Sitting of 7 May 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Orders of the Day
  Company and Business Names (Chamber of Commerce, etc.) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Company and Business Names (Chamber of Commerce, etc.) Bill
    Clause 2

      APPROVAL OF CERTAIN COMPANY NAMES
      9.33 am
      Mr. Eric Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 21, leave out
      `at least one relevant representative body'
      and insert
      `all bodies and persons who appear to him to have an interest'.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 6, leave out
      `at least one relevant representative body'
      and insert
      `all bodies and persons who appear to him to have an interest'.
      No. 9, in clause 4, page 2, line 10, leave out Clause 4.
      Mr. Forth: It falls to me to congratulate, and I happily do so, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on having so skilfully steered his Bill to this stage in its passage. It remains for us to give it proper consideration.
      Although my current task is to explain the reasoning behind amendment No. 1, I hope that, on Third Reading, at the very least, we shall be able to explore—I was about to say again, but I do not think that we have done it yet—some of the unresolved issues that have arisen during our consideration of the Bill. I should give my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire clear warning that that is my thinking—as I know that, with his eloquence and skill, he will be able easily to persuade me, but I shall require such persuading on one or two matters.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: Although it is a happy instance that the Bill, which I am privileged to promote, is securing support on both sides of the House, if we are not careful, a possible consequence is that each of the Bill's aspects may not be properly
      1194
      considered before the Bill becomes law. I therefore hope that, in the course of today's proceedings, we shall be able to allay my right hon. Friend's concerns.
      Mr. Forth: Let us not prejudge anything. Consideration is what we are here for, and those matters will undoubtedly be dealt with properly.
      I tabled this group of amendments because, I confess, I have from the outset had a sense of unease about the Bill—its self-evidently regulatory nature immediately put my mind on the alert. Although it is always possible to argue that regulatory measures are not only justifiable but required, surely the burden of proof and of argument always rests on those wishing to introduce a regulatory measure, rather than the opposite.
      I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is with us today. I am sure that what I have just said about regulation would meet with nothing but support from him, as those on both sides of the House are now at one—certainly in our rhetoric—in disapproving of regulation. The irony is that we are expected today to approve a regulatory measure.
      Given the principle that the burden of proof is on those who would regulate—which I do not quite accept, yet—I should like to determine whether the provisions in this group of amendments might make the regulation mechanism as open, even-handed and acceptable as possible.
      The Bill states:
      "It is the duty of the Secretary of State to secure that the expression 'chamber of commerce' …as an expression"
      requires registration and the approval of the Secretary of State.
      Clause 2 goes on to say:
      "Before determining …whether to approve the registration of a company name … the Secretary of State must consult at least one relevant representative body."
      I grew alarmed at that point.
      I was quite surprised, knowing him as I do, that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire had included such a phrase in his Bill. I should have thought that he would want to encourage the most open approach possible to the matter, and to ensure that his Bill, in dealing with the process of registration, should be able to demonstrate the widest possible basis of consultation, and therefore of support, for the operation of its provisions. The House will therefore appreciate my surprise when I saw the phrase
      "must consult at least one relevant representative body."
      My suspicions grew. I thought, "If that one relevant representative body was the chamber of commerce itself, or the umbrella organisation"—which, today, has kindly provided us with some excellent briefing material, to which I suspect many us may refer on Third Reading, if not before, and for which we are very grateful—"what sort of openness would there be?"
      I begin, already, to get the impression of an inward-looking and incestuous approach to the whole business, which makes me feel—I must confess—rather unhappy.
      Mr. Tony Colman: At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman eloquently expressed his concerns about the Bill's regulatory nature. However,

      1195
      clause 4 clearly states that it is a self-regulatory measure that will be operated within the British Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. Does he accept that it is a self-regulatory measure, which the chambers of commerce are themselves able to operate?
      Mr. Forth: Would that that were so, I should be much happier about it. Today, however, we are regulating and creating statute; and, by doing so, we are involving the Secretary of State. I am sure that we are all very confident with the current incumbent in that post, and that we have every confidence that he will use the most excellent judgment in these matters. However, the trouble with legislation is that it is not only binding on this Secretary of State, but Secretaries of State for ever and ever. I do not know whether we would have been so happy with an immediate predecessor of his or whether we will be so happy with whoever comes after his no doubt long and distinguished period in office. The Bill is not self-regulation, but regulation by statute, with a duty being placed on the Secretary of State to approve registration.
      Mr. Colman: I understand that the Bill has been urged on the House by the chambers of commerce. They see it as necessary to enable self-regulation.
      Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman and I may have to disagree. Giving the Secretary of State a duty and various powers, including the power of registration, is not self-regulation. Self-regulation would involve the chambers policing the use of the title, giving their approval—which I understand that they already try to do—and telling the world at large that if something calling itself a chamber of commerce has their stamp of approval, it could be reckoned to be okay, but if not people should be suspicious of it.
      I have no problem with that approach. Indeed, I rather favour it and have tried to encourage it for various businesses. However, that is not what the Bill is about. The chambers of commerce want the Secretary of State to be involved by statute with specific powers to ensure that those whom the existing cosy collective disapprove of are not allowed in. We shall have to return to that on Third Reading. I do not want to digress unduly, but it is already clear that the cosy cartel wants to remain as it is and to provide a mechanism to avoid any thrusting, new, exciting, dynamic bodies being allowed in. That is a paraphrase of the process, but it makes me suspicious.
      The amendments would make an important difference. The Bill says that
      "the Secretary of State must consult at least one relevant representative body."
      It would be for the Secretary of State to judge who that relevant representative body was, but we all know who the most likely candidate would be, given the genesis of the Bill. I would be more comfortable with opening the process up in the way that my amendment describes. Indeed, I insist on it. The Secretary of State should consult
      "all bodies and persons who appear to him to have an interest".
      I started to jot a list more or less off the top of my head to give a flavour of what bodies I have in mind. It did not take me very long and I do not think that it would take
      1196
      the Secretary of State very long. I shall run quickly through the list of bodies that should be consulted. My wording is not prescriptive. I did not want to fall into the trap of putting an exclusive, prescriptive list in the Bill. My wording would leave the choice to the Secretary of State. Let us open the process up and make it inclusive, to use the current jargon. I shall be talking about joined-up things in a moment if I am not careful. Let us stick with an inclusive process for the moment in an attempt to attract the support of the Secretary of State and Labour Members.
      Surely the Secretary of State should consult existing adjoining chambers of commerce. Any debate about the registration of one chamber immediately involves a proper discussion about the catchment area of the adjoining chambers. That emerges clearly from the helpful notes that the BCC has sent us in the past day or two. The suggested definition of the essential characteristics of a chamber of commerce, set out on page six of the briefing notes, includes the following requirements:
      "owned by the business community
      not owned or controlled by a faction or a commercial interest
      company limited by guarantee or set up by Royal Charter
      representing specific territory
      not a subsidiary of another company
      having, in part, a public service role"
      9.45 am
      Revealingly, the briefing goes on to say:
      "This definition will not form part of the Bill but the Bill will provide the backdrop for such a statement to be agreed between BCC and Companies House."
      That may or may not be the case, because the Bill says that the Secretary of State will have the final word.
      I should like to home in on the BCC's definition that a chamber should represent a specific territory. Surely there must be an obligation to consult adjoining chambers. If we are talking about representation or ownership of a territory, the possibility of disputes emerges. The Bill is all about disputes and their resolution. It is immediately clear that adjoining chambers with a specific interest should be consulted, not an umbrella body.
      Mr. David Maclean: My right hon. Friend will be aware that one of the purposes of the Bill is to deal with chambers that take a grandiose geographical title such as the worldwide chamber of commerce of Penrith. If a geographical title could be in dispute, surely consulting a neighbouring chamber is essential.
      Mr. Forth: I am glad that my right hon. Friend agrees with me. He has given a good example. He will be familiar with the idea that Penrith bestrides the world, but we might not all agree. That is the point.
      The training and enterprise councils should commend themselves to the Secretary of State as bodies that can lay claim to having a representative role for the business community. They are not perfect—I am in correspondence with the Department of Trade and Industry about a brouhaha that has developed with my local TEC—but they have developed a key participatory role in the local business community. At best they perform a vital role in bringing together all the elements

      1197
      of training and enterprise in their area. They should also commend themselves strongly to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire.
      I pass rather more quickly over the Confederation of British Industry. I would not want anyone to consult the national CBI, but some of the excellent regional CBI offices, which are real bodies rather than something floating half way between here and the stratosphere, should be consulted.
      Mr. Lansley: I shall seek not to interrupt my right hon. Friend on every point. It might be helpful to remind him that I referred on Second Reading to training and enterprise councils and to the TEC National Council. Clause 4 allows the Secretary of State to add a relevant representative body and might be used to add the TEC National Council to the list of relevant representative bodies, because it plays an important role when chambers of commerce and TECs come together.
      Mr. Forth: Of course I accept what my hon. Friend says, but even in that typically helpful intervention he has given the game away. He is being restrictive. The Bill says one body and he says helpfully that clause 4 might allow us to add another. That is not the spirit of what I am talking about. We must open the process up and ensure that when the Secretary of State makes his important decisions he can demonstrate to the world that he has been inclusive and has asked a proper range of people so that his decision is firmly based and is less vulnerable to challenge and judicial review. My worry about the process is that if it rests solely on the existing words of the Bill, it might be vulnerable to judicial review.
      Mr. Oliver Heald rose—
      Mr. Forth: Talking about the law, my hon. Friend is about to help me.
      Mr. Heald: I was not going to ask a legal question. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Bill restricts the Secretary of State in his consultations? Surely he may consult with local bodies if there are complaints. The point is that he must consult the British Chambers of Commerce. Does my right hon. Friend not feel that that is the right balance?
      Mr. Forth: No. In some senses, they are the last people who should be consulted because they have an interest. They are an inward-looking, inclusive group who want to defend the status quo, as does the Bill. Once again, we have an interesting dilemma in that the Conservatives—or some of us—are the new thrusting, dynamic radicals, whereas the old fuddy—duddies who want to defend the status quo are the British Chambers of Commerce and, I regret to say, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire.
      Mr. Maclean: I do not want to follow my right hon. Friend down that route. Clause 4 defines the relevant representative bodies, limiting them to the British Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. Therefore, when clause 2 says:
      "The Secretary of State must consult at least one relevant representative body",
      1198
      he is still limited to chambers of commerce. He cannot consult anyone else if he so wishes.
      Mr. Forth: That is one reading of the clause, however it does say "at least". Having been a little cruel to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire a moment ago, I shall defend him now. The Bill says:
      "The Secretary of State must consult at least one relevant body",
      as I suspect my hon. Friend will say when he replies to this debate.
      I am hardly a third of the way through my list. If I do not get on, the House will lose patience with me, and I cannot have that.
      Mr. David Heath: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I shall not delay him long. Does he agree that widening the sphere of consultation might establish that any ambiguity in the title was only in the mind of the single respondent to consultation in the first instance and that nobody else was confused by the geographical spread of a title?
      Mr. Forth: That is a helpful but typically convoluted Liberal Democrat view. The hon. Gentleman has a good point, but let me press on with my list, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before I try your patience too far.
      I deliberately skipped over CBI regional offices pretty quickly. Trade associations, which are an important part of modern business life, can often play a key role in a local community. I would also add significant employers. A catchment area of a chamber of commerce may well be dominated by a very small number of significant companies that should be involved in the process.
      Mr. Keith Darvill: Surely chambers of commerce are representative in the sense that in most areas companies can apply to join them quite openly. If large employers were to be consulted, the provision would impose an additional burden on them. Surely that is not the way to reduce the burden on business.
      Mr. Forth: It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman saying from the inclusive Government Benches that he wants to reduce the process of consultation. I would be very interested to hear the Secretary of State's view on the balance between the onerous bureaucratic process of consultation and saving companies, especially large ones, from that burden. The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point and I should like to hear the Secretary of State's view on it.
      Mr. Darvill: I am not trying to avoid consultation because the companies will be consulted through the various organisations that the right hon. Gentleman has described. The consultation will be open and on-going, but if the Secretary of State were obliged to consult large employers, for example, the detail of that consultation would be an administrative burden that I suspect large numbers of employers would oppose.
      Mr. Forth: My amendment would not place them under an obligation as its wording is more flexible than that. It simply proposes that the consultation process could include the bodies to which I have referred. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right. If, as would probably be the case, large

      1199
      employers were already involved in the TEC, the regional CBI or a trade association, they probably would not want to go through the process again. I concede that. I do not want to press the point and irritate the hon. Gentleman as I am asking for his support for my amendment.
      In the same spirit—and it is not often that I say it, but I shall whisper it—we might even consult the trade unions. I do not want to lose the support of my hon. Friends, but as we are all friends here together this morning I thought that I might mention the unions. In many cases, they will be a relevant factor in the process and therefore should not be ignored.
      I now come to the last two organisations on my list. Local authorities must have a role to play in the process given that so many of them now have economic development departments and seek to involve themselves in economic regeneration and the like.
      Last but not least—and I saved this in order to make my appeal to the Secretary of State—DTI regional offices should also be involved. Having some passing but now rather historical knowledge of such matters, I remember the key role that they sometimes play, often very effectively. I cannot imagine the Secretary of State neglecting to consult the regional offices, but one never knows. Again, it seems somewhat at odds with the wording of the Bill.
      Without labouring it unduly, I hope that I have made the point as forcefully as I can. I believe that the present wording of the Bill is unduly restrictive and inspires little confidence that it is sufficiently open and consultative to reassure us that it has not been designed to shore up and reinforce a rather cosy monopoly that no doubt does splendid work but is now asking us by statute to protect its existing membership and, by implication, therefore, deny the process of challenge and renewal.
      I shall return to the issue on Third Reading as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire knows that I am worried about the non-reversibility of the process in the Bill and I should like to explore it just one more time to allow him to persuade me of its merits—as no doubt he will, given the power of his eloquence. The amendments are designed to open up the consultation process and make it more credible and more soundly based. Therefore, in my view they would make it a better Bill.
      Mr. Colman: Let me first declare an interest in that I was a private-sector director of my local training and enterprise council between 1989 and last year and leader of a local authority—the London borough of Merton. In that capacity I encouraged and enabled the setting up of the Merton chamber of commerce, an excellent body that has done a great deal to enhance and advance the cause of commercial enterprises in the London borough of Merton.
      As this is my first involvement in the Bill, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on introducing it, building on the previous work of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend). I oppose the amendments—which I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will withdraw—as they fundamentally undermine the nature of the Bill.
      1200
      10 am
      I was concerned by the description by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst of the British Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce as a cosy collective. He may wish to take a different view on that, as I believe that important organisations supporting business should have that soubriquet. The Bill is not attempting to retain the status quo; the status quo is confusion, where the title of chamber of commerce seems to be up for grabs by all and sundry. There must be a statutory basis for the title, and the umbrella organisations—the British Chambers of Commerce and Scottish Chambers of Commerce—should be able to regulate themselves. The Bill will strengthen the confused situation that is outlined in the briefing from the BCC.
      The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of organisations that should be consulted. I hope to convince him that the correct body for consultation is the BCC, as the Bill attempts to ensure the high standards that are insisted upon by that body.
      I have mentioned the Merton chamber of commerce, and the London chamber of commerce provides a good range of services, as does the Croydon chamber of commerce. In my constituency, there is the Wandsworth chamber of commerce and—through contacts with the training and enterprise council for Wandsworth, Kingston and Merton—I know of the chambers in Kingston.
      Mr. Forth: I have no doubt that nearly all of the chambers are excellent. However, if an inadequate, tired, old chamber was well connected by the old boy network to the British Chambers of Commerce, and a new thrusting chamber in embryo wanted to establish itself, would not the hon. Gentleman be worried that the provisions of the Bill would protect the tired and old and prevent the new and dynamic from establishing?
      Mr. Colman: The right hon. Gentleman makes my point, although he does so the wrong way round. If there is such a thing as a tired chamber of commerce—a strange adjective—the British Chambers of Commerce can step in and threaten, initially, that if the chamber did not return to the mark, the title could be removed. There are few controls at present.
      Mr. Lansley: Under the Bill, the circumstances in which a title can be removed are those set out in section 32 of the Companies Act 1985, where there is, rightly, a tough test for removal. That test should be whether harm would result from the continuance of an organisation using the title. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not proceed on the basis that that would happen at all lightly.
      Mr. Colman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The representative bodies to be consulted are those named in clause 4—the British Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. I note that others might be added, but the Bill—which has been urged upon us by the British Chambers of Commerce and others—should not be lost by producing a laundry list or organisations, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst did.
      Chambers of commerce in my area are happy for the British Chambers of Commerce to act on their behalf, and I urge the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to get the views of his local chambers.

      1201
      As a member of my local training and enterprise council—and following consultations at national conferences of TECs—I know that TECs have urged the British Chambers of Commerce to sort the matter out; although they may not have understood the complexity of the situation. The BCC has said that it cannot, and has asked Parliament for help in sorting it out.
      The London region of the CBI supports the Bill. When I represented retail interests on the CBI, there was concern about the variability of the title of chamber of commerce, and the national council of the CBI will welcome this attempt to sort that out.
      Mr. Forth: Is not the hon. Gentleman giving us a list of the fat cats and the establishment? Where does the small man get his say? When will he look out from that inclusive list, with which he is complacently satisfied, and allow others to be consulted? The Secretary of State always says that he regards small firms as important. I may be pre-empting what the hon. Gentleman is about to say, but his list so far seems to be a depressing list of the good, the great and the well-connected.
      Mr. Colman: The right hon. Gentleman may not realise that he makes my point again, as I was going through his list. I was going to add that, as a life member of the Institute of Directors, I am aware that many smaller companies are urging support for the Bill. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that support; I urge him also to join that body. As someone who has worked for a larger company, I recognise the determination of directors in competitive sectors of the market to achieve their results.
      The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the trade unions. I declare an interest, in that I am a member of the GMB; which, I am pleased to say, is centred in the London borough of Merton. That excellent organisation supports the Bill. The views of the general secretary of the GMB will be shared across the trade union movement.
      Local authorities were on the laundry list of the right hon. Gentleman. As a former local authority leader, I was in favour of a similar proposal in 1996 by the hon. Member for Windsor.
      Mr. Heald: Perhaps the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) could be met by adding, after "one relevant representative body" the words, "and the hon. Member for Putney."
      Mr. Colman: I am happy to provide any advice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at any time, but I am sure that he will speak from a considerably more eminent range of interests. I mention my connections only because it is important that we should speak from some point of knowledge or authority. I am gainfully employed in the House and hope that the electors of Putney will return me again and again.
      The laundry list of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is far too long, and I would slice it down to what is in clause 4: the British Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, if the Secretary of State, in consultation with those bodies, feels that any other body should be added, that option remains. It would
      1202
      be wrong to have the all-inclusive formula in the amendment, which is far too wide and would defeat the point of the Bill.
      I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Heald: It is clearly important to consider the issue of consultation, but we do so against the background of considerable success by the British Chambers of Commerce over recent years. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on promoting the Bill and so effectively piloting it through the House, and I wonder whether that recent success is due to the fact that he was the deputy director of the organisation about 10 years ago.
      The British Chambers of Commerce has enhanced the reputation and widened the network of chambers of commerce to the point at which about 95 per cent. of companies and businesses in Britain have reasonable access to their services, which include national and international trade, export supply and support services and information. That widened network and improved quality need to be protected.
      The increased integrity and comprehensive character of the chamber of commerce network needs to be supported by the House—I think that all hon. Members would accept that—but it is also important that there should be adequate consultation before a company is barred from using the name "chamber of commerce". It would be wrong, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, if we ended up with a cosy set-up; but although the Bill contains the minimum requirement for the Secretary of State to consult one of the two representative bodies, it does not prevent him from going wider than that if there is cause for concern.
      There is a danger with a wider list that one could end up with an excessively bureaucratic consultation process, with the usual suspects always being consulted on every application, even if that application is in no way controversial.
      10.15 am
      I know that my right hon. Friend would recoil in honor at the thought that whenever a chamber of commerce wanted to register its name at Companies House, the CBI regional office, the trades unions, the DTI regional office, and all the rest, would have to be consulted. I question whether consulting those people would answer my right hon. Friend's real concern, which is about the little guy: the thrusting new entrepreneur who wants to offer something new in the sector.
      Mr. Forth: Perhaps I should have suggested a provision for an electoral or referendum process, which might answer my hon. Friend's point. I accept the thrust of what he is saying, but how often does he think the process will happen? The point about the burden, which he and the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) both made, has to be put in the context of the number of times the process is likely to be repeated. From all that I have read, I doubt that it would happen all that often. I see the sense of what my hon. Friend is saying, but we should not over-emphasise the burden that would be imposed.
      Mr. Heald: I accept my right hon. Friend's point, but we often regulate with the best intentions, thinking that

      1203
      the burden will not be significant, only to discover to our horror that a process has been set up that requires a very wide-ranging consultation when it is not really necessary, and we end up imposing burdens that we had not foreseen. I know that my right hon. Friend is one of the strongest advocates for not doing that.
      I accept that we should consider the issue of consultation very carefully and not cut out the little guy—the entrepreneur—but it is possible to be too cautious about the abilities of the British Chambers of Commerce, which has established a high reputation and is seeking to improve its regulation. It would be horrified at the idea that it would want to promote a chamber of commerce that was seriously failing. In fact, I believe that it would take active steps, as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) said, to rectify the situation.
      I will be interested to hear what the Secretary of State has to say about the concerns that have been expressed, but the Opposition have welcomed the Bill and supported it throughout. We do not consider the concerns to be so serious that they need to be dealt with by means of the amendment, although we would enjoin the Secretary of State to take careful note of the points that have been made and hold the widest possible consultations when concerns have been expressed by bodies other than the British Chambers of Commerce.
      Mr. Darvill: The Bill is a balanced and good measure and we should support it. I support the general thrust of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). It is important to get the right balance and I think that the Bill does that.
      The amendment would tip the balance the wrong way, because there would be excessive bureaucracy and the administrative costs would be heavy on the public purse. Some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about fat cats and consultation need to be addressed—we are doing that now—but the amendment goes too far.
      In my experience as a solicitor, the chambers of commerce serve the business community well. They are always looking for new members and encouraging the broader business community to get involved. I believe that the representative bodies should have their input exactly as the Bill sets out. The amendment would make the Bill too restrictive, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.
      Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the manner in which he moved the amendment and spoke to his other amendments. His vigilance in scrutinising legislation is acquiring a certain status in the House—
      Mr. Forth: That is one way of putting it.
      Mr. Lansley: If I may presume to offer flattery to my right hon. Friend—not something that he ever seeks—I can tell him that I am grateful for the way in which he spoke to his amendments so as to help us to examine the Bill further. As the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) noted, a very similar Bill was introduced in the previous Session. Even when a Bill clearly pursues objectives which I trust all hon. Members will think desirable, it is
      1204
      important that we should ensure that we legislate in a proper fashion; I take my right hon. Friend's point in that regard.
      First, I shall explain to the House the impact that the amendments would have on the Bill, because that will help to set in context the reasons why I do not think the amendments would be of advantage, and therefore why I hope that my right hon. Friend will not, on reflection, press them.
      Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 both relate to the Secretary of State's obligation to consult before approving the title "chamber of commerce" or related titles. One amendment relates to companies legislation and the other to business names legislation. There are two clauses that relate to those separate processes of approving names. That is why there are two amendments.
      In each case the effect of the amendment would be the same—to take out the requirement to consult
      "at least one relevant representative body"
      and insert the requirement that the Secretary of State "must"—I emphasise the word "must"—consult
      "all bodies and persons who appear to him to have an interest".
      Amendment No. 9 would leave out clause 4, which specifies the relevant representative bodies that the Secretary of State should consult, and gives him power to go further and add other relevant representative bodies for that purpose.
      I shall tell the House why the Bill is intended to secure consultation through British Chambers of Commerce as a relevant representative body. It may be helpful for those who read the report of our deliberations to be able to see how the Bill is designed, so I must explain that section 29 of the Companies Act 1985 provides that where the Secretary of State is approving a title that is a controlled title for the purposes of the Companies Act, he can specify by order a Government Department or other body as the relevant body for consultation purposes.
      There is a parallel feature in section 3 of the Business Names Act 1985. Under existing legislation, therefore, the Secretary of State is in a position to specify that "chamber of commerce" is a controlled title and further by regulation to say that his exercise of his power in relation to such a title should be by way of consultation with a relevant body.
      The purpose of the legislation is primarily to entrench the position of British Chambers of Commerce and Scottish Chambers of Commerce so that the Secretary of State is required to consult them as relevant representative bodies. An important factor that has not yet come out in the debate is that the purpose of the Bill is not to prevent the Secretary of State from consulting bodies or persons whom he might regard as persons or bodies whom he should consult, before deciding whether to approve such titles. The purpose is to constrain him to consult British Chambers of Commerce or Scottish Chambers of Commerce as the relevant representative body.
      Mr. Forth: Of course I follow what my hon. Friend is saying, but is it inconceivable that at some time in the future a group of chambers might decide that the representative body was no longer representative and that they needed to set up a rival organisation that claimed to be more representative? When one names organisations in

      1205
      primary legislation, one sets the requirement in legislative concrete and makes it difficult for a process of rejuvenation and renewal to take place.
      Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I can declare a past interest in that 10 years ago I was deputy director general of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. If we had been undertaking such legislation then, we would not have specified the association alone. We would also have specified the National Chamber of Trade, as it then was. There was more than one organisation representing bodies that operated under titles relating to chambers of commerce or chambers of trade.
      That thought helpfully brings me to an important point. It is not only desirable but necessary to entrench the position of British Chambers of Commerce because, in the intervening 10 years, considerable changes have occurred in the chambers of commerce movement. For example, the National Chamber of Trade and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce have merged, and there is now no body other than British Chambers of Commerce that can lay claim to representing chambers of commerce.
      It would be possible, for example, for the Secretary of State to choose to specify as a relevant representative body the International Chamber of Commerce (UK), but that is not a body with the representative characteristics of British Chambers of Commerce. It would be reasonable for the Secretary of State to consult that organisation in relation to bilateral chambers of commerce, such as the British-Australian chamber of commerce or the British-Belarus chamber of commerce, or whatever, but it would not be right for him to specify that body as a relevant representative body.
      Over the past 10 years, although British Chambers of Commerce has effectively brought together a high proportion of chambers of commerce and related organisations with such titles into membership of the association, it does not seek to create an exclusive monopolistic organisation. The intention throughout has been to bring members into chambers of commerce, and chambers of commerce into membership of British Chambers of Commerce, in ways that extend the network and improve the overall standard of chambers of commerce.
      We should not lose sight of the fact that one of the purposes of the Bill, and of entrenching the position of British Chambers of Commerce, is further to recognise the simple fact that chambers of commerce seek not to defend the status quo but to guarantee high standards of service to business, which they are doing through the network of 60 approved chambers of commerce throughout the country.
      Once upon a time, in some regions, chambers of commerce did not provide the level of service that many businesses were looking for, but now they are, because of the British Chambers of Commerce approval system. Once, the criticism of chambers of commerce was that the service was patchy, and depended where one was.
      Mr. Edward Leigh(Gainsborough): That may be no bad thing.
      Mr. Lansley: Patchiness of quality is to be deprecated. It is acceptable for local organisations to decide for themselves which services to offer, but it is less acceptable if when people go to chambers of commerce either in their own area or in order to trade from overseas, or from other parts of the country, they find poor service. That is why, alongside the approval system to create a network of chambers of commerce to give national coverage, every organisation should be able to say in time that it has a chamber of commerce that provides that valuable service in the private sector, and is not dependent on a grant from Government—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will applaud that. Through the accreditation system and the procedures of ISO 9000, when a business goes to a chamber of commerce it can be sure of the standard that will be applied.
      10.30 am
      It is not the intention of the Bill to provide that only those bodies that are approved by the British Chambers of Commerce can be called a chamber of commerce. Neither is it the intention that only those bodies that meet that quality standard of accreditation should be able to call themselves chambers of commerce. However, it is important that—in parallel with the effort that is being made by the British Chambers of Commerce and its members to raise the standard and extend the coverage of the system—they should have the protection that those who are completely outwith the system and making no effort to comply with the essential characteristics of a chamber of commerce cannot use the title. If such organisations were allowed to use the title, it might lead members of the business community to believe that they were dealing with a chamber of commerce. The essential characteristics of a chamber of commerce are that it is owned by its members; that it does not operate in the commercial interest of a member but in the wider business interest of the area it serves; that it relates specifically to a geographical area described in its title; and that it is genuinely representative of the businesses in that area.
      The system is intended to be self-regulatory, because the chambers of commerce have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps in past years to ensure that they are bodies in which the business community and Government can have confidence. However, the process should not be monopolistic. In France and Italy, the continental system of chambers of commerce is exclusive and monopolistic. The chambers of commerce have public law status. They are creatures of statute and exercise quasi-public sector functions by virtue of statutory controls. That does not permit the competitive aspects of our system, or the ability of businesses to join a chamber of commerce and cause it to change.
      British Chambers of Commerce does not want the continental system. It wants protection of title, rather than public law status—and there is a big difference between the two. The protection of title is the British way of doing things, because it will not create a monopoly or dependency on the Government. However, it will recognise that the Government have a role in preventing abuse.

      1207
      I do not suggest that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst should withdraw his amendments because they would be difficult to administer, but they would be burdensome. The Secretary of State would have to consult all those bodies that appear to him to have an interest. The list that my right hon. Friend gave consisted of all those bodies that the British Chambers of Commerce would customarily consult. There is no difficulty with individual businesses expressing an objection to or approval of an application for title, because they are likely to be members of the local chamber of commerce or know about it.
      In one case, the East London chamber of commerce existed, but the East of London chamber of commerce sought the title and the Secretary of State approved it. It is a matter for debate whether, if the Bill had been in force, the outcome might have been different, but that is not my point. In those circumstances, British Chambers of Commerce made effective representations, but the then Secretary of State felt that he could not refuse title. Under the amendments, the Secretary of State would have had to consult directly every business in the geographical area of east of London, which would have been a major enterprise.
      Mr. Forth: I acknowledge the force of my hon. Friend's argument, but I hope that he can put it in context. How often would consultation have to be carried out? If it were once a day or once a week, my hon. Friend's argument would have more force. However, if it were relatively infrequent, the argument against the requirement to consult would have that much less force.
      Mr. Lansley: The applications for changes in title fall into three categories. The first is applications for titles for new organisations, which are relatively infrequent. British Chambers of Commerce records suggest that they occur about half a dozen times a year. In each case, major consultation is necessary. Secondly, chambers of commerce often seek to change their titles. For example, on 20 or so occasions, chambers of commerce and industry have sought to combine with training and enterprise councils and to change their names. A further 20 or 30 of those could come forward in a short time.
      The third set of applications is one that we have not mentioned in the debate, because we think of chambers of commerce as bodies that represent specific geographical areas within the United Kingdom. However, many bodies using the title "chamber of commerce" operate in the trading sphere, as bilateral chambers of commerce between the United Kingdom and other countries. Sometimes there is a rush of such applications. For example, after the dismemberment of the former Soviet Union, many bodies sought to become the bilateral chambers of commerce between Britain and the former Soviet republics. That would mean dozens of applications a year reaching the desk of the Secretary of State, who would face significant difficulty if he were required to consult all those bodies that appeared to have an interest in the trade between the two countries, which would include many of the exporters in this country.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst recognises the excessive burdens that would be imposed by his amendments. Although the
      1208
      purpose of the amendments does not transgress against the principles that he expressed in moving them, I hope that he will withdraw them.
      The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): Not for the first time, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has done the House a service. He has allowed us not only to debate the narrow implications of amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 9, but to address some far bigger issues surrounding the danger of over-regulation and the tendency to which all Governments are prey to endorse the status quo and the big players already in the field which have good links with Government and can lobby effectively.
      There is always an inclination to listen to the views expressed by those organisations, and we can as a consequence deny opportunity to young and dynamic organisations that are just starting out and do not have the access that established organisations enjoy. I hope to reassure the right hon. Gentleman on how the Government will operate the provisions in the Bill. I hope that he will then feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      There can be no doubt that it would be a terrible mistake to introduce legislation that would prop up old and tired organisations, ensuring that they maintained a privileged position that denied opportunities to other organisations. I do not feel that the Bill will do that. The consultation provisions clearly place a specific requirement on the Secretary of State to consult British Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. There is nothing to stop the Secretary of State using discretionary powers to discuss matters with, or take views from, other organisations.
      There is certainly nothing to stop dynamic local companies or groups of employers from making representations to the Secretary of State about any proposal. They would need to be proactive, because the Secretary of State would not seek out their views as there would be no legal requirement for consultation. However, the Secretary of State would listen to any representations that those organisations might make.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) spoke of getting the balance right. We can do so by placing a clear requirement on the Secretary of State to consult British Chambers of Commerce and Scottish Chambers of Commerce, but adding that the Secretary of State will listen to other representations that might be received. People must feel that their voices may be heard.
      We must not make the mistake of putting a great burden on the Secretary of State, the Department or local bodies that would have to be consulted whether they liked it or not. The right hon. Gentleman's amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant bodies, and that would have to be done whether the Secretary of State wanted it or not, and whether or not those organisations wanted to be consulted. I receive many complaints from businesses that think that we contact them a bit too much. The last thing that they want is another brown envelope from the Secretary of State or a Department.
      Mr. Stephen Pound: One should never say no to a brown envelope.
      Mr. Byers: I had better not go down that road, although an interesting debate would ensue if I did. The type of

      1209
      brown envelopes to which I was referring would be less welcome, either through the letter box or in one's back pocket.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst listed the kind of organisations which he felt it would be appropriate to consult. He mentioned the TEC National Council and relevant trade organisations. He was not too keen on the Confederation of British Industry nationally, but felt that regional CBIs might be worth consulting. If he would pass on their names, I would be grateful to him, as that information would be useful. He mentioned significant employers.
      The most intriguing part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was his suggestion that we should consult trade unions. That must be a first. The fact that he also mentioned local authorities makes me think he must be undergoing a conversion. I know that he was angered by the comments made a couple of weeks ago by the deputy leader of the Conservative party about the role of the private sector and public services. The right hon. Gentleman's views have been coherently argued as a point of principle, and it is a shame that the same cannot be said of the deputy leader of his party.
      10.45 am
      Mr. Maclean: Has the Secretary of State considered that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) may be happier today for local authorities to be consulted because more local authorities are under Conservative control and might give a more sensible point of view than, say, Sheffield would have done in the past?
      Mr. Byers: The number of local authorities under Conservative control is very small, but the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst argued for a spirit of inclusivity, and it was interesting to hear from him that local authorities of whatever political persuasion should be consulted. That is certainly a first for the right hon. Gentleman. He also suggested that Government offices for the regions could be consulted, although they would be able to express a view about the merits or otherwise of a particular application in any event.
      The Bill places a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult British Chambers of Commerce and Scottish Chambers of Commerce. That does not stop the Secretary of State receiving representations from other interested bodies that wish to make them. That strikes the right balance. Representations would be taken into account in any decision ultimately taken by the Secretary of State.
      We do not want to support a cosy monopoly. We want to support challenge and renewal in this and many other areas of our political, social and economic life. As Secretary of State, I do not want to be seen to prop up what is old and failing while denying opportunities to those who wish to progress and succeed.
      The Bill would not deny such opportunity to anyone who wanted to come forward, to challenge the status quo or to make life difficult for local chambers of commerce. Local employers and businesses can keep chambers of commerce on their toes by acting and by talking to local business representatives. We hope that that is the right way forward. The Bill strikes the right balance, and amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 9 would create a great burden
      1210
      and cause confusion about the requirement on the Secretary of State to consult all relevant bodies, which would not be helpful.
      I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall, in the light of experience, reflect on whether there is a need to add more organisations by order, as the Bill allows. Given that power and my clear commitment that representations will be considered, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: As usual, the Secretary of State has dealt with the amendment with great skill and courtesy. He has given the House important reassurance, but I want to encourage my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), lest he feels rather lonely.
      Mr. Forth: It's not unusual.
      Mr. Leigh: Indeed not, but those who are remembered by history are often in a minority, perhaps even a minority of one. That should not stop my right hon. Friend from speaking up for his beliefs.
      The amendment is no mere technical adjustment to a minor Bill as it encompasses an important philosophical point from my right hon. Friend. I support my right hon. Friend's arguments, albeit that he may feel that he should withdraw the amendment for the reasons given by the Secretary of State.
      My interest in these matters dates from when I served in the Department of Trade and Industry under my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who had a particular view of the role of that Department and its relationship with chambers of commerce. He felt that, under previous incumbents, the Department had not been sufficiently interventionist in many areas and that it should have taken more of a proactive role to encourage local chambers of commerce to join together to become more efficient and effective.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, there is nothing wrong in that. Indeed, it is true that the network has been patchy over the years. However, a warning bell sounded in my mind when I used to sit at the feet of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley and it sounds in my mind now. There is a danger that we take a corporatist view of these matters.
      As we have been told, chambers of commerce have a long history. The first dates from 1599, from the chambre de commerce in Marseilles. Therefore, we are talking about a movement that is not only 400 years old but that was mercantilist in its inception. We do not hear much talk about mercantilist politics nowadays. Perhaps I can explain what they are. Chambers of commerce were initially designed not to open up trade to all newcomers or encourage free trade, but to ensure that those who were already engaged in trade in a locality increasingly enjoyed a monopoly. I am not accusing modern chambers of commerce of being in any way involved in that sort of practice, but that was their original function.
      I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is trying to feel his way towards the argument that, while he recognises the excellent work that is being done by chambers of commerce, he does not want us to develop a system that would lock them

