asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they propose amending the Licensing Act 2003 to allow those living in the vicinity of licensed premises to make representations with regard to the grant of 24-hour licences so as effectively to protect their amenity.

My Lords, as was explained in the House during the stages of the Licensing Bill, such an amendment is not necessary. From 7 February local residents have been able to make representations to their licensing authority about variations to existing licences and certificates and new applications for premises licences and club premises certificates on grounds relating to the four licensing objectives, including public nuisance.

My Lords, the Minister's reply, for which I thank him, refers to representations made in respect of public nuisance. Do not the Government realise that "public nuisance" is a crime and sets a legal threshold far above the comings and goings of the public in the early hours of the morning to a pub or club? Therefore, in practical terms, is it not the truth that ordinary residents in ordinary locations do not have a leg to stand on in the licensing procedures under the Act?

My Lords, I am in no position to quarrel with what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, says about a legal application of "public nuisance". But the Government's position has always been that the prevention of public nuisance includes the prevention of—and I shall quote, for reasons that I will make clear—

"the reduction of the living and working amenity and environment of interested parties",

in the vicinity of licensed premises. That quote comes from the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, at the time of the Licensing Bill. As we promised, those words are now in the guidance issued by the Secretary of State in July 2004.

So, whatever else "public nuisance" means, for the purpose of the guidance, it covers the points the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, wants to cover, and local residents are able to make representations.

My Lords, as this Question is about possible amendments to the Act, is there any possibility of making the fees more realistic? I know that there was a debate on this last week, but is the Minister aware that in areas of London such as Soho the council is allowed to charge hundreds of pounds, and the cost of policing and caring for the licensed premises is thousands of pounds? Council tax payers are going to bear a very heavy burden. Is there anything that can be done about that?

My Lords, I am reluctant to burden the House by going over ground which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, says, was debated in the House only last week. The thrust of that debate was that we revised the proposed charges; we increased them significantly. Generally, it is agreed that nearly all local authorities will find that the charges cover their costs. At the same time there were considerable complaints from potential licensees that the charges were too high. There was an attempt to make both those arguments against the Government at the same lime. It did not work very well.

My Lords, will the individual residents associations and local amenity societies be able to make representations to the licensing authority that a particular area should be declared one of cumulative impact? Will the DCMS advise local authorities in conducting the public meetings recommended in Section 2.7 of the guidance to ensure that an opportunity is given to local residents to make submissions on that matter? Will the collection of information which demonstrates cumulative impact as the evidential basis for the decision to have a special policy include crimes of violence against the person and call-outs for ambulances in the vicinity of licensed premises? If so, why cannot it also be used to assess the impact of the Act on crime and disorder, as I have suggested 15 times?

My Lords, those who represent residents will be able to make representations. I do not know whether all local residents associations will fall into that category. I assume that most will. Therefore, they will be able to make representations.

On the detailed points the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, makes about cumulative impact—I did not fully understand his point about ambulances—I do not think that it would be wise for me to seek to interpret the guidance at this Dispatch Box. I refer him back to that guidance, and if he has further questions I shall be happy to answer them.

My Lords, returning to the Question, does the noble Lord agree that the present situation is far from satisfactory, for the reasons given by noble Lords, and that, at least, consideration should be given to whether something should be done about it?

My Lords, I am not at all clear what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, means by "the present situation". Does he mean the existing licensing laws which will be overtaken by the Licensing Act later this year?

Yes, my Lords.

My Lords, in that case I have to agree with the noble Lord. We would not otherwise have introduced the Licensing Act.

My Lords, will the Minister not accept that one of the problems with his response to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is that guidance notes cannot change the legal meaning of "public nuisance"?

As the Act now stands, there is a lack of clarity. One has to wade through the enormous set of guidance notes to have a clue about what is meant. Regarding "vicinity" and those who might make representations, there is a caveat whereby the initial decision on this issue could be subject to a legal challenge in the courts that could put off local authorities and those locally wanting to make representations. Will the Minister not accept that it would have been wise to accept the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and fought for by noble Lords during the passage of the Bill, and that,

"unreasonable diminution of living and working amenity and environment of interested parties living in the vicinity of the premises",

would have made a lot more sense than simply making reference to "public nuisance"?

I must say, my Lords, I find that slightly ungrateful, since the words of the noble Baroness's own amendment are found in the guidance.

Not everybody has to wade through the guidance. The important thing is that local licensing authorities have to take account of it, and can be called to account if they do not. That is the protection she wanted when she moved those amendments.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they propose to take steps to ensure that the public are informed of the benefits provided to each country affected by the tsunami disaster by public donations and government aid.

My Lords, Ministers have made a number of statements to Parliament, the media and the public about the United Kingdom's response to the Indian Ocean earthquake tsunami disaster. The Department for International Development has regularly reported details of its response through its website. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development is meeting the Disasters Emergency Committee this month to consider how it and the Government will report fully to the British people on the unprecedented response.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her Answer goes halfway to answering the Question I asked? Is she further aware that the amount collected by the British public is now close to £400 million, and that, if I am correct, the Government agreed to match that figure? That being the case, do the British public not have a right to know to which country the money has gone, how much has gone to each country, that all the money raised will go to the countries affected, and, not least, that the smaller countries, such as the Maldives, will get their fair share?

My Lords, all the information that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, is requesting with regard to the Government's contribution is on the website. It is also available to Members of Parliament through our regular updating. I recognise that members of the public may be interested in individual countries, which is part of the reason my right honourable friend and the Minister in the Department for International Development have been keeping members of the public from particular communities up to date with what is happening in Sri Lanka, Indonesia and elsewhere.

With regard to the Government's contribution, my understanding is that some £300 million has gone to the Disasters Emergency Committee. The Government have given their humanitarian response. We have not yet said how much we will give for longer-term reconstruction. The needs assessments will be completed over the next week or so and there will then be a reconstruction conference in Manila. I agree with the noble Lord that we have to ensure that all the countries affected are part of the reconstruction effort.

My Lords, what help is the UK now able to give to Indonesia, bearing in mind that many foreign aid workers are being turned away? In particular, is the noble Baroness aware that all the staff at the Banda Aceh hospital were killed in the disaster? Is there anything we can do to support distance learning to enable accelerated training at the Banda Aceh medical college?

My Lords, Indonesia's needs are enormous, but I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Baroness that immediate assistance has now reached most areas. Transitional and permanent shelters remain an issue of critical concern, but comprehensive food distribution and health surveillance systems have been established.

On the longer-term point raised by the noble Baroness, the needs assessments are currently being carried out. We anticipate that those assessments, including Indonesia, will be completed over the next week or so. We will then be able to look at the point raised by the noble Baroness with regard to support for distance learning and other areas of activity.

My Lords, I am not clear from the Minister's answers whether she is saying that the Government will match the £300 million or £400 million. The Prime Minister and other Ministers gave a clear commitment at the time. Will the noble Baroness make it clear to the House that the Government will be providing at least £300 million?

My Lords, I shall repeat what I said, and it remains the case. The Government said at an earlier stage that we would match the amount. We have established new money for emergency relief and we have made it absolutely clear that, once the needs assessments are complete, we will look at the longer-term reconstruction efforts. That is in addition to, and completely separate from, the programmed budgets we already have in the affected countries. So I am not able to say from the Dispatch Box that we will simply match the amount, because we may well go beyond it.

My Lords, will the Government remove any funds for development from countries that are not affected by the tsunami to boost funds in the affected region?

My Lords, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, we have not anticipated that we will be reprogramming any of the money that we have currently programmed to countries in southeast Asia. A number of countries have put out their response to the tsunami. They have not only said how much they have given in emergency relief but they have reprogrammed current budgets. We have not done that. That decision will not be taken until we see the needs assessment later this month and look again at what we think countries will need.

My Lords, how much money has been committed in existing schemes, and what proportion would that leave out of the £300 million that the Government have promised?

My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness does not understand the point that I am making. When the initial humanitarian needs were made clear, the UN, for example, had a flash appeal, which is now 95 per cent funded. We have given some £75 million to the humanitarian effort. We have not made any allocation for longer-term reconstruction efforts because, in our view, we need to wait for the result of the needs assessment being carried out by the World Bank and the IMF before making that kind of decision.

In addition to that, and completely separate from what we are giving to the tsunami-affected countries, we have made allocations to India, Sri Lanka and other countries, which are part of our ongoing development budget. That is the point that I am trying to make.

My Lords, will the noble Baroness lean on the Disasters Emergency Committee? The British public have given more than £350 million. Is it not their right to know to which countries the money has gone?

My Lords, that is absolutely right, but we must recognise that the amount of money given to the Disasters Emergency Committee is substantial, so it will take time to allocate it. As the noble Lord knows, the committee has made a very clear commitment that only 2 per cent of the resources will be spent on administration. It meets regularly; indeed, it meets colleagues in the Department for International Development fortnightly and will meet my right honourable friend the Secretary of State later this month to talk through those issues. I am absolutely confident that it will keep the British people involved and informed, given the unprecedented nature of the response.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What steps they are taking at the London conference to promote a political settlement of the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

My Lords, the focus of the London meeting was to help the Palestinian leadership to strengthen the institutions of the Palestinian Authority. The meeting is part of a longer-term process of international support for the Palestinians in helping both sides to return to the road map. The road map remains the international community's agreed path towards a lasting negotiated settlement to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Like everyone else in this House, I welcome the Prime Minister's initiative in convening yesterday's London conference. But does she not agree that the best way to strengthen the Palestinian Authority is evidence of tangible progress towards the creation of a viable Palestinian state, free of Israeli occupation? What follow-up steps do the Government propose to take to realise that goal?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for his words of encouragement and congratulations to the Prime Minister, who, I believe, achieved a very important staging post yesterday in the Middle East peace process. The noble Lord asks how we will tackle what he sees as the key problems still outstanding. I agree that there have been many obstacles, put forward on both sides, to progress. I certainly agree that settlement expansion and heavy-handed Israeli defence force action make progress more difficult. We continue to make those points to the Israeli Government and to urge them to honour the settlements freeze to which they committed themselves in the road map.

