When the new local authorities' guide for the setting of speed limits will be published. [100177]

Guidance on the setting of speed limits already exists in the form of roads circular 1/93. The Government are committed to reducing the number of casualties and those killed and seriously injured on our roads caused by excessive and inappropriate road speed. Later this year, we will develop new guidance for setting local speed limits.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I urge him to get that new guidance to local authorities as soon as possible. Swindon parents tell me that they would like more factors to be taken into account when considering speed limits. They want speed limits to be reduced, particularly outside schools. Will the new guidance allow matters such as environmental factors, the fear of accidents and things that might encourage more people to walk their children to school to be taken into account in considering speed limits, rather than just the accidents that have taken place?

I have some good news for my hon. Friend: there is no need to wait for the new guidance. Since 1999, highways authorities have been able to apply 20 mph zones without authorisation from the Secretary of State. Road safety will always be a prime concern of highways authorities when introducing speed limits. However, they can also consider environmental and quality of life issues as well. Reducing the perception of danger encourages people to walk and cycle, particularly on the school run and in the vicinity of schools, which, in turn, improves the quality of life of people, particularly in the rural areas.

Does the Minister accept that although there is clearly a strong case to reduce speed limits in vulnerable areas, such as outside schools, it is equally important on dual carriageways where there is no possibility of encountering pedestrians to increase too low speed limits, which bring the whole speed limit process into disrepute and can often cause speeding?

The thrust of what the right hon. Gentleman says is correct. What we are talking about is speed limits that are appropriate to the circumstances, and what we need to consider, particularly in rural areas, is having appropriate speed limits for the circumstances, and ensuring that those speed limits are enforceable is very important. In particular, we need to focus our efforts on those places where there have been casualties and injuries and where people have been killed and seriously injured.

In encouraging local authorities to determine appropriate speed limits, will my hon. Friend say that they should make that decision on what is appropriate, not on guidance from police authorities, which sometimes mistakenly give the advice, "Don't reduce this speed limit because we haven't got the resources to enforce it."?

Although the resources available to local authorities have increased very substantially under our local transport plans—most authorities have had two or three times as much money in recent years—it is important, as my hon. Friend says, that those resources are used to best effect and to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads. Of course I hope that, whenever those decisions are made, the highways authorities will work in co-operation with the local police.

I welcome the Government's commitment to reduce the number of casualties on our roads and to introduce guidance on setting local speed limits, so will the Under-Secretary now agree to accept our new clause 21 to the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, setting out a rural road hierarchy and a range of speed limits as appropriate?

We recognise the hierarchy that the hon. Lady first proposed in her new clause, but the proposals that we first saw would be deeply intrusive in some rural areas in the number of signs and engineering works that would be needed. Of course that would be very costly, and we would have to consider the benefits that any expenditure would achieve to ensure that the cost was reasonable. As I said in a previous reply, we must focus the resources where the need is greatest and where the problems exist. There is very substantial extra funding in local authorities to do that, and we hope that they will direct its use to where the dangers and problems are greatest.

What discussions he has had in recent weeks with the Strategic Rail Authority about journey times to Plymouth. [100178]

Ministers have met the Strategic Rail Authority to discuss the Greater Western franchise. First Great Western introduced a three-hour service from London to Plymouth last year. A regular three-hour journey time from Plymouth to London would be welcome, but performance and capacity improvements are a greater priority at present.

I welcome the Minister's reply, but does he agree that, given the obvious difficulty of significantly improving air and road links to the far south-west, the best way to underpin the local economy is to cut journey times by train to Plymouth from London? Will he therefore put maximum pressure on the SRA to agree to a typical journey time of three hours, which has been put to the SRA in its new timetable proposals, so that business people, particularly those from Plymouth, can get to London and back for business meetings in comfort, thus underpinning and helping the local economy?

I share with the hon. Gentleman the ambition not just for road and air links to be good, but for the rail service to be good, too. Our present aim is also to improve the reliability and predictability of the service. Bringing together the Wessex, the Thames and the First Great Western franchise into a Greater Western franchise in 2006 will allow for better utilisation of track capacity and will ease co-ordination between short and long journey services. I have indicated once previously that the improvements that we will make around Reading will substantially improve the journey times to and from Plymouth.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the contrast between the successful state railways on the continent of Europe and the privatised, fragmented mess that we have over here. Is it not time that my hon. Friend advised the Strategic Rail Authority to imitate what is done on the continent of Europe and make our railways like theirs?

We are asking the SRA to make sure that the railway provides the services that we want in this country. There will be no turning back of the clock: we want to turn the clock forward to ensure that the railway delivers the high-quality service that the people in this country deserve—[Interruption.]

Order. I remind the House that we are discussing journey times to Plymouth.

Will not travellers to and from Plymouth share the assessment of 28 local authorities, 13 of them run by the Labour party, that the cutbacks by the Strategic Rail Authority in rail services are resurrecting

"the spirit of Dr Beeching"?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to a tiny number of services—less than 1 per cent.—that are there to improve the capacity utilisation of the railways. We must all dwell on what would happen in the very unlikely event of the hon. Gentleman and his party forming a Government. What kind of cuts would they make to our rail service and to the amount of money available for transport, and what kind of impact would that have on services to and from Plymouth?

Will not travellers to and from Plymouth also want to know that after two rounds of SRA cutbacks, there will not be a third? Can the Minister commit himself to that?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the services to and from Plymouth and the west country have and are being secured. The policies that we are carrying out will improve the service to and from that particular area. Again, what the people of the west country will dwell on very much is the policies of all three parties in this area. The Liberal Democrats, as well as the Conservatives, are considering certain cuts, and those will be in people's minds.

If he will make a statement on the integration of bus services with other forms of transport in Worcestershire. [100179]

We encourage all local transport authorities to use their powers to promote through-ticketing, better co-ordination of services, improved accessibility, wider availability of information and improved waiting facilities. A new integrated rail-bus ticket named PlusBus has been introduced recently by the bus and rail industries. Although stations in Worcestershire are not currently participating in the scheme, it is expected that it will be extended progressively to cover all major towns.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. One of the biggest obstacles to integrated transport in Worcestershire is the level of bus fares within Worcester city. It is claimed that Worcester city has the highest bus fares in Britain. Will he investigate that claim so that we can put pressure on the county council and the bus company to enable my constituents to pay the lower fares that seem to be paid in other parts of the county?