      1211
      in concrete, as it were, and which would give British Chambers of Commerce too much power to prevent new entrants coming in from the system. No one is accusing British Chambers of Commerce of wanting to do that—everyone has great respect for it and knows that it wants to create a system of chambers of commerce to provide good and adequate support to local businesses.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has done the House a service in reminding us that, occasionally, organisations become a little stuffy or inward looking in their middle age and are perhaps not prepared to consider the merits of newcomers. If this debate achieves anything, I hope that the House will at least have been made aware of that point.
      Mr. Lansley: I remind my hon. Friend that just over 10 years ago, at the point at which British Chambers of Commerce entered into the process of establishing an approved network of chambers with accreditation standards, it was not being given the encouragement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) as our former and lamented colleague Nicholas Ridley was then the Secretary of State. He saw chambers of commerce as part of a body that was not corporatist in its design—he saw them as springing from the activities of local businesses rather than operating on a national basis.
      Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend has a point. At the end of the 1980s, which was before my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley became Secretary of State, Professor Bob Bennett of the London school of economics was asked to prepare a report to set out proposals for building a stronger and more credible chamber of commerce movement. Our right hon. Friend the late Nicholas Ridley was not going to stand in the way of that movement when he was Secretary of State. As much as he was fully committed to the concepts of free enterprise and new entrants to industry, he recognised that a strong and vibrant chamber of commerce movement was needed.
      That is why I do not oppose the Bill—I do not think that any hon. Member opposes the point of view that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire is putting forward. No one is suggesting that we should allow a situation to develop in which people could set up some sort of criminal organisation, as has happened in Italy, or use the title of chamber of commerce to cover some narrow business purpose. Everyone knows that we want chambers of commerce to be strong and independent and to provide comprehensive coverage. There is no argument about that and that is why the late Nicholas Ridley was happy with the purport of the Bennett report. I doubt whether he would have wanted the proposals in the report to be taken as far as they were taken under our right hon. Friend the Member for Henley. As neither of our right hon. Friends are in the Chamber—sadly, one cannot be and the other is absent no doubt for good reasons—we do not know the nature of that debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire are both doing the House a service in trying to encapsulate the problem.
      We heard a reassuring speech from the Secretary of State. Listening to him, one felt that there could be no possible concern about the Bill as drafted. After all, the
      1212
      Bill requires him to consult the British Chambers of Commerce on applications. He said that he will not be held back in any way from consulting other bodies, of course, but that he does not wish to over-regulate industry or to send out lots of brown envelopes. He has said that the amendment is not satisfactory because it would place undue burdens on business and the Secretary of State. All that is fine and, having listened to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman described these matters, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst may be tempted to withdraw the amendment. Before he does so, he should consider this point: although we have received the reassurance today that the Secretary of State has an open mind and wants to create new and vibrant chambers of commerce if they are necessary in particular areas, what will be the reality? Who will he consult?
      Once the Bill leaves this place, given all the burdens that are placed on officials in the Department of Trade and Industry, will they make an effort to consult the sort of people about whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was talking? Or, will it become a cosy arrangement where, in every case, the Secretary of State lays down the guidelines as to what is a chamber of commerce as the Bill sets out, someone makes an application and, as a matter of course the right hon. Gentleman consults British Chambers of Commerce? We all know how these things operate. As everyone who has had anything to do with government knows, officials at assistant secretary level are the motor force in Departments. No doubt such an official will know the official at the appropriate level in British Chambers of Commerce. The two will have a good and cosy working relationship. They will know each other well and be on first-name terms. It will be a question of the official at the DTI ringing the BCC official and saying, "John, we've had this application. What do you think?" That is the reality of what will happen.
      When it is described in that way, perhaps people can understand some of my concerns and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. What will happen if there is a dispute in a local area when an existing chamber of commerce has become tired, as inevitably happens, or even corrupt in some way? I know that that does not happen at the moment.
      11 am
      I intend no innuendo against the present movement, but life being what it is, that will happen. A new group of perhaps younger business men, as has happened so often, might want to set up a rival chamber of commerce. We should not be too concerned because Companies House does not grant applications willy-nilly but consults the British Chambers of Commerce. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire says that that is not good enough and that everything must be in the Bill. I am not sure that that is always necessary, but that is the way we operate now. We can see the problems that could arise.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley would say that the way in which the movement developed in the early part of the century was chaotic. He likes things to be neat. He would not approve of the fact that there were nearly 900 chambers of commerce early in the century or that, perhaps typically, in the south of England, there were chambers of commerce while the north had chambers of trade.

      1213
      I also fear that we could be inching our way towards a continental system of doing things, where the chambers of commerce are embedded in the structure of the state and chamber membership is mandatory. Membership is mandatory in Germany, Austria, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Hungary and Luxembourg. Those are not minor countries.
      Mr. Forth: Luxembourg is.
      Mr. Leigh: They are our partners. My right hon. Friend may not approve of the word, but for better or for worse, they are our European Union partners. I fear that the next step may be to try to move towards harmonisation where every business is required to join a chamber of commerce and the chamber of commerce movement is set in stone. It would become increasingly difficult, or impossible, for people to set up rival chambers of commerce.
      There are countries where chamber membership is voluntary. That is the pattern in many dynamic economies. While south-east Asia has some problems at present—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is gently straying into a Second Reading speech. He should return to the amendment.
      Mr. Leigh: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was briefly setting out the background to my concerns.
      Mr. Maclean: Without straying off the point, does my hon. Friend think that it would be sensible for another place to amend the Bill to make Commissioner Prodi one of the relevant people to consult? He could give his opinion on whether the chambers of commerce were dodgy or corruption was involved. That would deal with my hon. Friend's European point.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would remember my earlier stricture.
      Mr. Leigh: I will not follow my right hon. Friend down that path.
      When my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst replies, he should accept that the Secretary of State made a fair point about the burdens that would be imposed on his officials if he were to consult all the bodies to which my right hon. Friend referred. I am not sure that that is what amendment No. 1 seeks to achieve. Were the amendment passed, subsection (2)(a) would provide for the Secretary of State to
      "consult with such persons and individuals who appear to him to have an interest".
      I would have thought that he and his officials could deal with that sensibly if the amendment were accepted; I suspect that it will not be. My right hon. Friend is not suggesting that in every case the Secretary of State should have to consult all the individuals and organisations that may have an interest but that he should consult organisations that appear to have an interest. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire adduced an example about chambers of commerce being formed in the east of London. No one is suggesting that the amendment would force the Secretary of State to consult all organisations, businesses, trade unions and local
      1214
      government organisations in the east of London but simply those that appear to have a proper interest. Some may think that that is playing with words, but it is not. It goes to the fundamental point of the Bill. It is important that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst receives assurance on that.
      We all wish the Bill well but once it is passed, there must be no question of creating a cosy, narrow network with new entrants discouraged from entering. If the debate has achieved anything, it has prised out from the Secretary of State an admission that that could be a danger. He made an interesting point that needs to be emphasised. He is prepared to return to the House and, if necessary, through an order amend the Bill to make it clear that he is determined to consult widely. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on his amendment.
      Mr. Forth: I am most grateful to all the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in this short debate. It has been helpful in clearing my mind about the Bill's purpose and effect. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for his support. I never feel all that lonely in these cases because I am spurred on by the thought that there have been many lonely crusaders for justice and truth. He shares my lifelong suspicion of cosy consensus. I know that it is trendy these days to be consensual but I have never felt comfortable with that. When everyone says that they agree, I am suspicious because it is usually wrong. We all agreed with the Child Support Agency, and where did that get us? The same was true of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, which is hardly one of the great successes of recent legislative history.
      The object of our proceedings is to give proper consideration to legislation, which is what we have been doing. It has been useful. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for the knowledgeable way, which we have come to expect of him, in which he answered the points made. I am particularly grateful to the Secretary of State, who, typically, listened to the debate and was careful and courteous in answering fully our points. I do not know whether Pepper v. Hart is still part of our lives.
      Mr. Maclean: It is.
      Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend, who is a lawyer, and Opposition legal experts confirm that it is. We can therefore be doubly reassured because what the Secretary of State said will be recorded faithfully, as ever, in Hansard. That allays most of the fears expressed by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. Pepper v. Hart means that the Secretary of State's words, along with those of the Bill's promoter, will become part of the reassurance. When the Bill, as it undoubtedly will, becomes statute, we can be reassured of their intentions in respect of its implementation. I am, therefore, reassured to that extent.
      I was impressed by the point that was made by the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and echoed by other hon. Members. It touches a raw nerve end for me, which was probably why the hon. Gentleman made it; he referred to the burdens and bureaucracy that might arise from the amendments. I am sensitive to that point and, indeed, rather persuaded by it. Although I believe that

      1215
      that process would not be undertaken frequently, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out that there might be spurts or splurges of activity that could create difficulty for firms, companies and so on—even for the Department of Trade and Industry itself. I am sensitive to that point and want to take it into account.
      I hope that the debate has been valuable. I have certainly emerged from it better informed, and reassured. Given the reassurances that we have received from the Secretary of State and from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough joins me in agreeing to withdraw the amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 23, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 8, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
      Mr. Forth: Clause 2(2) is another important part of the Bill; it deals with the publication of guidance by the Secretary of State
      "with respect to factors which may be taken into account in determining whether to approve the registration of a name to which this section applies."
      That follows on properly and logically from the debate that we have just held. It revolves around territory that is familiar—but important—to all Members of the House: our friends "may" and "shall". As drafted, the Bill states only that:
      "The Secretary of State may publish guidance"
      with respect to those factors. I want to persuade the House that that should be "shall".
      Mr. Lansley: I understood that, in the amendments that have been selected for debate, my right hon. Friend does not want a requirement that the Secretary of State should publish guidance, but that there should be a requirement that the Secretary of State should take that guidance into account when determining whether to approve the registration of a name, under both the companies and business names legislation.
      Mr. Forth: Indeed—we are talking about the relevance of the guidance and the role that the guidance will play. That follows on from what was said earlier. In order to give the matter some context and substance, I want to pick up from the excellent guidance notes that have been provided for us by the British Chambers of Commerce. Those notes give a flavour of the factors that members of that organisation suggest are relevant to these considerations, and they will enable the House to judge whether such matters should be discretionary or mandatory—if I may use that shorthand.
      I have highlighted some of the comments in that helpful Bill briefing document and will cite them briefly, as they set the matter in context. The document refers to the consideration of
      "a proposal to adopt a new geographic descriptor"—
      1216
      that has already been referred to during the debate; and to
      "an application from promoters to set up a new Chamber".
      That point is crucial to the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and I wanted to make; we see that as a most desirable process. In that case, according to the document
      "BCC will examine the draft Memorandum and Articles of Association and check whether they are appropriate to a Chamber of Commerce."
      The document notes a number of questions that arise from that—questions that 1 envisage should be very much part of the guidance. Such questions are:
      "Do the members control the Chamber? Are there proper processes for members to elect the Board?"
      Such questions naturally arise. The document continues:
      "Are the rules on membership appropriate so that membership is not unreasonably restricted?"
      One can begin to see the sort of questions that should properly be part of the guidance.
      The document continues:
      "Next, inquiries are made about the proposed directors. Do they have private, possibly commercial motives? Do they have any experience of Chambers?"
      We all know now that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), who has left the Chamber, would qualify on all those grounds and probably on several others. We know that that is the sort of territory that we should be in.
      The document points out that
      "A Chamber is a membership body, so what evidence is there of wide support from the business community?
      Again, that ties up to the points that we debated earlier. The document continues:
      "Are we being asked to sanction a Chamber which is always going to struggle to represent the business community?
      I imagine that such points would properly be reflected in the guidance that we are debating.
      11.15 am
      The document notes, interestingly, that
      "Particular care is taken with applications from people wishing to set bilateral Chambers i.e. a Chamber purporting to relate to issues of bilateral trade between the UK and another country."
      That relates to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley).
      What we see in the document is surely the view of the members of the BCC on the kind of factors that the Bill originally stated
      "may be taken into account in determining whether to approve the registration of a name"—
      and that what my amendment proposes must be taken into account.
      I suspect that people outside the House often find it difficult to understand our preoccupation with "may" and "shall" when we consider legislation. However, it is a most important matter. At present, the Bill states only that "it may be", but I am proposing that "it shall be". I hope that my brief rehearsal of some of the points made in the BCC guidance will give some idea of the vital necessity for us to have a guarantee that those factors will be taken into account whenever the deliberations, which the Bill insists that the Secretary of State will carry out, are undertaken. We need that level of reassurance.

      1217
      In the end, we may again have to rely on reassurances given by the Secretary of State and perhaps by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire in this Chamber—so be it. However, at the very least, the tabling of such amendments as these and the holding of such brief debates enable those reassurances to be given. Obviously, I should prefer it if the Bill were amended in the way that my amendments suggest. However, what emerges during these sort of proceedings is that such reassurances—if, indeed, they are given—can be almost as effective in their own way, by providing guidance as to what will happen in future. They give an indication of the thinking of the promoter of the Bill and of the Secretary of State—the holder of that position will be responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Bill, as the Bill points out.
      We want some clear indications—or even commitments—as to the way in which the provisions will be implemented. At present, the Bill states only that the guidance
      "may be taken into account".
      That leaves a degree of unacceptable uncertainty; we need to know much more. If we are to have guidance, why should it not be taken into account? Are there circumstances in which the kind of factors that I have briefly outlined as to membership, directors and so on—especially in respect of bilateral chambers—would not be taken into account? That is difficult to imagine. It may be that I am wrong and that some hidden flexibility was built into the Bill that required it to be drafted in the way that it was, but I need a great deal of reassurance on this matter.
      I look to the Secretary of the State and to the promoter of the Bill for a clear idea of how they see the role of the guidance—for example, what it would contain, if my comments about that are off beam, and especially, the circumstances in which the guidance might be discretionary rather than mandatory. I want that to be fixed firmly; I want to ensure that the guidance plays a central and key role, and that we can rely on it to give direction to what is done—rather than for it to be discretionary. That is the purpose of my amendment.
      Mr. Darvill: I always listen with care to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). He holds principled views, for which he argues very strongly. In the Committee on the Greater London Authority Bill, on which we both had the pleasure to serve, I twice spoke up in agreement with points that he had raised. However, this time I believe that he is mistaken.
      In my view, there should not be a burden on the Secretary of State to issue guidance. It seems to me that the current law for the setting up of companies, as it will be amended by the Bill, will be flexible enough to cope with the requirements that are envisaged in any such application. At some stage, if there were particular difficulties surrounding such applications, it might be necessary for the Secretary of State to issue guidance. If contentious applications were made, which were being contested in the courts—perhaps even by judicial review—such guidance might help.
      However, I understand that the Bill was designed to give flexibility to organisations, companies, chambers and so on, and if the Secretary of State was forced to make the guidance notes—as he or she would be if amendment
      1218
      No. 3 were accepted—that flexibility would be limited. I believe that that would be too prescriptive, so I urge the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to reconsider and withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for moving amendment No. 3 and giving us an opportunity to consider another important aspect of the Bill. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill). Perhaps I should explain why I do not agree with my right hon. Friend or the hon. Gentleman, and why I hope that my right hon. Friend will withdraw amendment No. 3 and will not press amendment No. 6 to a vote.
      The effect of amendments Nos. 3 and 6 would be that the Secretary of State, having issued guidance, would have no discretion whether to take into account the factors set out in the guidance when deciding whether a title should be used. The amendments do not directly bear upon whether the Secretary of State issues guidance. The Secretary of State would continue to have discretion whether to issue guidance. However, I emphasise that it is my opinion, as the Bill's promoter, that it is a key aspect of the Bill that there should be guidance, and that if the Secretary of State were unreasonably not to issue guidance, that should be challenged.
      Under existing companies legislation, the Secretary of State, when considering an application to use the title "chamber of commerce", can reasonably say no only when the application is by a person or body that is plainly not a chamber of commerce, but not when the proposed title, or the circumstances of the organisation proposing it, does not meet the positive test of complying with the characteristics of a chamber of commerce. Therefore we are moving—it may be regarded as a subtle distinction, but it is an important one—from a test that has proved to be very difficult for the Secretary of State to use to a more purposive test.
      The question of what is in the guidance brings us back to the question of what happens once guidance has been issued. I do hope that the Secretary of State issues such guidance, and in the way that the Bill posits, having discussed and negotiated with the British Chambers of Commerce and other interested parties.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, there is a tendency to set things down in the Bill. When I first drafted the Bill, I tended to want to put everything in it. The legislation, as introduced in the previous Session, in the form of the Chamber of Commerce (Protection of Title) Bill, included a schedule, the purpose of which was to set out the essential characteristics of a chamber of commerce. During discussions on the legislation in the previous Session, I was persuaded that that would be inflexible, that some flexibility was necessary and that everything should not be set down in the Bill. The Secretary of State will therefore have that discretion.
      Mr. Heald: Is my hon. Friend saying that, if the amendment were passed, the words
      "factors which shall be taken into account"
      would be very restrictive, because no other factor could be taken into account except those factors, and that that would restrict the discretion of the Secretary of State unreasonably?
      Mr. Lansley: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who, having a legal background, has come to the point

      1219
      which is often the crux of the not pedantic issue of whether one says "may" or "shall". That is indeed an objection to the amendment. However, in the spirit in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has moved the amendment, I hope that the House will bear with me while I explain what I hope that the guidance will cover, and why it would not necessarily in all circumstances be appropriate for each aspect of that guidance to be taken into account when considering every application—although my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) is absolutely right to say that we do not want the Secretary of State to be constrained not to take other factors into account if they are not expressly provided for in his guidance.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has mentioned some of the things that the British Chambers of Commerce has said in its briefing to Members of Parliament, but it may help if I list some of the things that I foresee as being among the characteristics of a chamber of commerce. I shall divide them into three categories.
      The first category relates to the constitution of a chamber of commerce. Although some chambers of commerce enjoy a royal charter, they are the lesser number. A chamber of commerce should be constituted as a body corporate, but not a company limited by shares. In almost all circumstances, chambers of commerce are incorporated as companies limited by guarantee. The straightforward purpose of that is to ensure that they cannot be used as a profit-distributing vehicle—that any moneys generated by the commercial activities of a chamber of commerce should continue to be re-invested for the improvement of service to the whole membership.
      Secondly, a chamber should not be a subsidiary or division of any other body except another chamber. The independence of chambers of commerce is an important characteristic and should be reinforced, in my view, by the stipulation that a chamber of commerce should be independent and not under the direct control of Government or a local authority. It would be contrary to what I would regard as the essential characteristics of a chamber of commerce if, for example, local authority X were to set up chamber of commerce X. That body would not be representative of the business community and independent of Government.
      Finally, the constitutional arrangements of a chamber of commerce should provide for it to be controlled by the whole of its membership—not by a faction or a cabal, still less by an individual. There should be an expectation that a very high proportion of the members of a chamber of commerce should be engaged in manufacture, commerce, business, trade, shipping, distribution, agriculture, fishing or professional practice. The hon. Member for Upminster reminds us that those who are in the professions often play a significant part. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, chambers of commerce were often established as manufacturing, commerce and trade oriented bodies, they now represent the whole business community, including the professions.
      However, there is a British chamber of shipping. Therefore it is possible to contemplate circumstances where bodies that enjoy a title related to "chamber of commerce" do not necessarily comply with that criterion, because they are not representative of a geographical area,
      1220
      but represent a particular trade relationship—perhaps between the United Kingdom and another country—or a particular form of trade or business. That has a bearing on the question whether that factor should be taken into account in all cases.
      11.30 am
      The guidance should cover the issue of whether a chamber of commerce whose name is a geographical descriptor is genuinely representative of all businesses in that area. That point was alluded to in previous discussions, but I think it should be made explicit now. When a name refers to an area, the Secretary of State must also consider whether the chamber of commerce seeks to promote business and trade between that area and others. That is an important point, and we must draw a distinction between chambers of commerce that represent a specific geographical area and those that seek to promote trade between areas. The guidance should take account of certain factors when assessing a title application by a chamber of commerce that represents a specific geographical area and different factors when considering an application by a chamber of commerce that seeks to represent trade between areas. Not every factor should be taken into account in every application.
      I think that it is important that the essential characteristics of chambers of commerce should include some central purposes. First, a chamber of commerce should exist to serve and promote the interests of the whole business community in any place or area to which its name is applied. The body should foster the interests not simply of its members but of the whole business community in the area that it represents. Secondly, a chamber of commerce should provide a service to the local business community—it would not necessarily be exclusive to its members—in respect of information, advice and assistance. Thirdly, a chamber should undertake, or encourage its members to undertake, joint activities and arrangements for mutual support and promotion of the interests of the business community. That is one of the central original purposes of chambers of commerce: they must promote the relationship between the local business community and its legislatures—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a fairly general point. Will the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) relate his comments to "may" and "shall"?
      Mr. Lansley: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is my final point about guidance.
      It is clear that it will not always be relevant to take into account whether a chamber of commerce has the purpose of representing a business community to a legislature or to other bodies. For example, if the body seeks to promote trade between two areas, it might have no representational role in relation to local authorities or central Government. It might operate in the international sphere, even though it is incorporated in this country. Some chambers of commerce and related titles are incorporated in this country but are not representative of a particular national geographical area. Therefore, it would not be relevant to assess them according to whether their activities include joint promotion or representation to Government in their area.
      I hope that I have covered reasonably fully what I think the guidance should include. In the process, I hope that I have illustrated that, because of the scope of the guidance

      1221
      and the diverse bodies that use the title "chamber of commerce", we should not assume that every one of the factors set out in the guidance will apply to each of the bodies that seeks to use the "chamber of commerce" title. Therefore, the legislation should give the Secretary of State discretion to decide not only the issuing and timing of guidance, but which factors to apply to a particular application in each instance.
      I apologise if I have trespassed upon the patience of the House. I hope that I have assisted hon. Members in understanding why this small but important point is phrased in the way it appears in the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Leigh: I support amendment No. 2, but, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), I oppose amendment No. 3. I am not sure why, in framing the Bill, we are talking about the Secretary of State "perhaps" publishing guidance. Of course he will publish guidance, so I am not sure what is wrong with amendment No. 2 proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), which says that the Secretary of State "shall" publish guidance.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing amendment No. 2.
      Mr. Leigh: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may have got the numbers wrong, but I hope that my point will stand as to whether we should talk in terms of "may" or "shall". My right hon. Friend said that the Secretary of State shall publish guidance, which is a very important point.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire listed the factors that will influence the Secretary of State in determining whether he should allow the creation of a new body. My hon. Friend referred to some very unremarkable facts. Of course the Secretary of State would not want to allow the establishment of a new body if it were not constituted as a body corporate or run constitutionally and democratically. Those points are well made. However, the "may" or "shall" point is important in how it relates to the geographical descriptor. I think that is the key to the whole argument, and it relates to the fears that we expressed when considering the previous group of amendments.
      I am worried that, when the Secretary of State considers these matters, he will have regard to not only whether the proposed body is run by reputable people, is run democratically and seeks to represent people in the area but whether a similar body already exists in that area. How much weight will he give to that latter point? That is an important point that relates to my experience in the last Parliament. As a lawyer, I was retained by the newspaper distribution industry. It is a very restrictive business, being a vertical monopoly. Until recently, one was not allowed to open a news agency when one already existed in that area. You can see my point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to try to frame the legislation—I hope that the Secretary of State will reassure me about this in his winding-up speech—so that no one will be denied the ability to create a new chamber of commerce simply because one already exists in that area.
      1222
      There may be perfectly valid reasons—although it may not happen very often—why the existing chamber of commerce is not doing its job adequately. It may have been taken over by a clique or, as often occurs with democratic bodies, it may have remained in the same hands for many years and atrophied. I want to ensure that the Secretary of State is able to look at the issue in the round. The guidance should be quite clear. Someone may wish to establish a chamber of commerce that is perfectly well constituted and genuinely representative but which covers an area served by a similar body. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that someone wishes to establish the new Blankshire chamber of commerce, but there is already a Blankshire chamber of commerce in that area. I do not understand how the procedures will work. Will the Secretary of State say, "I'm sorry, but there is already the Blankshire chamber of commerce, so your geographical descriptor is not accurate."? I am sure that that is not what my hon. Friend intends to do. Indeed, I am sure that he wants an open and democratic system that permits new entrants. We are talking about something that may happen only rarely but there may be good reasons why it might be necessary in some instances. I hope that when the Secretary of State replies, he will be able to give us the reassurance that we seek.
      Mr. Byers: I shall try to reassure right hon. and hon. Members, either in relation to the two amendments, which are narrowly drawn, or on Third Reading, when some wider issues may need to be addressed.
      Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 relate specifically to the factors that may be taken into account. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is trying to remove "may" and replace it with "shall". Many Members will have debated for hours, if not days, the merits or otherwise of "may" as opposed to "shall". Indeed, I remember—it was probably four or five years ago-when the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was a Minister in the Department of Education and taking a Bill through Committee. I was then a Labour Back-Bench Member. We debated "may" and "shall" for many hours in the context of the various powers that the Secretary of State should have.
      Right hon. and hon. Members will know that there are significant reasons why "may" is to be preferred. If "shall" is inserted in a Bill, it is often seen to be prescriptive. There may be other issues that should be taken into account, or it would be appropriate to take into account, in particular circumstances. If "shall" is used, there is a limit on the issues that may be reflected upon by the Secretary of State. By having "may", the Secretary of State has the discretion to consider other factors if it is appropriate to do so in the particular circumstances of an individual case.
      There have been references to the publication of guidance. You were right to point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the two amendments do not touch on that issue. The amendments do not relate to whether the Bill should state "may publish" or "shall publish". The amendments that do relate to that issue have not been selected for debate. That being so, we must restrict ourselves to the factors that may or, if the amendments are carried, shall be taken into account.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst used shorthand when he said, "Is it discretionary or mandatory?" That is probably quite an accurate way of

      1223
      putting the question. There will be difficulties if the amendments are carried. It would be restrictive and prescriptive for the Secretary of State. The issues to be taken into account would be set in stone and would be required to be taken into account. More worryingly, the Secretary of State would not be able to take into account some wider issues that it might be appropriate to consider in individual cases but not in all cases.
      For these reasons, I ask the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to withdraw the amendments. He has raised an interesting debate about "may" and "shall" and I am sure that it is one to which we shall return on other occasions, perhaps in different capacities, in the months and years ahead. However, I hope that he will accept today that inserting "shall" would create some real difficulties. I hope also that he might feel able to withdraw the amendments.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful again to the Secretary of State for so carefully replying to the debate. I accept both the spirit and substance of what he has said. I am sufficiently reassured, and sufficiently anxious to move on to Third Reading, to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      11.44 am
      Mr. Lansley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I am grateful for the opportunity to move to Third Reading. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who on Second Reading gave the House a short but useful opportunity to understand the purposes of the Bill. Consideration of the Bill in Committee was an interesting occasion when we were able to raise a number of issues, none of which was controversial. It is always interesting when a Bill is being considered in Committee and there are no amendments. Sometimes, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said in a previous debate, that is not encouraging. In this instance, I hope that my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members will be comforted by the thought that there were no amendments in Committee because the Bill follows a pattern that was agreed after substantial amendment to another measure in the previous Session.
      Mr. Forth: That may be so, but an alternative explanation is that members of Committees are so carefully picked that sometimes they neither wish to engage in nor are capable of objective consideration or criticism of a Bill, with the result that it sails through Committee without proper scrutiny.
      Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I would not subscribe to that view in this instance. When my right hon. Friend examines the Bill at a later stage, I hope that he will find that, although he has properly raised various issues, it is competent for its purpose and in that sense is a quality product. It is our objective to achieve that.
      I thank Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry, as well as the Financial Secretary, who was a DTI Minister in the previous Session. The hon. Lady was
      1224
      supportive of the Bill at that time. The Secretary of State and the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry have been helpful during this Session, as have Liberal Democrat Members and my right hon. and hon. Friends. I hope that we have arrived at a Bill that will substantially improve the environment for chambers of commerce. It is certainly legislation that they seek, and for good reasons.
      It is important to stress that the Bill is not sought on the basis that existing legislation has been applied in anything other than a good fashion. I think that it has been applied as well as could possibly have been expected. However, there are deficiencies in its present structure. That is why we introduce legislation. If existing legislation is good enough but has been misapplied, that is a different matter and does not justify the introduction of new legislation. However, in this instance there are deficiencies in current legislation. It is the purpose of the Bill to correct potential problems and abuses.
      For example, the role of British Chambers of Commerce as a consultee on applications has not been entrenched in statute. It should be so entrenched for a series of reasons to which I referred in the first of our two debates on Report. Secondly—this touches on the issue that we dealt with in the second of our debates on Report—there is no benchmark in legislation against which the Secretary of State can judge what is a chamber of commerce. The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) talked about whether the Secretary of State should issue guidance. I think that he should. In the absence of it, the Secretary of State is trying, with difficulty, to answer the question, "Is this plainly not a chamber of commerce?" It is important that there should be a benchmark, and it is important also that legislation should provide the power to issue guidance. Under existing legislation, the Secretary of State could not issue such guidance nor use it as he will be able to use it once the Bill is enacted.
      With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was able to explain the factors that I believe should be included in guidance. There is no need for me to rehearse those factors on Third Reading. I hope that, when the time comes, the Secretary of State and British Chambers of Commerce will be able to agree something along the lines of those factors to form the basis for guidance.
      As has been said in previous debates, there is a risk of abuse. Fortunately, it is not a risk that has materialised to any great extent in this country—although it has happened in other countries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said. There is a problem about the scope to challenge the geographical descriptors that are applied to chambers of commerce. There is a difficulty every time such an issue arises. My hon. Friend raised the hypothetical example of a chamber of commerce that seeks, as it were, to be the new Blankshire chamber of commerce. The Secretary of State may well not be able to entertain such an application. It will have to be justified in relation to the factors to which I referred.
      I envisage circumstances in which a title is allowed although it includes the geographical descriptor of an area that is covered by another chamber of commerce. However, the question should be whether the chamber of commerce seeking to use that title meets the essential characteristics of a chamber of commerce as stated in guidance. If it does, all will be well and good.
      Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is giving us very important reassurance. Is he saying that the Secretary of State will

      1225
      consider new applications solely on their merits and on how the bodies will operate, and that applications should not be refused solely on the ground that a proposed organisation will cover the same area as an existing one?
      Mr. Lansley: That is indeed my view—each application should be considered on its merits. The purpose of providing guidance is to enable us much more clearly to understand how the merits are judged.
      It is possible to envisage circumstances in which two chambers of commerce are, by reference to their geographic descriptors, working in the same area. Clearly, it would be undesirable for them to have titles that are so similar that people trying to do business with them might be confused about which body is which.
      Neither the chambers of commerce movement nor I, in promoting the Bill, are trying to create an approved and exclusive network of chambers of commerce in which only those organisations approved by British Chambers of Commerce can represent a specific geographical area.
      Hon. Members have dealt with political boundaries—with which area is within the compass of which local authority or parliamentary constituency. I know that none of us would advise British chambers of commerce to try to agree exclusive boundaries for their responsibilities and areas, which will overlap. Although more than one chamber may cover the same area, that will not be a problem in itself.
      The London Members present will appreciate that there is no difficulty with the existence of both a London chamber of commerce and industry and, for example—as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) said—a Merton chamber of commerce. They seek to serve different purposes for their area, to provide different but complementary services, and to do so to a high standard; and that is perfectly acceptable. We are not trying to establish a geographically exclusive operation.
      We are trying, I hope, to ensure that a geographical descriptor is not applied to a chamber of commerce that is not justified by its ability to represent the business community in that area. That is a central point of the Bill's structure.
      On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst addressed the vexed issue of reversibility—the extent to which it is possible for the Secretary of State to conclude that a name should be removed from a chamber of commerce. For the benefit of the House, I should explain how I foresee that situation being dealt with. In some circumstances, a specific chamber of commerce may no longer be operating as a chamber of commerce. In other circumstances, an organisation, although it holds the title of chamber of commerce, may not be operating as a chamber of commerce at all, but in a manner that is potentially misleading and harmful to those in business.
      British Chambers of Commerce, for example, owns five chamber of commerce titles. It has acquired those titles to frustrate possible efforts by others to acquire them to abuse the business community wishing to deal with a chamber of commerce. One could say that those registered titles are redundant, as they are not being used for chamber of commerce purposes. However, in those circumstances, I do not think it would be right for the Secretary of State to remove the titles, as they have been registered for a perfectly legitimate purpose.
      1226
      The test that should be applied—as it is in section 32 of the Companies Act 1985—is whether the Secretary of State believes that the name in which a company is registered gives
      "so misleading an indication of the nature of its activities as to be likely to cause harm to the public".
      In those circumstances, he may direct it to change its name.
      We are dealing with a difficult matter. We are not trying to create a situation in which the Secretary of State is daily to police the activities of chambers of commerce—as that would be wholly contrary to the purpose of the chambers of commerce movement, which is to be business led, membership controlled and very decentralised in operation. I therefore do not want the Secretary of State to tell chambers of commerce, "You don't match up to my standard of a chamber of commerce, so I shall remove your title." The chamber of commerce movement itself would deprecate that.
      Current legislation provides that, if the tough test that I have described—of whether harm would result from a body registering and continuing to use the title "chamber of commerce"—is met, the Secretary of State shall have the power to ask for the title to be changed. I think that that is a satisfactory basis on which to proceed.
      Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that the issue has been on my mind for some time, and I am grateful to him for the point that he has just made. However, surely he is not saying that this Bill is justified by the fact that we can already deal with the matter under current law, principally the Companies Acts.
      Mr. Lansley: The issue is whether the Bill—which contains provisions additional to current legislation—should include provisions giving the Secretary of State a power to cause a chamber of commerce title to be changed, over and above the generic power already provided in companies legislation and based on the test of harm. I believe that it would be wrong to provide the Secretary of State with a more intrusive power in dealing with bodies calling themselves chamber of commerce, or related titles, than he already has in dealing with any company that has been given a title and continues to use it.
      There is already a generic power; the question is whether there should be a specific one, on chambers of commerce. I should be happy to rest on the Secretary of State's generic power provided by companies legislation, and see no need to go beyond it.
      I apologise for that digression, but, as the Bill's promoter, I am conscious of the fact that we should not complete our proceedings without specifically addressing the issues raised in earlier debates.
      I thank all those who have further contributed to our debates on Report and Third Reading, and especially officials at the Department of Trade and Industry, who have been enormously helpful to me in reconciling and trying to mesh the objectives that I sought to achieve in the Bill—to support the chamber of commerce movement—with the structure of current companies legislation. As hon. Members will appreciate by my responses on some of the issues, the Bill's structure is very much designed to work within the structure of companies legislation, rather than to operate outside it or perhaps come into conflict with it.

