asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will resume their budgetary aid programmes to Malawi and Kenya in light of political developments in both countries.

My Lords, budget support remains an important part of our assistance to Malawi. In 2003–04, our programme totals £47 million, of which £15 million is earmarked for budget support. Should the Government of Malawi take steps for sustainable poverty reduction, additional assistance may be available from DfID's performance fund.

The United Kingdom is working closely with the new Government of Kenya to develop the policies and systems that could pave the way for a resumption of bilateral budget support.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Has she noted that in Malawi, thanks partly to the emergency food aid given by Her Majesty's Government, the good rains and the good crops, they are well on their way to overcoming the hunger problem and, in fact, expect a food surplus this year? But will she recognise that, in the mean time, social programmes such as those for education and health have been cut back pending the resumption of full budgetary aid?

I join the Minister in welcoming the peaceful and democratic transition to a new government in Kenya. Does she agree that they have got off to a good start, with emphasis on good governance, respect for human rights and the attack on corruption? Will Her Majesty's Government continue to press them to move in the direction of the constitutional reforms that we expect?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Steel, that the work that we and other donors have done and the good rains have enabled Malawi to overcome the problem of hunger. Suspension of donor budget support in late 2001 resulted from the consistent failure by the Government of Malawi to implement agreed macro-economic reforms and to pursue the right macro-economic policies. We have been working with them on that. That is why we have said that, if they pursue the right policies, we will return to giving a limited amount of budget support. I agree with the noble Lord about the impact that that is having on social sectors.

The new Government of Kenya have got off to a good start. My right honourable friend Clare Short was there, and I visited recently. They are doing a considerable amount of work to tackle corruption. We are working closely with them. They intend that the constitutional reforms will be put in place by the middle of the year. We will continue to encourage that process.

My Lords, we welcome the election results in Kenya and congratulate President Kibaki. I hope that it heralds a brighter future for the people of Kenya. Can the noble Baroness confirm that aid to Kenya will be securely linked to political and economic reform and to ending corruption? Does she accept that, if more and more aid bypasses charities and local civic society and goes straight into central government pots, it is more difficult to ensure that money is accountable? Does she further agree that more money should be spent by local organisations, which are less corrupt, more effective in fighting poverty and will help to build a more vibrant civic society?

My Lords, the noble Baroness and I have discussed the issue in the past—not in relation to Kenya, but more generally in terms of our development resources. She will be aware that a key part of our strategy is to move to longer-term understandings with governments that are pursuing the right policies and are on track with the IMF. That will enable us to move to a 10-year programme, as we have done in Ethiopia and Rwanda, whose governments know the amount of resources that they will get year on year. I can assure the noble Baroness that we do not move to that form of support unless we are sure that the right kind of financial systems are in place. At the same time, we continue with wider programme funding, some of it through NGOs, which is important, as the noble Baroness said, to build local capacity and, in particular, local civic society.

My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. Does she agree that during the final months of the rule of Daniel arap Moi in Kenya corruption had become endemic and had led to the closure of a number of United Nations schemes, particularly the building of water catchment dams in remote areas of Kenya such as Turkana, which I visited a few months ago? Will the Minister look at that particular set of projects, as irrigation and clean water constitute one of the most fundamental bases for development? If such programmes are to be suspended because of previous corruption, it will have a disastrous effect on the people of those areas.

My Lords, the noble Lord is right that donors were very concerned about corruption in Kenya. We are pleased that the proposal for the new anti-corruption authority will give them the power to prosecute independently, which the previous Kenyan government's proposals lacked.

The noble Lord asked about irrigation and clean water. He will be aware that our focus is on education, in particular working with the Kenyan Government to provide schoolbooks, especially for primary education. I have seen the impact of that in the schools that I visited when I was in Kenya earlier this year. The European Union focuses on irrigation and water projects. I will certainly take the noble Lord's comments back to the EU.

My Lords, I was also there during the elections. There is an enormous amount of good will towards the new Kenyan Government. One of the first decrees was that all primary schooling should be free. That resulted in an enormous increase in the number of children who turned up at school. Do the Government have any plans to help the Kenyan Government with this new influx of primary schoolchildren?

My Lords, that was one of the first announcements to be made by the new Kenyan Government. Noble Lords may know that not only did primary schoolchildren turn up once free education was announced, but also a number of adults who had not had the opportunity to receive schooling. We immediately reported that an additional amount would be made available for our education programme in Kenya, and we shall watch the results very closely. Once Kenya is on track with the IMF, we shall look again at our funding mechanisms.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the new Kenyan Government should receive our full support if we are to help to ensure that the Kenyan people retain their faith in the democratic process? What is the timetable for restoring UK and EU aid? Following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will the provision of primary education for all children be adequately funded, especially as adults are also now trying to take part in that education? In addition, will the constitution change be the cornerstone of that support so that the progress made thus far will be secured into the future?

My Lords, we are working closely with the Kenyan Government to support the development of a credible poverty reduction strategy and to help them to strengthen their financial and management systems. We shall need to see considerable progress in those areas before resuming budgetary support, although, as I said in my previous answer, we are giving a substantial amount in support of education.

The resumption of bilateral budget support will depend on the speed with which the Kenyan Government make progress in developing their poverty reduction strategy. The noble Baroness may wish to know that the World Bank intends to provide some 50 million dollars for primary education. It also intends to release the second 50 million dollar tranche of the public service reform programme loan, which was held back two years ago. Therefore, there is already some movement. The European Commission will soon release some 40 million euros in budget support to meet earlier retrenchment costs.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the amount of work being done by the British Council in Kenya? What additional moneys are the Government giving to the British Council to extend that work?

My Lords, I am aware of the work being done by the British Council in Kenya and in other parts of Africa. The British Council's overall budget is agreed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as part of a three-year cycle. The council received an increase in that grant earlier last year.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will reconsider their position with regard to nurse membership of strategic health authorities.

My Lords, strategic health authorities have been in operation for less than 12 months. The majority have now appointed a director of nursing or lead nurse. The department is working with authorities that have yet to appoint. Time must now be given to allow the new arrangements to bed down.

My Lords, in declaring an interest as a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing, perhaps I may thank the Minister for that partially encouraging reply. However, does he agree that, as nurses represent two-thirds of the National Health Service workforce and carry direct clinical responsibility for patient care around the clock, they have the most intimate knowledge of the impact of healthcare policies at the front line of care?

Therefore, does he accept that it is perhaps worrying that strategic health authorities have a mandatory responsibility to appoint a communications officer but not a nurse and that reportedly some SHAs have not appointed any nurses to their boards? As a matter of great urgency, will he undertake to address that anomaly—an anomaly both in practice and in principle—which is bad for patient care and damaging for nursing morale?

My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that nurses have a key role to play in terms of both the direct patient care that they provide and the leadership that senior nurses can give. Strategic health authorities are required to have a senior nurse but they are not mandated to appoint a nurse as an executive director because we wish to give them as much discretion as possible. There is no mandatory requirement to appoint communications officers to the boards of those authorities. The chief executive pointed out to the authorities that it is as well to allow information officers to attend board meetings so that they can inform the community of the decisions taken. There is no question of that being a mandatory appointment.

My Lords, will it not be rather difficult for senior nurses to provide input into the requisite strategic planning within the strategic health authority unless they are represented at board level? I wonder whether the Minister, with his good intentions in this matter, could consider that request.

My Lords, that matter was given a great deal of consideration. Although we recognise that nursing makes an important contribution to strategic planning, it was decided that it would be wrong to lay down an absolute requirement for a strategic health authority to appoint a nurse as an executive director. However, it was made clear to SHAs that they needed to have a nurse in a senior position. I say to the noble Lord that NHS trusts, which provide the bulk of NHS services, are required to appoint a director of nursing to the board. There is also a requirement for a nurse to be on the board of a primary care trust and the executive committee. Therefore, nurses are strongly represented in places where key decisions are made about the provision of services to patients.

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have served nearly 50 years in the NHS. I have two brief, inter-related questions for the Minister. First, can he assure the House that action will be taken to fulfil the promise made in Shifting the balance of power that a visible senior nurse will be provided at every level of the NHS to ensure that the contribution of front-line nurses and midwives is optimised and that high quality services are delivered? I heard the Minister's response about the requirement for a nurse to be appointed at NHS trust level and at primary healthcare level, but that is not necessarily so right through the organisation of the NHS.

Secondly, does the Minister agree that at the moment the high wastage of qualified nurses causes a problem? I know that efforts are being made to recruit nurses, but in order to promote career progression it is important that they should have a place at the management team level so that nurses know that their voices are being heard. Can the Minister assure the House that such a requirement could be put in place?

My Lords, I believe that I have answered the point in relation to primary care trusts and NHS trusts where there is visible nurse representation at the most senior levels. With regard to the limited number of strategic health authorities that have not yet appointed a senior nurse, I intend to let the chief nursing officer of the department loose on them. I am sure that we can look forward to their quick compliance.

More generally, I accept that the nursing profession is critical of our plans for developing and improving the health service. I believe that the appointment of nurse consultants and the greater authority that nurses are being given through the modern matron approach are the most visible ways in which we can indicate to nurses and former nurses that nursing is a very good profession to be in.

My Lords, those, like myself—I am a dentist—who have spent a lifetime in the NHS would accept that nurses come second to doctors in relation to having a place on the boards of strategic health authorities. Does the Minister agree that the document is unclear as to whether nurses should be appointed to boards? He has spoken widely about nurses having senior positions, but is he aware that those who believe in the National Health Service are of the view that a nurse is one of the most important people and should certainly occupy an executive position? Will he ensure that those strategic health authorities that have not made such an appointment do so?

My Lords, on strategic health authorities that have yet to appoint a senior nurse, I have already informed the House that I shall ensure that that happens. I do not believe that there is any confusion about the membership regulations that lay down the requirements on strategic health authorities. There is no requirement to appoint a director of nursing who would be an executive director of the strategic health authority, but there is a clear requirement to ensure that a senior nurse is appointed to the strategic health authority. Nurses make a real impact in the direct provision of patient care services. At the NHS trust level, a nurse is an executive director as the director of nursing.

My Lords, is the Minister as concerned as I am that the National Nursing Leadership Project is to be dissolved on 1st April, leading to thousands of nurses being unable to train in leadership skills?

My Lords, the various approaches that are being undertaken to encourage nurse leadership are expanding. Over a two-year period £4 million has been spent embracing 30,000 nurses in nurse leadership courses and programmes. In the future we shall expand such programmes. More and more nurses are taking on senior positions, not just in relation to nursing, but also in general management. We want to encourage the profession to do more in that regard in the future.

My Lords, the Minister has told the House that in the future strategic health authorities will be closely monitored on their appointment of nurses. Can he give us the timescale for that? Will he promise to report back to the House on the progress? Given that it is not mandatory, does he expect to see a nurse on every strategic health authority?

My Lords, as I have made clear to the House, it is not mandatory. Therefore, I cannot give an assurance that I shall report back to the House on the matter. However, strategic health authorities are required to employ a nurse in a senior position. I have told the House that the chief nursing officer will be exploring the matter with vigour with, I believe, the three strategic health authorities that have not made an appointment. When appropriate, I shall report back to the House on that.

