Sitting of 13 February 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Tuesday 27 February

  MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS].
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Tuesday 27 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Pedestrian Safety
    Mr. Paul Flynn: What progress has been made in reducing dangers to pedestrians from rigid car fronts. [148439]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Robert Ainsworth): The European Commission has not yet made a formal proposal for making car fronts safer. On 6 February, the Commission hosted a meeting on this issue, and it is now considering how the matter should be taken forward. We are continuing to press for the best deal for pedestrians.
    Mr. Flynn: May I congratulate my hon. Friend, and welcome him to his first Question Time as Minister? In Europe, 2,000 deaths and 18,000 serious accidents are caused every year by the rigid fronts of cars, usually by bullbars or by what the Americans call "killer grills". It is possible to prevent such deaths, given that the bullbars and rigid fronts concentrate and multiply the force of accidents. The effects are usually concentrated at the level of a child's head or the vital organs of an adult. Why is such slow progress being made on this matter? I do not question the enthusiasm of the British Government, but why is it taking so long to introduce the reforms? Lives are being sacrificed in the name of vanity and fashion.
    Mr. Ainsworth: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcoming remarks, and congratulate him on his work
    140
    over a long period in advertising the effects of bullbars. He will know that we have commissioned research by the Transport Research Laboratory, and that we have put forward to the European Commission a proposal to include in pedestrian protection proposals for cars the banning of dangerous bullbars. We have also submitted a proposal showing how the existing external projections directive could be modified to proscribe the fitting of bullbars. Discussions are continuing after last Tuesday's Commission meeting, and we will continue to try to find the best way to make progress on proscribing bullbars.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Is not a particular problem the large number of four-wheel drive vehicles on the road, some of which are excessively large, certainly for going down to Tesco's once a week? Is any special research being undertaken into the problems caused by such vehicles? If not, will the Minister initiate such research?
    Mr. Ainsworth: As I said, we have had the Transport Research Laboratory do the research. It is true that such items are mostly fashion accessories. People do not realise how dangerous they are. We must advertise the fact that they are a danger and that people should not fit them. We must then make the best possible progress towards a ban on dangerous accessories on the front of cars.

    Ports
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: If he will make a statement on modernising British ports. [148440]
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What his policy is on the construction of container ports on non-brownfield sites. [148441]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The Government announced the publication of a ports policy paper, "Modern Ports", on 27 November. Ports have an important role in integrated transport policy. The paper identifies a number of specific initiatives that we hope to pursue. We intend to promote better regulation of the industry, and agreed national standards and good practice for port management and port operations alike. The paper sets out a balanced policy on port development that aims to make the best use of existing and former operational land and secure high environmental standards while supporting sustainable projects for which there is a clear need.
    Mr. Quinn: This is a very important strategy nationally, but the work to be undertaken soon in the port of Whitby will be extremely important to many of my constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that the harbour infrastructure developments in the port—to the tune of some £850,000, I understand—in addition to the needed rail and road land links into the port of Whitby, will deliver an important and viable future for my constituents? Will he support my plea for an inter-modal study to ensure that we can deliver the integrated transport policy to which he referred?
    Mr. Hill: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's warm support for the Government's new investment in the port

    141
    of Whitby. As he will be aware, my Department has approved nearly £500,000 for Whitby, and we have also approved investment worth £350,000 for the port of Scarborough. Both ports have received extra funding from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for other refurbishment projects totalling £500,000. My hon. Friend has made powerful representations in favour of improved rail connections to Whitby and road links to Scarborough. The Government are considering his proposals very carefully.
    Dr. Lewis: The Minister having decided to group my question on the Government's policy on the construction of container ports on non-Brownfield sites with the previous question on the Order Paper, I am sorry that he has not felt able to answer it more specifically. Is he aware that yesterday Hampshire county council rejected by 21 votes to none to turn down the proposal to develop the Dibden bay container port on the edge of the New Forest? Is he aware of the devastating effects that that development would have on Totton and the people of the waterside villages if it went ahead? Does he know that Associated British Ports has now admitted that it is not part of a national economic need that this port needs to be developed? Can he reassure my constituents, who were extremely worried to hear the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister for the Environment, state on television on 8 February:
    think it is a very valid proposal for developing a much needed container port in the United Kingdom."
    Given that the Secretary of State has called in this proposal, how can we have confidence that it will be fairly and impartially adjudged when a PPS to a Minister in his Department appears to have made up his mind the wrong way in advance?
    Mr. Hill: On the broad issue, we recognise that there are strong views about Associated British Ports' proposals to develop new port facilities at Dibden bay on Southampton water. That is exactly why we have recently announced our decision to call a public inquiry, which should start later this year.
    In the circumstances, the House will understand that the Government cannot comment on the merits of the proposals. As regards his remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), the hon. Gentleman really is a bit of a chump to bring such a matter to the Floor of the House. To set the record straight, what my hon. Friend actually said was that there was a balance to be struck between economic development and the environment, and that that was why we are having a public inquiry. In my experience, my hon. Friend is usually right about everything, and in this matter he was, as usual, spot on.
    Dr. Jack Cunningham: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement and invite him to visit the historic port of Whitehaven, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has done on previous occasions. If he does so, he will see the enormous potential of the regeneration of the port for tourism, water sports and fishing, but does he recognise that the full potential can never be realised unless road improvements are carried out? Will he therefore look very closely at the proposal to improve the A595 from Lily Hall to Parton? It is a modest scheme in
    142
    national terms, but would nevertheless be of enormous economic and social benefit to Whitehaven and the people of West Cumbria, including those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savo ur s).
    Mr. Hill: Of course I would love to visit the port of Whitehaven. The Government are committed to improving both rail and road links to ports as part of our 10-year plan for transport. I am aware of the campaign for the road, spearheaded by the Whitehaven News, and of the fact that the road was Cumbria's third priority in its recent local transport plan.
    The Government have indicated that we expect to receive further local transport plan submissions in the summer, and I look forward to the opportunity of considering Cumbria's proposal for the road in its next set of plans.
    Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the Minister go back to th,, issue of Dibden bay and answer the question that has been posed by Mr. Brian Dash, the local county councillor who for the past 10 years has led the campaign against the development, about whether it is in the national interest? Successive Ministers in this Government and the previous Government have made the point that the Dibden bay development should not go ahead unless it can be conclusively proved that it is in the national interest for it to do so. As that manifestly is not the case, will the Minister confirm that the public inquiry is a complete waste of time?
    Mr. Hill: I suspect that those who take an opposing view on the Dibden bay development might consider that it manifestly is in the national interest. It is precisely to determine whether the, development is in the national interest that we have convened the public inquiry to which I have referred. Furthermore, it may in due course be necessary for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make a decision about what is or is not in the national interest.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the success of the port of Dover, which is still a trust port and is the busiest ferry port in the world? When he makes representations on the European directive on ports, will he acknowledge the special differences between ports in the United Kingdom and ports on the continent? Will he ensure that the framework is set up in such a way that the rules do not prescribe against ports such as Dover and that those ports will not be disadvantaged?
    Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is, as ever, a doughty advocate of the port of Dover. Representations on the matter have been received from the UK Major Ports Group; we are also aware of the views of the British Ports Association and of several port and terminal operators. Our general policy on the proposed directive is to support the broad principles of liberalisation and competition in the provision of port services, subject to appropriate safeguards and standards.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What is the point of a ports policy, or, indeed, of an integrated transport policy, that does not address the most important issue

    143
    facing ports, especially in the south-east—that of capacity? Is the hon. Gentleman mare that the industry forecasts that ports serving the south-east are likely to run out of container capacity within the next one to two years? Is that not typical of the Government's integrated transport policy? The policy is merely more pretty pictures, more warm words and more truisms. Like the railway, the tube and the road jams—the worst we have ever had—the Minister's policy is nothing but paralysis by analysis. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Hill: That was, "paralysis by analysis"—just in case the House did not get it.
    The hon. Gentleman really should have a word with his colleague, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and with his Front-Bench colleagues who are looking daggers at his back. Do I detect the possibility of a division on this matter among Opposition Members?

    Concessionary Bus Fares
    Mr. Jim Marshall: If he will make a statement on his support for concessionary bus fares for pensioners. [148443]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Local authorities in England spend more than £390 million on concessionary bus fares each year—money largely funded by central Government. The local government finance settlement for 2001–02 takes account of local authorities' responsibilities in this area. In particular, we have injected an extra £54 million to cover the additional costs of introducing the mandatory half-fare scheme for pensioners and disabled people under the Transport Act 2000.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my hon Friend for that reply. Perhaps this is a rare occasion. May I congratulate the Government on the implementation of another election pledge—namely the introduction of mandatory concessionary fares. Will my hon. Friend tell the House how many pensioners and disabled people are likely to benefit directly as a consequence of the scheme? For the information of the House, can he also tell us the view of the Tory Opposition on the scheme when it was debated in the Standing Committee?
    Mr. Hill: I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend's congratulations. Our mandatory concessionary travel scheme will guarantee at least half fares on local buses for pensioners and disabled people. The bus pass will be free of charge. Where more generous schemes are already in place, they will, of course, continue. The scheme will come into effect from 1 April in Greater London and from 1 June in the rest of England. We expect about 5.5 million pensioners and up to a further 1.5 million disabled people to benefit from the new arrangements.
    Notwithstanding the Conservatives' new-found passion for pensioners, it is worth recalling that the Conservative party voted against the scheme. The scheme will be especially welcomed by pensioners in those Conservative-controlled authorities where, until now, there have been no concessionary fares schemes at all.
    Mr. Don Foster: Given that we read in the newspapers today that the Government are keen to outlaw age discrimination, will the Minister explain why the Government want to continue the discrimination whereby a man has to wait until the age of 65 to receive a concessionary bus pass even though a woman receives one at the age of 60? Is the Minister aware of the case before the European Court, and of the fact that he only has until next week to make a decision on whether to contest that case, at great expense to the Government, or to accept that, on entitlement to bus concessions, there should be equality for men and women at age 60?
    Mr. Hill: The Government certainly are aware of the Matthews case, which is before the European Court, to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. We are considering the implications of that case and our response.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my hon. Friend endeavour to speak to Tory-controlled Gedling borough council, which, despite the extra money that we have put into the half-fare scheme, has decided to axe the full-fare pass scheme for pensioners from April 2001? Will he do all that he can to get Tory-controlled Gedling borough council to change its mind because thousands of pensioners in my constituency are outraged at the fact that the council is receiving extra money but choosing to axe the full-fare scheme?
    Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case in condemnation of that Tory authority. I very much hope that that Tory authority will understand the force of his representations and the passions of local pensioners. It is an absolute outrage that Tory-controlled Gedling borough council has abolished the full-fare pass for pensioners from 1 April 2001.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: The Minister has visited Purbeck on several occasions. I wonder whether he will have a word with the treasurer of Purbeck district council, who tells us that the bus concessionary scheme that it is being forced to introduce, which is very welcome to Purbeck pensioners, will put their council tax bills up by as much as 17 per cent. Will he please look at where the money has gone to, because it certainly has not arrived in Purbeck to pay for the scheme?
    Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the situation in Purbeck. My presumption is that, heretofore, Purbeck has not provided such a concessionary fare scheme. The reality is that, although the Government, by allocating £54 million extra to local authorities, has made a proportionate allocation to each authority to allow it to introduce the scheme, those Scrooge authorities that heretofore have not had such a concessionary fare scheme will have to bear some pain in the process. However, the hon. Gentleman should think not only of the implications for the local ratepayers, but of the wonderful opportunities that will be opened up to pensioners in that locality.

    Local Strategic Partnerships
    Mrs. Joan Humble: If he will make a statement on the new local strategic partnerships. [148444]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Local strategic partnerships will provide a single, overarching local co-ordination framework, which will enable local stakeholders to address issues that really matter to local people. They will prepare and implement local community strategies and local neighbourhood renewal strategies. They will allocate neighbourhood renewal funds, which have now doubled to £200 million for next year, and rationalise local partnerships, working to deliver better services.
    Mrs. Humble: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She can be assured that the additional £6.5 million of neighbourhood renewal funding allocated to Blackpool over the next three years will be very warmly welcomed by my constituents. Will she confirm that the successful existing partnerships that Blackpool council has developed can form the basis for the new local strategic partnership, so that that very welcome additional investment can be effectively targeted for the benefit of my constituents?
    Ms Armstrong: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her commitment to ensuring that the deprivation is effectively tackled in Blackpool, and, indeed, elsewhere. This Government have recognised the importance of effectively targeting deprivation, wherever it arises. I assure my hon. Friend that local agencies should seek to build on the local arrangements that have already worked well, rather than starting again from scratch. As cross-sector, cross-agency umbrella partnerships, LSPs offer real opportunities to streamline existing partnership arrangements and to make them more effective, by making better connections between individual initiatives.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Could the right hon. Lady put her first answer into plain English?
    Ms Armstrong: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not able to hear because of the way in which his colleagues on the Front Bench were behaving. We are establishing local strategic partnerships throughout the country. Each local authority is working out how it can most effectively develop a strategic partnership that has an overview of the whole area, and really ensure that it identifies the strategic priorities, who will work on them and how they can ensure that services work much better in their areas. I am sure the hon. Gentleman supports that objective.

    Global Warming
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: If he will make a statement on discussions between his Department and the new US Administration on global warming. [148446]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The Government are keen to encourage the new United States Administration to engage constructively on climate change. We have supported the deferral of the next round of talks by a few weeks to give them more time to prepare. I shall be taking every opportunity to raise the issue with the United States, including at the G8 Environment Ministers meeting in Italy next month. I have also asked
    146
    colleagues to do the same and, indeed, the Foreign Secretary raised the matter with Colin Powell when he met him last week. However, this is not just about the United States; we will, of course, continue to discuss the way forward with other countries.
    Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for that informative reply. The United States Administration asked for the resumption of the talks in Bonn to be postponed. What can we read into that? Are they dragging their feet, or does Colin Powell, the new Secretary of State, need more time to prepare the new Bush Administration's case on global warming?
    Mr. Prescott: My interpretation of the events is that the United States could have attended the conference in May and refused to co-operate with its objectives. The fact that the Administration have asked for more time, are seriously considering the issue and are appointing new officials to negotiate on their behalf is a hopeful sign, and I am forever optimistic in such matters.
    Mr. David Prior: In the Secretary of State's discussions on global warming, will he do his best to maintain the fuel duty differential between liquified petroleum gas and other fuels?
    Mr. Prescott: Anything that encourages people to make a better environmental contribution, including the greater use of environmentally friendly fuels, is to be encouraged. Tax arrangements which are dealt with by the Chancellor, are also important. We are making headway in such matters.
    Joan Ruddock: Will my right hon. Friend consider early-day motion 232 on climate change, which has been signed by 122 Members and which welcomes the e-campaign T.5.20? Does he agree that a country with 5 per cent. of the world's population that produces 20 per cent. of the world's greenhouse emissions has a particular responsibility to get its policy right? Giving it a little more time is probably appropriate in this case.
    Mr. Prescott: It is right to give everyone an opportunity to meet the objectives to which they signed up as part of the Kyoto agreement. Indeed, the recent UN conference in China on climate change revealed new and stronger evidence to show that global warming is continuing to increase and to have an effect on the environment, and that it is created by manmade activities. We are all beholden to take steps to reduce such activities.
    Mr. Damian Green: It is instructive that Labour Back Benchers wish to express their suspicions of a new American Administration who have been in office for fewer than three weeks, rather than performing the role of the House in holding our Government—in this case, the Deputy Prime Minister—to account. The right hon. Gentleman led the European negotiators at The Hague with such diplomatic finesse that, when the talks failed, he characteristically blamed everyone else and his colleague, the French Minister, said that
    "he lost his nerve, he lost his cool",

    147
    and, for good measure, that he was "a male chauvinist pig." Can he assure the House that, in the interests of the country's reputation and the future of such vital negotiations, he will play no further personal role in those talks?
    Mr. Prescott: A typical Opposition question. The hon. Gentleman has the facts wrong. I did participate in leading the negotiations at Kyoto because, at that time, Britain was one of the three parties involved in the presidency, and I therefore played a part. That was not the case at The Hague because the meeting was controlled by France, not Britain. However, I hope that I played a positive role by suggesting a way in which we could reach an agreement. I am grateful that the terms of the negotiations are still on the table for discussion. That is a step forward and I shall not be put off by silly, stupid remarks by the Opposition.

    British Waterways
    Mr. Alan Meale: If he will make a statement on improvements to British waterways. [148447]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): British Waterways has made tremendous strides in delivering the targets that we set it during my hon. Friend's period as waterways Minister, turning what had been a liability into an extremely important asset. We have significantly increased public investment in British Waterways. It expects to eliminate its safety-related backlog by 2004 instead of 2006. The document "Waterways for Tomorrow" reported on British Waterways' initiatives to work with the voluntary sector and to establish new public-private partnerships in telecommunications, property and water transfer.
    Mr. Meale: I thank the Government for their continued commitment to British Waterways, and I pay particular tribute to the strong leadership of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the Department any nearer to achieving a single navigational authority for all the waterways in Britain, which would help modernisation?
    Mr. Meacher: I pay a warm and well-deserved tribute to my hon. Friend for his close interest in British Waterways and for the fact that, under his stewardship, the inland waterways were turned into the much more dynamic and successful enterprise that they are today. There has been a huge increase in funding—it has almost tripled since 1997—and a long history of under-investment has been reversed. "Waterways for Tomorrow", which the Deputy Prime Minister launched last June, considered several options, including the one to which my hon. Friend drew attention. That is still under discussion with the new, dynamic chairman and chief executive of British Waterways, and we hope to make an announcement before long.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Many of us have unexpectedly acquired waterways in our constituencies, as I have in Redbourn, because of flooding and burst mains, and the only improvement that we want is to return those waterways to roads. That is held up by a shortage of tankers. Will the Minister investigate the
    148
    possibility of releasing tankers from the emergency services to supplement those provided by Thames Water and the county council?
    Mr. Meacher: I think that that question goes rather wide of British Waterways. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman, who inherited this important asset, was unable to persuade his Government to end the huge under-investment that went on for 20 years. However, the point that the right hon. Gentleman made is sensible, and I shall investigate it and write to him.

    Local Authority Housing Investment
    Ms Rosie Winterton: If he will make a statement on investment in local authority housing. [148448]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Government inherited a £19 billion backlog of council house renovation and improvement work. We have committed ourselves to bringing all council housing in England up to a decent standard by 2010. The resources provided to authorities for housing investment have been increased from £750 million in 1997-98 to £2.4 billion next year.
    Ms Winterton: Council tenants in Doncaster are already seeing the extra money that is being invested in local authority housing beginning to reverse the years of under-investment under the previous Government. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he is aware not only of the amount of substandard housing in Doncaster but of the particular problems that we face, such as the need to improve former Coal Board housing? Will he assure me that he will consider those matters when reviewing the allocation of the major repairs allowance, so that housing in my constituency can become a right for all and not just a privilege for a few?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments about the increases in capital spending. She will know that Doncaster is receiving £12.5 million in the current year and will receive £16.5 million next year. Those are substantial increases on the £5.5 million level inherited from the previous Government.
    My hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties in her area and the need for a sustained programme of investment that brings together the resources of the local authority and all other bodies that are able to contribute. I am pleased to tell her that, only last Friday, I discussed with the leader of her local council and the cabinet member with responsibility for housing some of the specific issues affecting Doncaster and ways in which they can best proceed, with the Government's full support, to tackle those problems more effectively.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Local authority tenants in Sheffield are keen that additional investment be made in their homes and are considering questions relating to the future tenure of their housing. Will the right hon. Gentleman assist their deliberations by making clear any link that exists between future investment arrangements and future tenure arrangements? Are the Government entirely neutral on who owns the

    149
    housing, or is additional investment made available if housing is transferred from the local authority to other social housing providers?
    Mr. Raynsford: We have made it clear to local authorities that they have four options to consider in relation to the future of their stock. Those include continuing to administer their housing through a housing revenue account managed by the local authority; the possibility of acting through an arm's-length management company, as set out in our proposals in the housing Green Paper, whereby ownership remains with the local authority but the housing is managed at arm's length; the private finance initiative, under which £600 million additional credits will be made available to allow private sector involvement, but with ownership remaining with the local authority; and large-scale voluntary transfer to a registered social landlord. Those are the four options; all have a different impact and we expect local authorities to analyse the financial implications for themselves and to conclude which is the best option for their area. The Government have no preference and are not pressing local authorities to pursue any one of the four options.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: I put it to my right hon. Friend that, instead of being given four options, local authorities are being directed towards only one option: stock transfer. At the meeting last Friday, it was made plain to him by the leader of Barnsley council that the council has no money in its accounts for housing improvements because it has been transferred to the major repairs allowance or the housing revenue account. Arm's-length companies will be available to no more than half a dozen local authorities, so some authorities such as mine, which has already held a ballot in which stock transfer was rejected, are between the devil and the deep blue sea. They are being forced down one line by the Government and not being given money for repairs if they want to keep their council housing.
    Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend, as I told his colleague the leader of Barnsley council at that meeting, that Barnsley has benefited from one of the largest increases in local authority capital funding of any local authority in the country—it is well above the national average. We want to work with Barnsley council and other local authorities to ensure the best possible outcome. It is right that authorities consider a range of options. I know that Barnsley considered stock transfer but that, by a narrow majority, tenants voted against it. I am sure that Barnsley council, like other authorities, will continue to do its best to use the substantially increased resources that the Government have made available, and that it will choose the option that is best for the interests of its tenants and housing in its area.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the Minister recall that, prior to the last election, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pledged:
    "We need an emergency programme to reduce the number of empty properties, including those held by government departments"?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the latest figures show 762,000-odd empty properties in England—seven empty houses or flats for every homeless household—and that the number of empty council housing units in England
    150
    was 84,000, up 3,000 since 1997? As Ministers play their own private version of "Monopoly" with their personal property empires, will they spare an occasional thought for those in housing need?
    Mr. Raynsford: The Government have introduced a series of measures to encourage empty properties being brought back into use. In particular, we have taken effective action to bring empty Government property back into use. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman of our success in that respect: when the Conservative party was last in power, the Ministry of Defence had 14,000 empty properties; that figure is now down to 10,700—far too many, but decreasing. Under Conservative stewardship, my Department, now the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, had more than 1,000 empty properties; last year, that figure was down to 241. The current Government are taking action to produce results and to reduce the number of empty properties in this country.
    Mr. Neil Turner: May I press my right hon. Friend on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) about local authority housing? It is important that those authorities that eschew large-scale voluntary transfer are not penalised. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those authorities that do not go through the LSVT option will not be penalised either through rents or access to capital for improvements in their housing stock?
    Mr. Raynsford: It is difficult to see how local authorities have been penalised in a year when they have received a 51 per cent. increase in their capital allocations. Next year, authorities across the country are due to receive a further 26 per cent. increase in capital allocations. The Government are increasing funding to local authorities and we want them to reach a sensible choice, bearing in mind the need to improve their stock and to use all available options. We have said that that is a matter for each local authority to decide, bearing in mind the resources available to them and the Government's commitment to increase funding.

    Regional Government
    Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on his policy concerning regional government. [148449]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): We remain committed to a move to directly elected regional government, where there is support as demonstrated in referendums. While no timetable has yet been drawn up, governance in the regions is already evolving through the work of the chambers, regional development agencies, Government offices and others.
    Mr. Luff: The Secretary of State has helpfully reconfirmed the Government's position on regional government, as originally set out in the Labour party manifesto at the general election. That confirmed that

    151
    where regional government was introduced, a tier of local government would have to be abolished. I quote:
    "Our plans will not mean adding a new tier of government to the existing English system."
    Which tier of local government will the Government abolish? Is it to be county councils, as most of the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends seem to be suggesting? If so, will he campaign for the abolition of county councils during the elections to those bodies in May?
    Mr. Prescott: The sound of elections and county council elections is round the corner. As I have always said, I think both sides of the House are agreed that local government unitary authorities are the first tier of the local government structure. As for the second, regional tier, we shall put forward a list of options to the electorate that will be ready for the referendums for each region, and allow them to make a decision. That has always been our position, and it is the one that we shall be presenting to the electorate.
    Dr. David Clark: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that probably the greatest feeling for regional government in England is in the northern region? Does he further appreciate that that feeling is strengthening, bearing in mind the relationship with devolved government across the Scottish border? With that in mind, will he consider the possibility that the northern region should again be reunited, and that a common region facing the Scottish border, including the north of Cumbria, should be involved in a new northern regional assembly?
    Mr. Prescott: I find in my journeys around the country that there is a growing feeling for some form of regional government and that that is as strong in the north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside as in the northern area. There has been a long history of demands for regional government in the northern region, and I am supportive of that. We must ascertain exactly what that opinion is, and we will do that by referendum. There is the age-old argument in the north about whether the region should cover Cumbria; it is a judgment that must be arrived at later.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the primary purpose of regional government is not to take functions from local government but to give democratic accountability for regional activities, which are mainly undertaken now by central Government, to the regions? Is he able to tell us whether we might have a referendum within two years of the general election?
    Mr. Prescott: I shall leave those comments to be made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have always believed in the regional government argument. It is important to recognise, first, that regional government should involve the decentralising of power and government functions from central Government to the regions. Secondly, we should not make the mistake of centralising in a region in the name of decentralisation. These are thoughts that we shall have in mind when we put the options to the electorate.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome his first reply on the subject this afternoon? Is he also aware of the assemblies' and RDAs' lack of democratic accountability? That accountability can come only from regional assemblies, so it should be a major priority for the Government after the next election.
    Mr. Prescott: I certainly believe that it should be a priority. On the form of regional government, we have made it clear that people in the regions will make that decision, and we will draw up several alternatives for them to consider in the referendum.
    Mr. Archie Norman: Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that it is a good use of taxpayers' money for RDAs to set up expensive new offices in Brussels?
    Mr. Prescott: I believe that the RDAs need to be represented where they can make decisions and where European decisions clearly affect their regions. As for the judgment about whether or not such offices are expensive, I do not know which one the hon. Gentleman is referring to. However, I get very suspicious of any talk from the Opposition about figures, particularly in view of the fact that they said that they would save £200 million by scrapping regional chambers, when no such commitment has ever been given; that is a black hole in the hon. Gentleman's own finances.
    Mr. Norman: Most people in this country believe that is for the Government to represent us in Brussels as one country, not a nation divided into regions, each with its hand out. Is it right for the West Midlands regional development agency to have an office of up to 12 people and a budget of £1 million? Does it make sense to have five other RDAs with their own offices, and three more planning to set up offices, at great expense to the taxpayer? Is that not another illustration of the dissipation of the effort created by the RDAs and the cost to the taxpayer of unaccountable regional bureaucracies?
    Mr. Prescott: What I find a little difficult to accept about the hon. Gentleman's arguments is the fact that he makes great complaint about the English RDAs, but has nothing to say about Scotland and Wales, even though he is prepared to abolish RDAs in England, yet retain them as government for Scotland and Wales. As for the role and importance of the RDAs, we have found that the RDA played an important part in Birmingham in solving the problems of Rover and the motor car industry. RDAs are playing a part now in helping to develop regional economies.
    The hon. Gentleman should make it clear to the House where he stands on those matters of regional government. On Sunday 29 January, he talked about regional government on "The Westminster Hour" and said:
    "Well yes I think that, em, we're also pragmatic and we recognise that there's no fixed formula. Different solutions are right for different areas".
    That is right; that is our position. Does the hon. Gentleman concur with that?
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I give my right hon. Friend a good reason for introducing

    153
    a north-west regional assembly? Such an assembly would enable us, finally, to have in place a mechanism for keeping the North West Development Agency under control.
    Mr. Prescott: I think that there is a strong history behind that inquiry. My hon. Friend is right: development agencies should be accountable to representative bodies, whether directly or indirectly, whether elected or appointed. It is for the people of a region to make their decision, and the RDAs are but a tool for the development of the region to which they should be accountable.

    Fuel Duty
    Mr. John Bercow: What recent representations he has received from the British Road Federation about the level of fuel duty. [148450]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The Government receive representations from a wide range of interested bodies, including the British Road Federation, regarding the level of fuel duty and transport policy. Those are considered carefully and help to inform the Chancellor's Budget judgment.
    Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his informative, comprehensive and inspiring reply. Is it not a fact that, after nearly four years of Labour Government, Britain's petrol, although among the cheapest in the European Union before tax, is the most expensive after tax?
    Mr. Hill: I do not think that the House is likely to forget that the major source of the increase in fuel prices in recent years resulted from the previous Government's introduction of the fuel duty escalator. If there is any responsibility for the situation in which the underlying rate of increase results largely from the increase in oil prices, it lies with the global price increase in oil and the activities of the previous Government.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, the price of lead-free petrol in this country is virtually identical to that in France, whereas diesel is much cheaper on the continent? People may argue about prices, but do they want to pay the extremely expensive tolls that individuals have to pay in France to drive on the autoroutes?
    Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is right. In the sometimes blinkered discussions of these matters, the total impact of various imposts on fuel are not taken into account. Notwithstanding the protestations of the Opposition, the costs of motoring are lower now than they were 30 years ago, in 1970.
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The Minister is aware that Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom with a land frontier, and that the significant differentials in fuel duty between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic have an extremely detrimental impact on the petrol retail industry and the
    154
    road haulage industry in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister make representations to the Treasury to have the matter addressed?
    Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that insight into the situation in Northern Ireland. He is aware, of course, that ministerially I have no direct responsibility for the situation in Northern Ireland, but I undertake to convey his observations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Contaminated Land
    Mr. Mark Hendrick: If he will make a statement on cleaning up contaminated land. [148451]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): We are committed to cleaning up the legacy of contaminated land left unremedied by the previous Government. We brought a new regulatory framework into force in April 2000. We have also made significant public funds available both for remedying contaminated land and for reclaiming derelict land.
    Mr. Hendrick: Is my hon. Friend aware that low-level radioactive waste is being dumped at Clifton Marsh, on the outskirts of Preston, causing great concern to the residents of Preston and the Fylde? Can she give me some reassurance that the activities taking place there are safe, and are not a threat to public health or the environment?
    Ms Hughes: I understand residents' concerns, in view of what has been in the newspapers. My hon. Friend knows that the Environment Agency is carrying out an investigation into those claims. The preliminary investigation has found nothing to suggest that radioactive materials significantly above the de minimis level allowed under the current legislation have been deposited. The agency is continuing to investigate and, if any further information emerges, it will be made available at the earliest opportunity. The EA undertakes regular monitoring, including checks on randomly selected skips, and the results are routinely published annually. To date, nothing unusual has been found, and regulatory conditions have not been found to have been breached. On that basis, I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that he seeks.
    Mr. Tom Brake: Has the Minister considered the impact that a greenfield development tax would have on the amount of contaminated land that could be cleaned up?
    Ms Hughes: The Government have brought in a range of measures to ensure that we make progress on cleaning up contaminated land That includes bringing into force regulations laid by the previous Government, who took no action to implement them and refused to make available the resources that local authorities and other agencies need to progress those orders and to make sure that contaminated land is cleared. Actions speak louder than words, and we have taken the necessary action.

    Neighbourhood Renewal
    Mr. Ivan Henderson: If he will make a statement on the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. [148452]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The Government's action plan, "A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal", was published on 15 January and sets out our vision for narrowing the gap between poor neighbourhoods and the rest of the country. It aims to deliver economic prosperity, safe communities, high quality schools, decent housing and better health to the poorest parts of the country.
    Mr. Henderson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and welcome the introduction of the neighbourhood management programmes that are about to be introduced. They will cover areas in my constituency where there are pockets of deprivation, such as Jaywick, where the grasslands, greens and village areas desperately need help for their roads, poor housing, street lighting, health problems, law and order problems and education problems. Will my right hon. Friend consider seriously any proposal put forward by the local strategic partnership in that area for future bids that would reflect the aims of such programmes?
    Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the tenacious way in which he has continued to put the case for the people of Jaywick. He will know that more than £6 million has been allotted to the neighbourhood in the past five years to enable it to seek improvements. It is eligible to apply for neighbourhood management but, as he knows, Jaywick needs the two councils to provide leadership and to recognise that they must pull agencies together to ensure progress. I hope that he will continue to work with them to ensure that that happens.

    Empty Homes
    Sandra Gidley: What steps he is taking to bring empty homes back into use. [148453]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The urban and rural White Papers, which we published in November, and our housing policy statement, which we published in December, set out a series of proposals that we are pursuing to bring more empty homes back into use. Those proposals include new tax concessions, guidance for local authorities and owners, and increased funding for the Empty Homes Agency.
    Sandra Gidley: According to the Empty Homes Agency, there are 87,400 empty homes in the south-east, which is under huge pressure for more house build. Given that that is the case, will the Government admit that although they have said much about the theory of using a sequential approach, involving the use of existing stocks before greenfield land is released for building, they are not doing anything to make that a reality? When will local authorities be given powers to make landlords return empty houses to the housing market? Will the Secretary of State impress upon the Chancellor the need to make
    156
    repairs to existing buildings more affordable by equalising VAT on repairs and new build at a lower rate than at present?
    Mr. Raynsford: The Government have done a great deal to change the emphasis and to focus on brownfield and inner-city development, rather than on allowing the profligate greenfield development that was so characteristic of the Conservative party when it was in power. The hon. Lady will be aware of the measures announced by the Government in respect of bringing empty properties back into use. Those measures have been welcomed by the Empty Homes Agency, which says:
    "We are pleased that senior Ministers are talking about tackling empty homes and the recent policy changes introduced by the Government on planning and new housing provision that encourage using existing empty homes first will make a difference."
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the successful empty housing scheme initiated by Southampton city council? The scheme is called "Opening up the Empties" and is a partnership initiative that encourages the return to use of empty private sector homes. Will he encourage other local authorities to follow Southampton's example and to undertake similar schemes?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to agree entirely with my hon. Friend that Southampton's approach to tackling empty properties has been exemplary. It was one of the pioneering authorities in terms of its empty homes strategy, and Councillor Paul Jenks and his colleagues in Southampton deserve every congratulation on what they have done. They have been trailblazers, and if other authorities followed their lead more effectively, further action would be taken in bringing empty properties back into use.
    Mr. James Gray: What will the Minister do about local authorities such as Liberal Democrat-controlled North Wiltshire district council? Some five years ago, it sold off all of its council houses for £90 million and has since spent some £50 million of that money on assorted schemes, but has not built one single house, until now, when it is spending £25 million on building a new headquarters for itself. North Wiltshire has problems with empty homes and housing, but what can we do about the Liberals there?
    Mr. Raynsford: I have to say that I have no responsibility for the Liberal party, either here or in North Wiltshire. I am, however, responsible for housing policy. It is the Government's objective to ensure that all authorities create strategies to make best use of the housing in their areas. That should include bringing empty homes into use. Authorities must also meet the needs of their populations through partnership with the private sector and registered social landlords, and use the additional resources that the Government are making available to them. We regret it very much when individual authorities fail to show the enthusiasm that is necessary to tackle problems in their areas.

    Health and Safety (Vinyl Chloride Monomer)
    Mr. Harry Barnes: What action he is taking to protect workers from exposure to vinyl chloride monomer; and if he will make a statement. [148454]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The control of substances hazardous to health regulations require employers to prevent or control exposure of their employees to vinyl chloride monomer, and several approved codes of practice give practical guidance on the application of the regulations to vinyl chloride. The Health and Safety Commission will consult about proposals to introduce a more stringent exposure limit for vinyl chloride monomer before the European Union directive is introduced.
    Mr. Barnes: Workers at the former Vinatex plant in my constituency were exposed to VCM, and many developed cancer. Recent research by the International Agency for Research on Cancer suggests that exposure to
    158
    cancers through VCM is much wider than was previously believed. Will the Minister consider reinstating the angio-sarcoma register which details such matters, and extending it to include the new information that the survey reveals?
    Mr. Meacher: I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has pursued issues that relate to exposure to chemicals in more than one case in his constituency, which I have visited.
    Vinatex was a PVC manufacturer at Staveley until 1985. As my hon. Friend said, much research has been carried out, not least by the trade union safety team, into effects on the workers at the plant. It was published last September and showed a higher incidence of respiratory problems than expected, as well as other conditions.
    The Health and Safety Executive has established a national register of angio-sarcoma cases to document more accurately the incidence of that rare cancer and to evaluate its possible occupational associations more generally. I want that work to be completed and I am keen to follow it up by taking the necessary action to protect workers better in future.

Speaker's Statement
3.32 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about Adjournment debates. In Westminster Hall on Tuesday mornings this Session, there have been three one-hour debates followed by three half-hour debates. The Modernisation Committee's report, which was approved by the House on 20 November last year, allows a measure of flexibility. In the light of experience, I have decided that, from Tuesday 27 February, the three one-hour debates should be replaced by two one-and-a-half-hour debates.
There is a further point about Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall and the Chamber. I find an increasing tendency for hon. Members who apply for debates to be selective about the day of the week on which they want to hold them. That complicates the administration of the ballot and can lead to unfairness for those who make no such stipulations. In future, my office will give priority to applications from hon. Members that contain no date restrictions. In addition, any hon. Member who withdraws from an allocated Adjournment debate will not be permitted to re-enter the ballot for a period of four weeks.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you, as well as the relevant Department, notice of my point of order.
Today, the Government published their much-trailed White Paper on industrial competitiveness. First, is it right that such an important subject should be launched by written parliamentary answer at 8.30 this morning rather than by oral statement, which would allow hon. Members to scrutinise its content?
Secondly, the relevant documents were not available until ten past 12 this afternoon, after the press conference that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry called to present his view.
Thirdly, the entire contents of the White Paper were reported in this morning's newspapers. The reports contained accurate quotes from the text of the document. Is not it a clear abuse, and contempt of the House, for the Government again to leak in detail their policy proposals to the press when denying hon. Members the opportunity to see the documents or to cross-examine the Government on them?
We look to you, Mr. Speaker, to stand up for the rights of the House against a Government who are determined to avoid critical scrutiny of their policy proposals. I ask you to do that in this instance.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me respond to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat- Amory). I am grateful to him for giving me notice of his point of order. He has raised a number of issues.
It is, as he knows, for Ministers to decide whether they make announcements to Parliament by means of an oral statement or a written answer. I have no comment to make on the Secretary of State's decision in that regard.
I understand that the answer was available at 8.30 this morning, and that copies were placed in the Library and the Vote Office. Copies of the White Paper should have
160
been in the Vote Office from 11 o'clock, but there was a delay in their delivery. I am sure that the Secretary of State would wish to establish how that delay occurred, and to ensure that it does not happen again.
I take very seriously indeed the right hon. Gentleman's concern that the content of the White Paper appeared in the press this morning. It seems to me that there is a close correspondence between the White Paper and the press articles. I think, therefore, that it would be reasonable for me to ask the Secretary of State to undertake an investigation into how this occurred, and to report the results to the House.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order arising from your original statement, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that some Members belong to organisations such as the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. When applying for Adjournment debates, they normally inform you of the dates on which they do not expect to be in the House. They do so in order not to show disrespect to the House by having to refuse a particular date, rather than to seek privilege. From what you have said, it seems possible that hon. Members who are also members of such bodies might, to a degree, be placed at a disadvantage.
Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that Thursdays and Fridays are the unpopular days for Adjournment debates.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any request from the Secretary of State for Scotland, or from one of her Ministers, to come to the House to make a statement about her involvement and that of her Department in the cancellation of the Taoiseach's visit to Scotland last weekend, and about the subsequent resignation of her Parliamentary Private Secretary? The right hon. Lady has spent part of today making pronouncements away from the House about her role, or lack of it, in the matter, but has suggested that questions in the House could be answered by anyone, not necessarily from her own Department.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The answer to that is no. The hon. Gentleman applied for a private notice question on this matter, which I refused. I had hoped that that would be the end of it so far as I was concerned.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know about you, but in the course of the past few weeks, we have had Tories getting up and saying that they want statements, and you have had to reply to them. Sometimes you have had to do a bit of research to provide an authoritative answer. We know that the Tories are changing their policies on everything, and yesterday they demanded that a Minister should not make a statement to the House. I know that you have to respond to these idiots, Mr. Speaker. One day they want a statement, the next day they do not. Today, they want one again. Where the hell are we going?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman uses such terms against the Opposition.
Mr. John Bercow: He used to be Dennis Skinner.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) always comes up with points of order and tries to give me advice, for which I am always grateful.
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to your statement on Adjournment debates, almost all of which I heartily welcome, may I ask whether your restriction on the priority in ballots will apply when Members are concerned about their Fridays for the simple reason that many of them fill up their Fridays will constituency engagements, including constituency surgeries? Those of us who regularly apply for Adjournment debates know only at very short notice whether we have been successful, and, if we have not, it could be too late to do useful work for our constituents on the Fridays in question.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know by now that it is entirely up to him if he wishes to attend to his constituents in his constituency. If he wishes to apply for an Adjournment debate, which I take to be of benefit to at least one of his constituents, he must make a judgment. It is all a question of judgment.
Mr. John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that the whole House awaits, with fitting concern and apprehension, the report of the inquiry into the Hinduja affair. You will also know that there has been some speculation about the Cabinet Secretary's involvement, and that he has felt it necessary to write to a newspaper today on the subject.
The whole House wishes to safeguard and protect the independence and integrity of the civil service, including that gentleman's. He says that there is a note of his meeting with the Hindujas. Would you, Mr. Speaker—as our champion, and the personification of all that is good and noble about the House—ask the Prime Minister to ensure that a copy of that note is placed in the Library immediately, to avoid any further speculation about the Cabinet Secretary's involvement in these affairs?
Mr. Speaker: In spite of the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks, the answer is no.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the
162
Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall that took over an hour each were largely tied to Select Committee reports. Such debates have been increasingly used as a means of bringing a wide debate on various Select Committee reports to the Floor of the House. Further to points that have been made this afternoon, may we now take it that if there are to be more half-hour debates on Members' particular interests in future, we shall have the opportunity to debate more Select Committee reports in the Chamber?
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Lady misunderstood. Instead of three separate hour-long debates, we shall now have two debates lasting an hour and a half. That is my explanation.
Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling in relation to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Can you tell us within what time scale he will have to carry out his investigation, and whether, when he reports back to the House, he will do so by means of an oral statement or by some ether means?
Will you make it clear to those who might be less familiar with our procedures, Mr. Speaker, that there is a big difference between what happened yesterday, when the Government insisted on making a statement on a Green Paper in Opposition time, and what happened today, when the Government refused to make a statement on a White Paper in Government time?
Mr. Speaker: I think that we dealt with the second point yesterday. I would expect the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to conduct an inquiry and reach a conclusion within a reasonable time.

BILL PRESENTED
  CLIMATE CHANGE
  Mr. Don Foster, supported by Mr. Tom Brake, Ms Joan Walley, Mr. David Chaytor and Mr. Simon Thomas, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to draw up and implement polices to alleviate climate change; to require the setting of targets for the achievement of those policies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 9 March, and to be printed [Bill 44].

Rural Community Public Transport
3.43 pm
Mr. David Prior: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to delegate further the provisions of rural public transport to voluntary organisations, district, town and parish councils; and to encourage and promote the use of such transport.
Many Members who are present today represent rural constituencies. They will be aware, as I am, of the difficulties faced by many people who live and work in the country. We are seeing an unprecedented decline in our local services: post offices, village shops, garages, youth clubs, community centres, the local doctor, the village pub and the local primary school. Many villages no longer have any of those services, and many villagers often have to make a 20-mile round trip to find them.
As local services have declined, transport has become more important. For many of my constituents, the car is an absolute necessity; it cannot remotely be described as a luxury. Indeed, for many families in which the husband and wife both work or there are small children, two cars are often essential.
As the Government have piled on fuel taxes, however, the cost of running a car has become prohibitively expensive. It is a necessity that many people can no longer afford. Some 20 per cent. of households in Norfolk do not have a car—or, if they do, it is only at the expense of something else, which seriously affects their quality of life. For many people—especially the young, the disabled, families on low incomes and those who are retired on fixed incomes—a car is simply too expensive. It is primarily with those people in mind that I am introducing this Bill. It is simply no good for the Government to continue to tax motorists without providing an alternative.
I do not believe, however, that the Government can produce a national blueprint for rural transport. The man in Whitehall invariably does not know best. It is time that the Government—who have taken centralisation, micro-management and bureaucracy to new heights—let go and left decision making to people who know the local situation and the needs of local people.
A good example of central Government getting it wrong was the original terms of the grant for rural bus services. County councils were not able to use the grant for existing bus routes. Consequently, sub-optimal routes were opened, leading to the frequent spectacle of large subsidised buses travelling half empty. The purpose of this Bill is to force the Government to decentralise decision making to the local communities that need and will use public transport. It is also designed to ensure that Government action supports voluntary organisations, not replaces them.
Last summer, I commissioned four students—Emily Hill, Kat Colley, Adam Rumley and Amy Weight—from Fakenham college, an excellent sixth form college in north Norfolk, to do a survey of public transport from the point of view of the young and to produce some recommendations. Their survey revealed that 102 of 135 students between 14 and 18 thought that their extracurricular, out-of-school-hours activities were severely restricted by inadequate public transport. Forty-nine students revealed that there was no regular bus service through their village, and 75 stated that no bus route went where they wanted to go at a time when they wanted to go there.
164
The truth is that young people without access to a car living in places such as north Norfolk are effectively marooned. They cannot go to the shops in the main town, Norwich, or to the leisure centre, the cinema or even the bowling alley in Fakenham. Other people suffer, too. School leavers find it difficult to get to work or to training courses. Wages are often very low in the country, and even with a regular job it is very expensive to run a car. There are not many jobs left in our villages, and the recession in agriculture is making them even harder to find.
Older people, mothers with young children and disabled people are literally stranded, unable to reach market towns. A report commissioned last year by the Countryside Agency showed that in villages with a population of fewer than 1,000, 31 per cent. of people thought that public transport was "very bad". The truth is that public transport is too limited in scope; timetables are inconvenient and infrequent; bus stops are often too far away and have no shelter; the service is not reliable; the service is slow because of the circuitous routes required; and it is expensive, especially for students.
I accept that there is no magic wand to wave. Students at Fakenham college and I have reached the same conclusion: we should invest in local community transport that is flexible and customer oriented—such as the dial-a-ride flexi-minibus scheme in North Walsham, in north Norfolk; the dial-a-medic-ride scheme, which provides door-to-door transport to the doctor's surgery; and the Age Concern minibuses in Fakenham and Sheringham. The Sheringham service is being expanded to serve various other towns in north Norfolk and is providing a service for young people, too.
In future, the North Walsham dial-a-ride service will target young people who want to go to Cromer and Sheringham on a Friday or Saturday night. That is what people want—a service that is driven by demand and has no fixed timetable and no fixed route. It cannot be provided on a county or a national basis; it has to be provided on a very local basis. Many of those schemes are run by volunteers and by charities that often need a few thousand pounds to run the bus, to fund a part-time driver, to advertise for volunteer drivers and to maintain the vehicle. It would make an enormous difference to such schemes if they were eligible for a rebate on fuel duty. I was encouraged by the proposal in the rural White Paper to set up a parish fund to support small-scale transport projects and to minimise bureaucracy. I have a horrible feeling that, in practice, the bidding procedure will be complicated and the bureaucratic checks a nightmare. We shall see.
The Government put integrated transport high on their agenda when they came to power. They have not delivered. Public transport has got worse, not better. Community transport determined and funded at the local level is a commonsense way forward. It will deliver flexibility, accessibility, convenience and good value.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Prior, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Keith Simpson, Mr. David Ruffley, Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mr. Desmond Swayne, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Mr. John Whittingdale and Mr. Tim Collins.

Rural Community Public Transport
  RURAL COMMUNITY PUBLIC TRANSPORT
  Mr. DavidPrior accordingly presented a Bill to delegate further the provisions of rural public transport to voluntary organisations, district, town and parish councils; and to encourage and promote the use of such transport: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 46]

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
3.51 pm
The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 22nd January:

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

  Consideration and Third Reading
  1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.
  2. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at quarter past Eight o'clock.
  3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock.
  4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

  Consideration of Lords Amendments and further message's from the Lords
  5. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

  (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or

  (b) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords,

  and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.
  The motion proposes that the remaining stages of the Bill be completed in the House today. It is supplemental to the programme motion approved for the Committee stage that finished, as planned, on 8 February.
  For most of the time in Committee we had a constructive debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), who chaired the Committee, and to the Committee's members. We had a very constructive debate about the detail of the Bill, and that debate improved the Bill. The debate in Standing Committee finished on time, with no guillotines imposed, and in fact the Government offered to run longer on one evening than was required. We had constructive discussions and I hope that we can have them again for the rest of today. We have plenty of time between now and 8.15 to conclude the debate.
  I commend the motion to the House and hope that we can get on with the debate.
  3.52 pm
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Hon. Members will be familiar with the Government's proposal, which is a device for curtailing debate. However, this motion is an especially bad example, as connoisseurs of such matters among my hon. Friends will agree. This is the mother of Parliaments, and it might be useful if I explained to visitors how the device works and why they should appalled at the way in which the Government want to get their laws and run.