I am concerned to hear about that. I have been aware of previous problems with local bus services in Worcestershire following a major review of the existing network of services. In addition, Worcestershire county council had approved an additional £400,000 funding to replace some services, and was carrying out its own review of bus service provision in the county. With the additional information provided by my hon. Friend—who is as assiduous as ever on behalf of his constituents—I will investigate those points further.

I am sure that the Minister will want to pay tribute to what the private train operating companies have done to improve integration between bus and train services in Worcestershire. Does he agree that if we are to get people out of their cars and on to public transport, the integration that really matters is that between car and train? In that respect, will he join me in supporting a Worcester parkway station to provide decent parking facilities for car users, as none of the Worcester stations has decent car parking at present?

I am not sure whether I am being tempted into making a planning decision. However, on the Chiltern line in Warwickshire there is an extremely successful parkway. The Chiltern line now runs well into Worcestershire and provides an increasingly popular service down to London. That shows how the innovation and enterprise of a number of companies is causing the market to grow. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about car parking facilities; but would add that integrating public transport as effectively as possible will provide people with real alternatives. We will look into that particular aspect.

What measures he has taken to improve access to rail services for citizens of South Derbyshire. [100180]

The Strategic Rail Authority is working to improve rail services across the country. We are supporting Derbyshire county council's local transport plan, which includes the setting up of a rural transport partnership to help tackle transport issues in South Derbyshire.

The Minister will forgive my lack of enthusiasm for that modest response. I draw his attention to three projects that would certainly add to the accessibility of rail services in South Derbyshire: first, progress on the east midlands parkway, which has not so far been assisted by the SRA; secondly, the opening of the Donnington loop between Willington and Nottingham, which was commended in the M1 study but has not been proceeded with by the Government; and thirdly, the national forest line between Leicester and Burton, a line which would eventually go to Derby.

I understand the demand for a new parkway station. There is pressure on budgets and, with the east midlands airport parkway, there have been some difficulties in getting agreement among all the parties concerned.

Last year, it was announced that a new service of 10 trains a day would operate from Matlock to Birmingham, also serving South Derbyshire. That new service has now been cut to two trains a day within three months of coming into operation. Is that a good message to send out to encourage the use of public transport?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that expansion on a number of routes was found to be detrimental to reliability. When I considered the question of a cut in the service from Derby to Birmingham, I found that the five services an hour had gone down to four services an hour, which it had previously been. The SRA has rightly considered reliability—particularly in the Birmingham hub area— and the ability of all the rail companies to deliver their services. That was the right way to deal with the issue, because reliability is extremely important in developing the railway service. That service will undoubtedly have to be fine-tuned, and I am always prepared—as is the SRA—to consider particular services; but the principle underlying what has been done is absolutely right.

What steps he is taking to improve the level and quality of services into Waterloo station. [100182]

South West Trains has ordered 785 new vehicles and Network Rail is upgrading the power supply to allow for that. The first trains should come into service in the spring. The revised South West Trains franchise requires a robust service with fewer cancellations and with more trains arriving at their destinations on time.

We have heard about cutback after cutback after cutback but the Secretary of State seems to suggest that things are getting better. In Southampton, there has been a cut not of 1 per cent., which the Under-Secretary suggested, but of 25 per cent. in off-peak services. For well-connected services to my constituency, that represents a cut of 50 per cent. How will that get people off the road and on to rail?

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary suggested, we have severe problems with congestion on part of the rail network. If the SRA had not taken action to remove off-peak trains, the congestion and severe problems with reliability would continue. The problem in the past, following privatisation, was that more and more trains were allowed on to a network that frankly could not take them.

The Secretary of State knows that my constituents have recently suffered the body blow of the cancellation of the Bristol to Oxford line and the resulting cancellation of the Corsham station project. Will he confirm the rumours that the service from Corsham through west Wiltshire and into Waterloo is also being challenged by the SRA?[Interruption.] Hon. Members are shouting, so I shall repeat my question. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the service from Corsham and west Wiltshire into Waterloo, which it is widely rumoured will be cancelled by the SRA, will not be cancelled?

Give him a map.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have got to Waterloo eventually if he had been given the time. However, I do not know whether that would help with congestion.

If he will make a statement on his policy on reducing the use of aviation fuel. [100183]

As the consultation document made clear last summer, the Government's policy is that the airline industry should meet the costs of its environmental impact and, as part of that objective, it should maximise fuel efficiency.

Is it not the truth that the Government's policy on aviation fuel is all over the shop? The Secretary of State rejected the report from the royal commission on environmental pollution, yet the White Paper on energy says that we must reduce the use of aviation fuel and meet the external costs on the environment of aviation use. If 15 per cent. of global warming by 2050 will be created by aviation use, as predicted by the international panel on climate change, what will the Government do to address that real disaster in the making? Is there not a lesson to be learned from road charging?

On aviation, the Government made it clear last summer, when we published the consultation document on airport capacity, that the airline industry should meet the costs of the environmental impact that it causes. The hon. Gentleman must realise that most agreements on the taxation of aviation fuel, for example, are international agreements. It is not open to this country to take unilateral action. Indeed, that would not be effective at all. I know that he is a Welsh nationalist, but surely even he must realise that we have obligations outside our borders. We have made it clear time and time again that the industry needs to meet its environmental costs, and we will shortly be publishing a consultation document to explore how it can better do that while we have regard to our international obligations.

Now that congestion charging in London has been successful, will the Government consider being as bold as the Mayor and advocate the extension of congestion charging—

Order. The question should be about aviation fuel.

If the Minister wants the airline industry to meet its costs environmentally in terms of aviation fuel, will he support an EU-wide tax on aviation fuel if it is not possible to secure international agreement? Otherwise, carbon dioxide emissions will double between 1990 and 2010 and a predict and provide policy will disfigure our countryside.

There are two points in relation to that. First, on reductions in air fares, even additional taxation would not put air fares back up to where they were. Many of the cost reductions have resulted from the low-cost airlines and others stripping out the costs of their operation. The policy that the hon. Gentleman advocates would not have the effect that he wants.

The Secretary of State, together with you, Mr. Speaker, and the rest of us regulars on the Edinburgh and Glasgow routes, will have developed a pretty good nodding acquaintance with every cubic metre of the upper atmosphere above Watford, which is pretty expensive in fuel terms. Is part of the problem the shortage of air traffic controllers, and would there be less hanging around over Watford if there were more skilled air traffic controllers?