My Lords—

My Lords, we are into the eleventh minute, I am afraid.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing I declare an interest as president of the National Home Improvement Council, which depends on the construction industry to achieve its objectives.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to alleviate the difficulties of companies in the construction sector obtaining insurance to enable them to continue their business.

My Lords, the Government are very concerned by the significant rises in insurance costs and are undertaking a review, led by the Department for Work and Pensions, to assess the scale and nature of difficulties with the employers' liability insurance system. We are also aware of the particular problems in the construction sector, and officials discussed those issues with representatives of the sector on 20th February. The Government are encouraging insurers, brokers and business to work together to ensure that affordable cover is available.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive reply. I am glad that the Government are taking the problem seriously. Is the Minister aware that during 2002 the insurance liability burden on the construction industry more than doubled and that it is likely to more than double again in 2003? In some cases firms have been unable to obtain insurance at all which means that legally they will have to cease trading. Bearing that in mind, and while the various studies now in hand are continued, does the noble Lord agree that some interim measures should be taken to enable firms to continue in business? If that is not done, is it not likely that uninsured cowboy traders could take over the business?

My Lords, the situation is serious. There have been substantial increases, particularly in the construction industry. Increases of 200 per cent have been reported. However, seeking interim measures is another matter as it is not clear what they would be, other than the Government providing insurance. I believe that that would he regrettable because of the inability of the Government to do other than take all the worst risks, and getting out of the situation would be extremely difficult. This is a complex market. We need to be absolutely certain about the evidence, the key issues in the market and the case for, and objectives of, reform before we take any action.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are two key aspects to the problem; first, the very high level of awards, and, secondly, and equally importantly, the sheer cost of mounting a defence which increasingly means that people, although believing themselves innocent, cannot afford the cost and are forced to settle out of court?

My Lords, a number of reasons have been suggested for the situation. The insurance industry attributes rises in premiums to factors ranging from the effects of 11th September to the growing use of no win, no fee arrangements that lead to more personal injury claims and new types of claims such as stress. All those matters contribute to the situation. Also lower interest rates have an effect on the cash flow situation and on falling equity values. A whole range of matters affect the situation and before we take any action we must be clear which matters are important and where action is possible.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problems of small professional roofing companies, who are probably having to bear the highest increases in premiums, have nothing to do with September 11th or with no win, no fee cases? They are the victims of something that may drive many—possibly all—of them out of business in the near future. Can he assure us that the review that he is undertaking will come to a swift conclusion and that those of us who are dependent on such companies to keep the rain out of our houses are not left with no recourse other than illegal cowboys?

My Lords, I agree that small roofing companies are probably not affected by September 11th. We are discussing the capacity of the market. If that capacity is affected in one area, that can have knock-on effects in other parts of the market.

The construction industry faces particular issues, one of which is that it does not have an especially good record on health and safety. In particular, an increasing difficulty is that of insurance companies distinguishing between those companies that have good health and safety records and those that do not. That may be one area where one may find improvement in the market.

My Lords, the Minister said that it may be difficult to find a short-term solution. Will he bear in mind that the Government, through the insurance premium tax, have benefited enormously from spiralling insurance charges? Cannot they set aside some of those proceeds to help firms in especial difficulty?

My Lords, the review will report in the spring—and quickly. As I said, we do not consider favourably any idea that the Government should start acting as an insurer of last resort, because of the initial difficulty of doing so and the subsequent difficulty of getting out of such an arrangement. Also, setting up such a scheme might well take considerably longer than would trying to correct matters in the market place.

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the amendment; it would be churlish not to do so. Much has been made of the whistling postman being arrested in the street—an example that I have never used until now, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so.

The Government have gone a long way to meet many musicians' concerns, but a slight problem remains in their minds. If small performers—say those organising a jazz quartet—were dealing with a wedding party and transgressed the Bill's licensing provisions in any way, even if they did not mean to, would they be liable for the onerous penalties set out later in the Bill? I ask that only so that the Minister can clarify the matter, because it appears that although performers themselves would be exempt, many musicians who run their own bands and organise their events might well still fall under the Bill's provisions.

My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the concessions in the amendments. But they do not go far enough. For example, we are concerned about the suggestion that under Amendment No. 2 there would not be a problem if a person was not concerned in the organisation or management of facilities. Surely, no matter how careful those involved in the music business may be, it will be difficult for them to decide what the provision means—whether they are involved in the organization of an event.

A perfect example, to which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred, is that of the organisation of a private wedding. Clearly, the organisation of such an event would amount to a joint undertaking among a number of people: the bride's parents' approach to the band leader; the band leader establishing what type of music is required and his engaging the appropriate musicians; and, lastly, his charging the parents a fee for that service, plus a fee for his performance, plus a fee to distribute among the other musicians. Band leaders generally pay themselves something extra for all the telephone calls involved, any advertising, and so on.

Much professional live music is organised in that way for private weddings and other private social events. Even if the initial approach by the parents is to an agent, the musician is often then required to liaise directly with the bride or best man about all manner of details: band line-up, male or female vocals or, if instrumental, saxophone or guitar-led, performance times, repertoire, special numbers, and so on. Although we welcome the concessions in the amendments, we are concerned that they do not provide sufficient clarity to those who will be examining the Bill to understand whether they fall within its provisions, given their actions.

Amendment No. 218 also relates to small performances. Musicians are concerned that, unless they have taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that premises are licensed for their performance, they may still be criminalised.

We thank the Government for considering with care the concerns that we and many beyond your Lordships' House have had about the regulation of music and live entertainment. However, we fear that the amendment does not go far enough.

My Lords, I support what has been said. I have been a band leader for 30 years or so and done thousands of small functions. It was a regular occurrence for us to have meetings with the people holding the function to discuss the line-up of the band and the sort of music that was wanted. That happens regularly, and I am worried that the amendment does not cover it.

My Lords, I am grateful for the reception of the amendments, as far as they go. I think that I can give the assurances that are sought.

This morning, I received in the post a splendid black poster from the Association of British Jazz Musicians. I suspect that it must have come from the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn; I see that he has one. On the front, it has a picture of Tony Blair playing the guitar and saying that performers will be subject to £20,000 fines or six months in gaol. The description of gaol may be a little more demotic than that.

The amendments are designed precisely to avoid the situation that the Association of British Jazz Musicians describes. It is not intended that performers should have to take responsibility for any failure by the organisers of a venue to obtain the appropriate licence. That never was our intention, and the amendment makes that clear.

The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, referred to certain types of function. A private wedding would have to be a rather peculiar wedding to be licensable, anyway. It would have to be open to the general public, and there would have to be an entry charge. I am not aware of any private weddings that do that. So, that would be exempted to start with.

The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked me about band leaders who negotiate with the organisers. They would not be responsible, and the amendments cover that point.

My Lords, my noble friend has seen the poster that was referred to. Has there been consultation with British jazz musicians? Have they accepted the position set out by my noble friend in dealing with issues that they have raised with all of us?

My Lords, I received the poster only this morning. I have no idea when it was produced, and I do not know whether it was produced before or after the announcements that we made on 18th February. Certainly, we have been open to debate with various musicians' organisations for years, since the preparation of the White Paper, let alone the preparation of the Bill. I can give the assurances sought.

My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. He has discussed it with my officials. It is a thorny little issue.

It is not the intention of the Bill to define entertainment provided by a charity as provided for,

"consideration and with a view to profit",

even if the charity concerned is trying only to cover costs and may even make a loss on the event. I hope that I can avoid keeping the House too long on the point, and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that I—or some other sharp-eyed lawyers—will examine the drafting of the Bill again. We will take action at a later stage of the Bill's progress, if necessary. I shall write to the noble Lord to explain the outcome of the re-examination and place copies of the letter in the Library. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I happily withdraw the amendment and await receipt of her letter.

My Lords, I support these amendments. As has been pointed out by many, it is anomalous that severe and strict regulations are placed on the playing of any form of music while, at the same time, wide-screen televisions can be operated at any volume that does not break health and safety guidelines. I watched a particularly fine rugby match recently—indeed, I counted a number of pubs locally which relied on wide-screen televisions. However, it is strange that televisions, where sound can be greatly amplified by many speakers and so create an extremely noisy event, should be outside the provisions of the Bill. A wide-screen television could be easily regulated. It is easy to control the volume, as it is to control the volume on amplifiers of live music.

Has a specific deal been done with those providing broadcast entertainment? I do not understand why every form of music in the country has been regulated under the Bill—which the Government claim is deregulating legislation—while wide-screen entertainment is left out of its remit. People who enjoy the wide-screen showing of football and rugby, like myself, are happy that it is outside the remit of the Bill. The Minister, when arguing about live music causing public nuisance, gave an example of an entire orchestra cramming itself into a pub—a wonderful image which I should like to retain. It is strange that on the one hand we can regulate heavily against that unforeseen circumstance, but on the other hand, we cannot deal with an event that we know attracts a large number of people in a partisan atmosphere which will cause a lot of noise. Indeed, most noise will not be caused by the wide-screen broadcasts, but by supporters watching the game.

My Lords, I do not want to be provocative, but this is a deregulatory Bill and a great deal of the thrust of the amendments continues to be deregulatory. However, Amendment No. 6 wants to impose new regulation. As has been made clear, the Government's position is that when music is incidental to the purposes of the licence, it will not be regulated. Muzak in shopping malls, recorded music in restaurants or pubs, and so forth, is not regulated. On aesthetic grounds, some of us may wish that that was not true and that it would be forbidden in many cases. But some people like it. I have just returned from Portugal where it is impossible to go into a small restaurant without the television being on. I find that offensive, but we do not propose introducing new regulation where none exists.

The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, have spoken about wide-screen television, Sky sport and the type of television that encourages noise from those watching it. However, the great bulk of television, which would be covered by those amendments, is television playing quietly in the background or being watched by a few people. Whether the television is being played in a shopping mall while people shop, or in a pub while people drink and talk, or a restaurant while people eat, drink and talk, for the sake of dealing with offensive large-scale noisy television, all television would be brought under the scope of the Bill.

My Lords, the Minister raises an interesting point but he is arguing from both ends. I have visited a number of pubs, as I am sure he has, in which there has been little control on the volume of television and recorded music. However, the argument put forward by the Minister at Committee stage was that music, at any level, could cause the same amount of nuisance and had to be severely regulated against.

I have not put my name to these amendments. I hope that they will not be pursued because I understand that this Bill is deregulatory. It is not my intention to add to regulation. However, I still do not understand the Minister's argument because it seems contradictory that noise from live music is more offensive than noise from recorded or amplified televisions.

My Lords, I am not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, does not understand my argument. I had not concluded the argument. The conclusion is that the nuisance from a very loud television and a large audience of young men shouting in accompaniment to it is to be dealt with by the offence of public nuisance.

The pub or wherever the television is playing must have a licence because alcohol is being sold. Perhaps I may finish the sentence, even though I may not be allowed to finish the argument. In obtaining a licence, the applicant must state what will be occurring on the premises. If there are representations, there must be a hearing.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I want merely to say that on several occasions during the debate he has talked about public nuisance and again he said that the matter would be dealt with by public nuisance legislation. I have to tell him that it would not because it would not be a case of public nuisance.

My Lords, that is an assertion. The Bill is clear on the subject in setting out the licensing objectives. They are:

"the prevention of crime and disorder … public safety … the prevention of public nuisance; and … the protection of children from harm".