However, we must not talk this moment down. We have an opportunity now to move forward; several factors contribute to that: Israel's disengagement plan, demonstration by the Palestinian authorities that they are serious about reform, and President Bush's explicit commitment to use America's capital to achieve progress.

My Lords, we, too, welcome the meeting on the Palestinian Authority. However, does the noble Baroness agree that we now need a full-scale peace conference including both Israelis and Palestinians? The Foreign Secretary seemed to indicate support for that. When might we expect such a conference?

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, will know, that international conference is very much part of the road map. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that getting back to the road map, of which yesterday's conference was a part—through capacity building for the Palestinian Authority—is very important. We all want that international conference, but before that we want to see a pledging conference from yesterday's meeting in London so that we can assist the Palestinian Authority even further.

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Government on the initiative yesterday; it is much appreciated. Does the Minister agree with me that at this crucial time it is important to offer not criticism to either party but support and encouragement to both? At the end of the day it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who have to agree between them. Criticism of either is unlikely to be helpful in that process.

My Lords, I absolutely agree. I hope that the noble Lord sees in yesterday's London meeting the efforts by the international community to be even-handed with both sides in the Middle East peace process. I take this opportunity at the Dispatch Box to welcome, for instance, the disengagement plans put forward by Israel.

My Lords, one of the outcomes of yesterday's meeting, which seemed, I agree, very positive and useful, was that the American Lieutenant General Ward is to be appointed to co-ordinate the security structures of the new Palestinian state to defeat terrorism—without which, of course, no state could be formed. Will his remit also cover dealing with the Syrian Government, and indeed the Lebanese government when there is one again, because the evidence is that a great deal of the terror, both in the Palestinian area and in Israel, is constructed in those territories? They must be dealt with if there is to be security in Palestine.

My Lords, again, I thank noble Lords for their words of congratulation on yesterday's conference. Lieutenant General Ward's mandate covers forming a co-ordinating group to oversee the restructuring and retraining of the Palestinian security services. The noble Lord will know that at present the security services comprise about 13 different organisations. One of Lieutenant General Ward's main jobs will be to streamline that into two or three parts so that the security services in the Palestinian Authority can do an extremely good job and, therefore, fulfil their security-related obligations under phase I of the road map.

On Syria, I would simply say that the Government have concerns about recent allegations on Syria's involvement in activities in the region.

My Lords, the noble Baroness has described a major part of Lieutenant General Ward's role and function. Will she also comment on the need for very close security co-ordination as regards the withdrawal from Gaza?

Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is absolutely right. Part of the conclusion of yesterday's meeting was a commitment to ensure that there would be, certainly from the Palestinian Authority's point of view, co-ordination with the Israeli Government during that period of disengagement from Gaza and the West Bank.

My Lords—

I am sorry, my Lords. We must move on to the next Question.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What representations they have made to the United States State Department, or any other branch of the United States Administration, regarding invitations for Mr Martin McGuinness, Mr Gerry Adams or other members of Sinn Fein to the annual White House St Patrick's Day celebrations on 17 March.

My Lords, we have a regular dialogue with the United States Administration on a range of issues relating to Northern Ireland. During those exchanges, we have made it clear that the decision on who should attend the White House on 17 March is a matter for the US Administration alone.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, although I am somewhat less than happy with it. Given that both the Irish and the British Governments accept that Sinn Fein/IRA are indivisible and are an organised crime machine, is it not right for Her Majesty's Government to make representation at the highest level regarding possible White House invitations on St Patrick's Day to that organisation? Furthermore, what action are Her Majesty's Government taking to address the IRA/ Sinn Fein funding streams from the United States?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right. The Government have said on a number of occasions, as indeed have I, that the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked. But possible White House invitations are a matter for the US Administration, although, as I said in my opening Answer, we have a regular dialogue with the United States Administration on Northern Ireland at a range of levels.

The noble Lord will be aware that concern has been expressed about the funding of political parties in Northern Ireland. We continue to consult on that. One aspect of that consultation and of the review process is talking to our colleagues in the Irish Government and others about outside funding of political parties in Northern Ireland.

My Lords, in view of the fact that the Minister has not mentioned the origin of this controversy, does she not feel that Britain is in a very strong position in this matter, given that St Patrick was born an Englishman and not an Irishman?

My Lords, I think it would be much better—in the vernacular, as it were—for me not to go there.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that St Patrick is historically credited with having driven most of the snakes from Ireland? Is it not possible that the attendance of these gentlemen at this sacred function will enable him to continue his work?

My Lords, I think that that question also is probably best left unanswered. However, I repeat the point that I made earlier. It is our view that it is a matter for the United States Administration. I understand that they will make an announcement on it shortly. The noble Lord may wish to look at some of the reports in the Irish newspapers today which speculate about who may or may not be invited to the United States.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although the decision rests with the White House, it would be giving the right sort signal if it indicated that Sinn Fein would not be welcome on St Patrick's Day? I was reassured to hear her say that talks are ongoing about the outside funding of political parties in Northern Ireland. However, we need to put our foot on the gas as far as that matter is concerned, rather than allow it simply to drift along the normal diplomatic channels.

My Lords, I recognise the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, about funding. The noble Lord has made his concerns known both informally and formally in the Chamber. On his first point, I am sure that, before issuing invitations, the American Administration will consider all the current circumstances.

My Lords, my understanding is that no political parties will be invited this year to the St Patrick's Day event in Washington. That is not at all a bad thing, because it leaves an opening for the real people from the community in Northern Ireland, who are making the real difference, to go to these events.

My Lords, that is certainly the speculation in the newspapers that I have read. I understand that the US Administration want to focus on civic duty and civic renewal.

My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Baroness Morgan of Drefelin be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of the Baroness Massey of Darwen.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report on the review of the BBC Charter;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

• L. Armstrong of Ilminster,
• B. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury,
• L. Fowler (Chairman),
• B. Gibson of Market Rasen,
• L. Holme of Cheltenham,
• B. Howe of Idlicote,
• L. Kalms,
• L. King of Bridgwater,
• Bp. Manchester,
• L. Maxton,
• L. Peston,
• B. O'Neill of Bengarve;

That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place; That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed;

That the committee do meet on Tuesday, 8 March.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Filkin on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10 January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Triesman.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31 January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31 January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.).

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9 February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9 February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the future of the BBC.

"I will set out for the House the background to the current review of its Royal Charter, and our proposals set out in a Green Paper on its funding, governance and purposes. Published today, its title is A strong BBC, independent of government.

"Alongside the NHS, the BBC is one of the two great institutions of British national life. For over 80 years, it has sought to represent the highest standards of broadcasting. Its archives are a record of our national collective memory, from the coronation to the 1966 World Cup; from 'Dixon of Dock Green' to 'The Office'.

"Since the corporation's foundation, its Royal Charter has been reviewed by the Government roughly every 10 years, the last in 1996.

"Like its predecessors, this review has examined the corporation's scale and scope, its funding and governance. But this one has been unique in the level of public consultation, and in tackling perhaps the greatest challenge that the BBC has ever faced—the challenges in TV technology that will soon result in a wholly digital Britain.

"The BBC, like any public institution, needs to adapt if is to serve its audiences and keep pace with change. But its values, its global reach, its standards and its editorial independence must be preserved and strengthened; for that is what the British people want. The results of our public consultation and research are very clear.

"Overwhelmingly, the people like and trust the BBC. They understand and support the principles of public service broadcasting. They want the BBC to have scale. They want it to have the highest standards. They want it to be independent of government, Parliament or any commercial influence, and they want it to listen.

"But they also have significant criticisms: that the BBC is not responsive enough to their interests; that there has been a decline in quality—particularly in television, a tendency towards copycat programming at the expense of real innovation. Some people worry about the value for money of the licence fee, and particularly those who want, but cannot get, Freeview. Some of the BBC's commercial competitors believe that it has too much freedom to expand into new markets and stifle competition.

"We have to find a balance between meeting those concerns while ensuring that public service broadcasting leaves a footprint in every medium, a guarantee of quality, impartiality and innovation. That balance is harder to strike as the media change.

"In 1988, Britain had four television channels. Today, there are more than 400. In a few years, we will become a fully digital nation when the switchover from analogue to digital TV is made. As technology changes, so do the public's expectations. The challenges facing the BBC are enormous, as it plays a leading role in guiding the nation through this period of change. To do so it needs certainty about its future. So, after closely considering the Select Committee's alternative recommendations in this area, we have decided that the BBC's charter should be renewed for a further 10 years.

"I should like to turn now to the question of funding. The review looked at the different options for funding the BBC, and consulted the public. Perhaps surprisingly, the licence fee retains a high degree of public support and, although not perfect, we believe it remains the fairest way to fund the BBC. So it will continue throughout the next charter. In the coming months, we will decide on the right level for the fee to take after 2007. But beyond that, we have to take account of the rapid advance in technology and media consumption.