  167
  There has been no formal agreement between parties on the decision to complete the Bill's Report stage by 8.15 this evening. We were presented with a fait accompli, and the original deadline was earlier. I cannot believe that a major Bill, the subject of a Labour election manifesto pledge, is to be done and dusted by 9 o'clock tonight so that a second Bill can be considered before 10 pm. That beggars belief, and I hope that visitors to the House will be appalled.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend is setting out cogently the appalling behaviour of the Government on this Bill, as on so many others. However, there is no time limit on the second Bill to be considered today. Therefore, does she agree that, however much the Government may intend to force things through on a rushed timetable, they may find that things work out very differently?
  Mrs. Spelman: I do not think that I need add anything to what my hon. Friend has said. Perhaps his intentions and those of some of my other right hon. and hon. Friends will now be clear.
  It was quite unnecessary for the Government to curtail this debate, not least because I believe that the Bill that follows is, on the whole, uncontroversial. However, the haste with which it has been introduced may give my right hon. and hon. Friends a different belief as to its controversial nature.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that many of the amendments that have been tabled, particularly on Friday, show that the Government have been caught by their own great rush. In effect, some 24 hours after denying that they were going to make changes, the Government have tabled amendments. Surely a bit more lime would allow the Minister to get her Bill into some sort of order.
  Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He served on the Standing Committee and was particularly affected by the haste with which the Bill was considered. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work. His knowledge of the internet and the way in which the internet service providers are likely to be affected by the Bill was invaluable. We shall come back to that tonight. I think that all right hon. and hon. Members would benefit from hearing what my hon. Friend has to say on the way new technology will be affected, but of course there is a risk. Curtailing the debate on Report by 8.15 means that we may not even reach that important part of the Bill. That is just one of the problems imposed by the guillotine.
  I thought that it might be helpful to right hon. and hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee, those who read Hansard, and visitors listening to the debate if I explained the background to the programme motion. Second Reading took place just over three weeks ago, on 22 January. We had only one week before this important Bill, with substantial implications for many groups in the economy and society, went into Committee. The Committee had to finish its consideration of the Bill by 8 February.
  The Minister was kind enough to say that the Opposition's role in Committee had on the whole been constructive and helpful. Of course, we set out to be
  168
  constructive. However, we had to hurry through some parts of the Bill in Committee and there were casualties, notably new clause 5. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is not in the Chamber, as he tabled new clause 5 for debate in Committee. As we began to run tight on time on the last agreed Committee sitting, the hon. Gentleman received an undertaking that his new clause would be brought back on Report. I was privy to the discussions that would make that possible, and the intention on both sides of the Committee was that the hon. Gentleman should have the opportunity to bring back his important new clause.
  The new clause proposed establishing a new regulatory authority, recommended by the Royal College of Physicians. That recommendation came originally from the Select Committee on Health, no less, and enjoys cross-party support. So it is unfortunate that the unseemly haste with which we had to deal with the Bill in Committee has led to the removal of the opportunity for the hon. Member for Rother Valley to debate his new clause. I should certainly have liked the opportunity to speak on that important new clause, but that, unfortunately, is not to be today.
  Mr. John Bercow: I echo my hon. Friend's tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who is a truly outstanding technology anorak.
  Does my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) agree that it would be particularly unfortunate if, as a consequence of the Government's truncation of debate on Report, four Government amendments in the later groups were not even reached?
  Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend exactly describes the position. We have no flexibility in this matter; it is clear that the Commons will not be able to complete its deliberations before the Bill has to go to another place. No doubt my hon. Friend's close reading of Hansard led to his deliberate joke about my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). For the benefit of hon. Members who did not attend the Standing Committee, the reference to my hon. Friend as an anorak was in no way derogatory—quite the contrary. My hon. Friend brought an anorak bearing the Silk Cut logo to a meeting of the Standing Committee, in order to make the important point that the logos of well-known brands of tobacco are frequently displayed on items of clothing such as anoraks. As the subtlety of that joke might have been lost, I hope that my sharing it with the House has ensured that hon. Members do not miss its full nuances and that they realise that no derogatory intention attaches to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I declare an interest.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Government think that programming this measure is clever because, in their view, getting legislation through fast is what it is all about, they might end up with quick but not better legislation? Our role as Back Benchers is to scrutinise legislation, but the Government are preventing us from doing so.
  Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I do not agree with him that the Government

  169
  are being clever; it is arrogant to try to race a piece of legislation through the House just because they have a large majority. The Government are simply having their own way.
  It is important to point out that the mechanics of opposition cannot be effective if the normal tools that the official Opposition need to do our job are not at our disposal. For example, the Committee stage of the Bill ended at 5 o'clock last Thursday; amendments for Report had to be tabled by 2.30 on Friday, but Hansard was not available in time for us to check exactly what the Government had agreed to reconsider during Report.
  Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend may not have considered a further point that arises from the Government's appalling use of this new programming arrangement. In the past, as my hon. Friend and other hon. Members know, those of us serving on Bill Standing Committees were normally able to get into the meat of the Bill on Report and debate it as soon as Question Time finished, or after discussion of a 10-minute Bill, such as the excellent one introduced today by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior). Under the current arrangements, we spend the whole of the first three-quarters of an hour discussing the evils of programming, and those of us who want to criticise a bad Bill that is unready for the statute book are unable to do so. We can raise only issues on programming. That is yet another negation of democracy by this appalling Government.
  Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Connoisseurs of debates on programme motions will realise that it must be patently obvious to the Government that such debates are not a good use of parliamentary time. However, we should make it clear to occasional visitors to the House that, almost daily, the Opposition have to fight the same issue over and over again. We have to spend 45 minutes of a restricted period fighting for freedoms that are part of the democracy of this country—the ability properly to scrutinise legislation and to ensure that the best possible job is done—[Interruption.] We have been restricted in so doing. As I pointed out during the debate on the programme motion that followed Second Reading, I sincerely hope that the Leader of the House will review the effectiveness of the Government's decision to change parliamentary procedure in that way—it is seriously flawed.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend may not heard the observation made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) from a sedentary position—that we were not obliged to spend 45 minutes debating the timetable motion, but that we chose to do so. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we did not do so, right hon. and hon. Labour Members would be the first to cite that as proof that we had no legitimate objections to the truncation of debate—when in fact we do, and they are numerous?
  Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend makes the point very well. Lest he should be disturbed by sedentary interventions from Labour Members, I must warn him that we must be prepared for quite a few of them during the
  170
  debate. That was certainly my experience in the Standing Committee, and that feature of our debates in Committee is well recorded in Hansard.
  It is also important that, whereas by convention, a decent period is allowed to elapse between the end of a Bill's consideration in Committee and its Report and Third Reading, Opposition Members have, in effect, had one weekend. That is, frankly, next to useless in terms of contacting the business community, which will be seriously affected by the Bill. Weekends are, to all intents and purposes, dead time for business, and with so little time to talk to those who will be directly affected, it has not been easy for the Opposition to prepare themselves for the debates on Report.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Did my hon. Friend share my experience—that members of the Standing Committee regularly received representations from organisations outside the House a day or two after we had discussed the relevant matters, so that those organisations have not had the chance to get their points of view across and we have not had the opportunity to consider them?
  Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend makes a practical point, not unrelated to the disruption to some of the distribution services caused by the disintegration of our transport system—so much for the Government's integrated transport strategy. An impact of the disintegration of their transport strategy is that we can no longer rely on the post arriving on time. I certainly found myself similarly badly affected by the late arrival of important documents that would have supported our views at different stages of the Bill's progress.
  In practical terms, when we arrived back from our constituencies yesterday, no fewer than 11 starred amendments had been tabled under the signature of the Secretary of State for Health. If any further proof were required of the disadvantages of rushing the Bill, that is clear evidence that the Government are rushing their own business. Many of those starred amendments address genuine issues of importance raised in Committee, so they were of great significance to us in preparing our response on Report; but virtually no time was left for us properly to consider their importance.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The fact that those amendments are starred will mean that interested external groups will not be able to comment on them, so any anxiety that they express will have to be addressed in the other place. That is profoundly unsatisfactory.
  Mrs. Spelman: My right hon. and learned Friend should be aware of the danger of assuming that there might be time in another place to scrutinise the Bill properly. I understand that, of the two health Bills that were considered simultaneously in Committee, the Health and Social Care Bill, which will be considered in the Chamber tomorrow, will take precedence in another place, thus placing this Bill in a risky position if the Government go to the country early, which we understand is becoming increasingly possible.
  Without in any way wishing to criticise the good offices of the House and the work of the Clerks, I wanted to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the selection

  171
  of amendments was not known until after the vote at 7 o'clock yesterday evening. That certainly makes the work of the Opposition extremely difficult. By that time, all the businesses that might have wished to communicate with us about the choice of matters to be discussed today had all gone home, as regular business hours were over.
  I should like to stress that in the rush, not surprisingly, some typographical mistakes have been made. I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that amendment No. 13 should refer to clause 2(4), but it has unfortunately slipped through with a typographical error. That is what happens when we have to rush through legislation in this way.
  There has been little chance properly to consult the people and organisations who will be affected. I was in the Library at 7.30 this morning because that was the only way I could catch up on the work and with the business community, which keeps different hours from the House's. That is not a good way to operate. It makes a mockery of the empty words about modernising the workings of the House and of the Government's attempts to introduce a family-friendly policy and transparent government.
  The brutal truth is that the Government, who have a huge majority, want their Bill now, for their convenience, because of the imminent general election. They want to be able to tick the box of an election pledge and say that it was done, irrespective of whether the Bill is correct, has the right tools to be effective or deals justly with the people affected. They have not considered whether Labour Members might have something to say on the matter, perhaps to improve or enhance the Bill's effectiveness. They are simply impatient and want their ill-prepared and ill-thought-out Bill now—but unfortunately, it will not be properly scrutinised by the Chamber.
  A report that was mentioned for the first time on "Newsnight" last night highlights the fact that adult smoking is rising for the first time in 30 years, according to Department of Health figures. The BBC News Online service, which also carried the story, says that that increase is thought to be a result of the high number of teenagers who took up smoking in the early 1990s. In light of that fact, it is important that we undertake proper scrutiny. We were at pains to point out on Second Reading that we strongly suspect that one of the main factors fuelling the increase in smoking—and we share the Government's interest in trying to reduce it—is the flood of illegally imported tobacco to this country. The Bill will do nothing about that. We seriously doubt its effectiveness unless the illegally imported tobacco floodgates are closed.
  Another disturbing report is on students who are paid £25 an hour to smoke a brand of cigarettes in a pub, cafe or cinema. That is not advertising in the strictest sense—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's comments have nothing to do with the programme motion.
  Mrs. Spelman: I am happy to return to the programme motion; I was merely explaining that the debate's curtailment and the terms of reference that the Government have chosen to constrain this important subject mean that the Bill will miss the mark and we will not have time to get down to the real issues. The Government will get their way and imperfect legislation will be passed. We have been deprived of the tools and time to do a far better job.
  4.13 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: The motion is not a programming motion; it is a guillotine. The programme motions for Committees can properly be described as such, but this motion has nothing to do with Committees. It provides a guillotine to deal with Report and Third Reading, and a guillotine motion is usually moved by the Leader of the House. It is not left—I do not mean to be unkind—to a junior Minister. It is wrong that she should face such a problem.
  I am in favour of the Bill. I am also in favour of the modernisation of procedure, but the Government are making a mockery of the Modernisation Committee's intentions. They have also tabled a motion that means that debate can continue until any hour—perhaps 2, 3 or 4 in the morning—on a matter that is not of such importance. There is thus no reason why they should have limited the time that might be needed to deal with the host of amendments that have been tabled.
  How will the Under-Secretary ensure that the Government amendments are carried? Most guillotine motions state that Government amendments will be taken at the end of the timed proceedings, but I see nothing in this motion that will allow that to happen. Presumably if the proceedings carry on until the time limit, the Government amendments will fall. Is that the case? If so, surely it is wrong. Not only are we right to say that the Bill will not be properly debated, but there will not be enough time for Government amendments to be debated and decided on. That makes a mockery of the procedure for Report stage and Third Reading.
  Why are the Government doing this? I have the answer: it is intended to allow Labour Back Benchers to leave at 10 o'clock. That does not permit the proper scrutiny of legislation, and those of us who have been in this place for some time condemn absolutely the way in which the Government are trying to cut short proper debate on amendments on Report. I hope that we can ensure that it does not happen again. When those who are in favour of a Bill have to get up and complain that the Government's arrangements for debating that Bill are nonsense, there is something very wrong with the procedure in the House.
  I am very sorry that the Under-Secretary has to sit there and take this criticism, which ought to be directed at the Chief Whip or the Leader of the House. It was they who decided on this procedure, not the poor Under-Secretary, so I hope that she will forgive me. None the less, she is the face of the Government on the Front Bench today and she must take this criticism.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend realises that another precedent is being set today, but this is a Department of Trade and Industry Bill, not a Department of Health Bill, and it does not deal with issues on which the Under-Secretary is an expert. She has been hung out to dry by the Government, which is a shame for her future career.
  Sir Peter Emery: I am very sorry for that. The hon. Lady is a very pretty thing to hang out to dry, and I do not mind being sexist in saying so. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. She and the duty Whip should acknowledge that the Government's attempts at modernisation—I am a member of the Modernisation Committee who has tried to assist in that process—

  173
  are backfiring because of their inefficiency and maladministration, and we should condemn that absolutely.
  4.18 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am afraid that this is not the first time that I have had to speak on a programme motion, nor will it be the last. I have spoken on six or seven such motions since the beginning of the Session, and my purpose is to oppose them whenever I have the opportunity. I do not conceal from you, Mr. Speaker, the fact that some of what I shall say I have said before. The problem is that if we do not repeat our objections, right hon. and hon. Members may lose sight of the evil associated with these motions.
  Let us be clear: this is a wholly arbitrary motion. The Report stage is to conclude at 8.15 and Third Reading is to conclude at 9 o'clock. There has been no discussion about that between Members who represent different parties; it is an arbitrary decision by the Government. They are determining the amount of time that is to be spent on this motion. That in itself is sufficient condemnation.
  Let me make a point, which I have probably made four or five times before, about respect for legislation. A political society is based on a somewhat fragile compromise, one element of which is the belief on the part of the electorate that their elected representatives have properly scrutinised a Bill—or, to put it differently, have had the opportunity properly to scrutinise a Bill. Once a process is established that prevents that from happening, the implicit bargain that supports the legitimacy of what we do is destroyed. With these programme motions, we are undermining respect for democracy, because we are disenabling ourselves from scrutinising Bills properly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) made the point, rightly, that several of the amendments have been brought late to the House's attention. That has certain consequences, the first of which is that those outside the House who have an interest in the Bill do not have an opportunity to express their views to right hon. and hon. Members or to the Government. That is had enough in itself, but it means that if those views are heard favourably by the Government or anyone else, the resulting amendments will have to be made in the other place. However, if amendments are made in the other place and we want to change them—as we, the elected Chamber, are entitled to do—we may well not have the opportunity to do so because the amendments from the other place will come to this Chamber on another timetable motion and, lo and behold, we shall find ourselves deprived of an opportunity to consider them. That is to make a mockery of the processes of a democracy.
  Sir Peter Emery: The Government made it clear when introducing these procedures that they would ensure that all amendments and all parts of a Bill could be debated. I do not know whether that was done in Committee, but when a host of new amendments is introduced on Report
  174
  and proper time is not given, the Government are falling down on the undertaking that they gave when they introduced the system.
  Mr. Hogg: I am bound to say that the fact that the Government are falling down on their undertakings causes me no surprise. When they start to adhere to undertakings, I shall be surprised. My right hon. Friend makes an important point. He is right to say that new amendments will not be properly debated. If he followed my argument, as I know he did, about amendments being made in the other place and coming back to the House on a timetable, he will realise that they may never be debated at all by the House. By any standard, that is a disgrace.
  From time to time, Ministers tell the House that their new clauses and amendments are but a reflection of discussions in Committee. They often say that and I have heard it many times. However, that is to miss the point, which is that Report stage is the first and only occasion on which the Chamber as a whole has an opportunity to scrutinise the detail of any part of a Bill. If the Report stage is truncated, it prevents those right hon. and hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee from making a constructive contribution to the Bill.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. and learned Friend address his remarks to the Government amendment that would increase the penalties under the Bill from a maximum of three months' imprisonment to a maximum of two years' imprisonment? That amendment was tabled—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to debate the Bill, but we are debating a programme motion.
  Mr. Hogg: I shall not, of course, address the merits of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), but it is relevant to the programme motion to state that a great extension in the penal powers contained in the Bill is likely to be passed by the House without discussion, and that cannot be right.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: So that everyone outside the House understands what is happening, I put the same question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as I did the other week. Has he ever voted in favour of a guillotine? The answer is yes or no. As a Minister, has he ever had to preside over a guillotine from within his Department—again, yes or no?
  Mr. Hogg: The answer is that I have voted for guillotines. I was a Minister for 13 years, so I know all about the conduct of Bills. Of course I have voted for guillotines.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Conservative Government were dealing with the consideration of Bills in Committee, our practice was not to impose a timetable motion until at least 100 hours had passed. We never programmed in advance. I do not remember as a Minister, although I may have done so, seeking to programme consideration on Report when there was no evidence that Members were seeking artificially to extend debate.
  Mr. Bercow: My right hon. and learned Friend has an admirable memory. Does he recall the occasion upon

  175
  which my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) made precisely the same point? He told the House that, if as a Minister he had approached the Patronage Secretary to seek agreement on a speedy conclusion of business before 100 hours of consideration had taken place in Committee, he would have been sent away with a flea in his ear.
  Mr. Hogg: If I had been the Minister responsible for the Bill in question, I would not have done that. I had too high a respect for the proprieties of Parliament. I remember consideration of the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, which went right through the night. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) may remember the occasion. There were so many Divisions that Members were asked, when Divisions were called, to rise in their places. I believe that there were 57 Divisions. We never tried to guillotine that debate or to subject it to artificial constraint. We put up with the consequences.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is another question that demands a similar answer—yes or no. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman ever vote for a motion on a guillotine following fewer than 100 hours of debate on a Bill?
  Mr. Hogg: I cannot give a categorical answer. I was a Minister for 13 years, and I do not want to deceive the House. However, I can say with certainty that it was the Conservative Government's practice to allow consideration of 100 hours or more in Committee. I am not excluding the possibility that there might occasionally have been slightly fewer hours than that. However, in broad terms, 100 hours was a fair benchmark.
  Programme motions are now being tabled in advance when there is no evidence that the debate will be artificially extended.
  Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that many people will wonder when the Government say, "We do not have the time"? We are about to go into yet another five-day break, a so-called half term, when we would be prepared to scrutinise legislation. The half term follows one of the lengthiest summer recesses that we have ever had. We have ample time to scrutinise legislation. There is nothing sacrosanct about the 10 pm cut-off. Many of us are prepared to go beyond 10 pm, if necessary, to improve legislation.
  Mr. Hogg: I agree with that. My hon. Friend makes some important points. I am not in favour of legislating late into the night, but in the context of this place, I think that it is tolerable and proper to legislate between 10 pm and midnight. Thereafter, it is undesirable.
  A problem that has arisen is that the volume of legislation that the Government are seeking to put through Parliament cramps the scrutiny of Bills. It is not a sign of parliamentary virility to pass Bills; usually, the fewer Bills the better. Parliamentarians would do well not to remove the checks and balances within the constitution that reduce the ability of government to legislate. We should stand by the checks and balances, and not dismantle them.
  176
  I wish to make one more substantive point.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Keep it going.
  Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall give way. Does he?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hogg: Very well, I shall continue.
  A Bill's Report stage is an important occasion on which Members can come to the House and, in the context of a group of amendments, say that a certain concern is troubling them. They can articulate their constituents' anxieties, and say that they have discovered problems of which the House should be aware. The effect of a guillotine—which is what the motion is—prevents Members from coming to the House for that purpose. Indeed, one explanation for the empty Government Benches is that the Government Whips have made it plain to Government Members that contributions will not be welcome. That is a denial of democracy.
  Mr. David Winnick: We can debate the pros and cons of programme motions for a long time to come. I suspect that when the Tories have a majority in the House of Commons, whenever that may be, there will not be much change from what is happening now. However, we shall see in due course.
  Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not put his finger on the issue when he said that he did not like too much legislation? I suspect that the reason why he is protesting now has less to do with the programme motion—I can understand opposition to that—than with the fact that the content of what we are to debate does not meet with his approval. By contrast, Government Members want to get such measures through as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Hogg: I shall make two points in reply. First, when we get back into power—which we shall—my hon. Friends will find that if such programme motions are introduced, I shall speak against them as often and vigorously as I do now. Secondly, I am not against the Bill. I am flattered that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is seeking to listen to me. Broadly speaking, I am in favour of the Bill. I know that my hon. Friends wish to speak in this debate, so I shall sit down. However, I am strongly against the motion.
  4.32 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: This is a pitiful and damnable motion and I am mightily relieved that Her Majesty's official Opposition intend to oppose it. I do not mind vouchsafing that, as a shadow Home Office Minister, I am not obliged to vote for this ghastly measure. Indeed, it is unfortunate that I do not have the opportunity or entitlement, apparently, as a member of the Conservative Front Bench, to vote against it.
  However, I was heartened by what my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) said on the subject. I am bound to reiterate the eloquent point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford

  177
  and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) a few moments ago: the Government have a regrettable tendency to behave as though detailed consideration in Committee suffices, and to believe that, as a consequence of that consideration by fewer than 25 Members, there is no need to detain the House long on Report and Third Reading.
  That is a novel and, if I may so, obnoxious constitutional doctrine, which is certainly not acceptable to me. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who either have strong views about the principle of the Bill that they wish to develop on Third Reading, or want to table or speak to amendments and new clauses on particular details, should have every opportunity to do so.
  Mr. David Taylor rose—
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is becoming itchy, so I shall give way.
  Mr. Taylor: In his earlier comments, the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that he feels unable to vote against the programme motion. Surely such a well known pillar of integrity as himself is not selling his independence for the mess of pottage that is office in the next Conservative Government, which will be elected in about 2035?
  Mr. Bercow: That is a nice try but, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman misheard and got it wrong, which is not uncommon in the House. Let me make it clear beyond peradventure that I certainly intend to vote against this ghastly, risible, damnable programme motion. I was referring to the Bill itself a few moments ago.
  Mr. Winnick rose—
  Mr. Bercow: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as that is invariably a fruitless expenditure of time. He is right only very occasionally, and almost always by accident.
  I have two final points to make as I approach my conclusion. First, some of us, at least on the Opposition Benches, strongly subscribe to the doctrine of the American commentator, Walter Lipman, that in a free society, the state does not administer the affairs of men—and women, he ought to have said—it administers justice among men, and women, who conduct their own affairs. The Bill flies in the face of that doctrine. It is precisely because it is a nannying, molly-coddling, interfering, bureaucratic, bossy measure that we should have adequate time fully to debate it.
  Secondly, to be obliged to debate 50 new clauses and amendments with an average allocation of four minutes for each is unacceptable. It is characteristic of the arrogance, disdain and contempt with which the Government treat the House. We should rightly vote against the motion.
  (It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].)
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 172.

  Division No. 117]

  [4.35 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Ainger, Nick

  Dobbin, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Doran, Frank

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Dowd, Jim

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Drew, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Austin, John

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Banks, Tony

  Edwards, Huw

  Barnes, Harry

  Efford, Clive

  Barron, Kevin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Battle, John

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bayley, Hugh

  Etherington, Bill

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Flint, Caroline

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Flynn, Paul

  Benton, Joe

  Follett, Barbara

  Berry, Roger

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Best, Harold

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Betts, Clive

  Gapes, Mike

  Blackman, Liz

  Gerrard, Neil

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Goggins, Paul

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Browne, Desmond

  Grocott, Bruce

  Burgon, Colin

  Grogan, John

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gunnell, John

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hain, Peter

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hanson, David

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Healey, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Caton, Martin

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hendrick, Mark

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Chaytor, David

  Heppell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hill, Keith

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Colman, Tony

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Connarty, Michael

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hurst, Alan

  Corbett, Robin

  Hutton, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Illsley, Eric

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cranston, Ross

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Crausby, David

  Jamieson, David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cummings, John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Joyce, Eric

  179

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lammy, David

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Laxton, Bob

  Rogers, Allan

  Lepper, David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooney, Terry

  Levitt, Tom

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Linton, Martin

  Ruane, Chris

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lock, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Love, Andrew

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Salter, Martin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sarwar, Monammad

  Macdonald, Calum

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McDonnell, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McFall, John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Singh, Marsha

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McWilliam, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Soley, Clive

  Martlew, Eric

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Maxton, John

  Spellar, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Merron, Gillian

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mudie, George

  Touhig, Don

  Mullin, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Truswell, Paul

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Turner, Dennnis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  O'Brien Mike (N Warks)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

  Olner, Bill

  Tynan, Bill

  O'Neil1, Martin

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Wareing, Robert N

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Watts, David

  Pearson, Ian

  White, Brian

  Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pike, Peter L

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Pond, Chris

  Pope, Greg

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Pound, Stephen

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Winnick, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wood, Mike

  180

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Woolas, Phil

  Wray, James

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Allan, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Amess, David

  Hancock, Mike

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Harvey, Nick

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Baker, Norman

  Hayes, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Heald, Oliver

  Beggs, Roy

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bercow, John

  Horam, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bottornley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Brady, Graham

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brake, Tom

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Breed, Colin

  Keetch, Paul

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Key, Robert

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Burnett, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Burns, Simon

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Burstow, Paul

  Lansley, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Lidington, David

  Cash, William

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Livsey, Richard

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Chidgey, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Luff, Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cotter, Brian

  Madel, Sir David

  Cran, James

  Maples, John

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Mates, Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Moore, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan, Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Ernery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Norman, Archie

  Evans, Nigel

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Faber, David

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Feam, Ronnie

  Page, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Paice, James

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Pickles, Eric

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Prior, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Rendel, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Gill, Christopher

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Greenway, John

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ruffley, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  St Aubyn, Nick

  181

  Sanders, Adrian

  Trend, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tyler, Paul

  Shepherd, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Walter, Robert

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Soames, Nicholas

  Webb, Steve

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Spring, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Steen, Anthony

  Wilkinson, John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Willis, Phil

  Wilshire, David

  Syms, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Mr. James Gray and

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. John Randall.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 22nd January:

  Consideration and Third Reading
  1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.
  2. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at quarter past Eight o'clock.
  3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock.
  4. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

  Consideration of Lords Amendments and further messages from the Lords
  5. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

  (a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments; or

  (b) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords,

  and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day
  Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill
    New Clause 4

      PROHIBITION OR RESTRICTION OF USE OF SYMBOL, NAME OR EMBLEM
      'The Secretary of State may by regulations make provisions prohibiting or restricting the use of a symbol, name or emblem used to promote a tobacco product, to promote a non-tobacco product or service except where the business producing the non-tobacco product or service is totally unconnected financially with the business producing the tobacco product and where the primary purpose of which is not to promote a tobacco product.'.—[Mrs. Spelman.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.51 pm
      Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 51, in clause 11, page 5, leave out lines 24 to 28.
      Government amendment No. 46.
      Mrs. Spelman: We now have a rather limited opportunity for hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee to debate the Bill. It was quite a small Committee—we discussed earlier how many people had had a chance to have an input—so this is the big opportunity for other hon. Members to contribute to the debate.
      This is an important new clause, and I am glad that it has survived the culling of several of the important new clauses that we attempted to introduce. Indeed, it was the only one to survive. We are pleased that it has been selected, because it covers an important point.
      Under the Bill, the Government are choosing that our nation will go it alone with a ban on tobacco advertising in Europe. We shall be going out on a limb by introducing such a ban. Companies that have hitherto been able to produce goods other than tobacco products—such as clothes, shoes, umbrellas, leather goods, perfumes and other cosmetics—bearing a symbol, emblem or logo similar to one connected with a tobacco product, will find that that is now illegal. That represents an important change in commercial practice, and it is right that we should take the time to debate its impact and workability, and to ask whether the drafting of the Bill is fair to those companies.
      If I could characterise the Bill generally, I would say that it meant rough justice for the companies that will have to work with it. As it stands, it is an example of the rough justice dimension of the plan to ban tobacco advertising. The Bill will catch companies with household names, such as Alfred Dunhill, which has diversified substantially into a range of non-tobacco products, with which I am sure hon. Members are familiar. It will also catch companies such as Davidoff, which produces a range of products including cosmetics, luggage, eye-wear, coffee, comestibles and cigars. It began as a tobacconist, but has diversified into those other areas.

      183

      More worryingly, the Bill will catch companies such as Worldwide Brands International, which has diversified into a range of products that includes clothing, shoes and luggage, but not tobacco accessories. There is nothing in their palette of products that is a tobacco product, by any definition. Such a company, which is completely independent of the tobacco industry, will be caught by the Bill because its products bear an emblem that arguably resembles the logo or emblem borne by a tobacco product. I make no excuse for giving this example again, as I feel that the company is one of those to which rough justice will be meted out.
      When the company started, it used the camel logo, with which I am sure Members are familiar, along with the yellow writing associated with the Camel brand of cigarettes. Even at that stage, nothing in the company's range—which included luggage, clothes, shoes and other fashion items—could possibly be described as a tobacco product. However, the company—which is based in both Germany and the United Kingdom—foresaw difficulties with the proposed European directive.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: What would happen if such an organisation, based in France or Germany, advertised in one of the international newspapers that are now printed in different centres? If it advertised in a newspaper circulating in both Paris and London, what might be the impact on the newspaper circulating in London?
      Mrs. Spelman: We shall discuss in detail the predicament of companies operating in more than one market when we reach the next group of amendments.
      As I said at the outset, a general problem with the Bill is that the United Kingdom is going out on a limb, and as a result a large number of diverse companies will be placed at a competitive disadvantage. We tried to make the Government aware of that in Committee. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, companies might advertise in more than one market. We tabled an amendment that would remove the competitive disadvantage and make companies free to compete in a global market, and my hon. Friend will note from what the Government say on the next group of amendments that they have conceded in that regard.
      I want to concentrate on the brand-sharing problem, however, because I do not think that we have been given a satisfactory answer. I have given the example of Worldwide Brands International, but there are others. When the company learned of the proposed directive banning tobacco advertising, its reaction was similar to that of the Government, who have chosen to go it alone: it made an important investment. It made a conscious decision to change its logo—to change the name from Camel to Camel Active, and to replace the familiar yellow writing that we associate with the brand of cigarettes with a black and white script in a completely different style. It is difficult to illustrate this without useful equipment such as overhead projectors, to which I fear the "mother of all Parliaments" cannot stretch, even in the 21st century.
      184
      A great deal of subjectivity is attached to the whole question of whether the company's activities would now be banned. The Department has given it to understand that they would, and that its investment in the change of logo will have been in vain.
      John Robertson: Why would the company continue to use the name Camel? Is it because it just happened to be there at the time, or was there some other motive?
      Mrs. Spelman: I cannot answer that question, because I do not sit on the board of the company that made the decision, but, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it is becoming very difficult to find a name that is unique, especially with the advent of the dotcom company revolution. That will make it even more difficult for the provision to work in practice.
      The company has appealed to the Government for some guidance, or some amendments to the Bill. In fact—so that companies whose products have nothing whatsoever to do with tobacco, and whose primary purpose is not to promote tobacco, could be more justly treated—the company was encouraged by the Department itself to provide its own amendments. It has made the necessary investment to change its logo from one that much more closely resembles tobacco product logos—but it is still caught by the Bill's provisions.
      5 pm
      Mr. John Bercow: I am listening intently to the development of my hon. Friend's argument. She will be aware that, on regulations and statutory instruments, I am a procedural anorak. Can she therefore tell me whether the regulations that would flow from new clause 4 would be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure?
      Mrs. Spelman: I am sorry to inform my hon. Friend that, although the principal statutory instruments that will flow from the Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure, interestingly, an exception, and special arrangements, have been made for the sponsorship agreements—for Formula 1. Perhaps that will encourage him to stay in the Chamber until we debate that matter, if there is sufficient time to do so. The group of amendments on sponsorship is rather far down the list of amendments selected for debate.
      Mr. Bercow: I know that my hon. Friend will agree that we would not want to be remiss by failing to ensure that members of the public who may be listening to the debate are aware of the meaning of the negative and the affirmative procedure. Will she therefore confirm that the Government's intention in using that procedure seems to be to avoid debate on the Floor of the House, for which the affirmative procedure provides? Is that not to enable them to save their own face?
      Mrs. Spelman: There is a great deal of face saving in the Bill, which kicks decisions on many difficult issues into the long grass. Those issues will be subject to regulations that we have not seen, and will not be able to see while debating those issues. Even now, on Report, we cannot properly anticipate many of the difficulties and controversies surrounding the issues that will be dealt

      185
      with by regulation. That is a fundamental weakness in the way in which the Bill is constructed. The Bill is effectively an empty box, and we are being asked to sign up as supporters of its contents without knowing what they are.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean to mislead the House. Does she remember that the Minister told us that the Government would not introduce regulations under various parts of the Bill that provide for regulation? Therefore, in some cases people will have to guess what they might be doing wrong—for which they might subsequently be caught by regulation if a future Government decided to introduce such regulation.
      Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend, with whom I spent many hours in Committee. Perhaps I could give hon. Members a flavour of the way in which the regulations will work. Although the power to make regulations has, in some cases, been provided in the Bill, a warning has been given that if everyone behaves and complies with the spirit of the Bill, it will not be necessary to make those regulations. The provision will hang over those who have to operate under the Bill as an incentive to get it right first time. If they do not, they risk a rap on the knuckles, or perhaps being taken to court, so that the meaning of the regulations can be clarified. That is a very strange way of regulating businesses that, until now, have been able to advertise legally. They will suddenly discover that some of the things that they have been doing, quite legally, have become illegal. The threat of regulation will hang over such companies if they get it wrong. The Bill places business in a very difficult position.
      I want to return to questions about brand sharing that were not answered adequately in Committee, and I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to answer a very important question. The UK has decided to introduce a ban on tobacco advertising ahead of other European Union member states. Legal professionals advised the Commission and other interested parties when the intention at a European level was to proceed to a directive regarding the ban on tobacco advertising. Does the Minister agree that their comments might have some relevance today? The conclusions reached about brand sharing at the time are relevant to what the UK is about to do unilaterally.
      The Advocate-General's opinion is important in this respect. The Advocate-General held that the restrictions then proposed on
      "brand diversification advertising violated the right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights".
      Does the Minister think that the Bill as drafted is in contravention of the same article? We did not get an answer to that in Committee, yet it would be relevant to our debate this evening. I, for one, would like to know the answer.
      186
      The Advocate-General also held that
      "the Community legislator had not presented any evidence to suggest a link between brand diversification advertising, and overall tobacco consumption and that there were therefore no reasonable grounds to justify the restrictions on freedom of speech provided for in the Directive".
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has made an important and salutary point, but is she referring to the Advocate-General in the European Court, or to the Advocate-General for Scotland, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Dr. Clark)?
      Mrs. Spelman: I am referring to the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice.
      Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I have been listening closely, but will the hon. Lady confirm that she is saying that if the makers of Silk Cut, a brand-named cigarette in the United Kingdom, decided to sell trousers, they could erect, at every football ground in the country, huge signs with the words "Silk Cut" on them? Is not the presumption in the defence of the new clause being offered by the hon. Lady, that the words would not be identified with cigarettes because they were being used in relation to trousers? Does that not appear to the hon. Lady somewhat nonsensical? Would not anyone seeing a sign that says "Silk Cut" think of cigarettes rather than trousers?
      Mrs. Spelman: With respect, if he reads the new clause, the hon. Gentleman will see that it covers non-tobacco products or services from companies that are
      "totally unconnected financially with the business producing the tobacco product".
      That is an important distinction.
      Mr. Kevin Barron: I shall put the question another way. For the sake of argument, let us say that the manufacturer of Clarks shoes has no connection with any tobacco company, in this country or any other. Under the new clause, would it be acceptable for that company to call a range of shoes the "Silk Cut" range?
      Mrs. Spelman: Common sense tells me that people wanting to buy shoes would be far more attracted by the good reputation of Clarks as a manufacturer than by any name chosen for a particular style of shoe.
      Mr. Barron: The hon. Lady is avoiding the issue.
      Mrs. Spelman: I am not; it is Labour Members who are avoiding an issue that is uncomfortable for them. The Government have chosen to go ahead with a ban on tobacco advertising, but at one time there was a Europe-wide attempt to introduce a directive with the same objective. The view of legal professionals at a European level was that banning advertising through brand sharing represented a contravention of article 10 of the European convention on human rights. It is legitimate for the Opposition to ask the Government, who intend to go down that road, whether they are satisfied with the procedure, although their opinion on that issue is different from that of the Advocate-General in Europe.

      187
      We did not get an answer from the Minister in Committee, and it is important to come back to the question today. Worldwide Brands International is, quite legitimately, asking me, as a representative of the Opposition, to put that question to the Government, as it cannot get an adequate reply. Of course the issue is important to such a company; it may wish to go to the European Court for a ruling on whether this piece of British legislation, which will affect it significantly, represents a contravention of article 10 of the European convention on human rights.
      It stands to reason that if the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice was giving that advice not so long ago, the issue has already been considered at a high level. That is a good reason for bringing the question to the debate. Of course we do not want to pass legislation that is promptly found to contravene the European convention on human rights.
      Things are particularly difficult for our legislature at present, as we have incorporated the convention into British law only very recently. This issue has to be worked through. I should have thought, however, that the Government would have anticipated the problem, which has already arisen at a European level, and that they would be ready to answer the question today. That is why it is important to return to the point, which was debated in Committee. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members understand our rationale in coming back to it, because we need to find the answer.
      I find it difficult to understand why there is such strong opposition to legitimate diversification by companies that have nothing to do with the tobacco industry. Why do we want to make it so difficult for companies to diversify? Surely, with our shared public health agenda of trying to reduce the prevalence of smoking—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) gives me rather a contemptuous look, but I assure her that we share the Government's desire for a reduction in smoking. I do not know how many times I have to say that to get my point across. Perhaps this will be the last time this evening.
      It is surely desirable for tobacco companies to produce other products if possible. I confidently predict that a consequence of depriving companies of the opportunity of brand sharing will be to weaken their competitiveness. I am confident that the legislation will lead to the ascendancy of foreign brands of tobacco coming into this country. That is already a feature of the flow of illegally imported tobacco.
      I referred in the programme motion debate to students being offered £25 to promote tobacco brands on university campuses. The brand of tobacco in question was, in fact, foreign. That is the tip of the iceberg. We will see foreign brands coming into this country, and we will have shackled our own tobacco companies so that they have no way out.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Atkinson: On the impact of illegally imported tobacco and tobacco products, is it not true that although the most popular rolling tobacco in this country is Drum, it is not legally available anywhere in this country? If a
      188
      legitimate business—unconnected with tobacco—was also called Drum, what would happen to it? Such a business could be caught by the measure.
      Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am not the ideal person to answer it—that is for the Government. However, as the Minister is engaged in another conversation at present, she will be unable to answer my hon. Friend's question, unless someone can give her a note of it.
      My hon. Friend's point is important. There will be many more such examples. Surely we should encourage tobacco companies to diversify—possibly by making a new name for themselves in completely different markets.
      Through amendment No. 46, the Government are trying to come some way towards meeting the Opposition on the matter. However, that amendment falls far short of the assurances that we seek from them. It reads like wishful thinking. It says that the Government "may" make an exception for companies as regards brand sharing. That will not be good enough for companies such as I have described. Those companies have already made a significant investment in changing their names and symbols, only to be told that that will not protect them.
      The amendment does not offer sufficient assurances to such companies. They would prefer provisions such as our new clause, which would redress the balance by moving away from the rough justice that would be meted out under the Government's brand-sharing proposals and their rather weak effort to provide scope for exceptions, if they are so minded. There is no clear statement in the Bill of the circumstances in which the Government might be prepared to grant such exemptions. That will be subject, once again, to regulation. Yet again, a controversial aspect of the Bill is being kicked off into the long grass. The matter will be subject to regulations. When? We do not know—at some point in the future.
      Meanwhile, the harsh reality is that a company such as Worldwide Brands International has to carry on its business. Will it be guilty of an offence? Will it have to go to court to prove that it has made an effort to alter its logo, and that the new logo is no longer similar to the original logo associated with tobacco products? Will such a company have to go to all that expense while the Government make up their mind whether to make an exception for it?
      The amendment is far too vague. It offers insufficient reassurance to companies that have made a real effort to comply with the original European directive. They have followed to the letter the advice of the Advocate General; they believed that such advice might logically apply if a member state decided to go it alone down the road originally intended for the directive. Instead, however, those companies have been left confused. It is that confusion and lack of clarity that our new clause attempts to address. That is why I commend it to my hon. Friends.
      The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I begin by responding to some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman). She referred

      189
      to some of the broader issues that arise on brand sharing—a matter on which we held a detailed discussion in Standing Committee.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: The detailed discussion consisted of exchanges between the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that lasted less than 15 minutes.
      Yvette Cooper: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government offered more time for debate in Committee, and if the Opposition had wanted to, they could have taken up that offer. The point that he makes about the time that was available in Committee is, frankly, inappropriate.
      If brands are distinct, they will not be covered by the regulations on brand sharing. We have made it clear that our intention is not to catch all products that share the same name, and we are certainly very sympathetic to the need to support business diversification. If the intention is not to promote a tobacco product, the firm involved should have no problem with distinct branding. We have declared our intention to consult in detail on the regulations, because this a complex subject and the companies involved will want time to make representations. That is important.
      The wording of new clause 4 would create all kinds of problems. It would exclude from the scope of the regulations on brand sharing arrangements in which no financial link existed between the brand company and the tobacco company, and in which the primary purpose of the new branded goods was not to promote a tobacco product. A company could easily argue that its primary purpose was not to promote a tobacco product; it would argue that its primary purpose was to promote a product—trousers, boots, or whatever—but its secondary or alternative purpose might include promoting tobacco products. It would certainly be inappropriate if the Bill were to state that a company would be covered by the provisions on brand sharing only if its primary purpose was to promote tobacco products.
      Another problem with new clause 4 is that the Opposition insist that the companies must be "totally unconnected financially", but it is not clear what that phrase means. For example, would a wholly owned subsidiary be included? Would it include arrangements in which no corporate links existed between companies but directors from, for example, BAT were shared or sat on the board of another company in a non-executive capacity? Would it include a publicly quoted company with a tobacco company as a major shareholder?
      I ask all those questions because of the evidence that has emerged, especially in litigation in the United States, from tobacco companies about their attempts to use brand sharing as an alternative way to promote tobacco products and, where necessary, to try to create different legal and perhaps corporate separation between the companies, but where the aim is still to promote tobacco products. For example, a document from RJ Reynolds that emerged during the US litigation states:
      "In the context of a total advertising ban on direct and indirect advertising as of January 1993, communication continuity is undoubtedly 'The' issue to be solved during the plan period.
      190
      The only remaining tool is logo license activities provided they are marketed by a company financially and legally distinct from a tobacco company".
      In another document, RJR states:
      "In order to fulfil its mission, logo licence will be operated as diversification business in line with the respective brand positioning statement. This will be achieved a) through a separate legal entity, b) with consumer relevant products/services/events, c) owning registrations of international trademarks in pertinent categories d) being profitable within an economically reasonable period and"—
      this is critical—
      "e) attracting the cigarette brand's target group."
      There is plenty of evidence to show that brand sharing has been used abroad and in this country to promote tobacco products. I am extremely concerned that new clause 4 and the consequential amendment—amendment No. 51—could introduce a major loophole in the ban on tobacco advertising and allow considerable advertising to continue through indirect means.
      The hon. Member for Meriden referred to the European convention on human rights. We have made it clear that the Bill is compatible with the convention. The Advocate General did not consider the Bill or evidence on brand sharing when he pronounced on the European directive. He did not make a decision on a point of principle and concluded that there was sufficient evidence on direct advertising to justify the directive, which he did not think was in conflict with article 10. There is enough evidence, especially on children's familiarity with brand sharing products and the links between brands, for it to be clear that the Bill is also compatible with the convention.
      Government amendment No. 46 will clarify the Bill so that firms that comply with, and trade their products under, brand sharing regulations do not get caught by any of the Bill's other provisions, such as those in clause 2. That is not the intention of the regulations. If a company's products—whatever they might be—are acceptable under the regulations, the amendment ensures that they will not unintentionally be affected by the provisions on advertising. It will make the arrangements easier for businesses.
      We have set out our intention to consult on the regulations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear on Second Reading that we want to do that as soon as possible and to begin the process during the Bill's passage through Parliament. We also want to consult our European partners because European issues, too, are relevant. We will also discuss the appropriate time scales for the introduction of the regulations.
      Mr. Bruce: Has the hon. Lady sent draft regulations for consultation—and if not, why not?
      Yvette Cooper: The draft regulations have not been published for consultation, but they will be produced at the earliest possible opportunity, as we have made clear several times.
      There are plenty examples of business diversification. For example, Philip Morris owns Miller beer. Those are distinct brands and it is clear that there is no brand sharing. We are keen to promote brand sharing, but we also want to ban tobacco advertising and prevent companies from using brand sharing as a way round the ban.