My Lords, I should have spoken for longer. It is not often that I speak too briefly. "Public nuisance" is strictly defined and its test is much higher than "private nuisance". It deals normally with, for instance, running a disorderly house, letting off fireworks in the street and acid house parties. It comes nowhere near the level of disruption to which the Minister refers and, therefore, it is no good him saying that the Bill stops public nuisance. That is such a high hurdle that much of the disorder and lack of amenity with which people are concerned come nowhere near it.

My Lords, I do not want to get into a Committee stage debate with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, particularly as the challenge to the concept of public nuisance was not made in Committee and is not made in the amendment and is therefore not the subject for debate. The point—

My Lords, I do not believe that that argument can stand up. All governments get things wrong. I used to watch my own side getting things wrong time after time. Here again the noble Lord appears to be getting something wrong. It is not good enough to say, "The argument should have been made earlier. We got away with getting it wrong earlier and now we are not going to do anything about it". That is, in essence, what the Minister has said.

I admire and know the noble Lord sufficiently well to realise that when he puts on a face like the one he is wearing now, which looks very uncomfortable, he knows he has done wrong—as someone said of a Labrador. He is a good and kindly man and I therefore ask him to address the problem posed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.

My Lords, my discomfort is with the behaviour of noble Lords opposite; not with the quality of my arguments. We are not in Committee. I have made it clear that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, do not arise in consideration of the amendment; they do not arise on the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow; and they ought not to be considered by this House at Report stage. They ought not to be the subject of intervention when there has been a perfectly good opportunity to take part in the debate before the Minister has risen to his feet. I have made no new points but noble Lords opposite are seeking to make new points in the form of interventions. They are not relevant to the amendment before us. If we are to have any semblance of order in this House, we must debate the amendments before us.

My Lords, the Minister said that he has made no new points, but one new question struck me in what he has said. He explained that when the applicant applies for a licence, he must make it clear what is to take place. Does that mean that in the application he must say in advance that he intends to show television broadcasts on wide-screen television?

My Lords, an applicant will be applying for an entertainment licence and he will be subscribing to the licensing objectives. That is the point I want to make. Under those circumstances, the suggestion that we should be putting under the licensing regime all television programmes that are shown—that is what the amendment means—is not acceptable. It is a degree of new regulation which is not acceptable. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is plainly wrong. The regulatory framework in the area has been in place for many years. It works now and it will work in the future.

It was claimed that ACPO is in favour of the amendments. I would like to see the chapter and verse for that. The police are certainly concerned about rowdy behaviour caused by heavy drinking when people watch televised sporting events in public houses. We control the sale of alcohol and allow conditions to be imposed to control disorder, but television without alcohol is no different from inviting friends to watch something in one's own home. Control on the sale of alcohol and disorder is the key to our regulatory regime, rather than the imposition of a new degree of regulation.

We oppose these amendments. They would cause serious trouble indeed to the deregulatory thrust of the Bill.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I assure your Lordships' House that it is not our proposal to introduce new regulation where none exists. Furthermore, noble Lords should rest assured that I have no intention of dividing the House on the amendment. The purpose of proposing it was merely to show that the Bill as drafted does not provide a level playing field for amplified or recorded music, broadcast entertainment and unamplified music. We believe that that is wrong and that all the Minister's arguments about why we should not have regulation in relation to broadcast entertainment apply equally to unamplified music. That was the whole purpose of seeking to engage the Government in debate on the issue.

It remains a concern to us and to ACPO. However, I shall not dig into the huge pile of documentation that we have received from many quarters beyond your Lordships' House to illustrate that concern. I shall refer only to page 10 of the Scrutiny of Bills: Further Progress Report—the fourth report of Session 2002–03—from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It was published on Monday 10th February 2003. It states:

"we consider that the proposed blanket requirement for all premises to be licensed before any live performance takes place in them, regardless of whether there is a real risk of noise or nuisance, the nature of the performance, the nature of the premises, or the number of performers and spectators, is somewhat heavy-handed. We note that the licensing regime under the Bill would not cover the use of amplification equipment for recorded music, which would seem to prevent health and safety risks similar to those caused by electronic amplification of live performers".

It goes on, but we understand where the Minister is coming from. It is difficult to suggest that we should legislate depending on, say, the level of sound that broadcast entertainment would produce. Most of us love to get away from piped music, but, sadly, it is in almost all premises involving entertainment. That is unfortunate.

We do not want to regulate in that way. We want a level playing field for musicians and other performers within premises such as public houses and clubs. We hear what the Minister says. I do not want to divide your Lordships' House but merely send a message to all those who enjoy television broadcasts of live football and other forms of entertainment. We are not agin it; we are trying merely to show that the Government should be doing all they can to provide a level playing field. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, we wholly support Amendments Nos. 8 and 12, to which I have added my name and that of my noble friend Lord Luke.

The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has fully explained the principle behind the amendments. The Government say that the Bill is deregulatory; they say it seeks to promote the performance of live music; they talk of scaremongering in the music world and the myths perpetuated about the negative constraints that the Bill imposes on musicians. But the regulation of music in the Bill is in line only with the licensing objectives in terms of public safety, nuisance arid so on. Yet there is no doubt that the provisions will in practice increase the regulation of music even though there already exist adequate legal controls to respond to issues of health and safety, noise, crime and disorder, and so on. For example, there already has to be compliance with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Local authorities can, moreover, take action for an injunction where there has been, or it is believed there will be, a nuisance affecting a class of person within their area.

We have had information from lawyers suggesting that the proposed regulation in the Bill may infringe Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the grounds that the Secretary of State can or should impose controls only where the proportionality test provides that they are necessary. We are not convinced that the necessity has been proved in this case.

Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 exempts the playing of recorded music when incidental. Why must music be recorded? The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh said in Committee:

"The difference between amplified and unamplified music is more important than the difference between live and recorded music".—[Official Report, 12/12/02; col. 398.]

Paragraph 7 is therefore over-specific. Live music can be equally incidental. Many of the concerns voiced by musicians have been about the inherent problems in spontaneous musical activity, such as a guitar being played in the corner of a pub. Our amendment would exempt unamplified music that is incidental. The Government will undoubtedly respond by saying that it is hard to draw a line between amplified and unamplified, but I do not believe that the line is so tricky to draw. Moreover, the principle is straightforward.

This concession would go a long way towards convincing musicians nationwide that the Government are genuine when they say that the Bill is intended to promote the performance of music, not strangle it.

The Minister said in Committee with regard to broadcast entertainment that,

"if a licensee permits disorder and noise nuisance on his premises he will face a review of his licence, and it will therefore be in his interests to maintain an orderly public house".—[Official Report, 12/12/02; col. 404.]

What is the difference? Surely the same would apply in relation to unamplified music. Surely that is the right way to deal with unamplified music. We have already spoken about the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is deeply concerned about this issue, and the question of proportionality.

The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred to the petition that has received over 70,000 signatures. It was based on words put down in an Early-Day Motion introduced by Her Majesty's Opposition in another place. These amendments respond to an overwhelming lobby from beyond your Lordships' House. The lobby has listened to and watched the Government. It has seen the Government, and it is determined not to be difficult. But there is no question that the Joint Committee on Human Rights should be listened to and the interests of the musicians heard.

My Lords, my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, are absolutely correct. The Minister might like to consider paragraph 12.45 on page 85 of the draft guidance, which states:

"The Act anticipates that any noise coming from the premises should be disturbing members of the public, for example, in the street or residing locally—otherwise it could not constitute a nuisance".

What, then, is the difference between a nuisance coming from recorded music as opposed to live music?

My Lords, I totally support my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. If Verdi's "Requiem" is banged out very loudly on a mega-something thing which our children all buy to record music on, that would make much more noise than four people on a zither in a pub. Surely the issue is the upset to outsiders, and it will vary from place to place. We must therefore try and look at this as grown-ups rather than as the Government are doing. They are regulating; they are saying that we can do this with zithers but not that with machines which make a lot of noise. At the upper end, only dogs can hear them, anyway. That is where it is going wrong.

We should be addressing our minds to the noise and disturbance made by people outside pubs or places of entertainment, rather than to whether music is recorded, live, amplified live or non-amplified live. The amount of nuisance will vary from place to place. If a concert takes place in the middle of Salisbury Plain, it will make less environmental impact than in Chester Row in Westminster. I suggest that the Government are not addressing those judgments.

My Lords, if we had the survey commissioned by DEFRA on the implications for the control of noise by local authorities and the licensed trade that may arise from the new legislation, we would not be speaking in the dark about the nature of the nuisance that is arising or has arisen in relation to licensed premises in the past. The examples that have been given such as Verdi's "Requiem" and the full orchestra suggested by the Minister are both bizarre and improbable.

We are talking about whether people have perceived any nuisance arising from live music in licensed premises in the past or whether they may do so in future as a result of the Bill. I believe that if the DEFRA survey had been made available to your Lordships, we would have seen clearly that live music is not a source of nuisance and that it should not be discriminated against as it is in the Bill.

I deprecate the fact that we are trying to reach important conclusions about the Bill without having information that the Government ought to have made available to us. We were talking about the guidance at an earlier stage, and now we have that. I am now concerned about the DEFRA survey. I asked a question about it the other day and did not receive a satisfactory answer. I would like to know from the Minister why it is not possible to give your Lordships details of the replies to the survey so that we know the facts before we reach a decision.

My Lords, at some stage we shall need a definition of what is amplified and what is unamplified. I looked it up in the dictionary earlier. Amplify means enlarge, increase, augment, enhance, elaborate on or exaggerate. Many modern instruments make no sound unless an amplifier is used. An electronic piano has an amplifier in it to make it sound like a normal, unamplified piano. The issue will have to be clarified at some stage. It may come up later, but this may he an appropriate time for the Minister to consider it.

My Lords, we have discussed the issues of live music at considerable length. These amendments give us the opportunity to consider the matter further. I welcome that.

Amendment No. 8 would broaden the exemption for music that is incidental to other activities, from simply recorded music to all forms of music, live or recorded. I remind the House that on the previous amendment I said that however strong our aesthetic objections to incidental recorded music, none of us thought that it should be brought within the scope of the Bill, unless it is so loud as to cause a public nuisance and therefore go against the licensing objectives. I entirely understand the purpose behind the amendment, hut it is horn of the misconception that in some way the Bill will threaten guitar-playing in the corner of the pub, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, put it, or four people on a zither—I hope the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, means four people on four zithers.

My Lords, that point had been drawn to my attention before the noble Lord pointed it out. The thought of four people on one zither gives me an immense amount of pleasure.

My Lords, I was just imagining the huddle. The thought gave me a lot of pleasure, but then, everything that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, says gives me pleasure—up to a point.

My Lords, flattery will get the noble Lord absolutely everywhere. I lap it up.

My Lords, it is not getting me anywhere, so I shall stop it.

The amendment would address that perceived threat by drawing a hard and fast line across the face of a flexible Bill. The exemption for recorded music is designed to cover background music in lifts, supermarkets or restaurants or provisions such as juke boxes in pubs. It is clear that a lot of us would like to do something about it. However, primary legislation would certainly be the wrong way of achieving that noble end, as our society is tolerant about views and tastes. All we can do is seek to persuade people of the error of their ways.