"So, during the life of the next charter, we will review the case for alternative funding models, particularly subscription, to make a contribution after 2016. We will review the risk to plurality in public service broadcasting, encompassing Channel 4's longer-term position; whether any public funding, including licence fee income, should be distributed more widely beyond the BBC in order to sustain plurality; and, if so, how any such distribution might take place.

"The old definition of the BBC's purposes as being to educate, inform and entertain still holds true. But by itself that is no longer enough in a world of ever increasing choice. So we have identified five new purposes for the BBC, which I set out in the Green Paper. In addition, the BBC will play a leading role in the process of switching Britain from analogue to digital television. It will be at the forefront of public information campaigns. It will help to manage SwitchCo, the organisation that will co-ordinate the technical process. It will help to establish and will fund schemes that help the most vulnerable consumers.

"Honourable Members will know from their own postbags that there is disquiet that, in some cases, households are expected to pay the fee when they cannot receive the full range of BBC services. That is why we think it is important that the BBC should help to drive the switchover process.

"I should like now to move to the issue of governance, where we will introduce radical change: a BBC-specific model that gives expression to the values on which the BBC is built.

"There is widespread consensus that the current model of governance is unsustainable. The governors' dual role as cheerleader and regulator does not sit easily in a public organisation of the size and complexity of the BBC. It lacks clarity and accountability. Licence fee payers need to know who is speaking up for them, and they deserve to know how important decisions are made and what influence they can exert. So the Green Paper sets out the new model which we intend to introduce—one that reflects the public value approach of the current BBC model, but which also draws significantly on Lord Burns's work.

"The BBC governors, with their dual role of managing the BBC but also holding it to account, will be replaced by two bodies, each with a clearly defined role.

"A BBC trust will be the custodian of the BBC's purpose, the licence fee and the public interest. An executive board will be accountable to the trust for the delivery of the BBC's services. The functions of the two bodies will be clearly defined, enabling the trust to judge the management's performance clearly and authoritatively.

"So the trust will have the high-level powers of approval over BBC budgets and strategy. It will have the tools to hold the BBC to account, issuing new service licences for each BBC service, and applying a public value test to proposals for new services.

"Michael Grade, whose current appointment as chairman of the BBC continues until 2008, will be the first chairman of the trust. The trust will represent the licence fee payer. To do that, it will need to listen to them and to consult them. Ways of doing this might include webcasting trust meetings, publishing audience research or electing local representative councils.

"Day-to-day management will be carried out by the executive board, which will be strengthened by a significant minority of non-executive members, and whose chair will be appointed by the trust "Over the past months, we have examined closely the changes Michael Grade has made. We have also studied the model proposed by Lord Burns for an external public service broadcasting commission.

"Our trust model builds in the strongest elements of the BBC's proposals. These include the establishment of a separate governance unit; the introduction of service licences; and the application of public value tests to new services and any major changes to existing ones.

"The BBC's proposals are a step in the right direction. But as they stand, they fall short of the accountability test because they do not resolve the confusion of the governors' dual role, and depend too much on behavioural rather than structural reform. So the BBC trust incorporates the key recommendation from Lord Burns that there should be clear separation of different responsibilities, to avoid confusion or capture.

"However, we believe that the Burns proposals for a unitary BBC board, with a government-appointed chair and an external PSB commission, also with a government-appointed chair, would fail to provide sufficient authority, clarity or distance from government. Our proposal makes sure that there is only one clear sovereign body and only one government-appointed chair. That will make the trust a powerful advocate for the public interest, able to safeguard the BBC's independence.

"But 'strong' does not mean over-mighty, and we will have to ensure that the BBC deals fairly with the wider market. The BBC's competitors have become increasingly concerned about the impact a publicly funded BBC can have on their businesses. Successive governments have allowed the BBC to be, in effect, a desirable market intervention. But we also need it to be constrained when its interests collide with the commercial sector and threaten the choice and quality of programming from other broadcasters. It should not play copycat, or chase ratings for ratings' sake.

"We do want the corporation to maximise its income from commercial services, but we also want to see a clear link between those services and its public purposes. To achieve this, the BBC will be subject to tough new internal and external processes. Ofcom will be given powers to conduct market impact assessments for proposed new services. Ofcom will retain full Competition Act powers in relation to the BBC, and in addition we will consider giving it a new power of approval over the BBC's internal code on fair trading.

"Another area of debate is the BBC's use of independent production, the balance between in-house and externally commissioned programmes. I want to ensure that the licence fee truly becomes venture capital for creativity, that it is used to put the finest talent on the air.

"Twenty-five per cent of its television productions already have to be commissioned from the independent sector, but I believe there is scope to go further. We will consider a range of options for reform in this area, including the BBC's proposals for a new 'window of creative competition' and increases in the existing quotas. Either way, I expect to see substantial progress in this area. The BBC has exclusive access to the licence fee. In return, I want it used to encourage independent productions as well as in-house.

"For radio, the BBC has adopted a voluntary 10 per cent quota. We will consult on whether that is sufficient.

"To reflect the whole of the United Kingdom and its different communities, the BBC also needs to make sure that a significant slice of production takes place outside London and it needs to provide a range of specific services for the UK's nations and regions. People should see the full diversity of the United Kingdom and their local community reflected in mainstream as well as in regional broadcasting.

"In reaching these conclusions, I am immensely grateful to Terry Burns and his panel, to Michael Grade and the BBC, to Ofcom, and most of all to the members of the public who in their thousands made their voices heard. We have endeavoured to take the best of what they have told us.

"In a changing world, values still endure. In a changing world, trust becomes ever more important in people's lives. So in our changing world this Government will secure a BBC that belongs to its licence payers and embodies the values the British people want; a BBC that promotes citizenship and builds our civil society; a BBC that promotes education and learning; a BBC dedicated to creativity and cultural excellence; a BBC that celebrates our nations, regions and communities; a BBC that brings the world to the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom to the world; a BBC which is strong, independent and securely at the heart of British broadcasting for 10 more years.

"I commend this Statement and the Green Paper to the House".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and I welcome at long last the publication of the Green Paper reviewing the BBC's Royal Charter, entitled A Strong BBC, Independent of Government. I should say straightaway that we support entirely both of those sentiments.

While we welcome the Green Paper and the Statement, our view is that the Minister has not gone far enough. We are concerned that in wanting a strong and vibrant BBC, and in accepting that the BBC faces enormous challenges in the coming years, more should have been done and could be done than is proposed in the Green Paper. In a sense, it touches the edges of what might or could be achieved in relation to charter renewal. I say this while stressing that we very much want to support what the Minister called "this great institution". We believe in a strong BBC, but the coming years will present a number of challenges, particularly in relation to technological change. The changes we have seen over the past 10 years have been fundamental to the whole broadcasting arena, and I believe that a similar breadth of change must be envisaged for the coming decade.

We congratulate the BBC on fighting off all proposals for substantial and immediate change—change that should recognise extremely rapid developments both in technology and in the number of new channels. I want also to stress my belief that charter renewal should be considered within the whole broadcasting arena, because in order to maintain a strong and vibrant BBC the corporation must endure strong and healthy competition.

The Minister said that the charter should be renewed for a period of 10 years. I know that the BBC would very much welcome that. However, it is strange that when the Government consider other organisations, particularly those in the private sector such as Camelot, a period of seven years has been seen as quite long enough to ensure certainty. We should bear that in mind.

Ten years is a long time given the pace of change, particularly in relation to digital switchover. The Minister accepts that more households are switching to digital reception every day and that people now choose to spend more of their money on what they want to see and hear. Indeed, with Ofcom proposing the start of digital switchover in 2008 and contemplating the programme being completed by 2012, it is somewhat surprising that the Government are content that the charter should be renewed for 10 years.

The process of digital switchover raises certain hugely important issues. Historically, commercial public service broadcasters have relied on their privileged access to viewers to maintain high advertising premiums and high levels of investment in public service content. Unlike the BBC, these channels do not enjoy direct public funding. They have to earn their money in the marketplace and, as the digital revolution spreads, so the privileges that have underpinned their historic investment in public service content have been eroded.

In fact, the strength of the BBC is very much dependent on the viability of these other broadcasters who inhabit the landscape. It is surprising, therefore, that the Government propose to delay a change in funding until what in effect will be 2017. In response to my honourable friend John Whittingdale in another place, the Secretary of State said that the Government would not even begin to consider new ways of funding the BBC until five or six years from now.

The income of £3 billion from the current licence fee is an enormous sum of money, and one that is increasing given that we expect 2 to 3 million homes to be built over the next decade. That factor should be taken into consideration. An income of over £3 billion, when compared with what all the other broadcasters achieve, is a very large amount. Does not the Minister accept that, given the importance of and need to sustain plurality of public service broadcasting provision, it would be much more courageous now to consider seriously how other public service broadcasting providers might be supported over the coming decade, alongside and together with the funding of the BBC? It is not right to consider charter renewal in isolation.

Does the Minister accept. in the light of all this, that it is now time to make it absolutely clear on the application form for a licence that the moneys are purely for the BBC? Let us be honest, most people assume that the fee they pay covers the television set and the provision of core services. Many do not appreciate that the licence fee is purely for the funding of the BBC.