      1227
      I hope that the Bill will reinforce the efforts of the chamber of commerce movement to create a more complete and comprehensive structure that provides better services to the business community and can take more responsibility for their provision—even to the point at which the Government can stop doing things and the business community can more readily do them for itself. Rather than reinforcing the defence of the status quo in the chambers of commerce movement, I hope that the process will promote and enhance the standards and quality of service to the business community. On that basis, I hope that the House gives the Bill a Third Reading.
      11.59 am
      Mr. David Heath: It is a pleasure to be able to contribute to the progress of the Bill, even at this late stage. I commend the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on the content of the Bill and the admirably well-informed way in which he has taken it through its stages in the House. I am also pleased to see that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has been present throughout this morning's proceedings.
      I do not want to delay this worthwhile Bill. It was worthwhile in its earlier manifestation, when the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) introduced it. The proceedings before today have been characterised by their brevity. The Official Report shows that 34 minutes were spent on Second Reading and 27 minutes in Committee, which, by anyone's standards, is fast progress for a Bill. We have rightly been slightly more leisurely today, because it is important to tease out the purposes of a Bill and its consequences on enactment.
      I am interested in the debate not least because my local chamber of commerce was keen on the Bill and gave its support. However, there is one blemish in the record of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire—one blot on his escutcheon—to which I must draw attention because it illustrates a point that we should consider before giving final approval to the Bill.
      Given my interest in the Bill, imagine my surprise on Monday 1 March—St. David's day—when I saw, at column 704 of the report of the Second Reading, a remark that was interpreted in my area as a slighting reference, intentional or not, to the Wessex chamber of commerce. This is an important point about geographical descriptors and the operation of the legislation. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has also referred to the issue in radio interviews, so it is clearly important to him.
      The Wessex chamber of commerce serves Frome in my constituency, and several other towns. It may be helpful to describe the genesis of the Wessex chamber, because it illustrates a difficulty that I should like the hon. Gentleman, or perhaps the Secretary of State, to address. The Frome chamber of commerce used to deal exclusively with the affairs of the town. It did so extremely well and celebrated its 50th anniversary recently, when my namesake the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was the guest of honour. I hope that it will work closely with the newly elected Liberal Democrat town council in Frome over the next four years.
      However, the chamber realised that there is a limit to the scope of the services that can be provided to the trade members in a small market town and that there is an
      1228
      advantage in associating with other areas. It considered the best way forward. It thought about joining the prestigious and active Bristol chamber of commerce, but felt that that was probably not right for a town some distance from Bristol. Instead, it looked towards the West Wiltshire association, where it saw towns of a similar size with similar activities with which it fitted well. Eventually, a joint chamber of commerce was formed serving Bradford-on-Avon, Melksham, Trowbridge, Warminster, Westbury, Frome, Chippenham, Devizes and Shepton Mallet. That immediately created a problem of nomenclature. The chamber of commerce could not be called West Wiltshire any more because it extended outside west Wiltshire. It is difficult to find a geographical descriptor that covers four district council areas, two county council areas, four health authority areas—if that is relevant—and five parliamentary constituencies. How can that area be described adequately?
      I experienced a similar problem when I was chairman of Avon and Somerset police authority. When the Government decided to abolish Avon county council, we had a problem knowing what to call the police authority. As chairman of the authority, I said that we should do nothing, partly because I was not prepared to spend money on new cap badges, but also because it was difficult to find a geographical descriptor for the area. The "Somerset, Bristol and Parts of South Gloucestershire constabulary" would have been a bit of a mouthful and would not have been likely to commend itself to the Home Office or the local population, so we stuck with Avon and Somerset.
      The same applies to Wessex. The hon. Gentleman has introduced a provision which might have the capacity to mislead, as Wessex is a rather amorphous geographical term. I do not want to get into a discussion about the heptarchy and the realm of the west Saxons, but Wessex is often used to describe an area which we know is in the west country but of whose extent we are not sure. Wessex is also one ward in the West Somerset district council area, so the term does have a specific use. However, in this case it was decided on as a convenient term.
      Would the Bill create difficulties if a chamber of commerce were set up but it was difficult to find a precise geographical definition of the area that it covered? Would it have any effect on existing chambers of commerce that had been set up in similar circumstances? No one would suggest that Wessex chamber of commerce is doing anything other than an excellent job for the businesses that it represents. There is certainly no intention to deceive or any sense of self-aggrandisement.
      Mr. Lansley: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing me with an opportunity to set the record straight. If my references to the application by the former West Wiltshire chamber of commerce to call itself the Wessex chamber of commerce were regarded as a criticism, I happily withdraw what I said. I am quite clear from all the evidence received that the Wessex chamber of commerce is one of standing and has every reason to use that title. I know from past experience not to question the definition of Wessex. However, it illustrates the point that we have to apply ourselves carefully to the issue. I understand that British Chambers of Commerce was consulted and raised no objection because the Swindon chamber of commerce had no objection. However, the Dorset chamber of commerce would have had an

      1229
      objection—probably not one that would have prevailed—and the process did not mesh together properly. We have to be sure that the description is accurate.
      Mr. Heath: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for an extremely helpful intervention which I will transmit to members of the Wessex chamber of commerce. I know that they will be pleased to hear what he said, which was helpful in explaining how the Bill will operate.
      There is still a problem in respect of making sure that nobody has a veto on what may be a convenient term simply because it could be considered misleading. There should be a proper test as to whether there might be a genuine chance of a term misleading the general public and anyone who wished to trade with that chamber of commerce. The test of harm in the Companies Act 1985, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, should underlie the consideration of the Secretary of State in determining whether a particular geographical description is likely to mislead.
      Having made that point, which I hope is a useful one, and having been reassured to a considerable extent by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, I hope that I shall be reassured further by the Secretary of State and that the Bill will receive a Third Reading and pass into law. It is a worthwhile measure.
      12.8 pm
      Mr. Heald: I pay tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has presented the Bill, building up a cross-party consensus in the House. I know how hard that can be from my experience of a private Member's Bill on insurance company reserves when I had a great deal of difficulty with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). In the end we prevailed, but it is not always easy. Anyone who reaches this stage with a private Member's Bill deserves huge plaudits. I also thank the Secretary of State for his constructive approach to the Bill. All hon. Members appreciate it if the boss, the man at the top of the Department, can be in the House when such a Bill is being debated.
      The Bill will not affect the status title of any existing chamber of commerce, but it will deal with a problem that has become increasingly evident. Although the existing procedure has been well administered, there has been concern that added protection is needed, so that the title "chamber of commerce" and related titles can be applied to persons and bodies that are genuinely representative of the business community and the area described in the title.
      It will be helpful if the Secretary of State can publish guidance on the criteria to be used in determining whether a body should be permitted to use the title. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire was right to say that there has not been a benchmark, and that there should be.
      The Bill will reduce the scope for abuse by public relations companies and others who may use the title when they have no representative function. It will prevent also the use of grandiose geographical descriptions; although I exempt Wessex, in light of the comments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
      It will be far better to have the matter on a solid, statutory footing, while giving the British Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce the opportunity to be involved in strong self-regulation.
      1230
      The Opposition welcome the Bill and pay tribute to the chambers of commerce, which have made great strides in recent years in accreditation, quality-assured services, sensible mergers, more comprehensive geographical coverage and, in some areas, the close work between chambers and training and enterprise councils.
      The Bill will remedy the weaknesses in the current regime and will reinforce the steps that are being taken to give chambers of commerce the role that they merit. Local authorities in my area and across the country will be pleased that an extra element of protection will accompany the improvements that have been made. In North Hertfordshire and East Hertfordshire—where the Conservatives gained both councils yesterday—that will be the case.
      12.12 pm
      Mr. Byers: I am delighted to be here to support the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on the way in which he has dealt with the issue, and on the way in which he has ensured that there has been a cross-party coalition in support of the Bill. As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, it is difficult to get agreement in this House on almost any measure; even on one that appears to be non-contentious. The hon. Gentleman has done extremely well to achieve such a level of support for the Bill.
      The Government have a positive and constructive working relationship with the British Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, and we are working together to drive forward the competitiveness agenda. It is vital that chambers of commerce continue to be business-led, and that their membership is controlled.
      The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred to his experience as a DTI Minister and to the view of the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), that chambers of commerce were almost an arm of the Government, as they were proactive and part of what the Government wanted. Our view is that there should be an arms' length relationship, and that chambers of commerce should be responsible for issues of concern to their members. The priority for the chambers must be what their members want. On occasion, there may be conflict with the Government; so be it. That is one of the strengths of our democracy.
      We are working positively with the chambers of commerce and we wish to continue the partnership. We have studied the Bill—which we know the chambers are keen to have on the statute book—and we believe that it is appropriate to legislate in this way. We do so to rule out abuse by organisations which, for their own reasons—perhaps to mislead or deceive—use the description "chamber of commerce" or the variety of other descriptions that can flow from that.
      We must not rule out the possibility of other groups coming forward in a proactive way to represent the interests of the business community. We want to rule out abuse but not to deny other bodies the opportunity to be described as chambers of commerce if they so wish. It will be for the Secretary of State, considering the guidance that will have been published, to determine whether such an application should be agreed.
      I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, using the example of the Wessex chamber of commerce. His points are well

      1231
      made, and when the Department considers these matters, those are exactly the sort of issues that we will want to take into account.
      I was pleased that officials from the Department were able to assist the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire with the Bill. The Bill will apply to Great Britain and it will be for the new Northern Ireland Executive to make proposals for consideration by the Northern Ireland Assembly on any changes in legislation that might be needed for Northern Ireland.
      We warmly support the Bill and look forward to working in partnership with the British Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. We believe that the Bill creates a clear and workable statutory basis for consultation with those bodies on company and business names, and I commend it to the House.
      12.16 pm
      Mr. Forth: I think that I welcome the Bill but I am not yet wholly convinced, despite the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), its promoter, whom I, too, congratulate on piloting it so skilfully to this stage.
      I join all those who have welcomed the Secretary of State. It is a great pleasure to see a Secretary of State taking the trouble to be here on a Friday for a Bill that is of importance to his Department. We all greatly appreciate his presence.
      I am somewhat puzzled. The briefing from the British Chambers of Commerce says:
      "Companies House seeks the opinion of BCC on new applications but there is no legal requirement to do so … There is no definition in British law of a Chamber of Commerce."
      Then, intriguingly, it says:
      "This Bill would solve these problems by providing an acceptable and meaningful definition of the term 'Chamber of Commerce'."
      It does no such thing: I can find no definition of the term in the Bill. If that is what the British Chambers of Commerce was looking for, I do not think that the Bill provides it.
      That leaves me slightly at a loss, but if the promoter of the Bill, who has worked so closely with the BCC, and the Secretary of State reassure me that the BCC has got what it wants, I suppose that must be the case. I hope that the BCC will not be disappointed when the legislation is implemented.
      I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire for taking a bit of time to cover the issue of what he and I have come to know as reversibility. I was grateful, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for the points that he made on that issue.
      Those points were not covered in our rather brief proceedings in Committee and on Second Reading. The value of Report has been demonstrated yet again. It enables those who were not privileged to serve in Committee to have some input and it allows points that may have arisen on Second Reading and may or may not have been dealt with in Committee to be reconsidered by the House as a whole.
      This has been a useful example of the value of the Report stage, even when the Bill has, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire told us, emerged
      1232
      unscathed from Committee. As for reversibility, I remain uneasy, but obviously I will have to accept what has been said today.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, with his usual eloquence and force, has said that he hopes, as I do, that the Bill will not provide a mechanism to reinforce the status quo and protect those who have title to use the term "chamber of commerce" regardless of their performance and value.
      We also hope that there will be sufficient flexibility in the mechanism to allow for the removal, where justified, of such a title, and for newcomers to come onto the scene if they are providing either something new or—this is a horrible phrase but I shall use it—added value.
      My suspicion all along has been that we are reinforcing the established order, ensuring that there is not much of a threat to it, and then walking away rather satisfied. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has said repeatedly that that is not the case, and has told us that the Companies Act 1985 makes proper provision for the removal of the title, where necessary, by the Secretary of State.
      That is good and I am reassured—although if the provision already exists in companies law, that leaves open the question: how necessary is the Bill? However, the chambers of commerce believe that it is necessary, and my hon. Friend was sufficiently persuaded by the case for the Bill that he used that most precious of opportunities, a high place in the ballot for private Members' Bills, to introduce it. That in itself signifies the importance that he attaches to the subject. The Secretary of State, too, has reaffirmed that his Department is enthusiastic about the Bill, saw it as necessary and gave it help and support.
      All in all, therefore, although I remain somewhat uneasy about some elements of the Bill, I sense that having got this far, it has support in all parts of the House. I am therefore content for it to be given a Third Reading and be sent winging its way to the other place, where no doubt it will receive a different kind of scrutiny from a different perspective.
      12.23 pm
      Mr. Darvill: I support the Bill, and I can reassure the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that the definition of the term "chamber of commerce" is clearly covered in clause 1, which says that it is contained in regulations pursuant to section 29(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1985 and section 3(1)(a) of the Business Names Act 1985.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help, and his legal expertise, but my point was that if the definition is already in other legislation, the need for it cannot be used as a justification for this legislation.
      Mr. Darvill: The point that I was making was that the Secretary of State's ability to secure the term "chamber of commerce" is specified in regulations pursuant to those sections. The point of the Bill is to bridge the gap in existing legislation, and the need for it has been clearly demonstrated not only on Second Reading and in Committee but today on Report. I agree with the right hon.

      1233
      Gentleman about the importance of Third Reading, which has enabled the House to focus on two of the major points, on which debate and reassurance were clearly needed.
      I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), whose expertise on the subject has been demonstrated throughout proceedings on the Bill. I am sure that all hon. Members will endorse those congratulations. The hon. Gentleman has done a service to the House and the business community as a whole. I am sure that my local chamber of commerce in Havering welcomes the Bill. It is a good sign that all parties in the House are working to support the business community, and I hope that the Bill receives a Third Reading.
      12.25 pm
      Mr. Leigh: When historians write the history of Friday, 7 May 1999, I fear that they will not dwell at length on the passage of the Bill. That will be unfair. However, they will dwell on the fact that a new Parliament, for better or worse, has been created in Scotland. The Report stage of the Bill showed that this old Parliament can scrutinise legislation effectively and improve it.
      We have had an excellent debate this morning. As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) responded to arguments with skill and sensitivity. It is welcome that, on a Friday morning, we have been joined by an existing member of the Cabinet and by my hon. Friend who—according to today's newspapers—may shortly join the shadow Cabinet. He well deserves that honour for the skill that he brings to our debates. I hope that I have not ruined his chances by saying that, because I was trying to pat him on the back for what will be a good Act of Parliament.
      The Secretary of State gave the House various assurances today. He said that he does not see the Bill as an interventionist measure and that he intends to deal with the issues with a light regulatory touch. Reference has been made to Nicholas Ridley and, listening to the Secretary of State, one is left with the impression that he would have enjoyed serving under the late Nicholas Ridley, because their views are similar. The Secretary of State stressed that he sees the chambers of commerce as a business-led organisation with which he does not wish to interfere any more than is necessary.
      The Secretary of State also wishes to ensure that there is no abuse of the system. As I understand it, that is the purpose of the Bill, because it will provide a mechanism for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on how chambers of commerce may properly be set out and allow the British Chambers of Commerce to be consulted when a proposal is submitted. That appears to be an unremarkable hope and I am sure that the Bill will achieve it.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire is not unhappy with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and myself have tried to achieve this morning. 1 hope that he agrees that our arguments have been sensible, because we do not wish to adopt the rigid structure that appertains in many continental countries. I do not criticise those countries for the way in which their chambers of commerce operate, because they are effective. However, they are an arm of government, albeit a quasi-independent arm of government. We have a different tradition, and I know that my hon. Friend does not wish to adopt the continental approach. He is convinced that the Bill will not make that more likely.
      1234
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I have made the point that if someone wishes to set up a new chamber of commerce, the Secretary of State will consult widely, if necessary, and will not just take the view of the existing establishment in the British Chambers of Commerce. That point must be emphasised. I hope that the Secretary of State has also accepted the important point about the geographical descriptor. It is important that a thousand flowers should bloom in the chambers of commerce movement and small market towns, such as Gainsborough, should have their own chamber of commerce, albeit under the umbrella of county or even regional chambers of commerce. My right hon. Friend shares that view and has made it clear that if the existing structure in any county, town or city is not working satisfactorily, a new organisation can come forward and should not be turned down because there is a pre-existing organisation.
      We have received reassurances, on the basis of which the Bill will be effective. I wish it well.
      12.30 pm
      Mr. Lansley: With the leave of the House, I thank right hon. and hon. Members on both sides for their contributions. I must say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that, as the British Chambers of Commerce have said, the Bill should give statutory backing to the issuance by order of the Secretary of State of guidance that will set benchmarks for what is defined as a chamber of commerce. That would not be possible without legislation.
      A balance needs to be struck, raising the point of whether that should be done in the Bill or through secondary legislation. The latter is both more flexible and more manageable as chambers of commerce may change their remits, particularly when training and enterprise councils and chambers of commerce merge. They have done so in the past and may do so again in future.
      I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken, and I hope that the House will feel it right to speed the Bill on its way. Finally, I thank the Secretary of State for the time and attention that he has given to the Bill. The chambers of commerce will appreciate that, and I hope that they will also appreciate the spirit and detail in which we have scrutinised the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill
  As amended, in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill
    New Clause 1

      ANNUAL REPORT
      `Each local authority shall publish and present to the Secretary of State on an annual basis a written report stating—

      (a) the number of licences granted or renewed to breeding establishments in the local authority area;

      (b) the number of applications refused;

      (c) the number of convictions under sections 4 and 9 of the Act;

      (d) the number of disqualifications under section 5 of the Act;

      (e) the number of appeals against convictions and disqualifications; and

      (f) any other relevant matter as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      12.32 pm
      Mr. David Maclean: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The clause imposes a new requirement on local authorities. I am largely satisfied with the Bill as it appears before the House. It is much better than the Bill that came before the House last year. What is more, we have the chance to give it a proper Report stage and Third Reading. We are able to explore issues that have been raised with me, although I do not intend to try to force changes in the Bill that would not be acceptable to the coalition of organisations—or to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), or my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)— that has come together to try to make the Bill workable.
      Having said that, we should consider some issues to ask whether the Bill could be improved, whether it contains something unnecessary or whether its provisions may contain any retrograde step. I hope that those who read Hansard once we have completed our deliberations will see that we have considered all the points that may worry them. I hope that they will conclude that the House accepted or rejected new clause 1 and the other amendments that I have tabled after full consideration and for sensible reasons. I hope that they will see that we have produced the best possible legislation to deal with a vexed problem.
      The new clause would place an obligation on local authorities to publish a report and present it the Secretary of State. That obligation would not be too onerous on local authorities. Local authorities regularly have to present reports. They are bound by various charters and have to report on many aspects of how they conduct their affairs to the Secretary of State. In any case, most local authorities will want to state in their annual report to their electorate how well they have been operating various aspects of their business. Usually, they report on how well they are doing on environmental health issues, for example, giving the number of inspections carried out and so forth.
      1236
      One obligation on local authorities is the licensing regime, which is set out in clause 1. The improvement under the Bill will be the involvement of veterinary practitioners in the reports and in coming to conclusions, which will add a professional expertise that was absent.
      Since we have new legislation that is imposing new obligations, it would be worth while for local authorities to present a report stating how many licences have been renewed for breeding establishments in their area. We need to know whether the legislation is biting. We have all read about the awful examples of puppy farms in the country. I think that most of the original examples were in Wales. I make no slight on the new Welsh Assembly—indeed, it could not be a slight as the elections were only held last night for that body—or the Welsh people and I am not criticising breeders in Wales in particular. However, advocates of the legislation and those who say that something must be done always seem to quote examples of puppy farms in Wales.
      People have different concepts of what constitutes a puppy farm. Some believe them to be huge places with hundreds of breeding bitches, while others rightly point out that the abuse can be as wicked, with the breeding of inappropriate dogs with genetic deformities, and the conditions in which animals are kept as horrific in a small operation. Whatever one's concept of the breeding establishment—the Bill gives a definition—it is important that local authorities report on how things are going.
      In this place we have a tendency when we pass legislation to say on Third Reading, "This is a wonderful Bill. It is a great improvement and a great step forward." This Bill represents a great step forward compared with present legislation, but everyone knows that it is by no means perfect. The organisations that have come together to assist in its drafting all accept that they have had to make some compromises on the Bill that they would have written were they solely in charge. Everyone has had to compromise, but nevertheless we will all say that the measure is a great step forward.
      After a Bill is enacted, we have a tendency to think that we will not need any more legislation on the matter for a while. We will think that in 1999 we enacted the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It might be as well if I reminded the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the scope for discussion on the new clause is very narrow. An occasional reference to the title of the clause and the need for an annual report does not excuse remarks that cover the substance of other clauses. The new clause would provide for local authorities to report in writing to the Secretary of State on the exercise of the powers conferred by a number of clauses in the Bill. It is not an opportunity for a Second or Third Reading debate.
      Mr. Maclean: I accept your admonitions, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The areas that I selected on which local authorities should report in new clause 1 represent some of the key powers conferred by the Bill. One has to be the number of licences granted or renewed to breeding establishments in the local authority area. It will be particularly useful to the Secretary of State and to hon. Members to know how many licences have been refused—that provision is in

      1237
      paragraph (b) of the new clause. We want to know how many have been renewed and how many refused. We also need to know, as paragraph (f) provides,
      "any other relevant matter as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State."
      I hope that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere accepts new clause 1, one of the relevant matters might be that local authorities would have to give explanations of why licences were refused. The bare statistics on refused licences are relevant. If more licences have been refused than in previous years, is it a statistical quirk or are local authorities applying the law more tightly? If so, it would be helpful for us and the Secretary of State to know the reasons.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I do not understand my right hon. Friend's logic. If a local authority's annual return to the Secretary of State said that it had issued 12 licences and refused none, that there were no convictions under clauses 4 and 9, no disqualifications under clause 5, no appeals against conviction or disqualification and no relevant matters, does that mean that the local authority is doing a good or bad job?
      Mr. Maclean: I accept my hon. Friend's point. One could not come to a conclusion on the quality of local authority inspection or whether it was licensing in the same way as an authority that had refused the 12 licence applications that it had received. There will be disparities between local authorities. That is where new clause 1(f) comes in. It provides that authorities can report
      "any other relevant matter as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State."
      Even with my inadequate wording, it might be possible to have a quality control threshold. The Secretary of State might ask authorities to respond in terms of best value. I am not sure whether local authorities would be inspected on their enforcement of the Bill, but the Government are insisting on best value throughout the country. Rightly, part of that regime will be audit or quality control. I accept that the inadequate wording of my new clause means that we cannot be sure whether a local authority is doing a good job by refusing every licence or a sloppy one by granting them all. Paragraph (f) would allow the Secretary of State to build in mechanisms to allow us to make a guess about that or at least to get some information.
      I do not want to labour my point in advocating new clause I because I have another important new clause on which I wish to speak and I know that other hon. Members want to contribute, but I want to touch on convictions. It is important to get a report on them from local authorities. The Minister may say that they are covered somewhere in the annual digest of convictions published by the Home Office. If we ploughed through it, we would find the convictions for various offences and crimes. After much study, we might find those that relate to animal offences or breaches of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973. Those of us who take an interest in such matters would find it helpful if local authorities responsible for dog licensing and taking out prosecutions included in their reports to the Secretary of State their conclusions on the number of convictions under clause 4, which deals with imprisonment for keeping an unlicensed establishment. Clause 9 deals with the penalties in respect of clause 8 on
      1238
      the sale of dogs. It would be helpful to have information on convictions under clauses 4 and 9 and information from local authorities on disqualifications under clause 5.
      Those who are concerned about inappropriate dog breeding and puppy farming need to know the number of people who have been struck off and the extent of the abuse so that they can get a measure of their success in trying to deal with it. The fact that a local authority may be highly successful in dealing with it is pertinent information to which the rest of us have a right. It would be helpful if other local authorities could see success rates.
      Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way to me a second time. Again, I have lost the logic of his argument. There might be several breeding establishments in some local authority areas—for example, those in rural areas such as those that he and I represent, where people often do such work as a sideline. However, if my right hon. Friend represented Kensington and Chelsea, the chances of finding dog-breeding establishments in that area would be most unlikely—although it is possible that there might be some. My right hon. Friend is comparing one quite different local authority to another; it is difficult to compare the activities of local authorities in rural and urban areas.
      12.45 pm
      Mr. Maclean: I accept my hon. Friend's point; it may be difficult to compare their activities. Nevertheless, each local authority would have to enforce the same legislation that is passed by the House. If my new clause were accepted, they would be under an obligation to report the same matters.
      I think that my hon. Friend's point is not that what I suggest in the new clause is wholly wrong in concept, but that the new clause may be inadequate to deal with what is—yet again— a quality control measure. It is true that the number of people disqualified may vary in different authorities, depending on how active a local authority is in making prosecutions and on how many people are convicted. It will vary according to the attitude of the courts; courts in some areas may take a dimmer view of inappropriate activity under the breeding and sale of dogs legislation than those in other areas. One would hope not. However, the range of penalties will differ. Furthermore, when people are disqualified, there will also be differences from area to area.
      Nevertheless, it is worth knowing how local authorities are proceeding, in order that such information can be shared not only by the Secretary of State, but by other local authorities and the rest of us. One of the small, but important, points in my new clause is that
      "Each local authority shall publish and present to the Secretary of State".
      The benefit of publishing is that it would allow best practice in local authorities to be shown. They could publish anywhere, either in a written document that people could read and say, "Ah, that's the way they're doing it in that local authority", or by putting the information on the internet or on their web pages. Many local authorities now do that with their annual reports and their charters. I commend that as a good way for local authorities to make that information easily available for people to see.

      1239
      By sharing best practice, we will make substantial improvements to animal welfare throughout the country. We may also achieve greater consistency in the enforcement of the provisions of the legislation, as local authorities take courage and take heart from the ways in which others carry out the provisions. When they study the published reports, they will be able to see the style and format. They will also be able to see any important matters referred to by the Secretary of State under paragraph (f) of the new clause. If he prescribes some quality control measures, the authorities will be aware of how others are carrying out such matters. That will be of general benefit.
      I conclude by pointing out that I have suggested new clause 1 as a possible improvement. I am happy to accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere or of the Minister that it is not necessary and that it is not an improvement, or that it would destabilise the coalition of interests that has come together to get the Bill into a negotiated state. I think that my new clause is a possible improvement. I should be happy if my hon. Friend accepts the substance of the new clause. Perhaps, in another place, we may come up with better wording or suggest a better means of drafting it. I should be happy if the Minister suggested that. At present, I commend the new clause to the House as worthy of some consideration.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: In another debate earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) mentioned his suspicions of Bills that were consensus Bills. My suspicions too are aroused, because this is a consensus Bill. It was not debated on Second Reading, as it received an unopposed Second Reading several Fridays ago. It was discussed only briefly in Committee. Therefore, at this late stage, on Report, it is right that we test the Bill as much as we possibly can, to ensure that it has a reasonable chance of achieving that which it seeks to achieve. The test of a Friday morning Bill that tries to increase regulation or prevent people from doing things is whether its outcome is worth the bother. New clause 1 does not in any way compensate for the Bill's central weakness—the difficulty in identifying a puppy farm. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) will discuss that weakness at a later stage of the Bill.
      New clause 1 seeks to place an additional burden on local authorities. That is unacceptable, unless it can be shown that the Bill is strengthened by making local authorities undergo such a rigorous and bureaucratic procedure. As I tried—possibly not successfully—to point out in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I cannot see what use it would be if one local authority said that it had had no appeals, no convictions, no disqualifications and no relevant matters of discussion, whereas another local authority said that, in the same year, it had turned down two licences and prosecuted once. That would not allow comparison between the performance of different local authorities. That is a weakness of the new clause.
      If local authorities are given that burden and they report a nil scoresheet—if I may use that cricketing expression—it will aggravate dog lovers. We know what the British or the English dog lover is like. If dog lovers were to think that their local authority was not properly doing its job of
      1240
      looking after the interests of dogs, they would get very angry with that authority, even though it might be doing a perfectly good job. There might simply be no such establishments or identifiable establishments in its area. What a waste of time.
      In another sense, legitimate breeders of dogs might be damaged. If one gives a local authority a sensitive target such as this one, it becomes rather like the parking warden who must issue a certain number of tickets to show that he is doing his job properly. We do not want local authority environmental health inspectors or enforcement officers—or whoever is given the duty—to run a league table to see how miserable they can make the life of perfectly legitimate and responsible dog breeders in the local authority area. There would be a temptation for local authorities to seek to interfere hugely and over-burdensomely in such establishments.
      Local government already has enormous duties associated with environmental health, and new clause 1 would impose even more burdens. The House is in danger of initiating a chain of events, as it has done repeatedly before, by which the House passes the buck to local authorities to do things that we think are good. Hon. Members think that this Bill is a thoroughly good thing, so we shall pass it—and, by the way, the local authority will implement it. Then the local authority meets and decides what it will do, and passes the burden to the environmental inspectors. Those inspectors are then given that job, on top of all their other multifarious jobs.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border must show that new clause 1 will significantly improve the Bill and correct what I perceive to be the Bill's essential weakness. He has not done so, so the House should reject new clause 1.
      Mr. Andrew Dismore: I have sympathy with the arguments expressed by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). I agree that we should try to ensure some consistency in enforcement of the new legislation—assuming that it passes—but I am also worried that a disproportionate burden may be placed on some local authorities.
      I am unaware of any dog breeding establishments in my constituency, yet presumably, if new clause 1 were passed, the local authority would be required to submit some sort of nil return. For the reasons given by the hon. Member for Hexham, I am concerned that that may generate concern among the—very strong—animal welfare lobby in my constituency as to why action is not being taken. We would then see all sorts of correspondence in the local papers about why we were not taking action against non-existent establishments.
      I think the proposed new clause will place a disproportionate burden on my local authority, which has plenty to do already. If it were to establish a threshold in terms of the number of licences issued or make some other requirement before imposing obligations on local authorities, I might have more sympathy with it. That would ensure the consistency that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border seeks regarding the proper licensing and policing of establishments. However, we must not impose unnecessary obligations on the vast bulk of local authorities.
      The Bill correctly places responsibility for enforcement on local authorities, which reflects local conditions and concerns. However, I am not sure why local authorities

      1241
      should provide annual reports to the Secretary of State. What will that achieve? What will the Secretary of State do with those reports and all of that information? Will he put the reports in a filing cabinet and forget about them, or will he be obliged—this requirement is not in the new clause—to produce a report consolidating all the other reports? The next thing we know is that we will have an incredibly complicated bureaucracy and we will be using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, given the relatively narrow geographical location of such establishments.
      Mr. Maclean: I think the Secretary of State should be involved in the process because he may make regulations under clause 2 of the Bill, which relates to licensing conditions. As the Secretary of State has that regulation-making power, he should receive the reports so that he will know what is going on.
      Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those comments, which clarify his argument.
      If there were problems in enforcing the legislation, I am sure that they would be highlighted by the animal welfare lobby, which is very well organised—I am happy to be associated with it. It has been said that this is something of a compromise Bill: many hon. Members would like to see the legislation include other objectives that are not achievable at this time. So I question whether a great deal will be achieved by passing reports to the Secretary of State. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but that will inevitably put pressure on the Secretary of State to start producing his own report on the subject.
      I do not support the proposed new clause because I do not think it adds to the force of the Bill. We know that the groups involved are very well organised and that they will highlight any problems. I am sure that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other organisations will ensure that there is co-ordination between enforcement bodies. While I sympathise with what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, I believe that the proposed new clause goes a little too far.
      Mr. James Clappison: I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been advanced this morning, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I am grateful for his general support for the Bill and for the thoughtful way in which he proposed the new clause.
      My right hon. Friend was correct in saying that the Bill has flowed from the work of 11 major organisations representing animal welfare, dog breeders, local authorities, the veterinary profession and the pet care industry. They have worked together closely to lay the foundations of the Bill, which strengthens existing legislation, closes loopholes and addresses the serious problem of some—but not all—large breeding establishments where standards fall well short of the desired levels. I emphasise that the legislation is aimed not at the responsible small hobby breeder but at the irresponsible minority of large breeding establishments.
      The Bill does not intend to impose inappropriately burdensome requirements either on those who must enforce the legislation or on those who must comply with it. In that context, I turn to the contents of new clause 1 as I think the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and the hon. Member for Hendon
      1242
      (Mr. Dismore) have demonstrated that there are some grounds for concern that the requirements that it imposes on local authorities would be inappropriately burdensome. I understand my right hon. Friend's worthy objectives in tabling the new clause, but I wonder whether it is entirely appropriate for the burdens set out in it to be imposed on local authorities. I understand that it is tempting, with a Bill such as this, to try to lay on local authorities a requirement to publish and present reports. I have no doubt that, in some instances, there is a good case for doing so, but I am not entirely convinced that the case has been made on this occasion. I listened carefully to the interesting arguments that my right hon. Friend advanced.
      1 pm
      I am also concerned about the open-ended nature of the requirement under paragraph (f), which refers to
      "any other relevant matter as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State."
      That is a requirement that local authorities might have to report back on "any other relevant matter". In another context—my right hon. Friend will know what I mean—I have come to take rather a jaundiced view of open-ended requirements under secondary legislation. That jaundice extends to the requirements that we are considering.
      In considering the new clause in its entirety, I am concerned that it may be inappropriate, and burdensome on those who have to enforce the Bill. I do not, of course, know what view the Government take. The Minister is better placed than us to form a view of how burdensome the new clause would be, but I suspect that it would, indeed, be burdensome.
      During consideration of the previous Bill some tributes were paid to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for attending the debates. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman was present because the House was considering a very important piece of legislation. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for the personal interest that he has shown in the Bill and for the support that he has given it. I have no doubt that that interest and support will be reflected in his contributions on Report. We have had a useful debate and the sentiment behind the new clause is worthy, but I am not sure that the case for it has been made.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): As the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) rightly said, the new clause would require each local authority annually to submit a report to the Home Office on the operation of this proposed legislation to regulate dog breeding establishments. Enforcement is a key element in the effectiveness of legislation: if it is not enforced, it will not be effective.
      It is well known that there is room for some improvement in the area to which the Bill relates, but local authorities have said that the problem of enforcement is that there are loopholes in existing legislation. They say that there is no lack of will on their part to deal with the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), for whose kind comments I am grateful. The point of the Bill is to close existing loopholes.
      As the hon. Members for Hertsmere and for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) have said, it would be bureaucratic

      1243
      if an annual report had to be compiled by every local authority. The requirement would mean that the Home Office would have to analyse the statistics and produce a report itself. That might be an internal report.
      I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will accept that the new clause would make the Bill unnecessarily cumbersome. It is obviously right that we should try to ensure that the Bill is implemented properly, and, to ease the right hon. Gentleman's mind, I give him the commitment that the Home Office will review the situation after a reasonable period following the Bill's enactment. We shall subsequently determine whether it is necessary to introduce more prescriptive reporting procedures such as those that the right hon. Gentleman describes; and, if so, whether that might be dealt with in guidance to local authorities—which we are already able to issue. Those remedies are available if we feel that is necessary to use them. Moreover, as with all legislation, we shall keep an eye on how the provisions work after implementation.
      I therefore hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will accept that we shall be vigilant, and that, if it is necessary to issue guidance to local authorities requiring them to record and report in greater detail, we shall do so. At this stage, however, I prefer to give authorities the opportunity of using the Bill in trying to get to grips with the problem.
      Mr. Maclean: I am very grateful to the Minister for his customarily courteous and sensible reply. In the circumstances, I am willing to accept his assurances. He has been brave enough to breach the Home Office wisdom of the past few years, which has been, "Don't touch legislation on dogs," and to get involved. Although, on a previous Friday, he was not fortunate enough to ensure the Bill's passage, his involvement today—with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)—may prove to be more productive.
      The Minister's offer was satisfactory. However, I should like just to reply to one small point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. He said that the legislation is designed to catch the big breeders, not little hobby breeders. I appreciate that, but let us not turn a blind eye to bad welfare conditions provided by little hobby breeders. Let us not assume that, because someone is a small breeder, their animal welfare is very good: it could be deplorable.
      Nevertheless, in the light of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 4