Some people argue that recorded background music can give rise to similar issues of nuisance and safety as live music, but we do not accept that that is the case. I have heard scare stories that the exemption will lead to neighbourhoods blighted by juke boxes blasting music through the doors and windows of pubs. That seems unlikely. People go to pubs to talk to each other and drink. Very loud music of a kind that would cause a nuisance outside the premises would defeat that object. Any licensee who knows what is good for his business would not turn the volume up so high that it was impossible to talk. On the rare occasions on which that happens, measures can be taken to stop it. It would be difficult to argue that the music was incidental to another activity, so the foundation of the exemption could be challenged. That would put the licensee at risk of committing the offence at Clause 134 of carrying on a licensable activity without an authorisation, with all the implications for penalties and ultimately the potential for forfeiture of the personal licence.

The Bill provides strong powers for the police to close premises that are giving rise to noise nuisance. Those powers have been in place since December 2001 for premises with a justice's licence to sell alcohol. It is true that they have been used in only a handful of cases, but the police tell us that that is because the powers have been shown to be a useful deterrent. The Bill will extend the powers to cover all licensed premises.

Finally, where supposedly incidental recorded music is giving rise to nuisance, it is open to the responsible authorities, including the police and interested parties, including anyone living nearby, to request a review of the premises licence.

It has been said that all those issues can apply to live incidental music as well as recorded music. They can, but live music is different from recorded music. For example, it often requires cabling and finding a place to put the performers, which can affect access to fire exits or extinguishers. The sound produced by live music can often be far more penetrating than the average set of pub speakers. I am not saying that it always is, but it can be. It is often more difficult to restrict the volume to a level that is commensurate with the idea of incidental music. We are talking about incidental music, not music that is a performance for an audience.

I totally accept that piano playing in the background of a restaurant is unlikely to give rise to issues of disorder or safety, but the range of music goes wider than that. That is why it is dangerous to draw hard and fast dividing lines. The approach we have set out in the Bill, complemented by the range of measures we announced on 18th February, some of which are contained in amendments that we have tabled on Report, provides the flexibility to ensure that the kind of activities that give rise to no significant issues of safety or nuisance are allowed to proceed unhindered, while at the same time avoiding throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

For example, in Amendment No. 218 we ensure that only those concerned with the organisation and management of regulated entertainment rather than individual performers will be liable to the offence of carrying out regulated entertainment without a suitable permission. That puts the onus on the organiser to ensure that the necessary authorisation is in place. To ensure that licensees are not put off seeking these authorisations by the fear of disproportionate, inappropriate and expensive conditions being imposed by the local authority, we are working with a group drawn from representatives of performers, the music industry, the licensed trade and local government to inform us in drawing up the relevant sections of the guidance, which will provide clear distinctions about what might and might not constitute appropriate conditions to apply to licences that authorise live music. We have already said that a licence for the provision of entertainment, including live music, can be applied for at the same time as an alcohol licence and that there is no additional charge for it. I am sorry to say that the petition and a lot of the claims made by the Musicians' Union are based on that misconception.

Amendment No. 12 also falls victim to the wide range of activities that come within the definition of regulated entertainment. It would exempt unamplified live incidental music from regulation under the Bill. The same arguments apply here. The amendment appears admirable, but it ignores the simple fact that many unamplified instruments can be loud and penetrating. Drums are an obvious example. In addition, with the package of measures that we have put in place, there is no need for the amendment.

When the working group that we have convened has finished its work, the relevant sections of the guidance will draw clear distinctions about what might and might not be appropriate conditions for unamplified music. It will be flexible enough to cope with special situations such as the use of drum kits or other loud and penetrating unamplified instruments in a way that the Bill never could without increasing its length and complexity. While I am on that subject, it is not our intention to turn the guidance into regulations. We are proposing that the first issue of the guidance should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, but it will still be guidance. Authorities will have to have regard to it rather than being obliged to follow its every dot and comma. In maintaining the flexibility of guidance, we can tailor the system in the light of experience, subject to the safeguard that I have just referred to, which is a response to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform.

Finally, by avoiding the drawing of hard and fast lines, we can avoid the kind of perverse disincentive that was in the existing "two in a bar" rule. I am glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, confirm that he opposes that rule. In pubs, at least, it discouraged many forms of entertainment outside the narrow definition of entertainment covered by the exemption.

The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raised the issue of human rights. We have tabled amendments that will satisfy the Joint Committee on Human Rights. They deal with matters of proportionality, for purposes of compatibility with the European convention. The combination of a flexible Bill and flexible guidance gives licensing authorities the tools to tailor their approach to the appropriate level in individual cases.

I have little to say about the Institute of Acoustics. The matter is referred to in the guidance, although I am not conscious of having referred to it in debate. The guidance simply used what was published. I understand that there may be a desire to revise the guidance for local authorities. That is fine, and can be taken into account.

My Lords, will the Minister give way?

My Lords, I was about to conclude my remarks. I do not have anything else to say.

My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister. I did not wish to delay or hamper him in any way—not that I could. We on these Benches might feel some dismay that we do not have the guidance in front of us now. That puts us at a great disadvantage. The Minister says that the guidance will be flexible, but does he recall the noble Lord, Lord Davies, saying that the guidance would provide the parameters within which the authority must comply?

My Lords, the guidance has been available for some time. I am sorry that it did not reach the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, but other noble Lords have had access to it.

I shall be entirely clear about what guidance does and what the parliamentary authority for it is. The Select Committee requests that the first issue of the guidance should be subject to affirmative resolution procedures and that subsequent variations should be subject to negative resolution procedures, so that there is a degree of parliamentary control all the time. We have agreed to that—we are doing exactly what it wants. However, it is still guidance. It maintains a degree of flexibility, for which everyone involved has expressed a wish, including local authorities, the trade and everyone else with an interest. Local authorities will not be bound by every dot and comma of the guidance but must have regard to it and must have good acceptable reasons if they propose to depart from it.

I am reluctant to oppose the amendments, because I know the good faith in which they are moved and the extent of public feeling about them. However, they are misconceived, and we cannot accept them.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that blocking a fire exit is an offence under the fire Acts?

My Lords, I believe so.

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister's remarks. He said that I was born of a misconception, which is an interesting phrase to use, but I will not hold it against him. However, that is the start of our differences of view.

My Lords, as the noble Lord's father was a friend of mine, I should be especially careful about withdrawing any unfortunate misstatements.

My Lords, I withdraw happily.

The Minister referred to noise causing a disturbance. That is dealt with in one part of the Bill, but the amendments intend to give proportionality, as set out in the convention. He refers to people being assaulted when they pass a pub with a jukebox playing. That may be the case, but a large number of people like to go to pubs to listen to live music.

The Minister in another place said how much he disliked folk music. I should declare an interest, as I work for the English Folk Dance and Song Society. That music is an acquired taste, too. Such performances give people the opportunity to listen to other types of music, although they may not result in mass participation. A few people playing in a pub should be regarded as proportionate, and the legislation should be proportionate, too.

Noble Lords have referred to penalties and health and safety. The Minister has said that fire exits can be blocked, but health and safety legislation is clear on that point. If health and safety legislation is good enough for recorded music, it should be good enough for live music. The measures in the Bill would kill all spontaneity. I have been to many pubs in which, at the end of the evening, a guitar is taken out and someone starts playing. That is a fantastic thing to be able to do, but such activities would be put at risk if the publican for some reason failed to set them out in applying for an entertainment licence.

The purpose of the Bill, as set out by the Minister, is to expand all the venues available for the production of live music, which would lead to a renaissance. I am tempted to refer to a renaissance of the regions, given that this is a DCMS Bill, but I do not want to take that line because that policy proved a slight disappointment in some respects, although it was helpful in others.

The Minister said that the amendments would draw a line, and that is their purpose. They draw a line in the sand and state that, at a certain level, live music should be acceptable. In a mature society, we should have the right to listen to music in the circumstances that we are discussing, and performers of music should have the right to perform it. The Bill is deregulatory. The amendments do not affect the Bill's nature but support its aims. On that basis, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, we on these Benches are very grateful to the Government for listening to the concerns about churches which we raised both on Second Reading and in Committee. There was unquestionably an outcry from many members of the public about the need to exempt those religious establishments.

I seek reassurance from the Minister in relation to the amendment. Amendment No. 11, in my name, refers to "religious buildings" as opposed to religious meetings or services. Amendment No. 11 states:

"Religious buildings

The provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities in premises mainly used for public religious worship is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act".

It is our hope and wish that both the spirit and the actuality of Amendment No. 11 reflect the Government's intention. We on these Benches seek to ensure that all forms of entertainment in religious buildings are exempt, as opposed to merely entertainment for the purposes of, or incidental to, religious meetings or services.

Staff in the Public Bill Office assured us that government Amendment No. 10 is correct even though it inserts at page 110, line 30,

"(b) at a place of public religious worship".

As currently drafted, line 30 on page 110 contains no paragraph (a).

I had proposed a different amendment to the Public Bill Office which read,

"Religious buildings

The provision of any entertainment or entertainment facilities

(a) for the purposes of, or for purposes incidental to, a religious meeting or service, or

(b) at a place of public religious worship,

is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act".

I hope that the Minister sees where I am coming from. The wording of Amendment No. 10 does not make sense in the context of the wording of the Bill.

We have been approached by a number of noble Lords and people outside the Chamber who seek to ensure that the government amendment, which we are keen to endorse, exempts all forms of entertainment in religious buildings. I quote again from Amendment No. 11, which states:

"The provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities in premises mainly used for public religious worship is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act".

I give the example of bell ringing which concerns the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. The Bill refers to entertainment in the context of religious meetings or services. Bell ringers may play bells in different parts of the country for a charitable purpose or otherwise. They want to be sure that, in doing so, they do not require a licence. A number of noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, are concerned about concerts which take place in many different kinds of religious buildings. Many of those concerts take place to raise funds to maintain those buildings.

We welcome government Amendment No. 10 and want to support it. We do not wish to press Amendment No. 11 but we seek assurance from the Government that Amendment No. 10 covers,

"The provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities in premises mainly used for public religious worship".

We seek to ensure that that kind of entertainment will not be considered regulated entertainment for the purposes of the Bill.

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this excellent amendment. My right honourable friend Alan Beith will be displeased if I do not mention disused chapels. Some disused chapels in the north—former places of religious worship—have trust status. Musical performances may take place in them for fund-raising purposes. Are such disused chapels included in the terms of the amendment? If they are not, will the Minister consider altering the guidance to include them?

My Lords, all those responsible for places of public religious worship will be very grateful for the amendment we are discussing. I am grateful for the support from noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber. I was particularly grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, in Committee as this is emphatically not a concession made to churches but, as the government amendment makes clear, to all places of public religious worship.

As the noble Baroness said, the contents of our postbags show the depth of feeling on the matter. I believe that amateur music making traditions, so vital to many communities and so important in encouraging people of all ages to take part in musical or dramatic activities, would be badly curtailed if the Bill were not amended. As a legislative innocent, I presume that, if Amendment No. 10 is accepted, paragraph (a) will materialise at page 110, line 30.