      191
      The regulations will be subject to detailed consultation. We have made it clear that we do not intend to cause problems for brands that are distinct from tobacco brands. I urge the House to accept Government amendment No. 46 and reject new clause 4 and amendment No. 51.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I apologise if I cover ground that was dealt with by the Committee, but I was fortunate enough not to have to serve on it.
      The Minister says, "Trust us. We will get this right and send out some regulations", and we have had to accept a debate on Report that is truncated and disgracefully short; but brand sharing is a key problem for the industry to face, and the regulations have not even been written. The House is having to decide crucial issues when we know nothing about the Government's proposals.
      Mr. Bruce: Surely the point is that no one has been able to produce a sensible response to the problem of brand sharing. The Government have not provided draft regulations because that is an almost impossible task, but the House is being asked to agree the Bill tonight.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend makes my point for me. The problem is that a key piece of the Bill is missing, yet we are asked to nod it through tonight on the basis that the Government have said, "Trust us, we don't want to stop companies brand sharing."
      The Bill is to be enforced by the weights and measures authorities. Are we to trust the same people who prosecuted a market trader in Sunderland for selling goods in pounds and ounces? Hon. Members have raised several problems related to brand sharing. I am concerned about the illegal rolling tobacco, Drum, which is available in this country. What would happen if a perfectly legal company in this country had the same name? Would the weights and measures people arrest its proprietors? A European brand of cigarettes, called Olympia or Olympic—I cannot remember which—is available in this country. What would happen if a business in this country shared that name? Those will be concerns for large companies, and we are making decisions without even knowing what the regulations will say.
      Earlier, I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) a point about newspapers and other publications that are printed simultaneously in different countries. The International Herald Tribune is printed in a number of centres in Europe at the same time, and the Financial Times is printed simultaneously in Frankfurt and London. A newspaper's editorial office in Paris might insert an advertisement for a brand of Camel boot or the "Silk Cut" trousers to which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred. Pages are sent from one country to another, and there may be no editorial interference in the printing process in this country. Presumably, then, international newspapers that sell copies in the United Kingdom will have to refuse all such advertisements. A French newspaper might have refuse advertisements from a French business.
      Mr. Bercow: This is a thorny area. Would it not be helpful if the Under-Secretary were to indicate, if she has not already done so, that she intends to provide a minimum of three months for consultation on the
      192
      regulations? In the light of the likely burden that the regulations, be they desirable or undesirable, will impose on businesses, especially small businesses, does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a minimum of three months' notice of the requirement to implement the regulations?
      Mr. Atkinson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I would welcome a reply from the Under-Secretary. A minimum of three months' notice would be extremely helpful.
      I want to pursue the question of publications. It is very easy to buy foreign language magazines in this country. I think of French and German magazines that are printed abroad and shipped here, which will of course carry tobacco advertisements. I did not attend the Committee, but from a brief reading of the Bill I can see nothing that would protect those companies. A German company could be prosecuted in this country because it sold a magazine containing a cigarette advert in the UK.
      Does that mean that special UK editions of those magazines would have to be printed, which would hardly be economic, or would they have to be withdrawn from sale in this country? That question demonstrates the idiocy of proceeding with the Bill without the consent of fellow members of the European Union, who are moving towards a ban on tobacco advertising. It would be helpful if the ban were imposed Europe wide, instead of the Government going it alone.
      I hope that by the end of the debate this difficult issue will have been clarified. Even if the Minister for Public Health will not produce the regulations or give us any idea of their contents, perhaps she will address our concerns when she winds up.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: In Committee, I was prevented from making the speech that I am about to make because the Opposition were trying to help the Government to get the Bill through Committee in the limited time available in a way that allowed the maximum discussion of items on which we had to make a decision. The issue that we are debating, brand sharing, is important because it might affect companies that have nothing to do with tobacco. We can all argue about whether we want to reduce tobacco consumption—although everyone on the Committee was in favour of that—but no one intends to damage companies that have never been involved in tobacco.
      Throughout the Committee proceedings, I trailed the fact that I intended to speak about the brand that is in front of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker: the portcullis. It appears on my cufflinks, and Members of Parliament are proud of the fact that it appears on our letterhead. You might not realise this, but in the House of Commons bars and the Gift Shop it is possible to buy House of Commons branded cigarettes, which carry the portcullis logo. Cigarettes are not the only product that the House of Commons sells: we sell water, teddy bears and whisky and we provide services through our Banqueting Department. The House of Commons is engaged in a commercial business, and I suppose that we should all declare an interest in that respect. We might all be prosecuted when the Bill is passed.
      I meant to begin my speech by declaring an interest: my wife and I are beneficial owners of a few shares in Imperial Tobacco. We never bought the shares, but the

      193
      demerger of a company in which we had bought shares resulted in our becoming the owners of the Imperial Tobacco shares.
      The example I give, however silly it might appear, illustrates the fact that people brand share. The Houses of Parliament or House of Commons brand is a brand share. Were I advising the House authorities, I should immediately tell them that they must stop selling cigarettes carrying the House of Commons brand; either that, or Members of Parliament should stop using the portcullis or even the name of this place to ensure that we do not break the law as it will be when the Bill is passed.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: My hon. Friend raises an interesting question of parliamentary sovereignty. Would parliamentary sovereignty apply and thus enable us to ignore the legislation and continue to sell the cigarettes?
      Mr. Bruce: When my hon. Friend and I became Members of Parliament, parliamentary sovereignty existed, but new Labour does not care about such things. The current Government continually undermine the rights and privileges of the House of Commons—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) wish to intervene? He is always chuntering—oh, he has risen to his feet, just to show that he is here. I give way to him.
      Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman refers, tangentially, to the loss of parliamentary sovereignty in terms that suggest that most of that loss has occurred since 1997. However, I do not believe that Labour was in government when the Maastricht treaty was signed. Will he confirm that?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) returned to the new clause that is the subject of our debate.
      Mr. Bruce: I had not left that subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, as you rightly say, I could not possibly respond to that intervention. I was foolish and over-generous to give way to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire.
      In tabling the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is attempting to help the Government not to fall into a gaping hole. One might say that it does not matter if House of Commons branded cigarettes cease to be. I should prefer that we did not have such cigarettes—indeed, under the previous Government, the Refreshment Department announced that it had decided not to have the cigarettes any more and that it would phase them out by selling whatever stocks it held. There must have been about 10 years of stock because packets are still being sold. It may be nice to have them, but why do we not set an example and say that we shall not share our brands with tobacco? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] I am glad that I have some support for that.
      I hope that the House will listen to what I have to say about brand sharing. We are all aware of Imperial Tobacco. The word "imperial" is a brand share with many other companies. For example, there is Imperial Chemical
      194
      Industries. There must be thousands of companies that have "imperial" in their names. Imperial mints is a generic term.
      Mr. Peter Luff: There is the Imperial war museum.
      Mr. Bruce: It shares a name with tobacco. Once we have seen the regulations, will we be able to attach "imperial" to any product, company or anything else, given that that is brand sharing? The Minister does not have an answer, but perhaps she will surprise us later.
      What about Marlboro? The Marlboro cafe in my constituency serves some of the best fish and chips in the country. I do not know why it is called the Marlboro cafe, but it is. It is advertising the well known name of a tobacco product. Is the cafe to change its name? Is it to be prosecuted? I need to know.
      There is Embassy, and hundreds if not thousands of companies use that name at the beginning of their—
      Mr. Taylor: So what?
      Mr. Bruce: If the hon. Gentleman owned Embassy Cars, which I think is a company in my constituency, he would be concerned. He would have to ensure that all his advertisements were changed. He would have to ensure that they referred to cars and not to the tobacco company. That sharing of a brand name has nothing to do with the ownership or the promotion of tobacco. That was never thought about. That is an example of what we must be worried about.
      There are other examples. Dunhill is a brand of lighters as well as cigarettes. It might be said that brand sharing is taking place, but I think that Dunhill—
      Mr. Luff: Watches and aftershave.
      Mr. Bruce: I wish that I had asked my hon. Friend to write my speech in advance. If he had done so, I would not have to keep referring to him. I know that there are many products with the name Dunhill. They may originally have been attached to tobacco, or they may have been completely independent, in common with the examples that I have already given.
      What about Lambert and Butler? Will it be necessary for people to change their name by deed poll if it is either Lambert or Butler, especially if someone wants to start a business? I suspect that there are a few Rothmans floating around. Superking is a nice brand name. An enormous number of products use "super" and "king" in their names. There is St. Bruno rolling tobacco. Are we not to have Bruno Brookes on the radio any more? Will the boxer no longer be able to fight?
      There is Golden Virginia—[Interruption.] Members laugh, but I am giving examples of people who will have to ask, "Is this brand sharing?" The Government and the Minister have not given us an inkling of what the regulations will provide. What is the point? The Government are trying to ensure that, come the general election, they can say that they have done the business and introduced an Act. If they have not published the draft regulations by then, they certainly will have not done the business.

      195
      What will happen if the Bill succeeds in stopping advertising? The tobacco industry often wants to launch new products, sometimes ones that are less lethal than others currently on the market. We should necessarily encourage that, but what will a company do when it names its product? It will almost certainly use a generic name—a household word—associated with other products that already share the brand. Why should a British company be attacked by a tobacco company—with the tobacco company, in effect, stealing a generic name that it cannot patent or copyright—and be caught by the Bill when it has never had anything to do with the tobacco industry?
      5.45 pm
      Brand sharing is about trying to link qualities that people associate with the word "king", "golden" or "Golden Virginia" with the quality of the product that a company is trying to sell. Its product may kill people more quickly, but it is trying to shift that perception towards something that we automatically think is good. The Minister said that that was brand sharing. She cannot therefore ask Parliament, sight unseen, to pass the Government amendment without accepting the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has tabled, or explaining how companies unrelated to tobacco activities will not be affected by the regulations.
      Parliament has waited for the Government to introduce something that they said they were going to introduce four years ago. The European Union introduced regulations that were found to be illegal. I do not believe that the Government have done their homework and got this right. We should not accept the Bill without new clause 4.
      Mr. Barron: I rise, not to speak too long on the matter, but to say that there is a bit of history behind it which Opposition Members seem to have forgotten. I know that they have been told before that brand sharing is one way in which tobacco companies have got around tobacco advertising Bills. On Second Reading, I mentioned what happened when the Italian Government introduced a ban on tobacco advertising. There were brand names on children's toys and all sorts of things were advertised on television, so it was clear what the ban was designed for.
      In view of my criticism of the Conservative party over the years, I should not be surprised at the fact that not only was it addicted to tobacco companies for a long time, but it is still addicted to them. I should have thought that it would take up one of the cessation programmes that the Government have been making available for the past four years to try to get people off their unhealthy addictions.
      Mr. Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Barron: In a few minutes; I just want to get on to some of the surrounding issues.
      The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) seemed to think that the Government do not want tobacco companies to diversify. Of course, we do; that is exactly it. However, by presenting her publication at the Dispatch Box, the hon. Lady was trying to defend a company that came into being when tobacco advertising bans started to appear around the world. She must ask herself whether a brand like Camel, which has been advertised across the world, would allow somebody to come along, take its
      196
      copyright and use that word to sell another product. It is not believable that there was not, and is not, a connection between that publication, which sells clothing, and Camel's advertising and organisation.
      The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) ought to ask whether the Marlboro cafe in his constituency, the Marlboro Classics shop in Covent Garden and Marlboro coffee are connected with Marlboro tobacco and Philip Morris. They are connected, and were brought into being to brand-stretch and brand share because of public health decisions that were taken to stop the promotion of tobacco products around the world. When the hon. Member for Meriden says from the Dispatch Box that the Government's decision today will mean that Britain is the first country to ban tobacco advertising, after previous attempts resulted in losing cases in the European Court and defeat by the tobacco companies, she is wrong. Many countries have banned tobacco advertising for many years.
      I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to that fact that, when I tried to promote a Bill not dissimilar to this under the private Members' Bill procedure back in 1994, there was one company that stood out. One could honestly say that it was using a name that was now on a tobacco product, but which had not initially been associated with the promotion of tobacco. That firm was Alfred Dunhill. I do not believe that it is a front for a tobacco company to get round a ban on tobacco advertising.
      I shall be interested to see what regulations are drawn up. They are necessary, whatever the Opposition may say. The reason for sports sponsorship in the UK is that the advertising of cigarettes on television was banned in 1965. That is why tobacco firms started to sponsor cricket and Formula 1. They do it throughout the world.
      My hon. Friend the Minister quoted documents arising from the litigation of RJ Reynolds, an American tobacco company, in the United States. The documents show what such companies do when they brand share or brand-stretch: they promote tobacco products. That is what Marlboro Classics is about, and in my view, the same applies to the Camel company. I hope that the Government will come down hard on that. It makes no sense to ban tobacco advertising if the companies are allowed to spend their hundreds of millions in other ways to promote tobacco in this country or any other.
      Yvette Cooper: I shall respond briefly to the points raised. We will be happy to have a considerable period of consultation on the regulations. We are sympathetic to appropriate transitional periods for the implementation of the regulations, as we have demonstrated with regard to other aspects of the Bill.
      International publications are dealt with in clause 4(1)(c). Publications whose principal market is not the UK are excluded. The intention of the Bill and the brand-sharing regulations is to prevent the promotion of tobacco products. That will be the test. It is not our intention to prevent diversification, or to catch companies or products just because they bear the same name.
      New clause 4 would introduce a substantial loophole. That is why we are opposing both it and amendment No. 51.
      Mr. Bruce: The hon. Lady cannot get away with saying that the regulations will protect firms that have

      197
      nothing to do with tobacco. Can she describe to the House how the regulations will be phrased?
      Yvette Cooper: We will publish the regulations for full consultation. We have made clear in this debate and in Committee our intention with regard to brand sharing, and the clear intention of the Bill to prevent the promotion of tobacco products.
      Mrs. Spelman: I hate to inform the House that we have got to exactly the point that we reached in Committee. We did not run out of time on the brand-sharing clause, but we could not usefully proceed in Committee. The Government said that they would undertake a huge consultation exercise, and we cannot get a clear idea of what will be in the regulations until that consultation has taken place. That seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
      The consultation exercise should surely occur before the draft regulations are issued. We would be in a far better position to decide whether they would be excessively punitive if we knew what was in the regulations. The Minister said in Committee:
      "We certainly recognise the need for proper and thorough consultation. We are also keen to consult with the European Commission on its proposals. We recognise that this is a complex area and we are keen to have a thorough and effective consultation process"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 February 2001; c. 152.]
      We cannot accept the vague commitment in the Government amendment, when the consultation exercise has still to take place. That is why we sought through our new clause to clarify the situation. It is a feature of the Bill that so much is being left to subsequent regulations, and this is a particularly bad example of that. Companies will be put in an impossible position.
      Mr. Bruce: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that we totally reject the remarks of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)? Under our Government, tobacco consumption was falling, whereas under this Government, it is going up. We are attempting to help this miserable Government to do something sensible, for a change.
      Mrs. Spelman: I should have tried at the beginning, as we have tried so many times, to make it clear to the hon. Member for Rother Valley that it is not our purpose to take up the cause of tobacco companies, as he continually implies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said on Second Reading, we have no love for tobacco companies. I hope that, having been present in Committee, the hon. Member for Rother Valley will recognise how carefully we have striven to uphold the public health agenda throughout the debate. We have not departed from that.
      Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Spelman: No. I am rather tired of accusations being made about a position that we do not defend.
      I shall comment on some of the specific points made by the Minister. She said that the Bill was compatible with the European convention on human rights. It seems that companies such as Worldwide Brands International
      198
      will have no alternative but to slug it out in the courts. It will be one lawyer's opinion against another. If the Advocate-General was willing to put on record his view that the brand-sharing advertising restriction was not compatible with article 10 of the convention, it is perfectly legitimate for the company to pursue the matter in the courts, to see whose legal opinion will win the day. I am not qualified to give advice, but it seemed a rather sweeping statement to say that the Bill was indeed compatible.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I do not want to interrupt her train of thought. When the Minister replied in double-quick time and covered some of the points that I had raised about newspapers and publications, she did not deal with the point that some of the foreign publications are printed in the UK. According to the Bill, a publication is exempt if it is printed outside the UK and its principal market is not the UK, but what happens if it is printed in the UK, even if its principal market is not the United Kingdom? I was hoping that the Minister would answer that.
      Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that he will make all those important points again on the next group of amendments.
      The Minister asked how I would define a company that was totally unconnected with a tobacco company. I am a health spokesman, not a DTI spokesman. The issues of company law and the Minister's questions to me demonstrate the extent to which the Bill is wide of being a health Bill. It deals with international competition and the way in which companies are structured.
      Surely the Minister understands the spirit behind our new clause, which was intended to take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Rother Valley. Of course we do not want to create a massive loophole through which tobacco promotion is allowed to accelerate, or to fuel the prevalence of smoking. That is the spirit of our new clause. If the hon. Gentleman needs yet more proof—
      Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Spelman: No, I am not prepared to give way. The hon. Gentleman simply will not believe our party's stance. He refuses to believe that we share the public health agenda and the aim of reducing smoking. I have grown weary of telling him that in different ways on different occasions. I am sure that the House does not want to hear it again.
      We shall press our new clause because the Government amendment will not provide assurances to the companies that will have to work with the Bill. The promises of regulations in the future, which are to be preceded by a massive exercise in consultation, are a further reason why we consider it important to bring clarity to the debate on brand sharing and advertising, for the sake of all those who will have to work with the Bill. We have heard no clarification from the Minister today, and we find it difficult to accept that the Government amendment would be adequate.
      Our new clause would be a great deal more successful in bringing clarity to the Bill concerning the exception that could be made for a brand-sharing arrangement by a company that has carried out its business legitimately up

      199
      to now and whose primary purpose is not to promote tobacco. That is why I commend our new clause to the House.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House proceeded to Division.
      Mr. Duputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Would the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Lobby?
      The House having divided: Ayes 122, Noes 345.

      Division No. 118]

      [6 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Amess, David

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Key, Robert

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Baldry, Tony

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Blunt, Crispin

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Body, Sir Richard

      Lansley, Andrew

      Boswell, Tim

      Leigh, Edward

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Brady, Graham

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Brazier, Julian

      Lidington, David

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Loughton, Tim

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Luff, Peter

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Burns, Simon

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Butterfill, John

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Cash, William

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Madel, Sir David

      Chope, Christopher

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Maples, John

      Mates, Michael

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Collins, Tim

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Moss, Malcolm

      Cran, James

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Norman, Archie

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Day, Stephen

      Page, Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Raice, James

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Pickles, Eric

      Evans, Nigel

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Fabricant, Michael

      Prior, David

      Flight, Howard

      Randall, John

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Garnier, Edward

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Gibb, Nick

      Ruffley, David

      Gill, Christopher

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Greenway, John

      Soames, Nicholas

      Grieve, Dominic

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Spring, Richard

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Steen, Anthony

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hammond, Philip

      Syms, Robert

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hawkins, Nick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Hayes, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Heald, Oliver

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Tredinnick, David

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Trend, Michael

      Horam, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Walter, Robert

      Hunter, Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Whittingdale, John

      200

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Yeo, Tim

      Wilkinson, John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Willetts, David

      Wilshire, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Mr. Keith Simpson and Mr. James Gray

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Ainger, Nick

      Cohen, Harry

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Coleman, Iain

      Allan, Richard

      Colman, Tony

      Allen, Graham

      Connarty, Michael

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Corbett, Robin

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cotter, Brian

      Ashton, Joe

      Cousins, Jim

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cox, Tom

      Austin, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Bailey, Adrian

      Crausby, David

      Banks, Tony

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cummings, John

      Barron, Kevin

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Battle, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Beggs, Roy

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Darvill, Keith

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Davidson, Ian

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Benton, Joe

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Berry, Roger

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Betts, Clive

      Dobbin, Jim

      Blackman, Liz

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Blizzard, Bob

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Body, Sir Richard

      Doran, Frank

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dowd, Jim

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Drew, David

      Brake, Tom

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Breed, Colin

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Edwards, Huw

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Efford, Clive

      Browne, Desmond

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Etherington, Bill

      Burgon, Colin

      Feam, Ronnie

      Burnett, John

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Burstow, Paul

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Flint, Caroline

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Follett, Barbara

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gapes, Mike

      Caplin, Ivor

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Caton, Martin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Chaytor, David

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Chidgey, David

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Clapham, Michael

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      201

      Grocott, Bruce

      McNulty, Tony

      Grogan, John

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Gunnell, John

      McWilliam, John

      Hain, Peter

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hancock, Mike

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hanson, David

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Martlew, Eric

      Harvey, Nick

      Maxton, John

      Healey, John

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Merron, Gillian

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Heppell, John

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hesford, Stephen

      Moore, Michael

      Hill, Keith

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hinchliffe, David

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hoey, Kate

      Morley, Elliot

      Hood, Jimmy

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Mudie, George

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Hurst, Alan

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hutton, John

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Olner, Bill

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Pearson, Ian

      Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Pond, Chris

      Joyce, Eric

      Pound, Stephen

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Keetch, Paul

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Purchase, Ken

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Raynsford, Nick

      Lammy, David

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Rendel, David

      Leslie, Christopher

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Levitt, Tom

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Linton, Martin

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Livsey, Richard

      Rogers, Allan

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Rooney, Terry

      Lock, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Love, Andrew

      Rowlands, Ted

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruane, Chris

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ruddock, Joan

      McDonnell, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McFall, John

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Salmond, Alex

      McIsaac, Shona

      Salter, Martin

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McNamara, Kevin

      Savidge, Malcolm

      202

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Thompson, William

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Tipping, Paddy

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Singh, Marsha

      Touhig, Don

      Skinner, Dennis

      Trickett, Jon

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Truswell, Paul

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Tyler, Paul

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Tynan, Bill

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Soley, Clive

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Wareing, Robert N

      Spellar, John

      Watts, David

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Webb, Steve

      Starkey, Gerry

      White, Brian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Winnick, David

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Wood, Mike

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Woodward, Shaun

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Woolas, Phil

      Wray, James

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mr. Greg Pope and Mr. David Clelland

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      MEANING OF "TOBACCO ADVERTISEMENT" AND "TOBACCO PRODUCT"
      Mrs. Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 6, after second "advertisement", insert "including product placement".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, after "so", insert—
      'but does not include an advertisement where the purpose is to reduce the prevalence of smoking, notwithstanding that it may depict a tobacco product.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
      Amendment No. 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 23, at end insert
      'or
      (c) if it is contained in a tender for a contract to publish a magazine in an overseas market.'.
      Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
      'or
      (f) if it is or is contained in an item of intrinsic value more than 30 years old.'.
      Government amendment No. 42.
      Amendment No. 32, in clause 8, page 4, line 15, leave out subsection (4).

      203
      Government amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 47.
      Mrs. Spelman: I commiserate with you on your sore throat, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In an amazing role reversal, perhaps you would like to catch the eye of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who may be able to help you with what sounds like a nasty sore throat.
      The group of amendments is so large that I am tempted to characterise it as the whole world and his wife with the kitchen sink thrown in. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me as I present our amendments, which are diverse and cover different subjects. Some raise new points: others deal with points that arose from consideration in Committee. They need to be examined on Report.
      Amendment No. 2 would incorporate for the first time in the Bill the phrase "product placement". We discussed the definition of "advertisement" in Committee, but we were unsuccessful in obtaining a clear definition from the Government. That weakness will make it difficult for those who must work with the Bill to know what constitutes an advertisement. We successfully drew out from the Minister a few examples that would not be regarded as advertisements. It was helpful to know that tobacco packaging is not regarded as an advertisement. However, the matter was left unclear.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I know that my hon. Friend is trying to pass on to hon. Members the advice that we received from the Minister that a packet did not constitute an advertisement. However, that does not appear in the Bill.
      Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He is right that we are trying to convey to hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee, and might not have had a chance to read Hansard closely, some of the problems to which we are reverting on Report. Some clarification that was given in Committee is not incorporated in the Bill, and that will make it difficult for people to work with the measure.
      One important concept missing from the Bill is product placement, which is a widely used method of advertising. We share the Government's concern to reduce the prevalence of smoking and we believe that product placement is a potent form of advertising. It might be helpful if I tried to define product placement, in case hon. Members are unfamiliar with the concept. I would define it as deliberately placing a product in view for the purpose of promoting it. Perhaps hon. Members can think of television programmes or films in which a tobacco product has been clearly placed in view and left there for a considerable time so that the brand is etched on our memory. If one consults avid watchers of soap operas—not that I am one—they are even able to identify the brand of cigarette smoked by the stars in the cast. That is a potent example of product placement.
      In Committee, we touched on the question of product placement and stressed to the Government that it was a potent form of advertising to the young in particular, many of whom are avid watchers of television soap operas. I always do my level best to dissuade my children from watching such programmes, for a variety of reasons to do with the values that they sometimes impart. It is a matter of concern that young people watch television programmes or films in which their role models—the stars
      204
      of the programmes or films—are party to product placement in which a tobacco product is placed in clear view.
      Mr. Eric Forth: Is my hon. Friend confident that she, or whoever she envisages carrying out the task, could distinguish between what she categorises as product placement and the incidental or accidental portrayal of a product? Is she confident that she could draw that line of distinction?
      Mrs. Spelman: That is very difficult to do precisely. I shall come in due course to the regulations governing broadcasting, some of which leave such decisions to the editor, saying that such placements may be made if they are editorially justified. I hope that my right hon. Friend would agree that an editor's judgment can become very subjective on those questions, and that it is difficult to say objectively what is editorially justified and what is not.
      I want to draw to the House's attention a recent piece of research published in volume 357 of The Lancet, on 6 January 2001. The research undertook a survey of a 10-year sample of contemporary films, examining the increasing role and importance of product placement in them. It established that more than 85 per cent. of the films contained tobacco use. Tobacco brands appeared in 28 per cent. of the films, and brand appearances were as common in films suitable for adolescent audiences as they were in films for adult audiences. That is, 32 per cent. of films for adolescent audiences and 35 per cent. of films for adult audiences contained such appearances. If we are concerned to protect young people, we should be concerned about that.
      Tobacco brands were also present in 20 per cent. of the films rated suitable for children. That gives me, as a parent, cause for disquiet. The research stated that brand placement in films had become a preferred method for companies to raise brand awareness and develop favourable associations with their products in an international audience. I fear that there will be an increasing amount of product placement when other conventional forms of advertising are banned by the Bill. Undoubtedly, a great deal of effort will be made in that direction by those wishing to promote tobacco.
      Mr. David Taylor: The main thrust of the Opposition's attitude to tobacco advertising is that it serves only to encourage switching between brands. Is it not, however, the case that, in instances of product placement—of which the hon. Lady is rightly critical—a viewer is very rarely able to determine the brand of cigarette being smoked? I hate to echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but he made a fair point. One really cannot determine the brand from the way in which tobacco products are placed in entertainment programmes.
      Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman may yet find that more emphasis will be placed on raising brand awareness through this method. There may be more attempts at raising brand awareness, rather than simply presenting a familiar star or television character smoking. It is undoubtedly the goal of a company to increase its market share and, as other forms of advertising are made unavailable to it, it will seek out the remaining opportunities.

      205
      The point of the new clause is to introduce the words "product placement" into the Bill. We are concerned that the existing constraints are not sufficiently effective. We should be deeply concerned that the research published in The Lancet showed that as many as 85 per cent. of films in the past 10 years showed tobacco use, and that tobacco brands appeared in one third of the films surveyed.
      When we debated the issue in Committee, we raised with the Minister the problem that many of the most successful blockbuster films in this country emanate from Hollywood and are produced under codes, laws and conventions beyond the jurisdiction of this House. Some of the most blatant examples of product placement relate to American-sourced films. Nothing that could be done as a result of the Bill would curtail what is shown in an American film, unless the Government have plans for some sort of censorship over when the product placement occurs. An example of a brand being shown could involve the stars of a film having a long conversation while standing in front of a billboard advertising, say, Marlboro cigarettes. Under the Bill, it would remain possible for tobacco companies to promote a particular brand in that way.
      Reading the research on films, I was concerned to discover the kind of money that goes into the effort to place products. For example, in the film "Mr. Destiny", Walt Disney studios charged advertisers $20,000 for showing a product, $40,000 for showing a product and having an actor mention the product's name, and $60,000 for showing an actor using the product. Those are very substantial sums.
      Our purpose in tabling the new clause is to signal to those having to work with the existing arrangements for product placement that we are aware that there may be a major loophole in this area, and that the present constraints are not effective enough. I mentioned American films being shown here and the fact that they are one of the most powerful tools for the promotion of tobacco products. They are particularly effective among young people, among whom the rising prevalence of smoking is causing great concern.
      One could not discuss the amendment without examining the rules already in place, which brings me to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). For his and other hon. Members' benefit, it is worth mentioning what the rules are concerning product placement in programmes.
      6.30 pm
      According to the rules,
      "Where their use is clearly justified editorially, products or services may be acquired at no, or less than, full cost. Provision of the article must not be conditional on any specific agreement as to the manner of its appearance in the programme."
      The onus therefore rests entirely with the editor.
      The notes accompanying the rules state:
      "No undue prominence may be given in any programme to a commercial product or service. In particular, any reference to such a product or service must be limited to what can clearly be justified by the editorial requirements of the programme itself."
      Again, all the onus is on the editor.
      206
      I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that the problem lies with the extent of the editorial subjectivity involved. Under the current rules, product placement is clearly possible in programmes produced and shown in this country. We ought to have some control over it, but the rules are clearly insufficient to prevent the youth of today from telling us which brand of cigarettes their favourite film stars or television actors smoke.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: May I explore the issue of product placement as it relates to a later part of the Bill? My hon. Friend mentioned films made in the United States and distributed in this country. The Bill mentions only printed journalism; would the distributor of those films, or indeed someone who copied videos of them for commercial purposes, be subject to prosecution under my hon. Friend's proposals?
      Mrs. Spelman: We discussed in Committee whether the proposal would result in thought police dashing around this country's cinemas deleting parts of films that featured blatant product placement. I seem to recall—the Minister may confirm this—that responsibility for adhering to a set of British guidelines on product placement rests with the distributor; but in practical terms it would be impossible to implement such censorship. We are talking about what are effectively foreign-produced, imported films, and a degree of international co-operation is clearly desirable.
      The research in The Lancet, which in fact emanates from academics in the United States, has produced a proper analysis of the films concerned, most of which are American-based. It demonstrates that whatever legislation exists in the United States to control product placement is not particularly effective either. This is a classic example of the difficulty of taking effective unilateral action in an international market.
      It is ridiculous to try to ban conventional tobacco advertising while leaving an enormous loophole in relation to product placement. It is plain that existing regulations do not work adequately in the context of a British-produced product over which we have some jurisdiction, and our purpose was to draw attention to the problem. I hope that the faith of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will be restored to some extent by the knowledge that we share a public health agenda in wishing to reduce smoking, especially in the vulnerable group who start smoking young and subsequently find it difficult to stop—if, indeed, they want to stop.
      Amendment No. 1 deals with a different subject, but again I hope that all Members will appreciate—in the context of a health Bill—that we share the objective of reducing smoking. That is clearly desirable in public health terms. Ours is a probing amendment, intended to ensure that the Bill does not inadvertently catch an advertisement that is actually designed to reduce the prevalence of smoking.
      I ask hon. Members to imagine a large poster, pitched at trying to deter under-age smokers, depicting a young person stubbing out a cigarette. The accompanying slogan would read, perhaps, "Stub it out—don't stub your life out." Such a poster, depicting someone using a tobacco product, would be in a sense attractive, and in a sense

      207
      pitched at young people; but its hard message would also be directed at young people, whom it would attempt to deter from smoking.
      We must not risk catching anti-smoking health education posters in the ban on tobacco advertising. The amendment is intended to make it possible to continue with hard-hitting health education measures that may well require classical forms of advertising. As the Bill stands, it will close the door on such measures.
      Sandra Gidley: Might not the amendment provide a loophole for manufacturers of low-tar cigarettes, enabling them to claim that their products were beneficial in health terms?
      Mrs. Spelman: The amendment was not designed to create any sort of loophole. No amendments were tabled by Liberal Democrats in Committee, but it would have been helpful if the hon. Lady had tabled even one. Indeed, the whole question of low-tar products could have been raised in a series of amendments.
      As someone who served in Committee on the Health and Social Care Bill, the hon. Lady presumably knows that no distinction is made between high, low and middle-tar products; the aim is to impose a blanket ban on tobacco advertising. Our probing amendment is intended to ensure that good health education campaigns are not caught by the legislation. I wish members of other parties would begin to believe that we have a health agenda, rather than being doubting Thomases.
      Mr. David Taylor: Does not the amendment introduce an oxymoron? If it were accepted, clause 1 would state that "tobacco advertisement" meant an advertisement whose effect was to promote a tobacco product
      "but does not include an advertisement where the purpose is to reduce the prevalence of smoking".
      Is that logically consistent?
      Mrs. Spelman: I am not sure about the oxymoron. As the hon. Gentleman will note from the debate on the programme motion, we shall be jolly lucky if there are no oxymorons, given the speed at which the Bill zipped from Committee to Report. As it is, there is a typographical error in amendment No. 13, although there was certainly no intention of producing any grammatical or typographical mistakes.
      As I have said, ours is a probing amendment, intended simply to ensure that we do not close opportunities for good, justified health education campaigns. It is quite possible that a health education poster might depict a tobacco product as part of a hard-hitting message about the health risks of taking up smoking, or continuing to smoke. I am sure that the Minister has an answer; I do not think it necessary to see more in the amendment than I have explained. Health education campaigns were successfully used by the previous Conservative Government to reduce the prevalence of smoking. We want to make it possible to continue such campaigns, which have been shown to work. That is the simple purpose of amendment No. 1.
      Government amendments Nos. 40 and 41 enable us to debate a subject—the position of printers and publishers of written material—which, as my hon. Friends have said, is very important to Conservative Members. I pay tribute
      208
      to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who, with his experience in the printing industry, was the first to point out that the Bill might well place British printers in a very difficult position and at a competitive disadvantage. Our amendments seek to restore the position of British printers and publishers, to free them to tender in international markets for publications that, although directed principally at an overseas market, may be sold partly in the United Kingdom.
      As originally drafted, the Bill would have placed British printing companies at a competitive disadvantage. I am therefore very pleased that the Government have conceded on the issue, so that publications printed in the United Kingdom whose main market is abroad will be able to compete equally with overseas publishers.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: The Government are trying to address that issue, but not the issue of in-flight magazines, which we raised in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said that he had taken an Air France flight that had an in-flight magazine containing tobacco advertisements. Although one would not think that that magazine would be caught by the provision, the plane was owned not by a French company but by a British one flying for Air France. The Government amendments in this group would not deal with that. The Bill would stop that British company flying for Air France because of those tobacco advertisements in the in-flight magazine. Is that not ridiculous?
      Mrs. Spelman: I hope that, for the benefit of members of the Committee and other hon. Members in the Chamber, the Minister will address the issue of the predicament faced by United Kingdom airlines that have code-sharing arrangements. That issue is similar to the one that my hon. Friend has just described. When we purchase a ticket with a United Kingdom airline, we expect to be flying with that UK carrier, although the plane may be supplied by a continental carrier. However, will stewardesses on a Finnair flight returning to a Scandinavian country as a British Airways flight, for example, have to rush through the plane ripping out the in-flight magazines? It will be quite difficult practically for airlines to comply with those provisions.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: The provisions will also work in reverse. United Kingdom airlines operating out of United Kingdom airports—Newcastle airport provides a very good example—provide services for foreign airlines. Where do those airlines stand?
      Mrs. Spelmanare now beginning to discuss the reality of how the provisions will work. Government amendment No. 41 accepts our attempt to accord the United Kingdom print industry a more level playing field in tendering for publications that are destined for overseas markets and may contain tobacco advertisements, although some copies may be sold in the United Kingdom. However, United Kingdom airlines will still be at a competitive disadvantage if, unlike other airlines bringing passengers to and from this country, they cannot have an in-flight magazine. That issue has yet to be resolved.
      It will be interesting to hear whether the Minister has any thoughts on how to deal with that competitive disadvantage. I emphasise that the problem is especially

      209
      acute for United Kingdom airlines that have code-sharing arrangements. The Government will have to revisit that issue.
      6.45 pm
      The Government have made another related concession in amendment No. 40. The UK print industry would have been placed in a considerable predicament if the Government had decided not to leave out clause 2(3). That provision would have made it an offence for someone to publish or distribute a tobacco advertisement or
      "something else which is accompanied by a separate entity, containing, or being, a tobacco advertisement."
      The removal of the provision may provide some practical help to British printers and distributors, who, unlike their overseas competitors, would have to comply with the provision.
      Although our amendment No. 3 is eclipsed by the Government's concessions on the United Kingdom print industry, in Committee we identified another quirky problem. I must give credit for that where it is due. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid?Worcestershire was driving through his constituency when, passing a local antique shop, he was struck by the fact that the Bill's provisions would cover historical tobacco advertising signs. If hon. Members cannot picture the type of sign to which I am referring, they are the old enamel ones that promoted products such as Players or Senior Service cigarettes.
      Those signs are now collectors items and are very sought after, and they might be placed outside an antique shop not to promote tobacco, but because they are desirable and have increased in value. Such museum-piece tobacco advertisements are also found occasionally in pubs. Fashion has it that such signs evoke nostalgia, as they cause some people to think back to when it was perhaps customary to smoke a pipe or to roll one's own cigarettes, using old tobacco brands that have now gone by the board. However, some of those brands are still being sold. One sometimes sees mirrors bearing the Marlboro logo, or Marlboro posters from the 1950s depicting scenes from the wild west. Pubs, restaurants and similar places of refreshment often display those items to enhance their ambience. The items are really curios and novelties.
      It is unreasonable to try to ban those historical tobacco advertisements as their primary purpose is no longer to increase the market share of the erstwhile companies that promoted those brands. In our amendment No. 7, we seek to protect little antique shops that wish to display such enamel signs as part of their legitimate attempt to make a living from the sale of nostalgia and memorabilia, which many of us seek to procure as an investment or for sentimental reasons.
      The other Government amendments in this group deal with points that we made in Committee. Government amendment No. 42, however, seems to provide that a proprietor would be guilty of an offence simply by displaying the price of tobacco products on a website or in a place where those products are sold. I ask the Minister to clarify that point. That would apply if such displays were not compliant with regulations that set out what is and what is not legitimate. In Standing Committee, the
      210
      Minister was asked whether, in due course, it would be possible for airlines selling duty-free cigarettes to display anywhere a list of prices for those products. Price is of the essence in the purchase of duty-free cigarettes, and the Minister acknowledged that a price list would have to be displayed. However, Government amendment No. 42 seems to be quite severe, as it appears to make it an offence to display the prices of cigarettes in a place where they are sold. Once again, we will have to wait for a proper definition of what constitutes a display.
      The Bill contains no definition of what constitutes a compliant display and what does not. That is another example of how we are not a great deal further on than we were in Standing Committee. That leaves us disquieted.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: We were told in Standing Committee that the Government had no intention of introducing any regulations to tell firms what they could or could not display. The matter has been left mute, as it were. It might be that a future Government, thinking that a product was being displayed incorrectly, would bring in some regulations. Is not that ridiculous?
      Mrs. Spelman: Absolutely. The problem with Government amendment No. 42 is that it clarifies nothing. The absence of the regulations means that someone will have to get the judgment wrong and be dragged to court charged with an offence before what constitutes a compliant display is clarified for everyone else.
      It is legitimate to ask whether it is allowable to stack packets of cigarettes on the trolley being rolled down a plane's central aisle. Must the air hostess have the price list in her pocket to comply with Government amendment No. 42? It is an important question about the practical working of the Bill, and we need an answer.
      Government amendment No. 43 is a concession from Standing Committee that we value. The Bill states that giving away coupons of a nominal value could constitute an advertisement, and that the tobacco companies involved could be caught. In Standing Committee, we pointed out that the term "nominal sum" was ill-defined. It is feasible for a nominal sum to be quite substantial—for example, for a coupon or voucher to be worth £10 off the value of 200 cigarettes. We are pleased that the Government have conceded that the term "substantial discount" is better. However, the process seems rather long winded, as now we need a definition of the term "substantial discount".
      Mr. Forth: I am glad that my hon. Friend said that, as I was surprised to hear that she was unhappy about the term "nominal" yet more content with the term "substantial". If I were to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would try to develop that theme and say that the word "substantial" is not much more helpful than "nominal". Would my hon. Friend say that Government amendment No. 43 takes us much further forward?
      Mrs. Spelman: The weakness of the word "nominal", which we tried to get changed in Standing Committee, stems from the fact that coupons can have quite a substantial value. One weakness of the Bill is that neither term is clearly defined. A further weakness is that we must wait an unspecified length of time before we get a regulation that gives guidance to companies about what is in order and what is not.

      211
      I touched on the issues affecting Government amendment No. 47 when I spoke to amendment No. 2 on product placement. The Bill attempts to assure us that the Broadcasting Acts of 1990 and 1996 cover tobacco advertising by the broadcast services. However, are those Acts effective? I hope that I showed earlier that it is clear that they are not sufficiently effective. A great deal of product placement goes on in the material broadcast by those services, despite the existence of the rules referred to in Government amendment No. 47. The Government should look again at the option preferred by the Opposition, which is to include the key phrase "product placement" in the Bill.
      Mr. Barron: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 2. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) made a good job of saying exactly how product placement appears in different forms in the media. Earlier in the debate, I said that cigarette advertising was removed from television in 1965, but that the presence of brand names on television was preserved through the sponsorship of nationally televised sports such as cricket, Formula 1 and so on. Advertising and promotion are effectively the same thing. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that we cannot simply ban something without looking at what happens afterwards.
      In Committee, we discussed the advertising agency memorandum about the television news coverage given to the launch of a new Jordan racing car. The memo said that coverage on "News at Ten" and the "Nine O'clock News" was worth £180,000 of television advertising. Taking into account the coverage on Sky, Channel 4 and Channel 5, the total coverage was said to be worth £250,000 of advertising on the national network. It is clear that advertising agencies and the tobacco companies that paid them wanted products to get covered in news items. Product placement is therefore very important.
      Another example involves Sylvester Stallone, whose contract required that his films promoted a particular American tobacco product. The poster advertising tobacco products often plays a prominent role in scenes in Hollywood movies. Some people argue that it is relevant to the film, but I tend to disagree.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider how product placement can spread further in the media. Does she believe that Government amendment No. 47 would cover that possibility? That is especially important with television under British jurisdiction.
      There is no question, as the hon. Member for Meriden said, but that young people look up to role models on television who use tobacco products. They recognise that a role model smokes a particular brand. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) said that when tobacco products appear on soap operas, often we cannot tell the brand. He should watch soaps a bit more regularly, because we can. Therefore, I think that amendment No. 2 has some merit, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it.
      7 pm
      Mr. Atkinson: Now that I have read the Bill a little more thoroughly, I appreciate why the Minister did not answer what I said about publishers and publications, because they are better debated on this second group of amendments. Having looked at the Government's amendments, I can see what they are trying to do, but I still have concerns about how the Bill will operate with regard to publishers and printers.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has dealt with printers who print a newspaper or magazine for export. However, I still do not understand how satellite printing of international publications will be affected. I have no idea whether publications such as the International Herald Tribune, USA Today and the Financial Times carry tobacco advertising—I suspect that they do not. Even so, what is the position? What is the principal market? Is the United Kingdom the principal market of USA Today, which is printed here as well as in other centres in Europe? If USA Today decided to carry cigarette and tobacco advertisements, would it be prosecuted?
      A more likely scenario would involve magazines printed here by satellite. Technology has made satellite printing increasingly popular. It saves moving large quantities of heavy newsprint around the world, so more magazines will be using that process.
      I do not know whether right hon. and hon. Members read Hello!, but it is actually a Spanish magazine, with an English edition that circulates outside England, largely in Scandinavian countries whose readers have a good command of English. How do we define whether the UK is a principal market of the English language version of Hello! magazine? Would that be determined on the basis of circulation or revenue?
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Is it not a worry for us, as British parliamentarians, that we will be setting up a competitive advantage for publishers in other countries? They can sell into the UK market simply by saying that their main market is still over there. The editions that they produce will not be printed here, thereby losing jobs and revenue. Such magazines would be greatly subsidised because the tobacco industry, as we have been told, will find ways of spending its promotional budget on subsidising them.
      Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Although I mentioned newspapers and magazines with a large circulation, such as Hello!, I think that the problem will lie with the specialist magazines with smaller circulations, such as 4x4 cross-country vehicle specialist magazines. There are a number of such titles. They feature the Camel trophy and other motor sports events, which may or may not be covered by the Bill. It would be simple for such magazines to print abroad and supply copies to the UK.
      Such magazines are international; they circulate in other parts of Europe and the United States. It would be easy to move their base from the UK to Europe. The situation would be ludicrous: one 4x4 magazine on the newsagent's shelf would be stuffed full of advertisements for cigarettes and tobacco, while another, printed in the UK, did not carry such advertisements. That would give the magazine printed outside England a serious competitive advantage. We need to explore that possibility further, because I would hate to see yet more confusion attached to the Bill.

      213
      Product placement in films is an extremely complex matter. We have talked about films made in the United States and distributed here, and films made on video in the United States and copied here. Then, of course, there are the old classic films. Will we have to stop showing Humphrey Bogart because a packet of Lucky Strike is in the background? There are still some fascinating alleyways to explore tonight.
      Mr. Andrew Hunter: I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) speaking to amendment No. 2. I am glad that she described it as a probing amendment, as I could not fully support it. Indeed, I have grave reservations about it. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who, if I heard him correctly, suggested that it would be almost impossible to distinguish between product placement and what, for convenience, one could call a necessary theatrical prop. To make the distinction by means of regulations would be well nigh impossible.
      I hold the view that there is nothing particularly wrong with product placement. I am not prepared to join the witch hunt. I believe that the Bill is fundamentally flawed because there is nothing essentially wrong with the existing voluntary code and the necessary measures taken to control smuggling.
      Hidden in this large group of amendments is amendment No. 32, in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and myself. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, which I regret, but I have studied its proceedings in the Official Report. The Minister introduced a new clause in Committee that said that there should be regulations governing the display of tobacco products at the point of sale or elsewhere—regulations quite separate from those governing advertising at the point of sale or elsewhere. Previously, it had been envisaged that there would be a single set of regulations governing both advertising and the display of products at the point of sale or elsewhere.
      My instinctive reaction was that this was regulation gone mad. Regulation gone mad is also well exemplified in clause 8(4), which amendment No. 32 seeks to leave out. Subsection (4) demands that the regulations that govern displays
      "must make provision for a display which also amounts to an advertisement to be treated for the purpose of offences under this Act—

      (a) as an advertisement and not as a display, or

      (b) as a display and not as an advertisement."