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

If he will make a statement on the timetable for introducing guidelines on exemptions and concessions in relation to congestion charging. [100184]

We will consult on a uniform minimum standard of exemptions and concessions once we have had an opportunity to consider the experience gained from road user charging schemes in London and Durham.

Does the Secretary of State agree that although the congestion charge in London has so far been a considerable success in traffic terms, there are many unfair exemptions deriving from the blue badge scheme? Will he urgently introduce new guidance to deal with cruel anomalies such as the situation faced by 150 thalidomide victims who have been refused exemptions, despite the fact that they are not capable of using public transport?

The hon. Gentleman is right that the London congestion charging scheme has worked far better than many people thought that it would. However, as I have said on many occasions, it will take several months to evaluate its effect. Another point that I have often made is that it is for the Mayor to decide which exemptions he wishes to put in place. The way in which the legislation was framed made it absolutely clear that it would be for the Mayor in London, just as it is for local authorities around the country, to decide on the nature of the scheme and its exemptions. When the Government consult on minimum standards, they will be high level and generalised standards to ensure that there are no glaring inconsistencies between local authorities. I would say to the hon. Gentleman, or to anyone else who believes that the London scheme needs refinement in relation to exemptions, that that is a matter for the Mayor to resolve, as the legislation always intended.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear whether or not the Government support the extension of congestion charging?

I made it clear to my hon. Friend's Committee, and many times to the House, that congestion charging is one of a number of options that local authorities can use. Whether it is appropriate for particular towns and cities depends on the local authority. That is how the legislation is drafted. I have also made it clear that I know full well that many local authorities have been waiting to see what happens in London before deciding whether to proceed with congestion charging. As I said last week in relation to congestion charging and other developments, such as the tolling of the M6 when the toll road opens—probably at the beginning of next year—developments are taking place that will allow people to learn from what is actually happening rather than what might happen in theory. That will better inform local authorities and the Government on what measures are workable and acceptable in managing demand for road space.

The Secretary of State is trying to absolve himself from responsibility for the exemption scheme. The Government took the power in legislation to impose exemptions and concessions. Why do they not use that power to ensure that the scheme does not inflict so much damage on their policy of social exclusion? The latest report from the social exclusion unit shows that householders who are car owners and in the 20 per cent. lowest range of incomes have to pay 24 per cent. of household income in car taxes. That is unjust. Why do not the Government do something about that in the name of social inclusion?

I must say that I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman was bothered about social inclusion. There was not much sign of that when he was a Minister.

What recent assessment he has made of the plans Network Rail have to improve the signalling and track from Nottingham to London. [100185]

None. I understand that the Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail are working together on a range of strategic measures to include in the midland main line route plan. This will form part of Network Rail's 2003 business plan, due to be published in April.

Given the billions of pounds that are being invested in St. Pancras station as part of the channel tunnel rail link, would not it be sensible to invest a significant amount in the midland main line so that we have a fast link between Nottingham and that part of the east midlands into London? Although there is a need to invest in the west and east coast main lines, many of us in that part of the east midlands think that the midland main line is often neglected when it comes to investment decisions.

I know of my hon. Friend's considerable interest in the subject, which he regularly raises with us. He will be aware of the major transport interchange in the St. Pancras and King's Cross complex. We are keen to encourage development of the midland main line. As for the details, we will have to await the outcome of the work by Network Rail on, for example, signalling, which will no doubt cover the famous Trent signal box.

Speaking as an hon. Member who represents Sheffield, I add my voice to the calls for the midland main line to be a higher priority. Will the Minister consider doing something about the rolling stock on that route? It is distinctly inadequate and there are frequent cancellations simply because trains are not available.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, considerable work is being done on the renewal and replacement of the high-speed train fleet. That is of particular significance to the midland main line and other routes. I must say that when I have used the midland main line, it has been remarkably reliable.

If he will make a statement on airport security. [100186]

The terrorist threat to UK interests and UK aviation remains a very real one. Heightened aviation security measures have been in place since September 2001 at all UK airports for all airlines operating from the UK and for UK airlines overseas. These are kept under constant review and are amended or supplemented as and when required.

On the police service parliamentary scheme, I recently studied policing at Schiphol and Manchester airports. In the Netherlands, one security force is responsible for all aspects of security at major airports like Schiphol. However, in British airports we have the local police, special branch, the immigration and nationality directorate and Customs and Excise. Even the individual carriers and baggage handlers have their own security people. Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am that while there is a lot of good will among those individual forces, there may not be adequate consultation between them?

My hon. Friend raises a matter that was acknowledged by Sir John Wheeler, whom the Home Secretary and I asked to carry out a review of airport security. He identified cases in which we could improve the working relationship between the police and others, and we are in the process of doing so at the moment. I would caution against a wholesale organisational change, as that can often lead to people taking their eye off the immediate problem. However, where there are problems concerning organisations not working together as closely as they should, we will deal with them as and when the occasion demands. However, both the Home Secretary and I are concerned that Wheeler's recommendations should be implemented as quickly as possible, and are working to do so.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that following a recent new risk analysis, aeroplanes coming in from certain countries can no longer park at the main stand but must park and disembark their passengers away from the stand? If so, which countries are involved? Can the Secretary of State also explain why, 16 months on since the first occasion on which I raised the matter, it is still possible for staff to work airside—the most vulnerable part of the airport—without full security clearance, as long as they are supervised? Does he not accept that supervision can never be 100 per cent. secure? Surely action should have been taken a long time ago?

On the first point, I am anxious to be as helpful to the hon. Gentleman and the House as possible, but it would be unwise of me to disclose what is done for operational reasons from time to time. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will accept my reasons for doing so. However, I can say that we keep the nature of the threat and the places where it may come from under review all the time. From time to time, it is necessary to do things at Heathrow and other airports to try to control or mitigate that threat. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said a short while ago in a statement to the House, it is neither possible nor wise of Ministers to provide a "running commentary" on what is happening from day to day.

Will the Secretary of State comment on the illogical situation whereby some airports pay for policing while other expanding, quite large, airports do not? It is not fair competition policy, nor is it fair to the council tax payer that that disparity should endure.

It is no doubt one of things that we will look at. My concern, and the concern of my Department, is to make sure that there is adequate policing, no matter what the source of finance. It is for the Home Office to decide the appropriate funding of police forces. I need to be satisfied that there is an adequate police service at every airport, depending on their size and the nature of the threat that may exist.