      BREEDING OF DOGS: OFFENCES
      `The keeper of a breeding establishment shall be guilty of an offence if he—
      (a) breeds a dog without previously gaining a certification from a veterinary practitioner or veterinary surgeon that both the bitch and the sire were in a fit state for breeding purposes and that they were not suffering from any congenital defects; or
      1244
      (b) knowingly mates two dogs who are brother and sister.'.—[4r. Maclean.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 4 is perhaps more important than new clause 1, particularly as it mentions the problem of
      "suffering from any congenital defects".
      When I say that the new clause may be more important, I mean that the problem with which it deals is a vitally important one which one day—with or without the assistance provided by the mechanisms in the Bill—I hope that dog breeders and veterinary organisations will be able to get to grips with and stamp out.
      I am conscious that—as with new clause 1—if I am too keen in my advocacy of the new clause, I may destabilise the consortium that has formed to ensure the Bill's passage. Nevertheless, I should like to float the ideas expressed in the new clause. Perhaps, in another place, the provision will be considered, and a better or shorter version of it will be tabled, to deal with the problem of congenital defects.
      Paragraph (b) deals with the breeder who
      "knowingly mates two dogs who are brother and sister."
      It will be obvious to everyone concerned that I am an expert neither in veterinary matters nor in dog breeding practices. However, I am interested in the effects of breeding and in the progeny of such dogs. I should be desperately concerned if breeding malpractice caused congenital defects which would be very painful and very expensive to correct.
      Of the 39 member states of the Council of Europe, 11 have signed and ratified the European convention for the protection of pet animals. The United Kingdom has not yet signed up to it. Article 5 was amplified by a resolution, adopted in 1995, encouraging breeding associations to reconsider breed standards to counteract development of the extreme characteristics that may cause welfare problems, by taking into account the anatomical, physiological and behavioural characteristics likely to put at risk the health and welfare either of the offspring or of the female parent.
      The convention indirectly advises against the use of line or incestuous breeding. Constantly breeding brothers and sisters together, all too frequently results in dogs with odd behavioural characteristics. Incestuous breeding of cocker spaniels in one line can result in spaniel rage. Such breeding can produce dogs that are mad or hyperactive or have other behavioural problems.
      I should also put forward the opposing arguments to ensure that those with different views have their points represented. I am happy for my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) to say that my argument may be a good one but would cause problems in the Bill and should be dealt with in other legislation. The contrary point, as dog breeding organisations have pointed out, is that introducing such a restriction on mating dogs who are brother and sister would result in the disappearance of the breeds of dog that we know, love and cherish because of the characteristics that we see on the television at Crufts. Those breeds have come about because of inbreeding. Fathers are put to daughters, grandfathers to granddaughters and brothers to sisters. Once a certain

      1245
      genetic trait has been found in an animal and there is a litter of puppies in which the males and females have a particular good quality—it might be the length of leg, conformity, coat order or an ability to sniff out game—people breed the brothers and sisters in the hope of getting more puppies with similar characteristics.
      The top champions are apparently a result of such selective breeding over generations. It frequently involves what we would consider in human terms to be incest but what in animal husbandry can be regarded as a harmless form of animal eugenics that produces a dog of a particular nature. I am told that line breeding is frequently tempered by outbreeding to other lines. Occasionally an outside line of dog is bred in, avoiding the marginal risks arising from line breeding and preventing the canine madness that may be possible in some species.
      I have presented the arguments on both sides. I am in no position to judge. I leave it to my hon. Friend, the Minister or the veterinary profession to do so. I am happy to accept their judgment if paragraph (b) is not helpful in the process of getting the Bill on the statute book.
      Paragraph (a) deals with the very difficult issue of congenital defects. The problem has to be tackled sooner or later, perhaps by legislation. It is currently being tackled by voluntary means through the British Veterinary Association, the Kennel Club and, for congenital eye problems, the international sheepdog society. The horrific scenes that we frequently see on puppy farms are well documented. Animal welfare groups can quote them and show pictures. The clause would be a radical improvement on existing welfare provisions for breeding bitches by ensuring that they were physically fit enough to cope with the rigours of pregnancy.
      We know that there are hundreds of unlicensed puppy farms in Britain. It is estimated that there may be 70,000 puppies a year bred for profit from those farms. The dogs are usually sold to middlemen for cheaper than the usual price. They often have undetected health problems, and that is the iniquity. People buy puppies that are only a few months old. A vet can tell whether a puppy may have a problem, but potential purchasers are often unaware that it has congenital defects that will come to light later resulting in agony for the dog. In some cases they have to be put down, but many undergo expensive surgery and veterinary treatment and the new owner still does not end up with a fit and active dog.
      1.15 pm
      Unlike horses, which are generally vetted and checked out before purchase, puppies are usually sold on sight. We can improve the health of puppies and try to eradicate the sale of congenitally diseased puppies by trying to ensure that the parents are healthy specimens. The new clause would ensure that in future people buying puppies will not be saddled with the financial and emotional burden of discovering that they have bought a desperately sick animal.
      As there are no veterinary surgeons in the House, we are all average dog owners who are not well versed in the intricacies of dog ailments. When we make judgments on buying puppies, I suspect that most of our concerns will be emotional ones. We will not be looking to see whether the legs are correct or whether there is a possibility of dysplasia or retinal problems. We assume that the puppies are healthy.
      1246
      In Committee, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) mentioned a constituent who had bought a dog in good faith, only to pay a fortune in vet's fees as a result of its poor breeding and congenital defects. There are thousands of examples up and down the country. The new clause would ensure that the Bill addressed that problem.
      Congenital ailments are an inherent problem in dog breeding and in many instances they can be avoided by careful selective breeding. The most common problems include heart problems, hip dysplasia, spinal problems and ingrowing eyelashes. A few years ago I saw a television programme about a breed of dog called the Shar-Pei—a Chinese breed that died out at the end of the last century. It had been recreated by breeding together the types of dog that were thought to have created the Shar-Pei in the first place. Although the breed had evolved from dogs breeding in China over thousands of years, it had been recreated by breeding together X, Y and Z types of dog. The result was a dog that looked like the original Shar-Pei breed although the skin folds are so intense that they get rotten diseases in the flesh. Worst of all, because of the way in which the dogs have been bred, they suffer from ingrowing eyebrows and eyelashes that cause awful pain and distress. That is the most extreme example of genetic breeding—trying to recreate a dog in a certain mould when the original species has died out.
      In Britain, ordinary breeds of dog that we know and love—particularly retrievers and labradors—are being bred with hip dysplasia. When those dogs have puppies, they inevitably also have hip dysplasia. Hip dysplasia is a broad term that encompasses many developmental and other abnormalities of the hip joint. The simplest way to put it is that if someone buys a puppy with hip dysplasia, within 12 months they will have a crippled dog trying to drag itself around because it cannot walk. I shall not sicken the House with some of the details that the British Veterinary Association has supplied me with about hereditary eye diseases and other congenital defects relating to elbows.
      At the moment, the British Veterinary Association, the Kennel Club and—in the case of the eye diseases of collie dogs—the National Sheepdog Society have a voluntary screening programme in an attempt to screen out all dogs with congenital defects so that people do not breed from them. If they do not breed from them, the problem is eradicated.
      My new clause proposes that that process should be put on a statutory basis. That can be done relatively simply, as the British Veterinary Association has panels around the country that are capable of doing it. I accept that that will not deal with every problem, and that the reference in the new clause to the dogs being in a "fit state" for breeding has a severe weakness; a vet might not be able to tell, and the dog's owner might be in a better position.
      Nevertheless, the second part of the sentence—
      "and that they were not suffering from any congenital defects"
      —could make a significant impact. It could be possible to deal with the common types of congenital defect, such as hip dysplasia, retinal dysplasia, collie eye anomaly, hereditary cataract, primary lens luxation—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that he is now indulging in repetition and remoteness. I would be grateful if he came back to the core of the new clause.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: Come to heel.
      Mr. Maclean: I shall do as my hon. Friend suggests. The problem is that some dogs cannot come to heel because of congenital defects.
      The new clause may have some deficiencies, as it deals with some vague and loose aspects. However, the part dealing with congenital defects is the most serious point. I believe that dealing with congenital defects in dogs and other animals used for breeding purposes should be tackled with more statutory backing than at present. If that can be done in this Bill, so be it, but I am happy to accept the assurances of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere and the Minister that this Bill is not a suitable vehicle. However, I want the House to know that this is a serious problem that must be tackled.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: This is the kamikaze new clause from my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), in that he is aiming at the right target but will probably die in the attempt. If he knows anything about the world of dog breeding, he will realise that he is treading in some extremely dangerous territory with the new clause. He will have had some experience of dog shows, and the people who take part in them—excellent people though they are—are terribly dedicated, and they all have strong and differing opinions. One of the problems for the dog world is to get any form of agreement on anything. That is the strength of the dog breeding world; it is also its weakness.
      When my right hon. Friend refers, effectively, to seeking to outlaw line breeding, he moves into difficult territory as far as breed societies are concerned.
      The new clause talks about "congenital defects". We may think we know what that means, but it is the subjective decision of a vet. Vets disagree profoundly on what is and what is not a defect in a dog. My right hon. Friend referred to hip dysplasia, and we would all agree that that should be bred out. It is right that dogs are scored for hip dysplasia, but the difficulty comes in other matters, such as breed standards. Although this would not be considered a congenital defect, there is great controversy among vets and breed societies about tail-docking.
      There is considerable disagreement on whether the breeding that has taken place over many generations to turn a dog from a utilitarian dog to a show dog has caused a congenital defect. The classic example is the bulldog, which was obviously designed for the old-fashioned and unpleasant activity of bull baiting. It has now been bred into a completely different dog, but many would say that breeding to meet show standards has produced a dog with congenital breathing defects.
      The new clause moves into territory that is better left to the breed societies and to the good sense of the professional breeders and those who buy dogs. Caveat emptor must apply. It is very bad news that members of the public who are ignorant of the problems that certain breeds are likely to have will buy dogs without having them properly vetted. Anyone wanting to buy a labrador should first demand that its hips are scored by a vet; anyone failing to do that would fall into the same category as someone who buys a second-hand car without having it properly tested. Although it may be damaging to the breed, one cannot protect fools from themselves.
      There should be more publicity from the breed societies to ensure that people who want to buy pedigree dogs do so from respectable breeders whose dogs are properly
      1248
      registered with the breed society and the Kennel Club. That, and not the new clause, is how we can overcome the problem.
      Mr. Dismore: On the point about caveat emptor, if I intended to spend hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds on a dog, I would certainly get it checked by a vet first; but I fully accept what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said about people getting caught by sentiment and putting their heart before their head. If somebody buys a dog that is found to have a serious congenital defect, with all the consequent vets' bills and so forth, redress may well be available under the Sale of Goods Acts, although that is a convoluted way of dealing with the problem identified in the new clause.
      Subsection (b) of the new clause concerns in-breeding. I used to have a dog. She died about six months before the general election, of old age. She was absolutely fit until the day she died. She happened to be a mongrel, and there was no evidence whatever of in-breeding in her background.
      Mr. Clappison: I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) who suggested some worthwhile objectives and expressed some very worthy sentiments. I can give him the general reassurance that the Bill's provisions will put animal welfare considerations at the heart of the licensing process for breeding establishments, by requiring the participation of veterinary practitioners or surgeons.
      Dog welfare considerations, concerning overbreeding and breeding too young—practices that have resulted in some of the problems to which my right hon. Friend alluded—will be at the heart of the Bill. It is certainly extremely distressing when members of the public unsuspectingly buy puppies that turn out to have congenital defects and all sorts of problems.
      The new clause arises from worthy intentions but it may be a little on the impractical side. I await with interest the Minister's view, but it seems to me that the new clause would require a breeder to engage the services of a vet before each proposed mating. That would have very wide-ranging implications and, if that is the correct interpretation, I certainly would not want to go that far. I wait to hear the Minister's view, but I have some misgivings about the practicality of the proposal.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to draw reassurance from the fact that the Bill tackles many of the problems inherent in some large-scale puppy farming establishments, and that it will go a long way towards solving them.
      1.30 pm
      Mr. George Howarth: New clause 4 is intended to deal with a problem that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) described well, but the remedy that he proposes would impose undue and inappropriate regulation. It would make it an offence for a breeding establishment to breed a dog without the veterinary surgeon certifying
      "that both the bitch and the sire were in a fit state for breeding purposes and that they were not suffering from any congenital defects",
      or knowingly to mate
      "two dogs who are brother and sister".

      1249
      The proposed new offence should not be introduced, for two reasons. First, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) pointed out, it would require the breeder to call upon the services of the veterinary surgeon before each proposed mating. That would have resource implications, not only for the breeder but, down the line, for the purchasers of puppies.
      Secondly—the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) made the same point as I am about to make, although in a different way—a vet cannot always give an opinion on suitability for breeding. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman went further and said that often the owner would be better able to make that judgment than a vet called in to carry out an examination for that purpose.
      Moreover, after the clinical examination, anything could happen. The vet could issue the appropriate certificate, then something could happen, as a result of which something could go wrong with the breeding. Then, when someone had bought the puppy, there might be litigation, not because anybody had done anything wrong but because something had changed between the issue of the certificate and the event.
      I do not believe that a responsible breeder would deliberately mate dogs that were brother and sister—although I do not say that that would never happen, and I am being careful with my use of the word "responsible". As the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said, to do so would run the risk of causing abnormalities in the progeny. Apart from the obvious animal welfare considerations, it would not be in the best interests of breeders to run the risk of creating puppies with defects.
      The hon. Member for Hexham was right to say that there are safeguards, especially in connection with the breed societies and the Kennel Club, which are perhaps the best bodies to deal with the situation. I can remember a constituency case some years ago that involved such issues, including determining the precise breed of a dog. It was satisfactorily resolved in the end by bringing the breed society and the Kennel Club into the equation.
      My experience in such matters is that if one can achieve good voluntary regulation, such as that provided by the breed societies and the Kennel Club, that is better than over-heavy regulation, especially when some of the offences could be serious. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman, even if he is not entirely reassured by my words of wisdom, will accept that the proposed new clause would be inappropriate.
      Mr. Maclean: We are almost there. I have listened carefully to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), and I accept the deficiencies in the new clause. I accept the difficulties in requiring that a veterinary surgeon must determine that both the bitch and sire are in a fit state for breeding. Even if the somewhat loose terminology were right, it would impose the awful regulatory burden of checks on every occasion and that was not my intention.
      I wanted to address the problem of congenital defects, and the Minister may have given me a clue. Under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, in determining whether to grant a licence for the keeping of a breeding establishment for dogs, the local authority shall
      "in particular (but without prejudice to their discretion to withhold a licence on other grounds) have regard to the need for securing that the dogs will … be kept in accommodation suitable as respects
      1250
      construction, size of quarters … lighting, ventilation and cleanliness … that the dogs will be adequately supplied with food, drink and bedding material … and"—
      this is the important point—
      "all reasonable precautions will be taken to prevent and control the spread among dogs of infectious or contagious diseases".
      We know what sort of diseases the Act means.
      Clause 2 of the Bill would give the Minister a regulation-making power and the solution to the congenital defects problem might be for the Minister to make regulations permitting the local authorities to withhold licences, or to add the condition that the owners of the breeding establishments should operate the voluntary schemes run by the Kennel Club and the British Veterinary Association. I have all the details of those schemes for dealing with the eye defects and the hip and elbow dysplasia defects. I do not want an answer from the Minister today, and perhaps the issue could be addressed in the other place.
      Hundreds of other congenital defects might be more difficult to detect. My new clause would cover all congenital defects that might need more than a vet with an ophthalmoscope to discover them, such as expensive x-rays. Through the licensing route, it might be possible for the Minister to give powers to the local authorities to insist that breeding establishments operate the congenital defects schemes. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind as a possible avenue—without destabilising this Bill—to giving more impetus to dealing with the ghastly congenital defects that have been bred in some dogs, in some cases deliberately. With those observations on the kind responses from the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      INSPECTION AND REPORT BEFORE GRANT OF LICENCE
      Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 15, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 11, in line 22, at end add
      `and shall make the report available for inspection by the applicant'.
      No. 2, in line 22, at end add—
      `(2C) Any report published under subsection (2B) above shall take account of records kept by the breeding establishment.'.
      No. 12, in line 22, at end add—
      `(2C) No inspection shall involve the taking of photographs of any premises without the prior consent of the owner.'.
      Mr. Clappison: As I have said, the welfare of breeding bitches and their puppies is at the heart of the Bill. As the Bill stands, on receipt of an application for premises that have not previously been licensed, the local authority must arrange for an inspection by a veterinary surgeon or a practitioner. That is an advance on the position under existing legislation.
      As the Bill stands, in other cases—such as when the premises have previously been licensed and the holder of the licence is applying for a renewal—the local authority

      1251
      has a power, but not a duty, to arrange an inspection by a veterinary surgeon or practitioner. It has a duty to arrange an inspection by a veterinary surgeon or practitioner on the first application for premises not previously licensed, but if the application is for renewal, there is a power to inspect, but no duty. The amendment turns that power into a duty. The local authority would have to arrange an inspection in those cases. The amendment strengthens the Bill, catering for cases that might arise and strengthening animal welfare provisions. It is worth while, and I am glad to have the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).
      Amendments Nos. 11, 2 and 12 have worthy objectives, but I fear that cannot support them as strongly as amendment No. 1. In general, the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border are too prescriptive. Amendment No. 11 would require a report of an inspection made by a local authority and a veterinary practitioner to be made available to applicants in all cases. The requirement in amendment No. 2 that those who carry out inspections should take account of the records of breeding establishments in every report and inspection is also too prescriptive.
      Amendment No. 12 is too prescriptive in another direction, in that it prevents any inspection involving the taking of photographs on premises without the owner's prior consent. I am curious about that amendment, but feel that it would be too prescriptive.
      I commend amendment No. 1 to the House as it would be an important step forward and a further important provision in safeguarding the welfare of breeding bitches and puppies.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: The Opposition support the Bill. We see inspection of premises as lying at the heart of the Bill and the improvement of the welfare of dogs and puppies in commercial breeding establishments. Anyone who has been a dog owner—I own one—will have been disgusted by reports of dogs and puppies being kept and bred in the most appalling surroundings. That is why the Bill is welcome, and the rules for inspection of premises particularly so.
      We support amendment No. 1 because of a weakness in the Bill. Under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, licences are issued for only one year, and the existing Bill would allow an authority to reissue a licence without reinspecting premises. Circumstances in a breeding establishment can change markedly in 12 months, and the amendment would ensure that all of them were inspected at least once a year. Without it, an authority may be tempted—perhaps because of lack of resources—to neglect to inspect premises. That might allow an unscrupulous and cruel owner to continue with unsatisfactory practices.
      The Opposition support amendment No. 1, but I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) about the other three amendments.
      Mr. Maclean: I shall speak briefly about amendments Nos. 11, 2 and 12 and the one moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). Under the
      1252
      Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, licences are issued for a year. The law allows a local authority to reissue a licence without inspecting premises. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that circumstances can change considerably over 12 months. Amendment No. 1 would ensure that all establishments were inspected at least once a year. Without that provision, a local authority might be tempted to concentrate on other priority areas.
      1.45 pm
      On the other hand, I am conscious that I do not want to put an undue burden on local authorities. I am also conscious that, while I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere—I hope that the Minister will say that it is acceptable and all the groups concerned will be happy with it—which is worthy and which I would be happy for it to be pressed, I am not sure whether it is worthy enough if it ends up destabilising the legislation. I will leave it to the Minister to conclude whether it is acceptable in those circumstances.
      Amendment No. 11, which is in my name alone, is a probing amendment, as are amendments Nos. 2 and 3—I do not intend to press them against the wishes of the Minister or those of my hon. Friend. Amendment No. 11 would make the report available for inspection by the applicant. I am sorry if it is too prescriptive—it was intended simply to be fair.
      At present, no provision exists for applicants to inspect reports on their establishments, but under section 1(5) of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, if applicants are aggrieved by the refusal to grant a licence they may appeal to a magistrates court. Surely it makes sense for applicants to have access to a report that rules against them being granted a licence so that they can mount a suitable defence. By having access to the report on his property an individual would be able to make suitable improvements to the establishment to tackle any problems. He would therefore be in a position to make a successful application for a licence the following year.
      In the spirit of open government that this Minister and other Ministers espouse, I should have thought it only fair that any person whose property is being inspected—in many cases, property that is not on some separate industrial site but is close to the home, as many kennels are attached to the house or are in the garden—should have access to the report, especially as the inspection will probably include the back kitchen of the house.
      I hope that that suggestion will be taken on board in that spirit for people who are refused a licence. I accept that the provision might be too prescriptive if every person who was granted a licence could demand to see the report. If someone is refused and has the right of appeal, it seems fair that he or she should have a copy of the report on which the rejection was based.
      Amendment No. 2 states that any report should take account of records kept by the breeding establishment. Those records must clearly display the breeding lines of puppies sold, which would enable vets to check that a breeder is not employing excessive line breeding, which we discussed earlier. The records should also include written confirmation from vets that bitches had been certified as fit to breed prior to mating. I will not press that amendment as I would have to go over similar ground to that covered on an amendment that I withdrew earlier.

      1253
      Amendment No. 12 concerns taking photographs of premises without the prior consent of the owner. In many cases, kennels are attached to or in the garden of someone's house in the country or on the edge of a town. We are not talking about property on an industrial estate. I suspect that the kitchen where the dog and puppy food is made will be the kitchen of the house, although there may be separate storage facilities. In many cases, the premises are more closely integrated with the residential home than is the case with other industries.
      I do not feel too strongly on the matter and am simply floating the idea that if someone from the local authority decides to take photographs he might be photographing someone's home and gardens. Hon. Members may say, "So what? If people are in the business of dog breeding and a report has been made against them, the authority should have the right to photograph anything it likes." That may be a legitimate point.
      Mr. Dismore: Surely photographs are likely to be taken when those carrying out the inspection want evidence of malpractice or a poor standard of premises to attach to their report. In those circumstances, the amendment would give the dog breeder a right of veto over the collection of that evidence.
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman has a strong point. I would not want my amendment to rule out collecting important evidence because photographs were banned. I have not been able to phrase my amendment in a better form that would allow some rights to privacy to people in their homes. I do not want it to be a veto on the collection of evidence against people who should be disqualified or have criminal action taken against them. That is why I prefaced my remarks by saying that I do not feel too strongly about the point, but I thought that it was worth floating. I am glad that the intervention of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) was not longer or he might have persuaded me that the amendment was totally flawed. I leave it there. The other amendments in the group are more important.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I make a brief plea to allow discretion to local authorities. We had a "may" and "shall" debate earlier. It is wrong for the House to be so prescriptive that local government cannot make its own choices. It is nonsensical for a breeding establishment that is well known and respected in an area to be inspected to such a degree every year. Local authorities should be allowed to make that judgment and issue a licence without inspection. We should all seek to minimise the burden of regulation rather than adding to it without positive gain.
      In the same way, I am cautious about amendment No. 11. I am not a lawyer, but, except for the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), I seem to be surrounded by them. The local authority report would have to be confidential because if it were published and given to an applicant for a licence, it would have to be provable. An inspection might take the overall view that there was something wrong with the kennel but not identify a particular item as the cause for refusing the licence. If the applicant decided to go to court to appeal against refusal, the local authority would have to justify its stance. I oppose amendment No. 11.
      I have more sympathy with amendment No. 2 because anyone in the serious business of breeding dogs should keep proper records. All those who breed properly
      1254
      already do. It is certainly a requirement in the breeding of livestock that complete records of progeny and pedigree are kept. I see no reason why a serious dog breeding establishment should not do likewise. The absence of proper records would suggest that an establishment was defective and unsuitable for a licence.
      Mr. George Howarth: The Bill provides that a local authority, before granting a licence, can determine whether it considers it necessary to inspect the premises of a person who has previously been licensed in respect of dog breeding premises. Amendment No. 1 would oblige local authorities to arrange for the inspection of such premises by a vet and/or an official before granting a licence. That would be an improvement in that such inspections could only be for the good of animal welfare. For that reason, I recommend that the House accept the amendment.
      On amendment No. 11, clause 1 provides that on receipt of an application for the granting of a licence to operate a dog breeding establishment, a local authority may, depending on the circumstances, arrange for an inspection of the premises. A report is compiled about the premises, the applicant and any other relevant matter, and considered before the determination whether to grant a licence. Amendment No. 11 would require the report to be made available for inspection by the applicant. Although I sympathise with the principle behind the amendment, which the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) made clear, I am not very happy about the way in which it is proposed to proceed. The amendment would require local authorities to make the report available in all cases, whereas I think it would be more appropriate that they should do so only if that was requested by the applicant. I understand where the right hon. Gentleman is coming from, but the amendment is unnecessary and might even lead to problems for the reasons that have been discussed.
      Amendment No. 2 covers a different matter. Clause 2(2)(i) requires that
      "accurate records in a form prescribed by regulations are kept at the premises and made available for inspection".
      The amendment requires that any report of inspections of premises for licensing purposes
      "shall take account of records kept by the breeding establishment."
      Clause 1 includes the requirement that such reports may take account of "any other relevant matter". Records kept by breeding establishments may of course be relevant to considerations of whether to grant a licence. However, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) pointed out, we do not want to be too prescriptive as to the inspection of premises. If necessary, that could always be brought out in guidance to local authorities. That seems the most appropriate way to deal with any problems that might arise.
      Finally, amendment No. 12 would prohibit the taking of photographs of premises during an inspection by a local authority veterinary surgeon without the consent of the owner. I am not aware that local authorities routinely resort to photographing premises as part of their procedure for compiling reports. Such occasions are likely to be most exceptional, and, in those circumstances, there may be good reasons to use that procedure. Again, I would not want to be overly prescriptive as to how a local authority conducts its inspections. The hon.Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson),

      1255
      who is in the Chamber but somewhat peripatetic at the moment, pointed out that a local authority should be able to use a reasonable degree of common sense in deciding what is most appropriate. I would not want to rule out the use of photographs, or to hedge in such use in the way that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border may have intended in the amendment.
      I hope that the House will accept amendment No. 1 and that the hon. Member for Hertsmere will not press the other amendments in the group, as they are either overly prescriptive or unnecessary.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 2

      LICENCE CONDITIONS.
      Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 4, at end insert
      `and not more than ten years old, unless with specific written veterinary recommendation'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in page 2, line 9, leave out from 'puppies' to 'and' in line 11.
      No. 15, in page 2, line 15, at end insert 'or any potential buyer'.
      Mr. Maclean: Amendment No. 14 is the most important in the group as it deals with a particular problem. Time is pressing and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is keen to explain the content of the amendments, so I shall leave the argument to him.
      Mr. Clappison: As my right hon. Friend correctly anticipated, amendment No. 14 is important. Clause 2 deals with
      "matters to which a local authority shall have regard in determining whether to grant a licence"
      to a breeding establishment. It adds to the matters that are included in existing legislation, such as overbreeding by bitches—something to which I have already adverted and which is a frequent cause of complaint. Subsection (g) refers to bitches giving birth to more than six litters. That matter must be considered.
      2 pm
      Amendment No. 14 deals with a similar point in relation to clause 2(2)(h). As the Bill stands, paragraph (h) creates an exception—it allows bitches to have another litter within 12 months of giving birth to the previous one
      "where a veterinary surgeon or … practitioner has given written advice that breeding would not be harmful".
      Amendment No. 14 removes that exception.
      I understand that the British Veterinary Association supports the amendment because, in its view, a vet cannot give an opinion on the suitability of breeding in the circumstances that I have outlined. It is obviously inappropriate to leave in the Bill the exception based on the vet's written advice if the British Veterinary Association takes the view that a vet cannot give such an
      1256
      opinion. It must be right to remove that exception. To do so does not weaken the Bill; in fact, it may well strengthen it.
      Mr. George Howarth: First, I deal with amendment No. 13. In considering whether to grant a licence to a dog breeding establishment, a local authority is required to have regard to criteria set out in section 1(4) of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, and to include such criteria in the licence. The amendment would require that bitches are not mated if they are more than 10 years old, unless on the written recommendation of a vet.
      Secondly, although the Bill requires that bitches are not mated if they are less than one year old, the amendment would allow bitches that are less than one year old to be mated only on the written advice of a vet. We understand that the British Veterinary Association's stance on these matters is that the vet cannot give an opinion on suitability for breeding, as anything could happen after clinical examination, which might lead to litigation.
      Amendment No. 14 deals with clause 2(2)(h), which requires that bitches do not give birth to puppies within 12 months of a previous litter
      "except where a veterinary surgeon or … practitioner has given written advice that breeding would not be harmful".
      The effect of the amendment would be to remove the exception whereby, on veterinary advice, bitches can give birth within less than 12 months of a previous litter.
      I understand that the British Veterinary Association strongly supports the amendment, on the grounds that the vet cannot give an opinion on suitability for breeding. The BVA considers that anything could happen after the clinical examination, and that that might lead to litigation. I therefore believe that amendment No. 14 is reasonable, and urge the House to accept it.
      Amendment No. 15 would enable any prospective purchaser of a dog to inspect records kept by the breeding establishment. The purpose of the keeping of records by breeding establishments is to help local authorities and vets to verify that the licensing conditions are being met. Although some businesses may wish to disclose the records to their customers, they should not have an obligation to do so. Some information—for example, on turnover—may be commercially sensitive. Therefore, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to support amendment No. 15.
      Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for the Minister's words. I am pleased that we are making good progress. It would make sense to pass amendment No. 14. In view of the Minister's assurances, I should be delighted if we voted on it.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 14, in page 2, line 9, leave out from 'puppies' to 'and' in line 11.—[Mr. Clappison.]

    Clause 4

      IMPRISONMENT FOR KEEPING UNLICENSED ESTABLISHMENT ETC.
      Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 3, line 1, leave out '4' and insert '5'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in clause 5, page 3, line 31, after 'person', insert 'within a specified timescale'.

      1257
      No. 4, in page 3, line 33, after 'dog', insert 'and connected expenses'.
      No. 20, in clause 9, page 7, line 46, leave out '4' and insert '5'.
      No. 7, in page 8, line 21, after 'person', insert 'within a specified timescale'.
      No. 8, in page 8, line 23, after 'dog', insert 'and connected expenses'.
      No. 9, in page 8, line 23, leave out 'time to' and insert `the'.
      Mr. Maclean: I shall not speak to amendment No. 16 or the other amendments in the group, except to say that I should like to hear the views of the Minister and of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on amendment No. 9, which may be the most important in the group.
      Mr. Clappison: Amendment No. 9 clarifies and improves the wording of the Bill. It strengthens the penalties imposed on those who fall foul of the law relating to breeding establishments. When a person is convicted of an offence in respect of a breeding establishment, the court may disqualify him from having custody of a dog. That person may be required to relinquish custody of the dog and to pay its care charges while permanent arrangements are made for it. The amendment clarifies the wording regarding the charges and makes the position much more plain.
      Mr. George Howarth: Amendments Nos. 16 and 20 would increase the maximum level of fine for the offence of keeping an unlicensed dog breeding establishment from level 4, which is £2,500, to level 5, which is £5,000. I believe that that is a disproportionate increase, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will agree.
      Amendment Nos. 3 and 7 relate to clause 5(1), which provides for the court to disqualify an offender from having custody of any dog of a description specified in the court order. As an order may require any person who has custody of a dog to deliver it to a specified person, the effect of the amendments would be to allow the court to specify a time scale for delivering the dog. A court expects its orders to be complied with, so it should not be necessary to state a specific time scale in each case.
      Amendments Nos. 4 and 8 refer to clause 5(3) and provide that, when a court orders a person who has custody of a dog to deliver it up, it may also require the offender to pay for the care of the dog until permanent arrangements are made for that care. The amendments would require the offender to meet connected expenses, but we believe that the offender should pay only for the care of the dog.
      Amendment No. 9 is a technical amendment arising from a typographical error, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear we wish to correct. I therefore recommend that the House accepts amendment No. 9.
      Mr. Maclean: We are making excellent progress, and I am glad that I have been able to amend the Bill considerably. I am delighted that the Minister has accepted amendment No. 9.
      1258
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 9