      It would be fascinating to analyse precisely what that subsection means. I suspect that it is simply that a display must be deemed either a display, which is subject to one set of regulations, or an advertisement, which is subject to another set of regulations.
      The problem that we encounter, which has already been referred to, is that on Second Reading, throughout the Committee stage, and today, the Minister has consistently and constantly rebuffed suggestions to amend the definition in clause 1 so as to make it clear what counts as a tobacco advertisement. Subsection (4), which I argue should be deleted, refers to a display that "amounts to an advertisement". That begs the question: what precisely is
      214
      an advertisement? Is there a difference between an advertisement and something that "amounts to an advertisement"? That subsection highlights the need for a clearer and much more explicit definition.
      In Committee, the Minister made a point that took me unawares. She said that the Government accepted that there were reasons for permitting a certain amount of advertising at points of sale, to communicate price or product availability. That seems to undermine the Government's whole argument. However, if a display of tobacco products is a tobacco advertisement as defined by clause 1—an advertisement whose purpose or effect is
      "to promote a tobacco product"—
      such a display is already banned under clause 2. There is thus no need to provide in clause 8(4) for regulation that has already been provided in clause 2.
      The subsection poses a series of questions. Our amendment asks whether there is really a difference in kind between display and advertisement. Can that difference be expressed or defined in practicable or credible regulations? I am not remotely convinced that those questions can be answered positively. That is why it would be far wiser to leave out subsection (4).
      Mr. Forth: I support and echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), but I shall concentrate on some of the other amendments in the group. I share the reservations expressed by my hon. Friends about the concept of product placement. We can all recognise the phenomenon when we see it—or think we see it. That is one thing; it is quite another to provide a sufficiently viable framework within which to try to make such a distinction regularly and systematically and then to deal with it. The concept is difficult to define, and thus a difficult basis on which to implement measures successfully.
      The problem is exacerbated because, as one of my hon. Friends pointed out, it commonly arises in old media presentations—be they films or whatever—rather than as a deliberate and subtle attempt, in the modern context, to promote a product. To try to use such a concept as has been suggested would require a much better working definition than has been offered thus far.
      Amendment No. 1 is crucial. Were this ill begotten Bill ever to reach the statute book, we would risk losing the great expenditure and effort that has been put into warning people of the dangers of smoking. One of the paradoxes of our time is that the suppliers of tobacco products are obliged—although in many cases they do it voluntarily—to put health warnings about their product on its packaging.
      A further paradox of our time is that the industry itself spends a great deal on issuing health warnings. If we are to go ahead with this ill conceived scheme, surely we must try to ensure—as far as we can—that when advertisements for the product are removed, proper health warnings are not eliminated at the same time. Although tobacco is a legal product and I believe that people should be absolutely free to use it, I accept that it is a proper responsibility of Government to warn people of the fact that it may endanger their health. However, having been properly informed of the dangers, adults should then be allowed to make up their own minds whether to use a substance—be it tobacco or alcohol.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. David Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that although adults may be exercising their own free will—as he describes it—they may also be unable to overcome the addictive effects of nicotine that have been so carefully implanted in them through a succession of earlier appeals to smoke? Many teenagers take up smoking. Fewer than 50 per cent. of those who start to smoke by the age of 15 have given up smoking by the age of 60.
      Mr. Forth: That question introduces an element that I suspect you would not want me to pursue too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman makes a contentious assertion; he obviously believes it, but it might not be borne out. In any case, the argument would also apply to alcohol, to which many people, sadly, are addicted.
      In connection with amendment No. 1, I want to make the point that we must not endanger any capability or willingness on the part of the manufacturers and promoters of the products to provide appropriate warnings. That, rightly, is the aim of the amendment. It is important to ensure that we do not jeopardise that.
      Several of the amendments deal with the provisions under clause 4, with which we seem to be getting into the most awful difficulty. Although one can understand the motivation behind the clause, I doubt whether its provisions can be effectively implemented. Subsection (1)(c) refers to the "principal market" and the United Kingdom. As we have already seen—and as the Members who had the privilege, pleasure and honour of serving on the Standing Committee must have discovered over and over again—the Bill is shot through with vague concepts that are either ill defined or undefined, yet are crucial to the thrust and meaning of the measure. Subsection (1) illustrates that. The term "principal market" will be of no help or guidance whatever to those who will be given the responsibility of implementing the Bill should it ever become an Act.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) pointed out, the matter is complicated by the fact that, when one is dealing with the world of modern publication, it is not viable, satisfactory or deliverable to talk about one market as opposed to another, given the extent to which people, products, publications and information flow freely across international boundaries. That is one of the ironic effects of our membership both of the European Union and of the European Economic Area. It is thus even more difficult to define properly and adequately where one market begins and another ends. I submit that the term "principal market" with reference to the United Kingdom is extremely difficult to define. The fact that direct reference is made to that concept makes the provision of dubious value.
      Subsection (d) refers to "a United Kingdom airline". Even that concept is difficult to define. Is Cathay Pacific a United Kingdom airline? Some years ago, a trick question asked, "What is the second biggest British airline?" Few people correctly answered that it was Cathay Pacific. The airline was, in essence, British-owned, even though it mainly operated in the far east. I mention that example only to illustrate the difficulty of giving an adequate definition of a phrase as apparently simple as "a United
      216
      Kingdom airline", as used in the measure. That aspect of the Bill is far from adequate, and the amendments do not help at all.
      A similar problem, which arose when my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) moved the amendment, will arise later when we discuss nominal sums and substantial discounts. There is a genuine effort to improve the Bill and make it more accurate, but it falls far short of what is desirable.
      I suspect that the Minister will say, "Don't worry about that, folks—it will all be made clear in regulations." That is the classic answer that Ministers give when presenting such a Bill, but I am not sure whether it is good enough in this case. Much of the Bill's thrust and its likely effectiveness depend on the viability and practicability of the regulations, rather than on the Bill itself, but even at this relatively late stage, we are no more able to judge whether it is likely to be effective. We are completely in the dark about how the Government will tackle the underpinning regulations, on which so much will depend. I find it very unsatisfactory that I am still unable to make that judgment.
      I hope that the Minister will explain amendment No. 47—the final amendment in the group—because, coming new to the Bill, as I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, I am intrigued as to how such a change can be suggested. The suggestion is that we should change the wording in clause 12(2) from
      "This Act does not apply in relation to a tobacco advertisement"
      to
      "This Act does not apply in relation to anything included in a service".
      At this stage, to move from the phrase "a tobacco advertisement" to the word "anything" involves a rather large leap of either faith or imagination.
      I hope that the Minister can tell us how, now that the Bill has managed to reach this stage in its proceedings, she still has to ask us to approve an amendment that produces such a difference in meaning and direction. That is even more important because we are talking about an exemption, using the words,
      "This Act does not apply in relation to".
      I can understand that that might be relevant to a tobacco advertisement, but it is remarkable to state:
      "This Act does not apply in relation to anything included in a service to which any of subsections (3) to (6) apply."
      We need to hear a very comprehensive explanation from the Minister as to how she and the Government have got themselves into the position of having to make such a change at this stage.
      All in all, the position is very unsatisfactory indeed. Notwithstanding the Standing Committee's mighty labours, and the huge accumulated brainpower and concentrated effort of its members during many sittings, the Bill is still pathetically inadequate, so I leave the House, including the hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee, to judge the quality of its work. The fact that the Government have tabled so many poor quality amendments is a sad indictment of them.
      Mr. Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the logical, honest and consistent approach, bearing in mind his comments so far, would be to vote against Third Reading?
      Mr. Forth: Yes, and I intend to do so. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me that little trailer for

      217
      what I fully intend to do—although the Minister has an opportunity to use her eloquence and powers of persuasion to make me change my mind. However, at the moment, not only do I disagree with the Bill's thrust and principle—which, of course, we are not now debating—but I have, I hope, shown that I believe the Bill to be so flawed that even if I agreed with its main purpose, I would feel unable to support it. The Minister now has an opportunity to persuade us all—and good luck to her.
      Yvette Cooper: I shall try to deal with each amendment in this group and respond, in turn, to the points that hon. Members have made. On amendment No. 2, moved by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), we are sympathetic to her intention on product placement, although I was interested in the fact that many Conservative Back Benchers are perhaps not quite so sympathetic to it. The amendment is not necessary and, as worded, would not be helpful. I shall clarify the Government's view on product placement and how it will be covered by the Bill.
      If product placement occurs in this country in the form of an agreement to promote a tobacco product, perhaps through a film or television programme, it will constitute a sponsorship agreement. If that were done through television, it would be covered by the Broadcasting Acts. If it were done through film, it would constitute a sponsorship agreement and be covered by the provisions on such agreements. Of course, if such product placement occurs abroad, we cannot prosecute the parties to the sponsorship agreement; we do not have extra-territorial jurisdiction in this respect.
      What will happen if a film that includes an overt placement of a tobacco product, which is clearly promoted by a tobacco company, is distributed in this country? I make it clear that our intention is not to prevent films from showing smoking. We do not intend the Bill to cover films, or other kinds of theatrical expression, that show smoking as part of their artistic freedom of expression. We may not like the fact that a film or theatrical production glamorises or appears to promote smoking, but if smoking is part of the artistic freedom of expression, we have to be careful what we rule out, even though we disagree with it.
      Under the Bill, we want to rule out advertisements that promote tobacco products in the course of a business; we do not want to restrict freedom of expression. In fact, I would defend the right of artists to smoke on television or in films. The Government should not censor such matters. However, if something is a tobacco advertisement and if it promotes a tobacco product in the course of a business—for example, if a Marlboro advert is strung out for three quarters of hour—it will be covered by the Bill, even if it is produced in another country, so distributors will need to consider their liability. They will, of course, have to have a defence if they did not know, or could not have foreseen, that that would be the effect, but distribution will be covered by the Bill.
      Amendment No. 1 would exempt from the definition of an advertisement those advertisements that depict tobacco products where the purpose is to reduce the prevalence of smoking. If the purpose of an advertisement is to reduce the prevalence of smoking, it will not come under the definition of an advertisement the effect of which is to
      218
      promote a tobacco product. Such an advertisement will not be covered by the Bill, unless it is so useless and bad that its effect is to promote a tobacco product and smoking. If an advertisement is that bad, it should be withdrawn; it should be not put up on our billboards. There is no intention to prevent health education or health information advertisements, and they will not be covered by the Bill, so amendment No. 1 is unnecessary.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way because I am sure that she wants health messages to be effective. Is she aware of the excellent work of the life education caravan movement, which encourages youngsters to be aware of their bodies and how they can be harmed? It has advised us that telling people not to smoke encourages them to do just that. It is necessary to have a completely different approach to the problem. If an advertisement for non-smoking encourages people to experiment with smoking, it will be covered by the Bill.
      7.30 pm
      Yvette Cooper: I would be extremely interested to see research to support the idea that such health information campaigns are counter-productive, although I have to admit that I have seen advertisements from other countries to encourage people to drink less that probably had the reverse effect. Advertisements to promote tobacco products are covered by the Bill; advertisements to help people to give up smoking or to prevent them from starting are not. A great deal of evidence would be needed to show that such advertisements had the opposite effect, and if that were the case, they should not be distributed.
      On Government amendment No. 40, we reconsidered the issue of separate entities and inserts. Let me clarify our approach. We are not saying that separate entities are permissible and that it is acceptable to include inserts that advertise tobacco. We decided that clause 2(3) was unnecessary because inserts, such as those in our Sunday newspapers, that include tobacco advertisements count as published inserts and whoever has published them is responsible for them. If an insert is published with the magazine, the magazine publisher is liable. If it is tucked in by someone else at a later stage, the person who published the insert is responsible and whoever tucked it in is likely to be covered by the provisions on distribution. No matter how we look at it, those who are responsible for publishing or distributing the advertisement are likely to be caught by the Bill.
      On Government amendment No. 41, we decided to reconsider the issue of United Kingdom printers. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said that they should not be prevented from working on foreign publications that contain tobacco advertisements if those publications would qualify for exclusion. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) also raised that matter. It would cause concern if clause 4(1)(c) permitted a publication to be produced, but the Bill's provisions caught the printer who was working on it. The amendment clarifies the situation.
      Mr. David Taylor: Is my hon. Friend convinced that the clause, as amended, provides an adequate definition of the principal market as it relates to the United Kingdom?
      Yvette Cooper: The concept of the principal market is an important part of the Bill. We do not want companies

      219
      whose principal market is not the UK to be covered by the Bill if the publication is also circulated here. We have not provided a specific quantification of what "principal market" might mean because it will vary in different circumstances. For example, the definition of an appropriate market share to determine whether the UK is a principal market will be different if a product has five or only two markets. If the biggest market for a publication is the UK, that will count as the principal market.
      Mr. Forth: The Minister seems to be suggesting that if there were four or five markets of broadly equal size, which is not impossible, the principal market could be 20 or 25 per cent. Is that what she imagines principal to mean in such circumstances?
      Yvette Cooper: The assessment would need to be made on individual cases, depending on the circumstances involved. There would probably be a different test for those publications that have several markets rather than just two. It would be wrong to provide a quantification of a market share that might be difficult to apply in different market circumstances.
      Amendment No. 3 would create an additional exclusion for advertisements so that no offence would be committed in relation to a tobacco advertisement if it is contained in a tender for a contract to publish a magazine for an overseas market. The hon. Member for Meriden accepted that the amendment is covered by amendment No. 41, and we do not think that it is needed. Any communication that is in a sealed tender for a bid or which is part of an attempt to get a contract to publish a magazine in an overseas market would not need to become a tobacco advertisement that reached the public.
      Amendment No. 7 raises an interesting matter. Again, we have some sympathy with its aim. We do not want historic tobacco advertisements or items of historic branding value to be caught by the new measures. Each case would need to be judged on its merits, but the Bill is not intended to prevent museums from displaying historic posters or items, or antique shops from displaying old plaques or memorabilia of obsolete brands. Those would obviously not be promoting tobacco products, in the same way as artistic representation on film or stage would not be regarded as promoting tobacco products. An historic object that is offered for sale would not be regarded as an advertisement to promote tobacco products.
      The amendment would, however, create a loophole. We could not accept an exemption that allowed Marlboro, for example, to wheel out all its advertisements from the 1960s to promote its cigarettes today; nor would we want tobacco companies to decide to resurrect obsolete brands simply because they happened to have advertisements that were more than 30 years old and exempt from the Bill.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: In Committee, I asked whether buildings with old advertisements that were no longer being promoted by a tobacco company were caught by the Bill. As the hon. Lady has had a few days to think about that, will she say whether they will be exempted, or will shops with outside billboards have to take action?
      Yvette Cooper: It would depend on whether an historic item that did not promote a tobacco product was being
      220
      offered for sale or whether an advertisement that had been erected to promote a tobacco product had not been removed. It would not be acceptable to allow advertisements to continue to be left in place simply because someone put them up a couple of years ago and no one had got round to taking them down. It would not be acceptable to exempt them. A billboard that continued to hold an old advertisement because no one had replaced it would be covered by the Bill.
      Mr. Hunter: The old Gallaher building in Belfast, which is now used for a different purpose, contains the name "Gallaher" as part of the brickwork. What is the Government's view on that complicated issue?
      Yvette Cooper: It would be hard to argue that the purpose and effect of that brickwork was to promote a tobacco product and that it should be covered by the Bill. It is not intended to include historic features such as that.
      Government amendment No. 42 ensures consistency between subsections (1) and (2) of clause 8, and I shall clarify the Government's intention. We have said that we do not want to have to draw up regulations on displays. We are relaxed about the way in which products and prices are ordinarily displayed, and we do not intend to restrict that. It is perfectly legitimate to have a certain amount of advertising at point of sale and for products to be displayed, with prices, so that they can be sold, because after all, tobacco is a legal product. Our only purpose in providing powers to draw up regulations is to deal with possible abuses, because we want to prevent tobacco companies from finding innovative forms of advertising that get round the Bill.
      Amendment No. 32, which would remove what is, in effect, a trumping provision for the two sets of regulations on display and advertising at point of sale, would create difficulties. If we find that we do not need to introduce regulations on displays, we will not need subsection (4). We would like not to have to introduce those regulations, but if we decide that we need to do so, we will need clear definitions so that we know whether displays count as advertisements, and which regulations should therefore apply to them. We will need to set out links between the two sets of regulations.
      Government amendments Nos. 43 and 44 respond to the debate in Committee about the concept of a "nominal sum", and to concern that the definition may not be broad enough to cover all the abuses that we might be concerned about. The hon. Member for Meriden sought to replace the concept of "nominal sum" with that of "market value", and I explained to her in Committee why we could not accept her amendment and how it would affect competitive practices.
      Amendment No. 43 will, however, add the words,
      "or at a substantial discount".
      That might refer to products that are sold, for example, at a discount of two thirds of the ordinary price, but which might not be included within the term "nominal sum". We will have to consult on the interpretation of the term "substantial discount". We would also have to consult if we wanted to introduce regulations. This is another area in which we hope not to need regulations, but we have included the power to make them in case of future abuses.
      Government amendment No. 47 makes it clear that the Bill does not apply to anything included in a service regulated under the Broadcasting Acts. That does not apply

      221
      to tobacco advertisements or to provisions on sponsorship and brand sharing. We want to avoid overlap between the two areas of legislation to make implementation simpler.
      A question was asked about the responsibility of airlines. The airline providing the services would be responsible for any advertising, so the test would be whether it was a UK airline. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) asked about international publications. I dealt with that when I talked about principal markets.
      I propose that the House reject amendment No. 2, and accept the Government amendments.
      7.45 pm
      Mrs. Spelman: Just before you arrived, Madam Deputy Speaker, I described this group of amendments as involving the whole world, his wife and the kitchen sink. Unfortunately, we have added a few more categories as a result of debating these diverse amendments. Regrettably, I am none the wiser for my probing amendments, except perhaps on the last point about airline code sharing. The Minister was helpful and clear on that point, and as her remarks will be reported in Hansard they will provide guidance to UK airlines and their code-sharing partners, which I am sure they will find helpful.
      The Government's description of their amendments has left me considerably more confused. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for his remarks, but we have been left completely in the dark about the definition of a principal market. That has not inspired confidence in Government amendment No. 40.
      Amendment No. 2 is a probing amendment, and the debate on it has been useful because we have learned that the Government understand our disquiet about the possibility of product placement increasingly being used as an advertising vehicle when conventional forms of advertising are banned by the Bill. However, I was further disquieted when the Minister defined "product placement" as a sponsorship agreement. We are going round and round in circles because the Bill does not clearly define "sponsorship agreement".
      The lateness of the hour and the fact that we have to curtail the Report stage in less than half an hour means that it is increasingly unlikely that we will get to the amendments on sponsorship agreement. [Interruption.] The Government imposed the deadline. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) have tabled an important amendment in that group which seeks to make it clear that a sponsorship agreement is one in which a party to the agreement makes a contribution, in the course of business, towards a public event or activity. I am uneasy about the Government's interpretation of product placement as a sponsorship agreement, which has a weak definition in the Bill that we will probably not now be able to debate. The increasing confusion about those terms demonstrates that the correct course of action is to withdraw the amendment but to register the fact that we are left more confused by the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      PROHIBITION OF TOBACCO ADVERTISING
      Amendment made: No. 40, in page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (3).—[Yvette Cooper.]
      Mrs. Spelman: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 21, leave out "includes" and insert—
      'shall, to the extent set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State after consultation with representatives of those involved in the electronic publication and transmission of material, include'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 34, in page 1, line 21, leave out "includes" and insert "does not include".
      No. 35, in page 1, line 23, at end insert—
      'unless the person is aware on first transmission of its contents or has had a notice from an enforcement authority giving reasonable time to have the contents removed.'.
      No. 36, in clause 4 page 2, line 26, leave out—
      'place or on a website'
      and insert—
      'real place or a virtual place via electronic transmission'.
      No. 15, in page 4, line 1, leave out Clause 7.
      No. 33, in clause 13, page 6, line 17, at end add—
      '(2A) An internet service provider shall investigate complaints from an enforcement authority on payment of a fee to cover administrative costs.'
      No. 13, in clause 18, page 9, line 36, after "section", insert "1(4)".
      No. 22, in clause 20, page 10, line 13, at end insert—
      "'internet service provider" means a person who provides access to the internet,'.
      No. 23, in page 10, line 18, at end insert—
      "website" means a location on the internet accessed by an address at which information is made available,'.
      Mrs. Spelman: The amendments form a large group, but they are more focused than the previous group, in that their central point of reference is the new information technology, and the position of internet service providers and those who provide the means of transmission of information, all of whom will be affected by the Bill.
      After discussing the position of ISPs in Standing Committee, we felt that several loose ends were left. We tried to secure from the Minister a duty to consult representatives of those involved in electronic publication and transmission of material, because we felt uneasy about agreeing to clauses that referred to those industries when we were not well qualified to comment on the full implications for them of the Bill's implementation. Perhaps the only member of the Committee who was better qualified than the rest was my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce); in due course, I shall give him a good opportunity to speak to the amendments, in recognition of the fact that he understands the issues better than the rest of us.
      The issues are complex. Getting the legislation right is made more difficult by the fact that it deals with a sector that is constantly moving—the technology is still emerging and remains comparatively new to all of us. It is difficult to understand the way in which those involved

      223
      in electronic publication and transmission of material will be caught by provisions relating to tobacco advertising. I suspect that they have yet to analyse the full implications of the Bill. We felt that it was important that consultation with those parties should have taken place well before our scrutiny of the Bill, so that we might all better understand the way in which they would be affected, and have a better idea of what would be in the regulations which the Secretary of State is to draw up to govern the responsibilities to be borne by the new e-commerce industry in terms of overseeing opportunities to advertise tobacco products.
      The huge attraction of the differential between taxation of tobacco products by the countries of continental Europe and by the United Kingdom means that tobacco products are increasingly advertised on the internet. Currently, it is legitimate for those living in the UK to secure their supplies of duty-free cigarettes over the internet, and that trade is likely to increase. That is why we are anxious to protect ISPs, which cannot reasonably be expected to know the minutiae of the postings on their myriad advertising points, which include bulletin boards; they are not always in a position to know precisely at any given time who has hacked into their provision to post advertising. Amendment No. 12 is designed to ensure that, before any draft regulations are imposed on that emerging industry, a proper process of consultation takes place on how to make them practicable, and several of the other amendments address those practicalities.
      After Committee, we were left with profound doubts about whether the Bill was the right place for an attempt to regulate the e-commerce industry. Perhaps that industry's responsibility for advertising transmitted through that new medium of communication should be part of a completely separate Bill, and would more correctly be dealt with by the Department of Trade and Industry in the context of the industry's competitiveness. The last thing we want is to burden a fledgling industry with an irksome set of regulations that will make it difficult for it to compete in the emerging market.
      That becomes even more apparent when we consider how companies that are responsible for the means of transmission might be caught up by the Bill. The Committee debated whether, not ISPs, but the companies that provide hardware, might be caught by the offences defined in the Bill, even if they were unaware that they had provided the conduit for tobacco advertising. We remain extremely concerned: the Bill embodies a stab at dealing with the possibility of tobacco advertising through new and less conventional means—but that stab deals clumsily with a new technology whose full implications it is difficult for us to envisage now.
      It will be good if my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset now speaks specifically to the amendments that he tabled, which might make the Bill more practical and workable in relation to those involved in electronic publication and transmission.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: At the end of Committee stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) asked me to try to get my head round the problems that clearly confronted internet service providers and others involved in computing, and to come up with better ways of dealing with those issues.
      The problem goes to the heart of the mission that the Prime Minister set for his whole Government, which is to make the United Kingdom the best place in which to do
      224
      e-business. I am afraid that, in its present form, the Bill will make the UK the worst place to do e-business. It will lay additional loads on our ISPs even if they carry no tobacco advertising, with the result that those who intend to set up as ISPs will find it easier to set up elsewhere, because the great defence offered is that as long as the internet service provision business is set up elsewhere, it can carry as much tobacco advertising as it wants, and when that advertising arrives in the United Kingdom, it will not be covered by the legislation.
      I shall explain my amendments as briefly as I can, and hope that the Minister has time to respond in the short time available. Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are aimed at the prohibition set out in clause 2. Subsection (4) states:
      Distributing a tobacco advertisement includes transmitting it in electronic form, participating in doing so, and providing the means of transmission.
      That might catch a company such as BT, if such an advertisement is sent across its lines; or the Conservative party, if someone goes from its website to another website that happens to carry tobacco advertising.
      The defence comes later in the Bill. Clause 5(5) states:
      "In relation to a tobacco advertisement which is published or caused to be published by electronic means by an internet service provider, it is a defence for him, if charged with an offence under section 2(1), to prove that he was unaware that what he published or caused to be published was, or contained, a tobacco advertisement."
      Basically, the clause says that it is an offence to do it, but there is a defence if the person did not know about it.
      8 pm
      I have tried, in the amendments which I have tabled, to deal with the matter more straightforwardly and to say that distributing a tobacco advertisement does not include transmitting it in electronic form, participating in doing so or providing the means of transmission, unless the person is aware on first transmission of its contents or has had notice from an enforcement authority, having been given reasonable time to have the contents removed.
      I am saying, via the amendments, that if someone is knowingly involved in publishing the advertisement because he knew that something was promoting tobacco, that is an offence. That is what the Government are trying to do. However, if an authorised authority—I use those words carefully because they are defined in the Bill as meaning a weights and measures authority—comes to the website and says, "You are publishing an advertisement; please get it off," that is the way the matter is dealt with. If the advertisement is not taken off, an offence has been committed.
      Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, when the police go to an internet service provider and say, "You have got something that we want to have information about because someone is distributing pornography"—or whatever it is that they are investigating—it would be right, in terms of amendment No. 33, to pay a sensible administration fee for the matter to be checked out and for someone to do the necessary work. The amendment reads:
      "An internet service provider shall investigate complaints from an enforcement authority"—
      that is, a weights and measures authority in the United Kingdom—
      "on payment of a fee to cover administrative costs."

      225
      That is fair to internet service providers.
      I understand that there is a meeting tomorrow with the Minister or her officials and internet service providers. I am saying, "Don't put an enormous load on internet service providers. Don't leave them worrying about what they might do inadvertently and then find that they do not have a sufficient defence. Say carefully to a provider that if he sets up a deal with a tobacco company of any description, or some other person who is providing tobacco advertising, he is culpable and can be prosecuted." The individual, however, may have been an innocent party to all that.
      We should remember that an internet service provider has not been clearly defined. The term includes virtually anyone who is doing anything over the internet. The worldwide web is an internet service provider. Many people are involved in the process of getting information on to someone's computer. They are involved as internet service providers.
      Through amendment No. 36, I criticise the Government for using the term "website". If one so criticises the Government in that context, it is only fair to try to work out something better. I admit that I did so after consideration of the Bill had been completed in Committee, when the other members of the Committee had scooted off home. I was at my computer trying to work out the right way to deal with the matter.
      Clause 4(2) reads:
      "The appropriate Minister may provide in regulations that no offence is committed under Section 2 in relation to a tobacco advertisement which … is in a place"—
      that is, where tobacco is being sold—
      "or on a website where tobacco products are offered for sale".
      That means that someone goes to a shop and receives some information through an advertisement. This might come within the regulations. The individual will buy the tobacco on the basis of the information that he is given. We all understand that.
      In the virtual world, how is that done? The Minister has gone for the snappy title of website. Perhaps that is on the basis that everyone knows what a website is—it is difficult to define things that are virtual. Someone who accesses a website and obtains a tobacco advertisement is not on a website in the terms that we are discussing. He has not physically gone on to the website. He has downloaded the advertisement to his computer. He has gone to a place where there is an authorised distributor of the advertisement because it is a place that sells tobacco. The advertisement that appears on his computer is legal from the Minister's point of view, but not within the terms of the Bill. That is because it is not still on the website. The website is elsewhere and the information has found its way to the individual's computer.
      I suggested that if the information were downloaded on to a large billboard, the situation would be exactly the same. In trying to help the Government, I am saying with some difficulty that if we talk of a real place or a virtual place via electronic transmission where tobacco products are offered for sale, we are coming within the ambit of what the Government are trying to do. In other words, the place where it is legal to see the advertisements is the place where the individual has transmitted them.
      226
      I admit that the entire problem has not been covered. For example, the boyfriend of one of my daughters creates advertisements. It would be legal for an advertisement that he had created to sell a tobacco product at a point of sale on the website. Unfortunately, while he is producing it, he would probably be acting illegally. It is only when the information is on the website that it becomes a legal advertisement.
      The Government are trying to say that it is legal to have an advertisement when someone is buying tobacco on a website, and it is legal for that advertisement to be created in the United Kingdom, but that is not what the Bill provides. I urge the Minister to consider what we are attempting to do, so as to assist her. I ask her particularly to bear in mind what the poor old internet service provider will find if there is an unlimited number of people who can contact him. He will hear, "I was searching the web the other day and I came across an advertisement which was not selling tobacco. I know that the advertisement is illegal and you must take it off." The individual is asked, "Where were you?" He says, "I clicked on this and on that, and I am not quite sure how I really got there."
      That is searching the web; we often end up where we do not expect to be. Websites are often designed to try to ensure that information that has not been requested gets on to computers. The arrival of naked ladies on a computer screen is often completely accidental. I accept that many people are doing their very best to get naked ladies on their screen. If someone goes into a search engine, he might discover that someone has downloaded information because he is trying to sell a porn site. In future, people will be trying to sell tobacco. People will ask for information and receive instead information about the selling of tobacco.
      It has been difficult to cram all these ideas into a short period. I hope that I have given the Minister some time in which to respond. The amendments are intended to be helpful and to ensure that the United Kingdom becomes the best place in the world to do the sort of business that we are discussing.
      Yvette Cooper: I shall deal with the amendments in turn.
      Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 would remove electronic distribution from the Bill and leave it to regulations. That is not the right approach; one principle of the Bill is to provide media neutrality, so that it applies to all media. Defences are then tailored, as appropriate, to different media, which is a sensible approach. The amendments would single out electronic distribution for special treatment, but not electronic publishing. There is therefore a lack of consistency. We said in Committee several times that the Government were sympathetic to the position of internet service providers and we will discuss with them the enforcement of the Bill. However, it would be wrong to write them, or others involved in electronic methods of communication, out of the script altogether.
      I accept the intention behind amendments Nos. 34 and 35. In fact, they tend simply to rejig the provisions in the Bill. The intention of the Bill, and the purpose behind it, is to introduce a comprehensive ban and then introduce

      227
      appropriately targeted defences. The amendments would try to rejig that by building in the defences even before introducing the comprehensive ban.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
      Yvette Cooper: Not now, because I have limited time. I will give way if I have time when I have made these points in response.
      Electronic distributors already have the defences, under clause 5(6), of being unaware, of being unable to prevent further distribution, or of not carrying on business in the United Kingdom. The amendments add nothing to those defences, but add the sense of someone who could tell ISPs about a tobacco advertisement authoritatively. We discussed that in Committee, when I made it clear that the Government are happy to work with ISPs to develop a workable system. However, we see no reason to introduce a bureaucracy to do so in the Bill, and believe that we can get a voluntary arrangement that would be effective in that area.
      I accept the intention behind amendment No. 36, but I do not think that it adds anything to the Bill or improves it. The term "website" is currently understood to mean a location on the worldwide web, identified by a web address. There is a legitimate concern about what happens in five years' time if the idea of a website becomes redundant because technology has moved on. We have included clause 7 in the Bill so that we can keep up with the technology. The amendment would not add anything to the Bill, and we would still have to rely on clause 7 to keep up.
      We cannot accept amendment No. 15, which would remove clause 7 and our order-making power to amend the Bill to take account of developments in technology. That power is not open-ended and does not allow us to change any provision on a whim. It is a narrow and specific power, allowing us to change only provisions relating to publishing or distributing by electronic means so as to react to developments in technology. We would not use that power lightly, but given the pace of technological development in that area, it is extremely important to have it, so that the Bill's intention is not rendered pointless by the rapid pace of technology.
      Amendment No. 33 would allow particular businesses or private individuals to charge public authorities for obeying the law of the land. That is not appropriate and we do not undertake such action in other areas of the law. We are aware that ISPs have legitimate concerns.
      Mr. Bruce: The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which has just been passed by the House, does precisely that for precisely those people who are targeted by the provision.
      Yvette Cooper: We have said that we recognise that the ISPs have legitimate concerns, in that they should have, first, appropriate defences, especially those regarding the fact that they were not aware. Additionally, they should have additional defences as compared with print distributors and publishers. There should also be an effective system of implementing the Bill that does not put additional burdens or pressures on ISPs beyond what is necessary to implement the Bill sensibly.
      228
      8.15 pm
      The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) is right to say that my officials are meeting ISPs. We are keen to work with them to set up a voluntary system, which works in other areas. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 raise issues concerning ISPs similar to those which a previous amendment raised about websites. Again, it is not necessary to provide further definitions in that area, for which we have a normal understanding of the wording. Furthermore, if that definition becomes obsolete because of changes in technology, we will have power, under clause 7, to amend it to respond to developments in technology in future. I therefore propose that we reject all the amendments in this group.
      Mrs. Spelman: To make it clear, in seeking to point out to the House—
      It being a quarter past Eight o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [7 November and this day].
      Amendment negatived.
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Clause 4

      ADVERTISING: EXCLUSIONS
      Amendment made: No. 41, in page 2, line 19, leave out—
      'which is printed outside the United Kingdom and'.—[Yvette Cooper.]

    Clause 8

      DISPLAYS
      Amendment made: No. 42, in page 4, line 4, leave out—
      'tobacco products or causes them to be displayed'
      and insert—
      'or causes to be displayed tobacco products or their prices'.—[Yvette Cooper.]

    Clause 9

      PROHIBITION OF FREE DISTRIBUTIONS
      Amendments made: No. 43, in page 4, line 42, after "sum", insert—
      'or at a substantial discount'.
      No. 44, in page 4, line 43, at end insert—
      '() If regulations under subsection (6) provide for this section to apply to making products or coupons available at a substantial discount, the regulations must provide for the meaning of "substantial discount".'.—[Yvette Cooper.]

    Clause 10

      PROHIBITION OF SPONSORSHIP
      Amendment made: No. 48, in page 5, line 7, after "which", insert—
      ', in the course of a business,'.—[Yvette Cooper.]
      Amendment made: No. 45, in page 5, line 20, at end insert—
      '() It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the contribution referred to in subsection (2) was made in the course of a business.'.—[Yvette Cooper.]

    Clause 11

      BRANDSHARING
      Amendment made: No. 46, in page 5, line 36, at end insert—
      '() If regulations under this section provide for a prohibition or restriction to be subject to an exception, the regulations may also make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for a corresponding exception to have effect for the purposes of offences under section 2, 3, 8, 9 or l0.'.—[Yvette Cooper.]

    Clause 12
      TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTING
      Amendment made: No. 47, in page 5, line 41, leave out "a tobacco advertisement" and insert "anything".—[Yvette Cooper.]
    Clause 16

      PENALTIES
      Amendment made: No. 49, in page 9, line 3, leave out "three" and insert "six".—[Yvette Cooper.]
      Amendment made: No. 50, in page 9, line 4, at end insert—
      '; or
      (b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or a fine, or both.'.—[Yvette Cooper.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      8.16 pm
      Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Bill has been extensively debated in Committee and also today, and I believe that it has been improved by our discussions. It is a ground-breaking measure, which introduces a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship. It is ground-breaking also because it makes specific provision to address advertising on the internet. It is right that much of the time that we have spent today and in Committee has been on issues concerning the internet, which is an area of rapidly developing and changing technology.
      As a result of debates in Committee, we have clarified the distinction between advertising and display—for example, the distinction between individual choice and operations undertaken in the course of business—and improved enforcement.
      230
      Many of the amendments tabled by the Opposition demonstrated conflicting points of view. Some appeared to tighten the Bill, such as those that proposed changes concerning product placement and products being offered at less than market value. Others sought to create huge gaping loopholes in the Bill, such as those concerning brand sharing, which we discussed earlier today.
      It is important to recognise the overall significance of the Bill, which would ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship in this country. Smoking kills 120,000 people each year. That fact, shocking as it might be, cannot be repeated too often. One in two smokers will die from the habit. It is in that context that we are introducing the ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship.
      People have a right to choose to smoke, but smoking is addictive, and they also have a right not to be pressurised by manipulative, seductive advertising into starting to smoke. They have a right not to be bombarded with advertisements and pressurised not to give up smoking. Some of the most insidious advertising of all is targeted at those who are trying to give up, possibly at the time of year when they are trying hardest. For example, when they have made a new year's resolution to stop, advertising might undermine their resolve and intention to give up.
      Seventy per cent. of smokers say that they want to give up. Given the huge health impact of smoking and the health inequalities caused by smoking, it is right that we provide such people with every support that we can, through the NHS and through Parliament, when they want to give up smoking.
      I strongly believe that people have a right to smoke, but I do not accept that tobacco companies have a right to spend £100 million of the profits that they gain from selling a deadly product on hooking new smokers. In a country that cares about preventing ill health, tackling health inequalities, and particularly protecting the health of children, we cannot ignore the effect of tobacco advertising.
      In the end, children are at the heart of the Bill. The evidence shows that the most heavily advertised brands are those most likely to be smoked by children. Research in the US found that children as young as three were familiar with Joe Camel, and that children as young as six were as familiar with Joe Camel as they were with Mickey Mouse, and knew that the camel was associated with cigarettes. That is the kind of advertising that we should be concerned about.
      A voluntary ban was not enough. It simply restricted advertising in a narrow area close to schools. What about the advertising that is not near schools? What about the advertising in the streets, in shopping centres and through brand sharing? What about the promotion through sponsorship of sports and public events? Those are some of the forms of advertising that the Bill will make unlawful. It is right that we should do that. The Bill will not stop artistic licence. It will not take away the right of journalists to applaud smoking, so long as they are not being sponsored to do so. It is about preventing big companies from using their size and their riches to promote products to people whose lives are at stake.
      The Smee report, commissioned by Department of Health Ministers in 1992, set out the evidence of the impact of an advertising ban. After examining the evidence from Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand, it found that

      231
      "in each case the banning of advertising was followed by a fall in smoking on a scale which cannot reasonably be attributed to other factors."
      The World Bank's recent report, "Curbing the Epidemic", stated:
      "A recent study of 22 high-income countries based on data from 1970 to 1992 concluded that comprehensive bans on cigarette advertising and promotion can reduce smoking, but more limited partial bans have little or no effect."
      That is an important factor behind the Bill that we have presented and taken through the House.
      The evidence is that banning tobacco advertising does reduce consumption, but only if the ban is comprehensive. That is important and explains why the Bill introduces an almost complete ban on tobacco advertising and promotion, with very limited, targeted exceptions. We know that only if we introduce a comprehensive ban will we make a real impact on smoking.
      The Bill is part of a broader strategy to tackle smoking. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) raised concerns earlier about tobacco smoking being on the increase. In fact, the figures show that tobacco smoking increased between 1994 and 1996, but fell between 1996 and 1998. We await the recent figures with interest, but it is a matter of grave concern to us that the figures also show, and have shown since 1992, that smoking among young people is on the rise. That is exactly why we are introducing a ban on tobacco advertising.
      The Government felt that the measures that were in place when we took office were not sufficient. Smoking had been on the increase, and something more needed to be done. That is why we are extending the most wide-scale publicly funded provision of smoking cessation services in Europe, and we are proud to do so.
      Smoking is a fundamental cause of health inequalities in this country. That is why we are tackling smoking, providing people with support when they want to give up smoking, and preventing the tobacco companies from abusing their position by making it more difficult for people to give up an addictive product.
      The Bill has been extensively debated. The main Opposition party did not support it on Second Reading, but I hope that it will do so now. Given the impact that the Bill could have on public health, and given that the Opposition have stated many times that they would like to see the prevalence of smoking fall, I hope that they will support the Bill on Third Reading. That will be the test of their commitment to reducing smoking and improving public health. I call on them to join us in the Lobby tonight in support of a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, which will ultimately narrow health inequalities and protect our children's health into the future.
      8.24 pm
      Dr. Liam Fox: I should like to begin by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) for the tremendous work that they put into examining the Bill in the time allowed by the programme motion.
      As the Minister for Public Health said, the Bill has a simple and oft-repeated aim. The Opposition share that aim, which is to reduce smoking. No one doubts that smoking is bad and damages health. As far as I know,
      232
      nobody has tried during the passage of the Bill to argue the converse and to suggest that smoking is not a bad thing. However, the Opposition have argued that an evidence-based approach must be brought to the debate. If doctors involved in treating the consequences of smoking have to practise evidence-based medicine, surely it is a useful discipline for the House to practise evidence-based policy. In other words, we must consider whether the Bill will work and achieve the aims that it sets out to achieve.
      It is also necessary for the debate to be properly balanced and fully informed. The Minister said that smoking was a cause of health inequality, but it is not only the consumption of tobacco that produces inequalities. As she would be the first to admit, people who consume tobacco are far less likely to present early during any episode of illness, especially when they are on low incomes. That contributes as much to poor outcomes as tobacco usage and explains why smokers in middle-class areas have better survival rates than those in low-income areas. Wider issues such as those must be taken into account.
      The first question is whether the Bill will work. Secondly, however, we must ask under what circumstances, if any, it is appropriate to ban the advertising of a legal product. That question is especially important when, as hon. Members on both sides of the House must candidly admit, the Government raise so much revenue from that product. Although health Ministers complain regularly about the tactics used by tobacco companies to raise consumption at particular times of year, I do not see the Treasury giving the money back. Health Ministers always pray for a reduction in tobacco consumption, but I have often suspected, in debates about the willingness—or otherwise—of Governments to reduce the consumption of tobacco, that the same number of Treasury officials are praying that smokers will not give up and will continue to provide money for the Government's coffers.
      On Second Reading, the Opposition argued that a coherent strategy was required, but that the Government had not produced one. We also argued that the introduction of a ban would be merely window dressing if the price of tobacco products was falling and consumption was rising because they were available to more people. We said that the Government's failure to tackle smuggling effectively put more people at risk—especially those in the groups mentioned by the Minister. As all hon. Members can tell from anecdotal constituency evidence, it is increasingly easy for young people to gain access to tobacco, perhaps because it is available in pub car parks or because it has been smuggled and is cheap and readily available to them.
      Despite those factors, and the Government's argument about the big impact of advertising, the explanatory notes to the Bill state that the eventual aim of the Bill is to reduce consumption by only 2.5 per cent. That is important in terms of decreased morbidity and mortality, but most people outside the House will not regard it as a dramatic reduction.
      A number of practical difficulties have been mentioned—
      Mr. Forth: I should like to ask my question now, as I sense that my hon. Friend is about comment—no doubt

      233
      briefly—on the detail of the Bill. Does he accept that the Bill must be revised through the addition of a sunset clause, a review requirement or another such provision? Surely we cannot walk blindly into introducing the Bill, assert that it is a good thing and leave it at that. Given all the uncertainties that he has already mentioned, what will my hon. Friend do about that, if it is not already too late?
      Dr. Fox: My right hon. Friend will know from the selection list that we could not debate the concept of a time limit in respect of this legislation today. However, if evidence exists to show that such a ban works, there is nothing to fear from a time-limiting clause. If the measure does not work when it is enacted, it will be hard to argue for its continued existence. We shall attempt to introduce a time limit on the Bill in another place so that it becomes genuinely evidence based. Those who consider such issues rationally will regard that as fair and acceptable.
      I want to consider some of the Bill's practical difficulties. I am grateful for the Minister's willingness in Committee to acknowledge some of the shortcomings in the original drafting and accept the spirit of many Opposition amendments in tabling Government amendments. The Government made welcome concessions on brand sharing; on offences, through Government amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 43; on electronic transmissions; and on sponsorship agreements. They will improve a measure that was not initially well drafted. Irrespective of hon. Members' feelings about the purpose of the Bill, it is in the interests of all legislators to ensure that the quality of Bills is as good as possible. However, practical difficulties remain. If we had more time, we might have been able to explore them more fully. They may yet make implementing the Bill impossible.
      It is worth pointing out, in a difficult argument about restrictions on advertising a legal product, that the previous Government restricted tobacco advertising. The code of conduct that was introduced in 1994 set stringent limitations on such advertising. Governments in this country have not taken an absolute position; we are considering the extent to which we should make such a restriction.
      The United Kingdom did well for many years in reducing tobacco consumption and smoking prevalence through a combination of price mechanism, education and restrictions, if not a ban, on tobacco advertising. There was a consensus on that in the House of Commons and in the country. The United Kingdom had a good record. We are considering the appropriate balance between the three policy components, and whether the Bill has achieved that.
      We must also consider the requirements for a proper anti-smoking policy. As we said on Second Reading, we must re-examine our education policy. To convey an effective health message, it must be aimed at the right age group and sustained for long enough to make a difference. Too often, Ministers interfere politically and reject the advice of those who understand the matter better. We have thus failed to address the appropriate health message to the right client group. We have missed a trick, and we need to reconsider our education policy as part of an anti-smoking strategy.
      An advertising ban will not remove one of the greatest influences on young people: the example set by parents and peer groups. Those matters must be tackled. We must
      234
      ensure that parents do not set youngsters a bad example by smoking, which only encourages them to believe that it is acceptable. We must also ensure that we diminish the influence of peer groups as much as possible. That task is rendered even more difficult when role models smoke. Earlier, the example was given of supermodels smoking on the catwalk, and the concept, especially for young girls, of a link between tobacco and being slim. That is a dangerous idea. As a society, we must consider how to tackle such matters.
      The Minister mentioned what she perceived to be the success of advertising restrictions in other countries. We must ask about the other policies that were in place at the same time. No one would argue that simply banning advertising is a sufficient anti-smoking strategy. The Government will have their way because of their numerical superiority in Parliament and, over time, they will be able to make their case. We shall be able to judge the measure's effectiveness against whether tobacco consumption decreases in the real world.
      Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend will know that a number of Conservative Members are very much in favour of a limitation on tobacco advertising because of the dangers that it can present to health. Does he, however, accept that the Bill had an opportunity to make two provisions that it does not make? The first is to increase the medical warning on a packet of cigarettes so that it occupies a much larger percentage of the display, as has been done in Australia; the second is to deal with the problem of passive smoking for those with lung diseases, for whom it is a considerable problem.
      Dr. Fox: I should declare an interest in relation to my right hon. Friend's second point. As an asthma sufferer, I find it a perpetual source of irritation to have to inhale other people's tobacco smoke. However, that matter does not come within the scope of the Bill, and I am sure that you would quickly rule me out of order if I were to go down that route, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      My right hon. Friend is right to say that the Bill has missed opportunities to consider wider issues that might have formed part of a fuller, more comprehensive anti-smoking strategy. However, he will be aware that, for every Conservative Member who might wish to go along with a ban on advertising, there will be another who believes that such a ban constitutes an unacceptable infringement of civil liberties.
      As I was saying, we shall have the proof of the pudding later, when we determine whether the Government have been successful in achieving a reduction in smoking. The Bill is merely window dressing, and the Government are failing to take a broader grip on the problems of smuggling and reduced pricing that are pushing up—and will continue to push up—tobacco consumption.
      Many hon. Members have strong reservations about restricting freedom, and I understand why they would wish to vote against the Bill on that basis. However, I have seen enough damage in coronary care units and respiratory units to understand the tragedy that tobacco consumption can produce. The Opposition do not intend to divide the House on the Bill tonight. We shall, however, seek to amemd it in another place to introduce a time limit to weigh the benefits of retaining the legislation

      235
      against the evidence that is produced. We all hope that tobacco consumption can be reduced, but we are less than confident that the Bill is the vehicle to produce that result.
      8.38 pm
      John Robertson: I served on the Standing Committee, and I should like to have an input to the debate. As one who is new to this game, so to speak, I found the Standing Committee very educational. For example, Opposition Members wanted clarification about the word "advertising". They must have asked for that about 10 times and, even though my hon. Friend the Minister told them on several occasions that the definition was in clause 1, they proceeded to ask on several further occasions why it was not also included in other parts of the Bill, thus wasting time.
      Earlier this evening, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) mentioned an article in The Daily Telegraph, which gives us an idea of the kind of advertising to which the tobacco industry is now stooping. It explains how a woman approached six undergraduates and asked them whether they would like to earn £50. To do so, they would have to go into pubs smoking and—among other criteria that they would have to fulfil—circulate among the other people there. They would have to dress in a glamorous fashion, hand round cigarettes—giving them away—and leave packets of cigarettes on unattended tables.
      The aim was to attract people aged barely 18. As under-age drinking was taking place in some of the clubs involved, it was not possible to rule on the age of those smoking the cigarettes. The brand involved was Gauloises. It is not a cigarette with which I am familiar, but I have smelt it on occasion, and it is certainly recognisable by those who know someone who smokes it.
      What I have described is a particularly disgraceful type of advertising, which I hope the Bill will cover.
      Dr. Fox: We deprecate operations of that kind, but, as I am sure the Minister will confirm, the Bill will not cover such advertising.
      John Robertson: I think it will, but no doubt the Minister will clarify the position. I certainly hope that it will be covered, but that, if it is not, an appropriate amendment will be tabled in the other place.
      I do not wish to speak for long, mainly because I know that Opposition Members want to contribute—far be it from me to stop them—but I remind the House that the Bill has been introduced because 120,000 people die of tobacco-related illnesses each year. In 1996, 350,000 children aged between 11 and 15 were smoking regularly. I was sympathetic towards the amendment on product placement tabled by the hon. Member for Meriden, and I was sorry that the Government did not see fit to accept it. I fear that product placement is the tobacco industry's next step down the road of attacking—as I would put it—young people, and trying to persuade them to smoke earlier. It is important for us to tackle such advertising.
      I congratulate The Daily Telegraph on its responsible article, although it is not a newspaper that supports my party very often. It has brought an issue to light, as I am sure the Minister will agree. I hope that if there is a loophole in the Bill, the Minister will take that on board, and it will be taken care of in the other place.
      8.42 pm
      Mr. Nick Harvey: Let me again record our support for the Bill, which has worthy aims. If we have a regret, it is that the Government did not present the legislation sooner. We consider it to be a competent Bill—especially in its amended form, following Committee stage—and one whose scope is sensibly limited: it relies on existing legislation and regulatory frameworks to control a number of the media involved, but nevertheless is likely to add a substantial weapon to the campaign against smoking.
      No one, surely, can doubt the role played by smoking in deteriorating public health in the United Kingdom and abroad. Smoking is connected with a range of diseases and other conditions; anything that can be done to reduce its prevalence, thereby improving public health, must be worth trying. It was argued on Second Reading, although the argument has featured less since then, that cigarette advertising did not increase consumption. The suggestion was fairly well demolished on Second Reading, and it cannot count for nothing that so much cigarette advertising takes place, but it is worth repeating that advertising generally does not enjoy complete commercial freedom. There are restraints on it, and responsibilities are placed on advertisers.
      I do not think that the curtailing of commercial advertising would represent any terrible, swingeing loss of freedom of speech or individual liberty for producers. I do not believe that that is a high price to pay. However, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, we do not really know how effective the provision will be. That is a fair point. Nevertheless, on the balance of the arguments that we have heard and considered, I believe that it is worth trying the provision to see whether it might do some good.
      Some goods points were made in Committee. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) made one or two goods points about the internet and electronic advertising. It is fair to say, however, that he made those points at extraordinary length. I am entirely unclear whether that was a tactic to sustain the argument that not enough time was being provided to consider the Bill, or whether he simply could not help it. I shall give him the benefit of the doubt. However, the argument that we have not given adequate time to the Bill is absolute nonsense. Although we did progress unusually quickly from Second Reading to Committee, and from Committee to Report, the total time given to the Bill has been more than adequate for a small, 20-clause measure.
      Conservative Members have spent more time debating whether there is enough time, and dragging out our proceedings to try to demonstrate that there is not, than they have spent debating the principles at stake.
      Mrs. Spelman: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in Committee the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) was given an undertaking that on Report there would be a debate on new clause 5, but we have not had time for that debate?
      Mr. Harvey: The hon. Lady's point is reasonable, in that I should have liked new clause 5 to be debated. However, it has not been selected for debate. It therefore seems to be less a lack of time and more that, for whatever reason, the new clause did not find favour in the Speaker's

      237
      Office and was not selected for debate today. When the Bill goes to the other place, perhaps a similar provision will have a chance for debate.
      Sir Peter Emery: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman, as nicely as I can, that, as the selection list shows, there was not time to debate four whole groups of amendments comprising about 30 amendments? At the end of the debate, the occupant of the Chair had to put the Government amendments in those groups en masse without any debate whatsoever. I therefore think that the hon. Gentleman might want to be a little more careful in his assumptions.
      Mr. Harvey: I was trying to be kind. It has to be said, however, that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) moved an amendment and spoke to that group for more than 30 minutes, but, at the end of that debate, did not press any of the amendments to a vote. We have seen exactly the same throughout the Bill's passage. The official Opposition are perfectly entitled to do that if they want. I am simply saying that, after all that, I do not believe that there is a sustainable argument that not enough time has been given to the Bill, which has only 20 clauses. The time provided, both in Committee and in the two full-scale debates in the House, has been proportionate to the scale of the Bill and its objectives. We have given more than adequate time to it.
      Although I agree, as I said, that we have progressed more hurriedly than usual from one stage to another—which may or may not have something to do with certain events that we all believe to be pending—the total time that we have given to a short, 20-clause Bill has been more than adequate. If Conservative Members had been a little more concise in making some of their points, they would have had plenty of time, both today and in Committee, to debate all the groups of amendments.
      Dr. Fox: I am a little puzzled. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the time given to the Bill was adequate, why did Liberal Democrat Members vote against the programme motion?
      Mr. Harvey: We voted against that motion for the same reason that we have voted against other programme motions. We believe that the motions themselves are being drafted and moved before the Government have had a proper opportunity to assess the arguments that were made on Second Reading and to test the waters before deciding how much time should be provided. The details of the programme motion were perfectly reasonable, but my party opposed it—and other programme motions—because of the haste with which it was implemented. My party is in favour of programme motions—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the debate goes too wide, I remind the House that debate on Third Reading is restricted to the contents of a Bill. The question is whether this Bill should have a Third reading.
      Mr. Harvey: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you observed that I was simply responding to interventions, but you are, of course, quite right.
      238
      This is a good Bill, with worthwhile aims. As a result of the amendments that have been made, it is competently drafted. My party is pleased to support it this evening.
      8.50 pm
      Mr. Barron: I take great pleasure in supporting this Bill. I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered it, and I found the debates very interesting. The Bill gives us an opportunity to take further last year's excellent work by the Select Committee on Health on the dangers of smoking.
      I was surprised at the attitude displayed towards the Bill by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). Early on, he said that he was prepared to give the Bill a fair wind, and that he wanted to see the evidence that the resulting legislation would reduce smoking in this country by a certain amount. However, he said today that the Bill needed to be evidence based and that he needed to see that evidence.
      On 21 December, the hon. Gentleman was sent five reports by the charity Action on Smoking and Health, with which I am involved. Those reports showed clear evidence—from the World Bank and from other international studies—that there is a relationship between tobacco advertising and promotion and the consumption of tobacco. What he said this evening leads me to assume that he has not read those reports. I hope that he takes some time next week, when the House is not sitting, to look at the reports and read the clear evidence that shows the causal link between tobacco advertising and promotion and smoking.
      I paraphrase, but the hon. Member for Woodspring also said that no one doubts that smoking is bad for health. It is a pity that he did not read last year's report on the matter from the Select Committee on Health. There are people in society who doubt the relationship between ill health and smoking. Three quotations from the report will prove my point.
      The Select Committee asked witnesses a specific question—whether they believed that smoking caused cancer beyond all reasonable doubt. The representative from the Gallaher group said:
      "It is generally accepted that smoking is neither a necessary… nor a sufficient …cause of disease and that causal conclusions in this regard are a matter of judgement…As such it would as yet be going too far to say that causation has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt".
      The representative from Imperial Tobacco said:
      not agree that smoking causes (these)…diseases beyond all reasonable doubt".
      The representative from the firm RJ Reynolds said:
      "No—nobody knows what causes these diseases beyond all reasonable doubt"
      We know that 50 per cent. of people who smoke will have a shorter life than they should have. The people who have undermined public health policy for years are still coming out with the claim that smokers do not get hurt.