I turn now to questions of standards and public service obligations. We believe that adherence to a strong public service obligation is crucial, and the BBC is under a duty to set high standards. A clear remit to set even higher standards for programming is needed and must be assured. In that case, does the Minister agree that such a clear remit for a stronger public service obligation is now required? It is not enough simply to object to copy-cat programming and ratings chasing.

In addition, why do the Government reject the powerful recommendation made by the Public Accounts Committee in another place that spending of the licence fee should be open to full scrutiny by the Audit Commission? If the Government are serious about improving accountability and transparency, surely that change should be made straightaway.

I listened with interest to the Minister's remarks on external regulation. He will be aware that the Conservative Party has stated on a number of occasions that proper sanctions can be enforced only by an external regulator entirely separate from the BBC. Given that, 1 welcome at long last the clear support expressed by the Government for something that we have been asking for over a long period; that is, a move to correct the system whereby the board of governors has been required to act both as the BBC's external regulator and as the top tier of management.

The governance of the BBC should be conducted by an independent board possessing the necessary levels of expertise arid experience. While we accept and are pleased that the chairman of the BBC, Michael Grade, has gone some way to distance himself from the present governors' role, will the Minister accept that that falls a long way short of having an external regulator for the BBC?

Will the Minister explain the difference between the proposed independent trustees and the new arrangements for the board of governors that Michael Grade is already putting in place? Surely those so-called independent trustees will still be a part of the BBC and will not be a truly independent body, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his excellent report.

We believe that Ofcom should have the power to adjudicate on accuracy and impartiality, as it does for other broadcasters. For example, many in the commercial sector complain that there is no proper channel for dealing with abuses of the dominant position that the BBC currently enjoys, and that there continue to be a number of unfair competition practices. I should say that we know that the director-general is going some way towards correcting some of those practices.

I welcome the Minister's remarks on the use of independent production. I like the term and the idea that independent production should be supported by moneys from the licence fee and will be seen as venture capital for creativity. We support that and the new initiative for creative competition.

There is much to commend what the Minister has said. The report gives all of us much to consider in the coming months, and I hope that we will take time to consider carefully all that might be achieved in having a new charter that allows the BBC to retain its strong position as a great institution.

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I welcome the commitment to a strong BBC that is independent of government. I suspect that tucked away in the Statement that has just been delivered, there are a few fundamental differences that will be teased out in the weeks and months ahead.

I hope that it will damage neither the Secretary of State nor the Minister too much to say that I found the Statement most encouraging. I shall certainly use the peroration on a BBC that promotes citizenship in my speeches in the future about the BBC that we are working for.

I congratulate the Minister, but will he acknowledge that this battle is only half won? There is some way to go before we have a BBC charter that is fit for purpose. Will he explain the timetable between the Green Paper and the charter? I welcome the appointment today of a House of Lords Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, which has come on stream at just the right moment to do a good job of work.

Although I have confidence in the Secretary of State, and the Minister, there is a danger of a non-transparent Downing Street role being inserted into the process. What guarantees are there that the infamous Downing Street sofa that was so roundly condemned by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in his report, will not be put to use in putting together the final part of the BBC's charter?

I do not share the enthusiasm for a wider role for Ofcom. I hope that the Minister will keep Ofcom to the task that Parliament gave it, which relates to competition. I have no objection to keeping the BBC up to standard on competition, but there have been constant signals from Ofcom that it yearns for a wider role and remit over the BBC. I want the Minister to confirm that the Government will resist that.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I welcome the emphasis on roles for the independents and the regions. However, we need to keep a couple of points clearly in view. The statement that the public like and trust the BBC needs to be spelt out. I liked the Minister reminding us that successive governments have been committed to market intervention. We are not for a free market in broadcasting. For 80 years we have had the magnificent example of a public body that distorts the market massively in the public interest, and with public support. We want that distortion of the market in favour of quality and good public service broadcasting to continue.

We welcome the point about the exclusive use of the licence fee. I am suspicious of every one of the suggestions for top-slicing, bottom-slicing, or whatever. Unless we keep that unique role for the licence fee it will be undermined.

Although the points about governance are of interest, we should remember that for 80 years the governors of the BBC have not done a bad job in delivering to Britain high quality public service broadcasting. Let us be certain that what we are putting in its place will be fit for purpose, especially with the experience, which was covered by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, of systematic and sustained bullying of the BBC by Downing Street. We must ensure that the new system of governance is bully-proof.

I want to give the Minister time to respond to what I and colleagues have to say—we shall have to work out different time shares. He will have a chance to do so in the 20 minutes of general questioning.

Only in Britain could a body of such long-term success and world esteem be subject to such sustained attack. If, as the Green Paper indicates, the Government—if re-elected—will be robust in their defence of the BBC as an iron pole of the best of public service broadcasting and in setting standards for itself and others, they can rely on the full support of these Benches.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for their responses to the Statement and the Green Paper. I hope that the House accepts that I do not need to restrict myself to two minutes in responding to them. I crave the indulgence of your Lordships if I go beyond the 20 minutes that is supposed to be allowed.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, particularly for her support for the BBC and for her agreement about the challenges of change.

I was surprised to hear her view that seven years was enough for a new charter. I thought that there had been general agreement in the consultation and research process that the BBC needed a long enough period, and 10 years seem to have worked to give it the stability and assurance it needs to operate effectively. I recognise that the world will be very different 10 years from 1 January 2007. That is why we are proposing two reviews—not threatening reviews to the BBC's 10-year period of stability, but reviews helping us to make decisions that have to be taken in the light of changes.

First, there will be a review of the future of the licence fee and whether it can be sustained by itself. That will be a review roughly half-way through the period of the licence fee, but it will take place only after the end of the charter period. Secondly, there will he a review of public service broadcasting, outwith the BBC itself. Here there are actions that may have to be taken before the end of the charter review period. It would be irresponsible not to carry out those reviews, but it would be irresponsible not to give the BBC 10 years of stability and security. People generally expect that. In any case, those two reviews will he preceded by an immediate review this year of the level of the licence fee. That is part of the consultation that will now take place.

The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, talked about funding being only for the BBC. As the Secretary of State said in the Statement, we have already indicated that the licence fee will take responsibility for some of the aspects of digital switchover. In other words, for the marketing and digital switchover, for its participation in SwitchCo—the vehicle for that—and for whatever is done to protect the needs of vulnerable people at the time of digital switchover. All of that is in addition to the existing functions of the BBC and it will come from the licence fee. Again, I think there will generally he public support for that.

The noble Baroness talked about a clearer remit for public service broadcasting in the BBC. She did not make any particular suggestions, but I have no doubt that she will participate in the subsequent consultation.

Finally, the noble Baroness talked about the view of the Public Accounts Committee. I did not think that the Public Accounts Committee was suggesting the Audit Commission would be involved. I thought it was the National Audit Office, but I may be wrong. In any case, we reached an agreement at the time of the passage of the Communications Bill, which I thought had satisfied both parties, that the National Audit Office does have a role, by agreement, in value-formoney reviews. That was enshrined in paragraph 2 of the subsequent agreement, with, I thought, all-party support. I think that we should see that through before we make any changes.

I was delighted to find the Conservative Party claiming credit for recognising that there is a conflict in governments. There is no finer form of flattery than claiming that we thought of it first. If that makes the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, happy, I am happy as well.

The noble Baroness asked what the difference is between the BBC trust, which we propose, and Michael Grade's proposals. First, there is no irreconcilable difference, because Michael Grade has indicated that what we are proposing is workable. We think that our proposals are significantly better than what was in Building Public Value last year. Our proposals are based on a formal separation of the two bodies, with total transparency of process between them. The changes that he proposed—not so much in the structure, but in the behaviour of governance—did not go far enough. The licence-fee payers will be clearer under our proposals that the trust represents their interests, holds ultimate power and is independent of BBC management. The functions and roles will be enshrined in the charter and agreement or their equivalents.

I think that upon examination the noble Baroness will find that these are significant improvements on both the models proposed to us. I am pleased to see that she is grateful for the director-general's action on accuracy and impartiality. Generally I am reassured by her support, both for the BBC and for the Government's proposals.

I am even more grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who is less equivocal in his support. He rightly says that there is some way to go. He asked me about the timetable. The consultation on the Green Paper will carry on until 31 May. Then we will have a White Paper before the end of this year. On that basis, there will be parliamentary debate on a draft charter and agreement. We have undertaken that that parliamentary debate will be no less thorough than it has been on any previous occasion.

I join the noble Lord in welcoming the establishment of a committee under the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. I am glad for all the Members who have taken part. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is not able to be in his seat on this occasion—

He heard the Statement!

He heard the Statement, yes, my Lords. Anyway, that was not meant to be a recriminatory remark. I said that the noble Lord was,

"not able to be in his seat",

not that he was deliberately avoiding it.

I am puzzled by the reference of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to a Downing Street role. He had a distinguished career in Downing Street himself. He is obviously determined never to be any part of any political party that has anything to do with Downing Street in the future. If he would care to give me details of bullying, I would be glad to respond.

The noble Lord is against a wider role for Ofcom. I can confirm that our proposed role for Ofcom is in accordance with the original basis on which Ofcom was established under the Communications Act. 2003. On his last point about the deliberate distortion of a free market in favour of the BBC and of quality and plurality, I can only agree with him.

My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as a former vice-chairman of the BBC and welcome the Statement that my noble friend Lord McIntosh has repeated this afternoon. I welcome in particular the decision to renew the charter. Unlike the Opposition. I agree that 10 years seems to be—always has been and, I am sure, will be now—an appropriate time for that renewal.