In recent weeks, armed police have been deployed in my constituency to protect the flight path from Manchester airport as a result of the recent scare. Without providing a running commentary, as the Secretary of State said, does he nevertheless agree that it is vital that airport communities be provided with clear information about what is being done, and that we should avoid alarmist statements from members of the Government and others?

Alarmist statements, no matter where they come from, should be avoided because they are usually unhelpful. Yes, we will try and keep the public and everybody who has a direct interest informed as much as we can, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will accept that there can be occasions when information becomes available and action needs to be taken immediately. Sometimes it is overt, sometimes it is covert, but it is not always wise to make a public announcement about what is happening all the time. I should have thought it was obvious to the hon. Gentleman that to reveal what we know, and therefore possibly, by implication, what we do not know, would not help anyone at all.

We all appreciate the need for tighter airport security, but what is being done to get more X-ray scanners operational? The number of times I have been stuck at Heathrow with huge numbers of people trying to get through one or two scanners is ridiculous. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with BAA and other airport authorities to tackle the problem?

As it happens, I had an interesting discussion about just that matter a couple of weeks ago. The problem at Heathrow, particularly in relation to the domestic departures area, which is probably the one where my hon. Friend was held up, is not a lack of scanners, but a failure to deploy the right number of staff at specific times. It has been a problem at Heathrow since Christmas. There is a system in place to step up the numbers of staff to meet the flow, which is fairly predictable, but on a number of occasions that has not been done. We have spoken to BAA about that. People will put up with the inconvenience of being searched, but they cannot understand why the queue sometimes stretches right out across the concourse because staffing levels are inadequate. It is a staffing problem, rather than a problem with the scanners themselves.

If he will make a statement about the public bond issue by Metronet. [100188]

The first three PPP contracts were completed with Tube Lines on 31 December. I expect the other two contracts to be completed with Metronet shortly. Metronet plans to raise part of the necessary finance through a bond offering.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that when the disclosure period for the Metronet bond issue starts, there will be full disclosure in line with previous practice; or will it be like the recent PFI bond issued in connection with the upgrading of the Al in Yorkshire by Road Management Services (Finance) plc, in which important information was blacked out before the documents were deposited at the lawyers Freshfields, so that taxpayers cannot find out what is going on?

I am sure that Metronet will comply with all the obligations incumbent upon it in relation to its bond launch. That is what it must do.

What recent assessment he has made of the impact of modern, reliable bus services on reducing car usage; and if he will make a statement. [100189]

Current and potential bus users consistently rate improvements to frequency, punctuality, reliability and cost as the factors most likely to encourage them to make better use of bus services. Significant increases in patronage, typically between 5 per cent. and 25 per cent., but occasionally significantly more, have followed major improvements on bus corridors. Studies suggest that about one third of new users previously made the journey by car.

My constituents will be greatly heartened by that. We are undergoing a huge programme to introduce the Fastway bus system, which I am glad to say my right hon. Friend visited a few weeks ago. Inevitably, there is much disruption, and my constituents need to know that that disruption will pay off in the long run, and that they will have a better environment and a better way of getting to Gatwick airport, in particular. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disruption is well worth the effort?

I was very impressed by the partnership between the local council, the county council and the bus company in producing a scheme that they and I believe will be of real benefit to the people of Crawley and will enable Crawley to continue to be an economically dynamic city. It has been encouraging to see that. My hon. Friend can take heart from the increases in patronage that have taken place in other areas where similar systems have been introduced—as I said, between 5 and 25 per cent. That has been a real benefit to existing bus travellers and an encouragement to those who previously went by car to consider the new system as a sensible alternative.

Does the Minister accept that in many parts of the country, particularly rural areas, there is little or no public transport, so cars are essential if people are to have an acceptable form of mobility? Does he agree that if people are to use public transport, particularly buses, there must be adequate park and ride or car parking for those who come from areas where there is no public transport to link up with bus services? What encouragement is he giving to councils throughout the country to introduce more park and ride, so that there is adequate parking for people who have to get to a bus service before they can use it?

Of course, far more people in rural areas now have access to bus services than previously, not least because of various rural bus grants that have been of significant advantage. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. As I told the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), there is considerable scope for park-and-ride facilities that link with either bus or rail stations. That requires proper partnership between local authorities, bus companies and rail companies. In some areas, that is working very well, and some companies are extremely innovative, while others are not moving so fast. We are trying to encourage the average companies to come up to the level of the best. If he has a particular problem in his area that he would like me to address, I shall be more than happy to receive representations from him.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that in some areas where bus services have been deregulated, largely outside London, the promised increased reliability has failed to materialise. That has happened because some of the operators choose to run buses that are not properly maintained and, in some cases, not even properly cleaned. That has obvious implications for safety as well as reliability. Does that not imply that at the very best we should be considering some extension of public ownership such as that which has already been made on some routes in London, or at the very least an increase in regulation?

Even in London, the buses are run by private companies, although under a different regime. If my hon. Friend believes that companies are running vehicles that are unsafe or not properly maintained, or has information in that regard, the matter should be referred to the traffic commissioners, who are responsible for considering such matters. He is right to say that there are variations in performance. That is exactly why we have established between local authorities and bus companies the Bus Partnership Forum, which is considering a number of the issues that have been nagging away at those bodies for years. It is also starting to thrash out the details and new policies needed to achieve much better practice throughout the country, to the benefit of bus passengers and transport as a whole.

May I point out to the Minister that there has been a serious reduction in bus routes in south Oxfordshire, affecting the Reading-Goring and Chinnor-Thame routes and several others? May I also invite him to explain why the 20 million rural bus challenge seems to have done very little except make life more challenging for rural bus users? Can he allay the justified suspicions of those who think that that is caused partly by money being cynically skewed away from well run councils in the shires and the south and directed towards badly run Labour councils in the north?

Local authorities throughout the country have had a significant increase in their moneys for local transport plans. I shall, of course, check the increase that Oxfordshire has received. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the local authority as to how it spends its money. The rural bus challenge has had a significant effect and made a considerable improvement in many areas. I cannot instantly recall what schemes have been introduced by Oxfordshire county council and whether they have been agreed by us. However, in general, the rural bus challenge has made a significant improvement. More people have been given access to bus services, and the initiative has helped to reduce rural isolation and provide access to shops and employment, as well as health and education facilities.

What plans he has to upgrade the Al in Bassetlaw. [100190]

In line with the Government's policy of reducing congestion and improving safety on trunk roads, there are plans to carry out major improvements at several junctions on the Al in Bassetlaw. Those include replacement of the roundabouts at Blyth, Apleyhead and Markham Moor with flyover junctions and the provision of a new junction to provide access to Elkesley village.