      239
      I hope that the Bill will make a start on reversing the way in which public health policies have been undermined. For years we have tried, through arguments and advertisements, to get people off cigarettes. The Government are spending £20 million a year on cessation programmes—more than any Government in the past. That money will not be used to good effect as long as tobacco companies are allowed to advertise and promote their product.
      We are at last getting serious about tobacco and its lethal effects, and we are trying to get people off it. We cannot allow that project to be undermined in our popular culture by tobacco advertising. Neither can we allow the project to be undermined by members of political parties in this Chamber who are more concerned about their connections—in the past, but also possibly in the future—with the tobacco industry than they ale about public health in this country.
      8.54 pm
      Mr. Alex Salmond: I support the Bill, and will do so if there is a Division on Third Reading. Like the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), my only regret is that this measure was not introduced sooner. Connections with the tobacco industry may have been one reason for that.
      This issue was discussed in the Scottish Parliament on 17 January, when the Parliament unanimously supported the Bill. It also decided unanimously, under the Sewel procedure, to remit the Scottish sections of the Bill to this place for legislation.
      I want to quote from one of the good speeches that was made by members of all parties that clay. One person argued:
      "A Sewel motion should not mean that Scottish ministers abdicate their responsibility in favour of the Westminster Parliament."
      He went on to say:
      Perhaps the Scottish Parliament should decide on its own bill, which could encompass not just advertising, but point-of-sale materials, sales to those who are under age, and more enforcement. Perhaps more of the issues should be dealt with in this chamber."—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 17 January 2001; Vol. 10, c. 279–80.]
      Those are the views of the Conservative spokesperson in the Scottish Parliament, Mr. Ben Wallace. It is slightly ironic, because one of the amendments that we did not reach this evening was a Conservative amendment to remove the responsibilities from Scottish Ministers which the Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament say our Ministers should not be abdicating. I will leave Conservative Members to explain low they reconcile the position north and south of the border. However, what Mr. Ben Wallace said in the Scottish Parliament, to unanimous assent, was important. He said that Scottish Ministers should look carefully at their responsibilities, monitoring those responsibilities and the effectiveness of the legislation, considering enforcement and signs of success and, indeed, further legislation if that is required.
      For this evening, I offer my support for the Bill. I am happy that it is being included in the legislative process—perhaps just in time for coming events.
      8.56 pm
      Yvette Cooper: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will reply to the Third Reading debate.
      I thank members of the Committee for their hard work during the Bill's passage through the House. I welcome the contributions this evening by my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Robertson). The example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Anniesland, of students being paid by Gauloises to smoke in bars, will be covered by the Bill, either by the sponsorship or the free distribution provisions.
      I take this opportunity to welcome the support for the Bill from the hon. Members for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I am glad that they will be joining us in the Lobby. I also welcome the decline in the opposition of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—that is probably the best way to describe it. As I understand it, his party will not be opposing Third Reading. I urge him to listen to the evidence that he says is so important and to go further by joining us in voting to give the Bill a Third Reading. I urge him to join us in the Lobby tonight.
      This is a good and important Bill. We were keen to introduce the ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship across Europe, and we will continue to push for a Europe-wide ban. Clearly, the more co-operation we can get at a European level, the greater the impact will be on public health. Equally, we will continue to push for co-ordinated action worldwide through the World Health Organisation.
      This is an important Bill. It is not about preventing freedom of choice—people have the choice whether to smoke tobacco products. However, they should also have the choice to give up if they want to, without pressure from the tobacco companies and without the pressure of tobacco advertising. That is why we are introducing a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship. I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 327, Noes 5.

      Division No 119]

      [8.59 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Ainger, Nick

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Benton, Joe

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Berry, Roger

      Ashton, Joe

      Belts, Clive

      Austin, John

      Blackman, Liz

      Bailey, Adrian

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Baker, Norman

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ballard, Jackie

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Banks, Tony

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Barnes, Harry

      Brake, Tom

      Barron, Kevin

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Battle, John

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Beard, Nigel

      Browne, Desmond

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Beggs, Roy

      Burden, Richard

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Burgon, Colin

      241

      Burstow, Paul

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Gidley, Sandra

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Cann, Jamie

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Caton, Martin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Chaytor, David

      Grogan, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hain, Peter

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hancock, Mike

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hanson, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clelland, David

      Harvey, Nick

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Healey, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Coleman, Iain

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Connarty, Michael

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Heppell, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cousins, Jim

      Hill, Keith

      Cox, Tom

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cranston, Ross

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Crausby, David

      Hoey, Kate

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cummings, John

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hurst, Alan

      Darvill, Keith

      Hutton, John

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Davidson, Ian

      Illsley, Eric

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jamieson, David

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Ms Jenny Donaldson, Jeffrey (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Drew, David

      Joyce, Eric

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Efford, Clive

      Keetch, Paul

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kemp, Fraser

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kidney, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Lammy, David

      Hint, Caroline

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Flynn, Paul

      Leslie, Christopher

      Follett, Barbara

      Levitt, Tom

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Foulkes, George

      Linton, Martin

      Galbraith, Sam

      Livsey, Richard

      Gapes, Mike

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Lock, David

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Love, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      McAvoy, Thomas

      242

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sanders, Adrian

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McDonnell, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McFall, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sheerman, Barry

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Singh, Marsha

      McNulty, Tony

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

      Maxton, John

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Merron, Gillian

      Soley, Clive

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Miller, Andrew

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Moore, Michael

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Morley, Elliot

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Stringer, Graham

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mullin, Chris

      Stunell, Andrew

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pickthall, Colin

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pike, Peter L

      Touhig, Don

      Pond, Chris

      Trickett, Jon

      Pope, Greg

      Truswell, Paul

      Pound, Stephen

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Tyler, Paul

      Purchase, Ken

      Tynan, Bill

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Quinn, Lawrie

      ward, Ms Claire

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wareing, Robert N

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Watts, David

      Rendel, David

      white, Brian

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Rogers, Allan

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Winnick, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wood, Mike

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Rowlands, Ted

      Woolas, Phil

      Ruane, Chris

      Wray, James

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Salmond, Alex

      Mr. Graham Allen and

      Salter, Martin

      Mr. Ian Pearson.

      243

      NOES

      Body, Sir Richard

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Cash, William

      Chope, Christopher

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Mr. Gerald Howarth and

      Mr. Andrew Hunter.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and parsed.

  Capital Allowances Bill
  [Relevant document: First Report of the joint committee on Tax simplification Bills,HC175.]
  considered in committee.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the committee of the whole House be discharged from considering the Bill.—[Dawn primarolo.]
  The committee divided: Ayes 313, Noes 12.

  Division No 120]

  [9.13 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Cohen, Harry

  Coleman, Iain

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Connarty, Michael

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cooper, Yvette

  Austin, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cotter, Brian

  Baker, Norman

  Cousins, Jim

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cox, Tom

  Banks, Tony

  Cranston, Ross

  Barnes, Harry

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Battle, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Darvill, Keith

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Davidson, Ian

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Benton, Joe

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dobbin, Jim

  Berry, Roger

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Betts, Clive

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Blackman, Liz

  Doran, Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dowd, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Drew, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Efford, Clive

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Browne, Desmond

  Etherington, Bill

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Burden, Richard

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Burnett, John

  Flint, Caroline

  Burstow, Paul

  Flynn, Paul

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Follett, Barbara

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Foulkes, George

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gapes, Mike

  Cann, Jamie

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Caplin, Ivor

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Caton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Chaytor, David

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clapham, Michael

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  245

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mallaber, Judy

  Grogan, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Main, Peter

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hancock, Mike

  Maxton, John

  Hanson, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Healey, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Miller, Andrew

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Moore, Michael

  Hendrick, Mark

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Heppell, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Hesford, Stephen

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hill, Keith

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hoey, Kate

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Öpik, Lembit

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hurst, Alan

  Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

  Hutton, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Illsley, Eric

  Pond, Chris

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pope, Greg

  Jamieson, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Joyce, Eric

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Rendel, David

  Keetch, Paul

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kidney, David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rooney, Terry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ruane, Chris

  Lammy, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Levitt, Tom

  Salmond, Alex

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Salter, Martin

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Sanders, Adrian

  Linton, Martin

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Livsey, Richard

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lock, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Love, Andrew

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Singh, Marsha

  Macdonald, Calum

  Skinner, Dennis

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McFall, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McIsaac, Shona

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  246

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Soley, Clive

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Spellar, John

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Tyler, Paul

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tynan, Bill

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Ward, Ms claire

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wareing, Robert N

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Watts, David

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stuart Ms Gisela

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wood, Mike

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Woolas, Phil

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wray, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Touhig, Don

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trickett, Jon

  Mr. Ian Pearson and

  Truswell, Paul

  Mr. Graham Allen.

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Chope, Christopher

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hunter, Andrew

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Mr. Gerald Howarth.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Order for third Reading read.
  9.25 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before we proceed to consideration of the Bill on Third Reading, will you advise the House whether it is possible to determine how long the Committee sat? I have the report and I cannot identify for how many hours the Committee considered a Bill of many hundreds of clauses.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): That is not a matter for the Chair. We shall now proceed with Third Reading.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am pleased to open the debate. The Bill differs in several ways from Finance Bills and most other Bills that deal with tax. It is the first Bill to come out of the project that is rewriting the United Kingdom direct tax code. It is also the first Bill to have been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills.
  The Bill commands widespread support within the House and from businesses, tax practitioners and others. I do not claim that as a first. Other Bills may well have received equal support. Rather more may have deserved it. However, as a simple matter of observation, the Bill

  247
  has united people in support of a proposition that is neither contentious nor complex. Put simply, it is that tax legislation should be clearer and easier to understand.
  It may help if I start by describing formally what the Bill does. With minor changes, it rewrites legislation about capital allowances. Broadly speaking, capital allowances are given to businesses that incur capital expenditure on assets that they use in their business. On the basis of estimates for 2000–01, capital allowances are worth more than £18 billion. They affect most businesses in one way or another. This is an important piece of legislation by any standards.
  The Bill is not about the substance of those allowances. That was decided in past Finance Acts. Equally, it will be for future Finance Bills to make any substantial changes. The Bill's purpose is rather to make legislation clearer and easier to use. It is the first product of the Inland Revenue's tax law rewrite project. That project was set up in 1996 by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Its remit is to rewrite all or most of the United Kingdom's direct tax legislation.
  I apologise if everyone in the Chamber already appreciates the point, but I must emphasise that the process of putting legislation into clearer and more modern shape and language does not include changing tax policies. The project is not about that, and never was. Proposals for changing policy will continue to be dealt with in the usual way, through Finance Bills.
  It was recognised from the outset, however, that some minor changes might be helpful to improve legislation. Examples are legislation to replace extra-statutory concessions, bridging gaps in legislation, and clarifying grey areas of legislation. The Bill covers 66 such points, to which the project drew attention as possible changes in the law.
  The 66 changes, and the Bill more generally, were scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills. The Committee concluded that the changes were indeed of only minor significance. The Committee's first report also commended the Bill as
  "a welcome clarification of the existing law".
  Perhaps 1 may be permitted to say a few words about that process, as this is the first tax simplification Bill, about which a few Members have previously expressed concerns, especially on Second Reading. The procedure was recommended for tax simplification Bills by the Select Committee on Procedure in January 1997. It concluded that a new procedure was appropriate for tax simplification Bills, given that they are akin to, but different from, consolidation Bills. That led to Standing Order No. 60, passed in March 1997, which provides for tax simplification Bills to be referred after Second Reading to a Joint Committee of both Houses.
  A Joint Committee of the two Houses is by no means unprecedented. It is established practice for consolidation Bills, including Bills which, since 1949, may include minor changes in law. Nor is it unprecedented for a Joint Committee to consider a Bill relating to tax. I understand the principle that concerned the Members who on Second Reading expressed doubt about aspects of that process. However, as the Procedure Committee noted in 1997, the 1952 Customs and Excise Bill was committed to a Joint Committee, without qualms and to good effect. In 1997, the Procedure Committee did not consider any constitutional objection to be well founded.
  248
  That procedure has worked well in practice with the Capital Allowances Bill. The Joint Committee benefited from the expertise and experience of the several noble Lords, and also had the benefit of hearing evidence from Mr. Adam Broke. I should like to place on record the thanks of the Committee and the House for the time that he spent with the Committee. He is an eminent tax practitioner in his own right and a past president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. He is also a member of the project's steering and consultative committees, and as such, could assist the Committee with the extensive consultation procedure that preceded the Bill. The Joint Committee's consideration of the Bill has also, I suggest, fully answered the concerns expressed by Opposition Members on Second Reading. The Committee took evidence in public and scrutinised the Bill—and undertook that very much as a joint exercise.
  Other fears expressed by Opposition Members proved to be equally unfounded. All members of the Committee took part in the scrutiny of the Bill and the examination of witnesses, demonstrating their knowledge and understanding of the issues. The Joint Committee's report confirms and reinforces the comments made previously by businesses, professionals and others.
  For example, the Institute of Directors commented in August:
  "the Bill is a magnificent achievement. It will sweep away not just the Capital Allowances Act 1990, but many other bits of legislation scattered through Finance Acts."
  The tax faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales similarly welcomed the Bill. It commented:
  "the quality of the draft reflects the enormous amount of work undertaken by the Revenue in consultation with organisations such as ours."
  The Law Society similarly said in evidence to the Joint Committee:
  "we welcome the publication of the Capital Allowances Bill. We believe that it does represent a significant improvement upon the existing legislation."
  The Bill has also met with support from both sides of the House. In the course of Second Reading, I acknowledged the contribution of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe and the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) in setting up the rewrite project. They have both now participated in the first-fruits of the project, the former as Chairman of the Joint Committee and the latter as a current member of the project's steering committee. With such a broad basis of agreement on what is, as I have said, not a controversial proposition, the Bill comes from the Joint Committee with no amendments.
  That is why we have proceeded directly to Third Reading. This process was provided for in Standing Order No. 60 in March 1997. The Bill is a significant demonstration of the commitment not just of the Government, but of the House, to make tax legislation clearer and easier to understand. It will help business, other taxpayers and those who advise them. I commend it to the House.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that the Bill, as its long title states, is a Bill
  "To restate, with minor changes, certain enactments relating to capital allowances."

  249
  I hope that hon. Members who are called to speak will bear that limited purpose in mind, and will not seek to broaden the debate to cover general issues of taxation or budgetary policy.
  Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. The Order Paper states that the first report of the Joint Committee is relevant, so presumably that means that we will be able to refer to that report in the debate.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Indeed you may.
  Mr. Forth: Oh, excellent.
  9.36 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: I join the Minister in congratulating all those who have been involved in the tax rewrite project—Mr. Adam Broke and all the officials who worked on the project, and the hon. Lady's officials in the Treasury.
  We welcome the Bill. To restate the law on capital allowances is a tremendous feat, which has involved an unbelievable number of man-hours. The House should recognise what an important step the Bill is in making law simpler and easier to understand.
  I used the phrases "restate the law" and "making law simpler", but as you pointed out, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Bill is a restatement, not a simplification. The point is raised in the report, and I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) will refer to it.
  The Minister quoted Mr. Richard Baron, who wrote in Accountancy Age that the Bill was "a magnificent achievement". That remark represents recognition by practitioners of tax law that the Bill is worth praising. Mr. Baron went on:
  "It will sweep away not just the Capital Allowances Act 1990, but many other bits of legislation scattered through Finance Acts. The table of repeals is four pages long."
  He continued:
  "Moreover, the Act is not too long. One big fear of the Project was that using plain English would mean using far more words than old-style tangled and condensed drafting. It has not happened. If we leave out consequential amendments and transitional provisions, we have a Bill of only 254 pages, well-spaced and in decent sized print."
  That is recognition that the project has achieved its objective.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend says that the Bill is simple, and in one sense it may be. We are being asked to accept that it is but a simplification of existing law. Will my hon. Friend tell the House why he thinks that three sittings were sufficient for the Committee to satisfy itself that a Bill of some 332 pages was but a simplification of existing law?
  Mr. Ottaway: I was trying to emphasise that the Bill was not a simplification, but a restatement. I will come in a moment to the question of sittings. I was a minority of one on the Committee who believed that we should have taken more independent external advice.
  250
  That was the first lime that we had gone through the procedure. We sat as a Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills with Members of the other place, but this House had a majority. That was a new procedure, so I want to dwell on it for a moment.
  I shall make three points about the operation of the Select Committee on Procedure and the Joint Committee. The Procedure Committee gave the Joint Committee the task of reporting to the House any problems that might arise.
  My first point concerns the Joint Committee's composition, which the House debated at length. We became a bit caught up in guerrilla warfare, and its membership was debated in some detail. The other place nominated six of its Members, two of whom were members of the original tax law rewrite committee. Their input was extremely helpful. They have served Parliament and this country with distinction in their parliamentary careers and their integrity is beyond doubt, but 1 question whether their membership of the Committee was appropriate. As they were members of the original tax law rewrite committee, I am concerned about whether they had a conflict of interest in respect of the Joint Committee. I believe that it is irregular for those who oversaw the original drafting subsequently to be in a position to opine upon its effectiveness. I am not saying that it was improper for members of the original tax law rewrite committee to participate in the Joint Committee proceedings, but I am not at ease with that arrangement.
  Secondly, I turn to me point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) in his intervention. All the witnesses who gave evidence to the Joint Committee had participated in the tax rewrite project. The quality of their answers was flawless; they gave evidence just as the Committee wanted it and they answered every question simply and to the best of their ability—but they were not independent. No independent witness could consider the Bill and the rewrite, and say simply, "Yes, I think that these people have got it right." As virtually the only Opposition Member who served on the Committee, I might have faced the task of sitting down and spending several weeks analysing the Bill against the original law. Indeed, it took a number of officials on the tax rewrite committee several years to rewrite the proposals. I had to make a decision.
  Dawn Primarolo: appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but I offered him direct access to officials without ministerial supervision. If he felt that he would require such assistance to consider the Bill and to recognise the issues that it raised, he could have taken that offer up, but he declined it. Similarly, Opposition Front Benchers have direct access to officials without ministerial presence or knowledge for assistance in considering the technical detail of double taxation treaties.
  Mr. Ottaway: I must confess that I do not recall that offer, but if the Paymaster General says that it was made, that is fine. However, she is missing the point. The Joint Committee should have had the advice of an independent witness.
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
  Mr. Ottaway: I give way first to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe.
  Mr. Clarke: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Joint Committee would undoubtedly have called and heard any witness that he wanted to appear before it, had he named such a person? Can he name the independent witness from whom he wanted to hear, bearing in mind the five years of consultation and the circulation of exposure drafts to every conceivable professional and representative body? The Bill received the support of those bodies, and we heard no particular dissent from them.
  Mr. Ottaway: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, he and I disagree on that point. I did not propose a name because it was obvious that I was in a minority position, but I suggest that a partner from a leading firm of City solicitors would have made a perfectly adequate witness. If I had believed that my right hon. and learned Friend, as Chairman of the Committee, agreed with such a proposal, I would have dug out a name.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend knows that it is standard for a Select Committee to have advisers who can advise on the subject before it and on the questions to be asked. Did the Committee receive any independent advice about the content of the Bill or the questions to be asked of witnesses?
  Mr. Ottaway: I shall answer that question with some care. If I simply said no, that would imply a slur on the witnesses. They gave evidence with absolute integrity, but they were part of the tax rewrite project. No witness was not part of it.
  Mr. Hogg: There was no independent advice?
  Mr. Ottaway: That is correct.
  Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his efforts. I found it odd that the Joint Committee held only three brief sittings. The minutes record long declarations of interest; I remind hon. Members that I have declared mine in the Register. It appears that no amendment was moved and that none of the 581 clauses or four schedules was believed to be defective. Did the Committee consider all 581 clauses, and was it satisfied that none added to or subtracted from existing law?
  Mr. Ottaway: The Committee considered the 60-odd minor changes in sequence. An amendment was moved, but the Committee did not accept it.
  Mr. Eric Forth: On page 47 of the minutes of the Joint Committee for 31 January, the Chairman is recorded as saying:
  "can Members of the Committee indicate if they agree that we should make no amendment whatever? (Members indicated by a show of hands)".
  If I understand that correctly, the Committee agreed early in its proceedings that it would make no amendments. What sort of scrutiny does that suggest?
  Mr. Ottaway: My right hon. Friend should not read lack of diligence into that. The Committee had every
  252
  opportunity to consider amendments; it took the changes en bloc and quizzed the witnesses, and an amendment was tabled.
  The Paymaster General said that the Committee scrutinised the Bill. I would not have used such a phrase. It had an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill, if it chose to do that. However, I have no idea whether the Bill reproduces the sense of the original draft measure. I am reliably informed that it does. I accept the word of those who gave evidence that it did, but unless I had given up several weeks of my time, I would not have had the opportunity to compare the current measure with the original drafting.
  Dawn Primarolo: I am disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments at the Dispatch Box, because he did not make them in Committee. He had every opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. He claims that we did not have independent advisers, yet he did not propose anyone. He said that we did not have the right witnesses, but again, he did not suggest anyone. Now, having agreed to the report, which had unanimous support, he claims that he did not know what he was doing. Perhaps he should think carefully about serving on such a Committee in future.
  Mr. Ottaway: The Paymaster General knows that that is a complete distortion of events. At the first sitting of the Joint Committee, I clearly and repeatedly made the point that I have made this evening. The minutes show that.
  Mr. David Ruffley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Ottaway: I shall do so shortly. The Paymaster General should not claim that I am misrepresenting things. If I had believed that she agreed with the proposal that I made, I could have produced the name of a suitable witness in no time.
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman did not ask me.
  Mr. Ottaway: The Minister says that I did not ask her. The minutes of evidence make it clear what happened, and what debates took place. I am sorry if she was not listening at the time.
  Mr. Ruffley: I wish to make a helpful intervention. I think that my hon. Friend said a few moments ago that the Joint Committee agreed minor changes. As we know, the purpose of the Bill is to preserve the effect of existing law, subject to any minor changes that might be desirable. How many minor changes were there, and was the Committee satisfied that they were minor?
  Mr. Ottaway: I believe that there were 66. The Committee was advised that they were minor, and it accepted that recommendation. The point that I am making is clear, and I hope that the Procedure Committee will consider the matter.
  A further point concerns the scope of the Committee. We took the Bill as it was. However, it was not clear who had decided the format. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland made the important point that it agreed with the

  253
  Bill but recommended that the new legislation should be accompanied by overviews, explanatory notes and signposts. It argued that self-assessment legislation meant that the taxpayer had a right to understand tax law.
  The institute's report states:
  "As a matter of principle it is our view that tax law should be capable of being understood by an intelligent taxpayer who is prepared to devote a reasonable amount of time to the task. Unfortunately, in many areas of tax law, so timid is the work of rewriting that an intelligent taxpayer would need a long period of study to understand with any degree of certainty what his tax liability is and how particular legislation affects him."
  It continues:
  "We are aware that a Parliamentary working party has considered the format of bills and acts generally and it has reported to, and obtained the approval of both Houses for proposals which reject many of the suggestions of the Project Team, including three-part numbering, cross-references and signposts at the end of sections, a larger typeface and overviews and notes. We recommend that these issues are revisited and we hope that overviews, explanatory notes and signposts will be used."
  I have to confess that I cannot recall being consulted about the format of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will clarify how the format was decided, and tell us whether she agrees with the suggestion that those issues be revisited.
  Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend rightly said that tax law should be readily comprehensible to an intelligent layman, and provided quotations to that effect. Does he agree that the Bill should be readily comprehensible to an intelligent outsider attending to our proceedings? Will he therefore do the House the favour of summarising in a sentence its purpose and effect?
  Mr. Ottaway: I do not think that the Bill is incomprehensible. As I said, I think that it is a big improvement, although it would be inappropriate for this moment to pass without pointing out that there are those who think that it could be improved further, and that three-part numbering would be an improvement in the eyes of many.
  The report discusses changing the name of the Joint Committee to illustrate a change from a Committee of simplification to a Committee that rewrites. It proposes that the Committee should be renamed the Joint Committee on tax law rewrite Bills. It is important to make the distinction between a rewrite and a simplification. There is no doubt that simplification of the law is required, and many commentators have said at some length that tax law needs improving. I recommend to those who have not had an opportunity to read it—I know that the Minister has—a paper produced by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, entitled "Towards a better tax system", which suggests how the famous, or infamous, 1R35 law could be simplified and improved.
  We are now embarked on the first step of an important project—the rewriting of tax law. However, unless future Finance Acts are drafted in the rewritten style, we shall forever be going backwards: it will be two steps back and one step forward. I hope the Minister will confirm that future Acts will be so written, because otherwise it will be like painting the Forth bridge when it is rusting faster than it is being painted.
  254
  There is only one way in which what I want can be achieved. As I said on Second Reading, if resources for the tax rewrite project are increased and more staff are available, it will be possible to introduce the rewritten legislation faster than lax law is being made.
  Despite what I have said, I believe that this is a successful project. It is an important step forward, and we wish the Bill a fair wind.
  9.56 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) reached that conclusion, because I, too, support a Bill that I consider to represent the successful outcome of a long process pursued by the House and by successive Governments.
  As Chancellor of the Exchequer, I was responsible for the launch of the tax re write project. I got my just deserts a few years later, when I was persuaded by the usual channels that I should therefore take on the obligations of chairing a Joint Committee on tax simplification. As it happened, it proved to be a reasonable undertaking; there was general satisfaction that the tax rewrite project team had done its work properly. The Committee reported its satisfaction with the Bill, and said that it did not think that any matters needed to be drawn to the House's attention.
  I rarely speak in support of the Minister, but I congratulate the Government on continuing the project on a truly bipartisan basis. It has taken a long time for this conclusion to be reached, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South says, there is no difference between the two sides on the desirability of making the House's intentions, and the policy that we decide on tax, as comprehensible as possible to the intelligent layman outside. That is the whole point of the undertaking.
  My hon. Friend pointed out that "Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills" was probably a misnomer. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) asked what the "intelligent layman" would think. I see no way in which we could produce a clear and easy read on tax policy—particularly on capital allowances—for the normal educated layman.
  This is a highly specialised subject. When I first announced the details of the project, in my 1996 Budget, I said that the task on which we were embarking was rather like that of turning "War and Peace" into lucid Swahili. Indeed, that would doubtless be an easy project compared with this: simplifying tax law involves addressing a more specialised audience.
  Although the process has fulfilled a useful purpose, I readily acknowledge the importance of discussing it properly on Third Reading. After all, we are embarked on a novel procedure, and we must ensure that we do not remove from the House as a whole its responsibility—its sole responsibility—fo making the final judgment on tax policy and the burden of taxation as it falls on individuals and companies throughout the economy.
  Mr. Hogg: What worries many Members is the possibility that substantive changes to law have occurred, rather than mere rewriting. What reassurance can my right hon. and learned Friend give that the Committee and all its members were satisfied that no substantive change in the law had been made?
  It being Ten o 'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Capita' Allowances Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Pearson.]
  Question put:—
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
  The House having divided: Ayes 309, Noes 33.

  Division No. 121]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainger, Nick

  Coleman, Iain

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Connaly, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Cooper, Yvette

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Cotter, Brian

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cousins, Jim

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cox, Tom

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cranston, Ross

  Austin, John

  Crausby, David

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Baker, Norman

  Cummings, John

  Banks, Tony

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Barnes, Harry

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Battle, John

  Dalyell Tarn

  Bayley, Hugh

  Darvill, Keith

  Beard, Nigel

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Davidson, Ian

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Davies, Fit Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dobbin, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Berry, Roger

  Doran, Frank

  Betts, Clive

  Drew, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Efford, Clive

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Breed, Colin

  Etherington, Bill

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Flint, Caroline

  Burden, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Burgon, Colin

  Follett, Barbara

  Burnett, John

  Foster Fit Hon Derek

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Foster Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Cann, Jamie

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Chaytor, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Clapham, Michael

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Godstiff, Roger

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Goldirg, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  256

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McWilliam, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Grogan, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Main, Peter

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hancock, Mike

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hanson, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Maxton, John

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Merron, Gillian

  Harvey, Nick

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Healey, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Miller, Andrew

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Moore, Michael

  Hendrick, Mark

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Heppell, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Hesford, Stephen

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hill, Keith

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hoey, Kate

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Olner, Bill

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hurst, Alan

  Öpik, Lembit

  Hutton, John

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Illsley, Eric

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jamieson, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Joyce, Eric

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Raynsford, Nick

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Rendel, David

  Keetch, Paul

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kidney, David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rooney, Terry

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rowlands, Ted

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ruane, Chris

  Lammy, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Levitt, Tom

  Salmond, Alex

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Salter, Martin

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Sanders, Adrian

  Linton, Martin

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lock, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Love, Andrew

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Singh, Marsha

  Macdonald, Calum

  Skinner, Dennis

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McFall, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McIsaac, Shona

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  257

  Soley, Clive

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Spellar, John

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Tyler, Paul

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tynan, Bill

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Ward, Ms claire

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wareing, Robert N

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Watts, David

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Webb, Steve

  Stringer, Graham

  White, Brian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stunnel, Andrew

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Willis, Phil

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wood, Mike

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Woolas, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wray, James

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Trickett, Jon

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Truswell, Paul

  Mr. Don Touhig and

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  NOES

  Ballard, Jackie

  Lidington, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Luff, Peter

  Bercow, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Collins, Tim

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Cran, James

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Day, Stephen

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Ruffley, David

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gray, James

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Hayes, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Heald, Oliver

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Steen, Anthony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Leigh, Edward

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Mr. Christopher Chope.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  10.14 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have just cast my vote in protest against the Government's insistence that the Bill be debated at this late hour. I regret that the House's family-friendly policies do not extend to those of us who are interested in the rewrite of tax law.
  I was about to answer an intervention made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who asked whether we had addressed the changes. I shall return to the matter a little later in my speech, but I want to make it clear that, although the Joint Committee scrutinised the Bill as a whole—that was our task—we concentrated on two particular issues. The first was whether the drafting was an improvement on the drafting of the existing law—whether it clarified the meaning of the law to an intelligent user of the measure. Secondly, we addressed ourselves to the changes to tax law that were, on the
  258
  instructions of the House, intended to be only minor and necessary for the clarification of that law. As the report of the Joint Committee makes clear, we were indeed so satisfied—
  Mr. Ruffley rose—
  Mr. Clarke: Before my hon. Friend starts to press me on the details—he probably wants to make an urgent point on dredging allowances in his own contribution—I should like to make a little progress. Before we deal with the details and with the comments on procedure made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, I want to explain the purpose of the legislation and the task that the House asked the Join: Committee to undertake when it embarked on that entirely novel procedure.
  The purpose of the legislation was to make tax law in this country more user-friendly. I shall not dwell on the origins of the process, but they go back to 1995—a time when Finance Bills were getting longer and longer, and complaints from Members of the House about the incomprehensibility of the legislation were getting louder and louder—
  Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) is delivering an intriguing message, which is, or should be, of interest to all right hon. and hon. Members, but there is such a hubbub that I fear many of them are missing it, will you rule?
  Mr. Speaker: I eau hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As long as the Speaker can hear, that is fine.
  Mr. Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members at the Bar are making the quietest hubbub that I have heard for a long time No doubt their attention will be drawn when my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham speaks—[HON. MEMBERS: "We cannot wait."]
  Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the then Financial Secretary, and junior Treasury Ministers, I was particularly impressed by the fact that complaints about the length and incomprehensibility of Finance Bills were received not only from Members of the House but from accountants, tax lawyers and users of the legislation. They, too, said that they did not understand its drafting.
  There is a fond belief that lawyers and accountants welcome complications in the law because that makes for litigation and disputes and thus a higher income for members of their professions. However, that is not my experience of the best practitioners. Hon. Members will find that the best practitioners in accountancy, at the tax Bar and generally among tax lawyers, welcome the chance to be able to advise their clients clearly about the effects of changes in tax law and about the intentions of Parliament.
  By the mid-1990s, we had reached the stage of being in danger of expressing ourselves in a way that was quite incomprehensible and that caused considerable confusion for users of the legislation. When we set up the tax law rewrite project, with the aim of making the law clearer and easier to use for those who needed to do so, it received a general welcome. I shall not repeat the tributes that were made, although I am grateful to those who took up the cudgels.

  259
  It was easy to set the process in motion, but I pay a special tribute to my noble Friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, who became an enthusiast for the project, based largely on his experience as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. He took on the chairmanship of the steering committee and helped to devise the procedure that the House now follows to enable the simplification to be delivered by means of a reasonable process. The procedure is based on a precedent established for a 1952 Customs and Excise measure, but we found that it had been adequately refined. I also pay tribute to the director of the project team, Mr. Neil Munro, and to his team, who put years of effort into the production of the project.
  When we started the tax law rewrite project, we underestimated how long it would take. I fear that I am on record somewhere as stating that the entire Inland Revenue law would be rewritten in five years so that we could start to deal with a comprehensive body of law. More than five years later, all we have is the Capital Allowances Bill. There is far more to come; capital allowances represent the first discrete block of provisions on which the tax law project team has worked.
  That leads me to deal with the process in a way that answers the understandable concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, who served on the Committee. He is a Treasury Front-Bench spokesman, and I pay tribute to him for the diligence with which he persisted in scrutinising the Bill. As he says, he was sometimes in a minority of one, but I hope that he accepts that he was treated with considerable courtesy and respect when he suggested how we should handle such matters.
  My hon. Friend was in a minority of one, which shows that he was unable to persuade me that we needed to take expert evidence; nor was he able to persuade any Member of either House from any party that we needed to do so. However, that is not to say that he did not maintain a very stout argument to that effect and occupied a considerable time during our first sitting's informal and unreported proceedings—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I, too, was concerned about the fact that the proceedings were unreported. We had a discussion about that and we were enjoined to follow Select Committee. procedures.
  I have never been a member of a Select Committee, although I have often been a witness before one. I am told that Select Committees frequently debate matters in private, without the presence of Hansard, and throw their proceedings open to the public when witnesses appear. The Committee persuaded me that we should follow that procedure. I can say only that, in private, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South did indeed argue at some length about whether we should have an independent outside witness, but for several reasons, he was unable to persuade any of us that that was necessary.
  In my opinion, the main reason w as the very nature of the process that had been used for the previous five years. We often talk about the desirability of consulting on proposed legislation. I do not think that any measure before the House has been consulted on as copiously as the Bill. For five years, the steer ng committee and the consultative committee have conducted a long process of consulting every interested body in the country.
  All the professional bodies, any practitioner who wanted to make representation,; and any interested business man were given the opportunity to respond to suggestions on how the law might be simplified. Indeed,
  260
  several draft Bills were given wider exposure and issued for consultation. They were commented on and the comments were responded to by the project team. The process was meant to be consensual and bipartisan, so the project team embarked on no serious controversy if any outside body was prepared to start to get into a ditch to resist any proposal.
  Mr. Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend is being very generous with his time in giving way again. He has told the House that the Committee pursued practices adopted by Select Committees. He will know that Select Committees usually—perhaps always—receive advice from their advisers. In this case, why was it not thought appropriate for the Committee to have advisers to give an independent view?
  Mr. Clarke: I am aware that that is the usual practice, but I do not think that there is any requirement to have an independent adviser. When I was a Minister, I was known to complain that I faced Select Committees that appeared to allow their entire reports to be written by their supposedly independent advisers. I am sure that the Minister does not agree with that at all. That practice was not always wholly desirable, but we considered it because my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South pressed us to do so.
  The problem is that it would have been extremely difficult to find an outside practitioner who had not participated in the consultation process or had not had the opportunity to do so. The list of the bodies that were consulted and the committees formed by the Law Society and chartered accountancy bodies was so copious that almost every interested practitioner had plenty of time to participate. We would have had to comb the country to find someone who had not had a hand in the process.
  Our only option would have been to find someone who had no interest in the subject, but who was welcome to receive the substantial fees that would, no doubt, have been required to enable a new lawyer or accountant to get up to speed on five years of work and every feature of the capital allowances tax law so that he was in a position to give us advice. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South will recall that it was argued that. any decent practitioner—if we could find one who was new to the process—would require months to get up to speed with the process that had ground everything exceedingly small for the previous five years, although I would not have begrudged that person those substantial fees.
  Mr. John Burnett: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it would have been beneficial if individuals had given evidence to the Joint Committee? They might have been consultees, but at least they would not have been members of one of the committees.
  Mr. Clarke: I am not aware of anyone knocking on our door to give evidence. Any such request passed me by. The evidence showed that every relevant professional body that I had ever heard of gave universal approval for the process and the Bill. We could have put an advertisement in a few national newspapers asking whether anyone wanted to protest, but that would not have been sensible. The main pressure on the Committee was to get on with delivering the desirable simplification. It was not supposed to devise a

  261
  new procedure for Parliament which would introduce months of parliamentary delay while we tried to process a Bill that was widely welcomed by practically everyone with a serious interest in the subject.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South commented on the Committee's membership. We always have that discussion. He said that some people should not have been on the steering or the consultative committee. It is not the greatest advertisement for the House if we devise rules that disqualify just about every Member of either House of Parliament who has a detailed knowledge of the subject under discussion from serving on a Committee. I have the greatest respect for the Chamber and hon. Members, but it is not teeming with people who have immense expertise in the subject of capital allowances. A fresh body would not have produced the level of scrutiny that the House is entitled to expect.
  There was a reasonably good spread of expertise around the Committee Room. Some members could not claim professional expertise, but they were well known and respected. For example, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is renowned for his independence and refusal to be rolled over by an establishment stitch-up.
  Mr. Ruffley: We have all been enjoying my right hon. and learned Friend's speech. He will have heard that 66 minor changes were made. What were the thought processes of the Committee members when they were deciding whether a change was minor or substantive? A substantive change could not, of course, have been accepted.
  Mr. Clarke: That was a key consideration, but before I deal with it, I shall dispose of the other main objective, which was to ensure that the drafting was improved. We sampled the drafting of the existing tax legislation, which is scattered over the past 10 years, and compared it with the redrafts. It is not possible to make the tax law of this country read like Enid Blyton. With the greatest respect, the Chancellor does nothing but complicate the tax law with every Budget that he produces. It will never be a simple matter. However, I congratulate Dr. Helen Caldwell and her colleagues from the parliamentary draftsman's office on the immense improvement that they have made to the wording of the legislation.
  When the project was proposed, I was slightly hostile towards the parliamentary draftsman's office. Years of experience as a Minister meant that I had encountered draft legislation that I wanted to present to the House, but it was not expressed as clearly as I had wished. I developed something of an antipathy towards the drafting style of some of the people who produced that legislation. I began to believe that nobody in the parliamentary draftsman's office was familiar with the English language any more. Once, I asked outside lawyers to try to improve the drafting, and if they had charged a little less, they might have made progress.
  I shall retract all those prejudices against the parliamentary draftsman's office if they can produce people like the team who worked on this Bill, who have undoubtedly transformed and greatly clarified the way in which the law is expressed. They have done a great service to all those who will use the law. That was the first
  262
  matter on which we had to satisfy ourselves. We looked at the existing law and compared it with the new text until we were satisfied that this was the dramatic rewrite in plain English which had been hoped for when the project was started.
  I can reassure my lion. Friend that the second, even more important, point for me was whether the changes fitted within the definition "minor and necessary". It is a given that any changes in tax policy by any Government are subject to the control of the whole House and should go through the normal procedures of a Finance Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South is not the only one who was suspicious of any suggestion that the Government might be slipping through subtle changes that might enable them to win a battle in the courts or to clarify a doubt in favour of the Inland Revenue, without the tedium of having to go through parliamentary scrutiny of a Budget speech and a Finance Bill Committee. We addressed ourselves to that point.
  The 66 changes are of close particularity. My test for determining whether a change is a policy change that ought to be brought to the attention of the whole House is whether it alters the burden of taxation. Would a taxpayer who might have been capable of arguing that he was not liable to a tax burden find himself disadvantaged by being made subject to that burden by a tax simplification measure? The whole Committee concerned itself with that, and our report demonstrates that we are satisfied on that point. It is true that we examined some changes in more detail than others, but a clear principle applied throughout. Where the law had been changed, it usually amounted to a non-statutory concession, previously made by the Inland Revenue, now being incorporated into the law so as to place beyond doubt the non-liability of taxpayers for something that might previously have been argued as applying to them.
  The Inland Revenue, led by a former Treasury colleague of mine, Robin Willis, and his team, had thought up rather ingenious arguments that might be made to alter the burden of taxation. As far as we could tell, those arguments had never been raised, and were unlikely to be raised unless the Inland Revenue staff in question were to move to a consultancy later in their career. Wherever possible, the team resolved questions in favour of the taxpayer.
  The Committee went through the changes, using them as our agenda, and at the end, as my hon. Friend will agree, we unanimously agreed that we could find no basis on which we could tell the House that any change had been made which went against the spirit of the process. There was nothing that we felt we should draw to the attention of the House as requiring further study. We should certainly have drawn to its attention any example where we thought the burden of taxation was being shifted to the taxpayer without due parliamentary process.
  Our scrutiny was careful and proper, and it took only three detailed sittings because it is extremely difficult to find anybody outside the House who is challenging the process. I am not aware that any member of the Committee was lobbied by anybody trying to argue against the process or to get a member of the Committee

  263
  to raise an objection. The process has been gone through in such detail that we have now reached a stage where the users of the legislation are waiting for it to be enacted.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Forth rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham first.
  Mr. Bercow: My right hon. and learned Friend is making a racy and intoxicating speech, but I am still trying to get a flavour of the Joint Committee. In the light of what he has just said about comprehensive consideration, will he tell the House how long the Committee sat on each of the three occasions on which it gathered under his chairmanship; and whether any of the sittings was attended and observed by any right hon. or hon. Member of this House who was not a member of the Committee?
  Mr. Clarke: To the best of my recollection—I hope that I shall not be held to this without having had an opportunity to look it up—the first sitting took about half a morning, during which time we discussed the purpose of the Bill, our procedure and holt, we intended to tackle it. Then, we held two sittings with witnesses, which took two full mornings. When witnesses were present, the sitting was open to the public and we were all hoping that the public would pour through the doors and be queueing down to Central Lobby, but the level of interest appeared to be low; none the less, a small body of interested observers attended. I regret to say that, because of the pressure of business elsewhere in the House, I saw no Member of this House present at the back listening to our proceedings.
  I am as suspicious as my hon. Friend. I do not take an apparent lack of opposition at face value. This evening, I have taken part in two Divisions in which I think the score in my Lobby only just reached—or did not reach—double figures, which shows that I am perfectly prepared to walk alone when the occasion requires it. However, the Committee was quite unable to find a hint of controversy in the process; all we found were people urging us to get on with the job.
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend has made some play of the fact that there was no hint of controversy and no member of the Committee was able to find anything wrong with the measure it was considering. Does he not concede that that is no great surprise, given that Lord Brightman is a former member of the tax law rewrite committee, Lord Goodhart is a member of the Institute for Fiscal Studies tax law review committee, and Lord Howe of Aberavon is a chairman of the tax law rewrite committee? The Committee consisted of the same old gang getting together to congratulate each other—no wonder there was no dissent.
  Mr. Clarke: The Committee was a collection of people who have a great deal of expertise in tax law and have given up hours of their time to take the process forward.
  Mr. Forth: The usual suspects.
  Mr. Clarke: Had I wanted to find someone to come along to oppose the measure just for the sake of it, rather
  264
  than wander around seeking the cussed Joe Citizen who would oppose it come what may, I would have consulted my right hon. Friend, who would surely have been able to find someone. In defence of the noble and learned Lords whom he has named, let me say that they are men of independent judgment who devoted a great deal of time to the task. The amendment we discussed was tabled by Lord Brightman—and the quotation my right hon. Friend read out earlier was my summation of a discussion of that specific amendment—although a variety of amendments were submitted from different quarters. In the end, the mood of the Committee was expressed by an overwhelming majority of its members: plainly, they did not want to make any amendment on the particular subject raised by Lord Brightman.
  Lord Brightman, Lord Howe and the other noble Lord my right hon. Friend named are among the small minority of people who either understand the subject or are prepared to give up three mornings to the task of taking the project forward after already giving up hours and hours of their time serving on other committees that scrutinised the subject. I do not believe that any of the three would approve a process that did not simplify the law or, more importantly, one that represented any attempt to evade the privileges of the House in respect of tax legislation. I am sure that my right hon. Friend did not wish to traduce them in any way.
  Finally, let me tell the House at whom I think this process is aimed. I have already said that the public did not flock to our proceedings, and I doubt whether many members of the public will pull the Capital Allowances Act 2001 from the shelf for a bedtime read—it will not be a best seller in that quarter. The users of such legislation will almost certainly be specialists. I hope that the intelligent layman who wants to understand the reasons why his advisers have given him certain advice will do so by reading the plain English of the legislation, but the main users of the measure will be tax professionals. They will be accountants, tax lawyers and some business men, especially the finance directors of companies, or self-employed business men who are trying to understand the tax liabilities that they might incur and the allowances for their capital against the tax liability of their businesses.
  The other main users of the proposed legislation should be parliamentarians. It damages our debates on Finance Bills when most Members, with the greatest respect to them, do not understand the provisions before them because of the way they are drafted. [Interruption.] I do not want to hear shouts of horror. I listened to Budget speeches for many years, and I looked round the Chamber on those occasions. In the old days, we used to deal with intractable and unintelligible minor amendments that Customs and Excise used to insist on putting into Budget speeches. I looked to see which Members were nodding sagely to enhance their reputations as tax experts. Most of them were nodding sagely to words that they did not understand—any more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the draftsman did.
  We need to move away from all that. There are definite benefits to be had in simplifying the expression of the law. Not only a closed group of Members but everybody will be able to understand the policy that lies behind tax changes. The process of simplifying the language of legislation clarifies many tax issues. It will throw out the areas that will be beyond the scope of the Joint

  265
  Committee, where policy and the law itself need simplifying. That is a matter for the House and for Budgets. The process will show in much sharper clarity where the law is too complicated. We shall be able to understand the issues, and in future the House will be able to address itself to rewriting policy to make matters less anomalous, more clear and more rational. Sometimes the language that we have used in the past has hidden that objective from the House.
  Sir Robert Smith: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman offering some hope to the pensioner who was in my constituency office recently, pleading that the self-assessment form should be made intelligible so that he could complete it without the use of professional advice?
  Mr. Clarke: This is not yet enough, because it is only the first part of the process. The intention is that the tax law rewrite project should include the entirety of the Inland Revenue's responsibilities. Capital allowances were chosen first because they constitute one of the most closed and self-defined chunks of the law. I believe that the project team is now working on income tax, and the next Bill of this sort to come before the House will attempt to cover the clarification and rewriting of the law on income tax.
  The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) is right. Now that we have introduced self-assessment, it is essential that we endeavour to rewrite income tax law so that someone who has a decent degree in mathematics, and perhaps some background in accountancy, will at least be able to understand the process. I would like to set our sights higher, and I hope that the ordinary, intelligent and reasonably educated taxpayer might be able to embark on a process of understanding.
  We shall never reach that position if the present Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps complicating income tax legislation at the present pace, Budget after Budget. Self-assessment would have been difficult enough when it was introduced. It has been made almost incomprehensible by the subsequent changes that the Chancellor has made, with so many different rates of taxation.
  Income tax comes next. We must aim ourselves at the intelligent taxpayer who is being asked to assess himself for his income tax liability and does not feel that he should be obliged to pay professional fees to do so when he is doing so much work for the Inland Revenue.
  The new procedure that we have set up works, but it needs some refining. By and large, it is a proper process. We do not want the full procedures of the House to hold things up for months. Everyone who has worked on the project over the years has fulfilled a valuable public service, and I hope that the Bill passes through the House without dissent.
  The principles of the tax rewrite project and the object of simplification of legislation could be applied far more widely. Ever since I entered the House, when I was a practising member of the Bar—I practised for a time when I was last in opposition—I have felt that the language of legislation produced by the House is ridiculous. It is
  266
  arcane and incomprehensible, it adds to the complications of parliamentary procedures, and it creates great difficulties for those outside Parliament. When Ministers and Back Benchers make those points, insiders always give the advice that such people do not understand, and that the law requires precision. They say that practitioners in the courts prefer language set out in that way, so that they can conduct their affairs properly.
  I have been a practitioner in the courts and practised on and off for the best part of 16 years. I know many practitioners in the courts; I am now so old that most of my friends are on the Bench. I know scarcely any practitioners who have a good word for the wording of legislation that emerges from the House. I hear frequent complaints about the incomprehensibility of the law as produced by the parliamentary process. At the moment, a huge undertaking is in hand: rewriting tax law and producing simplification. I hope that, one day, the use of plain English, the search for clarity and the ambition of making laws passed by the House intelligible to the ordinary, intelligent citizen who applies himself or herself to trying to read and understand them, will be achieved.
  Meanwhile, as we go back tomorrow, no doubt, to yet another Bill to which the Government have drafted hundreds of amendments at the last moment, we shall continue to produce what is sometimes gobbledegook, but which passes for legislation and passes through both Houses. We have passed a lot of gobbledegook on tax law in the past 10 years; the Bill before us this evening clarifies some of it, and I commend it to the House.
  10.46 pm
  Mr. Burnett: I am sorry that you seem to be out of sorts, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you recover shortly.
  I declare an interest as a lawyer. I used to practise in taxation, but I do not practise any more. I should also declare the fact that I was not a member of the Joint Committee. Nevertheless, on Second Reading, there were tributes from both sides of the House to Lord Howe of Aberavon, the tax rewrite steering committee, the consultative committee and all of the individuals who contributed, either in the past or currently, to the introduction of the Bill. I was, and am, happy to join in the tributes and congratulations to Lord Howe and his committee.
  I should like to tackle a few points that arose in the Joint Committee, which have been alluded to this evening. I was surprised that, in that Committee, no evidence was taken in person from a practising tax lawyer or a non-Committee tax expert. I am not sure what steps were taken to encourage outside experts to give evidence, but it is a shame that no one did so. I refer the House to the comments of the eminent accountant, Mr. Adam Broke, who was referred to by the Paymaster General and the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). Mr. Broke said:
  "I would say that we have, as a consequence, a much better product than we did have. I say that as an accountant, not a lawyer, and I will be very interested to hear the views of lawyers on the Committee on that."
  I looked long and hard in the report of Committee proceedings for the views of an independent, practising lawyer, but I could not find any.
  Mr. Broke went on to make one or two particularly interesting points in his evidence. He was complimentary about the Bill and I believe that, across the House,