I hope that I am right in thinking that the amendment is couched in clear legal terms. I believe that the phrase,

"place of public religious worship",

has specific legal meaning in other contexts; it is not just a question of religious assemblies. There should be no ambiguity as to whether a particular place qualifies for the exemption we are discussing. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's response to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.

It is heartening that government Amendment No. 10 will free places of worship from the need to make impossible judgments as to whether a particular event is incidental to a religious service. Entertainment provided for the purposes of a religious meeting or service will be exempt, as will entertainment provided at a place of public religious worship. That is clear, simple and easy to understand on the part of all those who care for, or are responsible for, places of worship. It is not the intention of any such person to cause a public nuisance. I hope that no such person is likely to put on an event that would lead to nuisance. Indeed, the very absence of complaints about the present situation—the Government acknowledged that even the original proposals did not result from arty specific problems in relation to entertainment in places of worship—should reassure Ministers.

As the Minister reminded us, when tabling the amendment the Government made the welcome statement that they proposed to exempt buildings such as church and village halls and similar premises from licensing fees, even though those premises would need to undertake the necessary procedures. That is encouraging news for those who look after places of worship and community buildings. I note that no specific government amendment on that matter has been tabled although a measure has been tabled which would have a similar effect. I should be interested to know what the Government propose in that regard. Will the Minister be kind enough to give an undertaking on how it is intended to bring that welcome proposal into effect? I reiterate the thanks of all those of all faiths and denominations who are responsible for places of worship for a generous recognition, through government Amendment No. 10, of the wide role such places and buildings play in the community, and for the clarity of the amendment itself.

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate said that the concession applies not only to churches but to all places of religious worship. Is the Minister sure that that is the case? As I understood it from speaking the other day to the director of National Church Watch—that organisation is concerned with offences that take place on religious premises or against persons in religious premises—the only services that are public in the true sense of the word are those in the Church of England.

The divine service in the Church of England is open to any person who wishes to come through the doors and participate, but in all other churches the person who enters does so by means of a deemed licence, which can be withdrawn. That is also the case in the Church of England at any time other than a divine service. The director mentioned that because it was important in dealing with cases of misconduct in places of religious worship, as one could tell someone who, for example, entered a church outside the hours of divine service with a hat on or barechested, "That is an unseemly way in which to behave, so your licence to enter the premises is withdrawn and you may now leave". If the person did not leave, a policeman could be called to escort him off the premises.

That rule extends not only to the Church of England outside the times of divine service, but to any other church or place of religious worship that is not part of the Christian faith. I am afraid that using the term "public religious worship", as the amendment does, may exclude many of the premises that we think that we are covering—all the non-conformist churches, Catholic churches and those of other denominations—where entertainments may take place. We would like to exempt them, but may find that we have failed to do so because of the use of the term "public". Will the Minister kindly look at that? If I am wrong, she could say so now. However, I do not expect to be given an answer off the cuff, so perhaps the matter could be considered before Third Reading.

My Lords, I speak briefly to support the welcome that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, gave the Minister and to ask a question. Does the exemption apply to redundant churches? They range from somewhere such as St John's, Smith Square, down to one in my own town used regularly for concerts. It is used on one day a year for public worship, because the Historic Churches Preservation Trust insists on that. It is not regularly used for public worship, yet it is a church and is known as a church. I feel that it ought to fall within the definition that the Minister has given.

My Lords, I should like to join those who thanked the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment, which will give great satisfaction to those of us who spoke at earlier stages of the Bill's passage.

If I had to choose between the government amendment and that tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I would prefer the latter, because one phrase in paragraph 9 of the schedule leaves a certain lingering doubt. The paragraph covers:

"The provision of any entertainment or entertainment facilities for the purposes of, or for purposes incidental to, a religious meeting".

Does that cover a point that concerned me at an earlier stage of the Bill's passage? Those of us who try to support the structure, appearance and capabilities of ancient buildings—the building that I support is listed as class I by none other than the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and we arrange for charitable concerts—wonder whether we will be covered by purposes incidental to a religious meeting. It is not absolutely clear. I am sure that the intention is there, but I hope that we are not causing any difficulties.

The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, accurately reflected my views on bell ringing. I raise the subject only for the reason that I explained in my letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on 15th February. A document described as a leaflet about the Bill has come into my hands. To my surprise, it contains a whole paragraph about bell ringing. I think that it must have been written before the stages of debate in which the subject was raised. A sentence in the leaflet gives rise to doubt when it states,

"if an organised bell ringing event takes place for the public that would be licensable".

We were given some extremely helpful and categoric statements by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at earlier stages that bell ringing was not a licensable activity. I moved an amendment in Committee to that effect. I was told by the noble Baroness that the amendment was entirely unnecessary and would not be required. I therefore withdrew it. I hope that she can ensure that if the leaflet is given further circulation, the offending sentence will be removed. If she can, that will close me down, otherwise I might have to come back to the subject at Third Reading.

My Lords, I too very much welcome the amendment. I speak only because I was a little concerned when I heard the Minister say that Amendment No. 11 would be redundant if Amendment No. 10 was accepted. It seems to me, as it does to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that Amendment No. 11 is much clearer than Amendment No. 10.

My point follows what my noble friend Lady Buscombe said, and from my interest as a patron of an orchestra. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is also a patron of the same orchestra. It mainly performs its evening concerts in churches in London. If the heading "Religious meetings or services" remains in the Bill, does that qualify Amendment No. 10? The great attraction of Amendment No. 11 is that its heading is "Religious buildings", which is very much clearer. Amendment No. 10 seeks to go beyond religious meetings or services, but the heading still remains in the Bill, so far as I can see.

My Lords, I begin by saying how very grateful I am to noble Lords for their welcome to the Government's change of mind on the issue and our amendment. I also want to explain that the wording has been agreed with all the main religious groups, so I believe that it satisfies them all that we are making a genuine change to the Bill.

I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that bell-ringing will not require a licence. I want to reiterate what was stated quite clearly in Committee, and I hope that he will accept our good faith on that matter. Several noble Lords asked whether concerts would be covered by the amendment. They certainly will. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I can say that all forms of entertainment in places of public religious worship will be exempted. I hope that that is helpful to her.

Several noble Lords asked about disused churches or disused chapels, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. If a church is not consecrated, it would not be covered by the exemption. The trigger is,

"a place of public religious worship".

That is the right wording, because it is an understood term and was agreed with the various religious groups consulted. Case law tells us that not only must the place be available to the public for religious worship, but it must be apparent that it is so available. I am not sure whether that covers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but I shall certainly take his question away and look at it again.

My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that the chapels in HM Prisons are not consecrated, and that they would therefore not be covered by the exemption? Can she think of a way round that one?

My Lords, I was not aware that chapels in prisons are not consecrated. I shall take away the issue that the noble Lord raised and examine it.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that consecration is a technical term and that most places of public religious worship, even in the Christian tradition these days, are not legally consecrated? They have a lesser form of legal dedication. It is a particular term and the difficulty about prison chapels is not as substantial as may appear at first sight.

My Lords, that was extremely helpful. I must admit that I am not terribly familiar with the niceties of the meaning of the terms "consecrated" and "deconsecrated" but I am glad to be reassured that the right reverend Prelate does not believe that that will be a problem.

I say to the right reverend Prelate that it is indeed our intention that church halls, chapel halls and other similar buildings—village halls, parish halls and community halls—will be exempt from the fees associated with the provision of entertainment and entertainment facilities. A relevant amendment has not been tabled because we do not need one: the Secretary of State is already able to set fees at any level for any class of premises. We shall take this issue into account when setting the fees.

I believe that I have answered all of the questions that were put to me. I hope that we shall now be able to go ahead with an arrangement that has existed in the rest of the country for a very long time; I hope that concerts and other forms of entertainment will be able to take place in churches and other places of religious worship without having to seek a licence.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness concludes, will she kindly answer my question about the phrase in the leaflet that I mentioned?

My Lords, I have not seen the leaflet to which the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, refers. I am confident that what he wants will happen and that there will be no particular problems in relation to the issue that he raised.

My Lords, we support the amendment, which also appears in our name. There was some concern in Committee that the wording of the previous amendment would have allowed the premises of schools to be used by outside bodies for activities that would be outside the remit of the school. This amendment would close that loophole. It is only fair that schools, which are extremely heavily regulated—perhaps that is as it should be because that avoids as much risk as possible for those in the schools, although schools should not be over-regulated—should be given an exemption in the same way that churches have been given an exemption for logical reasons. On that basis, we support the amendment.

My Lords, I am sure that the House has some sympathy with the aim of attempting to ensure that our schools do not have to be burdened with the administrative requirements of the Bill and the associated costs. However, I am afraid that we see many problems with the amendment. That includes the scope of the amendment as well as some points of principle. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that in Committee a rather different amendment had been considered. One point about which we were concerned has been put right but I am afraid that other points still give rise to concern.

First, on scope, the amendment uses the expression "educational establishment" without offering any more detailed definition. I remember from my previous job as a Minister in the Department for Education, when I handled a number of Bills, that the term "educational institution" is more commonly found in statute; it is used in the Bill and defined in Clause 16(3). It means a school or an institution within the further or higher education sector, within the meaning of the Education Act 1996, or a college, school, hall or other institution of a university, in circumstances where the university receives financial support under Section 65 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The definition suggests what would he exempted by the amendment. It is not just about school plays, concerts and similar activities. It would draw in dances, raves, rock concerts and major festivals held by universities, colleges and places of further education for their students. It can also be argued that it would include students' unions, which run and control nightclubs as serious businesses these days. I am afraid to say that their premises give rise to as many anxieties about alcohol consumption, disorder, noise nuisance and drugs as any similar commercial venture in towns and city centres. It would be reckless to bring within such an exemption the range of premises that might be affected by the amendment, so we have serious problems with its scope.

I shall outline the points of principle. Entertainment is regulated under the Bill to achieve the licensing objectives, not least public safety. The establishments that would be at least partially exempted through the amendment host occasions that the public can attend. Occasionally, schools stage concerts and plays on a commercial basis. Just because those events take place at schools does not mean that the public should not be protected or expect to be protected. They are different kinds of events to those referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, which are entirely about activities for pupils and their parents.

I remind the House that the reforms in the Bill are designed to establish a level playing field for all charitable and community bodies, with a light touch and an unbureaucratic system. To exclude some premises entirely from that while including others would not achieve that aim; it would introduce a measure of injustice.

It might be sensible if I take the opportunity to clarify some of the points about entertainment in schools that have given rise to concern. First, it has been suggested that the teaching of music, including the performance of musical pieces in schools by teachers and pupils for other teachers and pupils, might have to be licensed. Of course that is not a licensable activity. Secondly, school concerts or plays for teachers, pupils, parents, guests and invited friends are not licensable activities unless a charge is made that is intended to generate profit. If the charge is meant to do no more than cover the school's costs, no profit would be intended or made. Again, the qualifying conditions would not be met. If such a school concert or play is staged and those attending are invited to make a donation to the school but are not obliged to do so, the event would not be licensable. No charge is being made if only voluntary donations are sought.