After 30 years of procrastination, my constituents are delighted that we have a Government who are prepared to put in the investment. Indeed, my constituents will be singing and dancing alongside the traffic queues, soon to go. So enthused are they that should the Minister contemplate going further and bringing motorways in as part of that investment, there will be further support. Will he consider the enthusiasm of my constituents in terms of future motorway improvements?

I am sure that I will have the opportunity to do that when I visit my hon. Friend's constituency in just over a week, when the enthusiasm of his constituents will no doubt be manifest.

If he will make a statement on the Public Administration Committee's third report, on ombudsman issues, with special reference to the role of the Cabinet Office. [100197]

We will study the Committee's report and respond in the normal way.

This report deals, first, with the Hinduja cover up and, secondly, a less known cover up, which was described by the ombudsman as the only occasion on which the Government have refused to accept the ombudsman's findings on a matter of access to Government information. We hear a great deal about freedom of information from this Government, but when it comes to reality there is no freedom of information and one cannot find anything out because they are so secretive.

"We recommend that the Government reconsider its decision to refuse to accept the Ombudsman's findings in the case of Mr Robathan and publish the required information."

As I have made clear, the Government will consider the Committee's recommendations and respond formally in the usual way. In the first place, that will, of course, be to the Select Committee.

I am one of the Members who "dominates" the Public Administration Committee. Will the Minister take note of the fact that the new ombudsman is appearing before us this week? We might want to ask also about press reports that the Government are resisting releasing information on gifts to Ministers, so will he perhaps enlighten us further as to Government policy on freedom of information regarding gifts to Ministers?

The final decision on what is in the report is obviously a matter for the ombudsman, Ann Abraham. I should point out that I had a constructive meeting with the new ombudsman last week in which we discussed the evolving role of the ombudsman. There is the basis there for an extremely constructive relationship.

If he will make a statement on steps that he is taking to reduce the time taken by Ministers to reply to Members' letters. [100198]

The Cabinet Office issues guidance to Departments on handling correspondence from Members of Parliament. However, it is up to individual Ministers to ensure that their Department responds to all correspondence promptly and accurately.

I am grateful to the Minister for that informative reply. Given that the Cabinet Office guidance states that the handling of correspondence with Members of Parliament, peers and the general public is an issue to which the Government "attaches the greatest importance", can he explain to me why the letter that I sent on 7 May 2002 on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Steve Watkins of 72 Embleton Way, Buckingham, on the national health service human resources and payroll system, did not receive a reply from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), until 16 January this year? On the assumption that the Minister regards that delay of eight months and nine days as unacceptable, when will he do something about it?

Order. We have only 10 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, I am happy to take that matter up with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, I have already corresponded with him since the last Cabinet Office Question Time in relation to correspondence to the Department of Health. It is important to point out for the benefit of the House the scale of the challenge facing Departments: about 160,000 letters from Members were received across Departments in 2001 and the Prime Minister alone received more than 1 million letters from the general public in 2002.

Are Ministers encouraged to deal with letters in a number of ways? Some communications are urgent and need swift responses, while others may be more routine. Of course we do not want to wait for as long as eight months for answers to those, but should not important communications be upgraded?

I am sympathetic to that point. Obviously it would be wise to identify the relevant Minister in such correspondence, but the fact remains that we should try to answer all letters as expeditiously as possible. Targets are set by specific Whitehall Departments, and it is on that basis that individual Ministers are responsible, consistent with Cabinet Office guidance.

As the Minister will know, many organisations have become considerably more efficient by using electronic mail for communications of this sort, in terms of both the time taken to reply and the cost involved. Unless such systems are implemented properly, however, they are worse than useless: e-mails are diverted all over the place, or disappear into the ether. Would the Minister consider commissioning work in his Department to bring together the various players in Departments, Parliament and so on, and to establish whether an efficient system of e-mail between Members and Ministers could be devised for Members who wish to communicate electronically?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's expertise in this area. It is a matter of record that the House has considerably improved its facilities for electronic communications in recent years, which is all to the good, but I will give some thought to the hon. Gentleman's question and then write to him.

Will the Cabinet Office undertake to publish a league table showing how rapidly Ministers respond to correspondence? Will it introduce sanctions so that the worst performing Ministers suffer some penalty, such as the loss of their exemption from the London congestion charge?

That would seem a curious sanction indeed.

If he will list the subjects on which Lord Birt has advised the strategy unit in the last six months. [100199]

Lord Birt was appointed by the Prime Minister as an unpaid adviser under paragraph 51 of the ministerial code. His role is to provide the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers with long-term internal strategic analysis and policy thinking.

We need more freedom of information. I asked which subjects Lord Birt was advising on, but the Minister did not give me the answer to that question. Why is what Lord Birt is doing such a secret? Is it that embarrassing?

I am well aware of the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the hon. Gentleman about this. I remind him that, in his letter to the hon. Gentleman dated 21 May 2002, the Prime Minister made it clear that Lord Birt provides private internal advice to the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers on a range of issues.

Would my hon. Friend be prepared to ask Lord Birt to advise the strategy unit on Government policy on waste? As he knows, the unit recently suggested that the Cabinet Office should conduct a review of the current division of responsibility between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. If Lord Birt would not be the right person to conduct the review, could the Minister ask someone else to do it on behalf of the Government?

Two distinct issues are inherent in that question, but I will certainly consider how we can best deal with the issues relating to waste.

What plans he has to review whether the requirement that each civil service agency undergoes a quinquennial review of its public sector status should continue. [100200]

The Government no longer require quinquennial reviews of executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies. Because our focus is on the effectiveness of delivery of public services rather than on individual structures, Departments are now being asked to look holistically at the contribution that agencies, NDPBs and others make to achieve their delivery objectives.

Now that the agency system is mature, might this not be the time to review the whole basis on which agencies work, especially smaller agencies? Could the system be refined to match more closely the size and function of an agency, rather than the focus being on the undertaking of reviews?

My hon. Friend will be aware that a joint review of agency policy was recently carried out by the Cabinet Office and the Treasury, and the report, "Better Government Services: Executive Agencies in the 21st Century"—copies are available in the Library was published in July 2002. On my hon. Friend's specific point about the function of the reviews of agency work, I agree that the challenge is not solely to look at individual structures, but to ensure that the structures that are in place reflect the delivery objectives of the Department. That view is shared by the Cabinet Secretary, who, through his work on advancing performance partnerships, is undertaking significant work in this area.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 25—Power of OFCOM to retain costs of carrying out spectrum functions.