      PENALTIES
      Amendment made: No. 9, in page 8, line 23, leave out `time to' and insert `the'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      2.8 pm
      Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Bill's primary aim is to improve the welfare of dogs and puppies kept in commercial breeding establishments. It strengthens the existing law and closes some loopholes. I believe that it will make a material difference to the welfare of bitches and puppies in breeding establishments, particularly in some large establishments. Many large breeding establishments keep dogs in satisfactory and reasonable conditions, but some do not. The Bill will tackle that latter group. Breeders will be subject to stronger and tighter legislation, better inspections with animal welfare at their heart and several important considerations regarding the welfare of bitches and puppies. Those measures, which will be enforced through an inspection regime, will address the particular problems of overbreeding and breeding too young.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said, the Bill is the result of patient, hard and careful work by a number of people and organisations. I have paid tribute already to the 11 that have been involved in bringing forward the Bill. I pay a warm and sincere tribute to the outstanding work carried out by Baroness Wharton in support of the Bill and in support of animal welfare generally. Tribute should also be paid to Barry Huckle of the Pet Care Trust, who gave us much support and a large amount of his time in supporting the Bill.
      I thank those who sponsored and supported the Bill. I thank especially my hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), and the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who has taken a significant interest in the Bill as chairman of the all-party animal welfare group. I should mention also the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who in many respects pioneered the way for the Bill with a similar piece of legislation last year.
      There are many dog owners and pet lovers in the House, and I know that there is widespread all-party support for the aims of the Bill. It is my sincere hope that the Bill will make a material difference by enabling us to tackle the problems that cause concern to so many members of the public, including the unfortunate people who have the experience of buying puppies that are unhealthy or suffering from congenital defects. It will help to do away with the terrible conditions in which puppies are sometimes kept in the sort of breeding establishments to which I have referred. These problems rightly cause concern to members of the public, and I hope that through the Bill we will be able to address them by tackling the abuses, bringing to an end the suffering of animals in the establishments that cause concern, promoting the welfare of bitches and puppies and doing our bit as a dog-loving nation.
      2.12 pm
      Mr. Harry Cohen: I shall keep my remarks relatively short. I am a supporter of the Bill, and I want to see it make progress.
      I pay tribute to all those to whom the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) referred and to him for steering the Bill through the House. He has done a very good job. The Bill is an improvement on the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 in a number of respects. For example, it will stop overbreeding and under-age breeding. It will provide for better inspection and increased veterinary powers. It will require more accurate records to be kept, along with compulsory identification for traded dogs. It will introduce new rules for the sale of dogs at pet shops and through dealers, and there will be new penalties for misrepresentation. All these things are very welcome.
      There has been a call for such legislation. In 1996, the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare referred to the reasons for concern. It said:
      "The large scale breeding and sale of dogs for commercial purposes causes a number of welfare concerns; puppies are often taken from their mothers too early; dogs are kept in cramped or unsuitable conditions; bitches are bred too often, making them more likely to produce unfit puppies with health problems; dogs are often given insufficient exercise or human contact and the long distance transportation of puppies can cause health problems."
      It is crucial that there is a much better staffing ratio. The RSPCA found one elderly woman looking after 120 dogs. Puppies need human contact at a crucial stage in their development; otherwise they are likely to be untamed. That is cruel because they become unmanageable and have to be put down.
      I am pleased about the provision to limit the number of litters per bitch to six. There will be records kept on that. The offspring of litters after the sixth are likely to be sickly, and the bitch will be likely to suffer ill health. It is cruel for both the puppies and the bitch. There will be a cost to the purchaser in the form of high vet bills. Unfortunately, there might be a tendency to put the bitch down after the sixth litter. I hope that that will not be the case and that efforts will be made to find homes for them. Nevertheless, the Bill's provisions in this respect are certainly better than current ones.
      I have four other concerns. First, in a previous Parliament, the former Liberal Democrat Member, Diana Maddock, when promoting a similar Bill, claimed that some owners, to avoid inspection, took puppies into their own homes. I do not think that this Bill will deal with that problem. Although we all respect the need to protect civil liberties, we should give a little more power to inspectors in order to close that loophole.
      My second concern relates to the selling of puppies at market stalls, in the street or at auction. I shall not deal with the comments of the RSPCA working group on the problem, except to say that it identified a problem with the definition of "a business". If people only occasionally make such sales, they are not considered to be operating a business and are, therefore, not caught by current legislation. The Bill does not seem to deal with the matter, which therefore requires further consideration.
      Thirdly, the point has rightly been made that all puppies should have a microchip implant. I strongly agree with that. We are perhaps moving towards requiring all pets to have implants. If so, I favour it. The Home Office should consider phasing in such a policy.
      1260
      Finally, as I have argued in the past, there is a case for giving RSPCA inspectors policing powers. Although local authorities have a role in monitoring and enforcement, some of them may be interested only in licence fees. The RSPCA is already playing an important role in dealing with animal cruelty, and its inspectors should have policing powers in fulfilling that role.
      I support the Bill—on which I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere.
      2.17 pm
      Mr. Heald: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on the way in which he has conducted the Bill's passage. The Bill rights a wrong, will improve the welfare of dogs, and is supported by the Opposition.
      Mr. David Heath: The Bill has all-party support—that of Liberal Democrat Members included—and I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on piloting it this far.
      Mr. Heald: I commend the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has built his coalition and so successfully pushed through the Bill, which I should certainly commend to the House.
      2.18 pm
      Mr. George Howarth: I join the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in paying tribute to some of the people and organisations who are behind the Bill and have supported him so well—especially Baroness Wharton and Mr. Barry Huckle of the Pet Care Trust. The hon. Gentleman himself had good fortune in drawing such a high place in the ballot, and I congratulate him on steering the Bill through to Third Reading without losing any support.
      We should perhaps not forget the ever-present right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), whose amendments, on this occasion, have improved the Bill.
      It would be quite wrong not to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who, 12 months ago, steered his Breeding and Sale of Dogs Bill through to Third Reading, although it failed to become statute. Perhaps—in the prevailing spirit of co-operation—we shall not go back over that ground.
      I should also mention the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who has a long-standing interest in the subject and has long raised the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) made a characteristically kindly speech in which he raised some important issues. His speech was partly about the fact that some of those issues are not addressed in the Bill. I shall study his observations to see whether there are any arguments that should be given further consideration.
      The Bill has enjoyed remarkable consensus in the House and has been a good job well done. If it completes all its stages in another place and finds its way on to the statute book, as I hope it will, we shall have a workable framework for the breeding of dogs, which must be good.
      2.20 pm
      Mr. Maclean: I am delighted to add my support to the Bill and wish it well in another place, whence it will go in a few minutes. I am grateful for the Minister's kind observation that my contributions today have helped to make it a better Bill. My contributions last year also helped to make a better Bill, because I single-handedly wrecked a Bill with a similar name. That understandably brought about a certain amount of correspondence. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has taken the measure up this year and, working with the co-operation of 11 groups, has helped to ensure a better Bill with more consensus. Consensus is not necessarily a good thing in itself, but on this occasion it is the only way to ensure a workable measure.
      I blocked last year's measure because there were some flaws in it. It got through the House without a Second Reading debate and was going to be bounced through on the nod with no scrutiny on Report. I thought it wrong that such a contentious measure should be dealt with in that way with no discussion on the Floor of the House.
      After I blocked the Bill I was contacted by the Pet Care Trust, which said that it had concerns about the Bill but no one would listen. Justice for Dogs and the National Canine Defence League then both said that, although the Bill was better than existing legislation, they would like something better. The Kennel Club and the British Dog Breeders Council came along and said "Thank God someone blocked that Bill, because it was flawed." They wanted various other measures put in. Having met those groups, I was convinced that the Bill should not go ahead in that state, so I blocked it again on 3 July.
      The tragedy at that time was that the RSPCA was behaving despicably on the Bill. It refused to talk to some of the other organisations, suggesting that it knew all about dogs and was the main charity, so it could deal with everything. Some of the other organisations—I shall not embarrass them by naming them and I would probably get it wrong because I cannot remember which they were—were adamant that the previous Bill had flaws because the RSPCA had adopted a highly possessive attitude and would not listen to sensible suggestions for amendment. The new Bill addresses those flaws.
      The Blue Cross and the British Veterinary Association then came on board. One of the first decisions of the working group was that it required an independent chairman. I was delighted about that, because as the person who had blocked the previous Bill I would not be regarded on all sides as someone with an independent or neutral view. I also had no track record of knowledge on the subject and we needed someone knowledgeable and independent. Lady Wharton was unanimously suggested to chair the group. I pay tribute to the tremendous work that she has done on getting the Bill to the stage at which it is about to go to her Chamber for consideration.
      When I ceased to have any involvement with the Bill there were seven groups involved. There are apparently now 11 in the coalition. It is a tribute to the noble Lady
      1262
      and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere that they have managed to keep on board 11 groups when coming up with this compromise measure. The fact that it is a compromise does not mean that the Bill is flawed or inadequate, but it inevitably cannot do everything that every organisation wanted. If it tried to it would be even more contradictory than some of the amendments for which I have been criticised.
      The Bill represents a major step forward. It tightens up the conditions in puppy farms and quite rightly introduces the concept of welfare. It involves the veterinary profession and, importantly, an inspection regime.
      I should declare that I am an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association. That is not a paid post; it merely involves reading some of the tremendous amount of information on hip dysplasia and other problems.
      I am happy to send the Bill on its way as it is a considerable improvement on the measure of a similar name that was before the House last year, and on the existing legislation. The Minister has given us some good assurances today. We have built some amendments into the Bill and I am delighted to have had a small part in those improvements. The assurances that the Minister gave the House when he listened kindly and courteously to my proposals in new clause 1 will result in better legislation and better implementation and operation of the legislation in due course. The Minister assured us that he would monitor carefully the licensing conditions contained in the Bill and how many applications were granted and refused. He gave the House an assurance that if he was aware that any parts of the licensing regime were going astray, he could deal with that by Home Office guidance.
      I do not mind if my point about the licensing conditions is not addressed in another place as the legislation is good in itself, but congenital defects are one of the worst problems in the dog breeding world. Dogs get horrific illnesses not as a result of accidents or because people have abused them or failed to take care of them, but because they have been bred with congenital defects and action has not been taken to stamp that out. If the Minister or his officials can consider using the provisions of the 1973 Act and the licensing conditions that can be imposed on local authorities, we will have taken a tremendous step forward.
      It is a good Bill and I am delighted to offer it my support. Once again, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has piloted through a tricky and contentious measure. No doubt the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) is right to say that there are matters that it does not address. No Bill can cover everything, but at least this one deals with more problems than it leaves out and in that sense it deserves to leave the House with the full backing of all the parties in the House of Commons and I look forward to receiving it back from another place, if necessary improved a little more.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    Control of Residential Hedgerows Bill
    Order for Second Reading read.
    2.28 pm
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    I am well aware that I have about two minutes to raise a complex subject. My intention is to nudge the Government into producing their own measure as hon. Members do not have sufficient resources to draft proper Bills.
    The Bill relates to an issue on which, at first glance, people assume there are no major problems, but it can set neighbour against neighbour, lead to people's liberties being infringed and their health being affected, and often results in court cases.
    Last week I met the Minister responsible, who assured me that the Government's proposals should be ready within a couple of weeks. He said that they had taken soundings from a number of organisations including Hedgeline. Individuals have also written to the Government about some of the problems caused by high trees and hedges. One disabled lady was scared to death to leave her home because a burglar had hidden in high trees. Some people are effectively in an invisible prison.
    In view of the Government's assurances, I shall not press my Bill but wait to see what they do in the corning weeks. If they take no action, I shall seek to take the Bill further.
    It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 23 July.

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    HARE COURSING BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 May.

    HEDGES (CONTROL) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.

    LICENSING (YOUNG PERSONS) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [16 April], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 21 May.

    AGE LIMITS ON HEALTH CARE BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.

    HEALTH CARE AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 April], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 14 May.

    ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.

    RECYCLING OF HOUSEHOLD WASTE BILL
    Order for Second Reading read
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

    RESTRAINING AND PROTECTION ORDERS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 June.

    PLANNING APPEALS BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.

    BUS FUEL DUTY (EXEMPTIONS) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 14 May.

    PUBLIC HOUSES NAMES BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.

  Insolvency (Heritage plc)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-[Mr. Betts.]
  2.32 pm
  Dr. Rudi Vis: Unfortunately, I cannot be brief, so I shall try to be quick. I will also read out quite a bit of information, as I want the record to be entirely straight in its details of dates, times and names, of which there are a few. I was going to say also that I would not take interventions because I wanted to make sure that the record was full. However, that will not now be necessary.
  The debate concerns the regulation of insolvency practitioners, with special reference to Heritage plc. The Government have promised repeatedly to help small businesses to survive and prosper, and I welcome that. However, there are contrasting interpretations of existing legislation. That is particularly the case when it comes to the excesses of the insolvency industry, as practised by the banks and their servants the insolvency practitioners.
  Through the greed and questionable practices of those practitioners, operated with impunity, many small and medium-sized companies are needlessly closed; their directors — who frequently have put all their personal assets on the line—thrown out of work; and their families thrown on to the streets to become an extra burden on the taxpayer.
  According to figures provided by the Independent Banking Advisory Service, if all banks followed the example set by the Royal Bank of Scotland and separated the roles of reporting accountants and receivers, 44,700 jobs a year would be saved. Meanwhile, the insolvency vultures continue to earn fat fees.
  Lord Sudeley referred to the case of Heritage plc, Lloyds TSB and Grant Thornton in the Lords debate of 26 January 1999. Heritage plc was quoted on the London stock exchange. It operated in east London and Manchester, supplying major retailers in the United Kingdom with household articles. It employed more than 100 people, many of whom were disabled. The former chairman, Mr. Jeffrey Lampert, was my constituent until Lloyds TSB succeeded in evicting him and his family from their home.
  The case perfectly reflects the unchecked excesses of the sharks to whom I have referred. Before coming to me, Mr. Lampert took the Heritage plc story to the Bank of England, which said, "This should be dealt with by the banking ombudsman." The ombudsman, hearing that the company's turnover was more than £1 million a year, said, "It's not for me, go back to the Bank of England," which then said, "Go to the FSA," which said, "It's not us; we don't consider individual cases. Go back to the Bank of England." The Bank of England had no further comment at that stage.
  Mr. Lampert went to the London stock exchange, which referred him to the Department of Trade and Industry D2 prosecutions section, which concluded:
  "taking account of the code for crown prosecution it is not in the public interest to instruct an officer to conduct an enquiry."
  I am satisfied that the statutes are in place, but they are not being interpreted in a way that protects businesses and jobs from the excesses of the insolvency industry.

  1267
  In December 1996, Mr. Lampert approached Peter Ellwood, currently Lloyds TSB group chief executive, and his approach proved similarly fruitless. Mr. Lampert has personally banked with Lloyds for more than 40 years —truly a case of "Your Life Your Bank", as the soft advertising campaign says. The facts about Lloyds TSB are different from the image that it seeks to create. I have statistics showing that the Independent Banking Advisory Service receives 36 times more complaints about Lloyds TSB's integrity, which is well defined, than about the Midland bank's.
  Apart from the fact that Heritage plc was quoted on the London stock exchange, its case is reasonably typical. Heritage banked with Lloyds from its inception and the bank sponsored it onto the London stock exchange in July 1988. As a result of that flotation, as one would expect, Heritage embarked on a series of acquisitions, advised by the bank. Despite what the directors believed was a long, close and mutually trusting relationship, Lloyds TSB suddenly closed down Heritage plc. The only logical reason for that action, which did not emerge until two years later, was to conceal a sting operated with the aid of Lloyds TSB's co-conspirator, the insolvency section of the well-known firm of accountants, Grant Thornton.
  As I said earlier, dates are important. Early in 1995, it emerged that Heritage's then financial director, George Raynor, had been acting in a dishonest way with his PAYE. It also emerged that Grant Thornton, where Raynor had personal friends, and which he had appointed as tax adviser to Heritage plc, was aware of the irregularities but had chosen not to tell Heritage. For that reason, and because of his failure to keep a proper sales ledger, Raynor was fired in June 1995. Grant Thornton was fired as tax adviser a little later, in August 1995. At that exact time, the bank began to insist on my constituent giving personal security.
  In July 1995, the bank demanded an accountant's report and insisted on using Grant Thornton, despite Heritage's objections. Heritage directors were shown only a draft of that report, and were told that it was to be finalised after figures audited by KPMG were made available weeks later. In fact, the report was finalised by Grant Thornton only four days later. It misquoted the directors and contained damaging conclusions that were not shared with Heritage plc.
  Even more sinister is the fact that three weeks later, on 10 August 1995, another concealed report was prepared, to which I shall return later. It contained the conclusion:
  "the decision to support Heritage is now finely balanced".
  The same day that the report was prepared, Mr. Lampert was told by Lloyds TSB how well the bank and Grant Thornton now believed Heritage was doing in overcoming the problems left by Raynor, and Mr. and Mrs. Lampert were encouraged to make an equity investment in the company —that is different from a loan —of £250,000, using money lent to them by Lloyds TSB and secured on their family home. If Mr. Lampert —or any of the other directors —had had sight of the August 1995 report, obviously he would not have agreed to the investment. Even as late as 1998, Lloyds TSB, through its solicitors Hammond Suddard, still denied the existence of the two concealed reports.
  1268
  One year later, in June 1996, when Lloyds TSB's exposure had been reduced by about £500,000 and it had earned about £250,000 in interest and fees, Mr. Lampert received another immediate call for an additional £125,000 loan. He was unable to meet the bank's timetable —
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he can assure me that the matters with which he is dealing are now historic in a legal sense, and that no sub judice question arises from continuing proceedings.
  Dr. Vis: Indeed. Thank you for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Lampert could not meet the bank's timetable because he was abroad. Lloyds used the trick that is normal in such circumstances, returned three cheques on important suppliers, and thus changed the cash-flow problem into a cash-flow crisis.
  The directors worked on a restructuring plan involving a firm of accountants, which undoubtedly would have insisted on seeing all the reports on the company. Heritage also engaged in merger talks with a supplier. Both those options were put to the bank, and both were rejected without explanation, over the heads of the entire board of Heritage plc.
  Lloyds TSB insisted on appointing Grant Thornton as receivers. That was appalling, but it is within the law. It insisted on making an immediate demand on Heritage's overdraft, although the company was within every term of its complex facility letter. That, too, is within the law. The company had only two banking hours to meet that demand, although the bank knew from past experience that Heritage could borrow the money from its customers. To give only two banking hours is within the law, even when the company has a London stock exchange listing.
  The restructuring proposal would have benefited all stakeholders by at least £600,000. Heritage, of course, also had several million pounds' worth of intangibles such as good will, the quotation and its tax losses, all of which were immediately lost. The restructuring proposal would have maintained most of the jobs, and the merger would have maintained all the value for all stakeholders as well as all the jobs.
  Lloyds TSB does not appear to be subject to the current regulations, and amazingly, Grant Thornton accepted the receivership. It did so in order to hide its misdeeds as reporting accountant. Having previously been the company's tax adviser, Grant Thornton was conflicted from accepting the receivership. That conflict manifested itself when one of Raynor's personal friends, Brian Michael Moritz, a senior partner at Grant Thornton, represented his interests and opinions to the receivers. Even though Raynor was reported to the DTI for unfit conduct, it is arguable that a firm that was not conflicted would have made a more thorough investigation of sales ledger write-off following Raynor's stewardship —a process that Heritage had started before the receivership. In its evidence to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Grant Thornton admitted not considering it necessary to inform its client, Heritage plc, that its financial director was committing an illegal act. It also withheld the misdeeds from the company's auditors.
  Grant Thornton recorded its appointment at 10.30 am on 11 July 1996. Lloyds TSB later claimed that it was not appointed until after 3.24 pm that day. The timing is

  1269
  crucial, because written confirmation of the merger proposals arrived at 12.20 pm that day. Grant Thornton refused to discuss the matter with Heritage plc directors or legal advisers. The proposal, as Grant Thornton well knew, was dependent on the maintenance of the stock exchange listing, which was lost once its appointment as receivers was announced. If it had waited until after receiving instructions, according to the bank's timing, that proposal could have been properly explored.
  Grant Thornton misled the creditors about the restructuring proposal. It also ignored 1995 audited accounts in its meeting with London creditors, moving all of the write-off from Mr. Raynor's stewardship of the sales ledger to the year after he left. That concealed the substantial recovery of the company which everybody had worked so hard to achieve. The Manchester creditors were shown the truth about the recovery.
  Initially, Grant Thornton claimed that the two missing reports were sent by courier to the company, but it could not prove that. Subsequently, it claimed that a draft of the second report was sent to Mr. Lampert's house on 9 August 1995, but could not prove it. Finally, Grant Thornton claimed that the report was faxed to his house that evening, but it could not prove it. Two days after the Court of Appeal hearing in November 1998 between Lloyds TSB and Mr. Lampert, Grant Thornton claimed in a letter to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales that he must have seen the report because he invested as a result of its findings. That is peculiar, because until early 1998 Lloyds TSB solicitors claimed that the two concealed reports did not exist. That concealment is a clear breach of section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986. It should concern the House that Grant Thornton believes that it can get away with such actions.
  I am told that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has yet to censure insolvency practitioners employed by a major firm. Members of the insolvency industry, by having incestuous relationships with each other, can take advantage of any business that may experience a downturn. In the case of Heritage, that happened a year after the company had begun to recover. At the same time, insolvency practitioners can cover their own and each others' misdeeds. That cannot be right. Business people should not be encouraged to invest in themselves when the insolvency industry can grab that investment with impunity.
  What progress has the Insolvency Service made in its review of the various complaints against Grant Thornton? Is my hon. Friend the Minister prepared to launch a thorough investigation into the receivership of Heritage plc? Does my hon. Friend the Minister intend to use his powers to bring charges under section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986?
  I have met Mr. Jeffrey Lampert several times, and have been on the phone to him a lot. I have been in contact with Lloyds TSB and all the parties that I have mentioned today, except the accountants. Mr. and Mrs. Lampert have been to hell and back. Despite that, Mr. Lampert remains jovial and gregarious, a man of great ability. He is an honest family man who will not give up this fight. I wish him and his family well and I will stand by them.
  2.50 pm
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I have listened very
  1270
  carefully to his speech. He spoke with great passion and commitment on behalf of Mr. Lampert. I shall try to answer the three important questions with which he finished.
  The regulation of insolvency practice and of insolvency practitioners has been a subject of interest to many in and out of the House. It is a great shame that no Opposition spokesman is here for the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Madam Speaker has made it clear that Adjournment debates are personal debates, raised by an hon. Member and replied to by a Minister. They are nothing more than that.
  Dr. Howells: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am chastened, although I am still interested in why there is no one here from the Opposition to hear the debate.
  The case of Heritage plc to which my hon. Friend referred has been at the forefront of recent interest in this subject. I would like to say a few words about the regulation of insolvency practitioners as that lies at the heart of my hon. Friend's case. The Insolvency Act 1986 introduced a regulated profession. Under the Act, practitioners may be authorised by recognised professional bodies. Bodies are recognised for that purpose by the Secretary of State, and they include the principal accountancy bodies, the Insolvency Practitioners Association and the Law Societies in England and Wales and in Scotland.
  Recognition is on the basis that the bodies have rules to ensure that practitioners have appropriate educational qualifications and experience. They must remain fit and proper to carry out the job. The bodies are responsible for regulation of the practitioners they authorise, but the Secretary of State has a residual licensing function. Officials at the Department of Trade and Industry's Insolvency Service are in close contact with the professional bodies as an essential part of the continuing development of the regulatory process.
  In particular, officials visit the bodies to examine their procedures on authorisation, monitoring and handling of complaints. This is intended to be a review of procedures, not decisions in individual cases. The Secretary of State has no power to undertake such a review. Appropriate procedural recommendations are made where there appears to be scope for improvement. The bodies have responded positively to the recommendations, and procedures have been tightened and further controls introduced where necessary.
  The Insolvency Service regulation working party recently published a report in which it found no evidence that regulation had been rendered less effective by its being administered by the professional bodies. I am inclined to believe that the working party was largely right on that.
  Let me turn to the case of Heritage plc. Mr. Jeffrey Lampert, my hon. Friend's constituent and the former chairman and principal shareholder of the company, came to see officials in my Department's Insolvency Service in February 1998.
  As my hon. Friend said, Mr. Lampert had concerns about the actions of Grant Thornton, two of whose partners had been appointed joint administrative receivers of Heritage plc and other companies in the Heritage group. Grant Thornton had previously undertaken financial appraisals of the group on the instructions of its bankers, Lloyds.

  1271
  Officials explained to Mr. Lampert that the receivers were authorised to act as insolvency practitioners by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. His complaints were, therefore, a matter for the institute in the first instance. With his agreement, an outline of Mr. Lampert's complaint and a supporting bundle of papers were forwarded to the ICAEW by my officials.
  I do not think that I need to go into all of the details of Mr. Lampert's complaint —I certainly do not have time to do so. Suffice it to say that his concerns included a possible conflict of interest on the part of the receivers and an alleged failure to provide copies of reports to the board of directors. That is precisely the case that my hon. Friend made.
  Mr. Lampert's complaint was considered by the ICAEW's investigation committee on 16 March. The committee decided that no prima facie case for disciplinary action had been made out. Mr. Lampert was dissatisfied with that outcome and contacted officials once more. They explained to him, as did the ICAEW, that it was open to him to ask for the committee's decision to be referred to the institute's independent reviewer of complaints. Mr. Lampert has not so far done so but that option, which is the next stage in the procedure, remains available to him.
  In the interim, officials have met with representatives of the ICAEW and have looked at the institute's files on the case. This is in no sense a review of the committee's decision. As I said earlier, the Secretary of State has no power to review the decision of a professional body. However, officials examined the procedures and were satisfied that they were properly carried out. They also took the view that the decision reached by the committee was not an unreasonable decision.
  Mr. Lampert also contacted the DTI on the separate issue of whether there had been an offence under section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986. That relates to the alleged failure of Grant Thornton to provide copy reports to the board of directors of Heritage. My Department gave the matter careful consideration, but concluded that there was nothing in the allegation that should be pursued further.
  I understand that Mr. Lampert has also been in touch with the Financial Services Authority about the actions of Lloyds bank and, no doubt, the FSA will be considering whether it should be taking any action. My hon. Friend made that case clear.
  I have considerable sympathy for the position in which Mr. Lampert finds himself. He has provided Lloyds bank with very substantial personal guarantees. He has pursued his complaints with various agencies with great diligence. If, however, he wishes to pursue his complaint further against the receivers, his only option would appear to be
  1272
  to ask the institute to refer the matter to the reviewer of complaints. Certainly, I do not see that there is anything further that the DTI can do to help him in this respect.
  I wish to raise one further issue. One of Mr. Lampert's areas of complaint is that the partners in Grant Thornton had a conflict of interest, as my hon. Friend clearly illustrated, when accepting appointment as administrative receivers. The possibility of such a conflict where the appointment follows an earlier appointment as investigating accountant has been the subject of previous concern.
  The insolvency professional bodies have issued specific guidance to practitioners which, in effect, states that a practitioner will not normally be prevented from taking a subsequent appointment as receiver where the appointment as investigating accountant is by a creditor. However, the guidance also says that the propriety of a subsequent appointment as receiver may be called into question if the circumstances of the initial appointment as investigating accountant are such as to prevent open discussion of the financial affairs of the company with the directors.
  Those and other issues concerning the relationship between banks and business customers have been addressed by the British Bankers Association in its March 1997 statement of principles. That statement seeks to show how banks intend to work together with businesses to get the relationship right from the outset and to help if businesses get into difficulties. My hon. Friend made the point that we must examine the rescue culture, and we are considering that carefully to save jobs and to save people from bankruptcy in such situations. The banks are reviewing their experience of nearly two years operation of the statement of principles.
  The framework set out in the statement of principles should discourage any notion that the appointment of investigating accountants will inevitably lead to the appointment of that firm — or, indeed, any other firm —as administrative receivers. It is interesting to note that in a recent survey by the Society of Practitioners of Insolvency for the period 1996-97, practitioners reported that the overall business preservation rate for companies in rescue-oriented procedures —receiverships, administrations and company voluntary arrangements —was 59 per cent.
  That does not mean that there is any room for complacency. The Government want as many companies as possible to be encouraged to overcome any short-term financial problems that they may experience. That needs to be kept under careful scrutiny. I am glad that my hon. Friend raised this case because it is an object for us to study. He made his case clearly and carefully. We will consider it closely.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Three o ' clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will recommend guidelines to other Government Departments as to(a) when it is appropriate to instruct Queen's Counsel and (b) how much it is appropriate to pay Queen's Counsel; and if he will make a statement. [83548]

  The Attorney-General
  In civil cases involving Government Departments, recourse would first be had to the four panels of junior counsel maintained by the Attorney-General to undertake Government civil litigation. In appropriate cases, First Treasury Counsel (Common Law) or First Treasury Counsel (Chancery), both of whom are junior counsel, would be instructed. In considering whether to instruct a Queen's Counsel in a particular case, consideration would be given to the importance and sensitivity of the case, the complexity of the law, the weight and complexity of the evidence, and the degree of experience and expertise required. My approval is required before a Queen's Counsel can be instructed. No need is seen, therefore, for further guidance.

  As regards purely advisory work, each Department is responsible for its own policy on when to instruct Queen's Counsel but takes into account the same or similar factors as those set out above. All Departments have access to the four panels maintained by the Attorney-General and to the services of Treasury Counsel.

  Fees paid to Queen's Counsel are negotiated on a case-by-case basis either by the Treasury Solicitor or by the Department concerned and counsel or counsel's clerk. The appropriate fee will depend on the particular circumstances of the case and is a budgetary matter for the Department concerned.

  As regards prosecution work carried out by the Department of Trade and Industry, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue and the Departments of Health and Social Security, the Attorney-General maintains a list of advocates considered suitable to undertake such work. Three of those Departments have Standing Counsel, all junior counsel, who will undertake the heaviest and most serious of prosecutions. Usually, only where Standing Counsel is not available or where the case calls for a particular specialist knowledge would consideration be given to the instruction of a Queen's Counsel. The factors taken into consideration in deciding whether Queen's Counsel should be instructed are as set out above. All Departments also have access to the panel of Treasury Counsel based at the Central Criminal Court, all of whom are junior counsel.

  I would also refer my hon. Friend to the replies given on 26 April 1999, Official Report, columns 1–2, and on 28 April 1999, Official Report, columns 189-–90.
  466
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to discuss with the Bar Council guidelines for fees for Queen's Counsel instructed on Government or Government agency business. [83549]

  The Attorney-General
  I have no plans to discuss this issue with the Bar Council.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy when(a) conducting legal proceedings and (b) seeking legal advice as to the circumstances in which Queen's Counsel should be instructed; and for each of the last three years (i) on how many occasions his Department instructed Queen's Counsel and (ii) what was the total cost of instructing Queen's Counsel.[81755]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 27 April 1999]: The Department predominantly uses junior Counsel when it is necessary to instruct Counsel to conduct legal proceedings or to provide legal advice. In many important matters, the Department will instruct First Treasury Counsel (Common Law) to represent or advise the Department without the assistance of a Queen's Counsel. In the great majority of other legal proceedings, and for advice on other matters, Counsel will be instructed from one of the Panels of junior Counsel maintained by the Attorney-General.

  In a small minority of cases, the Department will seek the approval of the Attorney-General for the instruction of Queen's Counsel. In seeking this approval, the Department will take into account, among other things, the importance and sensitivity of the case, the complexity of the law, and the degree of experience and expertise required.

  The Department has instructed seven Queen's Counsel since 1 May 1997, one of them in two different matters. On the information so far available to the Department, the cost of doing so was £21,749.25. Information on Queen's Counsel instructed before 1 May 1997 is available to the Department only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Deep Mines
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the proportion of deep-mined coal from Wales that is supplied to electricity power stations supplying the National Grid. [82242]

  Mr. Hain
  This information is commercially confidential, but on the basis of the available information, I would estimate that about a quarter of Welsh deep-mine production was sold to major power producers in 1997.

  New Deal
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the New Deal in the Alyn and Deeside constituency. [82729]
  467
  Mr. Hain
  The latest information indicates that, in the Employment Service's North East Wales Unit of Delivery for the New Deal (which includes the Alyn and Deeside parliamentary constituency), nearly 970 people have joined the New Deal for 18–24s. 270 young people have secured employment (195 of these are in unsubsidised jobs), and over 180 more have entered education, training, or work experience.

  I am delighted by the positive start made by the New Deal. I am grateful for the enthusiasm and support of the wide range of organisations which are working in partnership to deliver the New Deal. In particular, I welcome the contribution of employers, over 300 of whom have signed up for the New Deal in North East Wales.

  Schools Refurbishment (Flintshire)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much cash he has made available to Flintshire local education authority to refurbish schools; and if he will make a statement. [82730]

  Mr. Hain
  By the end of the 1999 –2000 financial year, Flintshire will have been allocated over £1.45 million as its share of the Additional Capital Funding for Schools initiative.

  This is in addition to its normal capital allocations. Flintshire's non-housing Basic Credit Approval for 1999–2000 is £4.582 million. It is for the authority to decide on the level of resources devoted to schools.

  Following the transfer of functions this issue will become a matter for the National Assembly.

  Objective 2 Status
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to announce the objective 2 status map for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [82733]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK Government are currently undertaking a consultation exercise to discover from local and regional partners their views on possible eligible areas under objective 2. This would include comments on the geographical areas; the NUTS level; and the criteria that might be used to determine eligibility.

  The Government will then propose areas to receive objective 2 status. Any decisions by the UK Government are subject to agreement with the European Commission. It is hoped that an objective 2 map for the UK, including Wales, will be settled by the Autumn.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board
  Mr.Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she has approved the Financial Recovery Plan proposed by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board; and if she will make a statement. [82552]

  Mr. McFall
  A detailed recovery plan has yet to be submitted to the Health and Social Services Executive by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board, since the final outturn position of the Board for 1998–99 has still to be confirmed. The recovery strategy proposed by the Board 468
  suggests that it should recover its deficit over the two year period of 1999–2000 and 2000–01. The Executive will consider, approve and monitor the implementation of a Financial Recovery Plan once the deficit has been accurately established. Current estimates are that the deficit will represent approximately 1 per cent. of the Board's annual expenditure.

  HSS Boards and Trusts
  Mr.Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the performance of health and social services boards and trusts in Northern Ireland of their statutory duties under the(a) Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and the (b) Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. [82545]

  Mr. McFall
  It is the duty of the Mental Health Commission for Northern Ireland to keep under review the exercise of the powers and the discharge of the duties conferred on the health and social services by the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. Information on the exercise of the powers is contained in the Commission's annual published report. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Last year, the Department of Health and Social Services carried out a survey of Health and Social Services Trusts with regard to the performance of their statutory duties under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. This indicated that, in general, trusts were providing personal social services for children in need and their families in accordance with Part IV of the Order. However, there were some deficiencies, notably in the level of a suitable range of residential services. This particular issue is being addressed at present by the Department, in conjunction with the Health and Social Services Boards, within the context of "Children Matter", the Department's Review of Residential Services in Northern Ireland, with the aim of improving the position in both the short term and the long term.

  The Department will continue to monitor the performance of trusts in the delivery of services for children in need and their families on an annual basis.

  Mr.Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total debt outstanding in relation to health and personal social services in Northern Ireland for each(a) board and (b) trust; and if she will make a statement. [82551]

  Mr. McFall
  The total debt outstanding in relation to health and personal social services in Northern Ireland for each(a) board and (b) trust as at 31 March 1998 is disclosed in the table. This information was extracted from 1997–98 Accounts of the HSS bodies.

  Schedule of indebtedness of HSS boards and trusts at 31 March 1998

  £000

  Debt

  Boards

  Northern Health and Social Services Board

  2,016

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  4,349

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  4,625

  Western Health and Social Services Board

  1,899

  Total

  12,889

  469

  Schedule of indebtedness of HSS boards and trusts at 31 March 1998

  £000

  Debt

  Trusts

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital HSS Trust

  111,154

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  102,243

  Down and Lisburn HSS Trust

  58,095

  Ulster North Down and Ards Hospital HSS Trust

  42,585

  Greenpark Healthcare HSS Trust

  47,049

  Mater Hospital HSS Trust

  13,260

  Northern Ireland Ambulance HSS Trust

  9,770

  North Down and Ards Community HSS Trust

  13,779

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  31,035

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  53,080

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  51,281

  Causeway HSS Trust

  37,838

  United Hospitals HSS Trust

  75,466

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  13,797

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  37,895

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  22,296

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  39,876

  Foyle HSS Trust

  34,940

  Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Care HSS Trust

  51,791

  Altnagelvin Hospitals HSS Trust

  46,422

  Total

  893,652

  Boards and Trusts Total

  906,541

  Note:

  The figures in the table were extracted from the 1997–98 Accounts of HSS bodies

  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total amount of public funding for the Gaelic Athletic Association in each of the past five years; and if she will make a statement. [82550]

  Mr. McFall
  The total amount of public funding for the Gaelic Athletic Association, and its associated clubs, is as follows:

  1998–99: £4,006,868.74

  1997–98: £1,691,026.85

  1996–97: £2,371,913.35

  1995–96: £1,754,917.81

  1994–95: £39,187.68.

  Mental Health
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the South Eastern Education and Library Board will be represented on the Regional Task Force on Mental Health Promotion; and if she will make a statement. [82743]

  Mr. McFall
  Representation on the Regional Task Force on Mental Health is not on a Board basis. The education sector is represented by the Department of Education. Representatives from each of the Education and Library Boards were invited to consultation days organised during the months of February and April to consider a mental health promotion strategy for Northern Ireland.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Pensions Scheme
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the administration of the appeals process within the War Pensions Scheme as it applies to former(a) officers and (b) other ranks. [82715]

  Angela Eagle
  We are committed to reducing the time taken to process all types of War Pension appeals. At the December 1998 meeting of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions we announced the commissioning of an independent review into the whole decision-making and appeals process. The findings of the consultants who conducted the review were reported to the Department last month and will be announced shortly.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to provide national insurance credits that count towards the new national insurance contribution condition for incapacity benefit proposed in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill to working members of households in receipt of working families or disabled persons tax credits whose earnings are below the lower earnings limit; and if he will make a statement. [82705]

  Mr. Bayley
  There are two contribution conditions for Incapacity Benefit. The first condition requires a minimum number of paid contributions and cannot be satisfied by credits. The provisions in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill will change this condition so that the minimum number of contributions will need to have been paid in one of the two tax years before the claim for benefit rather than, as now, in any year.

  The second contribution condition can be satisfied by credits. People on Disability Working Allowance (and, in future, Disabled Persons Tax Credit) who have earnings below the Lower Earnings Limit are given credits which count towards the second contribution condition. Family Credit (and, in future, Working Families Tax Credit) do not provide credits of this kind. The second contribution condition is unaffected by the provisions in the Bill.

  Benefit Arrears
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the constituent whose name has been supplied to him will be paid the benefits awarded to him by a tribunal in August 1998, backdated to 1974. [82880]

  Mr. Bayley
  An initial payment of arrears was issued on 4 May 1999. Arrears from the beginning of the award will now be calculated and issued without undue delay.

PRIME MINISTER

  Bilderberg Group
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Prime Minister which(a) Ministers and (b) officials will attend the Bilderberg Group meeting in Portugal in June; and if he will make a statement. [81790]
  471
  The Prime Minister
  I am told that the Bilderberg Group usually invites a number of people from government, politics, industry, finance and education from a wide range of countries to its annual Conference. There is no formal representation by the UK Government.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) of 28 April 1999,Official Report, column 336, if he will make a statement on the changes there have been in average school class sizes for children over the age of seven years since 1 May 1997. [83095]

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) of 28 April 1999,Official Report, column 336, concerning class sizes, what has been the change in the average size of school classes in the past two years.[83233]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's manifesto pledge is to reduce the size of infant classes to 30 or below. The evidence of Ofsted and others is that class size matters most in the early years when children are learning the basics. As a result of an investment of £67 million there were some 130,000 fewer infants in classes of over 30 in January this year than in January 1998. And we have announced that from September this year we expect a further reduction of 150,000 meaning that the number of infants in classes over thirty will be 200,000 compared to 485,000 in January 1998. Between January 1998 and January 1999:The average size of primary classes fell overall from 27.8 pupils to 27.6, the first fall for 10 years;
  the average size of Key Stage 2 classes remained steady (28.3 in 1998, 28.4 in 1999) as did the average size of secondary classes (21.9 in 1998, 22.0 in 1999);
  average size of classes in all maintained primary and secondary schools fell for the first time in 5 years from 24.9 in January 1998 to 24.8 in January 1999.

  European Commission
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting with Mr. Romani Prodi on 14 April; what subjects were discussed; what decisions were reached; and if he will place the plans for European Commission reform submitted by Mr. Prodi to that meeting in the Library. [83541]

  The Prime Minister
  Heads of State and Government met Mr. Prodi on 14 April to discuss Commission reform. As the meeting was informal, no formal papers were submitted to it and there were no formal conclusions. However, Heads did agree to discuss the reform process with Mr. Prodi again at the Cologne European Council in June. I will, of course, make a statement to the House after that Council, and the conclusions and other relevant documents will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Prodi's formal statements on reform have consistently shown that he supports a Commission which is more efficient, transparent and accountable. The UK fully supports these objectives.
  472
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to announce his nominations for the two United Kingdom EU Commissioners ; and when he intends to discuss potential candidates with the President-nominate. [83475]

  The Prime Minister
  In accordance with the Amsterdam Treaty, now that Mr. Prodi's nomination as Commission President has been approved by the European Parliament, member states will begin to consult with him on nomination of the other Commissioners. The two nominees from the United Kingdom will be announced as soon as this consultation has been completed.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Amateur Swimming
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action the Government have taken to promote amateur swimming. [82899]

  Mr. Banks
  This Government place great importance on amateur swimming, both as an elite sport and as a form of exercise which should be available to all. That is why swimming is a statutory element of the primary National Curriculum, giving all young people the opportunity to learn to enjoy it. Sport England has a facilities strategy in place, covering both excellence and recreational swimming; the sport has received £280,000 exchequer funding for 1999–2000; and has been awarded £184 million Lottery funding to date, which is more than for any other single sport. In addition, between January and September of this year, £2 million of Lottery funds have been allocated to top individual British swimmers under the World Class Performance Programme, and £750,000 towards excellence in disabled swimming, which is laying the foundations for future British success.

  Royal Parks Agency
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what targets he has set for the Royal Parks Agency. [83812]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The following targets have been set for the Royal Parks Agency for 1999–2000:

  Financial and Efficiency
  To increase income by 10 per cent. from the 1998–99 level, from all sources except recharges and VAT refunds.
  Stay within the flat running costs allocation of £8.235 million.
  Keep Royal Parks Constabulary hourly costs of a police constable on duty down to 1998–99 levels in real terms.

  Visitor satisfaction
  Achieve an overall quality rating of 86 per cent. from visitors to the parks, compared to a rating of 84 per cent. in 1998–99. The minimum rating for any one park should be no lower than 80 per cent.

  Fabric
  Achieve an average rating from visitors of at least 85 per cent. on cleanliness in the parks, compared with a rating of 83 per cent. in 1998–99. The minimum rating for a park should be no lower than 75 per cent.

  473
  Maintain an average score of at least 85 per cent. for soft landscape presentation, compared with a score of 84 per cent. in 1998–99. The minimum score for a park should be no lower than 80 per cent.
  Complete the first phase of refurbishment works of White Lodge in Bushy Park by the end of 1999–2000, with a view to ensuring the building is removed from English Heritage's "Buildings at Risk" register by 2001.

  I shall be reviewing progress against these targets and against the Agency's objectives at my six months review of the Agency's Funding Agreement.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Jarinabanu Fakir Mohmed Khalifa
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the explanatory statement relating to Jarinabanu Fakir Mohmed Khalifa, Bombay reference W98/3813 will be forwarded. [82755]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 30 April 1999]: The Explanatory Statement relating to Jarinabanu Fakir Mohmed Khalifa was sent to the Appeals Registry at the Home Office on 19 January.

  Burma
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Burmese Government on the persecution of the Chin tribe.[83143]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We continue to monitor carefully the situation of ethnic minorities in Burma. Our Ambassador visited Chin State in early March. Our Embassy in Rangoon regularly raise the plight of ethnic minorities in Burma directly with the authorities, most recently on 5 May. We also supported the UN Commission on Human Rights resolution on Burma, adopted on 23 April, which deplored the human rights violations of ethnic minorities and called on the regime to stop such violations.

  Zimbabwe High Commission
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) employees and (b) diplomats accredited to the Zimbabwe High Commission are entitled to diplomatic immunity. [83552]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Zimbabwe High Commission employs 38 staff. Of these, 15 are diplomats and entitled to diplomatic immunity.

  Diplomatic Immunity
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take in relation to Mr. X., who has claimed diplomatic immunity in relation to an alleged serious assault on Mr. Y., details of the incident and the identities of Mr. X. and Mr. Y. having been supplied by letter to his Department. [83550]
  474
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  An official from this Department wrote to the Acting Head of the relevant diplomatic mission on 4 May, requesting information on a number of issues. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Baroness Symons, will reply to my hon. Friend's letter as soon as possible.

  Bosnia and Herzegovina
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people were displaced from their homes in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the conflict there; and how many have since returned. [83491]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  UNHCR estimate that, at the time of the Dayton Peace Agreement (December 1995), there were more than 525,000 refugees in the region, along with 1.2 million internally-displaced persons (IDPs). Since Dayton, nearly 550,000 of the two million refugees and IDPs have returned to their homes in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  Croatia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what co-operation is being afforded NATO in its operation against Yugoslavia by Croatia. [83493]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government of Croatia have allowed NATO full use of their airspace for operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and agreed to NATO's request to cut the Croatia/FRY oil pipeline.

  Turkey
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role is being played by Turkey in NATO's operations in Yugoslavia. [83489]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  NATO operates by consensus. Like all Allies, Turkey takes part fully in the Alliance decision-making process.

  Turkey's military contribution to NATO operations in the FRY currently comprises 11 F-16 fighter aircraft in addition to transport aircraft and a frigate. It also has forces stationed in Albania with NATO's humanitarian support operations.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future location of GCHQ. [83810]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have agreed with Treasury colleagues that the project overall offers good value for the taxpayer, and I have authorised the Director of GCHQ to continue to negotiate with GSL through to contract signature. I have selected the current GCHQ site at Benhall in Cheltenham as the location for the new GCHQ building, subject to final agreement on a number of outstanding matters. I made the decision having regard to the Government's sustainable transport policies. I am very pleased that the long-standing association between GCHQ and Cheltenham is to be maintained.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) by what method it is his practice to inform Parliament of changes in membership of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment; [81388]

  (2) by what method he announced the change in membership of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment; [81407]

  (3) when he will announce the new members of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. [81406]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 April 1999]: I announced my intention to review the membership and remit of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) in my statement to the House of Lords on 21 October 1998. The term of office of the members of ACRE appointed in June 1996 ends on 17 June 1999 and a statement on the changes in membership will be made in due course.

  Genetically Modified Crops (Bees)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the maximum distance he assumes bees can travel when setting isolation distances for genetically modified trial crops. [81408]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 April 1999]: There is no maximum distance to which it can be guaranteed that bees will travel. But, in general, bee foraging behaviour is well understood and one member of ACRE is an expert on bees and their behaviour. When foraging a crop with high flower density, a bee may fly for some metres, possibly hundreds of metres, to a particular area of the crop. ACRE always take account of pollen dispersal by bees and its likely consequences. Based on the type of GM plant, how it has been modified and the circumstances of the proposed release, it may be judged necessary to minimise the potential for cross-pollination of neighbouring sexually compatible crops or wild relatives by the GM plants. The precautions taken to prevent or reduce cross-pollination may include the removal of flowers or the setting of specific isolation distances between GM and non-GM plants or borders of non-GM plants around the plots of GM plants. Where isolation distances are set, these are not intended to prevent pollen spread but to reduce pollen spread as far as is practically possible.

  Emissions Trading Scheme
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the steps and timescale the Government are working to in developing a national emissions trading scheme; and if he will make a statement. [82641]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government fully recognise the potential benefits of a national carbon emissions trading scheme, particularly in allowing business to deliver 476
  greenhouse gas reductions as cost effectively as possible, and in preparing business for any international emissions trading scheme established under the Kyoto Protocol. We are therefore taking forward the recommendation made by Lord Marshall in his report on "Economic Instruments and the Business Use of Energy", that the Government should consider a pilot trading scheme.

  Development of an effective pilot trading scheme must be business-led, but with the active involvement of, and a clear steer from Government. We are therefore working with the CBI and ACBE (the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment) to develop the pilot scheme. The next step is for the CBI and ACBE to call a meeting of interested Chief Executives and senior government officials, to commit to a timetable and resources for developing the pilot. The intention is for this meeting to take place in late June or early July, subject to availability.

  Wyre Piddle (Road Accident)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will commission an investigation into the circumstances of the road traffic accident that occurred in Wyre Piddle on 28 April in order to inform his consideration of an application from Worcestershire County Council for funding for a bypass of the village. [83004]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The investigation of road traffic accidents is a matter for the police. It will be for Worcestershire County Council to put forward any bid for funding of a bypass as part of their Local Transport Plan. The County Council will need to appraise any major scheme using the New Approach to Appraisal, of which safety is a major element. We will consider that appraisal as part of our consideration of the Local Transport Plan.

  A38 Bridge (Almondsbury)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 April 1999,Official Report, column 90, if the work undertaken in 1998 on the A38 bridge over the M4 at Almondsbury was certified as meeting the requirements of the Highways Agency's specification, including the testing of materials.[82901]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Part of the works carried out on the A38 bridge over the M4 at Almondsbury in 1998 did not meet the required specification and they were rejected by the site supervisory staff appointed by the Highways Agency. The contractors are replacing the sub standard work at their own cost.

  Lamp Standards
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what data he has collated on incidents of complete failure in service of lamp standards over the past three years. [83180]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are no comprehensive central data collected on incidents where lamp standards have failed. Most are on local roads for which local highway authorities are responsible and maintenance details are not available centrally. The Highways Agency, who are responsible for trunk roads and motorways, keep a record of those reported by their Area Agents and,
  477
  although there is no requirement, some on local authority roads. In the last three years, there have been three incidents recorded on motorway and trunk roads.

  Empty Dwellings
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each local authority in England the number and percentage of(a) public and (b) private sector dwellings which are empty. [83236]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have placed the information requested in the Library. This table presents the latest available data on the number and proportion of vacant dwellings owned by local authorities, Registered Social Landlords (RSLs), 'Other Public Sector organisations' and the rest of the private sector for local authority districts in England. The figures relate to 1 April 1998 and have been provided by local authorities on their HIP returns, except for those for RSLs which relate to 31 March 1998 and are based on information supplied by the Housing Corporation. Estimated totals that include allowances for missing or incomplete returns are provided for England.

  Green Ministers Committee
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many times the Green Ministers Committee has met since May 1997; and if he will place in the Library(a) the agenda and minutes of each of the meetings and (b) a list of significant decisions and action plans made at each meeting. [83156]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Green Ministers Committee has met five times since May 1997.

  On (a), the minutes and agenda are not made public, but the House is advised of what happened at each meeting. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 23 March 1999, Official Report, column 248, with regard to the outcome of the Committee's most recent meeting on 22 March 1999.

  On (b), the Committee will be reporting on its actions and plans in its first published report this summer, a copy of which will be placed in the House Library.

  Drink-drive Initiatives
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what new measures he proposes to introduce to achieve further reductions in the number of drink-drive casualties. [83171]

  Dr. Reid
  We have consulted on a package of measures to combat drinking and driving. Decisions on drink-drive measures will be incorporated within the road safety strategy which we will publish this year.

  Motorway Lighting
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the effect of providing lighting on the whole motorway system on the number of recorded accidents. [82939]
  478
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: No such estimate has been made.

  Departmental Advice Note, TA 49/86 (Appraisal of New and Replacement Lighting on Trunk Roads and Motorways) provides guidance on the assessment method for the provision of road lighting. Lighting is normally provided on dual four-lane motorways. On dual three-lane motorways and below, an assessment is made following the guidelines. This includes a full assessment of the safety and environmental considerations.

  National Federation of Roofing Contractors
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to meet the National Federation of Roofing Contractors; [83144]

  (2) if he will make an assessment of the National Federation of Roofing Contractors' (a) insurance-backed guarantee scheme and (b) Roofsafe Plus Latent Defect Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [83145]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 22 February 1999,Official Report, columns 54–55. I will be meeting representatives of the National Federation of Roofing Contractors later this month.

  Bridges
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many bridges his Department believes will need to be strengthened by local authorities as a consequence of the decision to allow 40 tonne lorries on domestic journeys access to the road network. [82883]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: Substantial progress has been made in the assessment and strengthening programme. The latest figures available to DETR show that, of 41,602 local authority structures, 35,647 have been assessed, with over 30,000 being of adequate standard, and 3,250 local road bridges have been strengthened.

  Severn Rail Tunnel
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ask the Rail Regulator to launch an investigation into the circumstances which led the Health and Safety Executive to implement speed restrictions in the Severn Rail Tunnel. [83373]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  On 29 April—the same day that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) imposed a 20 mph speed restriction on trains using the Severn Tunnel—the Rail Regulator called for an urgent report from Railtrack explaining why its maintenance procedures had not been sufficient to avoid the enforcement action taken by the HSE, and the plans it had for putting the matter right. Railtrack submitted that report on 4 May, and the Rail Regulator is currently considering it.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 April 1999,Official Report, column 292, concerning the opening of the Stratford to North Greenwich phase of the Jubilee Line extension, if he will define late Spring. [83380]

  Dr. Reid
  The 8th edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary states that, in the northern hemisphere, Spring is from March to May. So late Spring by most definitions will be towards the end of this period.

TREASURY

  Government Investments
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's investments. [83724]

  Ms Hewitt
  Today we are announcing a restructuring of the UK's reserve holdings to achieve a better balance in the portfolio by increasing the proportion held in currency. This will involve a programme of auctions of gold from the Exchange Equalisation Account, which holds the UK's official reserves of foreign currency and gold, with the proceeds being invested instead in foreign currency assets and retained in the reserves.

  The Treasury intends to sell 125 tonnes of gold, 3 per cent. of the total reserves, during 1999–2000, with the Bank of England conducting five auctions on the Treasury's behalf. Auctions will be held every other month starting in July.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the budgets from which the extra funding for aid to the Kosovan refugees is being taken. [83562]

  Mr. Milburn
  The costs of helping refugees in the area have been met to date from the budgets of the Department for International Development and Ministry of Defence, with some contribution from the central reserve.

DEFENCE

  Kosovo
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the estimated weekly cost to the British Government of military operations in connection with Kosovo. [81621]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 21 April 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on 15 April 1999, Official Report, columns 323–24. This information will be updated in due course. However, as costs of operations vary from week to week, the provision of a weekly figure would be misleading.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the additional cost of the conflict in Yugoslavia. [81964]
  480
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of the conflict with Yugoslavia to his Department; and if he will make a statement. [81970]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 26 April 1999]: I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on 15 April 1999, Official Report, columns 323–24. This information will be updated in due course.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the TA is (i) deployed and (ii) warned to deploy for operations in the Balkans. [81664]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 April 1999, c. 633]: I regret that the figure of 420 I gave of the Territorial Army at the time deployed to the Balkans was incorrect. The correct figure should have been 317, representing some 0.63 per cent. of the overall TA. It is likely that further TA troops will be deployed.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the chemical weapons capability maintained by Yugoslavia. [83290]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The former Yugoslavia did have an offensive chemical warfare programme, which included small stocks of chemical weapons. Serbia inherited some elements of this in 1992, but the exact status of this programme is unknown. It is assessed that the current threat to our forces from chemical warfare is low.

  SFOR
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of SFOR in Bosnia-Herzegovina; and what is the total United Kingdom contribution. [83487]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The current strength of SFOR, deployed in Bosnia and Croatia, is some 32,000, of which the British contribution is some 4,500.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Brussels Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 19 and 20 April; and if he will make a statement.[81883]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Agriculture Council scheduled for 19-20 April was cancelled. The next Agriculture Council will be on 17–18 May.

  Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish all the advice which he has received from the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes since 1 May 1997. [72234]
  481
  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: All advice received between May and December 1997 is contained in the Committee's Annual Report for 1997, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Advice received since then will be included in the Committee's 1998 Annual Report which is currently being written. I have now deposited a copy of this advice in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Combined Heat and Power Generation
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Scottish and Southern Energy plc's notification to build a combined heat and power generation station at the Kimberly-Clark paper mill, Barrow-in-Furness. [83809]

  Mr. Battle
  I have today granted clearance under Section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 in response to Scottish and Southern Energy plc's notification to build a 13 MW gas-fired combined heat and power station at the Kimberly-Clark paper mill in Barrow-in-Furness. The decision has been taken in accordance with the policy set out in the White Paper entitled "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee" (Cm 4071)

  Copies of the Press Notice and section 14 clearance are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Kronospan Ltd.'s notification to build a combined heat and power generation station at their fibreboard factory at Chirk, Wrexham. [83811]

  Mr. Battle
  I have today granted clearance under Section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 to Kronospan Ltd.'s notification to double the size of its existing gas-fired combined heat and power station at Chirk, Wrexham to 12.4 MW. The decision has been taken in accordance with the policy set out in the White Paper entitled "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee" (Cm 4071).

  Decisions on other applications under consideration will be announced in due course. Copies of the Press Notice and the clearance letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Lingerie
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the percentage and value of lingerie sold in the United Kingdom which was manufactured in the United Kingdom in each year since 1990. [83235]

  Mr. Battle
  Details of UK retail sales of lingerie are not available from official statistics. However, UK manufacturers' sales of and trade in women's and girls' underwear are detailed in The Office for National Statistics publication "Product Sales and Trade—PRQ11", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Advisers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average fee paid, at present, by those making use of the services of immigration advisers. [82540]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The immigration advice market is unregulated and so we have little information about the average fee paid by those making use of the services of immigration advisers. Members of Parliament sometimes complain that constituents have paid hundreds or thousands of pounds for advice.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration advisers are currently operating in England and Wales. [82534]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Immigration advice is largely unregulated and so it is difficult to estimate the number of immigration advisers operating in England and Wales. The Immigration Law Practitioners Association has 830 members and there may be a further 200 individuals and companies offering immigration advice for reward. We know that significant numbers of people in the voluntary sector are also providing immigration advice.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of immigration advisers in England and Wales operating(a) illegally and (b) unscrupulously. [82541]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As immigration advice is currently unregulated it is not possible to estimate how many immigration advisers in England and Wales are at any one time behaving illegally. Unscrupulous behaviour normally becomes apparent only after a complaint is made by a client. Clients are often vulnerable people reluctant to complain. Members of Parliament regularly write to me complaining that their constituents have been incompetently or unscrupulously advised.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration advisers have(a) had proceedings instituted against them for, and (b) been convicted of, illegal activity in each of the last five years. [82535]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This is an unregulated market where incompetence and unscrupulous behaviour is largely unmonitored. The information that is available in relation to proceedings for offences under immigration law is shown in the table:

  Number of immigration advisers who have had proceedings instituted against them

  Number of immigration advisers who have been convicted

  1995

  1—

  2

  1996

  1—

  1

  1997

  1—

  1

  1998

  1—

  3

  1999 (to date)

  1

  1

  1 No information available

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to request United Kingdom participation in aspects of the Schengen Agreement under Article 4 of the Protocol upon entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty. [83483]

  Kate Hoey
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), on 12 March 1999,Official Report, columns 380–82. Following that statement, it is intended to submit a written application shortly, under the terms of Article 4 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union. Parliament will be informed of our application.

  Proxy Voting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received in the last 12 months in favour of a review of proxy voting.[83466]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Six letters about proxy voting procedures have been received in the last 12 months though none of them asked specifically for a review. The Home Office Working Party on Electoral Procedures which I chair is examining absent voting generally, along with other electoral issues, and is looking at proxy voting as part of this process.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost of the Criminal Records Bureau providing free criminal records checks for all voluntary organisations whose primary work is with children. [83546]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is intended that all applicants will be required to pay for certificates from the Criminal Records Bureau. It is difficult to estimate what the cost of free certificates would be to the Bureau, as it is not known how many volunteers would be required to apply for certificates, but the cost is potentially enormous. If checks were provided only to new volunteers seeking the higher levels of checks the cost could exceed £10 million a year. If checks were extended to all existing volunteers the cost could be between £40-£1200 million. The cost of the fees for certificates from the Bureau will be kept to the minimum necessary to recoup costs.

  Leicestershire LEA (Ethnic Minority Grants)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much section 11 funding was received by Leicestershire Local Education Authority in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98; what plans he has for the future of Section 11 funding in the next financial year for Leicestershire Local Education Authority; and if he will make a statement.[83166]
  484
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The table shows the section 11 budget allocation to Leicestershire Local Education Authority in relation to each of the years shown:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  2,480,992

  1997–98

  402,117

  1998–99

  412,571

  Note:
  Since 1 April 1997, as a result of local government reorganisation, the City of Leicester has had responsibility for section 11 grant provision within its own boundaries, leaving Leicestershire Local Education Authority with a reduced level of financial provision to cover the rest of the county.

  Responsibility for funding such work was transferred, with effect from 1 April 1999, to the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) under a new Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant. Leicestershire has been notified by the DfEE that its allocation in respect of 1999– 2000 under the new grant programme is £412,571. The DfEE will be consulting local education authorities about arrangements for setting allocations in relation to 2000–01 and subsequent years.

  Public Entertainment Licences
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the regulation known as the two-in-the-bar rule for public entertainment licences; and if he will make a statement. [83295]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Under section 182 of the Licensing Act 1964, a public entertainment licence is not required for live music by up to two performers in any premises where a justices' licence authorising the sale of alcohol is in force. We have no immediate plans to bring forward amendments to this provision; but we are looking at the public entertainment licensing arrangements generally, to see whether any changes are needed.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average waiting time for the determination of an asylum application in(a) the most recent year for which figures are available and (b) the two most recent years. [83017]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) on 26 January 1999,Official Report, column 197, which gives the information requested.

  Sexual Offenders
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people charged with a serious sexual offence were released on bail in the year to 31 March(a) 1998 and (b) 1999. [82912]

  Mr. Boateng
  In 1997, 2,600 people charged with sexual offences were on bail when committed for trial at the Crown Court. Some sexual offences cover a broad spectrum of behaviour but committal to the Crown Court
  485
  indicates that these were the more serious cases including, for example, the vast majority of rape cases. Information for 1998 will become available in the summer.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Home Department when the Immigration and Nationality 486
  Directorate will return the passports of Miss Inderlyn Irano and Benjamin William Fisher, the partner and son of Mr. A. Fisher, of Wigston, Leicestershire. [83094]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have asked for an investigation of this. The file suggests that the passports have been refused and we are asking the post Office for a report, which will take two weeks. I will write to the hon. and learned Member.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

Schengen and the UK's Border Controls: ECC Report
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire rose to move, That this House take note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Schengen and the United Kingdom's Border Controls (7th Report, HL Paper 37).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this debate on a report by Sub-Committee F of the European Communities Committee of your Lordships' House. This is an important report related directly to the Immigration and Asylum Bill that will come before your Lordships' House shortly. In preparing the inquiry the sub-committee drew on the asylum White Paper which is quoted extensively in the report.
British policy on frontier controls and co-operation with other members of the European Union in the whole area of police, justice and home affairs has been symbolically one of the most contentious in British politics. The policy to which the current Government now hold was inherited from their predecessors. That policy made the preservation of British border controls a key symbolic issue of British sovereignty. The Daily Mail and Sun have run many campaigns on the threat of asylum-seekers entering Britain. Usually it relates to somewhere between 50 and 70 Roma from Slovakia—a relatively small number—but the feeling is there. This is not an easy issue and yet it is one that remains open to radical change in terms of the sheer pressure of development.
As I prepared my speech I remembered the first time I went abroad. In 1961 I went all the way to France. It took me over 10 minutes to get out of Dover and, once across the Channel, another 15 minutes standing in a queue and having my passport checked and my bags carefully examined, with a chalk mark put on the corner, to get into Calais. When the two of us—my travelling companion was a fellow student called: Martin Bell who had also never been abroad, although since he has travelled a little bit—at last entered France, we knew that we were in a very foreign country. Now, in the course of my professional life, I use Eurostar far too frequently and my passport is occasionally vaguely glanced at. One travels easily between Britain and another part of the European Union, France. Yet the Home Secretary told us in response to our report that the British Government were committed to maintaining systematic border controls.
Part of the message of the report is that in 1999 the term "systematic border controls" means something astonishingly different from the way such controls
914
were applied 30 years ago. One of the reasons is that the numbers who cross the border between Britain and the Continent continue to rise by between 8 to 10 per cent a year. The figure is now 80 to 90 million a year and, on current projections, by 2001–02 there will be 100 million border crossings a year. Of those, 90 million people will travel between Britain and other members of the European Economic Area—the EU plus Norway, Switzerland and Iceland—and 10 million between Britain and the rest of the world.
The increase in crossings has not been accompanied by a comparable increase in the number of immigration officers. As the report comments, over the past five years, while the number of people crossing British frontiers has increased by 50 per cent, the number of immigration officers has increased by 10 per cent. As witnesses made clear, that has led British governments to adopt an increasingly "light touch approach" to frontier controls. What is now known as the "Bangemann wave", whereby one waves one's passport as one walks, without stopping, past the immigration official at Waterloo, very often passes for British border controls.
Your Lordships may wish to consider whether this is still a systematic border control. Or are we now in the area of semantics and theology as between insistence in Britain that we maintain controls and the selective checks that others in France and elsewhere still apply? The report suggests that the scale of movement makes it no longer entirely practical to hold to the old principles of British border policy. Indeed, we edge a little further on. A French witness told us about the extent to which France applies rather systematic controls along its coast. Those of us who sail in and out of south of England ports and note the remarkably loose controls there wonder whether the mythology of British border controls is matched by a willingness to have a coastguard to enforce those parts of Britain which form the external border of the European Union.
The principle of British border control policy is that we make no distinction over where people arrive from. We make a distinction about nationality. We therefore refuse to segregate those coming on planes to Heathrow from Frankfurt, Schiphol or Paris and those arriving from Entebbe, Lagos or Los Angeles. British Airways and the British Airports Authority assure us that that has advantages. As they see it, the practice increases the attraction of London as a transit point. People can pass through Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester without concern about passport controls. However, it has some disadvantages. Without a common visa regime between Britain and the Continent, residents of third countries who have the right of residence in this country do not automatically have the right also to conduct their business in Amsterdam, Paris and elsewhere.
There are a number of changing advantages and disadvantages in maintaining the current regime. Our report stresses that there are practical as well as ideological questions as to whether or not it is possible to maintain the old regime.
We discuss briefly the question of identity cards. We avoid taking a definite stance. However, we note that identity cards also have advantages and disadvantages.

915
The alternative—to look at people as they go to work or apply for social security—may in many ways be a better method of picking up those who are in this country illegally. We note from the figures that a substantial number of those who are in this country as illegal immigrants arrive as tourists and become illegal as over-stayers. In other words, they have passed entirely legally through our border controls, but their status changes when in the country.
We heard evidence of the number—not easy to quantify—who enter this country secretly in the back of lorries or containers and thus avoid our frontier controls but who may be picked up later. We suggest, therefore, that the debate on identity cards should be re-opened in the context of the future of Britain's asylum, immigration and border control policy.
We touch on a number of other measures. One of the largest issues underlying the inquiry is the extent to which Britain yet again is staying out of the development of a major new area of Community policy. While not entirely happy with the way in which that policy is developing, it will find itself increasingly under pressure to join later. The evidence from police and Home Office witnesses was that they see many advantages in co-operating as much as possible with what is now going on within Schengen. Indeed, joining the Schengen information system is important for police co-operation and for enabling the British police to progress as far as possible in other areas of common policies. When the Amsterdam Treaty is ratified this month, British participants in a number of discussions will sit with the right to speak but without the right to vote.
Two days after publication of our report, the Home Secretary announced that Britain now wished to opt in to almost all areas of Schengen except the border control regime and that a formal application would shortly be submitted to that effect. There will be some interesting politics as to whether or not other governments—for example, the Spanish or the French—will agree that partial application without our accepting all the other elements of the package. As our French witness said, the abolition of border controls and freedom of movement for all citizens within the European Union is at the heart of justice and home affairs—the commitment in the Amsterdam Treaty to create an area of freedom, security and justice.
The Government have inherited from their predecessors a number of inhibitions about European co-operation including a resistance to the European Court of Justice and its having jurisdiction over civil liberties questions. That is extremely important. A number of rather delicate questions about personal information being passed across national boundaries arise. We question whether rights fall between national courts and European jurisdiction and whether the British Government should reconsider its inherited opposition to the European Court of Justice.
A large number of questions arise about how far these new issues come under the first pillar in which the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice have jurisdiction, or whether they should be retained
916
under the intergovernmental third pillar in which national officials take decisions and under which it is harder for outsiders, including your Lordships' House, to discover what is going on.
I commend the report to the House. I hope that it will be useful to the debate today and to future debates on the Information and Asylum Bill when it comes before us. As moves are made in this area, we shall need to follow. It is an area where policy and principles have stayed still as the number of people crossing frontiers has increased, and continues to increase. I suggest that it may be prudent for the Government to think about future changes in policy.
Moved, That this House take note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Schengen and the United Kingdom's Border Controls (7th Report, HL Paper 37). —(Lord Wallace of Saltaire.)
11.18 a.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and his sub-committee are to be congratulated on producing an impressive report which I think we would all agree is most timely not only in view of the Government's Bill which is proceeding through another House and will soon be before this House, but also because of some of the unfortunate events in other parts of Europe.
I am not a member of the sub-committee, but I am a member of the Select Committee on the European Communities to which the report was submitted. Although I have some reservations. I felt that it should be approved and brought for debate before this Chamber. Although I read the draft report when it went to the Select Committee, I had not seen the evidence. However, as normal, it was published with the final report on 2nd March. Having read the evidence given to the sub-committee, particularly that of the organised crime and immigration representatives of the Home Office, I have greater reservations about its substance and main thrust; namely, that the United Kingdom should abolish controls on arrivals at our ports, airports and so on.
I found many of the report's themes compelling and appealing. I endorse the quotation of the famous words of Ernest Bevin of the benefits of freedom of movement:
"My foreign policy is to be able to take a ticket at Victoria station and go anywhere I damn well please".
I welcome the stated objective that the United Kingdom, like other EU member states both present and future, should have no immigration controls at national borders but should rely on and trust in the controls exercised at the external frontiers of the EU.
I recognise, as does the report, that until we end our opt-out we are excluded from participation in the discussions on future developments of Schengen. However, if in calling for a reconsideration of current policy the sub-committee means now, I doubt the desirability and practicality.
As is well known, previous and present UK governments have repeatedly stated that the external frontiers of the Schengen area may not be policed as effectively and to the same standards and controls as

917
exercised by the United Kingdom. That is not necessarily a criticism of how things are done because those countries have vast land borders which, fortunately or otherwise, we do not have. But that is the key argument against change now.
I may not have read every single line of the report, but I see no evidence that the Government are incorrect in their assertions about the weaker controls exercised by other countries in the EU at many of the external frontiers. Of course, it can be said that controls by our UK consulates abroad and checks within the UK—for example, when people enter as tourists and overstay, and on a person's immigration status when he or she applies for social security, access to health services and so forth—are becoming much more important than border controls. But is the report right and logical to state that that justifies ending our border controls? Just because border controls have become less significant or important, does that mean that this is the moment they should be abolished? The noble Lord suggested that our UK border controls are now symbolic, but I suggest that they are still more than that.
At page 17, the report states that,
"one Schengen state, at least"—
I think it refers to France—
"suggests that … there has been no loss of efficiency",
in controlling illegal immigration and organised crime from the ending of national border controls and that the,
"strengthened cross-border co-operation which has resulted has been beneficial to all of the participating states".
In view of what has happened since the publication of the report and the British Government's application to opt into a number of aspects of Schengen, I do not see why strengthened cross-border co-operation and co-operation between the police forces of different member states need to be dependent on Britain ending UK border controls. Surely this country and all other countries inside and outside Schengen have much to gain from improved police and immigration control co-operation.
Although the French representative who gave evidence to the sub-committee may have had good reason to be optimistic, I wonder what the evidence might have been from some of the other member states. I was intrigued that the noble Lord mentioned that subject only in passing. I wonder about it because France, like most other EU member states, has a system of identity cards. The report is correct in saying that identity cards are not a requirement of Schengen, but surely no UK Government with responsibility for immigration controls and concern about organised crime are likely to be willing to end UK border controls without introducing some such requirement in this country. It would be inappropriate to consider in this debate all the many practical, civil liberties and privacy arguments which can be made for and against identity cards, but until that debate is resolved—it has barely started—the UK Government cannot possibly see its way to relaxing or abolishing border controls any more than they have done.
918
Of course, they have relaxed the controls, as the noble Lord described in his different experiences of travelling in the 1960s and in the 1990s. The lighter touch of which he spoke is evidence to us all as we move through the ports and airports within the European Union—
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before my noble friend moves from that point, perhaps I may confirm that the committee, in recommending the loosening of frontier controls, did not recommend the introduction of identity cards. Perhaps the noble Lord will also reflect on the fact that there are many other ways in which citizens can be identified as they go about their business in their own countries; for example, by driving licences bearing both a photograph and a signature.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, of course I recognise that, and I notice that the Minister, Ms Kate Hoey, when giving evidence to the sub-committee of which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was a member, mentioned that she held a driving licence bearing a photograph because she was used to travelling in Northern Ireland where it was common practice. No doubt such an alternative form of identification is helpful as a substitute, because not everyone holds a driving licence; and no doubt the noble Lord will expand on his remarks in due course when he speaks in the debate. However, I maintain my principal point; that if the sub-committee is asking the Government to reconsider ending UK border controls now or in the near future before we have agreed any such system of identity, that is premature.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to the position immediately after the war and to the current position. It was a most interesting comparison. Not Icing after World War II, when Ernest Bevin spoke his forthright words about freedom of movement, there was a great deal of optimism, at least about the longer term. Later in 1958, when the Treaty of Rome was signed, there was also a great deal of optimism. Undoubtedly, much nearer to the present day, in 1989, there was a moment of tremendous optimism when the Berlin Wall came down. That was not only because of the new freedom of the individual to move across what had been that appalling wall, but also because of the greater possibilities and likelihood of prosperity for all.
There have been less encouraging developments in Europe and in places outside Europe. I imagine that we must all have in mind what has happened in recent months and years in Yugoslavia. The end consequences are uncertain. Different EU countries, as is already evident, have taken different views and attitudes on different kinds of refugees. On the one hand, there are refugees from Kosovo, and on the other, so-called "economic immigrants" from Serbia. As yet, there is no common immigration policy in the EU; let alone in the somewhat wider area which includes important, significant applicant countries to the EU. A common immigration policy is a declared aspiration of Schengen; it is not a reality.

919
Therefore, no one can be particularly optimistic at present. The policies of the UK Government must surely be based on realistic current concerns as well as on ideals. This is not the best moment for radical change in our policy on border controls.
11.31 a.m.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Borne, during whose excellent speech my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare said to me, "John", in the familiar way which he sometimes has, "Why are you muttering 'drat' to yourself?" I explained to my noble friend that as the noble Lord, Lord Borne, made point after point I was rapidly having to delete points from the speech which I had carefully prepared overnight. I shall not tire the House by repeating what the noble Lord said, although I agree with much of it.
I must congratulate the chairman of the committee and his colleagues on this clear and well written report. It is easy to understand, although I could not understand the gap that there seemed to be between a lot of the evidence and many of the conclusions of the report. However, I read the evidence in the report with great care because it concerns the Home Office. Twelve years ago to this month I first went to the Home Office as a Minister. There I met young, aspiring civil servants. One used to ask, "Who are the good ones in the Home Office?", and the names of certain bright, fast-travelling, young civil servants were endlessly put forward. The names were Abbott, Boys-Smith and Warne. Those were the people who, 12 years later, gave evidence to the sub-committee. They are no longer bright, young things; they have travelled and arrived and are directors, or directors general all. I congratulate them on what they said and the way in which they said it. I only wish that the committee had listened more carefully to those sources and their measured evidence which goes back years.
I was also much moved by, and greatly applaud, the evidence given by the Minister, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ms Hoey, MP. I do not seek to damage her career in any way at all, but I thought that what she said was wisdom on stilts. I agreed with it all. She is as sensible about border controls as she is about the need to preserve fox-hunting, on which she has taken such an independent stand on the Labour Benches. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and his colleagues, who include a number of my colleagues, had listened more carefully to what she had to say.
There are three reasons why I disagree profoundly with the committee and its conclusions. I shall not attempt to repeat points that the noble Lord, Lord Borne, made earlier with such force and eloquence. First, it is important that we recognise the fact of geography. I know that the present Government are in favour of the "dumbing down" of geography. I understand that last week a report came out saying that school children should no longer be taught where things are, the names of rivers and capital cities. I hope that the Government can be persuaded not to follow that course.
920
I believe that it is obvious to all of us, including the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who crossed the Channel to Calais in such interesting company in 1961, that we are an island. We share a land border only with the Republic of Ireland. It is an entirely logical and pragmatic decision to say that, as we are an island, the logical place to have border checks and controls is where people cross the sea, whether by plane or boat or under the sea through the Channel Tunnel.
I also sympathise with the committee in its attempts to struggle with the English language. It got into a terrible muddle about "borders" and "frontiers". I believe that it was trying to say that "frontiers" are hard, nasty and old-fashioned and that "borders" are softer, easy and more permeable, and that we should be more concerned with "borders".
I believe that the Government are absolutely right. Frontier controls are an effective means of controlling immigration and of combating terrorism and other crime. I also believe that the Government are right when they say that their present controls,
"match both the geography and traditions of the country and have ensured a high degree of personal freedom within the UK".
I believe that the Government are right in that. If Europe is to succeed, it must be able to embrace differences, including differences of geography, such as recognising that the United Kingdom is substantially a country geared by island borders or frontiers—to use whatever phrase one wants—and that we should make use of that. There is nothing extraordinary, unusual or anti-European in that.
For the avoidance of doubt, in case any noble Lords think that this is a speech from some head-banging, xenophobic, anti-European Member of the House, I made my first public speech in favour of Europe during the referendum campaign in the 1970s. One always remembers one's first public speech, just as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, remembered his first trip across the Channel, and just as one remembers other things done for the first time.
I went to the village hall of Wootton, under Boar's Hill in Oxfordshire, and spoke to an enthralled audience about the need for us to be involved in Europe. My noble friend Lord Archer says, sotto voce, "How many were present?" There were three in the audience: my agent, the hall-keeper and a lady who had been out walking her dog, so I suppose it was a total of four. I have not changed my mind since, but what I have said about immigration controls and the need to fight terrorism, organised crime and economic crime is based on pragmatic reasons and has nothing to do with being anti-European.
The second reason why I disagree so profoundly with the committee, in its excellent and clearly written report, is that, with the permeability of EEA boundaries, I can well understand why countries need to have internal checks and why most countries, although not all countries within Schengen, have identity cards. I am absolutely against compulsory identity cards in this country for a range of reasons that may lead me to stray outside our practices in this House. However, I do not believe that there is any point in talking about Schengen

921
without talking about identity cards. If anyone wants to bring forward proposals that we should adopt Schengen lock, stock and barrel, including the SIS, they will also have to say that we need identity cards. That is the debate. I think the noble Lord, Lord Borne, set out the parameters of the debate excellently.
I shall not attempt to elaborate again on what he said, except perhaps to opine that I believe that identity cards would be deleterious to a host of matters in this country, including race relations and minorities who feel threatened. They also run counter, I believe, to the tradition of the ancient liberties of the British people as much as they run counter to new-style civil liberties. Sometimes a civil liberty appears to be one simply because one says, "If I call it a civil liberty, it is a civil liberty". But the concept of introducing Schengen-like mechanisms to protect our borders, our frontiers, cannot be sensibly advanced without a full and proper discussion on identity cards. I should have liked that to be recognised by the sub-committee. It could then have gone the whole hog, gripped this issue and stated its views. We cannot practically disengage one from the other.
I come to the third and last reason in my short remarks—all the shorter because the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, covered so much of the ground that I had intended to cover. We must recognise that underlying this drive within Europe to have Schengen and identity cards in due course is the desire to have a single European judicial space. I speak as someone relaxed about Europe, as I said earlier. We hear that everywhere in the inelegant jargon of Brussels. Alas, governments, whether the British Government in Whitehall or the European Commission, always slip into jargon. I do not criticise them for that; it is not unique to Brussels and it is not xenophobic to criticise what goes on in Brussels, but that is what Brussels wants. It is on the record. It has been said time and again. People wish to move from Schengen and internal controls into considerable harmonisation of justice and home affairs, to which the committee referred on page 18 of its report.
Let us all be aware, and let the people of Britain be aware, that we are not talking only about frontier and border controls; we are talking about the impact that the measures that must follow (such as compulsory identity cards) will have on our ancient and our new civil liberties in this country and on what I believe to be a profoundly un-European concept of trying to harmonise cultural differences within different parts of Europe. That is what laws do; they reflect the cultural differences of "this" country against "that" country.
I welcome the report. It started a good debate and I hope that that debate will continue. I congratulate the chairman and his colleagues on the way in which they have promoted the debate.
11.42 a.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I was privileged to be a member of Sub-Committee F, whose report is now before the House for discussion. It was not an easy remit. We owe a great deal to our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who steered
922
us through some of our occasional disagreements so that we eventually produced a unanimous report. I should like to place on record my thanks to him for that.
It would be true to say that we all thought that freedom of movement throughout the EEA would be highly desirable. That is why we quoted Ernest Bevin's well-known comment that his foreign policy was to be able to take a ticket at Victoria Station and go anywhere he damn well pleased. Clearly the implication was that he would not need a passport to do it. Unfortunately, we are a long way from achieving that.
As the report explains, the UK is not a party to the Schengen agreement which was designed to facilitate the creation of an area without internal border controls. However, there are compensatory measures to increase: security at the external frontier, so we were informed. in order to fight illegal immigration and to try to deal with crime through co-operation between police forces.
As we heard, the Government have continued the policy of the last government which has been to maintain our internal frontier controls with other member states. As part of its remit, therefore, the committee had to examine the extent to which the Government are justified in maintaining this stance. We were left in no doubt at all that the Government hold to their view very strongly indeed. The Minister, Kate Hoey, whom we saw, re-emphasised that.
Reference was made to the protocols secured at the Amsterdam Treaty negotiations and to the White Paper on asylum and immigration policy. We shall, of course, shortly be having a Bill on asylum and immigration for discussion in this Chamber, but we did riot consider that Bill as part of our remit. We may find, unless it has been amended in the other place, that that will give rise to a great deal of controversy when it eventually comes here.
The Government clearly believe that the present border controls are necessary, not only to control immigration but also to help law enforcement. The committee therefore paid some attention to that latter point. As will be seen from the report, we saw M. Michel Pinauldt, the French representative of the Central Group of Schengen. We also saw Mr. Frank Gallagher of the European Liaison Unit of the Kent Constabulary, as well as representatives of the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
The impression we gained was that there was already considerable co-operation with other police forces within the EU, but that this would be much enhanced were the UK a full participant in what is known as the Schengen Information System. The Government wish to opt into the system and are giving careful consideration to this, based on the need to ensure effective co-operation within Europe to tackle organised crime. They clearly believe that it would be possible to opt into Schengen and still remain outside Schengen.
It is quite clear that there is a strong, perhaps emotional, commitment based on history and tradition in support of the present government policy. Britain's island geography is felt to give it an advantage when it comes to illegal immigration and control of organised

923
crime which the Government do not wish to lose. They clearly believe that they will if they depart from current policy.
The committee wondered whether those so-called advantages are not now largely illusory. It was felt that there was perhaps more to be gained by joining up with the other Schengen countries where it would be possible to have some influence on future policy than to stay outside and attempt to influence policy by external pressure.
We realised, of course, that if the present system of border controls was discarded, the Government may want to look at other methods, particularly identity cards, to which reference has already been made in the debate. It must be said that there was no agreement among committee members on this point. Some of my colleagues are in favour. I remain very much against. I am old enough to remember the joy with which identity cards were discontinued after the last war. Moreover, this century has been remarkable for the way in which totalitarian systems have flourished. Fortunately, we have escaped. But such systems like to have citizens docketed and labelled, and that enables them to restrict freedom of movement internally. After all, it was Stalin who introduced (or rather re-introduced) the infamous internal passport system. I remain against identity cards. The members of the committee agreed that civil rights concerns would have to be addressed should the Government decide that they had to proceed on those lines. We also noted that identity cards are not a requirement of Schengen; neither do they exist in all Schengen states.
We supported strongly the notion of participation in the Schengen Information System, though in that regard we had some civil rights misgivings which we felt should be further explored. The system stores an enormous amount of information about individuals. Access to it seems fairly easy and we had considerable doubts about whether the requirements of our data protection legislation would be adequately fulfilled. In particular, we felt it would be difficult for individuals to challenge false information and if that information remained on record it could be extremely damaging without the individual concerned having any easy redress. We all agreed that that aspect must be further examined. It was noted that Justice, an organisation whose submissions to us certainly impressed me, shared our views on that.
As our report indicates, we came eventually to the view that there is a strong case for the UK to re-examine its position on Schengen. As we said in our report, we do not feel that the status quo remains a viable long-term option. The continuing trend is for greater movement. We believe that that should be facilitated. Moreover, as other speakers have already said, the present situation indicates that we are going to have to look carefully at the whole question of asylum seekers and what is to be done in that connection.
We share Ernest Bevin's ideal, though we know that we are quite a long way from achieving it. I commend the report to your Lordships.
11.48 a.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I begin with the usual courtesy of paying tribute to the authors of the report for the clarity of their expression and, above all—and quite genuinely—for mobilising a great deal of interesting and relevant information. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that that is expressed quite sincerely.
Beyond that, frankly, the report does not represent the Select Committee's finest hour; nor are matters improved by the end quotation which cites dear old Ernie Bevin and which was no doubt designed to entice people like myself to give the report the benefit of the doubt. I had the greatest respect for Ernie Bevin, who achieved many, many things. But when he made that statement, his mind was far more focused on the problem of Trojan horses jumping out of Pandora's Box than on the serious issues of immigration and border control.
There are two elements to this debate. The first is the purely practical argument for the proposed change or retention of our system and the second is the ideological argument. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, knows exactly what I mean.
There has been a great increase in the number of passengers entering United Kingdom ports. That will continue. The obvious conclusion is that it would be a good idea to increase the number of immigration and passport officials. Of course we should do that, and that should have been the report's principal recommendation.
We have heard excellent speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and from my noble friends Lord Borne and Lady Turner. The question of identity cards inevitably looms. I join in the general distaste, indeed repugnance, over their introduction or reintroduction. Having read the evidence, I find it extraordinary that support for universal identity cards should come from the Lib Dem party. Indeed, we had the almost unbelievable statement that a great contribution would be made to improving race relations if everyone had an identity card and frequently showed it. No, that really will not do.
I do not believe that I have a better view of our continental neighbours than Select Committee members, but I do not believe either that our neighbours would willingly withhold information that was of importance and of use to British authorities simply out of pique or on the ground that we were cherry-picking advantages from Schengen. We know a lot about villains in our country, and that is of importance to colleagues and friends across the Channel. Equally, they have information that is relevant and important to us. We shall continue to exchange such information. Indeed, we are doing very well with Europol and Interpol, and all the other arrangements that work so excellently.
I see some difficulty with SIS. Computerised systems that record every complaint must be looked at carefully if we are to avoid the sort of situation quoted in the report in which an unhappy New Zealand lady could get no further than Schiphol airport because she had

925
demonstrated years ago against French nuclear tests in the Pacific. That is not a very good reason for denying her entry into the European Union.
The onus of proof in this matter thus lies with the advocates for change, and they have not discharged that burden.
I turn to the most important part. I do not have any phobias about Europe. I rather like the people I know on the Continent. But it is a function of the state to control who may come and settle within its borders. The state is not discharging its duty if it does not exercise that control. Of course it is important to have such controls to combat drugs, crime and terrorism. But a state should also be able to determine its own policy on immigration and decide to whom it wishes to extend advantages because of, perhaps, special connections.
It was argued that British immigration control should not be given up under section 4 of the Amsterdam Treaty because some favours should be bestowed on those Commonwealth countries with which we have been long associated. That is exactly as it should be. If we have any self-respect as a nation, we should continue to demand control of our immigration and visa policies, and so on. As long as we have the will and capacity to continue as a sovereign state, we should defend that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I should like to clarify the point about our generosity towards members of the Commonwealth. All Australians and New Zealanders still need a visa for this country. However, from 1st August 1998, Australians and, I believe, New Zealanders no longer required visas for France and Spain. The story about the visas is rather confusing.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I believe that the English need visas for both Australia and New Zealand.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I cannot assist in this interesting exchange.
There is a lack of fundamental honesty. Those who want us to abandon our border controls and to hand over, under the Amsterdam Treaty, within the next five years, control of our immigration, asylum and visa policies, and so on, do not have the courage to advocate openly a federal Europe. They want to dismantle the British state because they believe that a better system will he created only if we merge completely with our continental neighbours. I believe in friendship and co-operation with them, but I believe also in the continuation and power of the British state.
11.58 a.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I speak as a member of the sub-committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. As he introduced the report so comprehensively and clearly, I shall put no further gloss on it.
However, I shall comment on the decision that the Government have reached in seeking participation in some of the Schengen activities relating to police co-operation, including the SIS, while maintaining our existing system of frontier controls for all comers. My
926
understanding is that that decision has been taken but that the formal application has not yet been lodged. When that has been done it will presumably fall to the Commission to examine it and for the other member states to decide.
The Home Secretary writes in his letter to us that when he communicated his decision to our partners at a recent meeting they, including France, welcomed it. However, I read a press report about that meeting which said that the Spanish representative criticised this approach on the grounds that it was cherry-picking. This is interesting in that Spain has a particular reason to examine our decision because of its direct relevance to the border controls between Gibraltar and Spain—a lively issue—and because the expression "cherry-picking" cropped up in our discussion with the Parliamentary Secretary on 10th February. It occurs to me that the Spanish authorities as well as our own have been studying our report. The attitude of Spain will be crucial to our request and is much as we predicted in our discussion with the Parliamentary Secretary, Kate Hoey.
Before proceeding further I should comment on some of the points which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Borne, in his very effective speech. The best of his points was his reference to the weakness in the external controls on the long land frontiers of the existing European Union. He has a point there, but the more serious point is the weakness of the borders of the acceding states in the case of a further enlargement. This is a matter which will have to be considered very seriously in the enlargement negotiations. I concede that the problem exists. I saw it for myself when living in Italy 10 years ago, visiting a fishing port on the south-western coast of Sicily and seeing the arrival of a weekly ship from Tunisia. A flood of people emerged from this ship, walked off the quay and disappeared into the countryside. There was no effective control. The problem does exist. I believe that the member states who suffer from it are attempting to take steps to deal with it.
The noble Lord questioned whether future police co-operation should be dependent upon full membership of Schengen. One may indeed ask why that is so. All we said in our report was that the evidence available to us suggested that the authorities in continental countries would not be able to continue the existing informal communications they make to us if we do not join Schengen. We take that as a reasonably well-established fact. We may not like it but we have to take account of it. If we stay outside Schengen, or only as a limited member of it, we will not be able to receive the valuable intelligence from continental police authorities which we receive at present.
His third point related to identity cards, and this has been taken up by a number of other speakers in the debate. We had considerable discussion among ourselves about identity cards and the subject has, of course, been debated on the Floor of this House on a number of occasions. I was interested to learn from listening to the points made by members of the committee that there was by no means the general view adopted by a number of speakers such as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and the noble Lord, Lord Shore, about the need for identity cards to accompany a lowering of our

927
frontiers. This is something which I personally do not readily understand. However, if it is desired for this matter to be pursued further, we could perhaps have a debate about it on another occasion.
I do of course understand that the Government have serious long-term responsibilities in this area and that their decision was not an easy one. For a number of reasons I personally regret their decision about a partial application to Schengen: first, because it shows that, contrary to expectation and hope, this Government have maintained the policy of half co-operation in Europe which has dogged us for so many years. This is not the spirit in which the Labour Party solicited votes on European matters at the last election. This decision will be widely noticed in European capitals as a significant continuation of the "half in, half out" policies of earlier British governments since the signature of the Treaty of Rome. They, and some of us in this Chamber, had hoped for a different and more positive approach. I certainly did.
I also regret the Government's partial decision since I believe it to be based on attitudes and opinions which look questionable. All experience of the modus operandi of the European Union and its institutions indicates that the right way to influence policy is to be a full partner from the inception of a new policy or institution, the clearest and most painful example being, as we all know, the common agricultural policy. I draw attention to the remark of one of our witnesses, Mr. Adrian Fortescue, who said:
"I have never yet seen an example where the United Kingdom's position was easier by joining in later".
Many of us would agree with that sentiment. There are important matters to be decided shortly regarding the protection of data on the SIS computer systems, for example, in which we have a strong interest, as has already been remarked upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and as a later report from the sub-committee will make even clearer. If we are not a full partner our views will carry little weight.
There are some matters of significant detail in the Home Office arguments which look dubious to me. In his letter to our chairman the Home Secretary writes:
"systematic frontier controls are the best arrangement for the United Kingdom. I am not persuaded by comparisons with France, which has an entirely different geography".
Of course the Home Secretary is right about the geography: yes, the Channel exists. But the point we were making was rather different, namely, that it is the common experience of our partners that illegal immigration is not regularly prevented by frontier controls but by the receipt of intelligence from friendly police forces and by subsequent checks on social security payments and tax investigations. It is these parallel measures which lead to the discovery of illegal immigrants. The majority of illegal immigrants seem to have entered quite legally and to have overstayed their sojourn. Maintaining frontier controls, whatever their symbolic importance may be, does little or nothing to prevent this happening. We quoted our French witness, to whom the Home Secretary objected, because he gave
928
us a particularly clear and authoritative account of the situation in his country, and his experience is not dissimilar from that of our British official witnesses.
There are problems connected with the frontier controls. They have a certain symbolic importance of course, but it has become pretty symbolic. I happen to live close to an estuary on the coast of eastern England where the closure of the coastguard station, which previously controlled the entry into a small river, has been abandoned. It is now manned on a voluntary basis at holiday weekends in the summer. There is every reason to suppose that funny activities are going on here but we no longer seem to have the resources to deal with them.
I question whether we are right to maintain the existing differentiation at ports of entry between holders of British and European passports and everyone else, regardless of the origin of their travel. Controls in Schengen countries follow the quite different distinction between travellers from other Schengen countries on the one hand and those from elsewhere. Our practice effectively ignores the presence on our doorstep of a large common travel area from which we have deliberately cut ourselves off. This is a matter of some long-term significance. It also means that our citizens travelling in the opposite direction will be treated as aliens on arrival at continental ports of entry and may be subject to long delays. The supposed advantage of a machine-readable common format passport will not be available at such points of entry so far as I know. In my own experience recently every detail had to be checked on a computer screen. Although the Parliamentary Secretary assured us that we have machines which can "swipe"—the word she used—the new common format passport, I have held one of these passports for a year and it has never been swiped by any passport control officer.
It is also argued that the expense of converting our immigration control system into separate channels for EC and non-EC passport holders at airports and ports will be excessive. A figure of several hundred million pounds per airport was mentioned. I am sceptical about these figures and I hope that the Government will have them assessed independently. I suggest that where new terminals are designed, such as Terminal 5 at Heathrow (if it is built), the layout will be such that flexible adaptation to a two-channel system will be made possible without wholesale reconstruction. We were told that the recent conversion of Schiphol airport terminals had been horrendously expensive. No doubt airport operators are happy to have their premises expensively modernised at government expense but such large changes should not be necessary. I recall a time in the 1980s when, following a terrorist incident at Hellenikon airport in Athens, we decided to process passengers coming from Athens through a separate channel. This was done quite quickly without undue fuss and expense with flexible barriers and prominent notices in Greek. So it can be done. As the proverb says:
"Where there's a will, there's a way".
It seems to me that what is missing is the will. I suggest to the Government that it is a mistake to regard these issues as technical matters only to be determined

929
on the basis of administrative convenience and domestic experience. The decision conveyed in the Home Secretary's letter is a high-profile matter, which will have an unfortunate repercussion in other European capitals. It will also prove difficult to execute in practice as we depend on the assent of other member states which may well not be readily forthcoming. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be able to reconsider the decisions they have taken in the matter, which I believe will turn out to be difficult to sustain.
Of course, we are the inheritors of a very strict system of passport control. We may think that it serves our purposes as well, but it also leads to some very peculiar results. One episode amusingly described in a novel written by Evelyn Waugh is worth recalling. It relates to a traveller returning from abroad after an absence of some time who is, perhaps, rather dishevelled. He attracts the attention of a Customs officer who obliges him to open his rucksack. When he does so, the latter rifles through the contents, picks up a book and holds it up in triumph saying, "Ah! 'The Works of Aristotle-Illustrated Edition', I knows real filth when I see it". It is those old-fashioned attitudes that I believe we have to alter.
12.11 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, perhaps I may begin with an apology to my noble friend Lord Shore and to the House as a whole over my little exchange with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. It seemed to me that if your Lordships were going to move from the subject of the Schengen Accord to an entirely different subject—namely, the immigration visa policy between ourselves and the Antipodes—we should do so on a proper factual basis.
I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, sitting on the Woolsack. It was a great pleasure to receive the invitation from him, as the chairman of our European Committee, to serve on Sub-Committee F when my time was up on Sub-Committee E. Therefore, I have once again had the pleasure of serving under a very able, very intelligent and highly diligent chairman. I join with other noble Lords in thanking and praising our chairman who guided us through the report and through its sensitive issues in a way which received the support of the entire committee.
Perhaps I may make a general comment upon our committee reports because it is directly germane to this debate. I believe that they continue to make a most significant contribution in the European Union, of which we are a full treaty member. I understand from some quarters that it is thought our reports appear to have a pro-EU stance. Indeed, it might even be said of this report that it appears to have this stance. Therefore, I should like to say a few words on that point.
First, I do not believe that that is true of either this report or of other reports produced by the committees upon which I have served. If the proper test of scrutiny is applied, all committees which I know of—and I have participated in and been a member of both Sub-Committee E and Sub-Committee F—have taken their scrutiny role most seriously and have critically
930
examined the EC or EU measure before them. In doing so, they have come out with important points, as indeed we do in this report, for and against the subject matter.
It is quite natural that our reports should be positive because the purpose is to persuade the UK Government, the Commission, the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament that improvements should be made. That is why I believe that our reports are so influential. It is also natural that those who serve on these committees should be interested in the European Union and its development. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords not present in the House today, especially my noble friend the Government Chief Whip, and the noble Lords the Opposition Chief Whip and the Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrats, will read these comments in Hansard. I believe them to be true. I also believe that they express views which are generally held in this House.
I said that these comments were germane to our report because in the very last paragraph of it—indeed, in the last line of the last clause of it—we say:
"Weaker United Kingdom influence over the development of European policies will mean that such policies will reflect the preferences of others, and fail to take into account particular United Kingdom concerns".
Therefore, it was very heartening to receive a copy of the letter that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary sent to my noble friend—if I may describe him as such—the chairman of Sub-Committee F. In that letter the Home Secretary said:
"We share the view of the committee that it is in the best interests of the United Kingdom to be involved as far as possible in the development of the European-wide policies on these sensitive issues".
I thought that they were warming words. I, too, have been warmed by the willingness of the Home Secretary to accept important recommendations in our report and, most particularly, the recommendation about increased police co-operation and participation in the Schengen Information System.
It is not a case of our report being rejected by the Government. Although the entirety of the report has not been accepted, important items in it have been accepted. Once again—I return to the point which I made previously—that shows that the role of our reports is to influence our own Government and other bodies in the European Union. When that proves to be the case, we have succeeded in our task. I also share the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Bridges. I regret that the entirety of our report has not been accepted. I shall not repeat the arguments put forward by my noble friend but, suffice it to say, I agree with what he said.
In my few further words to your Lordships, I intend to concentrate on the issue of the frontier border. In doing so, I wish to emphasise that we were making a positive contribution on the issue. From the evidence that we received we concluded that the European Union and the peoples of the European Union would be better served on such important matters as dealing with crime and immigration by a frontier system which was not a symbolic one but one which ran effectively through

931
co-operation among member states. In short, it should be a frontier system which was selective in nature rather than a formal systematic one.
The chairman of our committee remembered going abroad in 1961—namely, to France—and recalled the diligence with which he and his distinguished fellow traveller were treated at both Dover and Calais. I believe it was a matter of 15 minutes' diligence at Dover and 20 minutes' diligence at Calais, after which he ended up with chalk marks on his luggage. Indeed, I and other noble Lords well remember the treatment that we received when we went through Customs control in our younger days.
We also know from our present travels, for business or pleasure, that we frequently now find ourselves going through Customs clearance. We know that great numbers of us go through the green line and few of us go through the red line to disclose the odd item. We know that as we go through the green channel, often there are not any Customs officials there at all. If they are there, they take cursory looks at the busy throngs of passengers passing through the line. On the basis of numbers only, clearly one cannot have a tight, effective frontier control system just run through the formal frontier itself.
It was important to our committee to receive evidence from, for example, France, which said that the removal of the formal frontier resulted in better co-operation between respective police forces and a better system for detecting those who were carrying illegal goods over the frontier. We should remember that under Schengen we are entitled for reasons of national need to impose without notice formal frontier checks. It is much better to introduce formal frontier checks by surprise than to have them there permanently. If one wishes to carry illegal goods over the frontier and one knows that there is a formal frontier post, one will take precautions to avoid detection; in other words, one will be on the alert as one goes through the area.
As far as concerns the United Kingdom, we should remind ourselves that our frontier is indeed different from the land frontiers of other countries in the European Union; sometimes they have mountains, sometimes they have fields. However, it should not be thought that our sea frontier protects us better. The sea gives us a long, long coastline—I cannot remember the length of the coastline around the United Kingdom—and in calm weather and on non-moonlit nights it enables goods to be brought over which do not pass through any formal frontier.
Our views expressed on the issue of the frontier were practical and based upon the experience of those who gave evidence. I would remind your Lordships most particularly—although we did not receive specific evidence on it—about our relationship with Ireland. I need not remind your Lordships about the problem of serious crime passing through our frontier with Ireland—lorries have come through the frontier to blow up the City of London—but we do not have a formal frontier between Ireland and the United Kingdom. One
932
result of that has been much better co-operation between ourselves and the Irish police and a much better chance of detection.
The bottom line, the position which our report has taken—which I endorse in its entirety—is that it is better to have effective frontiers than symbolic, non-effective frontiers.
12.23 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the chairman and so many members of the committee in commending the report to the House. Many noble Lords have spoken and all have demonstrated their areas of expertise.
The chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in commending the report to the House, has spoken—as have many others who spoke after him—about border controls, the significant part of the Schengen acquis which the Government did not embrace. It is not for me to follow that line of reasoning as many other noble Lords have already done so with great effectiveness.
This is a vastly important report. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, commented on the committee's role to influence government. I believe that the report and its predecessor, its sister report of last year, has not only influenced government but has allowed more of us in this House and in the other place to participate in the Government's recent decision to incorporate some elements of the Schengen acquis than would otherwise have been the case. The Schengen acquis is a very complex issue. Indeed, we have heard that the Home Secretary describes it as an issue that touches on many sensitivities. I hope to enlarge upon that point and bring it to the attention of your Lordships. I welcome the Government's decision to embrace the parts of the Schengen acquis that they have already achieved and where they have already set up the groundwork for future framework partnerships.
Apart from allowing us to intervene in these debates, the report has much value because it is increasingly important that the United Kingdom becomes a more truly active player in a wider range of multilateral organisations and agreements, particularly in the European Union, than we have been for the preceding 18 years. Both globally and regionally, for economic, political, defence and social reasons, we have to be a key player. As an island, we are increasingly tied now to other countries and therefore geographical borders, including our own, have become increasingly irrelevant to many of our activities. As we all know, our economy depends now in very large part on closer ties with our partners in the European Union. Our political future requires close co-operation with our European partners in many areas of communication and movement.
I propose now to talk about the Schengen information flow, which has received only a light touch from earlier speakers today. I spoke about it in the previous debate on Schengen on 6th November 1998. I urged the Government then to enter formally the Schengen

933
Information System at the earliest possible opportunity. In relation to the point I made, the Government spokesman. the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, replied:
"I was not surprised that she"—
referring to myself—
"pushed the Government to go further than I or anyone else on these Benches or the Government Benches in another place are prepared to go at the moment". —[Official Report, 6/11/98; col.486.1
Soon afterwards the Government went further and declared that they would be incorporating the Schengen Information System at the earliest possible opportunity.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, quoted Evelyn Waugh in his remarks. I go a little further. Like Oliver Twist, it is my right and duty on behalf of the citizens of the European Union to ask the Government for more. That is what I now propose to do.
It would be a tempting diversion to comment upon the travel aspects of the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, but if I were to talk about my own travels I fear that I might waste the time of your Lordships' House, save for amusement. Nonetheless, at about the time the noble Lord was travelling to France I flew to Africa. I went in a hurry to sort out a computer problem in a central African republic. I knew it would be a fast trip and so I took one cotton dress in a Marks and Spencer bag. When I returned I had that little bag with me and two vital pieces of information, two computer hard disks which contained the erroneous computer bootstrap routine which was wrecking that particular government's pension plan. I had considerable difficulty with the Customs. They would not let me through. "Madam, where is your luggage. We do not believe that you went to central Africa with one plastic bag and came back with these disks. Until you tell us where your suitcase is and what is in it, we will not let you through". I tell that story to illustrate to the House that the most valuable thing I was carrying was not goods but knowledge. Today, that hard disk knowledge could be transferred by e-mail. We are an information-based society. The flow of knowledge and the ability to manipulate that knowledge are the keys to power and success.
Now that we have so properly announced our intention to enter the Schengen Information System, I am concerned that we should grasp the opportunity to protect the individual citizens on whom that system collects such large amounts of knowledge. In the Home Secretary's statement to the committee outlining the Government's positive approach to Schengen, he stated clearly that the Schengen Information System exists for law enforcement and judicial co-operation. That is correct. but I would suggest that our Government, above all others, must, as a newcomer to the Schengen Information System, take this opportunity to look at the ways in which that information on our citizens and on non-citizens from third countries—asylum-seekers—can be protected. I suggest that there is a dichotomy here and one that goes further than the usual conflict between the growth of liberty and the growth of knowledge about citizens. We have to become more technical because it is technology and technical issues that bite on an individual's freedom of speech or movement. This is
934
not a broad-brush philosophical issue but a matter of practicalities. Technology is the key on which our citizens' freedom will stand or fall in future.
In the United Kingdom we have at last embraced the European Convention on Human Rights, with Article 8 on personal privacy. Unwillingly under the previous government and now more willingly under the present Government, we are starting to incorporate the 1996 European Union directive on data protection into our law. Although the Data Protection Act 1998 is being brought on stream slowly, it is nonetheless on the way. I thank the Government for that. However, I remind the House that the only data protection demands the Schengen Information System places on member states which participate in it are those outlined in the 1981 Council of Europe convention. That convention was the father and mother and indeed the grandparents of the consequential European Union data protection legislation. However, it is very old. It went to print in 1981. It was more than 10 years in gestation before that. Governments are worse than elephants. They take far longer to bring things to birth. The convention's gravest weaknesses are its complete ignorance of controlled-circuit television, its reliance on the integrity of paper records—therefore, paper records are barely drawn into the 1981 convention—and its complete ignorance of digital telephonic transmission. Set-top boxes, which are being given to consumers free of charge by at least one major broadcasting organisation, had not been invented at that time.
We know how much life has moved on since 1981. Many things have happened in terms of the capture of data, their incorporation, their merging and their transmission which were unknown then. Will the Government grasp this challenge? Will they undertake to look at why the Schengen Information System relies on the antiquated and outdated convention of 1981, fine though it was in its day? It was the forerunner of draft directives and consequential legislation in member states but it is nonetheless so out of date that it is to all intents and purposes of little value. That is my first request. When the Government are looking at that, will they look also at the growth of data in the electronic era? Computing power has doubled every 18 months for the past 30 years. It now costs less than 1 per cent. of its 1970 cost. In 1980 telephone calls over copper wire carried one page of information per second. Now, optical fibre transports 90,000 volumes in a second. The electronic era has been marked by falling prices and faster and faster transmission of more and more information.
I have before me data on the strength and power of controlled-circuit television. I visited a police installation in Sussex the other day. The cameras are manned 24 hours a day. They can zoom in on a car and on its number plate. From that the police can find a name and address and they can then zoom in on a house. It is an exceptionally powerful system. The same is true in terms of digital telephone transmission. Every telephone call that is bounced off a satellite is recorded. Every mobile telephone call can thus be tracked and listened to. In addition, the desk-top boxes that are being given away for digital television will track by telephonic

935
methods purchases, inquiries and so on and thereby build up an entire customer, family and household profile. We are in a new world.
When we look at Schengen we see that the police are entitled to undertake hot pursuit across borders. That works very well with controlled-circuit television. The police will know exactly who they are going after. Schengen states will also have access to a common pool of data. The common pool of data will cover more and more countries. As the common pool of data will contain data on individuals suspected of committing a criminal offence, the presumption of innocence will have gone. With CCTV individuals are on the police file immediately and from there feature in the common pool of data. In addition to tracking the heavy criminal fraternity we are identifying potentially through the SIS the most vulnerable group of people in the world today—stateless people, asylum-seekers and refugees. Yet another concern these days is the plundering of personal data, which is so easy through computer hacking. That can have fatal consequences not just for vulnerable refugees personally but for their families back home. It is a very troubling situation.
I have some practical proposals for the Government to consider. One is encryption of the records on the Schengen Information System. Effective encryption is expensive. But if we value personal privacy in any shape or form, we should work on encryption processes.
Secondly, we should limit access. Many thousands of individuals already have access through their work, different organisations, the police from member states into the Schengen Information System. I am deeply concerned that this broad and deep access to the common pool of Schengen-acquired data will enable personal or group grudges to be worked off against individuals. Schengen may compromise the security of thousands, and soon, it would be my guess, several millions of people whose personal details will be contained within the system. What about firm limits on the levels of access to individual records for different levels of officials?
Thirdly, care should be taken in relation to knowledge sharing. We discussed this matter on many occasions during our debates on data protection legislation. Knowledge sharing means the creation of common pools of data. Apart from the concerns I have already mentioned, given human error it is true to state that the more knowledge is shared, the more inaccuracies are extrapolated. Computer data is not fault free; data entry clerks are not faultless. Many mistakes are entered into any computer system. At least 1 per cent or half a per cent of all data will inevitably be false. It will be inaccurate through error, not necessarily on purpose—although there is also the deliberate inclusion of false data.
I remind the House that government departments, even in the United Kingdom, are entitled to sell knowledge on individual citizens to outside organisations. The vehicle licensing department in Swansea is entitled, on the presumption of very little information from outside organisations such as supermarkets, to sell back the knowledge of who owns
936
what number plate. So we have an extraordinary variety of knowledge sharing here already in the United Kingdom. In addition to knowledge sharing within government departments, our Government shares knowledge with outside organisations. Knowledge sharing on a wider scale than this is infinitely more troubling. I ask the Government to examine knowledge sharing within the Schengen Information System.
Again I bring before the Government the key question of the ownership of data on individuals. Of course some elementary individual rights of access are built in based on the 1981 European Council convention. But find me the asylum seeker who is awaiting deportation on the plane the following morning who will have the confidence or knowledge to demand sight of the information on which his deportation order was taken. He will not be allowed that information. There will not be time. He will be deported.
Several years ago there was a pilot scheme relating to medical cards. It went extremely well. The idea was that the individual would carry a medical card on which would be all his or her medical data stored electronically. Therefore, when that person had an accident, was ill or needed medicine the card could be swiped through the ambulance or pharmacist's computer and information regarding his or her medical characteristics could be fed straight through to the doctor or hospital. That pilot scheme, which took place under the Conservative government, was stopped. It was a valuable scheme. The interesting point about it from the perspective of this debate was who owned the smartcard data. After a large number of parliamentary Questions I discovered that the Secretary of State for Health owns all the data on all National Health Service patients in the United Kingdom, not the patient.
I suggest that discussing the need or otherwise for ID cards is almost an irrelevancy. The scope of electronic surveillance and data gathering on all of us is so vast that all the information about us is already known.
I say almost an irrelevancy—but not quite. Who does not have the knowledge? The individuals themselves. They are in ignorance about the data held on them. I begin to wonder whether the introduction of an ID card, with ownership of the information on that card pertaining to the individual on whom that knowledge has been gathered might not in the end be a security for the individual against these invisible forces—governments, Schengen and outside organisations alike, which otherwise hold sway unchallenged.
I commend this report to the House.
12.44 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, noble Lords will be grateful to the sub-committee for its work on this subject; for the report itself, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire; and for the evidence that the committee drew from others. I am not in sympathy with all the report's conclusions. Nevertheless, the committee's work has illuminated the subject at a most useful time, with the Immigration and Asylum Bill coming before this House. I am much more

937
in sympathy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and those who have supported him in this debate.
There are two aspects to a consideration of this matter. The first is how immigration, asylum and visa policy should be decided; secondly, how, once it has been decided, it should be applied and enforced. The first question—namely, how policy should be decided for the UK—hinges not only on constitutional matters, expressed so forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, but also on whether the United Kingdom needs or wants to move to the same policy on these sensitive matters as that of other European Union countries.
At present our policy differs in some respects from that of other EU countries, particularly with regard to Commonwealth citizens. The committee did not list the differences. In view of the earlier exchanges between the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and my noble friend Lady Gardner, it would have been helpful had they been listed. However, some of the material emerges in the evidence. I noted in particular the example of young Commonwealth citizens below the age of 28 who can come to this country on a working holiday for two years. It caught my eye particularly because one of my daughters is presently benefiting from a similar provision in Australia during a gap year. The general point is that unless we are content now and for the distant future to abandon our ability to have such preferences and to move towards a single European Union immigration policy, we need to retain the responsibility here, with this Parliament, advised by our Government.
Much of this debate has, like the report, been concerned with implementation of the controls once they have been decided. The committee rightly observed that immigration control at UK frontiers is not the all-embracing, effective bar to illegal immigration that it is sometimes supposed to be. However, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, exaggerated widely when he spoke of the controls being merely symbolic.
This country has the advantage of mainly sea boundaries. Our land boundary with the Irish Republic is a special case in many respects. If we were to abandon border controls on flights and ships arriving from the EU, we should have to redesign our ports, as the committee states. It is clear that that would be expensive, although the exact cost is difficult to ascertain.
More importantly, we need to be sure that we have got over the problem that all those arriving, for example, from Schiphol, have not necessarily started their journey in Holland. They may easily have come from further away. The same applies to everywhere else in the EU. People may have come from somewhere else in the EU or much further afield. Conversely, many passengers arriving at Heathrow fly on to other destinations, by transferring to another flight or simply by staying on hoard the same aircraft and travelling to a further destination inside or outside the EU. No doubt the problems of deciding when these people actually pass into the EU and need to have controls applied on going through the EU frontier—never mind the United
938
Kingdom frontier—could be overcome at a price in money, but it would also mean a loss of control and perhaps a loss also of ease of travel for all transfer passengers. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in fact acknowledged, as the report does, the serious concern that exists about this among, for example, airport authorities.
However, coming back to the border controls themselves, the committee was persuaded that the increased numbers of travellers will soon make the systematic controls impossible—I do not think I misrepresent their view on that. In any case, they are not the most important controls. With respect to the sub-committee, like the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I agree that the facts that border controls are not 100 per cent effective and that they are not the only controls does not mean that we should abandon them straightaway, in favour only of the so-called compensatory measures that have been referred to.
I have no illusions about the border controls sys tern being perfect. I had responsibility for a while for Customs and Excise at the Treasury. That was at a time when Customs and Excise was being, as it were, pushed away from frontier controls, partly by the EU. Customs officers, like immigration staff, rely to a great extent on intelligence. They always have done so, as a matter of fact. The lack of border immigration controls between the Schengen member states is compensated for, so they say, by other measures, in particular additional police and intelligence co-operation, to counter illegal immigration and cross-border crime.
I certainly welcome all such co-operation and I recall also from my time with Customs and Excise the very extensive co-operation that there is at present. The highly computerised system goes much wider than the European Union and is very important in the Caribbean and many other countries, so far as Customs and Excise and the immigration authorities are concerned. Some of the Schengen extra co-operation measures, such as hot pursuit and joint border police patrols, are of course relevant to land boundaries only. Our only land boundary is with the Irish Republic, and there are special considerations there. Personally, I should love to see hot pursuit and joint RUC/Garda controls on that border, but the inhibitions are not on our side there, and in any case that is a matter for another day.
However, there is concern that other countries within the Schengen system may not wish to maintain and develop co-operation between police forces if we do not sign up to the full Schengen measures. I must say that I regard that as problematical at best. As I mentioned, the Customs authorities co-operate very well—that co-operation ranges much wider than the EU—as do the police. Our police have as much to give as to get from such co-operation with overseas countries. It is of mutual benefit for everyone to co-operate. Indeed, we co-operate well and much wider than the EU. I doubt whether any policeman will stop co-operating on such grounds or fail to develop the best possible co-operation between police forces across any frontier. I think that any politician who inhibited the co-operation of the police against international crime and illegal

939
immigration would be contemptible. That is not something which could be supported for any length of time.
Of course, the Schengen Information System takes co-operation to a new level. Information on suspects is to be available in real time for all police forces from all the other forces in the system. This can obviously be extremely valuable, provided that you trust other people's police with sensitive information, based on suspicion and not proved, about your citizens as well as those of other countries. There are obvious risks here, mainly for discussion on another occasion, I think, but there are also great advantages. Although we must build in safeguards, I believe that we should do our best to join up to the Schengen Information System, with the aid of the safeguards.
In referring to immigration control methods, the committee (and noble Lords in this debate) touched on the question of identity cards although the committee rather shied away from that question. The chairman's word was "avoided". So far as I can see, if full United Kingdom frontier controls were to be abandoned, the introduction of such cards would be essential as an aid to internal control. I think that the two go together. I am not against voluntary identity cards; on the contrary, I rather support the idea many people already have written documents from various official sources and they have to produce them regularly. One thinks of pension books, health cards, proof-of-age cards and driving licences, as well as immigration documents, work permits and so on. They are often in paper form, but these days they could all be put on one "smart" identity card, backed up by computer records. They would need to be produced, as documents now are, for specific dealings with officialdom such as the Department of Social Security, but before long, those without them would obviously have more difficulty in establishing their identity and status. In my book, it would not be an offence to be without one, but if either general identity cards or special ones for use as passports could be used at frontiers, as are passports, that would seem to be a possible way of making the abandonment of frontier controls unnecessary.
The hold-up at the port or airport would be no greater than it is on the tube, when people swipe their tickets through the gates to get on to the platforms. Obviously, cards could be issued to those who have been given visas, valid for the length of time required for the visa, and so on. All these things are in the future. The point is that the future these days comes extremely quickly and we need to think about it more carefully than we are sometimes accustomed to do.
It has been said that having identity cards would be bad for race relations in this country. If I were convinced of that, it would be a most powerful argument with me; but I am not convinced. I think that it is clear that voluntary identity cards, sensitively introduced, would enable people to show the legitimacy of their presence very readily. It would rarely be necessary. It is rarely necessary now, and will not be any more necessary in the future. It would also be much easier with identity cards. On the other hand, given the
940
public's perception of the importance of border controls in curbing illegal immigration, the abandonment of most of those controls, as recommended by the committee, could be exceptionally damaging to race relations.
I do not want immigration officers to be thought of as having as little control over EU borders as Customs and Excise officers are perceived as having, because that is slightly inaccurate, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. He may not see a Customs officer when he travels, but one-way mirrors operate, and modern technology enables them to see him perhaps slightly more often than he may realise. Nevertheless, there is a general perception that Customs and Excise officers have abandoned the border completely. If people thought that immigration officials had abandoned the border, that would not be good for race relations.
This has been an interesting debate on a most valuable report, and the fact that I do not entirely agree with the committee does not detract at all from my appreciation of its work and the information that it has put before us. I am therefore happy to agree to the Motion.
1 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I begin by thanking all those who have participated in this excellent debate. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and members of the sub-committee, both those who have participated and those who have been unable to attend today, for the report on Schengen and border controls.
The report deals with a complex area of European Union business. It is also an area of great importance in terms of its potential impact on the people of the United Kingdom and Europe as a whole. The sub-committee's work in this report and earlier ones has done much to shed light on the implications of Schengen and the arrangements for the United Kingdom and to identify for us the issues of greatest importance. It is opportune that the House should consider these issues at this point, only days after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam which brings with it the formal incorporation into EU structures of the Schengen acquis.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already written to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, to give the Government's response to the sub-committee's report. This makes clear that the Government share the view of the sub-committee on the benefits of participation in the Schengen provisions on police and criminal judicial co-operation and the Schengen Information System. We are wholly committed to playing a full part in efforts at European level to tackle organised and international crime, but we cannot agree with the suggestion that the Schengen approach to immigration controls is appropriate to the United Kingdom. Aside from the Republic of Ireland, with which we already have a common travel area, we do not share a land border with any other EU country. This is a very significant factor, to which noble Lords referred.
Our geography means that immigration is channelled through our ports and airports. This gives us a natural advantage in controlling immigration and checking for criminal activity. That is an advantage which it is

941
essential to exploit. That was why during negotiations on the Treaty of Amsterdam we obtained the specific consent of our EU partners to the maintenance of our internal frontier controls with other member states. That is enshrined in a protocol to the treaty and we have no intention of giving it up.
The announcement of our intentions as to participation in Schengen, which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made to the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 12th March, reflected our policy of participation in Schengen to the extent compatible with the UK's position on its frontiers. We shall follow that up with a detailed formal application for participation. I hope and expect that that will be received positively by our EU partners, in the same way that they welcomed our announcement on 12th March.
I have listened with interest to the views of the House on this subject. I should like to respond to some of the points raised. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not deal with every point. If necessary, I am prepared to write to noble Lords. I refer first to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the decision to maintain systematic border controls. This does not preclude the adoption of other complementary measures, such as airline liaison officers, information sharing and greater reliance on new technology. We are very much aware of the growing pressures on the UK's entry controls arising from the growth in passenger numbers to which the noble Lord referred in his introduction. We are exploring ways to introduce greater flexibility within the controls, including provisions to that effect in the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
As to the provision on visas, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and other noble Lords referred, enhanced visa co-operation under Schengen is closely linked to the provisions for external frontiers. Participation in this would thus conflict with our position on the maintenance of frontier controls. Although there may be some commercial advantage in opting into possible future provisions for mutual recognition of visas, at present we believe that the interests of the UK are best served by remaining outside those measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, also referred to the Government's stance on identity cards. A good number of other noble Lords made similar points. The Government have not taken a view one way or the other on the general principle of identity cards. A number of points have been made today both in favour of, and against, identity cards. I believe that the issues go wider than some of the points made in relation to immigration and travel controls. Generally, there would be advantages in terms of individual and administrative convenience. As against that, the change in UK traditions, civil liberties and cost would have to be considered.
A scheme linked to Schengen would raise particular issues. We believe that for that to serve Schengen purposes, even if the scheme for national ID cards was technically voluntary in many cases, it would for certain groups need to be compulsory. To be effective, internal controls would be likely to require the production of a card when requested by the police and when accessing
942
services, benefits and so on. The police would need additional powers to establish immigration status. The inability to produce a card would raise suspicions about residence and rights of immigration status. Such requirements would impact on ordinary citizens. They would change their relationship with the authorities and affect their sense of freedom of movement within this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, referred to ethnic minorities. There is a strong feeling that ethnic minorities would be likely to experience more identity checks than other members of the public. The dangers that that would pose are likely to include victimisation and increased tensions with the majority community.
My noble friend Lord Shore and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, referred to the possibility of mistaken identity. We know that some member states are already seeking to improve arrangements to avoid problems of mistaken identity that already arise under the Schengen Information System; for example, innocent individuals being stopped at borders because their identity details are similar to those of, say, a wanted person. We would welcome changes in that area.
We take very seriously the concerns expressed by some noble Lords about the need for safeguards concerning the information that is entered on the system. We fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the data are reliable and properly managed. We are studying the data protection provisions of the convention very carefully; in particular, we are examining whether we need to legislate to provide the additional safeguards laid down in the articles.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said that the Government were cherry-picking in relation to Schengen. It is not the intention to cherry-pick. We do not expect other member states to accept that. Our approach has been to identify blocks of activity for future co-operation, not to select individual measures within Schengen.
I can assure the noble Lord that relations between the Home Secretary and his Spanish opposite number, Senor Major Oreja, are good. We are confident that we shall be able to work with Spain to overcome any difficulties that may arise during negotiations on our application.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, raised a number of points and made some constructive suggestions in relation to new technology. I said that I would not respond to all those issues and I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that to take up the point she raised so eloquently would be extremely difficult and time consuming on this occasion.
We are dealing today with an area of co-operation which, for the European Union, is in many ways uncharted territory. The new arrangements will reinforce and build on existing European co-operation against international and organised crime. It is in our interests for the UK to play a full part in that. Now that Schengen incorporation has taken effect, it is open to us to make an application to participate in those provisions that we wish. We shall waste no time in doing that.

943
Today's debate has been valuable. It has been an opportunity for us to consider issues important to the UK over the coming period. I am grateful to noble Lords who have made helpful contributions to the debate, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for his chairmanship of Sub-Committee F and his contribution to today's debate. We shall continue to keep Parliament informed of development on the Schengen acquis and our participation in it. We look forward to further opportunities to debate those issues.
1.11 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. The purpose of all-party committee reports is to provide information and analysis, and to promote debate.
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and others who suggested that there might have been an ideological undertone to our proceedings. It was very much an all-party committee. There were those on the committee of different parties who would like us to have written a stronger report. We hope that we have contributed to what will be an ongoing debate. One of our strongest messages is, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, that this is an area in which the future arrives extremely quickly. As the Minister said, we are in uncharted territory. I still find the speed of underlying movement in practice remarkable.
Only 10 years ago, I chaired an ACPO seminar about international collaboration with our European partners. Most of the chief constables concerned had not had direct contact with their opposite numbers. The situation now with NCIS, with several police liaison officers in other capitals across Europe and databases coming onstream on a range of matters, takes us into a different world from 10 years ago.
I recognise the logic of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Shore. However, part of what we said in the report is that we are now caught in a contradiction between what we claim to do and what we actually do. If we want to maintain effective border controls, the noble Lord is quite correct: we should at least double the number of immigration officers. My experience of the past year has been that my passport was examined more carefully in Frankfurt and Brussels than in London, because those cities are rather better staffed than we are.
The committee is conducting a number of future inquiries into a subject which continues to move very quickly. In September in Finland there will be the first-ever European Council concerned purely with the sector of justice and home affairs. In June and July, we shall ask what the agenda of the meeting should be. The agenda has not yet been arranged. We are currently conducting an inquiry into the work of computer databases on which my noble friend Lady Nicholson spoke with a good deal of expertise. Not only is the Schengen Information System up and running; there is also the Customs Information System to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred. There is the Europol system, and Eurodac, a fingerprint system on which Sub-Committee E is currently preparing a report.
944
We intend to move on to the implications of further enlargement for the whole regime. There are many further questions.
I hope that the utility of the report is that we attempted to assess current practices and how far those practices fit with current principles. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, regrets that he is not able to be with us today. He was one of the more active members of our committee. On several occasions he pressed witnesses to answer the question: how far have we looked at the costs and benefits of different alternatives? That surely is the question we should address.
In conclusion, I quote from the White Paper on immigration and asylum of July 1998. It was one of the starting points of our inquiry. Paragraph 6.5 states:
"Without modernisation and greater operational flexibility, so that resources are targeted more effectively on tackling abuse and clandestine entry rather than routine work, it will become increasingly difficult to maintain effective frontier controls, cope with passenger growth, deliver the kind of service standards that facilitate trade, tourism and education, and maintain the UK's position as an international hub".
That is the set of contradictory objectives which the Government have to tackle. That is why in paragraph 46 of the report we concluded:
"The Committee does not believe that the status quo remains a long-term option".
I commend the report to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater London Authority Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Obscenity Bill [H.L.]
1.16 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee. —(The Earl of Halsbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Offences]:
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No.1:
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("is") and insert ("shall be")
The noble Earl said: All the amendments put forward for Committee stage of the Bill are mine. They are tabled in response to points made at Second Reading or in conversation with my noble friends.
I note that on the Marshalled List the amendments are grouped together. Perhaps I may speak to them together. That will enable me to make only one speech; and we may possibly pass them en bloc if that is in order.
The first amendment arose in conversation with my noble friend Lord Renton. I am sorry that he is not in his place. He said that his only comment would be to say "Hear, hear". I agree with him that the use of the future rather than the present case of the verb is to be preferred.
Amendment No.2 is in response to some gentle teasing by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. He said that whereas I had provided for laboratories, and so on, and had given them emancipation from the restrictions in the Bill, I had done nothing for museums and galleries. His point carried weight and therefore I drafted Amendment No.2, which gives effect to that.
According to The Times on Wednesday, there will be a,
"£ 1.8m glimpse of sex life in Nero's Empire",
on exhibition. Unless something is done about it, the museum can do what it often does, which is to make replicas and sell them to the public. Therefore, the restrictions that I seek to make on showing such items to children and young persons is fully justified.
Amendment No.3 is tabled in response to someone who said that, on the principles of sex equality, as I had included nymphomania, I should include the male equivalent. He did not know what the name was and I replied, "It is satyriasis". I have included that in the list of forbiddens. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government's view was made clear by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn at Second Reading. I wish to say a brief word about Amendment No.2 because an issue of public policy is involved. The effect of the amendment would be to exempt museums and exhibitions from the demands of the proposed legislation, but only if the building concerned had facilities for segregating the viewing or study by adults, young persons and children. The amendment does not elucidate the phrase, "adults, young persons and children"; nor does it indicate what each of the parties may see. The implication is that a group of adults, young people and children could not see an exhibition together, even as a family.
I understand that the aim of the amendment may be to protect young people from seeing potentially harmful material held in public or private collections, but parents are clearly in the best position to determine what is suitable for their children in these circumstances. The amendment actively prevents them carrying out such a role.
A further effect of the amendment would be to prevent people borrowing books from libraries. It does not define what is meant by "relevant books" and the consequence is that it could prohibit people from borrowing any book. Surely the extent of the restrictions which would be imposed on our cultural life by these proposals is unacceptable. I am sorry to say that the Government's opposition to the Bill is not diminished by these amendments.
The Earl of Halsbury: The remedy is in the hands of the Government. They can move an amendment of
946
their own on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, made substantially the same speech as we have heard from the Minister today. However, the Government did nothing about it. Therefore, I must take the opinion of the House and press the matter to a Division.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. This is a Private Member's Bill. We have expressed our opposition to the Bill and to the amendments, but we shall not oppose them. If the noble Earl puts the matter to the Committee, it will not be opposed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No.2:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) This Act shall not apply to museums, galleries, exhibitions or libraries funded in whole or in part by public or charitable funds or benefactions for the preservation of antiquities, literature or the furtherance of education provided that—

(a) there are facilities for segregating the viewing or study by adults, young persons and children;

(b) the relevant books may be studied in situ but not borrowed; and

(c) replicas or photographs for sale or free shall nor be obscene as here defined. ")

The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
The Earl of Harrowby: I cannot subscribe to Amendment No.2. I have no idea what attitude my noble friends on this side of the Committee will take, but I am totally opposed to it because of its implications. What it leaves out is totally unacceptable. I regret to say that the Bill is, first, ill timed and, secondly, with due deference to the noble Earl, not a matter for a Private Member's Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand what the noble Earl says, but I hope that he will follow the Government's example and, although he disagrees with the amendment, I hope that he will not seek to oppose it in a Private Member's Bill.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have been asked for the opinion of the Opposition Front Bench, but I express only a personal view. In the context of the whole Bill, such a subsection is desirable. The Minister suggested improvements which could be made to the wording of the new subsection, although I realise that he is against the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to put the record straight. I did not suggest improvements; I criticised the amendment. However, I and the Government believe that the Bill is incapable of amendment to make it acceptable. I did not suggest particular improvements to the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As regards Amendment No.2, the Minister denied suggesting improvements.

947
He seemed to make a constructive criticism—which I described as "improvements"—which would enable us to consider improvements.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Repeal]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My excuse for intervening is that, admittedly long ago, I was the Home Office representative on the Select Committee whose report lead to the 1959 Act. However, by the time the Act was being considered I was no longer Home Office Minister. I should like to comment briefly on that provision, which my noble friend intends to be substituted by Clause 2 (4).
Section 4 of the 1959 Act was a useful measure of liberalisation. It charged the court—in effect, the jury—with weighing two considerations, one against the other. They were of a different nature, and therefore it was not easy to do it and the matter went wrong for many years.
The philosophy was that, on the one hand, obscene publications could do considerable harm. Anyone who heard the speeches of my noble friends Lord Northbourne and Lord Halsbury could have little doubt that there was substance in that. On the other hand, certain publications served the interests of art, literature, science and so on. Therefore, the court was charged with weighing the potential harm against the potential benefit. That went wrong for a number of years because it was misinterpreted. In particular, there was one expert witness who appeared in case after case and who used to say, "Allegedly obscene publications are of benefit to my client. It is said that they encourage masturbation. I encourage my patients to masturbate because it releases tension, as does the consumption of obscene publications". As a result, as your Lordships can see, the balance with which the court was charged in Section 4 was completely obviated. Indeed, the question turned on whether the article was obscene in the sense of doing harm.
Although that was misinterpreted for a long time, in the end an appellate court restored the law to what was intended in 1959. I believe that it would be a pity to get rid of Section 4 of the 1959 Act because, although deprecating obscene publications as potentially harmful, it recognises that in certain circumstances their benefit to literature, art or science can be promoted. Therefore, I ask my noble friend to reconsider that matter. It requires consideration in the light of Clause 2 subsection (4).
1.30 p.m.
Lord Annan: I am very much in accord with what my noble and learned kinsman, Lord Simon, has said. I do not want to go back to the Act of 1959. I note what I said at Second Reading and I hasten to say that I shall not repeat it in full. Following the passage of the 1959 Act a commission was set up under the chairmanship of Professor Bernard Williams and it reported on this extremely complicated business. It is a complex matter
948
and if your Lordships read the report, you will see why. I shall say no more, except to say that I am sorry, although I never had high hopes that the noble Earl would amend this Bill in the light of that report. That is why I cannot possibly agree with the amendment, although I hasten to say that I have no intention of opposing it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Professor Bernard Williams' report was debated in your Lordships' House. It was a marvellous, clearly written report, as one would expect from his chairmanship. However, when it was subject to analysis and scrutiny in your Lordships' House, virtually nothing was left of it. In particular, there was a highly cogent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and that report sank without trace, I thought for good, until my noble friend resuscitated it at Second Reading.
As my noble friend has said, this is a complicated matter and this will probably not be the last word on it, but I do not believe that we should take the Williams report as our jumping-off point. We should certainly consider it in the light of the debate in Committee.
The Earl of Halsbury: I was told that one could not draft a Bill like this, but I have proved that it is possible. I have tried to simplify things. What sort of a world do we live in? I have here a banner headline from last week's edition of the Sunday Times:
"W. H. Smith puts lesbian porn on sale".
I note what has been said and I shall reconsider this matter on Report. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule [Activities relevant to the definition of obscenity]:
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No.3:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert—
("Satyriasis. ")
The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I thought I was fairly hard-boiled in such matters, but I confess that I did not understand all the terms that my noble friend set out in the schedule. I believe that he derived them from careful study in the library of the Royal Society of Psychiatrists.
Perhaps I should have made this suggestion in relation to Clause I. The Bill substitutes a number of particular matters for the general definition of "obscenity" in the 1959 Act. Perhaps my noble friend will consider, before the next stage, making Clause 1 and the schedule subject, without prejudice, to the definition in the 1959 Act.
Lord Wilberforce: With apologies to my noble kinsman's wish to add to the schedule, I suggest that the form in which he puts Amendment No.3 is slightly confusing. He adds this word, which I cannot pronounce and the meaning of which I do not know, after the end of line 35. I believe that he is seeking to insert it after

949
line 35, as line 36, with the others consequently renumbered. I do not believe that my noble kinsman wants the word added to the end of line 35.
The Earl of Halsbury: I have listened to everything that has been said. I shall reconsider the matter on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported to the House with amendments.

Aeroplane Noise Regulations 1999
1.40 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Aeroplane Noise Regulations 1999 be approved.
The need to implement the latest European directive on aeroplane noise has provided the impetus to brigade in a single measure the noise certification requirements of four other European Council directives which are currently implemented in three separate statutory instruments.
Noise certification is complex because of the numerous categories of aeroplanes which must be included and the number of different standards which apply. However, for all their apparent complexity the regulations are principally an exercise in consolidation. There is little in them which is new and nothing which places additional burdens on either the aviation community or the regulatory authorities.
While these regulations involve no direct increases in noise stringency, they do consolidate and unify in a single measure the standards covering the vast majority of aeroplanes currently flying in the UK. I commend these regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, air noise certification is where I entered politics. I long remember a dinner party in Kew, sometime in the 1960s, attended by two people from the Ministry who told us categorically that it would be impossible to reduce the noise made by jet engines because their power would be reduced and the aeroplanes would fall out of the sky. All I can say is that I have used that example over many years to illustrate the power of demand for quietness, or any other product of engineering, as a way of making engineers concentrate their attention on something which is required by the general public.
I am delighted to welcome this consolidation of the existing regulations. It will obviously make life easier. We will not have to peer into all sorts of different tomes.
950
But one minor point puzzled me. Regulation 14 gets rid of the preceding four paragraphs. Does that mean that the various derogations contained in those four paragraphs will disappear on 1st April 2002?
Secondly, can the Minister reassure us that Regulation 24, which allows the CAA to permit exemption from Chapter 3 noise standards in the run-up to April 2002 for the purposes of fleet management, is not a back-door route to any softening of attitudes to compliance?
Finally, I am sure the Minister will be able to reassure us that pressure for a continuing decrease in noise emissions from aircraft will be maintained.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, these regulations covering aircraft noise are to be welcomed. While it is unconnected with these regulations, I wish to plant an idea among those who have an appropriate interest. The technology concerning aircraft emissions falls some 40 years or so behind vehicular emissions. Is it not time to address the problem of aircraft emissions?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we on these Benches have no objection to these regulations. As the Minister said, they are essentially a consolidation of existing regulations and, as far as I am aware, they do not introduce anything new. I am also pleased that, as far as I can see, they do not impinge on any of the difficult current issues, such as hush kits, Concorde flights to the United States and fully-laden Boeing 747–400s.
However, I am slightly concerned about Regulation 13, which gives a list of so-called developing nations whose aeroplanes are exempted. First, I am surprised that Saudi Arabia is considered to be a developing nation. I thought it was one of the richest countries in the world. Also, I am surprised to see both Libya and Iraq included in the list. It is unlikely that any of their aircraft will come to this country. I understood that if they did, they were likely to be shot down.
Apart from that, I give the regulations full support.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in relation to the comments of my noble friend Lord Simon, we have heard a great deal about greenhouse gases over the past year or two following the Kyoto Summit. My noble friend made the point, quite rightly, that there seems to be no improvement in the engineering design of exhaust emissions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, that is probably because there was no pressure upon the engineers to concentrate on that aspect. I firmly believe that if pressure is brought to bear, people will come up with solutions. The Kyoto targets have to be met by the motor industry. To some extent they are being met by the electricity generating people and it seems odd that the airline industry is exempt from the restrictions, like so many other things. It is also exempt to some extent from the ownership restrictions of airlines about which we have heard before.
The other exemption which I find odd is the exemption from any fuel tax. The airline industry gets all its fuel duty-free. I suspect that if pressure was

951
brought to bear on airlines to sort out some of these problems, one would find solutions coming very quickly.
Finally, I understand that some third world countries might need to have exemptions from these regulations, but they are related to noise and they are safety regulated. Surely all aeroplanes that land in this country should have to comply with the same regulations.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, aeroplane noise standards are agreed within the International Civil Aviation Organisation and are set out in the chapters of Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention of 1944 and implemented by contracting states in their own territory. Legislation to apply the ICAO noise standards in this country has existed since 1970, but the international nature of aviation means that measures to control noise are most effective when co-ordinated across national boundaries. We have therefore supported the growth of UN legislation to apply the standards agreed in ICAO.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, raised the issue of derogations in paragraph 14. They will disappear because after 2002 aeroplanes will have to meet the highest current standards. I can assure the noble Baroness that there will be no softening of attitudes to compliance as it is closely monitored by the CAA.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, raised the issue of Libya and Iraq. The developing nation schedule at the end of the regulations apparently includes exemptions for aeroplanes from Libya and Iraq. However, those exemptions are subject to any sanctions and embargoes which the UN may have imposed on specific states. That is explicitly stated in the notes to the schedule attached to Directive 92/14 EEC and applies to all EU member states. However, it was not copied out on the face of the regulations.
My noble friends Lord Simon and Lord Berkeley raised issues relating to pollution, and a question was also raised about fuel tax exemption. The exemption is internationally agreed through ICAO. We agree it should change, but by international agreement to avoid distortion.
The other question raised concerned air pollution. Aircraft contribute around 2 or 3 per cent of global man-made pollution. Over the past 20 years they have become twice as fuel efficient per passenger kilometre. The UK Government play a leading role in the environmental committee of the International Civil Aviation Organisation which is investigating the effects of aircraft pollution and looking for ways to make them cleaner. A special report on aviation and the global atmosphere has been prepared under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is expected to be published in June.
In terms of the UK, our White Paper policy indicates that in the near future we hope to consult widely on proposals for new legislation to help airports enforce noise mitigation measures or enable local authorities to enforce noise mitigation agreements. However, where
952
airport operators have adequate noise measures in place, new legislation may not be relevant. Kyoto has charged the ICAO to work on the allocation of emissions from international aviation so that they can be included in the Kyoto process. I hope that I have answered all the points raised, and I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Framework Agreement for Trade and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States and the Republic of Korea) Order 1999
1.50 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 21st April be approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st April be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and the United Mexican States) Order 1999
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 26th April be approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th April be approved [17th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Potato Industry Development Council (Amendment) Order 1999
1.51 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the British Potato Council was established in May 1997 under the provisions of the Potato Industry Development Council Order 1997. Its statutory functions can be summarised as commissioning or assisting research and development, collection and dissemination of statistical and marketing information, the development of exports and generic promotion of potatoes including seed potatoes.
The legal status of the council is an executive non-departmental public body. It is currently funded by a dual levy on growers and first purchasers. There is no public funding of the council although the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food purchases statistical information from the BPC.
During the past year, the council has spent some £3.1 million or marketing and provision of information to both the industry and consumers. Over the same period some £1.9 million was invested in research and development.
"British Potatoes in the New Millennium" will launch the current season in London on 19th May—I hope to be at that event—and in Glasgow on 15th June. The council also sponsors British Chip Week and, with the Sea Fish Industry Authority, the Fish and Chip Shop of the Year competition.
On the export promotion side, the council has another success story to tell. The council's new database of British exporters directs overseas buyers to those best placed to meet their requirements. Despite the strong pound and high prices for the current season's crop, our potato exports are estimated to be some 4,000 tonnes ahead of last season at over 150,000 tonnes.
I turn now to the order. As I said, the British Potato Council is currently financed by a dual levy on growers and first purchasers. The area levy applies to producers of one hectare or more of potatoes. The purchaser levy is paid by firs.: purchasers of 100 tonnes or more of potatoes per annum and is known as the tonnage levy. Co-operatives and commission agents may recover the tonnage levy from the next purchaser. Many merchants do not like the tonnage levy arrangement and complain that it can give: a competitor an unfair advantage if he is not a first purchaser.
Because of the number of complaints directed to the council, it undertook to review the tonnage levy arrangements and to develop a fairer system. Although this issue could have been addressed at the first statutory review of the council in the year 2000, the strength of feeling among those paying the tonnage levy was such that the review was completed in 1998. The council has asked that the amended levy arrangements proposed in the review be introduced for the levy year commencing 1st July 1999.
This order covers the amended tonnage levy arrangement. It removes the right of recovery of the tonnage levy by co-operatives and commission agents and requires that the levy is paid each time potatoes are sold, except where the purchaser is a catering establishment or a retail seller of potatoes unless such purchasers buy direct from the farm gate. British agriculture departments consulted the industry on the proposals to find the majority in favour of them. Agriculture Ministers agree the rate of levy to be set each year. For the 1998–99 season, the tonnage levy was 20p per tonne. The council estimates that the changes to
954
the tonnage levy would add some 300 extra purchasers to the levy base, and they could reduce this levy to provide an equivalent level of income. The amendment to the levy structure should therefore be cost-neutral for the whole industry. To this end, for the 1999–2000 levy year and in anticipation of this amendment order coming into force, the BPC has asked agriculture Ministers to approve a tonnage levy of 15p per tonne. This is a 5p per tonne levy reduction from the previous year.
The order also enables the council to add these additional purchasers to their register and obtain the required information and returns.
Finally, Article 8 is an additional provision at the request of the council on advice from its Scottish lawyers. Under Scots law, there is a need to clarify the position on evidential provision with regard to approvals given by Ministers. Article 8 accomplishes that. For completeness and also to permit the documents to he treated as prima facie evidence, the amendment applies also to England and Wales.
In conclusion, I should like to quote from the debate that preceded the setting up of the council. I have long been a supporter of the concept of development councils, and in that debate I said:
"I have long supported the concept of development councils in agriculture. Agriculture is divided into small units; development work is for the benefit of all farmers and therefore all should pay. The only way to do that is through some form of compulsory levy". —[Official Report, 3/2/97; col.1466.1.
I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Carter).
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms did his best to persuade your Lordships that the order is totally non-controversial. That is by no means always true of the potato levy but it is in this case. However, I cannot resist drawing the attention of the House and Hansard to a fine example of the parliamentary draftsman's art in the order. Article 3(e) states:
"immediately after the definition of 'producers' co-operative' there shall be inserted the following definition— … 'subsequent purchaser' means a person, not being a first purchaser, who would be a first purchaser of raw potatoes if the words 'where those potatoes have not previously been sold or delivered to an agent' were omitted from the definition of 'first purchaser', but does not include … a catering establishment, or … a retail seller of potatoes".
It is difficult to imagine that that could not somehow have been phrased more neatly. However, I shall not oppose the order on that ground.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I read right through the order and it seemed crystal clear.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes before two o'clock.

  Government Communications Headquarters
  Government Communications Headquarters
  Kosovo Liberation Army
  Kosovo Liberation Army
  Use of Military Force
  Use of Military Force
  Jerusalem: Development Project
  Jerusalem: Development Project
  Turkey: Election Irregularities
  Turkey: Election Irregularities
  Sudan: Al Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory
  Sudan: Al Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory
  Sudan: Landmines
  Sudan: Landmines
  EU Enlargement Negotiation
  EU Enlargement Negotiation
  Poland: EU Membership
  Poland: EU Membership
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Carcinogenic Chemicals in the Environment
  Carcinogenic Chemicals in the Environment
  Disclosure
  Disclosure
  Human Rights Bodies and the UK: Recommendations
  Human Rights Bodies and the UK: Recommendations