Much of the Statement—and, indeed, of the Green Paper—covers complex areas, but now is not a time to debate them. I was glad to hear from my noble friend that we will have ample opportunity to do so. I look forward to participating in such debates.

Could my noble friend confirm that the Statement that the Minister made does not consider allocating any of the licence fee elsewhere, until after 2016? In other words, the alleged statement of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and his reported views—if they are his views—have not been accepted by the Government. Perhaps he could confirm that for us.

Would my noble friend also accept what I think was a compliment—for which I am grateful—from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on the former work of the governors at the BBC? I believe that worked well when it was properly done. Indeed, there were two separate boards: the management board and the board of governors. Under the proposals as I understand them, the management board is effectively to be called an executive board. I am happy to see the idea of including on that board some independent members from outside the BBC. It makes a lot of sense to have non-executive members on that executive board.

I welcome what my noble friend has said today. I look forward to having an early opportunity to debate the detail.

My Lords, I am grateful for that welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, asked two questions. He asked, first, about the licence fee and whether I could give an assurance that it would not be used for other than the purposes of the BBC during the 10 years of the charter period. I cannot give that assurance. I thought I had made it clear that I was not giving such an assurance. I said in the Statement and repeated in response to noble Lords on the Opposition Front Benches that we expect the licence fee to make a contribution to the cost of digital switchover. That includes the marketing costs and what I call targeted assistance, and it includes participation in the costs of SwitchCo, the governing body.

I hope that I also made it clear that the review of the future funding of public service broadcasting which will take place towards the middle of the charter review period will look at the case for plurality, at Channel 4's longer-term position, and at whether any public funding including licence fee income should be distributed more widely beyond the BBC in order to sustain plurality and competition in public service broadcasting. I did not give any assurance that such a change would not take place before the end of the charter review period. I adhere to that position.

The noble Lord's second question was whether we had agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Birt. I know what the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said only from the newspapers. I have no indication that we agree or disagree with anything in particular that he is reported to have said.

My Lords, I welcome the Statement, particularly what was said about the trust model, which seems a sensible way forward, and about competition. However, in the course of her fairly long response, my noble friend Lady Buscombe made a particularly important point when she asked how we are to maintain the plurality of public service broadcasting. It was a little surprising that, in the Statement, when the Minister referred to measures to support the switch to digital, no reference was made to what I understand will be an important contribution by the BBC; that is, the provision of set-top boxes and satellites so that areas that cannot receive direct transmission will not be dependent on Sky and the existing satellite regime. That is an extremely important development, particularly in areas such as Wales where large parts are unable to receive direct transmission.

The Minister may have started to address my noble friend's concern in his last response on public service broadcasting and the licence fee. Unless there is some allocation of resources from the licence fee to the independent sector it is hard to see how that sector will maintain its position. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurance that the review will take place sooner rather than later, and that we will not have to wait until the tail-end of the 10 years before we find ourselves with no competition to the BBC in public service broadcasting.

My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, I do not think that I said anything about the provision of set-top boxes or aerials. If I did, I did not mean to. I have given no undertaking that anyone will give assistance in the provision of set-top boxes and aerials.

On the noble Lord's second point, I take it that he is agreeing with my response to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. In other words, yes, we will carry out a review as the change-over of technology proceeds. What we have said is that we will start that review before the completion of the digital switch-over process—which for everywhere except the Channel Islands will be 2011. I made it clear that the outcome of the review could well involve changes in the use of the licence fee before the end of the 10-year charter period.

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister accept that, from the point of view of public service broadcasting, the licence fee is by far the best means of financing that activity? His announcement that it will stay for the full charter period is, therefore, extremely welcome.

However, does my noble friend also accept that, from a taxation point of view, it is a rather poor tax? It is a poll tax that bears very heavily on the poor. Therefore, when the Government consider what the level of increases in the licence fee should be, will he ensure that the most rigorous inquiries are made into the efficiency with which the BBC uses that money so that any increases can be kept as low as possible?

Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for what he said about the necessity for a 10-year period. He is entirely right. It is important that the licence fee should achieve value for money for licence fee payers. We are pleased that the BBC is already undertaking a review of its activities to ensure that value for money is achieved. That will continue to be our concern in the future.

My Lords, I also welcome the Green Paper and what noble Lords on all sides of the House have said about the BBC being a great institution in British life. The BBC is quite correctly being told to ditch its obsession with TV ratings and focus on high-quality public service programming. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will not subsequently listen to those who attack the BBC's right to the licence fee because it is no longer aggressively fighting for ratings, a consequence of which is that its viewing figures will fall?

My Lords, that is a very good point, but I rather think that this is a debate that will never end. There is always a conflict for the BBC between the need for high-quality and varied output and ratings. From time to time, the BBC regards it as a threat if it finds itself with falling ratings. It would find it difficult to maintain the requirement for the licence fee if, ultimately, taking it to the extreme, very few people were to watch the BBC. Fortunately that is not the case. Fortunately, the BBC has been able to combine a very reasonable preservation of ratings, even in a multichannel environment, with high quality.

The important principle to which we have to look is that public service broadcasting is not simply market failure; it is good programmes of all kinds, whether they are light entertainment or high drama. They just have to be the best, whatever they are.

My Lords, I remind the Minister that, over the years, the BBC board of governors has included the chairmen of the Broadcasting Councils for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Can the Minister assure me that the trust will also have representatives from the Northern Ireland, Welsh and Scottish areas?

My Lords, that is a detail of the trust which will be a matter for consultation in the coming months. Of course we accept, and would insist, that there will have to be people on the trust who are capable of reflecting the needs of the nations and regions of this country. How that is spelt out in the membership of the trust or in the provision of, for example, advisory committees is a matter on which we are seeking views and on which we will respond in due course.

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement. Following the previous question about reflecting the UK's nations, regions and communities, I welcome the statement that people should see the full diversity of the UK and their local communities reflected in mainstream as well as regional programming and that a significant slice of programme production should take place outside London.

The real problem here is that, at present, although 17 per cent of the licence payers in the United Kingdom live outside England, only about 2 per cent of the programmes seen by the United Kingdom on its network television come from Northern Ireland, Wales or Scotland. It is hard to maintain that what we are watching is the "British" Broadcasting Corporation. How would the Minister propose to take this proportion—which I guess to be less than 2 per cent—up closer to the 17 per cent represented by population and by licence revenue? That is a considerable challenge for the BBC, which I hope the Minister will encourage the corporation to address.

My Lords, I am well aware of the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston. Last year, in the course of the public consultation on the charter review, I visited Belfast, Cardiff, Glasgow and Edinburgh. I heard that view being widely expressed, particularly by the broadcasters themselves—among both the commercial broadcasters and BBC Wales, BBC Scotland and BBC Northern Ireland—who produce marvellous stuff, but could not get that networked. I have much sympathy with that view. In part, this is a matter of ensuring that the quality is good enough to be networked and, therefore, to meet the requirements of the noble Lord. It would certainly be legitimate for the BBC trust to take a view on this matter and to say to the Executive that something more has to be done.

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement and the fact that the Government are proposing a strong and independent BBC. At the risk of repetition, could the Minister reassure the House that when the wider place of public service broadcasting is debated, it will not just be the BBC's public service broadcasting which is considered? For instance, 33 per cent of ITV's output at present is public service broadcasting. That is currently—not seven or 10 years ahead—under strain and, to some extent, under threat. Yet that is a massive part of public service broadcasting in this country.

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. That is exactly why I have talked about "plurality" on numerous occasions in the last three-quarters of an hour. To me, public service broadcasting is not providing the service that the people of this country require unless it comes from a variety of sources. That clearly means not just the BBC, but ITV, Channel 4, Channel Five, and so on. Indeed, there are elements of public service broadcasting in Sky—and in other channels—which are not regulated in the same way.

That is exactly why we propose to hold a review of public service broadcasting in the course of the charter period, and why we still take very seriously the Ofcom public service broadcasting review—the third phase of which was published last month. These matters are still under consideration in the latter phases of the present charter review.

My Lords, is it not clear that the standards and position of the BBC are pre-eminent in the whole world? It is the epitome of public service broadcasting; it sets the standards for other broadcasters, as we see regularly whenever we watch television or listen to the radio. Is it not also clear that the 75 per cent satisfaction rate mentioned in the Green Paper is very high, bearing in mind the amount of attention that listeners and viewers give to the works of the BBC? Therefore, must not the role of Ofcom be a limited one, because there is no reason for someone with outside interest to interfere excessively with the work of the BBC?

My Lords, I think the Statement fairly sets out the degree of public support for the BBC, which confirms what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon. The Statement also sets out areas of dissatisfaction with the BBC. I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise that there are areas where people are dissatisfied, and have some justification for being so. As for the role of Ofcom, I made clear that we are not proposing to extend that beyond what is allowed for within the Communications Act.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 25, leave out "degree to which" and insert "extent to which those"

My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has said. From Second Reading onwards—certainly in Committee and on Report—we all agreed that the Ofsted inspection process should be speeded up, with a lighter touch and self-evaluation. However, we felt there were problems in the way it might operate, and my noble friend Lady Perry put those arguments very well. She sends her apologies for not being here, but is on her way to Korea, no doubt to sort out the inspection regime there. She thanks the Minister and the Government for taking a lot of the points on board. One or two matters have not been covered, such as the number of inspections in which new inspectors should participate before they become fully fledged. My noble friend said at the time that she was not sure whether three was the right figure and wanted the Government to come back with a suggestion.