So the vast majority of school activities of that kind are already exempted by the Bill. School concerts are currently licensable activities under the existing legislation, although outside London the local authority may grant a reduction in fee if it considers that the entertainment is of an educational or other like character. So there is no exemption at present. Under the Bill, the key is where either the entertainment is intended to be provided for the public—in other words, anybody, whether connected with the school or not, is free to attend—or where a charge is made, and profit is the aim of the performance. We license commercial activity because the profit motive may override immediate concerns for public safety and public nuisance. We license places open to the public because every citizen should know that his or her interests will he safeguarded regardless of whether the building is a school or community hall or a major commercial concert hall.

If a school wants to go down the route of staging public concerts or activities that generate income, the licensing system is not overly burdensome, so I cannot agree with some of the claims that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made. Temporary event notices should not cost the organiser more than £20. They cover events lasting up to three days for fewer than 500 people. Five such events could be staged each year within the three terms. I do not think that a school administrator will find that a great burden. The noble Baroness's assertion that many teachers would be affected does not stand up to examination.

If a school is more ambitious than that and wishes to plan larger and much more frequent events, it would need to obtain a premises licence, which would cost no more than £100 or so initially and £50 or so each year. But I would be surprised if many schools had the time or inclination for such activity. I can also give an undertaking that we will look at developing the guidance for licensing authorities to ensure that overly burdensome and disproportionate conditions are not imposed on schools beyond that which is absolutely necessary to ensure the safety of performers and audiences alike and to address the other licensing objectives. We want to ensure that music and other cultural activities thrive in schools, and nothing in the Bill will deny that intention.

In conclusion, although I know that the amendment was tabled with the best of intentions, I ask the noble Baroness not to press it, for reasons of both scope and principle.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her full response. It was similar to her response in Committee, which she made with some pressure, urging us to rethink our amendment. Following Committee stage, we reduced the scope of our amendment to include educational establishments only, rather than looking to hospitals, museums and prisons as we did originally.

I cannot accept the Minister's claim that the provision will not be more burdensome on schools. We must question why the Government have chosen to except churches—we are very happy about that—but, for all similar reasons, schools cannot be excepted. I hear what the Minister says on students' unions and student bars. But we are talking simply about the performance of entertainment, not situations where alcohol is served in educational establishments. We do not wish to discriminate against different forms of educational establishments. We believe that proportionality is very important. The Government have not made the case for having an additional layer of bureaucracy for schools to cope with.

All the licensing objectives—the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance, and the protection of children from harm—are already clearly covered by current regulations, with which schools and other educational establishments must comply. I thank the Minister for her response. I do not accept what she has said. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:

"I should like to make a Statement about the energy White Paper, which I and my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for 'Transport are publishing today. Copies are available in the Vote Office.

"At the same time, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is publishing the Government's response to the 22nd report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Energy—the Changing Climate. I should also like to draw the attention of the House to the written Statement on British Energy that I made this morning.

"Mr Speaker, I regret as much as I am sure you do that drafts of the White Paper have been leaked over the past few days. Such action is a discourtesy to the House and I deplore it wholeheartedly.

"This White Paper sets out a new energy policy, designed to deal with the three major challenges that now confront our energy system. The first is the challenge of climate change. CO₂ levels, which have already risen by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution, are now rising faster than ever before.

"The scientific evidence is quite clear that the consequences of rising global temperatures could be devastating not only in Britain, where floods and storms could cause billions of pounds' worth of damage, but even more so in developing countries where millions of people could be exposed to disease, hunger and flooding.

"Secondly, we face the challenge of our declining indigenous energy supplies. Already we import nearly half the coal we use. By 2006, we shall be a net importer of gas and, by 2010, of oil. By 2020, we could be dependent on imported fuel for three-quarters of our total primary energy needs. As we move from being an exporter to an importer of energy, we need new approaches to reduce the risk of price fluctuations and political instability or conflicts in other parts of the world.

"The third challenge is that of keeping our energy infrastructure up to date with changing technologies and needs. Much of our infrastructure will need to be updated over the next 20 years, particularly to adapt to far higher levels of renewable electricity and to accommodate gas imports.

"Our four new goals for energy policy are: first, cutting greenhouse gas emissions; secondly, securing reliable energy supplies; thirdly, maintaining competitive energy markets in the UK and beyond; and, fourthly, ensuring that every home is adequately and affordably heated.

"The United Kingdom is already on course to achieve our Kyoto commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008–12. Today, we are making a further commitment to cut UK carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by about 2050, with real progress by 2020. That was the recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. We are accepting it.

"Of course, our own actions will affect climate change only if they are part of a concerted international effort. A key objective British foreign policy in future will therefore be to secure ambitious international commitments to cutting CO₂ emissions.

"At the heart of our new framework for energy policy will be a carbon trading system. A new Europe-wide scheme is planned for 2005. It will create a powerful incentive to producers and consumers to use less energy and to switch to lower or zero carbon forms of electricity.

"The cheapest way to tackle all our energy goals is simply to use less energy. But we shall need to achieve far more on energy efficiency in the next 20 years than we have achieved in the last 20 years. Building on the climate change programme, we have therefore decided to consult on an expansion of the energy efficiency commitment to run from 2005 until at least 2008 at possibly twice its current level of activity, and we shall work with energy suppliers and Ofgem to create an effective market in energy services; to bring forward to 2005 the revision of building regulations, with higher standards for efficiency both in new buildings and i n refurbishments; to work with our European partners to agree higher standards for consumer and industrial appliances; and to set an example within government, improving energy efficiency in our own buildings and procurement.

"Last year we introduced a renewables obligation to help to deliver our target of 10 per cent renewables electricity by 2010. By that date, the renewables obligation and the exemption from the climate change levy will be worth £1 billion a year to the renewables industry.

"We believe that renewable sources of energy will increasingly demonstrate that they can achieve our goals at an acceptable cost. Our further aspiration is therefore to double renewables' share of electricity from our 2010 target by 2020.

"The White Paper sets out policies to achieve that by investing £60 million in new money for renewable energy projects, bringing spending on renewable energy up to £348 million over four years; simplifying and streamlining the planning system; taking steps with Ofgem and others to improve access by renewable generators to the electricity network; and setting out a new strategic framework for offshore wind.

"Nuclear power is currently an important source of carbon-free electricity. But its current economics make it an unattractive option and there are also important issues of nuclear waste to be resolved. The White Paper does not contain proposals for building new nuclear power stations but does not rule out the possibility that at some point in the future new nuclear build might be necessary if we are to meet our carbon targets. Any further decision to proceed with the building of new nuclear power stations would only follow a full public consultation and publication of a further White Paper.

"Transport, which accounts for around a third of final energy use, will also play its part. We shall continue to improve vehicles' fuel efficiency and to cut carbon emissions through the very successful EU voluntary agreements with car makers. Vehicle taxation now encourages and rewards consumers for choosing clean, low-carbon vehicles. We shall start to make substantial use of low-carbon biofuels. That builds on the policies that we set out in our powering future vehicles strategy, and we welcome industry and other stakeholders' engagement through the new low carbon vehicle partnership.

"In this White Paper, we set out a package of measures to support new energy technologies, including a new industry network on fuel cells and further work on the transition to a hydrogen economy. I also welcome the research councils' proposal for a new energy research centre.

"Turning to energy reliability, becoming an energy importer does not necessarily make it harder to deliver energy reliability. Most other leading industrial nations have achieved economic growth as energy importers and we shall be able to do the same. Securing reliable energy supplies will be an increasingly important part of our European and foreign policy.

"We have already secured a commitment to EU energy liberalisation for industrial customers by 2004 and overall by 2007. That will improve our access to different sources of supply and allow UK companies to compete in wider markets. Competitive markets, as well as keeping prices affordable, also create the right environment for infrastructure investment that will increase our capacity to import gas through the existing interconnector. Renewables and smaller-scale distributed generation will also help to promote greater diversity and security.

"Coal generation provides around a third of our electricity, increases flexibility and contributes to diversity of supplies. The future for coal electricity generation lies in cleaner coal technologies or carbon capture and storage. We already have a programme of support for cleaner technologies and the White Paper includes proposals on capture and storage. Separately we propose to introduce an investment aid scheme to help existing pits to develop new coal reserves, where they are economically viable, and to help to safeguard jobs, and we have already negotiated the flexibility required at an EU level to enable us to do that.

"Tackling fuel poverty remains a key priority. In 1996 there were 5.5 million UK households in fuel poverty. Today, there are around 3 million; 2 million of those are vulnerable households—older households, families with children or householders who are disabled or have a long-term illness.

"In 2001, our fuel poverty strategy set out policies to end fuel poverty in vulnerable households by 2010. We further aim that, as far as reasonably practical, nobody in Britain should be living in fuel poverty by 2016–18.

"Eradicating fuel poverty requires action in homes through better insulation and heating systems. We are tackling that through programmes such as Warm Front and the energy efficiency commitment. We shall publish our first annual report on our fuel poverty strategy shortly, giving more detail of the progress being made.

"Today's White Paper sets out an energy policy for the long term. It will give energy producers and industry the long-term market framework that they need to invest and to plan with confidence. It will ensure that consumers can continue to rely upon safe, affordable energy for all their needs. And it will help us to play a leading role in meeting the challenge of climate change. I commend the White Paper to the House".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I hope that it is not too disappointing for him when I say that the White Paper is a deeply disturbing document because it poses many questions but gives few answers. I shall refer to that later. In view of that shortage of answers, why has the White Paper taken so long to see the light of day?

I note the Statement's comments that the Minister in another place regrets the many leaks of the White Paper during the past few days. It is extremely disturbing that there have been so many leaks in the newspapers, on television or on radio. Many members of the public will be unaware that Statements are supposed to be made in the Houses of Parliament in the first instance. This is becoming an everyday occurrence. When will it stop? It is nice to have an apology today that it has happened, but when will it stop? Will the Government do their usual thing and set up a leak inquiry or a taskforce to deal with leaks?

Those may seem frivolous questions, but Parliament not being told in advance of such leaks is a matter of constitutional importance. As the Minister was gracious enough to pass on regret that that happened, perhaps the Government will consider how to try to stop it happening in future.

On the "Today" programme this morning, it was said that the White Paper was long in aspirations but short in targets, which leads me to ask the Minister to clarify what is the difference between a target and an aspiration. Will he clarify for the record whether, when the Government know that a target will not be met, they suddenly downgrade it and call it an aspiration?

In the foreword to the White Paper, the Prime Minister congratulates the Government by saying that they are,

"putting the UK on a path to a 60% reduction in its carbon dioxide emissions by 2050".

As the Minister repeated, that is one recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Presumably, using the word "path" means that that is an aspiration, not a target. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that. Of course, even if it were only an aspiration, it is an admirable one that we would all support, but we need to know whether there is any possibility of achieving it. How is it to be achieved?

The Minister repeated that there will not be new nuclear power stations when the existing ones are finally decommissioned—they will not be replaced. They do not produce carbon dioxide, despite paying the climate change levy; but they provide much of the electricity that we use. Among other things, the White Paper offers renewables as one solution to fill the gap. Of course we on this side of the House want renewables to produce even more of our energy, but the idea that they could replace the amount to be lost is a little far-fetched. I should be most grateful if the Minister would answer that point.

The Minister mentioned that under Kyoto, we had a target of 10 per cent renewable energy by 2010. That was extended to 20 per cent by 2020 in the United Kingdom, but has now been downgraded to an aspiration. Hence my original question: if the Government decide that they cannot meet a target, will it be usual to turn it into an aspiration?