  267
  we share his views. Nevertheless, he made the point that the serious work of tax simplification was yet to come. He said:
  "I do not think we have got into the real serious areas of complexity. We have not really got into anti-avoidance yet, where, in some senses, vagueness is the order 0f the day anyway."
  I hope that the Paymaster General will provide a response about the future of the tax rewrite project and what the Government have in mind to introduce in due course. Nevertheless, the Bill fulfils the tests that were set out by the tax law rewrite committee and successive Governments. Tax law is incomprehensible to most people, and overcomplicated. The tax law rewrite committee set itself the task of gradually rewriting the law on various taxes, and the Bill is the first in the rewrite project.
  Mr. Redwood: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's fulsome praise. Has he, for example, read the hypothetical company test on pages 25 and 26? Is he suggesting that that is expressed with lucidity, so that a reasonable and well educated person can understand it? It looks like the old gobbledegook in a new bottle.
  Mr. Burnett: I have not read every word in the Bill—I apologise to the House for that—but I have read significant parts of it. I have read sufficient to satisfy myself that it is a considerable improvement on the law that hitherto prevailed.
  Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Would he like to hazard a guess as to the average amount of time spent by the Committee deliberating on each of the 66 minor changes?
  Mr. Burnett: As I said, I was, not a member of the Committee, but I have read the three Hansard reports and I suspect that the Committee spent a total of less than 10 hours deliberating on the Bill. I am happy to give way to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) if he wants to correct me.
  To return to what I was saying, the tax law rewrite committee's ambitions have largely been achieved, and the new Bill is considerably mote understandable. The use of plain English, with shone' sentences and clearer structure, is welcome. The explanatory notes are helpful and act, as I said on Second Reading, almost as an index.
  The real problem that I experienced as a lawyer dealing with taxation matters was hunting around the various sections and statutes to find out exactly what the law was. The dovetailing and consolidation in the Bill are particularly welcome.
  On Second Reading, we discussed the drawing into the Bill of various Inland Revenue concessions. That is important. When the Paymaster General intervened in my speech on Second Reading, she mentioned that a number of concessions remain unincorporated in primary legislation. I hope that that will be remedied soon, because although Inland Revenue concessions and, for that matter, statements of practice do not have legislative force, they must be relied on by taxpayers and their advisers.
  Mr. Hogg: There is, of course, a problem, which I think the hon. Gentleman would admit: if, in the process of rewriting, extra-statutory concessions are incorporated
  268
  into statutory language, a substantive change to the law takes place without the authority of Parliament. That has, in fact, happened in this case.
  Mr. Burnett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a good point. He anticipates what I am about to say. Taxpayers deserve certainty and should not have to put up with rules that are not laws passed by the House. That is extremely important. With regard to the effect of concessions on the law, concessions were largely an explanation of existing law and do not make a substantial or even a small change in the underlying law.
  Mr. Redwood: I am sorry to return to the matter, but the hon. Gentleman said that he admired the shorter sentences in the Bill. I wonder whether he has read it. The hypothetical company test to which I referred has 84 words in its first sentence, and that is by no means the longest one. I recommend to him the definition of the limit on amount deferred—clause 138—which is probably twice the length. He ought to read the Bill.
  Mr. Burnett: As I explained to the right hon. Gentleman, who is welcome to look at my copy of the will—[Laughter.] I almost had to redraft my will. If he looks at my copy of the Bill, he will see that it is fairly well thumbed. If he has scrutinised at length the Capital Allowances Act 1990 and the numerous Finance Acts that impact on capital allowances, and if he has even a scintilla or a basic modicum of knowledge, he will know that the Bill is infinitely better than the law that now prevails.
  After the tax law rewrite committee's report was published, the Select Committee on Procedure conducted an inquiry into the appropriate parliamentary procedures for tax simplification legislation. The tax law rewrite committee stated that the purpose of debating such legislation was to discuss
  "the clarity of the law, and whether further improvements could be made to that end; and whether or not the Bill accurately reproduces the effect of the existing law, other than where (with a view to simplification) departures are intentional, as disclosed by the explanatory memorandum."
  There was consensus that it was appropriate that policy in general should not be debated.
  The Procedure Committee's report stated, however, that
  "such a debate would be likely to be largely"—
  I emphasise the word "largely"—

  "technical and 'Policy free'."
  The debate would not, therefore, be entirely technical and policy free, but would be largely so.
  With that in mind, I should like to raise one or two issues that relate to simplification and that should therefore be considered and debated now. First, I hope that all hon. Members agree that deeming provisions should be avoided in legislation. Unfortunately, although the Bill is by and large successful, deeming provisions continue to be used. On Second Reading, I referred to clause 297(2), which states:
  "This Part has effect in relation to the person to whom the relevant interest is sold as if—".
  The provision goes on to define the relevant expenditure, writing-down allowances and appropriate balancing

  269
  adjustment. However, it is important for clauses in tax law simplification Bills to say what happens in exact circumstances. They must deal with the tax effect in given circumstances, not pretend that something has happened and then provide for the tax consequences.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burnett: No, not at the moment.
  Such an approach over-complicates and obscures tax law. I hope that future Bills will avoid the use of deeming provisions.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
  Mr. Burnett: No, I shall not do so for the moment.
  Secondly, it is important to simplify the law. The last three Finance Bills—I had the mixed fortune of serving on the Standing Committees that considered the last two—have introduced countless extra complications and numerous tax rates. It is asking enough of the rewrite committee to give it the task of rewriting the plethora of existing legislation and dovetailing it into a specific Act. The Government must now resist the temptation to tinker gratuitously with the tax system and make it more and more complicated.
  The Government could help the rewrite committee and taxpayers by altering the impact of balancing charges, especially for the small business sector. The balancing charge impacts on the taxpayer in one hit, whereas the allowance is made on a reducing-balance basis and, at best, takes seven or eight years to write out the cost of the asset. Surely the Revenue should not be treated considerably more favourably than the taxpayer and there should be some equity in the law between the two.
  I hope that the Paymaster General will make it clear that, once a rewrite Bill has been enacted, future legislation—in this case, capital allowances legislation—will be drafted in the same helpful and comprehensive manner, on the basis of fitting into the existing rewritten form. It would be a complete waste of time and effort if future legislation reverted to type. There would be a mismatch: some legislation would be rewritten, but the remainder would be in the almost incomprehensible language that currently prevails.
  As I have said several times, the Bill and the explanatory notes are welcome. I hope that, in due course, tax law will be capable of being understood by a reasonably intelligent person who is prepared to devote a reasonable amount of time to the task. The Bill's chief merits include dovetailing legislation into one measure and reordering legislation. The latter is especially helpful.
  In a House of Lords debate on the taxation of chargeable gains, no less a legal authority than Lord Wilberforce said:
  "This legislation is of unimaginable complexity. It is absolutely impossible for the ordinary citizen to understand. It is impossible for many accountants to understand. Indeed, as I know from personal experience, it is also impossible for the officials of the Inland Revenue to understand."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 January 1992; Vol. 534, c. 119.]
  I look forward to learning from the Paymaster General the next Act that is to be rewritten and when it will be considered in the House.
  11.1 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the register. The Bill demonstrates that if we begin with muddled, complicated, difficult and detailed legislation, no amount of rewriting can make it simple, straightforward and easy to comprehend. I have every sympathy with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who chaired the Joint Committee and tried to respond to well intentioned proposals.
  However, the Government have missed a great opportunity. If they were serious about simplifying the capital allowance rules, they should have been bolder, changed the rules more dramatically, introduced new policy and attendant legislation and encouraged proper debate on methods of genuinely simplifying legislation that had grown like Topsy over many years under successive Governments and is now out of control.
  The Paymaster General invites us to believe that a Bill with 581 clauses and four schedules is an easy read. It may not be Enid Blyton—to echo the vivid speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe—but the Paymaster General tries to persuade us that the measure is sufficiently lucid for ordinary people to read, digest and understand, and remain undeterred by its enormous bulk. It contributes to understanding only part of the way in which corporate tax works in this country It does not relate to the biggest part of our tax system in terms of the revenue raised or the impact on the daily life of British people. It takes 333 pages to establish the sort of allowances companies can try to offset against corporation tax liability. Yet the Paymaster General tells us without a hint of irony, humour or malice that she is proud of an effort that she perceives as an enormous simplification, which should make us leap for joy.
  Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was executive director of a couple of companies. What would I think if I was now in that position and had to respond to the Bill, if it receives Royal Assent? Would I be grateful? Would I sit in my office and exclaim, "This is wonderful—the House of Commons has at last done something to make my life easier. I now have only 333 new pages to read and all will be clear about gaining capital allowances for my company's investment"? I fear that that would not be my reaction. I would perceive the Bill as a confounded nuisance. I would already have approached tax lawyers and accountants to take advice on the impact of existing tax law on those businesses. I would have paid the fees, made the calculations, and 1 would know where I stood. I would then have to repeat the process because the Bill makes 66 detailed changes.
  My generous right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe assures us that the changes try to ease the burden on taxpayers and give the benefit of the doubt where doubt previously existed. That is a very worthy idea. However, the companies that 1 am describing would still—in their own interest—have to go back to their tax lawyers and accountants to find out whether they were beneficiaries of any of those 66 changes. Were they not to benefit from them, they would have succeeded only in spending a lot more money on legal advice, tax advice and accountancy advice for no benefit, because they would not have scraped through into any of the new improved arrangements.

  271
  When we consider the Bill in more detail, I fear that we may also find examples in which lawyers and accountants will be able to cavil that the changes have not always gone in the direction of the taxpayer. The House must scrutinise that matter carefully.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I have been following my right hon. Friend's argument with interest. I have, perhaps more recently, been involved in such a position in corporate life. When the crystal mark was introduced to simplify the language of many corporate documents, I found it notable that although the mark was intended to simplify, the company also had to pay further fees to have the documents properly interpreted because they used different words that could have been taken to have different meanings. Is not the best way of simplifying any law to have less law?
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As the former company secretary of an important British multinational group, he speaks from considerable experience. Voluminous legislation such as this, however well intentioned, will always impose new costs and duties on well run businesses. They must keep up with the change of words, determine whether the change of meaning will have any impact, arid ensure that there is nothing untoward in the way in which they are handling their affairs once the law has, effectively, changed.
  Mr. Hogg: I often agree with my right hon. Friend. However, he seems to be advancing an argument against any attempt to rewrite or simplify statutory language. I find that a difficult conclusion to accept.
  Mr. Redwood: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an extremely powerful point. Perish the thought that I should advance such an argument. However, as I said earlier, I would like the Government to achieve their aim by simplifying the thinking behind the legislation that they have introduced or inherited. I would then like them to introduce more radical proposals—which would cut down the number of pages dramatically—and deliberately change the law to make it easier and cheaper in its incidence by being more in favour of the taxpayer than the minor, but sometimes important, changes that we are considering tonight.
  We have also heard from some hon. Members, particularly from the Liberal Bench that they are full of admiration for the much simpler, clearer language, and the shorter sentences. I referred to the hypothetical company test on pages 25 to 26 of the Bill. That is by no means the most confused or difficult part of the Bill; I have not selected the worst example, by any means. I would like the House to get the feel of this proposal, because I am not sure that all hon. Members are as fully acquainted with it as might be useful for the purposes of these debates. Clause 48(5) states:
  "To apply the hypothetical company test, assume that—

  (a) the qualifying activity is carried oil by a company ("the hypothetical company"),

  (b) every trade, business, profession or vocation carried on by the business is carried on by the business as part of that activity,

  (c) the financial years of the hypothetical company would coincide with the chargeable periods of the business, and

  (d) accounts of the hypothetical company for any relevant chargeable period have been duly drawn up as if that period were a financial year of the company."

  272
  That is the end of the first sentence. To make matters crystal clear, clause 48(6) states:
  "The business passes the hypothetical company test as a small or medium-sized company in relation to the expenditure in question if, on the assumptions in subsection (5), the company would qualify (or be treated as qualifying) as small or medium-sized under the relevant companies legislation in relation to the financial year in which the expenditure is assumed to be incurred.
  The clause then goes on at considerable length.
  A good, trained accountant who was well versed in company law would probably be able to work that proposal out, but I do not think that one immediately gets the gist of the test from reading the Bill. Clause 48(5) is certainly not a short sentence, and it is a very complicated one. The underlying thought is even more complicated because it deals with hypothetical companies in the test, not with actual companies.
  Mr. Bercow: Why is it necessary and desirable—I do not say that it is not; I merely ask the question—to distinguish between qualifying and being treated as qualifying?
  Mr. Redwood: That is an extremely good question. I am sure that the Minister will be desperate to respond to that and many other vital points, but I do not think that it is for me to reply to my hon. Friend. I am attacking the formula: I would not have phrased it in the same way, and I do not regard myself as being responsible for it in any sense.
  There are many other examples, although I shall not bore the House by citing others or, indeed, by identifying the worst.
  Mr. Keith Darvill rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I detect some interest in what I am saying. I give way.
  Mr. Darvill: Indeed, I have listened closely to what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying. Did he choose to make the same observations here when his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) proposed the project in 1996?
  Mr. Redwood: I did not catch the Speaker's eye at the time, but under my right hon. and learned Friend I had greater hopes of the project than would be justified under the present Government. I am sure that, were he still Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend would be going in for rather more of the kind of tax simplification in which I believe, and in which I think my hon. Friends believe. It involves simplifying the underlying thoughts and, above all, reducing the incidence of taxation. The simplification that people want involves a cut in their tax bills, and fewer difficult taxes to compute in the first place.
  If we examine the Bill's structure, we see why it has ended up so confusing and long-winded. Over the years, our capital allowances system has grown like Topsy, having been changed year after year. No doubt that was done for good reasons, but as a result it is now very confusing and complicated. As the rather good explanatory notes make clear, there is no simple investment allowance: we have to distinguish between different types of allowance.

  273
  Part II deals with plant and machinery allowances. Part III deals with industrial buildings allowances. Part IV deals with agricultural buildings allowances, which are treated differently from industrial buildings allowances and involve different language. In many cases, it is becoming difficult to distinguish an industrial building from an agricultural building. More and more farmers who are being bankrupted by the common agricultural policy, and by the Government's policies generally, are having to turn to quasi-industrial processes to try to add value to the commodities that they are producing.
  There is a mineral extraction allowance, which is different again. It relates to industries such as mining and oil. Careful distinctions must be made between that allowance and the general plant and machinery allowance—which is not always easy, as anyone with any acquaintance with the oil industry will understand.
  There are research and development allowances. They are different from know-how allowances, which have yet another definition. There are patent allowances, which are different from know-how allowances and, indeed, from the research and development allowances that may have helped to generate the patent in the first place. There are dredging allowances, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was keen should be debated properly this evening. I live in hope, and I note that other Conservative Members feel the same about these important matters. There are assured tenancy allowances, and there is the question of contributions—another aspect of tackling the difficult problem of capital allowances.
  Given provision for nine types of allowance, and consequential provision for contributions and other matters, it is no wonder that the Bill has ended up with 333 pages. When the Minister and her boss the Chancellor were considering the project, why did they not ask themselves whether they should be a little bolder? I wonder why it did not occur to them—rather than asking people to devote a large part of their lives to turning extremely lugubrious prose into prose that some consider a little less lugubrious and others deem just as lugubrious in a different way—to ask, "Do we really need these nine different types of allowance? Could there not be just one or two types treated in a similar way, to avoid all the definitional difficulties and niceties involved in trying to split hairs over whether an allowance is a know-how or an R and D allowance—or, if the oil industry is involved, whether an investment is a mineral extraction or a plant and machinery investment, dealt with by a different part of the legislation?"
  I should like to know why the Minister and her colleagues did not consider trying to be bolder and perhaps change the structure on which we base capital allowances. If they had done so, we could have cut through an awful lot of the complexity in the legislation.
  It is important also, in what time is allowed us in these important debates, to make a stab at considering the issues on which the Committee had to deliberate by sampling and taking evidence—namely, on whether the 66 changes made in the Bill are within the spirit of the outlined process and procedure. We know that the idea behind the process was that the changes should be only minor. We have also heard the very interesting elucidation that the
  274

  Committee decided—therefore, the Government must have decided before the Committee—that when changes were being made, they should move in the direction of the taxpayer.
  Of course I welcome that. As I said, I would far rather that the Government introduced bold legislation that moved much further, and in all types of ways and in all types of cases, in the direction of the taxpayer. However, one or more of the 66 changes could also disadvantage particular taxpayers. It could be that a company has just spent a lot of money on organising its affairs in a certain manner on the basis of the law before it was changed, only to discover that it had got it wrong and that it would have been better off organising its affairs in a different manner to take advantage of one of the 66 changes. One would therefore not want the process to be used for making changes, as it is not being publicly announced and advertised as Budget changes are advertised.
  Our Budget process has a lot of showmanship and many critics, but its one good advantage is that it receives enormous publicity when the tax changes are being made, so that everyone, in business and elsewhere, is alerted to them. People's attention is drawn to the Budget, and they know that there is a Finance Bill and that they have to make proper inquiries and ensure that they have kept up with the changes.
  Dawn Primarolo: he right hon. Gentleman has been informed on Second Reading, in my speech today and in the very full comments made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), that the changes are extra-statutory concessions. They are published and taxpayers are already aware of them. One point that the Committee had to deal with was that, for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman has just given, the tax law rewrite process will result in no changes in the law. The process is not a Budget. Changes to basic, underlying policy can be made only in Finance Bills, with the appropriate announcements and information that they entail, and not in a tax law rewrite process. Moreover, the process was established before the previous general election by the previous Conservative Government, of whom he was a member. We have merely implemented that process.
  Mr. Redwood: Although I am very grateful to the Minister, I am not entirely reassured. My point is not that she has failed to inform the House. She has been very courteous, devoted time and provided much documentation to accompany her remarks to ensuring that the House is aware of the changes. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe has been his usual courteous and fulsome self in explaining them as well. However, I doubt whether our proceedings today or on Second Reading will be widely reported. My point is that a Budget by its very nature attracts enormous press and publicity which are followed up when the Finance Bill detail is seen.
  Dawn Primarolo: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: I should like first to finish my point.
  The right hon. Lady is quite right that well informed people—tax lawyers and advisers—will be aware of the non-statutory concessions that have been made. However,

  275
  they have a stronger status now that they are being confirmed. There are 66 changes, so why are not the Government being bolder about telling the business community about them? The changes could have an impact on people's businesses.
  Dawn Primarolo: When each exposure draft was released, it was accompanied by a press release. The explanatory notes accompanying the Bill show that the information was published and that all the relevant organisations were notified. They were given every opportunity to comment on the draft, and changes in the draft were pointed out to them. They were asked if they saw any problems at all with the Bill—that is, whether it changed the law or clouded the interpretation of the law in a way that would put the taxpayer at a disadvantage.
  Mr. Redwood: Again, it comes as no surprise that the Minister has behaved properly—unlike many other Ministers in the Government—and that she has gone through due process. I only wish that her colleagues in other Departments would do as much. I am delighted to hear what she has to say, but my point is that the publicity, hubbub and interest generated by a Budget will not be aroused by the changes contained in the Bill. If the Bill is enacted, the Minister may have to take further action to ensure that people are aware of the changes—people who are not consultees and do not belong to the professional bodies, but who run businesses and will be affected by them.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My right hon. Friend seems to have got the impression—probably from what I said—that the Committee was not averse to accepting changes that would effect a substantial benefit for taxpayers rather than the Treasury. That was not the test that we applied. The test that we were enjoined to apply under the procedures laid down by the Select Committee on Procedure was whether the changes were minor arid necessary. Had we found that any of the changes wet e of substantial benefit to a group of taxpayers, we would almost certainly have decided that the matter was one for the whole House and that it should be referred back to Parliament as a whole.
  The 66 changes are minor. Questions were asked about whether the shift in the burden could be quantified. In almost all cases, it was impossible to quantify the shift in the burden as the practical effect was so insignificant. For example, we referred details of the relevant changes to the oil industry. The industry went over them, and its response was totally relaxed, as the changes were considered to be insignificant.
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that clarification. I think that I had understood that the Committee, quite properly, tried to avoid any material change in tax legislation. I had thought that he said that, where a change of a minor nature was being made, the Committee had tried to ensure that it was in favour of the taxpayer. That was the case with the extra-statutory concessions on which the Minister implied that all the changes are based.
  I offer no criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend or his Committee. I merely want to make the point to the Minister that a difficult dividing line is being drawn?between a change that is made with all the publicity and hubbub attendant on a Budget, and one that is made as a
  276
  result of what has happened in case law. I think that the Minister would be well advised to ensure that not only are the special advisers and consultees involved, but the wider business community is alerted to what is going on.
  For example, the explanatory notes state in connection with the demolition costs covered in clause 26(1)(b), that section 61 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990
  "applies where any plant or machinery 'which is in use for the purposes of the trade' is demolished. On its literal reading, this would appear to exclude the beneficial treatment of demolition costs where the person has ceased to use the plant or machinery before the demolition occurs.
  In contrast, clause 26 applies where 'the last use of the plant or machinery was for the purposes of trade'. So there is no risk of taxpayers being excluded from the beneficial treatment of demolition under this clause, because the plant or machinery has ceased to be in use at the time when the demolition occurs."
  That is an extremely helpful change. It will clearly benefit some taxpayers who previously were not benefiting or who had to benefit under an extra-statutory concession and might not have been aware of it or claimed it in the right way.
  I would like to feel that as there are people outside who will benefit from this change, the Minister will take action to tell them. The Government are always keen to explain new schemes and new sums of money that they are spending. Should they not also be keen to say that, in this minor but important way, the legislation provides a beneficial change for a few businesses?
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I will give way to my hon. Friend, who is getting worried.
  Mr. Bercow: I am indeed getting worried, and would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could reassure me. Does he agree that whereas one could probably safely take it for granted that most large businesses affected one way or another by the change would be aware of it because of their extensive in-house resources and access to professional advice, small businesses might not be? As they constitute 99.6 per cent. of British businesses, employ 57 per cent. of the private sector work force and produce two fifths of the national output, should they not be told?
  Mr. Redwood: I thought that my hon. Friend was getting worried because I was highlighting a small benefit from the Government. It is most unusual to find the Government providing a benefit, and perhaps I was too generous. However, I am delighted with my hon. Friend's intervention. He identifies the bulk of the business community that could not be expected to retain tax lawyers, read the latest exposure drafts or be in contact with the grand consultees to whom the Government go on these matters. Yet those are exactly the types of businesses that might be affected by the legislation.
  Such businesses have to be even more careful because the legislation has an impact on whether a business is deemed to be small or medium-sized for the purpose of entitlement to a first year allowance. That is an important question because there is a different regime, depending on the size of the company. The argument is set out—with great clarity and in exemplary prose, according to Liberal Democrat Members, I am sure—on pages 5 and 6 of the explanatory memorandum. It says:

  277
  "Subsections (8) and (9) of clause 48 correct small anomalies in the way that legislation relating to companies is referred to in connection with first-year allowances for small or medium-sized enterprises."
  It goes on to say that the sections of the Capital Allowances Act 1990 on which the clause is based
  "deal both with small or medium-sized companies and with small or medium-sized 'businesses'. In this context, 'business' means individuals, partnerships consisting of individuals and so on—people or entities which are not companies."
  The explanatory memorandum goes on to try and cut through this complicated Gordian knot. There is an added complication in the case of Northern Ireland, where companies registered and formed were treated differently under the 1990 Act.
  I do not want to bore the House, but I hope that I have shown that there are a number of changes—66 in all—that will definitely impact on the tax liability of a number of businesses and people. That is, after all, why they are flagged up as changes. The Government assure us that these are sufficiently minor not to warrant finance legislation. I do not quibble with that, but I think that the Minister owes us an explanation. Given that there will be changes that will have an impact on business, how will she make up for the publicity deficit which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe says, seems to have dogged this important legislation throughout its passage so far?
  I think that we deserve an answer explaining why Ministers are so reluctant to be rather more radical and enterprising and understand that the reason that so much gobbledegook is left in the Bill, even after these fine, learned accounting brains have been applied to it, is because the underlying complexity of the law is inherent in it. We have to sort it out not by rewriting it, but by substantial amendment or, even better, substantial repeal.
  We cannot have a simple capital allowance regime with nine types of capital allowance. We cannot have a simple regime if we have different definitions of small, medium and large enterprises and they are treated differently. We cannot have a simple regime if businesses are different from enterprises and companies. We cannot have a simple capital allowance regime if we have calculations and computations on complicated formulae. I have not troubled the House with those, but there are many in the Bill, and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may wish to mention them if time permits and they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  A great deal of time, money and energy has been spent on the measure, but I should be surprised if it was welcomed by the business community. Many business people will be worried that they have to wade through a further 333 pages of tax legislation that might then all be changed in a few weeks by the Budget. The measure will result in more cost, more regulation and more difficulty rather than the simplification that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe so wisely wanted. That is not being delivered by the Government and the Bill.
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: Before I get into the meat of the Bill, I want to take an approach slightly different from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), by looking at the first report of the Joint Committee. That report is quite revealing—perhaps more so than the participants might have wished. It began, helpfully, by stating the declaration of interest of those involved. We were led to believe that the Joint Committee of both Houses would be a useful exercise, and that it would carry out substantial work on our behalf expertly and eruditely. My heart rose somewhat when I read not only that, mercifully, several of its members had considerable involvement in the real world, but that a number of them had already been involved up to their armpits in the whole tax law rewrite venture.
  In considering the value of the work that has been done, our first judgment must be whether we believe that the fact that the Committee was substantially populated by people who had already been involved in the exercise was a plus, in the sense that their expertise or experience were being brought to bear on the matter, or a minus, because they were already so committed to the project that they would be unable or unlikely to bring an impartial and fresh eye to their work on the Committee. We should at least pause to consider that question. The report notes that three of the Committee members, Lords Brightman, Goodhart and Howe, had previously been involved in the tax law rewrite exercise, so presumably they could not reasonably be expected to bring a fresh mind to bear on the matter.
  Whether Members of this House were able to do that is another matter. The Paymaster General has an honourable and proper position—albeit hardly impartial—on the subject. It would appear that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) was rather isolated in his desire to bring a fresh mind to the matter—or, indeed, to introduce anyone else with a fresh mind. He seems largely to have been denied in that endeavour, which must heighten our suspicions.
  All that is bad enough. However, we might have thought that if the Committee was to do any substantial work, it might have made some alteration to the documentation that it was offered. I read the proceedings of the Committee to try get into the minds of its members—to understand their approach to the matter. During its proceedings on 31 January 2000, the Chairman said:
  "I think we ought to be clear on the procedure. Without taking advice, I am not sure."
  He was commendably honest, as ever—as we expect our Chairmen to be. He continued:
  "I would be very surprised if we could amend the Bill."
  Straight away, a glimmer of suspicion enters my mind: what on earth is the point of the Joint Committee sitting if, right at the beginning of its meeting, the Chairman says that he would be very surprised if they could amend the Bill? If the Committee is taking that position, under the guidance of its Chairman, at the outset, why have we asked it to undertake that work on our behalf?
  The Chairman then went on to talk about how difficult it would be to make amendments, saying:
  "If they are taken after 10 o'clock they would be subject to the new-style votes, no doubt."

  279
  He was probably referring to our ghastly deferred Division procedure, which has made such a farce of our proceedings. He then said:
  "We are making up procedure as we go along, but I cannot believe that we shall be allowed to set a precedent where we can amend a Bill without it going back to the Floor of the House."
  I begin to wonder whether there was a suggestion that if the Committee decided that it needed to amend the Bill, it might have had to return to the Floor of the House, where we might have had an opportunity to consider it further in a substantial way. I therefore wonder whether the Committee had a wholehearted commitment to give the Bill proper scrutiny, and whether it had the freedom to amend it if it felt constrained in that way from the start.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is most untypical of my right hon. Friend to be deficient in his reading or to misquote in quite that way. The point of the words that he quotes was that I would have been surprised if the Committee could amend the Bill without the amendment going back to the Floor of the House. I was expressing the opinion that nothing could be done to change the Bill in Committee that would avoid debate on the Floor of the House. He suggests that I was arguing that we could not amend the Bill at all, which, as I am sure he will agree, must be an entirely accidental misreading of the purport of my remarks.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for helping me, but the thrust of what is said later in that paragraph at the very least gives the impression that the Committee would want to avoid doing anything that would cause the Bill to return to the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Clarke: I strongly dispute that interpretation; the opposite point was plainly being made.
  Mr. Forth: I am delighted to hear that confirmation, because it shows that the Committee felt entirely free to make any amendment that it thought necessary, but that it did not think it necessary to make any. So we obviously need to probe much further to find out why that was the case.
  Mr. Clarke: At last we reach agreement, but for the avoidance of doubt, I should say that the Committee felt perfectly free to make any amendment that it wished; we insisted that we were entitled to do so. We were clear that any amendment that we made would have to be debated on the Floor of the House, which could revise it. After considered discussion, we concluded that we wished to make no amendment.
  Mr. Forth: That is extremely reassuring. We have been told over and over again that 66 allegedly minor changes—I shall return to the word "minor" later—had been identified, so we might have expected the Committee to have spent some time considering them.
  Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend accept, moreover, that the consequence of the decision not to amend the Bill in Committee is that only four Members of this House had the opportunity to consider it in detail? The absence of amendments means that the House did not debate the Bill on Report.
  Mr. Forth: That is the case.
  280
  Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe can help me on another matter. On page 47, he is reported as having said:
  "As we are a Select Committee I do not want to take a vote unless we have to, but can Members of the Committee indicate if they agree that we should make no amendment whatever?".
  On a simple reading, without understanding the subtleties of thought involved in the Committee's deliberations, that again suggests that the Committee set out with the determination not make any amendments.
  Mr. Clarke: With respect, my right hon. Friend would agree that a simple and careful reading would reveal that the remark he quotes relates to amendments on the particular topic then being raised by Lord Brightman. There was no inhibition about proposing other amendments. The fact is that no member of the Committee was in favour of any amendment, and no outside body suggested any amendment to us; nor, so far as I am aware, has any hon. Member done so during the years of consultation that took place to produce the Bill.
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. and learned Friend is fond of saying that, but surely this is the point at which the House would have had an opportunity to consider the matter properly, but for the fact that the Joint Committee chose not to make any amendment so that, procedurally, the Bill could zip through without touching the sides, to confront us now, when the House has no chance to make any amendment.
  Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend and I are great reactionaries concerning the procedures of the House, which shows that we are jealous of its privileges. Surely he will concede that we never debate any Bill on Report if the Standing Committee that considered it made no amendment.
  Mr. Forth: Exactly, and we find ourselves in an invidious position. My right hon. and learned Friend may be aware that I argued against the Joint Committee, and my suspicions are being fully confirmed. It has seen fit to make no amendment to such a large Bill, and that has denied Members who were not on it the opportunity to have an input.
  Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend remember that the House approved a Government motion to discharge the Committee of the whole House from considering the Bill? If that had not been approved, presumably the Bill would still be in the charge of a Committee of the whole House and, in theory, amendments could be made.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not be discussing procedure.
  Mr. Forth: I am delighted by your nudge, Madam Deputy Speaker. Having got rid of the little preliminaries, I can get on to the meat of the Bill.
  The problem with the project is that it is all smoke and mirrors. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham hinted at that. My brief perusal of the Bill has confirmed my suspicion that we have not got very far.
  Mr. Bercow: We are being invited to pronounce our verdict and to decide whether to give the Bill a Third

  281
  Reading. How can we be confident that the decision not to table amendments was reached by members of the Joint Committee after a thorough consideration of the Bill's contents when, sadly, three of its members who hail from this House have been unable to be present for our deliberations?
  Mr. Forth: I greatly regret the fact that key Committee members have not felt it necessary to guide us tonight. We have received guidance from the Chairman, which was most welcome, and the Minister will no doubt guide us further. In the meantime, we are having to engage in much unguided speculation, which simply lengthens our proceedings.
  Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when we appointed the Committee members a few weeks ago, only one prospective candidate was in the Chamber when the nominations were made?
  Mr. Forth: There seems to have been a rather casual attitude throughout our proceedings. I was going to analyse the attendance of Committee members, but I decided not to embarrass them.
  I shall now deal with the Bill itself; you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is in my hands. I have annotated it so that I can guide myself and the House through it.
  Mr. Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend proposing a new rule of procedure to ensure that anyone who is nominated to a Standing Committee is in the Chamber when nominated? If so, would it ever be possible to man a Standing Committee on a major Bill?
  Mr. Forth: I am not proposing that, but it might be beneficial to the House if only those people who showed a sufficient interest in Bills were appointed to Standing Committees, so that they were not composed of the usual zombies—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman about parliamentary language.
  Mr. Forth: Perhaps I should have said robots. I would not dream of calling any hon. Member, irrespective of his party, a zombie. However, I want to get on with debating the Bill and shall not be led astray any further by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  There have been several references to "minor changes". That concept has bedevilled our deliberations. "Minor" is a subjective word at best. As the Chairman explained, it was a prime consideration of the Committee to determine what was a minor change. The magic figure of 66 minor changes has been mentioned. We have not got to the bottom of the question of whether the Committee considered in detail each of the minor changes, satisfied itself that they were minor, and then decided to approve them without amendment. We can assume that it probably did. I remain worried, however, about whether that formed part of the Committee's deliberations.
  That worry increased when I considered the wording used in the Bill, which was unamended by the Committee. We must therefore assume that the wording has the
  282
  Committee's approval, and that it saw no need to amend it. My eye first lit on clause 33, headed "Personal security", which says:
  "This section applies to expenditure if … it is incurred by an individual or partnership of individuals in connection with the provision for, or for use by, the individual, or any of the individuals, of a security asset".
  I wonder whether that form of words is remotely detailed or specific enough to help those who seek to interpret it. It involves the use of terms such as "in connection with", "any of the individuals" and "of a security asset" in one sentence, and I should have thought that any of those terms could reasonably give rise to doubt. Given that the whole point is supposed to be simplification, and that it was stressed earlier that all the experts have considered the Bill at great length and pronounced themselves satisfied, I wonder whether they have done the job properly.
  My suspicion grew when I read clause 45, headed "ICT expenditure incurred by small enterprises". That starts rather encouragingly by saying:
  "Expenditure is first-year qualifying expenditure if … it is incurred on or before 31st March 2003".
  I should have thought that one could be reasonably satisfied that that is specific and definite and could therefore be relied on by those who look to the Bill for guidance on capital allowances. The clause then plunges into uncertainty, however, because it says that expenditure is first-year qualifying expenditure if
  "it is incurred by a small enterprise".
  Let us give the Bill the benefit of the doubt and say that small enterprises are adequately defined in prior statute.
  The Bill goes on to say that expenditure qualifies if
  "it is expenditure on information and communications technology, and … is not excluded by section 46 (general exclusions)".
  It continues:
  "'Expenditure on information and communications technology' means expenditure on items within any of the following classes."
  One assumes that the Bill will now give sufficient information to put the matter beyond doubt. It says that the first class covers computers.
  At this point, doubts start to arise in my mind. I confess straight away that I am not a computer expert, nerd or anorak. I do not use a computer; indeed, I do not know how to use one. Even I should have thought, however, that simply to say that the first class covers computers can hardly, in this day and age, be sufficient. I imagine that the term now covers state-of-the-art, hand-held telephones with an internet capability, hand-held computers that are not telephones, and also any other device that is capable of computing. That encompasses a wide range of equipment.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I have been following my right hon. Friend's argument, and although of course it carries the force of logic and eloquence, as ever, I find it confusing that he seems to be arguing for greater detail. As we are dealing with a simplification Bill, surely he should be seeking a change in the other direction.
  Mr. Forth: I am afraid that I have to disagree with my hon. Friend, because simplification, in tax matters above all things, does not mean reducing phrases to one word, which could have a variety of interpretations.
  Mr. David Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Bill's objective

  283
  is not simplification as he has described it, but clarification and codification, which makes legislation more acceptable to practitioners, businesses and other interested individuals, and that his remarks are misguided in that respect?
  Mr. Forth: I do not believe so. The whole purpose of the exercise was alleged to be tax simplification; that is what the Joint Committee—indeed, the whole exercise—was supposed to be about. Therefore, that is what I am looking for in the Bill and why my search has been so frustrating.
  Mr. Bercow: There is a real problem. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) has contributed to the debate, apparently without having had sight of the relevant material. My right hon. Friend was a bit soft on him, but does he not think it unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman is unaware that he has only to look at the cover of the first report to see that the name of the Committee is the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills—not codification, but simplification?
  Mr. Forth: Yes, the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire appears to have wandered into the Chamber unarmed with any documentation, so he was presumably guessing when he intervened. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing that guidance to the hon. Gentleman, who might want to go to the Vote Office and arm himself before he intervenes again.
  Moving on swiftly, as is my wont, I turn to clause 81, which is headed "Extended meaning of 'car'" and states:
  In this Part "car" means a mechanically propelled road vehicle other than one—

  (a) of a construction primarily suited for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description, or

  (b) of a type not commonly used as a private vehicle and unsuitable for such use.

  I do not know much about computers, but I do know a little bit about cars. Contemplating categories that include sports utility vehicles, the vehicle known in the United States as a pick-up truck, and all the other varieties of vehicle in between, which might have an open rear part for carrying goods, but a cabin designed to carry a number of people, or be a four-wheel drive vehicle designed primarily for off-road purposes but also able to carry heavy burdens, causes me to wonder whether the description provides sufficiently flexible coverage of the range of vehicles known generally or generically as "car" to serve as any useful guide in the matter of capital allowances.
  Confusingly, the clause then states:
  "References to a car accordingly include a motor cycle."
  If that is the fruit of the work of the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament on tax simplification, I despair. I begin to have great sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who uttered a cry of frustration when speaking about the Bill. I suspect that he had nightmares about clause 81 after reading it, and well might it cause him to wonder why he spent all that time—well, not much time at all, as it turns out—in the Committee during its deliberations.
  Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend has passed over the preceding clause. Did he find clause 80 easy to understand? I found the calculation of the final chargeable
  284
  period especially difficult under the formula therein. Would my right hon. Friend care to alert the House to the fact that
  (AQE?TDR) x A/B
  is not a terribly lucid explanation of how one goes about calculating one's balancing allowance as an employee? I pity the poor employee who has to use that formula.
  Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend would be right, were it not for the fact that, helpfully, the clause goes on to define—
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 31.

  Division No. 122]

  [11.53 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Ainger, Nick

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Allen, Graham

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Darvill, Keith

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Davidson, Ian

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Austin, John

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Bailey, Adrian

  Dobbin, Jim

  Barnes, Harry

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Battle, John

  Doran, Frank

  Bayley, Hugh

  Drew, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Benton, Joe

  Efford, Clive

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Berry, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff

  Betts, Clive

  Etherington, Bill

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Follett, Barbara

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Browne, Desmond

  Foulkes, George

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gapes, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Caplin, Ivor

  Goggins, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hain, Peter

  Clelland, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hanson, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Healey, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cox, Tom

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cranston, Ross

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Crausby, David

  Heppell, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cummings, John

  Hill, Keith

  285

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoey, Kate

  Pendry, Rt Hon Tom

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Pike, Peter L

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Pond, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pound, Stephen

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Hurst, Alan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hutton, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Illsley, Eric

  Purchase, Ken

  Jamieson, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Jenkins, Brian

  Raynsford, Nick

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Rowlands, Ted

  Joyce, Eric

  Ruane, Chris

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Kemp, Fraser

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kidney, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Smith Angela (Basildon)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Lammy, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Soley, Clive

  Leslie, Christopher

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Levitt, Tom

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Linton, Martin

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Lock, David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Love, Andrew

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Stringer, Graham

  Macdonald, Calum

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  McDonnell, John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McFall, John

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  McIsaac, Shona

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  McNulty, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Trickett, Jon

  McWilliam, John

  Truswell, Paul

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Martlew, Eric

  Tynan, Bill

  Maxton, John

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Merron, Gillian

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Wareing, Robert N

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Watts, David

  Miller, Andrew

  White, Brian

  Moffatt, Laura

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Winnick, David

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wood, Mike

  Mullin, Chris

  Woodward, Shaun

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Woolas, Phil

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Wray, James

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Olner, Bill

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  286

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Ottaway, Richard

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Bercow, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Burnett, John

  Rendel, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Collins, Tim

  Ruffley, David

  Day, Stephen

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Sanders, Adrian

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Hayes, John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Keetch, Paul

  Webb, Steve

  Leigh, Edward

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Öpik, Lembit

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, accordingly put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly?

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
    That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Authorised Officers) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.—[Mr. Pearson.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    COMPANIES
    That the Companies and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 259) dated 1st February 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Pearson.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    CIVIL AVIATION
    That the draft Transport Act 2000 (Designation of Transferee) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.—[Mr. Pearson.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    TERRORISM
    That the draft Terrorism (Interviews) (Scotland) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.—[Mr. Pearson.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
    That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Carding) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.—[Mr. Pearson.]
    Question agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made,
  That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:
  Line 31, at end add—
  '() The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.
  () The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before the sub-committee.
  () The quorum of the sub-committee shall be three.'.—[Mr. Pearson.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
  That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest—[Mr. Pearson.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],
  That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session—[Mr. Pearson.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
  Motion made,
  That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
  Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
  Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
  Line 52, at the end insert the words:—
  '(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Pearson.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
  Motion made,
  That—
  (1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01 (HC 47); and
  (2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word 'Wales,', the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.—[Mr. Pearson.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Judy Mallaber be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee and Mr. Jon Trickett be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITIONS

  Helme Chase Maternity Unit
  12.9 am
  Mr. Tim Collins: This petition represents a strong cross-party consensus in my constituency. Indeed, there is near unanimity among the population of south Cumbria, who want Helme Chase maternity unit to stay in place and to provide into the long-term future a full range of services for the whole community. I was delighted to meet earlier today those behind the petition, including Audrey Hawkes, the representative of the midwives at the unit, and Nicola Kaye, the Kendal mother who started the petition. Particular importance is attached to what the petition says about elective caesareans.
  The petition states:
  "The Petition of the mothers, midwives, Families and residents of South Cumbria
  Declares that the Helme Chase Maternity Unit is a much-loved public service which is admired and respected nationwide, provides a Quality of care which is not matched anywhere else in our area, and continues to be needed on the grounds of safety, travelling time, Public affection and local tradition.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons encourage the Morecambe Bay Health Authority to heed public opinion in South Cumbria, Provide for a long-term secure Future for the Unit, and enable a full range of service including elective caesareans to continue to be provided there.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc."
  To lie upon the Table.

  Free Television Licences
  12.11 am
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I am delighted to present a petition signed by more than 6,500 residents of the west of Scotland, including more than 2,000 of my constituents. The Strathclyde Elderly Forum

  289
  collected the names on the petition, which calls on the Government to introduce free television licences for all pensioners over the age of 60.
  The petition states:
  "The Petition of Strathclyde Elderly Forum
  Declares that giving free TV licences to pensioners over 75 is to be welcomed but is discriminatory to pensioners under 75.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to grant free TV licences to all pensioners over 60.
  And the petitioners remain, etc."
  To lie upon the Table.

  Mobile Telecommunications Masts (Somerset)
  12.13 am
  Mr. David Heath: I have pleasure in presenting a petition signed by my constituent Mr. C. N. Barrow, of Styles close, Frome and by 676 other residents of Frome who are rightly concerned about the imposition of a mobile phone mast on an urban part of the town. They are anxious about the consequences for themselves and their families, as well as for the amenity value of the area. They draw attention to the need for proper planning controls on the erection of mobile phone masts.
  The petition states:
  "The Humble Petition of the citizens of Frome, Somerset sheweth:—
  That mobile phone masts and base stations should not be sited amongst built-up areas, particularly not near houses or schools, due to the health implications, the loss of amenity, and the negative effect on property values.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will take such measures as lie within its power to ensure that phone masts and base stations will always need 'full planning consent' and no longer enjoy 'permitted development rights'; that health concerns will be considered a valid reason for refusal of planning consent, and that the 'precautionary principle' be adopted and practised by the planning authorities.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc."
  To lie upon the Table.

Young Offenders Institutions
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]
12.14 am
Mr. A. J. Beith: Young offenders institutions, such as Castington in my constituency, play a crucial role in the criminal justice system. Young offenders who serve periods of custody in those institutions have many years of life ahead of them when released. The staff do valuable work with difficult youngsters to attempt to steer them away from a long life of crime, which could have a great impact on their communities if they return to it on release.
Excellent work is done in Castington, especially in the Oswald unit, where there is a high ratio of staff to trainees. Particularly difficult youngsters are dealt with in those special conditions. Castington is one of the few parts of the prison estate that is currently under-used. There is spare capacity, a little more of which is currently used for trainees from further away. Its work is generally recognised as valuable in the Prison Service.
The problems that I shall describe have arisen as a secondary effect of an initiative that is designed to reduce reoffending: the detention and training order. It came into operation on 1 April 2000 through the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I want to focus on the consequences of its introduction in Castington. It is widely acknowledged that the order is a worthwhile initiative, which will prove to be a good method of dealing with young offenders. However, some aspects of it have created serious problems in young offenders institutions.
Between April and October, 10 incidents of multiple cell damage occurred in Castington. A total of 32 cells were damaged, and many more incidents have occurred since then. In the first few months after the introduction of the detention and training order, there were 25 assaults on officers, mainly punches and kicks, which would not go to court, and were previously tackled under a governor's power to award extra days.
In September, an officer was assaulted by two trainees in education and attacked with a metal chair. That case went to court. One trainee received a two-month concurrent sentence, which had no effect on his time in custody, and the other received a conditional discharge. In October, a trainee threw boiling water over another trainee and got a conditional discharge. There was also a serious assault, which involved a trainee under section 53(2) of the Children Act 1989. That regime can present similar difficulties of providing a suitable punishment. Two or three alarms happen every afternoon in the large part of the institution that deals with those on detention and training orders.
Drugs policy is undermined by the absence of a real deterrent to misbehaviour and violence. That extends to failing the mandatory drugs test, which, when there is no deterrent, becomes simply a collection of statistics, not a means of influencing trainees' behaviour.
Newspaper reports detail similar occurrences in other young offenders institutions. They refer to a 700 per cent. increase in attacks on officers in one institution and a £200,000 bill for damage. At Huntercombe, it was reported that 16 cells a week were being damaged. At Stoke Heath, six cells a week were damaged. Has the

291
Minister assembled any figures on the problem? What has been the total cost to date of cell damage by DTO trainees? How many assaults on officers have DTO trainees committed?
In the past, governors would have awarded additional days for lesser offences. That power has gone. It is no longer possible for a governor to extend the sentence and use the threat of extension as a deterrent to misbehaviour in prison. The power could not be reintroduced in the old form without measures to ensure that the judicial process complied with the European convention on human rights. The loss of the additional days procedure has meant the loss of a major disincentive. However, the situation is more complicated than that under the detention and training order. Magistrates courts are presented with a problem. The maximum sentence that they can impose, including the community portion, cannot exceed the sentence that an adult would be given for the same offence.
For criminal damage valued at under £5,000, a detention and training order cannot be imposed at all. It is quite difficult—in fact, it is virtually impossible—to do more than £1,000 worth of damage to a cell. To do £5,000 worth of damage to a cell is pretty much beyond the means of a prisoner, even one using as much violence as he possibly could towards everything around him. The magistrates therefore end up imposing a conditional discharge, which is no deterrent whatsoever to the trainee.
Fines can be imposed, but what meaningful fine can one impose on a trainee who earns £5 a week? If one does impose fines, the bullies—often the people carrying out this violence—will get the money from other trainees. Their regime of fear and intimidation—of which cell violence and assaults on officers are all a part—will enable them to extract the money from other trainees, so the fine becomes meaningless to them.
The Secretary of State has powers to apply to a youth court for a late release from the custodial part of the sentence. Those powers—clearly rare, last-resort powers—are heavily circumscribed in the guidance that the Home Office has given the Prison Service. They involve a lengthy procedure and, crucially, the Home Office circular of 9 February on the detention and training order states:
"Late release … should not be used as a means of supplementing disciplinary sanctions."
The circular goes on to state that recommendations for a late release should not be used as a disciplinary sanction.
Only overall progress towards the individual's objectives can bring about late—or, for that matter, early—release. That sends a clear signal that the mechanism of late release is not intended to be used in the way that the old sanctions were used to deter and punish people who behave in a wholly unacceptable way that is damaging to other trainees and officers and to the interests of the taxpayer, as in the case of this very expensive cell damage.
I am not aware of the Home Secretary's powers being used in the way that I have mentioned. If the Minister has any examples to suggest that the power is being used to help in the situation that I have described, I should be interested to hear them. That might represent a case for some revision of the circular, to make it clear that progress towards objectives must be discounted by behaviour of this kind. If someone wrecks his cell or
292
engages in acts of violence against other trainees or officers, that ought to be recorded as a failure to progress towards his objectives, and therefore represent a means of invoking the procedure.
I still believe that the procedure is slow and cumbersome. I shall not read out the enormous list of consultations and meetings that have to take place to bring it into effect. The feeling among prison officers is that, by the time it has been invoked, the offender will long since have left the institution and be half way through the non-custodial part of his sentence.
I understand the thinking behind the detention and training order, which is designed to ensure that the custody period and the community period are both carefully structured to develop the young person's understanding that they have done wrong, to change their attitude and to equip them to redirect their lives away from crime. The whole process—the time spent in custody and the time spent in the community under supervision—is meant to contribute to the same objectives and should, therefore, be planned so that such time is used and not spent idly sitting around for several months in an institution. The time should be structured, and there should be an overall plan. That is the essence of the scheme.
To accept that, I do not think that one has to accept that it is impossible to extend the sentence period as a deterrent in some circumstances. To have to face two or three more weeks of custody would not, if someone had behaved badly enough to have threatened the achievement of their objectives, undermine the essential process.
In the early stages, the Youth Justice Board may have got a bit hooked on the belief that it must in some way preserve the integrity of the concept of the detention and training order, rather than addressing some of the problems that have arisen under it. I do not think enough attention was given to the need for an effective deterrent to disruptive and violent behaviour, or to the needs of prison workers, including both discipline officers and education and other professional staff.
Prison workers must be able to maintain order and stop violent trainees from posing a danger to the rest. They must maintain an atmosphere in which trainees are not prevented by the violence and intimidation of other trainees from benefiting from their time in custody—but that is what will happen: those who are trying to meet the objectives that are part of their sentence will find their ability to do so disrupted if the atmosphere inside the institution is violent, and if they are themselves constantly subject to intimidation. It is much harder to resist a bully when an officer cannot be looking in one's direction than it is to worry about whether there is a mark against one's progress in the assessment that is made as part of a detention and training order.
I have been raising the issue for some time, which is why I felt it necessary to raise it here tonight. In a letter dated 29 August 2000, the Minister of State told me that the Youth Justice Board was
"currently commissioning research into effective practice and into the effectiveness of reward and incentive systems. The results of these evaluations will be available later this year and will form the basis on which new practice guidance is based."
I am not sure whether that has actually happened. I am not sure whether the research has produced results that the Minister has seen, or whether, if it has, any new practice guidance has emerged. I certainly have not seen any yet.