I thank the Government, and accept that they have gone virtually all the way with this amendment. I realise that they had to put it in a form that makes the Bill acceptable to everyone else before it goes to the other place. I thank the Minister and the Government for reconsidering these matters and for accepting the will of the House. We support the amendment.

My Lords, we, too, feel that the Government have gone to some trouble to incorporate the spirit of the amendments that were passed on Report into their amendments. We have no objection to them and will be supporting them.

My Lords, I echo those sentiments, having sat through a number of debates on this issue. I am very pleased that the Government have listened and acted accordingly.

My Lords, had it been possible for him to have been present, my noble friend Lord Sutherland of Houndwood would have wished to thank the Government for these further amendments. As one who also spoke on them, I thought the ingenuity with which the Government, in Amendment No. 21, have replaced paragraph (2)(5) of Schedule I is the most practical and effective way of ensuring that additional inspectors are up to the job. It seems a very cost-effective, non-bureaucratic way of doing the job, and I congratulate the Government on it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 27, leave out from "the" to "those" and insert "behaviour and attendance of pupils at"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 3:

After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—

"CLOSURE OF RURAL PRIMARY SCHOOLS

(1) No primary school located in a rural area in England or Wales, as defined by the Office of National Statistics under its Rural and Urban Area Classification 2004, may be closed without—

(a) full consultation with the registered parents of the school,

(b) full consultation with the relevant parish, borough and district council in England or the community council in Wales,

(c) consideration of transport implications, including the future welfare and safety of children living in the area served by the school, the recurrent transport cost likely to be incurred by the local education authority, the quality and availability of other transport links and the environmental impact of the closure, including traffic congestion,

(d) consideration of the overall and long-term impact on the local community of closure, including the loss of the building as a community facility, and

(e) consideration of alternatives to closure, including the potential for federation with other local schools and the scope for transforming the school into an extended school or children's or community centre to provide an extended range of local community services.

(2) The relevant parish, borough and district council for the purposes of this section are those parish, borough and district councils having competence in the geographical area in which the school is located."

My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. My very first political campaign, before I was really political, was to try to keep a small rural school open, not because my children went there but because they might go there. The only improvement I might have wanted for this amendment is to consider the parents of children who are not quite old enough to go to the school but might choose to go there in a couple of years. However, that might seem a little excessive to your Lordships.

We were very happy to work closely with the Conservative Front Bench on putting this amendment together. Indeed, I believe it was we who suggested consultation with individual democratically elected councillors. I think it was clear that we were not keen on supporting the previous version of this amendment; despite the fact that we very much agreed with the spirit and the principle, we could not live with the wording. This we can live with, and we support it enthusiastically.

My Lords, I support this amendment, but I hope very much that it will not be assumed that it has been put forward entirely with parents and rural communities in mind. I entirely agree with what has been said about the importance of the school in a village or rural community. However, I emphasise how tremendously important it is for the local children as well. The argument in respect of the best interests of the children is also supported by the amendment.

A school that has the enthusiastic support of parents and the whole community is the best possible environment in which to learn. It is extremely important that primary school children in particular have continuity. Schools should, on the whole, be small, so that children know their neighbours and contemporaries in the community.

I support the amendment not only because such schools are central to their community but because they are best for the children.

My Lords, before I speak to the amendment, I should like, without erring and straying like a lost shepherd too much, to avoid letting this week pass without noting the impending retirement of my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby. He has been a good friend of education in his diocese and beyond. His quiet, wise and business-like way of bishoping—which is in stark contrast to anything that could be said about me—has been appreciated here and elsewhere.

The amendment has been doing the rounds and there has been an engaging relentlessness about the particular issue of rural schools and how their future should be determined. The House will have heard my agnosticism in Committee and that of my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry on Report. Now we have before us an extended version. But I fear that for my money it is not sufficiently extended to everyone who could be consulted to be listed—except, in my own case, the local diocese; and, by further extension, other ecclesiastical and religious authorities.

There is some irony here in view of the sheer number of Church of England primary schools: they form one quarter of the total. However, in our politically correct age the last thing we must ever do is mention what the established Church gets up to—but I do not want to labour that point. Lest it be said that the Bishops were not in their place, I assure your Lordships that I have been assured that either I or one of my colleagues have been in the House for every stage of the Bill. However, I do not want any kind of edge to be read into what I have just said.

The point that my noble friend raised from these Benches on Report should be paramount—namely, the educational viability of a school. I have clergy in the Portsmouth diocese who help to run schools of various shapes and sizes. Nearly all of them are strongly community oriented. As your Lordships can tell from the way in which I am speaking, I am in something of a dilemma. However, at the end of the day, I do not think that the amendment is in the best interests of the children concerned. On balance the safeguards already in the Bill, although perhaps not quite enough, are better than those in the amendment. Therefore, I reluctantly and respectfully would resist it.

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. We had thoughtful, even passionate, debates about the issue at every stage. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, began by saying that she was passionately convinced about the worth of rural schools. Amen, my Lords—we are all passionately convinced of the worth of rural schools; we are absolutely at one. We have established that there is widespread agreement between us on their importance and that there is support across the House for what has been done in policy and practice across England and Wales to secure what we can. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for reminding us that this is all about the interests of the children and getting right the balance of those interests. That ethical concern inspired not least the changes brought forward in the amendment. We are grateful for the assiduous way in which the noble Baroness has tried to reconcile some of our concerns and to table an amendment that we can discuss further.

We have some sympathy with the revised amendment. It identifies one area where we can certainly strengthen guidance and points to other areas. On the latter, I hope I can reassure all noble Lords that not only does very recent guidance, to which the noble Baroness referred, match their concerns; it is better, more appropriate and more effective to have those requirements in guidance rather than pinned on to the Bill, as the amendment seeks. Perhaps I may explain why. There are issues of principle and of practice. We are deliberately moving towards a more light-touch regulatory regime. Throughout the debate on the Bill my noble friend and I have referred many times to why we think that it is important. I believe that we have the House's support on that point. We all want to let schools and authorities get on with what they have to do.

To that end, while the amendment sets out a list of specific persons to be consulted, we believe that it is more appropriate to keep that in guidance than in legislation, not least where it can be easily amended and extended. The right reverend Prelate just gave us the example that the diocesan authorities have been left out of the list. It is possible to amend the provision in guidance; it would be a much greater and slower task if we had to introduce primary legislation to do so. That is an instance of why we have to be careful of not why but how we do things in legislation.

We have a robust legislative framework for the requirement on the consideration on closures. Section 29(4) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 states:

"Before publishing any proposals under this section, the relevant body shall consult such persons as appear to them to be appropriate; and in discharging their duty under this subsection the relevant body shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time".

The noble Baroness has been assiduous in checking on the website. I understand some of the difficulties in manoeuvring and negotiating through it. She may have found—it was probably tucked away at the back—the additional specific guidance on consultation that is appended to the guidance for decision makers, which looks at those who must be consulted about statutory proposals. I will certainly give her the full hard copy. Among a long list in paragraph (13), it includes parents of pupils at feeder primary schools and those who live or have children attending a school in the area of an adjoining education authority. The statutory guidance makes it clear that all those who bring forward proposals have to consult parents and teachers.

We want this provision in guidance because guidance works. As I mentioned on Report, the average number of closures of rural schools in England has been reduced from 30 per year to only 5 per year. In Wales, which has a far greater proportion of rural schools, we are getting parents signed up to the reasons for closures for the reasons outlined by the right reverend Prelate.

The guidance is working because it is being observed. I t does not have the force of statute, but local authorities and decision-makers know that if they ignore it their decisions are much more susceptible to successful legal action. That is a major deterrent. They are not bound by guidance, but they must have an extremely good reason to act otherwise. We have found that local authorities and decision-makers are almost always keen to abide by guidance.

What the guidance does not do—this is where the noble Baroness has hit on a gap towards which the amendment directs us—is specifically mention parish, borough and district councils. Although I know that many local authorities consult minor authorities—and of course they can make their views known—we are very happy to give an undertaking that we will fill the gap and amend the statutory guidance to include specific consultation of parish, borough and district councils and community councils in Wales.

Other aspects of the amendment refer to consultation and consideration, which, as the noble Baroness said, is set out in our guidance. We strengthened the statutory guidance in respect of rural primary schools as recently as last October and made reference to the need for careful consideration of transport implications, including welfare and safety; the recurrent cost to LEAs of transporting pupils to schools further away; the quality and availability of transport links; the effect on road traffic congestion; and the environmental costs.

In relation to proposed new paragraphs (d) and (e), we also insisted that decision-makers must consider the overall and long-term impact on local people and the community of closure of the village school and of the loss of the building as a community facility; and, in paragraph (e), alternatives to closure including the potential for federation with other schools; and the scope for extended schools or children's centres. There is a lot of detail in guidance. That is why this should be dealt with in guidance. It has to be kept under review and bed down. It has been in place for only three or four months and has to be tested in practice.

The guidance is under constant review. I hope that the noble Baroness will take this in the spirit in which it is meant. We are happy to give a commitment to look again carefully and consider whether other aspects could be strengthened. As I said, we will certainly amend it in relation to the minor authority.