I said that the review was deeply disturbing. It certainly is. Britain's energy needs will not be met by a hope, a prayer and an aspiration. Britain's energy industry is now vulnerable, and the Government must recognise that renewables alone simply cannot make up the gap. Of course, the Minister will tell me that that will involve not renewables alone but other sources, on which I shall touch later.

However, wind power is one source that the Government are considering. I stand to be corrected by the Minister, but I believe that by the end of 2001, we had 70 wind farms. The Performance and Innovation Unit stated that to meet our target for renewables, we would need 20,000 wind farms. There is quite a difference between 70 and 20,000. My arithmetic is not that great, but I think that that means that we must find 19,930 during the next 17 years. That comes to 22 a week, or three a day. We have built 70 over quite a period and now we suddenly imagine that by investing some money we shall arrive at three a day.

Is that possible? Can the Minister tell us how that will happen? What are the visual environmental implications of that? Where will those wind farms be placed—in parks or off-shore? Can the Minister confirm that the Government intend to scrap or in some way weaken existing planning controls on wind farms in our moorlands and along our coasts to make that possible?

The White Paper tells us that the Government will be investing £1 billion a year in renewables by 2010. What is the current level of funding—which, as I mentioned, has produced only 70 wind farms? Is the £1 billion funding secured in forward spending programmes? Is that also just an aspiration and spin, or will it be there?

On the subject of renewables, I was surprised to read in the press that government sources are today talking of confronting President Bush over energy. I did not think that we were in the business of confronting the President at this moment. Perhaps I have missed something. Have the Government read the President's State of the Union message? In it, he committed himself to major investment in the search to develop hydrogen-powered cars. What is our policy on that? Where is our drive for hydrogen power? Indeed, is there a date—a target or an aspiration—by which all government cars will have been converted to low carbon fuels to set an example to the public and others?

When setting targets, how far have the Government considered the impact on United Kingdom businesses? Are we heading for a repeat of the ill-thought-out climate change levy? Are the Government considering a range of incentives to encourage United Kingdom businesses to meet their ambitious targets? If so, what are those incentives? Will that mean more fiddling with the minutiae of the tax system? British manufacturers are today urging the Chancellor to stop taking in tax money that they could reinvest. Will the Government listen?

I should appreciate clarification of how the Government intend to meet the targets in the White Paper without damaging British business. Specifically, can the Minister tell us whether the Government are considering extending agreements for small and medium-sized companies to obtain discounts on the climate change levy?

The White Paper says that we will be net importers of gas by 2006 and of oil by 2010. It warns:

"we may become potentially more vulnerable to price fluctuations and interruptions to supply caused by regulatory failures, political instability or conflict in other parts of the world".

How far will our energy needs dictate our diplomatic policies with regard to nations in the Middle East, Russia and the Caspian countries? How do the Government propose to balance the frequently competing interests of those countries? What is the noble Lord's latest projection for the development of new pipelines to convey Caspian basin oil? What role will the EU play? Do the Government support the idea, floated by some experts in France, of an EU energy procurement strategy? Will the Government give a firm commitment that they will put the United Kingdom's national interests first?

Many noble Lords will have hoped for more encouraging words on the subject of coal than the skimpy mention in the White Paper. Can the noble Lord give the House more details of the new aid planned for the coal industry after the end of the UK Coal Operating Aid Scheme? How much will be spent? When will it start being spent?

What is the Government's policy on nuclear energy? On the one hand, the White Paper says that no new build is proposed; on the other hand, the Government say that they do not rule out future build to meet the carbon targets—a 60 per cent reduction target laid down by the Prime Minister. Which is it? Will it be a non-nuclear future or a nuclear future? What is the point of re-visiting the issue in five years? It will be too late to do anything about it then. The Government seem to want to play all the balls in all the ways. Or is there a third way, about which Ministers have not yet told us?

What impact will the strategy have on domestic energy prices overall? The paper says that new policies will add between 5 and 15 per cent to household electricity bills. To those who use most lighting and heating—the elderly, who are in their home all day, and young women with their children—15 per cent is an enormous amount of money. It is not correct just to brush that aside. People will be punished for using more energy. I note that the Statement says that the best thing to do is not to use it and that, if we use less, everything will be well. Some people will continue to use more. How will the increases be phased in?

The White Paper also talks of new charges on air travel, to add to existing taxes. By how much do the Government think it necessary to raise the cost of holiday travel by 2010?

As I read the White Paper—the product of years of toil—I felt that I had never come across a more depressing catalogue of words. The paper talks repeatedly of working parties and reviews. It uses the phrases "We will consider", "We will explore" and "We will examine". We should have got there by now and should not still be exploring, reviewing, looking at or considering things. We have been waiting for the paper for ever. This is not an energy policy. It is a long-winded document, which acts as a fig-leaf to hide the fact that there is no energy policy in it.

In conclusion, I quote the Government's summary:

"We have reviewed what we will need to have achieved by 2020 if we are to be confident we are moving in the right direction, fast enough, to deliver our aims for 2050".

It continues:

"We have not sought to define every detail of the policies we need to pursue over the next 20 years and beyond … That would not be realistic".

So, they are not doing that. Does not the country expect that the energy policy review will say what the policy is? The Minister shakes his head; I do not blame him. We should not still be reviewing, considering and setting up working parties. That failure shows the real emptiness of the White Paper.

My Lords, in making my remarks on the Statement, I declare an interest as chairman of Micropower. I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement, but I must say that, although I find it a worthy, well written document—as all government documents are—I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, find it disappointing. It repeats a good deal of what is already known or has been said, particularly in the admirable PIU report produced a year ago. It avoids the fundamental issue of the future of nuclear power, a matter to which the noble Baroness referred. The White Paper suggests some new policies, but, on the whole, it is more of an aspirational than a determinist document. That is the impression that it leaves.

I shall consider the White Paper from three points of view: the encouragement of clean energy; the encouragement of energy efficiency; and the problem of security of supply. The clean energy aspect is overshadowed by the lack of decision on nuclear energy. I had expected that the document would decide one way or the other. If the Government had decided to go ahead with the construction of new nuclear stations, they should have addressed the problems of nuclear waste, capital costs and security. If, on the other hand, they had decided that there was no need or desire for the construction of new nuclear stations when the present stations come to the end of their life, they should have addressed what is becoming known as the "generation gap". How will the gap be filled in a way that will not harm the atmosphere?

In fact, neither of those things were done, and we have been left in a sort of limbo, in which the issue will be reconsidered in five years' time. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said, that could be too late. If the Government were to decide to go ahead with new nuclear stations then, the time that it takes to get planning consent, investment and so on would mean that there could be a serious gap between the output of existing stations on the point of being phased out and the input of any new stations.

We could assume that the Government's thinking is that, on the whole, they do not want any further nuclear stations. That seems to be the implication. In that case, I would have hoped to have seen a more determined approach to the production of the clean energy that is to replace the nuclear energy. The Government continue to support renewables, but there are other ways in which clean energy can be provided. Although the report mentions the substantial contribution that can be made by combined heat and power, there is no recognition of the serious difficulty in which CHP finds itself. There have been no new CHP plants for some time, and their contribution has been reduced. Unless there is a major new initiative, the contribution of combined heat and power, by which the Government set so much store, will fail.

The simplest way of dealing with that is something that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and I referred to at the time of the passage of the Utilities Bill. That is to establish a CHP obligation. In other words, we should treat CHP on the same basis as renewables and get the enormous benefit of almost doubling the efficiency of power generation as a result.

On a more positive note, I see that Ofgem is working closely on ways in which distributed generation—another way of adding to the efficiency of generation by having it more localised—can be established and the obstacles overcome. That is overdue, but it is satisfactory to note that the Government are committed to it.

On clean energy generally, there ought to be an overall approach to all aspects of clean energy, so that the same degree of commitment applied to renewables can be applied to the others. Clean coal technology, to which the noble Baroness referred, comes into that category. I am glad that it has been referred to. What is very necessary is that some clean coal technology plants are established together with CO₂ removal.

On the question of energy efficiency, in my opinion, the biggest point missed is that householders today have little incentive to save energy. Energy is relatively cheap and is a small part of household bills. The fuel poor to which the noble Lord referred are being helped separately, but general domestic users are not sufficiently incentivised to save on energy. I do not see in the White Paper any way in which users would be so stimulated. I cannot see the major savings in the domestic consumption of energy that are envisaged in the White Paper.

On the security of supply, the real problem is with gas. If present trends continue and gas is maintained as the main fuel for electricity generation, as the White Paper estimates, this country will be 80 per cent dependent on imports of gas by 2020. That will raise all sorts of strategic problems to which the White Paper, indeed, refers. The way around these problems is to tackle all the alternatives more vigorously than is done in the White Paper.

This is not the end of the story. In the final chapter of the White Paper, reference is made to the continuing work which will be undertaken by the new Energy Strategy Unit of the DTI. Let us hope that the gaps in the White Paper will be filled. In this House, we must be ever-vigilant that that is carried forward.

My Lords, I shall deal first with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon. She asked what is the nature of this document and why has it taken so long to produce. It has taken so long to produce, first, because detailed consultations took place and, secondly, because these are extremely complicated issues and there are a range of targets and objectives which energy policy must meet. It is unrealistic and wrong to suggest that the way this issue should be approached is to set out a 10 or 20-year plan which states exactly what the energy sources are and the specific needs that they will address, and that a long-range plan is produced worthy of the Soviet Union or the Chinese Communist Party.

We live in a world of markets, innovation and changing energy sources. I believe that the Government are right in seeking to set out a strategy and framework on which to build incentives to help us achieve our environmental goals. Above all, to anyone who has examined this area, it is fundamental to build in flexibility. To state at this point that we shall lay down exact energy sources and exact incentives which will apply over the next 50 years, misunderstands the fact that we are dealing here with a whole range of totally unpredictable factors. The only sensible thing to do—as I am sure that the public will understand—is to set a framework and to build in incentives to achieve desired goals and to keep flexibility.

In that context, I turn to the difference between a target and an aspiration. A target is something in which one can be precise, with a good understanding of what the costs of achieving it will be. That is why we have set a target for 2010. However, looking at a figure of renewables for 2020 without knowing costs, to say that we will achieve it regardless of cost or any implications is foolish. We cannot know the costs. Therefore, the Government have said that they have an aspiration. Clearly, in the light of the costs of different kinds of renewable, one should keep that under review as one goes along.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, was concerned about being put on a path to a 60 per cent reduction in CO₂ emissions. Clearly, that cannot be achieved on day one. In the document we have projected a reasonable line between our posit ion now and the position we want in 2050. We have stated our aims beyond that line in order that we can say that we are on a path to getting there.

The noble Baroness also raised the issue of nuclear power. What is the way in which a policy in this area should be approached? At present, our preference is to achieve this through renewables. Nuclear power is an important source of carbon-free electricity, although it is currently economically unattractive and there are important issues concerning the disposal of nuclear waste to be resolved. However, we believe that the ambitious progress on renewables and energy efficiency is achievable. But again, it is uncertain. While the White Paper does not contain specific proposals to support the construction of new nuclear power stations now, it affirms that new nuclear power stations remain—as I think they should be—an option for the future. Whether they become an important option depends on the progress made in other areas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the issue of the £1 billion renewables obligation. The renewables obligation will give a £1 billion incentive to renewables because that is built into the renewables obligation figures. I am not certain from where the noble Baroness's figures have come for wind turbines. We are not saying that the 10 per cent should all come from wind and, particularly, not from onshore wind. We have produced a set of figures which show how the whole range of renewables from biomass, onshore/ offshore wind, landfill gas and photovoltaics can contribute to our goals in 2010 and 2020.