293
What has been the result of the process? Certainly there has been no result so far that has been noticeable to prison officers, professional staff or governors. The concern felt by prison officers is shared by those of governor grade, who must try to maintain good order in their institutions. The difficulties that I have described are recognised at all levels in the service.
The ability to add to a sentence is surely needed for the worst cases, but if that mechanism is not to be used, the Minister and the Youth Justice Board must come up with alternatives. Mere withdrawal of privileges, or a few days without television, will not be enough. In any event, we are talking about people who wreck television sets, and everything else in sight, when an atmosphere of violence develops. Something that actually deters must be found. At present many prison officers are saying "They can do what they like and they still walk out of here on the same day"—and the force with which they say it is an indication of the deep concern that is felt.
Prison officers now say that they would be much happier working with those over 18, because more sanctions are available and the working atmosphere is better, or even with those under 18 who are on remand. Very few are being remanded to young offender institutions, but they too are not subject to the same regime. In the case of detention and training orders the sanctions have gone, or whatever little remains is not really intended to be used as a sanction as we normally understand the term.
Ministers and the Youth Justice Board must come up with an answer. If they do not, the value of detention and training orders will be undermined by a violent and intimidating atmosphere for all trainees, and the ability of prison officers to do the challenging job expected of them will also be constantly undermined by assaults, by the absence of officers who are off sick as a result of assaults, and by a feeling that they cannot exercise sufficient control to do the positive work that they value.
Prison officers achieve most when they are able to interact positively with the people in their charge. I have seen that happen, and I have seen its effectiveness. It should be borne in mind that many youngsters who are the subject of these orders have had great difficulty in relating to others in a civilised way. If the young people have had a family background, it may have been a severely disrupted one. Many of them may have been in and out of local authority homes and had no stable background. Others have been exploited, and many of them have been abused physically or sexually. Therefore, many of them have had a lifelong problem with relating to other people.
If those young people have prison officers who genuinely care for their welfare and relate positively to them, it would be a real advantage. However, that advantage cannot be deployed to the benefit of the youth justice system if there are not sanctions to prevent intimidation, violence and other pressures that make it very difficult for officers to perform the basic order and security aspects of their job, let alone the rehabilitative work in which they all want to engage.
12.30 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I thank the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for his careful and measured approach not only to this subject, but to a range of home affairs issues about which he has very real knowledge, not least from the days when he served with such distinction as the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman on these issues.
The particular interest that hon. Members take in custodial institutions in their own constituencies is valued by the Home Office and by Ministers. It enables both the Government and the House to hear at first hand the experiences of prison officers and of constituents. I take very seriously the concerns that have been expressed to the right hon. Gentleman, as I certainly do those that have been expressed to me as I have visited institutions across the country. Although I have not yet had an opportunity to visit Castington, having heard his account of that institution's experience since the introduction of detention and training orders, and linking that with the experience of other institutions, I have been given occasion to reflect very carefully on the operational impact of the orders and all the limitations that he has outlined.
The good order and discipline of our custodial institutions are of the utmost importance. They are particularly important in institutions that cater for young offenders and their needs. As hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate, if rehabilitation of young people is to be effective, there has to be an ordered and structured environment in which the causes of their offending can be dealt with. Anything that undermines good order and discipline is a threat to that process.
We are therefore absolutely determined to bear down on any who seek to disrupt the good order and discipline of our establishments, by using the full force of the criminal law; by utilising such incentives as are available to us within the establishments; and also by recognising the important role of effective management in maintaining and delivering regimes, which should not be underestimated in creating good order and discipline within establishments. Variations between establishments' performance on those matters tells us something about the effectiveness or otherwise of the management and the strategies that the management has adopted to cope with a group of inmates who are problematical and volatile at the best of times.
I note what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said about assaults and other disorder at Castington. Especially worrying are assaults on staff, who are entitled to feel protected. We are determined that they will feel protected, but it is interesting to note that the total number of adjudications, including those for fighting, showed a significant reduction in the third quarter of 2000 compared with the first two quarters, when DTOs first came into force.
That should in no way lull us into a sense of false optimism or complacency, but the decline gives an impression of a service in which staff and governors across the whole youth offender estate are getting to grips with the problem. That is wholly admirable, and to be commended.
We have to examine how best to respond to the situation, and to do so in a way that does not undermine the rehabilitative impulse that propels and guides DTOs

295
and their implementation. The right hon. Member for Berwick?upon?Tweed referred to the survey and the research into these matters that was commissioned to be carried out by the Prison Service. I can tell him that the picture that is emerging is one in which there was a fairly high overall level of indiscipline, with some 8,300 adjudications—that is, four per trainee—in the first six months of the DTO. That bears out the experience that the right hon. Gentleman shared with the House.
The research shows that one quarter of the adjudications were for violent offences, and that three quarters were for other offences. It found marked variations between establishments in the pattern and incidence of offences. There has Peen a year-on-year increase in adjudications, but it is interesting to note that the pattern is uneven. The establishments at Brinsford, Castington, Huntercombe and Onley all experienced disproportionate increases in adjudications relative to population, although the House must bear in mind the caveat that I gave in relation to Castington. The establishments at Lancaster Farms, Thorn Cross and Wetherby showed absolute or proportional decreases, although it should be noted that Wetherby was not functional for most of the year. Werrington and Stoke Heath showed modest increases.
We need to reflect on the causes of that variation. Where good practice has been developed, it can usefully be spread as a means of addressing the problem outlined by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. The focus of the DTO is on a clearly structured sentence with an obvious end-point, which allows for sensible sentence planning and proper engagement with the young offender. The sentence aims to give the young person a better chance of living a crime-free life on release. It is therefore necessary for regimes to focus on rehabilitation and constructive behavioural change.
I doubt that there is any disagreement between the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and the Government about the importance of that approach, nor about the importance of ensuring that any remedial action that we take to deal with the problem that he has identified does not undermine that focus.
As a result of the fact that extra days in custody as a disciplinary measure are not available for young offenders serving a detention and training order, there has been an increase in the incidence of disorder in some institutions. There undoubtedly is an element which has seen the absence of such a power as a green light for unacceptable behaviour. They would be mistaken, however, to believe that we lack the resolve to address the problem. We can and we will. We will expect the prosecuting authorities and sentencers to recognise the significance of the phenomenon that they are required to address.
I am bound to say that in some of the sentences handed down in the examples that the right hon. Gentleman gave, I am surprised—I put it no higher than that in this forum—by the leniency of the approach taken by
296
sentencers. There are some restrictions, which the right hon. Gentleman outlined, on the capacity of the courts to deal with incidents of juvenile criminal damage, but the assaults that he described, I would have expected a more condign punishment. We shall continue to bring home to sentencers the importance of their role in ensuring good order and discipline in these establishments.
Nevertheless, we have taken the view—and I am not, at this stage, persuaded to change it—that it would be premature to legislate to restore added days, and that the new juvenile regimes have not yet been given the opportunity to bed in. I feel that more time is needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn about how disciplinary strategies, which are being taken forward with vigour by the Youth Justice Board and the Prison Service, are working and about the extent to which they are getting to grips with the problem. Castington is a good example of improvement, and I want us to build on it.
There is also the issue, of which the right hon. Gentleman is aware, of deciding on any particular legislative course before the outcome of the current European convention on human rights challenge to powers concerning adults has been determined. I am absolutely committed, as are the Youth Justice Board and the Prison Service, to bringing about a number of non-statutory improvements. We are taking those forward as a matter of urgency. A comprehensive package of measures will focus on effective practice in Prison Service regimes and address the understandable concerns of staff with supportive measures to help to deal with situations in which the law may have been broken.
We believe that improvements can be made in the present law. The Prison Service and the Youth Justice Board have already started working on these. We intend to continue to develop strategies along those lines and to ensure that they are properly resourced and supported. We intend to publish research findings about positive staff and trainee attitudes to good reward and incentive schemes, to improve staff guidance and to provide consultancy support and training, particularly in restorative justice methods. That is being done at Wetherby. We also intend to build disciplinary compliance into more explicit sentence plans, and hence qualification for early or late release. All that can and will be done.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for enabling the House to have this short debate. We recognise the challenges that management and staff face in running custodial establishments. We are enormously grateful to them for all that they do. I give a clear commitment to ensuring that we continue to monitor the situation very carefully. There will be a vigorous and determined response from Prison Service management and from the Youth Justice Board—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at sixteen minutes to One o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Regional Economic Development
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
9.30 am
Mr. Andrew George: I am delighted to have secured this morning's debate on regional economic development, as it is important to my constituency and to many regions throughout the United Kingdom. It is disappointing that so few of them are represented here this morning. The debate provides a good opportunity to review the success of objective 1 in Cornwall—particularly from the perspective of my constituents in St. Ives, west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly—and the progress being made by the regional development agency. It is approaching its second birthday, so this is an appropriate time to review progress.
Credit must be given to many people for the significant progress that is being made. The Government should be credited for the progress being made on objective 1, for having the right idea, which was to establish more regionally based and devolved decision making on economic development, and for the establishment of regional development agencies. However, as I shall explain later, perhaps that was not appropriately executed.
Many people were falling over themselves to claim credit for securing objective 1 status for Cornwall—and, I believe, for the other three objective 1 regions in the UK—including the regional development agency, although it came along rather late in the day. I recollect that the regional chamber claimed credit for having achieved objective 1 status for Cornwall, when in fact it simply promised at a rather late stage not to get in the way. The political process was important, but at the end of the day the credit should go to the people of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, because they put up with an economy in need of regeneration for many years. The popular campaign mounted by local people raised the temperature of and the pressure on the political process and was key to securing objective 1 status.
It is clear that there has been significant progress since objective 1 started formally in July last year. I strongly congratulate the local community, local partnerships and the local objective 1 office. Last week, in its first year review, it showed that 36 projects had been approved so far, 88 others were advancing through the process and £30 million of objective 1 funding had been allocated so far. There is, therefore, no question of the Cornish level failing to support local initiatives. It is working well, despite obstacles. The purpose of this debate is not for me to say that everything is tickety-boo, as that would be a waste of time, but to draw attention to some of the significant obstacles that affect local people and local businesses. Many of those obstacles are not new—and are not to be placed at the door of the present Government—but have been affecting access to European structural funds for many years.
2WH
The first difficulty relates to the complexity that European structural funds inevitably involve, in the case of objective 1 and objective 2 areas and before Cornwall secured objective 1 status it related to objective 5b. Basically, there are at least three Government programmes—the European regional development fund, European agricultural guidance on the guarantee funds and the European social fund—all with different rules, different approaches and different application forms.
In order to draw down the money, one has to secure matched public funds and the responsible Government Department has to identify a range of Government and public sector funds, all with different application forms, deadlines, criteria and rules. That makes the process extremely complex. In addition, the rule on how and when a successful applicant can draw down the money makes the process even more complex and difficult.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I wonder whether my hon. Friend recalls that when we and our colleagues went to Dublin to try and gain from the Dublin Government's experience of administering objective 1 funding, it was apparent that they had found a way through the complexity to which he refers. It became equally apparent that the complexity has nothing to do with the rules set out by the European Commission in Brussels, but has been caused by member states' application of those rules.
Mr. George: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is interesting that both Ireland and France have established systems involving a single point of entry and a single application form. Their purpose in that is to take the weight of complexity and red tape and bureaucracy off the shoulders of local partnerships and businesses and to work out those issues out internally, rather than to weigh down projects with the burden of what is unquestionably a bureaucratic system, bound in red tape. That often applies to matched funding, which can have forests of strings attached. Many projects are weighed down by bureaucracy, red tape and guidance.
The second obstacle involves the appropriateness of Government intervention. In my constituency, that difficulty has been overcome by the development of integrated area plans based on a number of parishes working together on projects, with the support of the Government offices. In the Lizard and Helston area, for example, they had worked for months, if not years, on plans and had established a committee. The project was bringing the community together and those working on it were largely ahead of the game compared with other parts of Cornwall. They had worked well and achieved unanimity as to how they might progress their plans and programmes for the area to kick-start objective 1 and develop appropriate projects.
However, very late in the day, having discussed the issue with the RDA and the Government Office for the South West, the Government office insisted that they change their area, so the whole process had to begin again. That is not an edifying way to help a local community that has been enthused by the opportunities made available by the success of having achieved objective 1 status.

3WH
Thirdly, many businesses have expressed concern to me, and I am sure to other hon. Members, about the fact that their approaches to the objective 1 process are met in a complex and confused way, and they are not given the help that they need.
One business wrote to me recently saying that last summer it had
"made enquiries about accessing Objective One funds to develop certain parts of the business. The enquiry was passed from one department to another, mainly around the Government Office for the South West. Each department was polite but ineffective; the general tone was 'It's not my responsibility. I'm not sure who deals with that sort of thing. I'll get someone to phone you back later today.' Needless to say, after several days no-one had phoned back and we had to chase them again. Eventually we received an application form for starting a project. This was completely inappropriate to a very small business. The amount of administration, form-filling and reporting would have exceeded the amount of useful work we were planning, so we threw the form in the bin and abandoned the idea."
Despite the fact that the purpose of objective 1 is to help business, that experience is by no means exceptional.
Although the local office has been working effectively to try and make sense of the system and get the best out of it, allocating the money is one thing—the £30 million that has been allocated so far represents excellent progress—but drawing it down is another. While some projects in Cornwall have received European structural fund money, so far not a penny piece of objective 1 funding has gone into any capital programmes there, and that is a matter of great concern. At the end of the day, we will need to judge objective 1 on its fundamental strategic success to Cornwall—not on whether the pot of money has been spent in a first come, first served basis in an unstrategic way—and on what sustainable economic developments have been established through objective 1, that would not have happened otherwise and that have made a significant difference in turning around the depressed Cornish economy.
A significant project is the combined universities in Cornwall, on which there is unanimity that the project must be properly and effectively established within the seven-year period. I would welcome any encouragement that the Minister may wish to give local people that the project will go ahead and that the Government office will take a flexible view when considering the various strands and stages in its development.
Another important project in Cornwall, in which we will invest much effort, is building on Cornwall's distinctiveness. Cornwall does not have a lot going for it, but at least people know where it is. Some like it and some do not, but generally people have a positive view of Cornwall as a distinctive place with a distinct culture and a strong environment. Moreover, Cornwall produces a range of unique products and it wants to develop a unique and distinctive brand image. It does not want Government offices and regional development agencies preventing that.
Cornwall has a number of distinctive features and opportunities. Its maritime potential has been ignored for far too long. It has the busiest shipping lane in the world within three miles of the largest natural harbour in Europe. In the past, the sea has been something to be paddled in or gazed at, but it could be a great economic
4WH
resource. If only we could get a small proportion of the passing trade to come to Cornwall—that is a realistic prospect—objective 1 could make a very significant contribution. It is important to identify the strengths of Cornwall, rather than consider it to be weak because it is not the same as everywhere else. I will return to that theme later in my speech.
Hayle harbour is another important project in Cornwall. It is important to develop communities where the economy has failed and Hayle harbour is one such example. The project, which has strong local support, involves a multi-million pound development of the harbour and it wants Government backing. I understand that the recent planning application that has been approved by the district is now with the Government. Hopefully, it will not be delayed unnecessarily. Although the use of taxpayer's money should be properly scrutinised, I hope that the plans that are being considered by the Government Office for the South West will move forward swiftly.
The local Federation of Small Businesses has expressed concern about objective 1. It has 2,500 members in Cornwall, but not one has yet succeeded in getting objective 1 money. It makes the rather amusing comment that it is concerned about the
"velocity at which Objective 1 is progressing—it has been overtaken with ease by an arthritic snail".
Whether or not the hyperbole is fair, local businesses are concerned about progress.
There is also the issue of matched funds. Regional selective assistance should provide an important source of matched funds in objective 1 areas, but it is aimed primarily at large projects. The minimum eligible capital expenditure is £500,000. Many small businesses in Cornwall would not be able to afford a project of that size. However, another fund available to small businesses is the enterprise grant, but the total budget throughout the whole of the seven counties region is £450,000 per annum. If Cornwall got its fair share, it might get £50,000 of the money on a pro rata basis. That will hardly make a significant impact on the development of objective 1 projects in terms of matched funding.
Recently, the Western Morning News carried out a poll of business leaders in Cornwall and Devon, most of whom had a frequent or occasional contact with the RDA and, according, to the newspaper, represented "the cream of business leaders" in Cornwall and Devon. In answer to the question:
"How well does the RDA represent Cornwall and Devon's interest?",
57 per cent. said that it represented their interests badly, 41 per cent. responded "quite well", and 2 per cent. said "very well".
In response to the second question:
"How do you rate the general performance of the RDA to date?",
55 per cent. said "poorly", 2 per cent. said "excellently" and 12 per cent. said "good".
The third question was:
"Are they doing enough to attract inward investment?",
to which 58 per cent. responded no and 11 per cent said yes. The newspaper concludes that the RDA has not delivered for the local business community.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I am a little puzzled by the line that the hon. Gentleman is following

5WH
because, as far as I am aware, the RDA is a business-led organisation. Therefore, is it not a criticism of the businesses in our region? He should be careful about pursuing that line, as indeed should the Western Morning News.
Mr. George: I am interested by the hon. Lady's intervention because, as I am sure she will recollect, the RDA was set up by an Act of Parliament and its board members are appointed by the Government and not by business, so it is a Government-led quango. It is important to reflect on that when one examines the success of the RDA, because at present it is insufficiently business led. The hon. Lady might like to take up her other criticisms with the newspaper. I am simply reporting what it said.
Mr. Tyler: Perhaps I could add a point. In addition to being accountable only to central Government and not the local community, despite the presence of the chambers, are not all the RDAs experiencing the same crisis of confidence in their ability to represent not just business interests but regional interests? The Minister may be able to tell us whether the Government feel that RDAs are becoming more accountable throughout the country or whether the south-west is unique in that respect.
Mr. George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. No doubt the Minister will take note of that question.
Mrs. Gilroy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. Does he know how many businesses took part in the survey and which ones they were?
Mr. George: As far as I am a ware, the Western Morning News has not disclosed the identities of the 45 businesses that took part. It consulted a wide range of businesses in the area, but whether they were representative is a matter to which the RDA will no doubt address itself. However, to question the validity of the poll is not an appropriate response for responsible politicians in Cornwall and Devon. The hon. Lady will understand that the survey findings ring true with the experiences of businesses in my constituency. One chief executive said:
"The RDA is bureaucracy gone mad. It is inefficient and is just an organisation that pursues its own ideas for its own sake."
When is it appropriate for the RDA to intervene? I raised that in a letter to the Minister about the South Crofty tin mine, which was recently purchased by Baseresult. Is it appropriate for the public sector to compete with the private sector, raising the hope value of a site and undermining a commercial proposal? The Minister wrongly described it in a recent debate as
"a waste-to-energy plant, using the mine to dispose of the power station ash and debris".—[Official Report, 31 January 2001; Vol. 362, c. 416.]
Mr. Williams, who is the managing director of Baseresult and a constituent of mine, was not unnaturally very disappointed by those comments. He is bringing forward plans in a new and innovative way to develop South Crofty as a tin mine
In a statement to me yesterday, the RDA said:
6WH
"we will not stand in the way of their development of South Crofty."
But it has already tried to do that. It went on to say:
"We continue to believe that tin mining is incompatible with progress to prosperity."
But turning Cornwall into a replica of everywhere else by covering that site with conference centres, shops and offices closes off opportunities for the future. It is not the appropriate way to respond to a commercial organisation—a private sector body—that is trying to bring forward proposals despite the interference of what is effectively a public sector body.
A further example involves a company in my constituency that needed to restructure. The RDA sought to purchase the factory unit from under its nose, thereby increasing the market value of the factory and almost putting the company out of business.
There is also the issue of unfulfilled promises on a number of projects. The Hypatia Trust in Penzance is an internationally renowned charity. It intends to establish an important project geared at promoting the understanding of women. The project would be based in Penzance, and would offer the prospect of bringing hundreds of thousands of pounds in investment to the town centre. For many months, the trust was convinced of the RDA's intention to support that project, but shortly before Christmas it received a letter saying that the RDA had changed its mind. That has thrown the whole project into serious jeopardy.
The RDA should be playing a strategic role. The south-west continues to go through tremendous turmoil. It is appropriate that we should have an organisation dealing with strategic issues such as transport. To travel to my constituency—which is a five-and-a-half-hour rail journey from London—one has to get off the train at Tiverton or Exeter and take the bus, adding a further hour to the journey, as well as the inconvenience. There has not been a squeak from the RDA on issues such as transport, on which it is appropriate to have a body with a wide-ranging remit. The RDA should be taking the lead on issues such as transport, instead of interfering—as it has been doing—and telling Cornwall that it should not have its own brand image.
Cornwall has a strong brand image. Frankly, the south-west as a region exists only in the minds of people who work on the basis of bureaucratic convenience; it has no brand value whatever. The RDA should not be getting in the way of Cornwall's brand value; it should offer support and allow Cornwall to build on its strengths.
The RDA has the right idea in respect of devolving decision-making power and allowing the Government to let go and enable people in the regions to take decisions that affect them. The problem is that the idea has been wrongly executed. The Government preside over 30 or more regional quangos, and they all take their lead from Westminster or Whitehall—not from the business community. Their members are all Government appointees and are answerable to Ministers and not to local people.
We need a distinctive approach. The Government must let go a little, and give control freakery a holiday. They must marry decision making in Cornwall to the objective 1 region and let distinctiveness flourish. They

7WH
must also realise that in Cornwall there is genuinely a new spirit and a will to succeed, which is already producing some excellent projects. That initiative does not need to be strangled by inappropriate Government interference, red tape and complexity. The Government must give more control to Cornwall and provide opportunities for more exciting, innovating, cutting-edge projects. That would be risky, but it would be less risky than not letting go—as the Government are still holding on to regional development in Cornwall. There is initiative and drive in the region, but it is being killed off by the dead hand of too much Government interference, placelessness and a lack of recognition of its distinctiveness and identity. Cornwall can compete, but not by trying to be the same as everywhere else; it must be different and distinctive. It needs to get away from the RDA model, which is suffocating that distinctiveness.
9.59 am
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on obtaining a debate on a key issue affecting all parts of the country, and I share his disappointment that other regions are not represented here today.
Mr. George: Or other parties.
Mrs. Gilroy: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I represent the same party yet. The lack of Conservative representation here today is unfortunate.
I want to reflect on the size of the challenges represented by the legacy of the previous Conservative Government to the present Government in 1997. It is ironic that Devon and Cornwall—the part of the country that all hon. Members present in the Chamber today represent—suffered most under the policies of the previous Conservative Government, yet only four of its 16 Members of Parliament are Government Members. Let us hope that the forthcoming general election will change that; it will be detrimental if it does not.
Cornwall qualified for objective 1 status, which demonstrates how seriously it suffered. My constituency contains the poorest ward in England. In common with all regions, our region's economic performance was below the European average. I look forward to hearing the Minister remind us of the importance of regional development agencies to the achievement of growth in all regions.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Lady referred to the previous Conservative Government. Does she also recall that successive Conservative Ministers failed to recognise that Devon and Cornwall's circumstances were special and refused to apply for NUTS2 status, which would have brought a local dimension to solving economic problems? Only when that obstruction was overcome did Cornwall manage to gain objective 1 status, and parts of Devon objective 2 status.
Mrs. Gilroy: Absolutely. I was about to reflect on the achievement of objective 1 status and to pay tribute to several groups and organisations, some of which the
8WH
hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned. I did think that he underplayed the role of the regional development agency and was rather unkind about it. After all, it was the first regional development agency in the country to get off the starting block, go to Brussels and present the case just made so well by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I also pay tribute to Mr. Robin Teverson and to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), who is carrying out several longstanding engagements in her constituency today.
Many of the groups mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Ives lobbied to ensure that the voice of Cornwall was strongly sounded. Without the energy of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne and the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), the ear of the Prime Minister would not have been obtained. Without the Prime Minister's attention, I doubt whether the representations from Cornwall—however strongly made—would have been pressed at the right time and in the right place.
I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Ives would agree that the previous Government left a dire legacy: the role of the regional development agency has probably been more significant than he allowed. I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman speak a little more positively than usual about progress made under objective 1. He referred to the annual report. In a news statement, the leader of Cornwall county council, Pippa Englefield, said:
"This is brilliant news which should go a long way to silencing the doubters who have been criticising the Objective One programme. It is clear evidence that Objective One is working and working very well in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. We have achieved a huge amount in the first year and will now build on these successes in the remaining seven years of the programme."
The hon. Gentleman's speech was in marked contrast to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne in her Adjournment debate on 31 January, which gave a comprehensive account of progress in her constituency, where she has worked hard to enable her constituents to benefit from all the Government's policies that contribute to the region. I was impressed to hear the Minister refer to the progress made in the opening five months and I congratulate those who have been party to making that happen, including those in the RDA who have supported the work.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulty and complexity of working with the many different funding streams, and that is echoed by my own experience. I, too, was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate about this time last week when I drew the Minister's attention to the complexities that my constituents often bring to me, and looked to her for some observations on the role of the local strategic partnerships. I am not sure whether hon. Members know that Plymouth aims to be one of the first local strategic partnerships; the 2020 partnership is a well-established private, voluntary and public sector partnership organisation that is laying the final plans to be in that position, hopefully within the next few months.
I will not rehearse all that I said in that speech, save one fact, of which we in Plymouth can be proud because it demonstrates the success of our economic

9WH
regeneration and that we are on the right path: youth unemployment has dropped by 90 per cent. and long-term adult unemployment by 60 per cent, in my constituency. Those figures are a sign that regeneration is happening in Plymouth.
The RDA in Plymouth is working closely with local partners and the community and has investment commitments of some £18 to £20 million, including the Tamar science park, the Plymouth international business park on the former Seaton barracks site and, at long last, the Royal William yard. The Phoenix trust project, which is headed by the Prince of Wales, is at planning application stage. I went to meet members of the local community in the area surrounding the Royal William yard, who are delighted to see the progress that is being made, for which they have waited for many a long year. That progress is in part a tribute to the way in which the RDA has taken up that difficult site in the middle of my constituency, which is of not just regional but national significance.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Western Morning News survey. I looked long and hard for a named business person in my constituency to whom I could speak about the issues that it raised. The survey seemed to reproduce the same anonymous voices that predicted cataclysmic consequences if we dared to introduce a minimum wage when that was being discussed before the last election, telling us that unemployment would escalate and get completely out of hand. The figures that I have quoted speak for themselves and I shall not repeat them. Time is short and I want to let the Minister reply.
I was particularly surprised by the criticism of the Language Energy Centre—criticism which is not borne out by my experience. It may surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I was not among its original enthusiastic supporters as I had grave reservations on environmental grounds. However, when businesses approached me, I decided to find out what the regional development agency thought about the issue, and received a positive response. The successful outcome of that contact was announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) shortly before she became Secretary of State for Scotland. I was accompanied by Sir Michael Lickiss and business partners throughout the region in lobbying for the BAE consortium backing for Airbus. That important investment affects people throughout the country, especially in the south-west, where the supply chain is extremely important to the defence sector in my constituency and in parts of Cornwall.
The sea surrounds the entire peninsula, from Poole to Penzance, from Avonmouth to St. Ives, and the hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned the maritime sector, on which the RDA has a task force. It is a good example of why a bigger, wider RDA has advantages and synergies for the region. I hope that the Minister will remind us how important regional growth and development is for the country's well- being.
In conclusion, I want to say something that may not suit the hon. Gentleman's agenda The RDA has the unfortunate tendency of topslicing bits of Plymouth's budgets for the single regeneration budget and objective 2 funds for rural areas, but urban areas are the engine houses of the regional economy. I hope that the Minister will keep her eye on any such tendency in future. Plymouth needs a thriving rural area, but the rural areas
10WH
need a thriving economic engine. In Plymouth, our glass is half full. Our economic policy is set fair to fill the glass gradually, year by year, and to keep it topped up above the half-full level, rather than letting it decline, as it has in the past 20 years.
10.12 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on securing the debate on an issue of great importance to the economic well-being of the country, not just to one region. I thank him for his courtesy in letting me know in advance the issues that he intended to raise, which helped me to improve my response to the debate.
This is the second occasion on which I have debated economic development issues in the south-west with the hon. Gentleman. I spent a considerable time discussing the subject in two recent Adjournment debates secured by my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton). I do not complain about that because the matter is important.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement of the Government's initiatives in tackling economic development in the English regions and their part in the process of securing objective 1 status for the area, which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton mentioned, and which was long overdue. It was an important milestone in the economic development of the south-west. Despite the content of much of his speech, the hon. Gentleman ended by supporting the principle of devolving decision making on economic matters to the English regions, and I welcome his support.
The crux of the hon. Gentleman's speech was the performance of the South West of England regional development agency. The report in last week's Western Morning News highlighted criticisms of that body by some members of the business community in the region, stating that most of the respondents believed that the agency had neglected Devon and Cornwall. I take that report seriously, as does the RDA. RDAs were set up to tackle economic imbalances between regions and, just as significantly, within regions. The particular diversity of the south-west gives rise to some significant sub-regional differences in GDP, as the hon. Gentleman will know. The RDA must take that into account in implementing its programmes.
I do not want to back away from the findings in the survey. They are disappointing, but the picture is not all gloom, as the Western Morning News has emphasised fairly. Apart from the fact that there were also positive comments from some of those business people in the article about the RDA, we need to bear it in mind that the point of RDAs was to take regional views into account. The RDA needs to take account of the survey and to act upon it. It has responded by saying that it will do just that.
On a more general point, RDAs represent a long-term investment in our regions. It is still less than two years since they came into existence. The picture will vary between regions, but, overall, RDAs have been an undoubted success in England. The 35,000 jobs that they have created or saved in their first year of operation is one indicator of that.

11WH
The RDAs are providing leadership and taking a proactive response to issues affecting regional economies. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and I have detailed discussions every six weeks with the chairs of the RDAs about what is going on. All the chairs and board members, including those from the south-west, are committed to the task that they have in hand and want to bring a lot of energy and expertise to that task, as well as to achieve success—not alone, but with other people.
The point cannot be emphasised too strongly that the RDAs are evolving bodies. It has always been accepted that they will develop expertise and build on their achievements over time. We in Government are trying to play our part in assisting them to do that.
From 2002, the RDAs, including the South West of England RDA, will have significantly increased resources and greater freedom to direct those resources to meet regional priorities. The hon. Gentleman must understand that those additional resources and that increased flexibility is a measure of our increasing confidence in the RDAs and their potential role in delivering improved economic prosperity in the regions.
Mr. Andrew George: Interestingly, the Minister has pointed out that she meets the chairs of RDAs regularly, which contrasts with the idea that they might be business-led. They are clearly accountable to Government. I welcome the announcement of additional resources for RDAs, but does she accept that one of the problems—the theme of my opening remarks—is the level of control that the RDA has over local decision making, which in Cornwall is significant and can undermine initiative? After all, the RDA has taxpayers' money and can give advice. Other than its other strategic roles, which I outlined earlier, handing that down to local people is surely the most significant task. The RDA should be delivering that.
Ms Hughes: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands—I put it no more strongly than that—the point of the meetings with the RDA chairs. The fact that we meet them does not mean that they are not autonomous bodies that are business-led. The fact that we have a dialogue does not mean that there is Government control. If he were a fly on the wall at those meetings, he would see that clearly. The fact that we meet does not detract from the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton rightly made, which is that these are business-led organisations. That was a deliberate decision. The people who are running the organisations come from the business community in their region. That point must not be lost.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the RDAs have money, resources and some powers, but they cannot achieve what they need to in their regions unless they gain legitimacy among other important stakeholders, including the community, local authority and business and voluntary sectors, and work by consent and with consensus. They are trying to do that. It is not a question of a powerful body coming in and laying down the law. If we are to create sustainable change in our regions, the RDAs understand that they
12WH
need to do that above all by working in partnership. That is the hallmark of the way in which RDAs, including the South West of England RDA, have gone about their business.
The South West of England RDA certainly needs to take on board what was said by the albeit small sample of business people in the south-west. It needs to listen to the survey's verdict and to strive even harder to ensure at the very least that what it does is well known and that it is accessible to the business community. However, without wishing in any way to distance myself from or to disparage the survey, I note that the business sample is small and we do not know who the people are.
The hon. Gentleman cited a number of contentions, which I do not doubt, about what business people have said, but he did not provide any evidence or raise the matters with me previously. He has not written to my Department about any of those concerns. If he can do so now, I invite him to provide me with the detail of some of those stories, and I shall be happy to investigate them. I am not trying to set the survey aside. I am simply saying that, whatever role newspapers want to play in raising issues in the way that they do, we as Members have a role to play. We must ensure that our claims are fair and that we are not allowing an organisation to paint a picture that may not be fair. We simply do not know the extent to which the views of the 45 companies represent those of the business community in Cornwall as a whole.
Mr. George: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Hughes: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I ask him to be brief, because I want to make other points.
Mr. George: I called for the debate before I knew about any report in the Western Morning News. The Minister is wrong. She must accept that I wrote to her only recently with regard to the case of South Crofty to point out that the RDA's intervention was not helpful. Will the Minister reassure me on the matter?
Ms Hughes: I am happy to confirm that the hon. Gentleman wrote to me last week about South Crofty, but I was referring to the core of his speech, which was a claim that the business community in the south-west had lost confidence in the RDA. That claim arose partly as a result of a newspaper story and partly from one or two of his experiences with people who made claims or statements to him. First, we do not know how far the views of the 45 companies represent those of all the companies in the south-west. Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman has specific instances of business people's experiences that I can investigate, I will be happy to do so. So far, however, he has not given me the details.
Mr. Tyler: If we can persuade the Western Morning News to bring to the Minister, on a confidential basis, the information available to it as a result of the survey, would that satisfy her?
Ms Hughes: I, and others, would be interested to know who replied to the survey, but my basic point relates to the number involved and how far their views are representative. I make no bones about the fact that

13WH
those views, even from only 45 companies, are worrying. I am not putting them aside, but we simply do not know whether they represent the views of the wider business community. People who have had more contact with the RDA may have said something rather different—we just do not know. Certainly, those views are of concern. The RDA is rightly concerned and has more work to do in making links, building bridges and getting across more clearly the work that they are doing.
The hon. Member for St. Ives has written to me about his concerns that the RDA has not given a fair hearing to the Baseresult company's proposals to re-open tin mining at South Crofty. I will reply in detail to his letter, which I received at the end of last week. He may be aware that Baseresult has now accepted the RDA's offer to present its proposals to the Camborne, Poole and Redruth partnership board, which also includes the local authorities and the Prince's Foundation. The partnership is working to plan strategically the future regeneration of that area, which is the RDA's first priority area in Cornwall. So there is dialogue about that.
Mrs. Gilroy: Does the Minister agree that that is an important development? My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne made the point that it is the people of Cornwall who should have a say in what happens to the mine.
Ms Hughes: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has anticipated my next point. That is why that is an important development, and without making any comment on the merits of the proposals, it is right that the views of local people on the alternative possibilities for the area are fully canvassed and should form part of the final decision as to what happens at South Crofty.
The hon. Member for St. Ives also talked substantially about objective 1, which was long overdue in Cornwall. The fact that Cornwall now has objective 1 status is testimony to the commitment of many groups and individuals mentioned by both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton. However, as my hon. Friend said, it is also testimony to the legacy that Cornwall has inherited and the serious economic and associated issues that need to be addressed.
I know that the hon. Member for St. Ives is concerned about the speed with which he feels that Cornwall's objective 1 programme is proceeding. Public grant
14WH
schemes of this size rightly have conditions that must be met. Care is needed to ensure that the money is spent properly. We are accountable for those funds, and it is essential that we do not compromise the need to ensure that public funds are spent in an efficient value-for-money way. That may sound like a bureaucratic answer, but it needs to be stated. Large sums of money are involved and we have to account for them and make sure that they achieve our aims in the most effective way.
The progress that has been made in committing money is more than reasonable in Cornwall. The Cornwall and Scilly programmes made a good start. A total of £29 million in grant has been approved since the programme started in August 2000, and programmes to a grant value of £36 million are under appraisal. Together, that represents more than 20 per cent. of the programme's total allocation in its seven-year programme. That is a fairly rapid implementation, compared with other areas of the country that have benefited from EU funding.
The hon. Member for St. Ives is right to say that we need to cut unnecessary bureaucracy to an absolute minimum. However, we need to strike a balance between probity and value for money, and ensuring that the money gets spent and drawn down.
The hon. Member for St. Ives cited some specific examples of problems. If he writes to me with the details, we will certainly investigate whether they raise more general issues about where we could improve the process. I agree with a point that the hon. Gentleman made later in his speech, which to some extent cut across some of his other contentions. The proof of the pudding is not in the spending of the money or how quickly we spend it, but in getting the spending of the money right and being committed to programmes that will create sustainable change. Given that we are not much more than six months into a seven-year programme, I am not concerned at the moment that the process is far too slow.
The hon. Gentleman raised some points that I do not have time to deal with on the Hayle harbour and other issues. If he writes to me about them I will certainly reply as fully as I can.
In short, we are committed to helping every region, particularly the south-west, to address their longstanding economic problems. I believe that Cornwall has a lot going for it.
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. We now move to relations between the United Kingdom and Libya.

Libya
10.30 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: This is the 16th Adjournment debate that I have initiated on Libyan matters since 1989. The sixth was answered by Douglas Hurd as Foreign Secretary. Incidentally, I am told by senior Clerks that it was the only occasion since the war that a senior Cabinet Minister replied to a Back Bencher's Adjournment debate. That afternoon he happened to see me chatting with my parliamentary neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), now the Foreign Secretary. My diary entry for 1 February 1995 reads:
"Douglas swooped down on Robin and myself in the corridor by the window opposite the Clerk Assistant's Office. He said, 'I really do ask you two to believe that as Foreign Secretary I cannot tell the Crown Office what to do, nor does the Foreign Office have detailed access to evidence which they"
that is the Crown Office—
"say they have. You must understand that the law officers really are a law unto themselves.'?
My diary entry continues:
"Robin and I agreed that Douglas Hurd was not unfriendly towards us, and was probably correct in outlining the rules. Robin said that he guessed that Hurd was being honest with us and did not know the full story. I shrugged my shoulders, and told Robin he was probably right."
I put all that on the record because I am aware that the most sensitive questions should be addressed to the Crown Office and to Lady Thatcher and her innermost advisers at the time, rather than the Foreign Office and the ministerial successors of Douglas Hurd. I am also conscious of the sub judice ruling set out in yesterday's Official Report at column 35.
First, I think that I would be wrong not to mention the dignified reaction of the British relatives who still seek truth and justice and are honouring an undertaking to hold a full independent inquiry after the conclusion of all legal processes. I have permission to quote from the letter to the Foreign Secretary dated 5 February from John and Lisa Mosey of UK Families Flight 103. The Minister has a copy of that letter. It states:
"Dr Swire put it well when he said that we must deal with the Libyans where they are today—not where they were in 1988. We hope you will stand firm against the pressures from the USA to think that we can bomb people into behaving decently. That is the route to yet more retaliation and suffering. Our daughter is, undoubtedly, dead because of someone's idea of justice based on retaliation."
The letter ends rather movingly:
"Mr. Cook. I trust that all of this is of some value to you in your very difficult and important job. Our secretary, Pam Dix will be writing to you in due time with more specific thoughts on what we would like to see explored in an independent inquiry. Thank you for your kind comments in the house about Jim, myself and the group. Be assured that we do want to seen as a determined but responsible group of people."
Indeed, Pam Dix wrote on 8 February to the Foreign Secretary:
"Given your statement in the House of Commons on 31 January that of course others in addition to Abdelbaset Al Megrahi were involved in the destruction of Pan Am 103, we would be grateful if you would clarify what further steps are being considered to bring these 'others' to justice. (We are aware that the intention to appeal has been lodged.) The US State Department
16WH
representative's statements seem unequivocal in their focus on further criminal investigations, yet that is not the impression we gain from the Lord Advocate's public statements."
The difficulty is that the Crown Office is responsible to the Parliament in Edinburgh, but the question asked by the relatives' secretary was a genuine one.
In a subsequent more detailed letter, a copy of which has been sent to the Minister, Pam Dix says:
"We are aware that a great deal of time, effort and expense has been expended on different forms of inquiries into Lockerbie. We are not unappreciative of these efforts. However, each inquiry had its own necessarily narrow remit that did not permit the examination of many of the important questions. The superb technical investigation by the AAIB was confined by statute to establishing how the explosion took place and its effect on the aircraft. The specific put pose of the Fatal Accident Inquiry was to ascertain who died, and how, when and where they died. In addition, the FAI findings established that the disaster was preventable. Since the indictments of the two Libyans in November 1991, the criminal investigation has focused on establishing their guilt or innocence and has not addressed wider issues such as the reasons behind the bombing. The primary focus of the Report to the President by the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism of 1990 was largely on US institutions."
Pamela Dix continues:
"Each one of the above inquiries fulfilled a particular objective. An independent judicial inquiry, however, could draw upon the findings of all these separate inquiries, pulling together the information that has been established, plus examining key areas that have not yet been addressed. This inquiry would provide the means that is needed to understand the overall picture of events leading up to and resulting from the Lockerbie bombing. It is only with this understanding that it will be possible to identify where the failures occurred and lessons can be learned. I know you will share our understanding, and that of many others, that the purpose of an independent inquiry is to establish the facts of what happened and to learn lessons for the future. In his Thames Safety Inquiry Final Report, Lord Justice Clarke makes the point that 'the public (and especially the survivors and the relatives and friends of those who lost their lives) has a legitimate interest in learning the truth of what happened without anything being swept under the carpet.' (Page 7, paragraph 5.3.) With regard to Lockerbie and the issues surrounding tile disaster, we feel that there are a number of specific questions that need to be answered."
She continues:

"It is clear that while the motivation for the bombing has been endlessly speculated on by the media and others, we remain in the dark as to what the motivation was. This is a matter which causes some of the relatives the greatest concern. 1. What is known about motivation and reasons behind the bombing? 2. What, if any, diplomatic lessons can be learned from what is known and can be established about the conduct of the countries involved in Lockerbie? 3. Is it appropriate that 'legitimate' businessmen can sell timers to organisations, individuals and countries, when it is suspected that the purpose of those timers is to blow up aeroplanes, and not be held to account?"
I shall miss out some passages, but Pamela Dix also states:
"One form of possible inquiry is a judicial review that would come under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. Again in the words of Lord Justice Clarke, 'In some cases, public confidence may be undermined if there is not a perception that an inquiry is full, wide-ranging and independent of Government; for example, in cases where the regulatory functions of the investigatory body are called into question.' (Page 166–7.) It seems to us that such a tribunal of inquiry would meet these requirements."