I have to draw two problem areas to your Lordships' attention. I have to return to Wales because the amendment sweeps up Wales. Education in Wales is a devolved matter. We must think long and hard before imposing any changes on Wales, no matter how benign we think they are, especially when they relate to challenges that are different in terms of educational choice that are more marked in Wales than in England.

I know that noble Lords would agree that when Parliament passed the Government of Wales Act 1998 devolving functions in relation to education and other matters to the National Assembly, the intention was that the devolved Administration should be able to chart its own course in these matters, to arrange and conduct its affairs in Wales in ways that reflect the needs of its people and communities. This is the essence of the settlement; this is the nature of devolution. It would be against this principle for us to legislate in such a detailed manner, here at Westminster, for the people of Wales. That would he the effect of the amendment: it would override regulations and guidance made and issued in Cardiff. I shall not rehearse my comments about Wales and why it was different, because that stands on the record in detail.

I have to say that the amendment is seriously flawed in several respects. The right reverend Prelate drew attention to one of these. I shall point out a few more problems that would be created if it were incorporated. First, Section 29 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 deals with closures, so the amendment should relate to the provisions of that section.

Secondly, and more seriously, it is not clear on whom the duty is placed to consult and consider the various implications. Is it placed on those bringing forward the proposals or on the local decision maker? That ambiguity could cause serious difficulty.

Thirdly, another area of potential confusion is over the term "full" which adds nothing to the concept of consultation, but which might lead to extremely lively arguments about whether there has indeed been "full consultation". It is different from the simple reference to "consultation" used elsewhere in school organisation legislation.

Finally, any such changes to legislation would have to involve transitional arrangements so that proposals that had been properly consulted on and considered under current legislation would not have to start again under the new arrangements.

I hope that I have stressed the positive spirit in which we have received this debate at various stages of the Bill. We are sympathetic to all the concerns raised. We have addressed them in policy and in practice. I hope, however, that what I have proposed meets with the good will of the House and that it will also take into consideration the difficulties with which the amendment will present us. The noble Baroness has been a most assiduous champion, but I hope that she will now feel able to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for, as always, her thoughtful and full reply. I apologise to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth for having missed out the need to consult the Churches.

My Lords, no apology is needed. There was no edge in what I said.

My Lords, anyway, it was a huge oversight and I still proffer my apologies. The right reverend Prelate also said in Committee that he would resist the temptation to support it and I am sorry that we have not been able even to tempt him that little bit more.

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Minister said about strengthening the guidance. However, I had difficulty wading my way through and trying to find the guidance and I do think that it would be better to have it on the face of the Bill. I accept that the amendment might not be technically perfect. I accept that it might not be in the right place; but, undoubtedly, the Government could take it away, as they did with the Ofsted amendments, tidy it up, make it look pretty and put it in the right place. On that basis, I would like to test the will of the House.

moved Amendment No. 4:

After Clause 70, insert the following new clause—

My Lords, these Benches would like to support the Conservatives on this amendment. We had a number of reservations about earlier amendments that they put forward because we felt they placed too much emphasis on referring closures to the Secretary of State. We were unhappy with that. The new amendment, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, is a very mild amendment, merely asks that any closure should be discussed with all parents and all local authorities who send pupils to that school.

We argue that that is merely good practice and that we would expect any proposed closure to be discussed with those two partners. So the amendment is really only a prompt for good practice. I have no doubt whatever that, as with the previous amendment, the Minister will tell us that we have no need to have this prompt in the Bill because the provision is already in guidance and that the guidance is adequate and more flexible.

The amendment is sufficiently broad in asking for all parents of children registered at the school and all local authorities involved with sending pupils to the school to be consulted. It does not need any extra flexibility.

The case for having the prompt on the face of the Bill is, first, that not all local authorities adhere to good practice. When local authorities' budgets are being squeezed as much as they are, many local authorities are only too anxious to find economies where they can.

We all know that providing facilities for those with special educational needs, particularly for those with both physical and learning difficulties, can be extremely expensive. Some authorities look at the money they spend on special schools and at the amount spent on each pupil and say, "Surely, we can find economies here?". Sometimes they can find economies, and sometimes that is right.

These Benches supported the Government throughout the debates on the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Bill on their inclusion agenda because we agree that, by and large, where possible it is better to include children within daily school routines rather than to put them in special schools.

There are some occasions when special schools are necessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, sits behind me. She uses the term "fragile" children. These children may not have major disabilities but they cannot cope with the rough and tumble of an ordinary school environment. They are not the only ones. There are some children whose disabilities are so great that they need a special school.

The Government have never really provided the money necessary to carry out that inclusion agenda. So one sympathises with local authorities when they want to close these facilities, but nevertheless it is necessary that they should carry out a very careful consultation and analysis of whether they really should keep the facility open.

Secondly, it is also true that local authorities which run special schools do not always recognise that other local authorities are involved. Many special schools have been closed. The schools are often run for a group of local authorities. Yet when such decisions are made, it is a matter for one local authority's budget. Therefore, they forget that others are involved. We feel this prompt on the face of the Bill is worth while and we therefore support the Conservatives on the amendment.

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly. When we previously discussed the matter, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, argued against the amendment because it placed the responsibility on the Secretary of State. He argued convincingly that it was unrealistic to expect the Secretary of State to be able to take good decisions for the whole country from his office.

The amendment struck me as being no more than you would expect should be done as a matter of course. I was particularly moved by the description of these children as "fragile" children. I think that it is right sometimes to raise the banner for some particular vulnerable groups. The amendment does just that.

My Lords, I also support the amendment. The Minister has introduced a general clause into the Bill which requires that looked-after children—another very special group of children—are given preference over other pupils because they are moved around to such an extent. This is another example of a very special, fragile group of children, where there is a feeling that, perhaps for very good reasons, the Government have gone a little too far in wishing to close the schools and have special units within mainstream schools. It is for that reason that I hope they will consider accepting the amendment.

My Lords, I rise to support what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and others have said in favour of the amendment.

My Lords, I too would like to support the amendment. Wherever possible, disabled children should be in mainstream schools. But there are some children, as has been said—and I think particularly of those who are deaf and blind—who are extraordinarily disabled. The teachers are marvellous. They say that the children can always learn something, and they have the special skills needed to deal with very disabled children. Parents need choice.

My Lords, I am almost tempted to shock the House by saying that I also would want to support the amendment, given the chorus. That is except for the rather good reason that it is already the current system. I do not want us to over-excite ourselves and think that were we so unpersuaded by my arguments, the world would change much if the provision was passed.

I start by addressing a few misapprehensions because it is important that our debates are informed by facts rather than perhaps by misunderstanding. There has not been a substantial reduction in maintained special schools. They have reduced by about 90 since 1997. Much more significantly, the number of places in maintained special schools has hardly reduced at all since 1997.

The implication that the Government have an agenda to close special schools is untrue. We are clear that special schools in the maintained, non-maintained and independent sectors form an important part of the overall provision available for children with special educational needs. We firmly believe that special schools have an important ongoing role within the overarching framework of inclusion, educating pupils with severe and complex educational needs. They also provide outreach support to maintained schools using their expertise in SEN to support the development of good SEN teaching in mainstream schools. We are clear about this issue and we are strong on it. It is what Removing Barriers makes clear.

5 p.m.

I will turn to the specifics of the amendment, and then return to some of the points that were made in our previous debate and touched upon again this time—good points, I thought, about regional planning and how we ensure that there is proper provision that spans needs wider than the individual local authority.

The amendment is unnecessary because there is already a statutory requirement for local authorities to consult widely when they propose to discontinue a maintained special school; more widely, in fact, than the amendment would require. They must do this both before publication of a decision—in other words, when they are thinking about whether they should close a school—and after they have decided to do so. The requirement to consult is already in primary legislation—Section 31 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.

The guidance in England containing DfES circular 15/99 specifies who should be consulted prior to the decision to close, including the parents of pupils at the school, wherever they come from, and any local authority that maintains a statement in relation to a child attending the school—exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, rightly draws attention to. Other local authorities could be affected by the decision. That is already covered. Local authorities are obliged to consult others but I will not weary the House by setting those out. If the local authority then decides that it wishes to close a special school, again, it must consult such other persons as prescribed in regulations and send them a copy of the proposals. Those to be consulted include each authority that maintains a statement in respect of a registered pupil in the school. It also covers the registered parents of each registered pupil at the school. These points are already covered in statute and in regulations.

The decision on closure of a special school cannot be made by a local authority in this country. It can be made only by the school organisation committee, which is again required by regulations to consider the views that have been made to it by anyone as part of the consultation process, or anyone who makes representations to it, as part of its decision. The committee must take account of the views of parents and other local residents, and the views of any local education authority affected by the proposals. So what the House is debating is already there in statute, regulation and guidance.

There is an extensive list of people who are required to be consulted, as your Lordships would expect. It is common sense that this is what should happen. The requirement to consult is statutory and goes further than the need to consult parents. If a school organisation committee's decision then goes to an adjudicator, the adjudicator also has to consider all the representations made by people affected by that decision. There is a hearing at that point as well.

On the second day of Report important points were made about the need for a regional overview of special school provision. I agree with that; it is right and necessary. Let me put to the House for the first time what we are doing on that.