Having been rather dismissive of targets, the noble Baroness then raised them in the sense of the hydrogen economy. Looking at the documents and what we said on the field of transport, the powering future vehicles strategy made clear that our objective is that the UK should head the global shift towards a low carbon economy. We have taken steps which are set out on these questions. Equally, we have set out clearly what the Government will do in terms of investment in capital costs of coal. We have covered nuclear.

The other important question that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised was the cost of going green. What would be the cost to industry? Our analysis suggests that the cost of making 60 per cent cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 is likely to be only 0.5 to 2 per cent of GDP by that time, which is likely to have tripled, should we act with other industrialised countries. In the worst case scenario in which other countries take no action to reduce carbon emissions, some UK industries facing intense international competition could experience overall cost increases of 1 per cent or more. Those cost estimates would occur over the period to 2020.

I turn now to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I have covered the position on nuclear and why that is a decision to be taken in the future. We shall make progress towards our goal even if we do not have nuclear because we shall be producing renewables to meet the targets set. Of course, the move towards gas will be helpful in meeting those targets.

Furthermore, we concluded from our modelling that CHP would not provide carbon savings cost effectively. For that reason, we have not included a CHP obligation. We have a target of 2010 for 10 gigawatts of Good Quality CHP. We believe that that is within reach and we will strive to attain it.

The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and I have previously discussed clean coal technology. The Government believe that what is needed has been demonstrated and that it is now for people to come forward with commercial propositions.

The White Paper sets out clearly how we will increase energy efficiency. That includes extending the energy efficiency commitment beyond 2005 for domestic suppliers; bringing forward to 2005 the building regulations for new build and existing stock; and progressively raising building standards so that in new houses by 2012 we will match the much higher levels of thermal efficiency that have been achieved elsewhere in Europe.

Finally, on security of supply, we obtain gas from many parts of the world. We seek to achieve good relationships to provide the infrastructure and ensure that we have liberalised markets in Europe. All those aspects are being pursued.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am not happy with the energy, fuel and power aspects of the Statement? Our annual imports of electricity from France are the equivalent of 5 million tonnes of coal; 12 million tonnes of coal are imported from 11 different countries; and gas imports are increasing. Indeed, we may be reliant on gas imports in due course. Therefore, as my noble friend indicated—but not as clearly and as frankly as I would have liked—security of supply has vanished. However, I am more concerned that our fuel supplies will be dependent on the politics of our suppliers—and I believe that that will continue ad infinitum.

Furthermore, I notice the White Paper indicates that the coal industry will end within 10 years. Even with Coal Aid, the industry will have disappeared. But, worryingly, there is no planned nuclear expansion. In those circumstances, are we not in future danger—and quite soon—of a bleak fuel and power economy?

My Lords, always on these issues one returns to the fact that there are three clear objectives: energy security, the environment and cost. One must balance those three objectives. We could opt entirely for security and state that the most secure option is to have all coal and perhaps nuclear power in this country. That would have huge cost implications as half our coal comes from abroad because it is much cheaper. There would also be major impacts in terms of environmental issues. Furthermore, as regards nuclear power there would be major issues in terms of cost and nuclear waste.

I do not believe that that is the right way. We must balance the three objectives and ensure that sufficient security is built in because we will obtain gas from many parts of the world. Of the G8 countries, the UK and Canada are the only ones which are not major importers of energy. Other countries have survived well in terms of growth and security while obtaining energy from abroad. It is a question of the number of markets and their stability. Therefore, from today's perspective, sufficient security is built in.

My Lords, will the Minister accept that I find the White Paper not only deeply disappointing but regret that so many key issues—not those 50 years away but those relating to today—have been seriously fudged? I want to give three examples.

The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned the contribution which should be being made by combined heat and power. The document contains many columns expressing the importance which the Government place on CHP and the way in which they will reach their target, but the document contains no real measure that will have any hope of reaching their 2010 target. All the UK's leading producers of plant for CHP have withdrawn and even the Government's own CHP plant in Whitehall is operating for only four hours out of 24. It is not economic to operate it for longer. The Government are going backwards in terms of CHP. When the Minister spoke of aspirations, I looked at the immediate future and asked: what do the Government intend to do to deal with that problem? The answer appears to be nothing.

Secondly, a number of us have been making representations during the past few years as regards coal mine methane. Methane is 23 times more damaging to the environment than CO₂, so why have no positive measures been taken? The document is long on studies, discussions and hopes, but by the time anything has resulted from them most of the operators of coal mine methane plant in abandoned mines will have gone out of business.

On nuclear power, the Government have included a column in the White Paper about skills. Is the Minister aware that in this country there is no single university course in nuclear engineering? How are the nuclear engineers to be provided if, as ultimately I believe they must in order to achieve the CO₂, targets, the Government decide to embark on a rebuild?

As regards the immediate future, when one looks at the White Paper the problems are fudged and ducked. I do not regard that as a realistic way of approaching these serious issues.

My Lords, the issues have not been fudged. The noble Lord may not like the answers, but that is different from fudging the issues. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, we made clear our position on CHP. We do not see it making a major contribution, which is why we do not believe there should be a CHP obligation.

We have previously debated the issue of coal mine methane and it is common ground that there are good reasons for doing something about it. However, it will make no contribution whatever to the central issues relating to energy supply in this country. There is no fudging of issues, but the noble Lord may not like the answers. We have not fudged the issues; we have taken a realistic appraisal of what CHP can contribute in this situation.

As regards the nuclear option, there are actions we should take to maintain the skills base. They will be taken through the sector skill councils. In that way, we can maintain the base of skills for the future.

My Lords. I welcome the Statement and indeed this long-awaited White Paper. As president of the British Association for Biofuels and Oils, I am disappointed that the Government have not put more emphasis on the important role that the liquid biofuel industry could play in helping Her Majesty's Government to meet their environmental commitments and, most importantly, in helping the beleaguered farming industry. Furthermore, biofuels would help to reduce the UK's reliance on imported fossil fuels, particularly in these uncertain times.

Would the Minister not agree that it is shameful how our European partners are several leagues ahead of the UK where biofuel production is concerned?

My Lords, we are looking to biomass to make a contribution to our renewables targets in both 2010 and 2020. Alongside renewable produced hydrogen, fuels made from biomass represent an important potential route for achieving the goal of zero carbon transport. As the noble Lord said, it will create new opportunities for agriculture in the UK as well as globally. That is why we have reduced the duty on biodiesel to 20p per litre below the standard ultra-low sulphur diesel rate. This fuel is now coming onto the retail market in increasing volumes in a 5 per cent blend with conventional diesel. Some lorry fleets are also converting to a 100 per cent biodiesel fuelling.

As announced in the Pre-Budget Report in November 2002, we propose to introduce the same 20p per litre incentive for bioethanol, subject to EU agreement. This can also be used in blends for existing cars and potentially as an 85 per cent pure biofuel in adapted cars. We are taking this issue very seriously. It is an important part of our plans, even though the document does not make any changes to the taxation proposals.

My Lords, I welcome the Government's commitment to increasing energy efficiency, but can the Minister explain something that is not very clear to me? On the one hand, he said that the Government do not want to place too much emphasis on combined heat and power production—I declare an interest as a non-executive director of a heating company—but, on the other hand, they are placing great emphasis on energy efficiency. Combined heat and power is an efficient use of energy and I fail to see how the two do not tie in together.

As to the warm front scheme mentioned in the Statement, the Government seem to be at least capping the money to be spent on the scheme next year, if not reducing it. That also does not seem to tie in with the policy.

There are a lot of warm words in the document about the role of local authorities, in particular in regard to giving energy issues priority in their community plans. But, as far as I can make out from the planning Bill which will be before us in the future, there is not much opportunity for that to happen.

Having been a sponsor of the Home Energy Conservation Act, I welcome the fact that the Government will review the existing guidance to energy conservation authorities. Can the Minister say precisely what the Government have in mind and what time scale they are talking about?

My Lords, I do not see any discrepancy between our views on CHP and energy efficiency. It is a question of the weight we attach to the different parts of our energy policy. No one is saying that CHP is not important in its own right, but it bears no comparison to the greater energy efficiency we can achieve in other areas.

As to planning and local authorities, the White Paper sets out proposals for simplifying and streamlining the planning system for renewable developments. It is an extremely important area. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly publish new planning guidance on renewables for England. A separate guidance on best practice will also be published. It is a practical way of helping to plan for renewables at a local level. If we are not prepared to improve the situation on planning permission we cannot achieve the targets on renewables.

My Lords, the Government promised that every home would be heated and implied that something would be done about energy poverty. Can the Minister say how people in need will be identified? What will the Government do to find the homes that need help?

My Lords, the question of energy for vulnerable people is very important. We have already made considerable progress in that regard. In 2001 there were 3 million fuel-poor households compared with 5.5 million in 1996. The main reasons for that are increases in household incomes and fuel price reductions. When Members of the House complain that energy prices have come down, they should remember that huge benefits occur in terms of fuel poverty. We shall continue to look at ways of improving the situation. We will use social services and other means to ensure that the most vulnerable people are targeted.

My Lords, the Minister accused my noble friend of failing to understand what should be encompassed in an energy policy, and then set out what he believes is appropriate to be in such an energy policy. Is my noble friend alone or have I misread the foreword by the Prime Minister? In the foreword, he seems to be promising us something positive and concrete in the substance of the report, but all we find is a series of fudges and aspirations.

Will the Minister come clean? Is it not the case that the private opinion of the estimable Minister for Energy and Construction, Mr Brian Wilson, is that if the Government's objectives and international commitments are to be met, there is only way that will be achieved—and that is by having nuclear energy as part of the package?

Is not the alarming outcome of the White Paper that there will be only one set of winners in Europe—and that is the generators of nuclear power in France?

My Lords, obviously we have different views on what should be included in an energy strategy. I am really surprised that the noble and learned Lord is taking the view, which seems to be shared on his Benches, that the way you should plan or form a strategy is to lay out in detail exactly what the energy sources and demands will be—and how they should be matched—more than 20 years ahead. Noble Lords opposite should talk to their former Secretary of State for Energy, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who will tell them what an absolute load of rubbish that approach would be. You cannot do that. We cannot tell within six months what energy prices will be; we cannot possibly tell what technological developments will be made in the area of renewable energy sources.

You cannot possibly commit to detailed future energy needs and sources, if that is what the noble and learned Lord is saying. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord is saying that or something completely different, but you cannot lay out that kind of detail.

The Prime Minister did not do that in the foreword to the White Paper. He is well aware that you cannot do that. All you can do is to announce targets which you will try to achieve—and we have made very clear what are our targets in regard to the achievement of environmental objectives—and, within that, you can say that you will create a framework and incentives. But to say that you will give the detail of what will be the energy sources is an extraordinary view of the kind of strategy you can have. I am surprised that so many noble Lords on the other side of the House would remotely support such a view.