Clause 1(3) and (4) of the Bill will allow Ofcom to borrow money commercially. That will enable Ofcom to smooth out uneven cash flows that may arise as the result of the unevenness of receipts. New clause 23 will allow the Secretary of State to guarantee Ofcom borrowing to ensure that it is able to obtain the most advantageous terms.

We welcome the new clauses, although we should prefer new clause 25 to go further. If the new clauses are accepted, the Bill will have more than 400 clauses. I hope that the House will recognise that this afternoon's debate brings to an end a lengthy process. Some of us have been engaged in it for the best part of three months, but it has been a happy time. As we progress through the afternoon, we will discover the joy of Government amendments that put into effect changes that we advocated in Committee. That shows that the Committee debate was a constructive process. The past 24 hours has been quite good, as we have seen that all our work did not come to nothing. We are grateful to the Minister for that.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the happiness of the past three months. He is right that the House has before it a number of amendments that reflect the discussions that we had in Committee. They deal with matters raised by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, which is how the process should work.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Northern Ireland Members have pressing matters to address and we wish them success, but I am sure that were they here today, they would want to welcome the new clause. It appears at least to signal an opportunity for the increased roll-out of broadband in Northern Ireland.

I, too, welcome the new clause; it clearly makes sense for DETI to be given the powers to make such expenditure. Although I would not oppose that, I have some questions for the Minister, especially on the relationship of the provision to expenditure in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Northern Ireland is largely rural—rather like Scotland, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) pointed out. How will the provision affect rural areas of Northern Ireland? What consideration has the Minister given to the wireless and satellite provision of broadband? He will be aware of the excellent document produced by the Communication Workers Union, which shows that Britain is 20th in the world for the provision of broadband.

Will the Minister comment on the fact that although we have the second highest growth rate in Europe for broadband, some locations are still struggling to make their case for broadband to service providers? Does he welcome initiatives such as that announced last week by the regional development agency for my area, the East of England Development Agency, of investment of about £5.8 million of its funds and Government funds to identify for network providers locations where broadband could be promoted? Of the two initiatives announced last week, one was in rural Diss, in Norfolk, and the other in urban Ipswich; both are good examples of the joint initiatives undertaken by the DTI and RDAs.

We have had a brief but interesting discussion on the roll-out of broadband and we shall come back to that subject in a later amendment.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to praise BT for reducing the threshold at which it will enable its exchanges when people have registered an interest in it? In many areas, but not all, the threshold has dropped from 650 to 350 people. However, will he use his particular powers of persuasion to ensure that the threshold is reduced to 350 people in all areas, not just some?

I very much welcome BT's announcement to reduce those thresholds. Of course, the level at which they are set is a commercial decision for BT. It should be recognised that the cable companies play an important part in extending access to broadband—they still have more than half the market, I believe—and there are about 200 resellers of BT services, so the industry is making a big effort, and I welcome the progress that has been made.

That the clause be read a Second time.

The right hon. Gentleman makes a persuasive case about the amount of illegal material available on the web. However, during debates on the Bill in Committee and on Report, hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly the Government, have made it clear how little control Ofcom will have over the internet. It is not a regulatory body for the internet, which will remain unregulated on the whole. How will the new clause, or any work by Ofcom, tackle that problem, as it involves the expression of free will through a medium with which we cannot interfere?

The hon. Gentleman is running ahead of me; I shall come to precisely that point in a moment. I am arguing not for control over the internet by Ofcom or anyone else, but for the ability of Ofcom to draw together all parts of the industry—both the content and the servicing industries—to identify technological solutions to the problem, but I will come to that point in just a moment.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concerns for the industry—I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and to speak at length on the issue later—but it is helpful to say as we are talking about movies that cinemas are doing better than ever and more money is coming into the contents sector than ever. Yes, people are ripping off stuff by downloading it, but we should not pretend that that is the death of the movie industry quite yet.

The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is valid at the moment. The problem is that the technology is in an embryonic state at present. It is still quite difficult to download an entire movie across the internet, but that will not be so for all time, especially as broadband becomes much more readily available throughout the country, as we all hope it will. The ability to download moving image material, not just music and speech, will grow. The hon. Gentleman is right as far as things stand at the moment, but considerable potential exists for the problem to grow much more than it has done up to now.

I am anxious to establish whether the right hon. Gentleman believes that his proposal is merely necessary, or whether he judges that it is also sufficient. In the light of the concern that he has expressed, and the evolution of technology, does he think that his concerns will be adequately allayed by the passage of new clause 1, or does he believe that the scale of the problem will in due course necessitate an overhaul of copyright design and patent law?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the European copyright directive is on the table at the moment, and the Minister's Department is actively engaged in developing the legislation that will come before the House in due course about the implementation of that directive. These issues, particularly in the digital environment, are absolutely germane to that work on the development of copyright legislation. My new clause is by no means an entirely sufficient answer to the problem; it is an attempt to raise the issue and to develop some mechanisms for drawing together a cross-industry approach to try to find some answers. I doubt whether we will ever address the issue 100 per cent. If we can move towards that point, however, I will be much happier.

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. What would he do about companies that, in effect, make and sell the DVDs and music CDs, but also make the equipment that allows copying to be done? How do we combat that?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A number of companies are both equipment manufacturers and content providers. I do not think that we can prohibit the manufacture of particular types of equipment. What we can do, however, is remind companies of their responsibilities in this matter. I hope that some of them will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend says.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clause, which is very important, especially as technology changes. Does he think that all this is a question of hoping to have an effect? Is not the new clause an example of wish over practical application? Does not he think that it is rather wishy-washy? Does he really think that it will change anything?

I absolutely think that it has the potential to change things. I do not believe that we bring about change on every occasion by legislating to prohibit or require something. We can bring about change by legislating to encourage things to happen, which is precisely what the new clause seeks to do.

A very Conservative position.

In response to the sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), that is not simply the preserve of Conservatism.

Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on from this point, I want to congratulate him on trying to find a technological solution to the problems of counterfeiting and piracy. I suggest to him that that is a long way from coming, and we will need to go a big distance before it is achieved. Does he have any comments about the general cultural environment in which many young people do not regard this activity as a crime and are happy to be involved in it? Does he think that we must tackle that type of culture, too?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is a particular problem with the younger age groups, among whom this activity is regarded as an entirely natural phenomenon, even though, as I mentioned, many of them are aware that it is illegal. It is regarded in a way that is similar to the way that some people regard speeding on a motorway: they know that they should not do it, but they do it none the less. It is absolutely essential to change the culture and to get across the message that this is not a pain-free exercise and that doing it to too great an extent will kill the goose that produces the eggs in the first place. I hope that Ofcom and others can play a role in helping to change the culture in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described.

I start by welcoming the overall thrust of new clause 1, which was moved by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). We sought to raise this issue several times in Committee. I moved an amendment to clause 3, on the general duties of Ofcom, the intention of which was not vastly dissimilar to that of the new clause. At that time, I expressed some reservations about Ofcom deciding the direction of technological development. I was glad, therefore, to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that his aim is not to allow Ofcom to impose a standard on the industry or decide between competing technologies. That would not be an appropriate role for Ofcom.

The hon. Gentleman may know that the copyright directive, in its post-negotiated form, allows for different countries in the European Union to resolve this issue in different ways—in particular, in respect of video and cassette tapes. The directive allows countries to enforce a levy on blank tapes, but it also says that the levy may be a levy of nothing, because the British Government have insisted that we should maintain the system that allows individuals to copy for their own private use so as to time-shift. When the directive is eventually incorporated into United Kingdom law, would the hon. Gentleman wish us to abandon that tradition or to maintain it?

We have moved a long way from the issue of copying on to blank tapes, which is no longer the main problem. I have always regarded the levy as very much a second-best solution. In respect of the current problem, I do not think that a levy is necessarily the solution, and I want to pick up on some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury on what could provide a solution.

Will the hon. Gentleman suggest some answers to the question that I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) about companies that not only make the music and CDs but make recordable CDs and the recording equipment? What should we do with those companies?

Sony is probably the best example of a company in that position, and a question does arise about the responsibilities of manufacturers. When DVDs were first launched, regional encryption was used to protect copyright. The intention was that we in this country would purchase region 2 DVDs, and that if we purchased a DVD in the United States it could not be played on equipment purchased in this country. However, Dixons on Victoria street stocks multi-region DVDs—they are everywhere. Manufacturers have produced multi-region DVDs that are designed, I presume, to overcome the protection that the copyright owner has installed.

Someone who perfectly legitimately buys a copy of "The Two Towers" in the United States should have a perfect right to watch it in this country. The attempts to foil the interests of consumers are crazy.

I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point. I was about to say that the technological solution will always fail. Attempts to counter the problem by trying to build in technological safeguards merely provide a challenge to the hackers and those who seek to get round the safeguards. They will always win. That has happened in a number of cases recently. For example, a court in Norway dealt with the case of someone who was 15 when he developed a computer program to overcome the technology in DVDs that prevents copying. He was taken to court by the copyright owner, but the court upheld his right to do what he wanted with the DVD. That included copying it.

For the sake of accuracy, may I make it clear that the person accused in Norway had written the computer program to be able to play his legitimately purchased DVDs on the Linux and not the Windows operating system. That is why the court found in his favour. There was no suggestion that he was copying for resale or anything like that. He merely wanted to watch his DVDs and was smart enough to find a way of doing that.

As I understand it, however, the problem was that he made available on the internet the program that he had developed. It was then downloaded by millions of other people who used it not to watch DVDs on a different operating system but to crack the safeguards built into DVDs. That enabled them to copy them, which demonstrates the limitations of technology. Each time that someone develops a new method of trying to safeguard copyright through technology, someone else will find a way round it.

I have been following my hon. Friend's remarks with interest. Does he not realise that even now there is a danger resulting from the digital terrestrial and satellite transmission of movies and from digital audio broadcasting? In theory, there is nothing to prevent someone from burning a DVD of something taken off air with digital quality.

That is perfectly true. To some extent, it is a question of the desirability of the films involved. The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to "Spider-Man" and "Star Wars: Episode II" and it will be some time before they become available on television. Part of the attraction is having a copy on DVD before one's friends have even had a chance to see the film in the cinema. My hon. Friend is right about the threat.

I, too, am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has tabled the new clause, but I am hesitant about supporting it. I am broadly sympathetic to the thrust of the issues that he has raised in relation to piracy and counterfeiting. It must be a major concern to any right-thinking person that acts of theft occur on a daily basis as the result of organised crime. My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting has been on a number of busts with the police and other organisations in the past three months, and he has tried to point out that the buying of CDs that have been manufactured deliberately to get round the copyright law is clearly wrong and immoral. However, I do not share the apocalyptic version of the future with which my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) have presented us.

Can the hon. Gentleman not make a distinction between the young person sitting in his bedroom making a copy of a CD for his own use and the mass production of illegally counterfeited and copied products that one sees in marketplaces around the UK?

I am sorry that I am not making myself plain enough, as that is indeed the distinction that I want to draw. It is sometimes not drawn sufficiently clearly in the debate about piracy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to the 62 per cent. of young people who think that it is perfectly legitimate to download music from the internet without payment. Probably 95 per cent. of the people with whom 1 was at school at the age of 18 copied "Top of the Pops" on to a cassette on a Sunday evening so that they could listen to it at various times during the week. I see hon. Members around the Chamber nodding, including Conservative Members and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan)—who as I can remember his constituency will get intoHansard for having engaged in that illegal activity.

My hon. Friend is right that it is likely that people will still want to have a night out in front of a big screen at the cinema. All the evidence of the past 20 years, especially at the time when video technology was developing, confirms that, and I would not argue against it. However, he should bear in mind that the technological ability to download movies will rapidly increase, and we shall have to take that into account.

My right hon. Friend is right. I only wish that the capacity to download into the Rhondda valley was available rather swifter, as we seem to have no prospect of broadband technology for some years to come—2007 is the most likely date at the moment. I worry that we are perpetuating a gap between the information rich and the information poor.

If my hon. Friend does not think that Ofcom is the right place, where is?

My right hon. Friend pre-empts me, and I know that he is not in favour of pre-emption. I would merely say that the Patent Office, which historically has responded only to complaints and to changes in the law, should have a proactive role, and it is undoubtedly where the power should remain. Of course, different elements of the law are implemented in different ways. The private Member's Bill introduced last year by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) would have ensured that certain aspects of the matter were dealt with much more robustly. That is why I do not support the new clause.

I find myself very much in sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). I remember that a famous battle of Maldon was fought a couple of millennia ago. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not think that hardware copyright protection was the right way forward. It is in that spirit that I rise to speak, because I am concerned that the thrust of the new clause is in that direction—a direction that has been very much advanced in the United States through measures such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 and which is causing huge controversy between people in the industry. That is particularly true in relation to the internet, where people in Europe and in the US often represent different points of view.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to shift from the ownership of a particular item of music to micro-billing or micro-payment for the rental of an item on demand, be it a video or music track? The challenge is that video-on-demand trials have not competed economically with the comparable physical space model, the video hire shop. Perhaps he would agree that when a video arrives in broadband form for the first time in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), it should be called "A Fish Called Rhondda".

I will not follow up that last point.

rose—

No doubt the hon. Gentleman is about to say that he has never heard that one before.

I just want to say that a fish and chip shop in my constituency is called "A Fish Called Rhondda".

I am pleased to hear that.

Surely the problem is lack of regulation of the internet. Records and movies will still be available for free if people place them on the internet. Until we have effective regulation that benefits the companies involved, such ideas and projects will fail.

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the internet. The valid point has been made that by encouraging broadband access we are creating the conditions in which even more piracy can occur. If the Government succeed in meeting their target of millions of broadband users, they will create millions of potential piraters. Who would be liable for that? I fear that the new clause would steer us on the route of making internet service providers responsible for content. I am not convinced that that is right. I would be loth to tell an internet service provider that, as part of its licence condition, it must implement a particular hardware or software copyright protection, just as I would not want the Royal Mail to be prosecuted if people used it to send dodgy pirated videos. In general, the Bill establishes that internet service providers are more like the Royal Mail than a publisher, and that is the correct approach.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the use of notice and take down is one of the most effective means to date of dealing with the problem? Under that approach, ISPs are made aware that materials are being downloaded from their servers which are in breach of copyright on a large scale. They then have to take some responsibility by removing the site that is making such material available illegally.

Absolutely, and more work could be done on that. There are specific issues for internet service providers, which have a legal responsibility in both directions. The problem is more than a breach of copyright material; it also involves libellous material. ISPs do not want people to use their services to publish such things, but they have a contract with the publisher and do not want to be sued for removing material.

This is one of the rare occasions on which my opinion has been swayed by the debate. Although I welcomed the new clause, I was not keen to include it in the Bill. I now think that it should be included, although I hold by the original view that I expressed when I intervened on the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). The new clause is wishy-washy. Nevertheless, the problem needs to be addressed.

We are talking about restructuring the business model used by the audiovisual industry, particularly film and music. One of the expectations inherent in the decision to invest in broadband technology throughout the country is that consumers will spend significantly larger sums, perhaps £50, £60 or £70 a month, on audiovisual services. Is not the important thing to make sure that the money that is going to cable and other forms of digital television is getting through to the creators?

Yes, but it is important that the provision of such audiovisual services should involve a legally or morally binding provision. There was a debate in the Chamber way back in 1900 or 1910 about the provision of books to libraries. Members debated the question of whether authors should benefit from the availability of their books in libraries. Of course they should—if everyone read books from libraries and did not buy them there would be no incentive for creativity—there would be no incentive for authors to write or publish books, unless they simply wanted the gratification of seeing their name in print. Thinking about it, that probably satisfies the desires of most authors but, nevertheless, many of them want some income from their work as well.

One can, indeed, laugh from a sedentary position.

By saying that such legislation is wishy-washy, the hon. Gentleman amplifies the point that I made in an earlier intervention, but someone has to start somewhere. Of course, he is right. He alluded in his speech to the fact that organisations such as Sony produce movies and music on the one hand and the very equipment that can be used to cut DVDs and CDs on the other. I accept that there is a problem but I repeat that someone has to start somewhere. No doubt, there are organisations similar to Ofcom, such as the Federal Communications Commission in the United States, but Britain ought to have a role too.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. One reason why these technologies have become more pervasive is that they are the by-product of worldwide standards groups such as the Moving Picture Experts Group which defines the MPEG standard behind the DVD format and the MP3 music format.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

rose

Before I conclude, I will be generous and give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The irony of multi-region DVDs is that most manufacturers will sell a multi-regional DVD player in this country because there was a massive market in pirated software to replace the firmware in DVD players to enable people to play DVDs from other regions.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Where there is a will, there is a way, and where there is a 15-year-old hacker, he will hack through it.

We have had an interesting discussion. The Government certainly believe that copyright theft over the internet is a serious issue for many rights holders. It is essential that those who invest in creative activity can gain a fair reward from their work, whether in movies and music, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, or in other parts of the publishing industry. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for underlining the importance of the matter in new clause 1.

The Minister is surely not suggesting that the DTI and more especially the Patent Office would pull groups of people together to try to agree international standards?

I am suggesting that the Patent Office can and does bring together different parts of the industry. Indeed, the Patent Office acts as the chairman for the counterfeiting and piracy forum, which brings together the relevant interests in the public and private sectors to discuss better co-operation and co-ordination against this crime. In the past year, for example, its members have discussed closer working between affected industries and the police hi-tech crime unit. In addition, the proposals that we have made in the context of the UK implementation of the copyright directive include a new criminal offence in copyright law to apply to those who wilfully make copyright material available on the internet without a licence in the course of business proceedings or on a commercial scale. That will assist enforcers seeking to deal with piracy of digital material.

The debate has been extremely interesting and valuable. Part of my purpose in tabling the new clause was to ensure that the House had a chance to air some of the issues around the developing problem. Every contributor to the debate recognised that the issue is real. There is a serious problem, and as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said, there is potentially a disincentive to creativity if unauthorised downloading of material takes off in a major way.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

It is generally accepted that the rapid introduction of broadband technology in Britain is important to our country. Schools, universities, hospitals, medical practices, businesses and domestic consumers will all benefit from being able to receive and transmit web-based information. The Government, too, have a big interest in the roll-out of the technology. As the Confederation of British Industry stated, broadband is central to the growth of the knowledge-based economy.

"lack of competition in the telecommunications market has stalled investment in the required infrastructure".

And in a better state.

As my hon. Friend says, we hope that it will be in a better state than the roads or railways.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in requiring BT to carry out the local loop unbundling exercise, a framework was created for competition in the provision of broadband services in the local loop? The difficulty was that after the delay of carrying out the exercise, there was no apparent demand from other suppliers to act as competitors through the local loop.