I have asked the special educational needs advisers to support a more consistent application by local authorities of the approaches set out in Removing Barriers to Achievement, published last year. They send out clear messages to local authorities on their strategy to meet special educational needs. As part of the initial discussions, they have already visited all the local authorities in England. I have asked them to establish the position in each local authority regarding the development of special schools—in other words, the current provision of special schools in their areas, any present plans for changing the provision in their areas, and whether they have any future plans to change. I will be meeting with those advisers in about a month's time, before Easter, to discuss with them the picture that they tell me, so that I am sure I have my finger on exactly what is happening across England in total and can therefore take a clear view of the situation nationwide.

We are going further than that. We have already set in motion a national audit of specialist provision of support on a region-by-region basis. It is an audit of low-incidence special educational needs. The House will understand why. If the incidence is high, we can expect it to be dealt with locally. We should be concerned about low incidence. Again, the specialist advisers are tracking this. They are looking at provision nationwide and I expect them to report back to me by September 2005. That audit will establish how local authorities meet the needs of children in an area with low-incidence SEN. It will explore gaps in service support and provision, and how those gaps are being addressed. I will then be meeting them to discuss what that says in terms of whether local authorities are planning sensibly for how provision in their area might meet with regional needs.

If I find issues that cause me concern in either of the two reviews I have indicated, I will be seeking, both through my SEN advisers and through direct ministerial discussions, to talk to local authorities to ensure that we stimulate sensible planning for provision of special schools generally, and for low-incidence needs in particular.

I hope that is helpful. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raised good questions earlier and she deserved a proper answer. That is the process that is under way.

I would be delighted to support the amendment were it not for the fact that what it seeks is already in statute, regulations and guidance. I do not believe we should legislate twice.

My Lords, I am afraid I do not quite agree with the Minister on the way that the guidance is currently worded. It is not firm enough on consultation with parents. One could get away with simply calling a meeting of parents, which is what happens. Therefore all the parents are not consulted fully.

We have had an interesting debate. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said. It is important that we fly the flag for these schools, for these young people and, as I said earlier, for the parental support that they get. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, we have looked at other parts of this legislation, and there is not really anything in it about special educational needs. Whether the Minister knows it or not, there is fear among parents. We saw one accost the Prime Minister only two weeks ago—that was about a special school in my local authority that is not likely to close.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for giving way.

I am well aware that there is anxiety, which is why I was as clear as I possibly could be in putting on the record the Government's policy in this respect. The policy is not to say to local authorities "You are expected to close your special schools", but to meet best the needs of children with special educational needs. That is why I also laboured the point about how thorough the process of consultation is, and how I intend to ensure that there is thoughtfulness in local authorities in how they plan their provision in the future.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. I was going to thank him for the latter part of his contribution, where he set out some of the things he is doing to raise awareness of the issue, so that parents are more assured about the Government's intentions regarding the education and support of their children. I do not think the parent consultation part of the legislation is strong enough at present, and I should like the Government to strengthen it. Therefore, I should like to test the feeling of the House.

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 42, leave out lines 21 to 24 and insert—

"(a) to promote the spiritual, moral, behavioural, social, cultural, mental and physical development of children and young people,

(b) to contribute to their well-being, and

(c) to prepare them for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life."

My Lords, I and the NSPCC, with which I have a voluntary association, are very pleased to thank the Government sincerely for tabling the amendment, as they promised on Report.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, will he confirm that the word "well-being" in the amendment includes "safeguarding and promoting welfare", as it appears in the Children Act 2004? Secondly, why have the Government used the word "contribute" in subsection (b) of the amendment? The Children Act refers to "improving" children's well-being. Why has "contribute" been used instead of "improve"? Apart from asking those minor questions, I welcome the amendments and will support them.

My Lords, the Minister referred to my intervention on the matter. I am truly grateful for the amendments.

My Lords, I add my thanks to the Government for tabling the amendments after due consideration in Committee and on Report.

My Lords, I rise to support the amendments and gently to disagree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. The word "moral" sits better before "behavioural". He thought that "behavioural" should come before "moral". It is a very good list.

My Lords, I thank the House for its support for the amendments. I confirm that the definition of "well-being" has been arrived at by reference to Section 10 of the Children Act. This is the same definition that is employed elsewhere in the Bill. I think that that is the assurance that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, was seeking. She asked why we had written,

"contribute to their well-being"

as opposed to "improve their well-being". The TDA is not alone in the delivery of well-being, and it is right, in legal terms, that it contributes rather than carries the sole burden. I hope that is helpful.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 42, line 24, at end insert—

"(3A) In subsection (3)(b) "well-being", in relation to children and young people, is a reference to their well-being having regard to the matters mentioned in section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004."

moved Amendment No. 7:

After Clause 97, insert the following new clause—

My Lords, I am sometimes advised by my noble friends behind me not to waste too much time on days like today trying to persuade the House, because sometimes it feels as if people have already made up their mind before we have had a debate and because the audience for the debates is perhaps wider than just the Chamber. I do not take their advice of course, because I know that noble Lords listen attentively to every word that we say and are persuaded by the debate rather than by preconceptions.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, signalled, I agree with him that it is the responsibility of government, local education authorities and schools constantly to strive to reduce bureaucracy and any cost that does not help to attain better outcomes for children. I do not agree that putting another bureaucratic burden on the Secretary of State to produce another report for Parliament would do anything whatever apart from increase costs.

I yet again make clear the measures that the department has taken to monitor, challenge and reduce the burden of bureaucracy. Section 38 of the Education Act 2002 already places a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of avoiding the sending of excessive material to governing bodies or to head teachers and the imposition of excessive administrative burdens on governing bodies or head teachers. It is already in statute. By way of illustration, the department has now stopped "the batch"—the automatic mailing of a small mountain of paper to schools—and replaced it with an online system.

Furthermore, we have put in place a sequence of measures constantly to challenge the tendency of any organisation, perhaps including the Conservative Party, to move towards the generation of bureaucracy almost by nature of its existence. The implementation review unit, which is a group of people outside the department, looks at policies. It has a serious work programme to challenge whether some functions or actions are necessary. It has already had a significant impact, and it has identified means of delivering the kind of progress that we expect.

In addition, we have established a panel of senior officials which must assess and authorise any policy that impacts on 10 or more schools. We have established also a star chamber of senior DIES officials, the QCA, Ofsted, the TTA, the LGA, the Audit Commission and two head teachers. All requests made by the department for information from schools and local authorities require the prior approval of the star chamber. We cannot ask for information unless that body, which is much wider than the department, agrees that it is desirable and necessary to do so.

The implementation review unit has the task of overseeing the implementation of the 2003 Cabinet Office report, Making a Difference: Reducing School Paperwork. It identified 125 actions to reduce burdens; 97 have been completed and the rest are on target to be completed.

5.30 p.m.

We have also included in this Bill a number of changes to reduce the burden of Ofsted inspection. The Bill sits on the platform of a new relationship with schools, which is fundamentally about giving space to schools, freeing them from burdens, unnecessary controls and bureaucracy, and giving them the power and resources and do the job of raising attainment. The whole Bill is fundamentally about allowing them to focus their resources on getting real value rather than producing paper.

The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said that there should be a ministerial champion. He is right. There is one. It could not be higher and more powerful. She is called the Secretary of State for Education. She has explicit responsibility for reducing bureaucracy. The Secretary of State takes a wide view of burdens—it is not just a question of looking at what the department does, but also at what local authorities might do.

Could Ofsted do more? In a sense, of course, the whole Bill—or parts of the Bill—is about reducing the burden of Ofsted on schools while keeping the benefits. I am glad that there is a consensus around the House that that is right and proper. That is where we are going.

Perhaps HMCI could play a role in keeping the Secretary of State informed about this wider view of the burdens. In practice, the thematic studies that HMCI undertakes look at those things, and it is open to us to ask HMCI to carry out a specific thematic study of burdens on schools when we think that is necessary and appropriate. We will bear that in mind.

I do not think that now is the time to do that, however, because we already have such a study underway, looking at the impact of the new relationship on schools in reducing burdens upon them. The National Foundation for Educational Research is to make an independent evaluation of the new relationship with schools trials, including the effectiveness with which it reduced bureaucracy for schools. It will report in July 2005. Let us not have another review set on top of another review. We would be barking if we behaved in that way.

We agree with the objective. We agree that one needs to be relentless and to have senior political leadership to achieve it, and involvement from those who suffer from bureaucracy as well as those who believe that their little measure is not too bad.

I will not go into detail about why the amendment is technically flawed. I do not think that will necessarily persuade the House one way or the other. I hope that the House accepts that we are committed to this objective, however. We have a range of strong measures in place, the statutory obligation to reduce bureaucracy and some powerful processes. We are seeing signs of early and significant success in this respect.

I hope that that has been helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and that he does not feel minded to press his amendment to a Division.

My Lords, I welcome that indication that HMCI might be invited to undertake a thematic review. In my view, that is the right way to go about it. Yes, there is a massive problem. There needs to be action. This approach, however, looks a bit bureaucratic. I much prefer the independent thematic review by the inspector.

My Lords, this is an issue which is not going to go away. We are all concerned about it, and I am grateful to the Minister because he has expressed his views and is obviously concerned about it.

I do not want to add to the bureaucratic nature of reviews of reviews of reviews. One could shoot oneself in the foot by continually asking for another review. I am inclined, therefore, to note what the Minister says. Of course, it will be a different government looking at the issue in July. We might then get the chance really to reduce the level of bureaucracy.

I will not press the amendment today. I am concerned about the issue, and I hope everyone here continues to be. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 101 [Removal of requirements for governors' reports and parents' meetings]: