the Government and the steps that we took to ensure that.' title='Weekly Lottery Draws' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/weekly-lottery-draws'></outline>
        <outline id='3116836' text='Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the impact of the British popular music industry on (a) British cultural life and (b) tourism. [16713]&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: British popular music makes an enormous contribution to the cultural life of the country. Domestic sales rose in 1996 to &amp;#x00A3;1.08 billion, making ours the fourth largest music market in the world. Twenty per cent. of recordings sold worldwide contain a British element. British talent and technical expertise reach hundreds of millions of homes around the globe.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Fabricant: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she recall that, in the 1970s, many rock and pop stars left the country because of punitive taxation? Is she delighted that, under the present Conservative Government, the Spice Girls have stayed in this country, and will she congratulate the Spice Girls on winning the best single award in the Brit awards? Was she heartened, as I was, to hear that Margaret Thatcher was the original Spice Girl?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: Yes.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Cunliffe: Will the right hon. Lady request the national lottery board to keep a better sense of proportion, fairness and, to some degree, equity? How can it reconcile giving &amp;#x00A3;55 million to the royal opera house in London for wealthy pleasure-seekers while refusing substantial grants to the Marie Curie Cancer Care unit, which operates hospices for dying people? The board has given 277 times more in subsidies to the opera than in grants to hospices. How can we, as Christians, given the criteria that have been set, accept the encouragement of the growth of opera houses as against hospices?&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: That was a very interesting question, but it does not relate to the one that is on my Order Paper. Would the Minister like to make a response?&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: A generous lady.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Bottomley: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was auditioning for next year&apos;s Brit awards, but I was going to respond anyway.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Although I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman&apos;s point, I am pleased that &amp;#x00A3;160 million has been spent on health-related charities; he knows how strongly I felt about that when I first became Secretary of State. However, I believe that he would miss the point if he failed to recognise what an incredible opportunity the national lottery has been for our country, enabling us to invest in our arts, heritage and cultural life.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Sir Ernest Hall, a member of the Arts Council, said:&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"Through the Lottery we have an opportunity to do for our towns and cities what the enlightened patronage of the Papacy and the Medicis did for the cities of Italy. We can realise Blake&apos;s dream of making England, &apos;an envied storehouse of intellectual riches&apos;."&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;I believe that it is a magnificent opportunity. As the Department reaches its fifth anniversary, it can see the way in which it has invested in the initiatives that matter to the people of this country.' title='Popular Music Industry' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/popular-music-industry'></outline>
      </outline>
      <outline id='3116837' text="LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT">
        <outline id='3116838' text="Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received on extending legal aid to cases before industrial tribunals. [16725]&lt;br/&gt;The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): A number of representations on extending the scheme to cases before industrial tribunals and other tribunals were received by the Department in response to the Lord Chancellor's Green Paper on legal aid published in May 1995.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that such a course of action would merely burden the already overburdened legal aid fund, place additional burdens on industry and make job creation more difficult? Will he therefore comment on the interview in the &lt;i&gt;New Statesman&lt;/i&gt; with Lord Irvine of Lairg?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend knows that our policy is to bring the legal aid budget under control&amp;#x2014;to bring an end to its demand-led, runaway nature before any thoughts of applying legal aid elsewhere can be entertained. I was therefore shocked to read the shadow Lord Chancellor's proposals to extend legal aid to industrial tribunals that appeared in the New Statesman in December. &lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt; I have it here and can read it if the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) wants me to.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Every year, 80,000 cases are heard by industrial tribunals. If only half of them were to attract &amp;#x00A3;1,000 per case, that would add &amp;#x00A3;40 million to the legal aid bill. Is it any wonder that the first act of any unlikely incoming Labour Government would be to have a summer Budget to pay for their massive spending plans?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Janner: Has the Minister considered what steps he could take to provide aid, legal or otherwise, for himself and his colleagues when they consider themselves unfairly dismissed by an ungrateful but fairly discerning electorate?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Streeter: We Conservatives believe in democracy. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman has served with distinction in the House, he has never been very good at predicting the future: he was wrong in 1992 and he is wrong today." title='Legal Aid (Industrial Tribunals)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/legal-aid-industrial-tribunals'></outline>
        <outline id='3116839' text='Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor&apos;s Department when he last met the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board to discuss reform of the legal aid system. [16727]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Streeter: I last met the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board on Wednesday 26 February 1997. We reviewed the White Paper reforms, which will cash-limit the budget, set national and regional priorities, dispense legal aid through block contracts with high-quality&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0318"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;621&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;providers, and tighten the means test to weed out undeserving cases. Good progress is being made, but some of these reforms require primary legislation.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;In the meantime, we have reformed the way in which solicitors and barristers are paid, which gives us greater control and will reduce costs. We have set up a special investigations unit to crack down on bogus claims. That is already beginning to bear fruit. We have also introduced regulations to stop legal aid abuse by the apparently wealthy.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, as far as it goes, but I am sure that he is aware that many of my constituents read reports in the tabloid newspapers to the effect that large sums are being paid in legal aid to undeserving people who could well afford to pay. Are there any steps that he could take now to crack down on the abuse of legal aid?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is right to press me on this point. Although our reforms are right and positive results and savings from the measures that we have already taken are beginning to emerge, it remains clear that too many cases that should not get it are still receiving legal aid. Accordingly, my Department is now looking at two further areas in which I want to make more progress.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;First, we shall review the use made by the Legal Aid Board of counsels&apos; opinions. We shall explore ways of cracking down on over-optimistic opinions from barristers that lead to legal aid being granted when it should not be.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Secondly, it is increasingly obvious that many of the cases that cause widespread public concern are decisions by area committees reversing initial refusals by the Legal Aid Board. We shall explore ways of bringing area committees more into line with public concern and common sense.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Boateng: What action does the Minister propose to take to deal with the grotesque imbalance between public expenditure on civil legal aid for ordinary, hard-working, honest taxpayers, and on criminal legal aid for those who are convicted of crimes yet are required to pay nothing towards the cost of their defence? Is it not time to recognise the fact that, under the Labour Government, about 80 per cent. of households had access to civil justice, whereas under this Government that number has fallen to 49 per cent.? Is it not time to return access to the courts to the ordinary, hard-working British people?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Streeter: Once again the hon. Gentleman appears to be calling for a change in the rules that will enable more people to claim and more money to be spent by the Government. He is a big-spending member of the Labour party&amp;#x2014;I do not mean just his suits. He does not seem to realise that the Government cannot spend money that they do not have. If we are to spend more, we must tax more. This is old Labour in a new suit: tax and spend.' title='Legal Aid Reform' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/legal-aid-reform'></outline>
        <outline id='3116840' text="Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;622&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;he has made of the per capita cost of the legal aid programme relative to those for similar programmes in other EU member states. [16728]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Streeter: None, but it is widely believed that our legal aid system compares favourably with any in the European Union.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Fabricant: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend could not provide me with the actual figures. If he could, I believe that they would show that this country is more than generous with legal aid compared with other European countries.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I wish to press my hon. Friend on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson). What action will he take to target legal aid precisely&amp;#x2014;with particular reference to the area committees that he mentioned earlier?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend will know that the White Paper reforms that we announced last year and the measures that I announced this afternoon will do exactly what he asks: target resources where they are most needed. It is now clear that the fact that our legal aid system is as comprehensive as any in the European Union can be added to the good news of rapidly falling unemployment compared with our European competitors, to demonstrate that life is better in a Conservative Britain." title='Legal Aid Costs' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/legal-aid-costs'></outline>
        <outline id='3116841' text='Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor&apos;s Department if he will make a statement on his plans to control the legal aid budget. [16729]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Streeter: The Government have embarked on a radical reform programme to control the legal aid budget. We are committed to taking the reforms forward through consultation and piloting, and some key changes will require legislation. My hon. Friend will have heard the additional measures that I mentioned some moments ago.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. He is obviously aware of the great concern about the amount of legal aid money that is being spent on those who could afford legal representation from their own funds. Will he confirm that, when looking at the system, he will also look at the dubious circumstances in which some community law centres purport to operate? He will be aware&amp;#x2014;I have raised the matter with his Department in the past&amp;#x2014;that the Charity Commission has expressed grave concerns about some of those law centres, which, effectively, act as a front for the Opposition.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Streeter: I shall now look even more closely at the law centre problem that my hon. Friend rightly raises with me. It is important to get the balance right in our legal aid reforms. We are committed to helping those who need help to gain access to justice, but we must ensure that the taxpayer is not overburdened. It is disappointing that the Labour party does not support our proposal to introduce a cash-limited legal aid budget. I described it as an expensive locomotive to which we seek to apply the brakes; I have no doubt that, under a Labour Government, it would become a runaway train.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Campbell-Savours: Am I correct to assume that the Minister has just announced two completely new&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0319"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;623&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;policy initiatives that would have the effect of denying legal aid to some of my constituents on very low incomes? What really matters, and what is winding up the public, is how it is possible for very wealthy people so to organise their private affairs and assets that their declarations to the legal aid authorities effectively amount to fraudulent applications for money and legal aid. Ministers should concentrate on those areas rather than tighten up the criteria through little sly deals that deny my constituents on low incomes proper legal representation.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Streeter: I am sorry but, once again, the hon. Gentleman is badly out of date. We have already taken the measures necessary to close the door on legal aid abuse by apparently wealthy individuals. I referred earlier to the special investigations unit that we set up many months ago, which is now bearing fruit. It is beginning to work and we have closed that door. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken; not a single constituent of his with a genuine legal issue who should be supported by the taxpayer will lose out as a result of our reforms. We are closing the door on abuse on behalf of the British taxpayer.' title='Legal Aid Budget' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/legal-aid-budget'></outline>
        <outline id='3116842' text='Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor&apos;s Department what is his policy towards alternative dispute resolution in civil justice; and if he will make a statement. [16730]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Streeter: The development of alternative dispute resolution in all its forms has broadened consumer choice in dispute resolution. ADR can provide a more appropriate way to settle many disputes where the parties do not need recourse to the coercive powers of the courts. My party is doing all that it can to encourage ADR.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jenkin: Would not one method of reducing the legal aid bill be the provision of more avenues to ordinary individuals to settle disputes&amp;#x2014;such as those between neighbours or between small businesses about debts&amp;#x2014;using an adjudicator rather than going through the full courts process? Will my hon. Friend and his Department do everything possible to ensure that those avenues are more widely available?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Under the Woolf proposals, it is our intention to put alternative dispute resolution at the heart of civil justice. He will be interested to know that we produced a booklet last year entitled "Resolving disputes without going to court" to alert potential litigants to the possibilities of ADR. Last May we also set up a pilot scheme based in the Central London county court for all cases in which claims exceed &amp;#x00A3;3,000 and we are monitoring the results of that carefully. There is no doubt that ADR has a large part to play in the British civil justice system.' title='Civil Dispute Resolution' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/civil-dispute-resolution'></outline>
        <outline id='3116843' text='Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor&apos;s Department what plans his Department has to reduce the cost to public funds of those aspects of the criminal justice system for which his Department is responsible; and if he will make a statement. [16731]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Peter Atkinson: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor&apos;s Department what plans his Department has to reduce the cost to public funds of those aspects of the criminal justice system for which his Department is responsible; and if he will make a statement. [16734]&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Streeter: A number of initiatives are under way in my Department to reduce costs. They include the radical proposals for legal aid in the White Paper entitled "Striking the Balance", steps to reduce delay in the courts, such as the introduction of plea and directions hearings in the Crown court, and a review of time limits in the magistrates courts. In taking forward those initiatives, care must be taken to balance the many conflicting interests of those involved in the criminal justice system.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that my constituents would be rightly concerned that the legal aid budget doubled between 1990 and 1995 to &amp;#x00A3;1.4 billion, and is due to go up yet again this year? Can he assure them that those who are in real need will get legal aid, and that we will get more value for the pounds that are spent?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is right. We want to ensure that those who have genuine grievances have access to justice, but we want to get the balance right between their interests and those of the taxpayer. All our reforms are shaped to that end. I believe that they are right and that they will make a significant difference to the legal aid budget as they are rolled out.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the greatest uncounted costs in a criminal justice system is delay, which wastes so much of the time of witnesses and, in particular, of the police, who can ill afford it? Will he therefore welcome the consultation paper issued by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to consider ways of speeding up justice, including the possibility of ending the right of jury trial for some defendants?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the important statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary last week. We will seek the views of people in Britain about those major, radical proposals to reform our criminal justice system. Again, it is a matter of getting the balance right. I believe that our proposals have a great deal of merit, and we look forward to the consultation process.' title='Criminal Justice Costs' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/criminal-justice-costs'></outline>
      </outline>
    </outline>
    <outline id='3116845' text='3.31 pm&lt;br/&gt;The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): Last November, I laid before Parliament the Green Paper "government. direct" (Cm 3438) setting out the Government&apos;s strategy for the electronic delivery of central Government services. This strategy forms part of the Government&apos;s information society initiative led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology, and complements our policies to promote the use of IT in business, in education and by the public at large, and to help this country adapt to the information society. Today I have placed in the Library, and it is available in the Vote Office, a paper reporting on the results of consultation on the Green Paper and indicating the way forward to a radical change for the better in Government service delivery.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;People interact with Government daily, whether they are applying for vehicle and driving licences, complying with regulatory requirements and filling in Government forms, or paying taxes. "Government. direct" envisages a time when people will no longer have to queue up, fill out paper forms and send off cheques for Government licences; instead, they will be able to link directly into government through their television sets or from kiosks in post offices, libraries and shopping centres.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Services will be more accessible, more convenient, easier to use, quicker in response and less costly to the taxpayer. As the Cabinet Minister responsible for public service, I find the prospect of delivering services electronically direct to the public enormously exciting.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;This initiative forms part of the programme of public service reform, which has already established the citizens charter, next steps agencies and the deregulation initiative as a means of raising the quality of services and making them customer-driven.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Reaction to the Green Paper has been substantial and positive, with nearly 300 responses. I am pleased to say that they show broad support for our intentions, particularly our determination that the initiative should be truly cross-governmental and customer-centred.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;However, concerns have also been raised. Some suspect that our aim is not to raise the quality of service but simply to cut costs, or to create a huge central database on individual citizens. Such fears are groundless. There are also concerns about data protection and about potential marginalisation of the disadvantaged and the disabled. I assure the House that we are determined to find solutions on data protection, and we are equally determined that electronic services will benefit everybody.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Last year, the Government launched "IT for all" in order to raise public awareness of, and provide wider public access to, information and communications technologies. I am particularly pleased that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced plans to redirect the millennium fund towards information and communication technology projects. After 2001, this could enable institutions such as citizens advice bureaux and public libraries to provide help to access electronic services for those who lack the confidence or opportunity to use a public access terminal.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;In taking our plans forward, we have three objectives. First, we will build on the Green Paper by continuing the dialogue with those who have made substantial&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;626&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;comments, such as the National Consumer Council, the Consumers Association and Justice. We will explore with universities how we can best draw on their creative thinking, too. We will work closely with the Data Protection Registrar to produce data protection arrangements that command public confidence.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Secondly, we will give the general public an opportunity to try electronic service delivery for themselves through pilot schemes. Some have been launched already. Others that I expect to see launched in the next few weeks will: first, enable the citizen to use one electronic form to tell several Departments about a change of employment status; secondly, bring citizens charter information to electronic terminals in the high street; thirdly, bring electronic services to the rural post office; and fourthly, allow Internet access to large Government geographical and geological databases. More will follow. The views of the public on pilot schemes will be sought and recorded through market research, and the results will be published to inform the debate.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Our third objective is to begin to plan the full-scale implementation of "government. direct", drawing on what we learn from our discussions and the pilots. As soon as we are able, we shall lay a White Paper before Parliament, setting out our plan for implementation, including any legislation that may be needed. We expect to rely on the private sector to lead in the development of technology and to provide the capital investment necessary to be repaid by savings in central Government service delivery costs.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;As the Minister reponsible for public service, I shall work with colleagues across government to take this initiative forward, with the support of the central IT unit, which was set up just over a year ago in the Cabinet Office, with people drawn from the public and private sectors. I would particularly like to thank ministerial colleagues who are participating in the programme of pilots, and private sector sponsors such as BT, Electronic Data Services, ICL, Intergraph and Microsoft, who have shown commitment and imagination in their support for the programme.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;This information technology initiative will help, for example, the pensioner at the rural post office to check his or her income tax, and the parent in the urban high street to compare the performance of local schools. It will lighten the burden of government on the small business man, and it will help those seeking work to sift job vacancies. It will make dealing with Government as easy as the supermarket laser checkout or the bank cash machine. It is government made easy, and made easy for everyone. If the take-up of electronic services follows the pattern of that for cash machines, five years from now, 25 per cent. of simple Government transactions with the public could be electronic.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Our plans for the use of information technology to provide services in a fundamentally different way will have radical and welcome implications over the long term for the size and shape of central Government. I commend our plans to the House.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Derek Foster: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. I welcome his initiatives, and thank him for the courteous way in which he deals with all such matters. However, the earlier Green Paper and today&apos;s statement bear all the marks of a last-gasp technology gimmick from the party of the past.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0321"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;627&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Why was Al Gore able to present the four-year record of achievement in September 1996 while the Government were still pussy-footing about with a discussion document? Have the Government not betrayed citizens already, by failing to harness user-friendly technology to make government more accessible?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Have not the Government already sold business short by failing to exploit information technology in scything through red tape? How will the right hon. Gentleman avoid a new, dangerous split between the information haves and the information have-nots? Is he not aware of the danger of citizens&apos; personal data falling foul of Big Brother Government or private sector cowboys bent on a quick buck? Why does he not beef up the Data Protection Agency to counter that threat?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Why have the Government headed for the hills over the &amp;#x00A3;22 billion millennium bug issue? Why has the right hon. Gentleman ignored repeated warnings that it could be the next BSE-style crisis to hit government? Have not his Government been ducking and diving on the real issues, leaving the next Government to clean up the mess?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Why do not the Government come clean with their staff by publishing their own estimate of job losses, for example? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to involve staff as partners in the management of such a profound change? Where are his staff training and development proposals? How much Government cash has been earmarked for the investment? Have the Government instead, as we all expect, thrown themselves entirely at the mercy of the private sector? Does not the statement demonstrate a failure of imagination and leadership from a failed Government, breathing their last after the humiliation of Wirral, South?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks&amp;#x2014;at least at the outset of his series of questions. I shall deal briefly with five of them.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;First, we are spending at the rate of &amp;#x00A3;2 billion a year in central Government on information technology: a very substantial part of total Government running costs. The Government have not been afraid, either Department by Department or centrally, to use modern information technology. Our response represents a radical step forward in the use of IT to the benefit of our citizens.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;As to the difference between the information haves and have-nots, the right hon. Gentleman is right. It is very important that manual systems are continued in parallel with the use of modern information technology, so that those who are not familiar with or do not have an opportunity to use modern IT can use the existing paper-driven system for as long as that is necessary. I have already said that I hope that the citizens advice bureaux will play a full part in this radical revolution of the way in which Government services are provided, by facilitating services for citizens who cannot or do not wish to use them directly.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;On third-party access to data, it is very important that the Data Protection Agency and the registrar herself are satisfied about protection against illegal and improper third-party use. There is no difference between the two Front Benches on that.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I turn to the millennium bug: the prospect that some computer systems will fail in 2000, because 20 or 30 years ago, when the software systems were written, planners&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;628&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;never assumed that the hardware would last that long. My hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology has laboured long and hard to ensure that the private sector is aware of its responsibilities, and we have jointly ensured that all Departments must by the end of this year have drawn up plans, and by the end of next year implemented plans, to protect the public against any faults.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I published a White Paper last year on civil service training and development, which made explicit reference to the need for developing computer skills. I congratulate the civil service on embracing those new developments with great alacrity.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Trevor Skeet: If I understand my right hon. Friend the Minister correctly, his statement is about using technology to make more information available on Government services on a 24-hour basis. Will it be a precursor of new developments? Will he be a little more specific on cost? He indicated the amount of capital expenditure going into IT at the moment. Although the proposal concerns only a very tiny part of overall expenditure, what will be its expenditure effect on the Government?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: One of the principal benefits of modern information technology is that information can be supplied to the citizen 24 hours a day, seven days a week; not just when the office is open. That principle of not only accessible but open government is extremely important.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;No one knows what the cost will be, because we must test, pilot by pilot, whether the citizen wants this information service to be delivered electronically. It is important that Government do not dictate. The citizen knows best what is needed, and the private sector will lead with the development of technology. I confirm that we expect the private sector to make the initial capital investment. All our conversations with the private sector lead us to believe that that will certainly be the case.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy accept that, although this interim statement on the transmission of Government-held information is important, so far as open government is concerned, it would carry greater conviction if it were accompanied by a freedom of information Act based on the presumption that Government-held information should be made available to the public, except for certain narrowly specified and policed categories?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the recommendation of Justice, that the supervisory and enforcement powers of the Data Protection Registrar should be strengthened? Is it his intention that terminals should be available in rural areas, particularly sparsely populated areas, where it is difficult for people to get to Government offices or other centres to obtain the information to which they are entitled?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: Our code of open government, which applies to civil servants and Ministers alike, presumes that information, analysis and explanation of decisions should be made available. I believe that the use of modern information technology will make government more open,&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0322"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;629&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;not less: information will not be confined to the filing cabinet. A freedom of information Act would make no practical difference to the range of information that should be open to citizens.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The code encourages civil servants and Ministers to work on the presumption that information should be available except in narrowly drawn circumstances. Most countries follow that practice, and I believe that it would have broad support in the House. The exceptions involve secret intelligence and diplomatic relations with other countries. The presumption is openness of government, and our reforms will enable that principle to be more widely applied.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;As for the comments of Justice on the status of the registrar and the law, we shall have to consult on that, and that process has only just begun. I am sensitive to the point made by the hon. Member.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Yes, terminals should be available throughout rural areas. Modern technology knows no geographical or time boundaries. We are carrying out a trial in a rural post office in Devon to find out how citizens react to the availability of a computer terminal to supply information that would otherwise be available only by expensive telephone or by paper.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Gary Waller: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statement. Will he, in turn, join me in congratulating the Editor of the &lt;i&gt;Official Report&lt;/i&gt;, Mr. Ian Church, on the award he received from the Campaign for Freedom of Information for the parliamentary web site on the world wide web, which had encouragement from and the enthusiasm of the Information Committee? How long will it be before motorists are able to renew their vehicle excise licence and pay the duty by using a kiosk in their local library or from a PC in their own homes?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his Committee&apos;s determination to introduce modern technology into the workings of Parliament. A great deal can be done, and I welcome the arrival of &lt;i&gt;Hansard&lt;/i&gt; on the Internet. My hon. Friend raises an interesting prospect with regard to car tax. Our vision is that, instead of queueing at a main post office or corresponding by mail to renew our car tax, it should be possible to do so entirely electronically.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;With the approval of Parliament, central databases could confirm that a car has passed the MOT test and that a valid certificate of insurance has been issued. An electronic signature&amp;#x2014;a credit card-sized mechanism&amp;#x2014;could validate that a person is who he says he is, and a car tax disc could be issued immediately.&lt;br/&gt;Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many demarcations and restrictive practices that grew up in the former age of information collection are simply irrelevant and crippling in the modern information technology age? The common register of businesses, for example, is not available, because, although the component parts&amp;#x2014;company registered offices, and so on&amp;#x2014;must be published, the data are compiled with the use of Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise powers. That means that the product cannot&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;630&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;be available. Do the Government propose an overhaul of the legislation relating to the main streams of Government information to make that information publicly available?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: I believe that we should rethink the divisions between Departments, laterally and radically. I feel, for instance, that the distinction between the Customs and Excise, Contributions Agency and the Inland Revenue in the collection of moneys due from the citizen to the state can be drawn more simply, transparently and openly. But the permission of Parliament, given through statute law reform, will be needed for the comparison of data held by different agencies&amp;#x2014;and, indeed, for the transmission of data between Departments.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;As I have said, a radical rethink is needed if we are no longer to rely entirely on the circulation of paper between Departments. We can transfer data between Departments for the convenience of the citizen, but only with the permission of Parliament.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Patrick Cormack: I envy my right hon. Friend his sense of excitement, but will he consider for a moment the most important aspect of contact between the citizen&amp;#x2014;the subject&amp;#x2014;and Government: personal contact between one person and another? The depersonalisation that is implicit in much of what my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon will not be welcomed by everyone. Does he recognise that a real danger is implicit in the codifying of every sort of communication, and in the eventual replacement by a hole in the wall of the Government counter with someone behind it?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend&apos;s vision fills me with horror, but there is no inconsistency in using modern information technology to replace the post office, the fax machine or, perhaps, even the telephone. I want to speed the flow of information, but I do not want information to be depersonalised.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;One of the biggest criticisms that can be made by the citizen and, indeed, Members of Parliament of reforms made since the war is that such depersonalisation has taken place. Sometimes we need a face&amp;#x2014;a person to talk to. I do not mean a face on a video conference screen; I mean people talking face to face. I believe, however, that these reforms should permit a sufficient reduction in other clerical and running costs, to facilitate an increase in personal contact rather than the reverse.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, without a strong commitment from the Government in terms of money, his statement is so much rubbish? There is no indication that enough money is available for training, and there is certainly not enough for the provision of hardware.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the Department of Transport being able to issue any kind of document, he will be aware that not enough money has even been written into the Department&apos;s budget in this and coming years to provide for the information technology that is necessary to run it. Will he examine the American experience, which shows that change of this kind is important to young white males, and will he come back and tell us how he intends to change that with real cash?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: We are spending real cash. We are spending &amp;#x00A3;2 billion a year on IT projects in central&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0323"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;631&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;Government, and I do not propose a significant increase. I am telling the House that, just as the Government use the Royal Mail to transmit paper between them and the citizen, so we can use information technology. The fact that, rather than the Royal Mail supplying paper, the private sector is supplying hardware and software, has no financial impact on the Government. Someone else is providing the investment and the service and Government pay for that, but they pay on the basis of usage rather than capital investment.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his willingness to have an open session with the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee, involving people from industry as well as Members of both Houses, was much appreciated? One of the issues raised was crime. As many of the challenges posed by crime in the 21st century will be information technology-related, does he accept that, as well as receiving information, there is a unique and special opportunity for the public to give information through kiosks and eventually by way of television, and that that would help in the fight against crime?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to what the all-party Parliamentary Information Technology Committee has so far achieved. I look forward to working with PITCOM. My hon. Friend spoke about crime. It is not just the exchange of information that has to be regulated and regularised, where necessary by Parliament, but the efficiency with which different arms of the law work.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;One thinks in particular of the probation service, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts and the police. We have different computer systems, and they should be compatible. One of the main aims of the central direction of investment, or at least advice on how Departments should spend money, is to make sure that different computer systems are compatible, so that information can be exchanged electronically.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that, while this will give the Government great power to carry on their Big Brother technique and to find out about the man in the street, the man in the street will not be able to find out where the Tory party gets its money?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: I have already explained that the initiative is not about creating greater powers for the state in relation to individual citizens. There is no question of a Big Brother, whether socialist or Tory. The ordinary citizen would not tolerate that, and nor would Parliament. Therefore, any plans for the dispatch of data between Government Departments or even involving third parties, which is not contemplated in our plans, that will assist the citizen, have the citizen&apos;s approval and are protected by law, should surely be welcomed.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Patrick Thompson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress that he has announced for the electronic delivery of Government services, and I welcome his comments about personal contact. Will he confirm that the CCTA, which is based in my constituency, has been involved with the&#x000A;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;632&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;"government. direct" initiative, and will be involved in future in terms of the announcement and electronic delivery?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: I am happy to confirm that, and I pay tribute to the work of the CCTA, which started life as the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency about 25 years ago. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in support of the CCTA. It is a valuable resource of experience and advice for all central Government Departments, and I hope that its work expands.&lt;br/&gt;Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Minister aware that many of the initiatives that he would like to promote are already happening and well advanced? Is he also aware of the Cambridgeshire Childcare Links project, which was launched by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) at Hinchingbrooke school in the Prime Minister&apos;s constituency a few weeks ago? That service aims to provide for parents who wish to return to work information on child care, jobs and training and social security benefits.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he is prepared to co-operate with Cambridgeshire Childcare Links to provide helpful benefits information that will allow parents interactive access as to their entitlement to benefit?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly pass that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. I am well aware of the hon. Lady&apos;s support for local services in Cambridge. Not long ago, I had the pleasure of launching one such service in Kettering.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Mark Robinson: I welcome my right hon. Friend&apos;s assurance that personal contact will not be replaced by some sort of virtual reality system. Will he assure the House that there will be efforts throughout the civil service to ensure that the process to simplify guidance and instruction about how to apply for benefits will be continued, to ensure that it is compatible with this new information technology era?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I emphasise again the importance of personal, caring and, in some cases&amp;#x2014;when it is to do with, for example, the Child Support Agency or the national health service&amp;#x2014;compassionate and understanding assistance, which is by no means incompatible with being a civil servant. That is what the House would expect&amp;#x2014;that personalised, proper service&amp;#x2014;and it must be against a background of regulations that are simple and written in the Queen&apos;s English.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Minister accept that the history of the Government&apos;s involvement so far with large-scale information technology contracts is one of poorly defined contracts, large-scale expenditure, cost overruns and poor performance? Will he therefore assure the House that, if he proceeds down that road, it will be on the basis of carefully costed and piloted projects, which produce genuine improvements of service to ordinary people?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0324"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;633&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;&#x000A;Will he also assure the House that his proposals are not a device for undermining the Royal Mail and the network of the nation&apos;s 20,000 post offices?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: It is certainly not our intention to undermine the Royal Mail, but I am glad to see it progress with the development of its own services; it should be congratulated on that. However, there are other ways in which Government Departments can communicate directly and in which the citizen can communicate with Government and vice versa. In the same way that Government embrace the quill pen and the letter, so we should embrace information technology.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of relying on properly costed pilots. For the past 50 years, all Governments, of whichever shade, have sometimes had projects that have overrun and been badly thought out. Others have been a great success&amp;#x2014;I am talking about information technology now. We must learn from that experience. That is why I propose a programme that is cautious. It tests what the citizen wants and what is feasible, pilot by pilot; and substantial money, committed either by the private or by the public sector, should not be given until that has happened.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he is to be particularly congratulated on harnessing the unique expertise of the Government communication agency with that of the big players in IT, and that that will deliver quality services in a way that will be beyond the imagination of many people&amp;#x2014;and, if I may say so, in a way that seems beyond the imagination of the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster)? Is this not another move that shows that the character armour of this Government is open government and good-quality services to customers, whereas the character armour of the Labour party is rotten public services and secrecy?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend was a distinguished junior Minister serving in the Cabinet Office, and he will know that it is extremely important to think long term and to have a strategic vision about how to deliver services better to the citizen. It is incumbent on all of us as Ministers to ask: what does the citizen want, how should the service be delivered, and how can we harness modern technology? I am sure that you would agree, Madam Speaker, that Parliament and even Whitehall sometimes appear to be still in the 19th century in terms of their procedures, whereas the private sector has welcomed with open arms 21st-century technology. Government should do likewise.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: With the caveat of the Government&apos;s failure to move on the question of freedom of information, may I unreservedly welcome the statement, which is enlightened, points the way forward and, in many measures, reflects Labour policy, which goes down effectively the same route?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;In that spirit of camaraderie, may I draw the Minister&apos;s attention to Cumbria county council&apos;s application to the Millennium Commission in relation to the Genesis project, after several years of work by me in my office here, on the university of the Lakes project, and the&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;634&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;county council&apos;s own work? The Minister referred to the commission in passing when he said that it was considering IT bids more sensitively. Our application on the Genesis project is in exactly this area of IT transfer, and is being dealt with by the commission over the next few days. Will he put in a good word for us, because we want to win the bid and to show the whole country that we can make this system work in Cumbria?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: I will make sure that the millennium commissioners are aware of that. It is important that local government should be involved in this initiative, and I have made sure that the central IT unit has talked to local authority associations to find out how we can trial some projects in their field of responsibility, too.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. John Whittingdale: I welcome my right hon. Friend&apos;s statement, but will he bear it in mind that it is only in the past 10 years that pupils have been educated in the use of information technology, and that there is widespread technophobia among those who did not learn about computers at school? Does he agree that adult education colleges will have an invaluable role to play in providing courses to help overcome that problem?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: There are some technophobes in Whitehall, as there are in Parliament; perhaps people over the age of 40, or perhaps even 30, might constitute the greater number. My hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology is doing exactly the right thing. He has launched "IT for all", which is aimed at familiarising those members of society&amp;#x2014;young and old&amp;#x2014;who find it difficult to comprehend how to use modern information technology. I greatly welcome his initiative, which I know will succeed.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Barry Jones: Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman&apos;s "vision thing", will he accept that many millions of our fellow countrymen and women will not be excited by his statement? Will he consider my elderly constituent, Mrs. Williams of Pentre, who, when she goes into the post office, will be intimidated by his vision? Is not the timing of his statement somewhat gimmicky, in view of the imminent general election?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: No, that is not a fair charge. I have tried to present a sensible and balanced conclusion of two years&apos; work. Frankly, anyone looking back at reports of the proceedings of the House will, I am sure, find that the Government committed themselves to large-scale use of the Royal Mail and that a number of hon. Members, and perhaps their constituents, were afraid that they might lose the communications. We must embrace modern technology; the private sector does, as do many Governments around the world. Given his background, I hope&amp;#x2014;indeed, I know&amp;#x2014;that the hon. Gentleman will not be counted as a computer Luddite.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Ian Bruce: Was my right hon. Friend as disappointed as I was that those on the Labour Front Bench were so backward in welcoming the announcement, especially as the Leader of the Opposition got into such a mess when he announced a deal with BT? Is the right hon. Gentleman perhaps worried that BT will spend its money on this scheme rather than leave it for Labour&apos;s windfall?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0325"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;635&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;The piloting of schemes is clearly important, to see whether people will use high-street kiosks. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has any announcement to make in that regard about the bid that I have made for my constituency to be one of the pilots.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: I am sure that we shall be involved in several dozen pilot schemes in the coming months and years. It is sensible to test precisely what the citizen wants and whether the technology works. I am sure that my hon. Friend will persist in his demands. His comments about Government and Opposition underline a central point: unlike the Opposition, who have the relative freedom to announce an idea, the Government have to examine it, consult on it, test it, think about it and then produce their response. They do not have the same luxury as the Opposition.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Andrew Miller: The Minister will be aware of my support for his view of the benefits that information technology can bring to cross-departmental activity. Against that background, will he explain, first, what steps he is taking to ensure that the allocation of contracts, especially in the context of privatisation, are not overly concentrated with one company or another? Secondly, will he say whether he agrees with the European Informatics Market, whose board includes a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House, that there ought to be primary legislation on data protection as a result of the European directive and of changes in technology? Finally, even with eight weeks to go until the general election, I would prefer to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box rather than a hologram.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: Clearly the Government must implement the European directive&amp;#x2014;we have about 12 months to do so&amp;#x2014;and we are urgently considering the form in which it should be implemented. There are a number of options, and several Departments are involved. The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about monopolies by individual IT suppliers. This must be watched, as we do not want several Departments to be reliant on a single supplier of hardware or software.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Millennium Commission was unable to approve the bid by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux for a linked computerised system which would have greatly assisted the association in providing information similar to that which we are discussing? In that context, can he say whether it will be possible to place "government. direct" computer terminals in the association&apos;s bureaux?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: I share my hon. Friend&apos;s disappointment at the fact that the NACAB was not successful in its millennium bid. I very much hope that it will qualify for assistance from a redirection of the Millennium Commission&apos;s funding after 2001. We are trialling the provision of IT in one citizens advice bureau in Spennymoor in Yorkshire&amp;#x2014;&lt;i&gt;[Interruption.]&lt;/i&gt; I do not know my geography. Modern IT would have corrected my statement that Spennymoor is in Yorkshire, and made it County Durham.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, just a few years hence,&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;636&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;political historians will look back to this day and say, first, that it was a landmark day, and secondly, that the Labour party was a group of Luddites? Labour criticised my right hon. Friend&apos;s announcements and doubted his integrity in communicating with private companies. Does he agree that it is marvellous that, on this very day, the Cable Communications Association has announced that schools will be able to give access to the Internet to all their children for just &amp;#x00A3;1 per child per day?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: The House will welcome not only what BT has done, but what the cable companies have done in terms of supplying modern IT to schools. The more primary and secondary schools that are connected, the better.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome the statement, but a problem during the past five years has been that every hon. Member has been inundated by people whose lives have been wrecked by the inflexible computer technology and bureaucracy of the Child Support Agency. What worries me is that the very people who want to come into contact with government&amp;#x2014;an old-age pensioner at a local post office, a distraught ex-wife trying to get a CSA payment or a young labourer thrown out of work&amp;#x2014;are the very people who find it difficult to cope with these systems.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;At the same time, government is being fanned out increasingly to agencies, there is a lack of parliamentary control, and all agencies are now required to have strict performance guidelines. I fear that, whatever my right hon. Friend has said, we will have fewer humans facing the public and more computers providing more inflexibility and bureaucracy, with the result that more people will be denied their basic human rights.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Freeman: I am sure that my hon. Friend is wrong. He referred to the Child Support Agency, which I am afraid has, in its past practice, relied on several different sources of information. Computers have not been talking to computers&amp;#x2014;in other words, those affected by the legislation have received conflicting information at different times, without having someone to talk to personally. In a number of cases&amp;#x2014;particularly where the work of the agency has been removed to remote parts of the United Kingdom&amp;#x2014;ordinary citizens have been unable to talk to someone about their problems. We can and should embrace modern information technology without depersonalising it. Frankly, we can reduce, not increase, bureaucracy if we do it sensibly.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Fabricant&lt;i&gt;rose&lt;/i&gt;&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Madam Speaker: I will allow the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) to make a point of order to correct what he has said.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful, Madam Speaker&amp;#x2014;you have anticipated my point of order. It was a slip of the tongue; the charge would be &amp;#x00A3;1 per pupil per year.' title='Information Technology (Government Strategy)' type='link' url='http://hansard.millbanksystems.comhttp://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1997/mar/03/information-technology-government'></outline>
    <outline id='3116855' text='4.14 pm&lt;br/&gt;The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I beg to move,&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;That the draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;I must first apologise that the Secretary of State is not present, but, as I am sure hon. Members are aware, the Environment Council is meeting in Brussels today and tomorrow. However, his absence gives me the opportunity to speak on the subject. As I chaired the Environment Committee&apos;s inquiry into recycling, it is a real pleasure to be associated with an issue that has been a matter not only of controversy but of considerable fascination for entire industries and for many pressure groups.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I should start by putting the regulations in context. We need to obtain better value from our waste, in the interests of the environment, of United Kingdom competitiveness and of the consumer. That is the central objective of the Government&apos;s waste strategy. Our strategy, however, is particularly relevant to packaging waste.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Each year, we create 8 million tonnes of packaging waste, and&amp;#x2014;although it is the largest recyclable element in each of our dustbins&amp;#x2014;about 2 to 3 million tonnes of it goes to landfill. That practice is simply not sustainable. We cannot continue to divert ever more of our countryside to providing more landfill capacity. Landfill generates methane, which is a major contributor to global warming. Moreover, I think that all hon. Members know that the process of finding and planning new landfill sites is extremely difficult. I am particularly aware of that difficulty, because it is covered by one of my ministerial responsibilities.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Above all, it is important to harness the long-term economic benefits available from treating waste as a secondary raw material rather than simply as a costly liability. Therefore, the system that we are proposing has two principal objectives. The first is to implement the Government&apos;s challenge on producer responsibility for packaging waste. The second objective is to enable the United Kingdom to implement recycling and recovery targets in the European Community directive on packaging and packaging waste.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The producer responsibility challenge is about using the market to deliver an environmental objective, and requires that the price that the consumer pays should reflect a contribution to the costs of dealing with a product as waste. Producers have obligations to recycle and recover waste in proportion to the number of goods that they place on the market. In packaging, that obligation would create an incentive, first, to minimise the amount of packaging needed for the purpose; secondly, to ensure that one reuses packaging whenever possible; and, thirdly, to find more efficient and cost-effective methods of recycling and recovery&amp;#x2014;for example, by finding new markets for recyclate.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Broadly, by 2001, we are aiming to double the amount of packaging waste&amp;#x2014;paper, glass, plastic, steel and aluminium&amp;#x2014;that we recycle or recover. We are currently achieving about 30 per cent. recovery of packaging, and we need to increase that to 50 per cent.&amp;#x2014;the minimum&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;638&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;target set by the EC directive. As the United Kingdom has relatively little waste-to-energy capacity, we expect most of the recovery to occur through materials recycling.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Our initiative will bring real benefits to local communities, local authorities, voluntary bodies and everyone concerned with recycling. By 2000, we aim to have convenient and close-to-home recycling facilities for eight out of 10 households&amp;#x2014;in some cases through new kerbside schemes, and elsewhere through a big expansion in bank systems. The principal means of achieving that goal will be through collective business schemes, of which the prototype&amp;#x2014;Valpak&amp;#x2014;is well advanced. Valpak reflects a substantial commitment by more than 100 leading businesses which have subscribed to its start-up costs.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is not there a concern in the industry&amp;#x2014;which the Minister must have heard expressed very loudly in the past couple of months&amp;#x2014;that Valpak is okay, but that it is not yet up and running properly? It seems that some of the key players, especially those in the retail sector, are already leaving the Valpak framework, thereby threatening it. Unless those retailers can be persuaded to come back into the scheme and to support it strongly, it will not be possible to secure the objectives desired by the Minister, by myself and by everyone who is interested in the subject.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jones: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying; it is important to keep the retailers on board. There is every incentive for them to stay on board, because they could not deliver their part of the recycling targets on their own. They have to work co-operatively with someone. In view of the administrative overheads and the need to have the system up and running, it makes much more sense for them to stay in the Valpak framework, or whatever alternatives come forward, rather than to try to go it alone.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I have no doubt that the Minister has received correspondence from the Paper Federation. One thousand jobs in my constituency are wrapped up in the industry. The federation says that although it supports the scheme and wants it to work, it is worried that if things go wrong, there will not be an adequate review procedure. The federation says that it cannot necessarily wait two years if employment in the industry generally is being threatened. Can the Minister say something today that is helpful to the industry and which reassures it that the Government, of whatever persuasion&amp;#x2014;obviously my own people have views on these matters as well&amp;#x2014;will keep an eye on the industry and on employment within it, to ensure that the scheme is working properly and is not damaging areas of it?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jones: This is pioneering legislation, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman and the industry recognise. It is extremely important, therefore, that we keep the matter under close review and if necessary, make alterations. That is why the review process, about which I shall say something later, is part of the overall package. The hon. Gentleman talks about a period of&apos; two years. He should remember that we are talking about 1998 and that we are already almost three months into 1997. Bearing it in mind that 1997 is the year for the collection of statistics and&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0327"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;639&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;notification, the review of the operation will occur early on. That is a reflection of the fact that we know that we are breaking new ground.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Michael Meacher: Will the Minister, on the central point of this debate, address himself to the key issue? Contrary to the agreement that seemed to have been reached on 15 December 1995, the regulations will permit retailers to use transit packaging arising in their own back yard, to meet their obligations. That will increase the pressure on other packaging industries upstream and will undermine the viability of Valpak. How does the Minister justify that?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman must have missed what I said about retailers a moment ago. Retailers cannot fulfil their obligations simply from their own back yard packaging. They do not have packaging arising in all the categories that we are talking about, so they could not meet all the targets. The hon. Gentleman said that that was the key point of the debate, but I believe that there are a number of key points. If I can make a little progress, I shall highlight them. I believe that one of the main points of the debate is to ensure that we do not go down the road that some other countries have traveled&amp;#x2014;particularly the Germans&amp;#x2014;of creating a monster that is environmentally damaging as well as extremely costly.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I was talking about Valpak. Perhaps I should also tell the House that there is a second scheme, aimed at the dairy industry, called Difpak, whose members have recently announced their intention to proceed. Such schemes are run entirely by business. Any business that joins an approved collective scheme is entirely exempt from the regulations, as long as the scheme achieves the aggregate recycling and recovery obligations of its members. I hope that the House agrees that that is a substantial encouragement to join a business&amp;#x2014;run scheme.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The regulations impose three main obligations. First, there is a registration obligation: businesses must register with one of the environment agencies and must provide packaging data by 31 August 1997 at the latest. In other words, they must choose whether to carry out their obligations individually or to join a collective scheme. Secondly, from 1998 onwards, there is a recovery and recycling obligation. Businesses must take reasonable steps to recover and recycle specific tonnages of packaging waste, which are calculated to take account of the amount of packaging flowing through, the function that they perform in relation to the packaging&amp;#x2014;that means, for example, whether they convert packaging or fill packaging&amp;#x2014;and the UK targets, which are 52 per cent. recovery and 16 per cent. recycling for each material by 2001.&lt;br/&gt;Sir Jim Lester: Some small companies are concerned about whether they might be discriminated against if they do not join one of the major schemes. Will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be no difference of approach in regard to individual companies that seek to register on their own and those that choose to do it together?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jones: That is true&amp;#x2014;the smallest companies are exempt from the regulations, although the slightly larger ones will be caught as the phasing comes in. I can confirm that if people want to go it alone and create their own&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;640&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;scheme to recover their packaging, they will be free to do so, provided that they do it effectively. If the business is in a scheme, the scheme carries out the tasks.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Thirdly, there is a certifying obligation. Businesses and schemes must certify annually that they have recovered and recycled the required tonnages of packaging waste.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The Environment Agency, in England and Wales, and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will monitor compliance with the regulations and will have enforcement powers comparable with those that they exercise in relation to their other responsibilities. Businesses following the individual route will need to pay a registration fee to the appropriate agency of &amp;#x00A3;750, while schemes will pay a fee in relation to their membership.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The primary purpose of the regulatory regime is to discourage free riders. Industry told us clearly that that was a basic requirement if the initiative was to succeed. It is therefore important that the enforcement role of the agencies is credible and effective. Much of the agencies&apos; effort will be devoted to education, promotion and assisting industry, but enforcement will be necessary. A public register of businesses and schemes will list all those who have registered and who have self-certified performance of their obligation.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The agencies will also have an important role in relation to data&amp;#x2014;aggregating information from businesses, to provide a more accurate national picture of how and where the 8 million tonnes of packaging is created. That role also responds to an important industry request for much better data, which are essential to ensure a fair distribution of obligation, as well as to ensure that the United Kingdom is on course to achieve its targets.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I now refer to small businesses. While we have accepted the industry&apos;s request for a shared approach, many people have also accepted that it is neither efficient nor profitable to place an obligation on every business, such as the 200,000 or so small shops. The regulations therefore apply initially only to businesses with a turnover of more than &amp;#x00A3;5 million. We estimate that 4,000 businesses with a key role in the packaging chain will be affected. In the year 2000, the threshold will drop to a turnover of &amp;#x00A3;1 million, and we estimate that 9,000 businesses will be affected, including wholesalers who, from that year, will pick up the selling obligation of the small shopkeeper. We believe that large and medium-sized businesses are best placed to ensure that the system is up and running as smoothly as possible.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;One of the key features of our approach is that it is based on recycling and reprocessing, not simply collection. If we briefly consider what has happened in Germany, the advantages of our approach become clear. The German householder has five separate dustbins; each German household is served not only by the municipal collection lorry, but by a separate lorry run by the Duales System Deutschland&amp;#x2014;DSD. The two are not co-ordinated, and there are extremely high targets for recycling and recovery.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The consequences are well known: in its early years, the German system was collecting vast quantities of waste, for which it has struggled to find a use. Today, there is still a significant trade in exporting plastic waste, often with a dowry, to third-world countries, where reprocessing is a euphemism for environmental degradation. The current cost of the German approach is &amp;#x00A3;1.7 billion per annum&amp;#x2014;an approach that we have wholeheartedly rejected.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0328"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;641&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;When the Select Committee, under my chairmanship, published its report on recycling in 1994, we drew particular attention to the issue. I hope that the House will forgive me if I quote from the press notice that launched our report:&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"On the subject of recycling targets, we recommend that the aim of local authorities and other bodies should not just be the &lt;i&gt;collection&lt;/i&gt; of recycled material. Collection should be viewed as the first stage of the recycling process; it is equally important to develop market demand and adequate processing capacity. We believe that this should be taken into account by the Department of the Environment and the European Union in the formulation of policy, in order to avoid the surplus of collected material as resulted from the German DSD scheme."&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;By contrast, we have taken great pains to build our approach on the views of business, and we have harnessed the expertise of those with practical knowledge of the industries involved. That is the basis for the regulations. By allowing for business choice, they provide the stimulus of competition. By providing for business self-assessment and self-certification, they offer a deregulatory approach to monitoring and compliance. By providing for exemption for an approved business compliance scheme, they encourage business to develop cross-sectoral co-operation, efficiency and incentives. By focusing on the reprocessing end of the cycle, they ensure that we do not collect material that cannot be used and that the full range of businesses involved have an incentive to find new markets for recyclate.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Sheerman: I and most people who know anything about the subject would agree with the Minister about not wanting to go down the German track, because we do not want that sort of bureaucracy, but at least in all the other systems that I have seen, there is a regulator who conducts audits and checks that the recycling is being done. Is the Minister sure that the Environment Agency has the capacity and the ability to check, audit and control?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jones: I have every confidence in the Environment Agency, which does a good job in respect of all its responsibilities. I have never heard anybody suggest that the agency is incompetent in this respect. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman&apos;s comment about not wanting to go down the German route&amp;#x2014;that contrasts with the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who, when speaking to the Environmental Services Association not long ago, praised the way in which the Germans operate.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Meacher: That is a complete falsehood&amp;#x2014;I have never said that this country should adopt the German method. It is far more expensive per capita, I have never supported it and the hon. Gentleman should withdraw&amp;#x2014;&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before appealing to the Minister, the hon. Gentleman should rephrase the word "falsehood".&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Meacher: I am glad to do so. The Minister would not wish to impute to me something that I certainly did not say.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jones: We always welcome conversions on the road to Damascus.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;642&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;For all those reasons, we believe that the costs of the UK approach will be substantially below those of any of our major competitors. We estimate that by 2001, if collective business schemes are successful, annual costs will be at the low end of the range set out in the cost compliance assessment&amp;#x2014;that is, around &amp;#x00A3;270 million. Furthermore, we believe that those costs should be viewed essentially as transitional costs, necessary to provide improved recycling infrastructure which, as it becomes available, will be readily deployed by industry. Rising landfill costs and greater use of secondary raw materials, with their long-term advantages to the UK economy, mean that, in the long run, costs will fall. A sustainable approach to packaging waste is, in competitiveness terms, a real plus.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Even putting to one side the UK&apos;s policy in that respect, I remind hon. Members that doing nothing is not an option. This is an issue of grave concern to UK packaging manufacturers and exporters seeking to trade with member states that have adopted barriers to trade under the guise of environmental protection. It was for that reason that many in the industry pressed us to negotiate a directive that provided a clear single market framework for the free circulation of packaging, while ensuring that each member state met certain minimum recycling and recovery objectives.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;We are now using the directive to safeguard UK interests. We and others have formally challenged the Danish can ban, which restricts the sale of beverages to refillable containers&amp;#x2014;for a local brewery based in Copenhagen, that requirement is easy to meet, but it is a substantial barrier to any UK exporter. We are urgently considering the latest German proposals on refillable containers, which raise similar issues. The notification procedure that the directive requires gives us a real opportunity to challenge such barriers to trade, and it is encouraging that several member states have already withdrawn or modified their proposals as a result of that procedure, or in anticipation of it. However, for the directive to work effectively, we must be confident that we in the UK can achieve the recycling and recovery targets that it sets.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The regulations now before the House are, as I said, based on a number of principles established in negotiation with industry, starting with the producer responsibility group and continuing with other bodies. There are few trade associations with a substantial interest in packaging that have not played a part in putting together that approach. Even more important, many business leaders have given up substantial management time to develop proposals that will make this a success.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Businesses as diverse as Procter and Gamble, Courtaulds, David S. Smith, Tesco, British Glass, British Polythene Industries, Marks and Spencer, Guinness, Coca-Cola and Carnaud Metal Box have given substantial management time and effort. The business leaders who are members of the advisory committee are continuing to help devise solutions to the difficult issues that we have encountered.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Inevitably with such a process, rapid progress was made early on in agreeing the broad approach, but there has been difficulty in the detail and in finding a solution to issues where sectoral interests differ. In that context, I pay special tribute to Sir Peter Parker who, as president of the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment, chaired a&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0329"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;643&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;critical meeting on 15 December 1995, which agreed a formula for the shared obligation and the principles on which the current regulations are based.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;However, in a process that involves so many sectors of business, it would be wrong not to acknowledge that there are issues of importance to specific sectors, which remain outstanding concerns. As with any new system, there are fears of the future. Will there be adequate recycling capacity? Will some businesses have to pay much more than others to obtain waste for recycling? Will the ones that hold waste co-operate, or do we need a separate waste holder obligation?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I entirely agree that it is an important process and that we are still in the early stages, dealing with global and strategic issues, but I have a direct constituency interest&amp;#x2014;250 jobs hanging, if I may put it that way, on coat-hangers and the production thereof. Can the Minister say yet whether, as in other European countries, fabricated plastic coat-hangers will be exempt from that process, at least at this stage?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jones: The regulations do not lay down that degree of detail. They are broad definitions, and it will be for industry, working with the Environment Agency, to ensure that what happens in practice reflects the spirit of the measures that we are placing before the House. I can give the hon. Gentleman what I regard as a commonsense view on that, but I would not necessarily regard it as a definitive view, because plastic coat-hangers can exist for any of several different purposes. They might be sold and therefore be ordinary products, or they might be given away free with dry cleaning or be included with the suit or shirt that one buys in a shop, in which case they are packaging, as cardboard stiffening, pins and so on would be.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;As I said, it will be important to answer several questions. One of those is: will all the parties play an equitable part in accessing waste from the domestic waste stream? Another might be: do the activity percentages in the regulations fairly reflect what each part of the packaging chain actually does?&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Many of those concerns can be answered only when there are better data and when the system has begun to function. I assure the House that we shall keep a careful watch on the way in which the regulations work in practice and will keep them under careful review, to ensure that nonsenses do not occur. The staged build-up to the directive targets should ensure that no one&apos;s burden is unreasonable in the early years. I know that there are some fears, but I hope to reassure hon. Members that some of them are unreasonable.&lt;br/&gt;Mr. William O&apos;Brien: I join the Minister in paying tribute to Sir Peter Parker for the work that he has done in bringing us to this stage.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;Does the Minister envisage a conflict with the advisory council or within the industry? He mentioned shared responsibility, but he also mentioned the market. It is difficult to see how we can have shared responsibility in a market scenario. Is the Minister aware of any anomalies or problems in such a situation?&lt;br/&gt;Mr. Jones: I believe that, in the various parts of the chain, the shares have been sorted out very much along&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;644&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;&#x000A;market lines. If, subsequently, it turns out that those shares are different, or if technology brings a different perspective to our debates on the matter, that too may change. I have learnt in politics the essential truth of the philosopher&apos;s question, that only one statement is true at all times and in all places&#x000A;&lt;quote&gt;"And this too shall change."&lt;/quote&gt;&#x000A;Nothing is set in stone; nor should it be.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;It is important to reassure those who have expressed some of the more unreasonable fears. One of them relates to the relative size of the retailer obligation, and to whether retailers will be able to meet their obligations from their own waste. Let us consider a large household name retailer. The obligation laid down by the regulations for such a business is likely to be for between 100,000 and 200,000 tonnes&amp;#x2014;in other words, between 3 and 5 per cent. of the entire United Kingdom recycling and recovery obligation will have to be met by that one business. It will have access to waste in its own back yard, but that source is unlikely to supply much more than half its needs. It will have very little of some of the materials that it needs, such as glass, aluminium and steel. In short, the largest players in the retail and pack filler sectors have large obligations, and will have no alternative but to co-operate with others, either in a scheme or in some other way, to satisfy the obligation.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;As I said, ensuring that the regulations generate a successful UK initiative on packaging waste will be a process of dialogue for the Government, the agencies and business. There will inevitably be issues that need to be reassessed in the light of experience. That is why the Government have given a clear commitment to supporting the work of the advisory committee in carrying out a thorough review of the system once it is in operation, and to considering any recommendations that it makes. The work load of the committee for the review is already being mapped out. We are happy that it should look at issues of perceived inequity, such as the situation in the construction industry, and the proposal that all business users of packaging should be required to sort and separate waste.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;For their part, the Government have pledged to keep under review the need for the regulations. As the amount of recycling increases, I have no doubt that we shall be able seriously to consider reducing their scope. Many businesses have written to me on this point, and I am certain that, whatever their concerns, given all that we have discussed and negotiated, the overwhelming majority of UK businesses want to adopt the regulations now. That message has also emerged from what has been said here today.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;I also have no doubt that if success is to be achieved, it will come only by working with the market and with the businesses that are most closely involved. As the Secretary of State has said, the market is the only force powerful enough to deliver the objective of sustainable development. I therefore have no hesitation in asking the House to approve the regulations.&lt;br/&gt;4.41 pm &lt;br/&gt;Mr. Michael Meacher: I wish to make it clear immediately that the Opposition&amp;#x2014;soon, no doubt, to be the Government, if Wirral, South is anything to go by&amp;#x2014;strongly support the principle of increased&#x000A;&lt;image src="S6CV0291P0I0330"/&gt;&#x000A;&lt;col&gt;645&lt;/col&gt;&#x000A;recovery and recycling of packaging waste. However, the issue has been handled by the Secretary of State in a manner that can only be described as shambolic.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;At the outset, the right hon. Gentleman failed to take control of the issue and tried to hive off all responsibility to the industry. Given the diversity of business interests involved, that led, not surprisingly, to protracted wrangling and uncertainty. Then the right hon. Gentleman tried to reconcile the differences at the notorious meeting of 15 December 1995. If the Minister thinks that agreement was reached then, I have to tell him that there is still a great deal of disagreement about what is supposed to have been agreed on that occasion. Even after that, the calculation and assignment of legal obligation remains extremely complex and an unnecessary burden on business. Contrary to what the Minister said just now, we cannot even be sure that the terms of the European directive can be met.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The regulations that are now finally being introduced are more than eight months late, beyond the European Union deadline, following repeated delays. The statutory guidance that is so essential to the technical implementation of the scheme has still not been produced. The whole handling of the regulations has been a masterpiece of muddle, mismanagement and market excesses.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;The fundamental flaw, as many in the industry have said, is that the principle of shared responsibility, which the Government purport to endorse, is incompatible with the free operation of market forces, which the Minister ended his speech by praising and which the Government certainly encourage.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;At the 15 December meeting, it was clearly accepted and laid down that the share of the legal obligation attributed to each sector would correspond roughly to the share of the overall cost of recovery and recycling that each sector would bear. That key principle breaks down if those who have substantial obligations for packaging supplied to domestic consumers&amp;#x2014;that is, the retailers&amp;#x2014;can discharge a large part of their obligation by recovering and recycling commercial and industrial waste supplied to them by UK packers and fillers for which they have no producer responsibility obligations.&lt;lb/&gt;&#x000A;It would be wrong to say&amp;#x2014;I am not saying it, contrary to the Minister&apos;s assertion&amp;#x2014;that retailers can evade all their obligations in this way. I readily accept that retailers have the largest obligation, at 47 per cent., but it is a reasonable estimate&amp;#x2014;confirmed to me by the industry&amp;#x2014;that retailers can discharge as much as two thirds of their obligation by this means. Thus, they will be able to limit their share in the cost of the obligation to recover and recycle used packaging from the 