17WH
She moves on to express the considered view of relatives about the witnesses:
"Whatever the status or position of potential witnesses during the period under investigation, the most important point is that the inquiry needs to be such that it has the power to compel witnesses to come before it to give evidence and produce documents. Where possible, witnesses should come from abroad. We would not wish to see a situation where Public Interest Immunity Certificates are issued, as happened at the Fatal Accident Inquiry. It is essential that witnesses cannot use 'parliamentary privilege', for example, to allow them to escape giving evidence."
I do not expect the Minister to respond to these complex issues off the top of his head today, but having received the letter I hope that he will reflect seriously upon the matter.
I refer, too, to the sterner letter to the Prime Minister from Martin Cadman and his wife Rita, who lost their son, Bill, who was 32, which states:
"Rather than guessing we should have the facts. There are people in the UK and the US Government service who know the answers to all our questions. We doubt if any has the courage to speak out unless made to. So we'd better go for the inquiry you and Robin Cook agreed with relatives could be the way ahead. Robin Cook told us on 15 January that after the trial his would not be the lead Department on Lockerbie. He said he would talk with colleagues about his meeting with us. We have not forgotten that Transport Minister Cecil Parkinson offered us an inquiry in September 1989 subject to agreement of colleagues. He subsequently told us his request was refused at the top level. We now wait to hear from Robin Cook."
I am extremely worried about that. I am sure that Cecil Parkinson offered an inquiry in good faith, and just as the relatives were going out of the door, he said, "Mark you, it is subject to colleagues." There was only one colleague who would overturn Parkinson as Transport Secretary, and the question why she did it bothers many of us.
The letter continued:
"What sort of inquiry, and who would run it? I doubt if a US inquiry could be trusted given the US is so involved. In this regard you may know that the US President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism (with special reference to Pan Am Flight 103) recommended on 15th May 1990 that government resources should be prepared for active measures—pre-emptive or retaliatory, direct or covert—against a series of targets in countries well known to have engaged in state-sponsored terrorism.
Would a UK inquiry be trusted and would it have the power to subpoena witnesses from the US Government services in particular? We doubt it. We need an international inquiry with powers to subpoena, backed by UN sanctions. It should be a UN inquiry set up by and reporting to the General Assembly and not involving the Security Council."
Martin and Rita Cadman deserve an answer. They state in their letter to the Prime Minr dated 6 February that they
"cannot put the case for an inquiry better than the Daily Mirror last week: 'An incident which results in a single death is often fully probed. An atrocity that kills 270 people demands a full, open and public inquiry. There must be one and it should explore every avenue, every question, every suggestion. That may raise issues that the Government does not want aired, but that is no reason for not holding one. The quest for the truth must go on.'"
That expresses the urgency with which the relatives want the matter to be pursued.
I suppose that the British and United States Governments have no control over Lee Kreindler, the New York lawyer who is asking for $10 billion for the
18WH
American relatives, but I should like an assurance that neither Government will make demands for $700 million or any other compensation figure until the appeal has been heard. If the issue really is sub judice, are not calls for compensation from Libya at this stage out of order? We should not be quick on the draw.
I again ask the Foreign Office to approach the Swedish Government for the facts about the significant quantity of clothing that could have been bought in Malta, Cyprus or 101 other places in the Mediterranean in the flat of Abu Talb in Sweden. I sat in the court at Camp Zeist and heard Abu Talb being questioned by Bill Taylor, QC and Richard Keen, QC. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said:
"In the fullness of time, this…may produce other leads".—[Official Report, 31 January 2001; Vol. 363, c. 311.]
This is another lead that was not discussed in court.
Will the Government ask the Libyan Government for a candid account of how members of the strategic centres in the 1980s used agents with coded passports and other complex documents to obtain spare parts for Libyan Arab Airlines, which bought planes that had been manufactured in the US or UK and had been subject to sanctions?
I also asked the Foreign Office about its answer to President Mandela on sanctions. President Mandela was as responsible as anyone for getting a trial in a third country. I quote from The Independent:
"Tony Blair and Nelson Mandela are locked in a diplomatic stand-off after the former South African president complained yesterday that Britain had reneged on its undertaking to press for the final lifting of sanctions against Libya.
Mr. Mandela told The Independent yesterday that Britain and the US had 'moved the goalposts' on the issue of lifting sanctions, after he played a vital mediation role with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, to secure the handover of two Libyan suspects wanted for the Lockerbie bombing.
One defendant, former intelligence agent Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, was sentenced to at least 20 years jail…
Mr. Mandela said that he found Mr Blair's letter 'encouraging and very reasonable' and was responding to the Prime Minister yesterday. But he is concerned that the British may be under pressure from the US to maintain sanctions. After the verdict, Washington and London demanded that the Libyan Government pay compensation to the victims' families"
—which I think was slightly premature, in view of the appeal. Is President Mandela being contacted and, if so, what is the outcome? President Mandela sent his secretary to the Cabinet, Jakes Gerwel, on a special mission that made possible the trial in a third country.
I would also like to ask the Foreign Office about a matter that has never been raised. Will it ask the US Government in what circumstances Richard Stirwell in 1991 was sent to Togoland to examine and acquire timing devices made by Ulrich Lumpart and why the CIA and Mr. James Thurman thought it necessary to replicate such timing devices for American use? We are entitled to wonder whether the timer at the centre of the whole argument was ever on "The Maid of the Seas" and whether it was replicated by someone in the United States for his own purposes.
Will the Government obtain an explanation from Colin Powell of why CIA officers cultivated a Libyan traitor, Mr. Majid Jiacha, for nearly two years, reaching serious decisions in respect of his credibility, honesty

19WH
and motivation, yet were prepared to pass him to the FBI and the Department of Justice without apparently passing on their serious doubts and questions?
I also ask the Foreign Office to contact the Government of Jordan for a CV of Marwan Khreesat, including the years when he was not in the service of those favourable to the west.
Will the Government ask the retired bomb expert Peter Gurney, George medal and bar, for his opinion of the skills of Marwan Khreesat?
I refer to the Foreign Secretary's statement:
"I particularly mention the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, who worked very hard to secure the terms under which the two men were handed over for the trial. I hope to speak to Kofi Annan by telephone tomorrow, and we shall see how we can follow the matter up in the United Nations."— [Official Report, 31 January 2001; Vol. 363, c. 312.]
I do not want to delve into private conversations, but any information about that crucial telephone call would be extremely interesting. In particular, may we have a clarification of the agreement or secret annex in which Kofi Annan apparently gave an undertaking that it had been secretly agreed in the west that if either of the accused were found guilty, no attempt would be made to implicate or indict the Libyan leadership and that there would be no other prosecutions? I genuinely do not know about the background to that, which must be clarified.
Will Her Majesty's Government seek a meeting with the Government of Malta about the security set-up at Luqa airport and in particular ask officials with knowledge of baggage reconciliation systems to discuss procedures with Mr. Immanuel Darmanin, the head loader in charge of operators? As he was not called by Crown or defence, I am entitled to ask that question, which was never asked at the trial. Many people find it concerning and confusing that, some years ago, following the transmission of a documentary made by Granada Television wherein it was alleged that an unaccompanied bag had travelled on Air Malta flight KM180, Granada Television was successfully sued by lawyers representing Air Malta, and an out-of-court settlement was reached.
Will the Government try to confirm with the Government of Malta a story that the Maltese Government applied, before 1988, for financial assistance from the United States Federal Aviation Authority to improve the security at Luqa airport, but were turned down on the basis that Malta was not a third-world country and it was believed that security at Luqa airport was satisfactory?
Another issue about Mary's House was never raised in court and needs to be clarified. Megrahi was present in Malta on 7 December 1988 but not on 23 November 1988—the only other date on which the clothes and umbrella could have been bought. Having bought the clothes, the purchaser left the shop to engage a taxi. It was raining at that time, which is why he bought the umbrella. The meteorological evidence—
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I would feel much happier if he kept away from constant references to the
20WH
evidence given at the trial. I remind him of yesterday's ruling by Mr. Speaker. The case is sub judice. It is difficult to interpret what might be in transgression of a sub judice ruling, but I must err on the side of caution. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to refrain in the remainder of his remarks from any reference to the trial or to where the appellant might have been at any time. I hope that I have made myself clear.
Mr. Dalyell: You have been very patient, Mr. Benton, and I, too, am extremely conscious of the appeal. Having been through the huge 81-page judgment with a fine-toothed comb, I have deliberately not asked a number of questions and have kept out of anything that was referred to in that judgment. To the best of my knowledge, the matter that I am raising was not raised in evidence to the court. It was not raised in the judgment. My question is to the Government of Malta and about geography and meteorological conditions. It was raining at the relevant time on 23 November 1988, but there was no rain on 7 December or, at most, a few drops, which would not have proved sufficient to wet the pavements.
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. I honestly accept the hon. Gentleman's good will, but I must point out that, if he refers in any way, shape or form during the remainder of the debate to the trial, the appeal or anything of significance to them, I will have to rule him out of order. That will be a final ruling. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks that that places constraints on him, but we must err on the side of caution. I hope that he understands exactly what I am saying. I assure him that he will receive as much largesse as possible from the Chair, but I must be firm on the sub judice ruling.
Mr. Dalyell: I must be obedient to the Chair. I must leave out questions that I genuinely thought had not been raised. If there is any dubiety about it I am, of course, obedient to the Chair and a respecter of courts. I do not know whether it is in order to ask about American representations in the court itself. I think that I am on delicate ground in asking about Mr. Bhiel and Mr. Murtaugh. If there is any doubt about that, I had better not do so.
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman is right. I appreciate that it is a difficult situation. We are handicapped by the fact that we do not know what material might be presented in the appeal. I am afraid that once again I must stress that I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would restrain from remarking upon the trial itself and the form that an appeal might take.
Mr. Dalyell: You have been very patient, Mr. Benton. I have had my 25 minutes. I just rest the case on the difficult issues of the civil test of the balance of probabilities and finding murder beyond reasonable doubt. Those are grave issues and we must wait for the appeal.
Part of the difficulty, as I said on a point of order in the House yesterday, is that this is not an ordinary trial. Potentially appalling international consequences hang on this verdict. It must be a matter of general international concern that these questions should be

21WH
asked. If one had the assurance that nothing would be done by Britain or the United States in terms of sanctions, let alone military action before the appeal procedure is exhausted, I should be happy. There are various accounts of the meeting on 8 February between Colin Powell and some of the American relatives. Some of those American relatives, if the serious American press is to be believed, told Colin Powell that he should bomb Tripoli. There was also a call from people whose names I know, but will not reveal here, for nuclear weapons to be dropped on Tripoli. That has been reported in the American press. I hope that there will be none of that ever, but certainly not before the legal processes are exhausted.
I thank you for your patience, Mr. Benton, and I look forward to the Foreign Office reflections. I would not criticise the Minister if he did not address these points today, but sooner or later they must be addressed.
10.58 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I thank my old and honourable Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for initiating the debate and for his continued interest in Libyan affairs. As he said, this is his 16th debate on the subject and I hope that it is productive for him. Apart from anything else, it has revealed that he has been keeping a diary all these years. I am sure that when the record is read, publishers will be beating a path to his door.
Just as my hon. Friend began with a little historical context to the debate, I should recall the background to the original rupture of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Libya. As we are all aware, for more than a decade two separate issues prevented us from maintaining normal diplomatic relations with Libya, not just Lockerbie. Diplomatic relations were broken off in 1984 over Libya's refusal to co-operate with the investigation into the killing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, who was shot while carrying out her duties in front of the Libyan People's Bureau in St. James's Square. The second issue, which prevented normal diplomatic relations, was the Libyan refusal to hand over the two men charged with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988.
United Nations sanctions were imposed on Libya in 1992 as a result of its refusal to comply with the investigations into the bombings of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 and of the French UTA airliner in 1989. As my hon. Friend is well aware, the diplomatic stalemate over the Lockerbie issue was broken by the Government's initiative in offering a trial before Scottish judges, under Scots law, in a third country. Intensive and patient diplomacy produced an agreement by Libya to hand over both suspects who subsequently stood trial at Camp Zeist, and, following the surrender of al-Megrahi and al-Fhimah in 1999, UN sanctions on Libya were suspended.
That agreement did not solve the outstanding bilateral problem relating to the killing of WPC Fletcher. In the weeks following the handover of al-Megrahi and al-Fhimah we engaged in repeated exchanges with the Libyan Government in an attempt to secure their co-operation with the police investigation and that resulted in a joint statement by the two Governments.
22WH
In that statement, Libya accepted general responsibility for the actions of those in the Libyan People's Bureau at the time of the shooting and it expressed deep regret to the family of WPC Fletcher for what occurred and offered to pay compensation to the family. The Libyan authorities agreed to co-operate fully with the continuing Metropolitan police investigation and to accept its outcome.
At this point I am sure my hon. Friend will join me in paying tribute to the Fletcher family, who have born Yvonne's loss with dignity, and those police officers who have carried out and continue to carry out this long investigation. I can assure hon. Members that the Government will continue to press the Libyan authorities for their full co-operation.
Mr. Dalyell: I endorse that tribute to Queenie Fletcher who, like the Lockerbie relatives, behaved with great dignity.
Mr. Wilson: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment.
However, the immediate point in this context is the positive one that those two agreements opened the way for us to resume diplomatic relations with Libya in July 1999, and the British interest section in Tripoli was upgraded to embassy status. At the end of 1999 we appointed an ambassador and we have worked to bring the embassy up to full strength. As a result, the 4,000 or so British citizens there had full consular protection restored to them, and full diplomatic representation has the positive effect of enabling us to monitor Libyan cooperation with the police investigation into the killing of Yvonne Fletcher. As I have said, we expect Libya to honour its commitment to co-operate fully with the police investigation at all stages, and that, logically, must include the final stage if any individual is identified by the police.
I come now to the Lockerbie trial, although I am obviously mindful of what you have said, Mr. Benton, and the fact that we are all subject to the constraints that the pending appeal imposes upon us. Again, I take this opportunity to offer my sympathy to the families of the victims and pay tribute to the way in which they have dealt with this devastating tragedy. I remember being in the House of Commons on the night of the Lockerbie bombing. It is something that I will never forget, with which, in one way or another, however tangentially, we have all lived since that night. As we all know, the Scottish judges in the Netherlands—my hon. Friend has as good a reason as anyone to respect Scottish judges—returned their verdict on 31 January, and one of the two accused, al-Megrahi, was found guilty of the murder of 270 people on Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. The second, al-Fhimah, was acquitted.
The criminal investigation into the crime was the largest in British history, and the dedication of the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary and the efforts of the families in their pursuit of justice were admired by all. Without their efforts and the complex diplomatic initiatives, the Lockerbie trial would not have come about.
As Mr. al-Megrahi has appealed, hon. Members will understand if I do not comment on the substance of the legal arguments. It might be worth mentioning, and I

23WH
am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact, that if Mr. al-Megrahi's appeal is not upheld, we have given an undertaking to Libya that it will be allowed consular access to Mr. al-Megrahi in Scotland.
Following the verdict at Camp Zeist, international attention has turned to the question of whether the United Nations—I stress the United Nations should lift sanctions in Libya. I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the Foreign Secretary to the House of Commons following the verdict. The initiative to hold the trial at Camp Zeist was taken by the Government and secured by agreement with the Governments of the Netherlands, the United States and Libya. However, we made those arrangements in accordance with resolution 1192 of the UN Security Council, a resolution that is binding on all member states. Libya has complied with some of the requirements of the Security Council, such as handing over the two suspects. In the light of the guilty verdict, we now expect the Libyan Government to fulfil the remaining requirements.
I can announce that the UK and the USA will begin talks today in New York with Libya. We will focus on the remaining requirements—no more, no less. Those requirements are not fulfilled simply by the trial having come to an end.
Mr. Dalyell: I welcome the fact that there will be talks and urge the Libyans to be as candid as possible on the questions that I have asked about the whole sanctions-busting efforts in relation to Libyan/Arab airlines. They must be candid.
Mr. Wilson: I welcome that constructive response from my hon. Friend. It is clearly right to engage in the discussions that begin today.
I again set out the requirements that remain outstanding. The Security Council—I stress that it is the Security Council that imposes these requirements rather than individual countries—requires Libya to accept responsibility for the actions of its officials and to pay appropriate compensation. Libya also needs to satisfy us that it has renounced terrorism and disclosed all that it knows of the Lockerbie crime.
Hon. Members may ask how the Security Council can expect Libya to accept responsibility for the actions of its officials. If an internationally wrongful act is committed against a state or its nationals by the agents of another state acting as such, that state is responsible, in international law, for the wrongful act. The Scottish court found al-Megrahi guilty of the charge in the indictment that:
"Megrahi, being a member of the Libyan Intelligence Service … while acting in concert with others, formed a criminal purpose to destroy a civil passenger aircraft and murder the occupants in furtherance of the purposes of the said Libyan Intelligence Services"
The opinion of the court stated:
"The clear inference which we draw from this evidence is that the conception, planning, and execution of the plot which led to the planting of the explosive device was of Libyan origin"
We shall be discussing with Libya how we can achieve compliance with all the requirements and I can confirm that, once satisfactory arrangements have been made,
24WH
we will agree to the lifting of sanctions. It is important that those who wish o see the issue resolved successfully and quickly should not upset the delicate, diplomatic discussions.
To lift sanctions before all the requirements have been met would be premature and it would send a worrying message to countries that are subject to sanctions about the Security Council's determination to ensure that necessary conditions are met before sanctions are lifted.
My hon. Friend referred to the comments of Nelson Mandela and recognised that the Prime Minister had been in touch with him and reassured him that the requirements for the lifting of sanctions had not been changed and were set out in UN resolutions that represented the collective will of the international community. My hon. Friend acknowledged that the response from Nelson Mandela to that letter recognised the Prime Minister's good will.
Mr. Dalyell: I tm very glad to hear that the Government are in touch with ex-President Mandela.
Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
I come now to the demand for an independent inquiry. My hon. Friend fairly referred to that at length, as well as to the views of the relatives on the type of inquiry that they want. The detail is secondary to the fundamental question of whether there should be such an inquiry. As the Foreign Secretary said in his immediate post-trial statement, it would simply be inappropriate to reach a view on an inquiry at this stage. That is because al Megrahi, the Libyan intelligence official found guilty by the Scottish court, has submitted an appeal, and no inquiry can start until it is concluded. It is right that my hon. Friend has put the views of the relatives on the record, but it is equally right, as I am sure he recognises, that I cannot comment, beyond saying that it would be inappropriate to reach a view on an inquiry at this stage.
Mr. Dalyell: Hindsight is a marvellous thing, but it is a pity that Mr. al-Megrahi was never put in the dock by the defence.
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. Any reference to Mr. al-Megrahi, and to the previous court sitting is out of order. I have already explained the position.
Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend asked for an assurance that the views of the relatives would be the subject of serious reflection. I give him that assurance.
In addition to our engagement with the Libyan Government in international, multilateral forums on issues of international concern, since 1999 we have had the opportunity to conduct a full bilateral dialogue. We welcome the Libyan Government's appointment of a senior ambassador to London, which will allow our exchanges to deepen further. The best way to handle our differences is through such a dialogue—both critical and constructive.
My hon. Friend must also be aware, not least because of his remarks regarding the comments made in the United States, of the criticism of the Government for developing our relations with Libya too quickly,

25WH
without due regard for the past. That is misplaced. The restoration of diplomatic relations does not mean that we give up on the difficult issues. On the contrary, on a wide range of issues of concern—UN sanctions, Libya's human rights record and its attempts to acquire enhanced missile technology—we can engage with Libya with greater frequency and to greater effect as a result of the dialogue that those exchanges have promoted. We are convinced that we cannot expect to influence Libya's behaviour without such engagement. That is the context in which it should be understood.
Our long-term aim is to have a Libya that co-operates with the international community and that respects international law. That will not only ensure that there is no return to support for international terrorism, but encourage the emergence of a responsible partner willing to devote its many assets and energies to the positive promotion of prosperity throughout the region. We look forward to a future in which Libya plays a full part in the European-Mediterranean community and in the Barcelona process. As I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, that will be in all our interests.
I shall look carefully at the record of my hon. Friend's remarks to see if there are any matters on which I can usefully write to him. I recognise the diligence with which he has pursued these issues and the spirit in which he has raised them.
11.13 am
Sitting suspended.

London Underground
11.30 am
Mr. John Wilkinson: It is a privilege to initiate this debate on the proposed public-private partnership for London Underground. I declare at the outset a deep political interest. My constituency of Ruislip-Northwood contains eight tube stations served by three lines—the Metropolitan, the Piccadilly and the Central. The Metropolitan is a sub-surface line; the other two are deep lines and the underground system is vital to my constituents who want to get to work and to visit the capital, as it is for many people up and down the country.
The proposed public-private partnership for London Underground is an essential element in the manifesto pledges made by the Labour party at the last general election. Many of these have been only partially fulfilled. The electorate understand over-optimism from a political party and condone over-optimism so long as they can see that honest efforts are being made by the party in government to deliver on the undertakings given.
The Government have totally failed to fulfil their promises about the modernisation of the London underground system, promises extravagantly proclaimed in the Labour party's manifesto for London, which urged people to vote for new Labour "because London deserves better".
The London manifesto's slogan is true today, but I doubt very much whether Londoners will be compelled to vote Labour. At the last election, the Labour party received a huge majority of seats in the capital on a swing of some 13 per cent. against the national average of some 10 per cent. Of course, as a consequence, the Conservatives hold only 11 out of the 72 seats in the capital. The electorate obviously believed that, in the Prime Minister's words on the London manifesto, which were proclaimed with his signature underneath, echoing very much his boasts about the Millennium dome, that London would be "a showcase for Britain". Central to the renewal of the capital would be "A modern transport system". London's Labour manifesto stated:
"Londoners want a clean, efficient, safe and reliable transport system to get them where they want when they want. Other cities in Britain and Europe see modern railways, trams and bus services as vital to their future. London's transport system suffers from a lack of investment and direction. Londoners have no say.
We will change all that. In future, the Greater London Authority, elected by Londoners, will appoint the Board which runs London Transport. Even more important, it will have overall strategic responsibility for transport in London.
The Tories' only answer is a wholesale privatisation of the tube which would be a poor deal for the taxpayer and passengers alike. Most Londoners reject the idea. Yet again, public assets would be sold off cheaply. Much-needed investment would be delayed. The core public responsibilities of the Underground would be threatened. Labour plans a new public/private partnership to improve the Underground, safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers."
Of course, privatisation of the London Underground system is history. What might have been, we can only speculate about. We can be certain that it would be in place by now, and the modernisation would have been well under way. However, history moves on, and we in politics move on.

27WH
By May last year, it was clear that Labour's failure to deliver on the public-private partnership for the modernisation of London Underground had already cost the Labour party majority support in London, with the Tories leading Labour by 36 to 34 per cent. in votes for the Greater London Assembly. Labour's official candidate, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who stood loyally by Labour's commitment to the public-private partnership for the underground, trailed lamentably behind the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) who, with almost every breath on the hustings, declared the Governments' public-private partnership for the tube to be anathema.
As for the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, his only visible contribution to London's transport system is the notorious red traffic lane from Heathrow, personally designated by him for ministerial Jaguars and the occasional bus.
What about the long-suffering public, whose interest was to be safeguarded by the public-private partnership, and for whom value for money was to be guaranteed as taxpayers and passengers? For them, it is persistent interminable delays, overcrowding, unreliable services, dirty underground trains and stations, disinterested staff and frequent strikes, for which daily horrors they pay fares which each year increase by well above inflation. Annual breakdowns on the London Underground system have been some 20 per cent. higher since 1997 than under the Conservatives. Does the Labour party ditty "Things can only get better" ring ironically in commuters' ears, as they strap-hang stoically towards a late arrival at work or vital personal appointment, trapped in a seething, malodorous, frustrated mass of impotent humanity? One might imagine that the arrival of the people's mayor to office would have changed all that. After all, did not Labour's London manifesto say that he was needed:
"to provide a voice for London"
promoting, among other things,
"a top quality transport system"
Under him, Labour's transport system's lack of investment and direction would be of the past. The manifesto boasted:
"We will change all that. In future, the Greater London Authority, elected by Londoners, will appoint the Board which runs London Transport. Even more important, it will have overall strategic responsibility for transport in London."
The reality is of course very different. The mayor, instead of providing a voice for London, effectively promotes industrial action by the trade unions, which is in itself a remarkable dereliction of duty to the wider public that he was elected to serve. He seems keener to serve a narrow sectarian interest. I hope that you will allow me to make this observation, Mr. Benton. I understand that it is normal to give notice to other hon. Members of an intention to criticise them, but I am not so much criticising him personally. We all like the hon. Member for Brent, East—it is the office of mayoralty that has not lived up to public expectations.
Transport for London, which was to provide strategic decisions about the future of transport in London, has had to become operational without its principal
28WH
constituent element, London Underground. Its chief executive, Bob Kiley, brought in at great expense from the United States by the mayoralty to institute the modernisation of the tube, found when he arrived that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions would not give him the full facts and figures on which the Government?s public-private partnership for the tube is based. He also found that he was in the crossfire of a publicly conducted war of words between his political master, the mayor, who wanted to fund the tube's modernisation by a bond issue, and the DETR in the rumbustious figure of the Secretary of State, backed by the Treasury, which, conscious of the consequences for the public sector borrowing requirement of a Government-backed bond issue, stuck by the PPP, despite the fears of the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, the National Audit Office, the rail unions, countless experts and the anxious public that, without unified management and a clear line of command, the underground system would prove inefficient and less than safe. As for the financial figures, even the NAO seemed hardly able to add them up and came to a clear conclusion. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking, not just towards election day.
There are serious issues at stake. Moneys from the sale of infrastructure leases from the PPP to the infrastructure companies—to the bidders—should have been coming on-stream from April 2001. The Treasury has made no provision from the end of this financial year for grants from the Exchequer to fund the tube system. Instead, because of the delays in instituting the PPP, the underground system will have to remain on drip-feed from the Treasury, while the backlog of improvements to the system grows. Perhaps most important of all, the bidding consortiums for the two groups of deep lines become more financially exposed. The consortiums bidding for the sub-surface lines, which are running behind in the bidding process, are of course also exposed
Small wonder that the main headline on page 1 of Construction News, 8 February 2001, screams "Tube bid teams at end of tether". The article states:
"Teams short-listed to revamp London's Tube network are on the verge of splitting up as privatisation plans descend into chaos."
It is worth putting on record what Construction News calls "a countdown to confusion", and the chronology of events as evidence of the horrendous delays and incompetence over the bringing about of the PPP, if indeed it is to come to fruition. On 20 March 1998, the Secretary of State announced the tube's PPP plans. On 5 July 2000, bidders were short-listed for the deep tube lines contracts. On 13 December 2000, the newly appointed Transport for London chief Bob Kiley attacked the Government's PPP and put forward his plans for a bond-funded alternative. On 18 December 2000, bidders for the two deep-line contracts were told to re-price the job, and selection of a preferred bidder was put back until the end of January 2001. On 2 February 2001, the Government and Bob Kiley announced plans to work together to find mutually agreeable changes. Bidders were told that they were likely to have to re-submit revised proposals. On 5 February 2001, best and final offers were handed in by LINC, Metronet and Surface Lines Group for the £4 billion sub-surface lines upgrade.

29WH
Bidders need certainty, so that they can cost-effectively deploy their resources up to the end of the contract, which they hope, of course, will be at an early date. When will those contracts be let? I ask the Minister, who has responsibility for London, to state unequivocally what the dates will be. The companies, those who work for them, their investors, shareholders and not least the travelling public deserve to know.
As I made clear in that chronology, the Secretary of State made the first announcement to the House in March 1998. The manifesto was issued in May 1997. The Government must have known, or should have known, what a public-private partnership entailed before putting it in a manifesto. If they did not, it was, in essence, a fraudulent prospectus. There have been estimates that, if the PPP were to fall apart—there is no certainty that the PPP will be carried into effect following the latest concordat that seems to have been struck by the Transport Commission and the Secretary of State—a new system for tube modernisation might take up to two years to put in place
What are the financial implications of all that? I spoke about the drip-feed from the Treasury, but the Treasury is hardly going to be delighted about further recourse to public funds by London Underground, particularly when its spending plans are under criticism from the European Union and many commentators, not least the Conservative party. The fact is that the Secretary of State was forced to climb down from his insistence on the public-private partnership by the fear that the Transport Commissioner might walk away and return to the United States amid much public acrimony.
Bob Kiley has, in protracted negotiations with the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, forced on the Government a total rethink of the PPP. There is speculation that the preferred bidders for the two deep-level sets of lines will not be known until after the general election. If so, the Government would have utterly and completely failed to fulfil their manifesto commitment.
What would happen if the delays forced the bidders— I ask the Minister to reply to the point—to make a claim on the Government for the costs of their bids? Presumably, if Bob Kiley has indeed forced a rethink on the Government, the original bids in answer to the original tenders will have to be modified. It will cost them money, as will further delays while those bids are scrutinised and decisions made.
Bob Kylie may want a unified management structure. Surely, it should have been insisted upon at the outset of the bidding process, so that the bidding companies knew how the overall system would be managed before they responded to the tenders. In the words of a bidder quoted in Construction News on 8 February:
"Prescott's handling of all of this has been abysmal. What has he delivered on? It's probably easier getting contracts in central Africa."
Perhaps it is. I am not a central African expert. Nor am I an expert on Ugandan affairs, but whether after the next general election, or even after the next mayoral election, I am sure that we Conservatives w ill have to clear up the mess.
Bob Kiley has the good wishes of the House any— professional should have them—as do the consortiums that have deployed their resources financial, material
30WH
and intellectual, to answer the tenders of the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. The modernisation of the tube system is the earnest desire of our constituents, not least in London constituencies such as mine, but the bidding contractors for the PPP, in current circumstances, also have our sympathy. As for Her Majesty's Government, for indecision, procrastination and sheer incompetence, they win all the booby prizes.
11.49 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing the debate. I am always delighted to respond to any debate that he secures, even though at our last encounter he described me as a poor imitation of Frankie Howerd.
I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's continuing ability to be taken by surprise at the progress of the public-private partnership. On the occasion of the debate when the hon. Gentleman made those kind remarks about me, he and other Conservative Members excelled themselves by demanding that we enter into discussions with Bob Kiley that were already under way, and by insisting that we provide information—I am tempted to say "titter ye not"—that we had actually supplied some time before. Now they are treating the agreement reached between my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr. Kiley as some kind of unexpected and dramatic development. It shows that the Opposition still have not caught up.
That agreement was, in fact, the result of weeks of discussion with Transport for London, including four meetings between the Deputy Prime Minister and Bob Kiley. We made it clear in the House and elsewhere that the Government welcomed Mr. Kiley's appointment, and that we looked forward to working with him to find the best solution for London Underground. That is exactly what we are doing now.
A further area where the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are having difficulty in keeping up with the argument is their attitude to the future of the underground. We are, of course, determined to avoid the mistakes of past privatisations, mistakes that the hon. Gentleman seems determined to repeat. In January 1999, he said:
"Sadly, we never had the chance to float London Underground and find out what the market price would be."—[Official Report, 27 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 424.]
But as the hon. Gentleman said in his speech, history moves on. However, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has caught up with it because apparently things are starting to change. The Evening Standard last Monday said:
"Under the new policy, to be announced later this month, the Conservatives will accept that London Underground should remain state-owned under the control of transport commissioner Bob Kiley."
State-owned—that from the party which gave us rail privatisation, that from the party which, until last week, was in favour of flogging off London Underground to the private sector lock, stock and barrel. The lady may not have been for turning, but her successors in the Conservative party have made so many U-turns that

31WH
they are in danger of disappearing up their own vortex. The noble Baroness Thatcher must be spinning in her seat in the other place.
However, far be it from me to reject the sinner who repenteth. Evidently, the Opposition have finally recognised the benefits, on which we and Mr. Kiley have been agreed all along, of a publicly owned, publicly controlled tube, and I welcome them on board—better late than never. But after taking so long to come to such an obvious conclusion, I have to admire their cheek in saying that the PPP is taking too long to implement.
We have heard plenty of speculation about the agreement between the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr. Bob Kiley, so I shall make it clear. The Deputy Prime Minister and Bob Kiley announced on Friday 2 February that they would work together to develop modifications to the PPP. Contrary to press speculation, those talks are about modifications designed to strengthen the PPP framework, not to replace it. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's assertion, there is no question of the PPP having been abandoned.
We have agreed that Mr. Kiley will now take the lead in working with the Government in developing mutually acceptable modifications to the PPP. That will involve retaining the key feature of transferring risk through private sector equity in the three Infracos.
The existing tender process will continue with the current bidders; we will, of course, be discussing any possible modifications to the PPP with them. We expect, if there is agreement, that there is likely to be another round of bidding with the existing bidding consortiums being asked to provide last and final PPP bids.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will the Minister explain more fully what he means by modifications to the PPP? Are not those bound to lead to revisions of the tenders submitted by the bidding companies, and who will pay the extra costs of that additional bidding process? Will they be reimbursed, and when will the contracts be let?
Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman has left me with relatively little time, but I hope to deal with precisely those questions in the short time remaining. The Government and Transport for London will jointly evaluate any revised bids to decide whether they are acceptable to both parties. London Underground remains responsible for the PPP and will award the contracts.
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I was struck by his comment regarding the short time left. The debate has until 12.30 am.
Mr. Hill: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Stevenson. Knowing of your inveterate involvement in Adjournment debates, when you entered the Chamber I assumed that you had come for an Adjournment debate, not to chair our proceedings. I am delighted to discover you in the Chair, and to learn that we have more time to deal with the hon. Gentleman's questions. I hope to deal with them as fully as possible in due course.
32WH
The key tests that the Government established for the PPP remain the same: is it best value for money, tested against a public sector comparator; and will it maintain and improve safety? In other words, is it the best deal for London?
We have also heard speculation about the safety implications of the proposals. That was ostensibly the reason for the recent industrial action. I reiterate that our approach to safety and the PPP is unchanged. The Government will not contemplate any solution that does not contribute significantly to improved safety. The legal position is that the PPP cannot go ahead otherwise.
Two major revisions to the London Underground's railway safety case have already been accepted by the Health and Safety Executive, and a third is subject to on-going assessment by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, and further improvements by London Underground. The point of those revisions to the safety case is to ensure that the PPP brings continuing improvement to safety on the tube.
London Underground's safety record is good, but it can always get better. Increasing numbers on the tube have put more pressure on the system, and that led to increases in passenger injuries during the 1990s. Recently, lapses halve been noted by HMRI, but that is very much what we would expect. The shadow running of the PPP is designed to test and expose the system with the utmost rigour, so that any problems that emerge can be put right. Safety authorities have consistently made it clear that they will rot allow the PPP to proceed until they are sure that that has been done.
In the light of that, claims that the recent industrial action was somehow in response to the compromising of safety are just wrong. I greatly regret any inconvenience to passengers caused by the industrial action, and am glad that the action has been suspended. I hope that London Transport and the unions come to agreement without any more unnecessary disruption.
I come back to the point that the effect of the PPP will be to improve safety. The tube is already running on a safety case that the safety authorities regarded as an advance on previous safety cases. In the longer term, the best way to improve the safety of the system is to ensure that it gets the high and stable levels of investment needed. That is exactly what the PPP will bring.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman asked me many questions and I was about to deal with some of those, but with the new flexibility that we discover in our proceedings I will be happy to deal with further interventions.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the competition process. With regard to whether we will have to scrap the old competition and start again, the answer is no. Mr. Kiley will develop modifications to the existing PPP competition. What will happen to the existing bidders, and will we invite new bidders? Let me emphasise again that the existing tender process will continue with the current bidders. We will, of course, be discussing any possible modifications to the PPP with the bidders.
It has been suggested that the bidders are becoming impatient, and that they might be tempted to walk away due to delays and changes. The hon. Gentleman

33WH
certainly alluded to some rather dramatic headlines. However, I do not believe that they will. The bidders recognise the benefits in Mr. Kiley and the Government working together to get the best out of the PPP. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of more guarantees to cover costs. London Underground has already revised the arrangements for bid cost support to take account of the likelihood of a further bidding round. There is nothing unusual there. Arrangements for bid cost support have been revised before as the PPP competition has developed.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the time scale. The process that we have announced is to take forward the three existing competitions. The Government, London Underground, the mayor and Transport for London are all working together to get the deal done without unnecessary delay. Our aim is to agree any modifications to the PPP by the end of February. With regard to the completion date for the competition, we do not intend to allow an artificial timetable to get in the way of ensuring that we get the best deal. There is no change in Government policy on that matter.
Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation about the time scale. Will he amplify his remark that the intention of the modifications to the PPP was to strengthen the public-private partnership, not to replace it? He went on to say that the PPP would be examined against the public sector comparator. Is it, therefore, the case that Mr. Kiley has forced on the Government a fundamental re-examination of the principles of the PPP? If the PPP is in the frame against the public sector comparator, and if it will be implemented only if it produces better value for money than the public sector comparator, surely there are still elements in doubt that could lead to an extended time scale.
Mr. Hill: I fear that the hon. Gentleman may be labouring under a misapprehension about the public sector comparator. We have always said that we would submit the final proposals and bids to a public sector comparator. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman referred to the work of the National Audit Office, which we asked to come in precisely to test the robustness of the public sector comparator. The public sector comparator will go forward and test the bids against conventional funding. Only if the bids stand up to that test with the public sector comparator will we go ahead. That has always been unequivocally a central element in the Government's approach to the matter. We have always said that the essential criterion wil1 be that the PPP contributes to enhanced safety.
34WH
I repeat that there is no question of an abandonment of the PPP. Mr. Kiley is now engaged in examining, with the Government and London Underground, modifications within the structure of the PPP. It is too early to say what exactly those modifications may be. Mr. Kiley will focus on what changes will be necessary to give Transport for London the degree of control that it needs to ensure that the PPP delivers the best deal for London.
I must conclude my remarks. However, it is worth going back to the beginning and reminding ourselves why the London Underground PPP was necessary in the first place. It arises, of course, from the miserable legacy left to us by the previous Government, whose years of under-funding of the tube had left a massive backlog of investment, and whose planned cuts at the time they were kicked out of office would have accelerated the decline of the system still further.
It is a cliché to say that a problem cannot be solved by throwing money at it. It would be more accurate to say that money alone will not solve a problem. In the short term, money was what the tube needed, and we, the Labour Government, provided it. We have provided an additional £365 million for London Transport in 1998 over and above existing plans; £517 million of additional resources announced in 1999; and last year a further £65 million for London Underground on top of all that, plus an additional £40 million to deal with claims on the Jubilee line extension—almost £1 billion extra Government support already.
We always said that in the long term what was needed was a stable form of funding, insulated as far as possible from the stop-go annual funding round and the need to compete with claims from other good causes, such as the NHS and schools. That is what the PPP is designed to do, and that is what it will still do, in any improved form that we agree with Mr. Kiley. As I said earlier, the key feature of transferring risk through private sector equity in the three Infracos remains in place.
We are working hard with London Underground, Bob Kiley and Transport for London to settle on the optimum version of the PPP acceptable to all parties. There is still a lot to do, but we share the overriding objective of providing the best possible underground service for London. Once we have settled the matter, we will finally have the publicly owned, publicly accountable and, most important, properly funded tube system for which Londoners have had to wait for so long.
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Because the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) is present, and I understand that the Minister will reply, we may begin the next debate, which must finish by 1 o'clock, so we have a bonus.

LTS Railway
12.7 pm
Mr. John Cryer: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate. I also thank the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, who will be responding to this debate. I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend, who was my Whip for a year. I saw a great deal of him then—probably a good deal more than he would have liked, considering my voting record.
Today's debate follows the debate that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) two or three weeks ago, to which my hon. Friend the Minister responded, and it draws on the same issues and material. It is concerned with the c2c railway, which was known previously as the London Tilbury Southend railway, the LTS railway. For some reason that I cannot understand, the name was changed to c2c, which is an unfortunate acronym, as it gives rise to all sorts of nicknames. Carriages too crowded is one that circulates in Rainham in my constituency. As well as passing through my hon. Friend's constituency of Thurrock, the railway passes through Rainham in my constituency. I am concerned mainly with that part of the railway, the Tilbury loop.
I travel on the railway regularly—just about every day. I usually travel on the main line and sometimes on the Tilbury loop. The service is not great on either, but I shall concentrate on the service on the Tilbury loop. For many years my constituents who travel from Rainham—and some of those of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock who travel to Rainham and then catch the train from there—have had to put up with shoddy conditions, delays, cancellations and regular overcrowding.
More than two years ago I was one of the founder members of the Rainham rail users group, which is a fine campaigning organisation. We have met the management of c2c or LTS, or however they prefer to be known, many times, but it has not had an enormous impact. My constituents are enormously patient. They have been patient in the meetings, in their correspondence with the railway company and in putting up with all the delays and overcrowding.
Let me provide an example. One of the founding members of the Rainham rail users group who has chaired the group on more than one occasion recently wrote to me. She is not one of my constituents; she lives in Thurrock, but regularly travels from Rainham. She told me that she often had to travel in the guards van, once with 36 other people. That is clearly unacceptable. It is an anecdote, but it is an example of the conditions that people have to contend with on the railways.
Let me provide some figures. For the period ending March 2000, LTS had timetabled 109,717 trains, of which 13,132, or 12 per cent., were either late or cancelled—an unacceptably high figure. Short formations—when eight carriages are reduced to four, for example—have increased by 486 per cent. in the past few months.
The longstanding reason behind the delays, the overcrowding and the huge increase in short formations is the lack of new trains. Almost since privatisation
36WH
began, we were promised new trains, and over the past three years, we have heard even more frequently—particularly from the engineering company Adtranz—that new trains are on their way. Brand new class 357 trains were ordered some time ago in preference to models with an existing safety certificate—another serious concern.
The Rainham rai1 users group was in continuous discussions and correspondence with LTS and was continuously given promises. I received a letter from Ken Bird, the managing director of LTS, on 2 July 1998. He pointed out in that letter, which exemplified the customary verbosity for which he was famous:
"We are currently investing £320 million in new trains… We are now at the tail end of removing what nationalisation meant for LTS Rail between 1975 and 1990, i.e. no investment. I know, I managed it."
That is a bit rich. At the tail end of public ownership, the only significant investment in the LTS line over the past few years has been the £150 million signalling system. We are still waiting, for the new trains. At the end of the letter, Ken Bird said:
"We are not there yet but give me another 18 months and judge us then."
That was more than 18 months ago, so it would be churlish not to judge LTS against its own criteria. It is now 18 months later and the class 357 trains are still not in service.
What happened? The trains started running in March last year, but promptly broke down. The software, among other things went wrong and the trains did not work properly. I recall being stuck behind one for an hour in Limehouse on the way to a meeting in Hornchurch. That was a pretty regular problem while those trains were in operation. They all broke down and were all taken out of service. They may still be experimenting with two or three class 357 trains, but they are not in service, so we are stuck with the old slam-door stock, which is a minimum of 40 years old.
Unfortunately, when the class 357s came into service for that brief period last year, c2c jumped the gun and prematurely scrapped much of its old slam-door stock. It was then left short of trains, because when the new trains went out of service, there was insufficient stock. It has since leased in some more of the old slam-door stock, but it is simply not sufficient. The company admits quite freely that it is well down on the stock that it needs to provide a suitable service for LTS or c2c customers. To give an example in respect of the new trains, c2c is now on software package 10.5. Obviously, it started with software package 1 and is now on 10.5. Apparently, in November all the software went back to its supplier in Switzerland.
I also point out that Adtranz ran out of penalties. In the original agreement between c2c and Adtranz there were obviously penalties in the event that Adtranz was late in supplying the trains. That agreement was so poorly put together that there are now no more penalties, so presumably Adtranz could take from now until doomsday to supply the new trains. There would be no more penalties, so it could carry on in its own sweet way.
The former managing director, Ken Bird, who is no longer in place, consistently promised wonderful improvements to the stations, including Rainham.

37WH
I regularly asked him specifically about Rainham and I know that certain other Members of Parliament asked him about improvements to stations in their constituencies. The stations now have automatic ticket barriers. I admit that c2c successfully installed the automatic ticket barriers, but they are simply insufficient to cope with the volume of people going through the station in peak hours, so they are left open. I was talking to one of my constituents two days ago and he said that every time he goes through, the barriers are open. People can wander in and out of the station because the barriers cannot cope with the volumes of people.
There is no public address system at Rainham station, and the waiting room is still awaiting renovation. It has no window, no door and no heating. The toilets are also awaiting renovation and the clock on the London-bound platform is inoperative. One or two of my more cynical correspondents would say that it is so that people do not know when a train is late. I am not entirely sure that that is the case, but that is the local suspicion that exists.
In the summer of last year, National Express decided to take over Prism, the parent company of c2c. The directors of Prism recommended that the takeover should go ahead. Some vested interests may have been involved because certain Prism directors benefited from this takeover to the tune of £37 million. I made a few what I thought were quite mild, liberal and well-judged comments in the local press, as I always do. I then received an interesting letter from the new general manager of c2c, who attacked me in what I considered to be fairly harsh terms for pointing out that these directors had no right to benefit to the tune of £37 million. He took exception to the comments that I had made and continued:
"It is quite wrong and misleading to give people the impression that the income from a sale is some kind of undeserved additional payment that the directors are granting themselves."
Well I though that that was exactly what it was. It was some kind of additional payment. Some of the directors become multi-millionaires overnight simply because of the way in which privatisation was structured when the Conservatives decided to rush it through and turn back the British railway system, not to pre-1948, but to pre-1924—it was broken up to that extent. We are now experiencing rationalisation, which some of our political opponents describe as a very good thing—something that they supported from the beginning. It is funny that they did not do that when they sold the network off. People such as the directors of Prism are benefiting enormously from takeovers, mergers and so on.
I have to say that Mr. Chivers had the grace to apologise for the remarks that he made in his letter. However, it says it all that while the directors and shareholders of these companies make a fortune out of takeovers and the process of rationalisation, the travelling public—my constituents and those of many other hon. Members—continue to suffer from poor conditions, overcrowding and lack of investment. We were always told that privatisation would result in investment and that these wonderful private companies would pour money into the railways.
During all my meetings, and in all my correspondence with c2c, it has always been a case of jam tomorrow. We were told, "Don't worry. There will be new trains, the
38WH
station will be renovated and it will be like a palace the next time you travel. The trains will be like travelling palaces; they go at enormous speed and they are air-conditioned. They are superb."
Three and a half years after I was elected to Parliament and started taking up my constituents' concerns, we are in precisely the same situation—slamdoor stock and very poor conditions.
As a footnote to the National Express takeover, I was recently told by Councillor Harry Webb of Havering council, who has campaigned for a long time for proper cycle racks at Rainham station, that National Express had decided to freeze all capital investment. Perhaps it is because so much money is pouring out into the pockets of shareholders and directors that the company can no longer put money into facilities that people need, such as bike racks. The plan to install secure bike racks at Rainham station has been cancelled because of the freeze on capital investment. It seems that the Government's laudable vision of integrated transport is being undermined by the people at National Express who make these sweeping decisions.
I have campaigned for the new cycle racks at Rainham station; Councillor Harry Webb has campaigned for a long time. He is a well-known and very effective local councillor who is being undermined by people in an office miles away deciding, at the stroke of a pen, not to invest. That says it all about the process that LTS and c2c have gone through over the last few years.
Before I allow the Minister to respond, I would like to thank the Rainham rail users group, which has done a superb job over the past two and a half years. It is a great campaigning organisation and very patient. In particular, I would like to thank Les Bragger, one of my constituents who works in the City and uses the railway line every day. He has put an enormous amount of effort into collating the facts and figures that he sends me. I meet the Rainham rail users group regularly and I hope that at some point there will be some genuine improvements to the service. It is really not good enough that in 2001 people have to travel in slam-door guards vans when they go to work in the City. I look forward to what my hon. Friend has to say.
Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster)rose—
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Order. I advise the hon. Gentleman that according to the rules, these half-hour debates are restricted to the hon. Member who has secured the debate and the Minister replying. However, as we have extra time, I am prepared to accept an intervention from the hon. Member for Upminster, who may wish to make his point as briefly as possible. I am sure the Minister will take note of what he says.
Mr. Darvill: I intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) and congratulate him on introducing the debate. Does he agree that some of the problems to which he has referred lead to significant overcrowding in trains from Rainham in his constituency and from Upminster into Fenchurch Street station? Part of the problem that our constituents have

39WH
in accommodating the problems that we have all experienced during our travels on those lines is that they make travel unsafe.
Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend raises a matter that I took up with the Health and Safety Executive. We now have such a state of overcrowding on the LTS line that I was concerned that there was some breach of health and safety legislation. I wrote to the HSE which tried to address the problem honestly, but there was nothing much that it could say apart from the fact that it becomes hazardous when there is a crash, which is a fairly obvious statement. It said that c2c was not contravening any health and safety legislation or regulations and that overcrowding became dangerous if the train stopped suddenly, there was a crash or it bumped into something. That is fairly obvious, and I should have thought that prevention was better than cure.
We were told by many people connected with c2c that the new class 357 trains would not be four-car units but only eight-car units and larger. That was part of the plan to encourage people to travel during off-peak times. Many people in the City, for instance, work flexi-time so they can go in later or earlier and can travel when the trains are less busy. There were going to be longer units, but precisely the reverse has happened. We now have more and more four-car units, even during the rush hour. I regularly travel during the rush hour on both routes and the four-car trains are enormously overcrowded.
Interestingly, the new class 357 trains, if they finally appear, will encourage people to stand because they have fewer seats than the old slam-door stock. Their capacity overall is slightly bigger, but that capacity relies on more people standing. That is slightly worrying. I have travelled on the new trains and when they work they are quite nice. They are quite comfortable, but it is worrying that the railway company seems to be encouraging people to stand. We have had some notorious accidents over the past few years on our railways and I should have thought that it was safer for passengers to sit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) is quite right. The overcrowding on some of these old stock carriages can be quite alarming and it reaches worrying proportions at times. I have travelled on trains from time to time that are so overcrowded that one wonders whether people will start to faint. The great hope is that at some point the class 357 trains will come into service and there will be improvements. There has always been a history of jam tomorrow with c2c. We are told not to worry and that there will be great improvements, but they simply have not happened.
12.27 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): May I begin, as is usual, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) on securing this debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss rail services in Havering on the c2c network—formerly known as London, Tilbury,
40WH
Southend or LTS Rail. I should also like to thank him for his courtesy in giving me notice of some of the key issues that he wished to raise in the debate. It was useful also to hear the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill), whose constituents have a great interest in this matter.
I am pleased that c2c's performance has improved in recent weeks. Latest figures for the four-week period up to 6 January show that 87.8 per cent. of services arrived at their destination on time. That compares with 74.5 per cent. and 75.5 per cent in the previous two four-week periods. I hope that that upward trend in performance continues. However as my hon. Friend has made clear today, regular users of the c2c network in his constituency will testify that performance over the past year has been far from satisfactory.
C2c has avoided the worst of the disruption caused by Railtrack's rail recovery programme, but problems with the introduction or new rolling stock have caused widespread disruption, overcrowding and frustration for the many passengers who rely on the service as their main method of getting to and from London. Disappointingly, out of an original order of 44 new units, which should have been in operation by November 1999, only 12 have been operational at any one time. Faulty electrics and software problems have made the trains prone to breakdown and not capable of providing a reliable service.
C2c has withdrawn the trains from service while Adtranz, the manufacturer, carries out the necessary modifications. I appreciate that the replacement mark I trains do not offer the same comfort as the new trains. Indeed, they have their own performance problems due to their age. I understand that c2c's last customer satisfaction survey showed that passengers were unhappy with the cleanliness of the trains, and that c2c has agreed an act on plan with the Strategic Rail Authority to address that problem.
My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that all mark I slam-door stock on the network must be replaced by the end of 2004. For c2c to provide a reliable service, it felt that it had no choice but to withdraw the new trains until Adtranz could show that they were capable of performing reliably C2c has set Adtranz a benchmark quality target for the new stock, and will not introduce the trains until they can clock up 10,000 miles between significant malfunctions or breakdowns.
Last year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister asked Sir Alastair Morton, chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, to set up a pan-industry working group to identify and tackle the problems being encountered in bringing new stock into service. Although some progress has been made, episodes such as the c2c saga show that there is clearly much more to do.
I can reassure the House that Ministers will continue to put pressure on rolling stock manufacturers, and will make it clear that their current performance in delivering new stock is not acceptable. Manufacturers must ensure that they provide new stock on time, and that it is reliable from the word go. I am pleased that a package of passenger benefits was negotiated by the Strategic Rail Authority to compensate passengers for the disruption that they have had to endure as a result of the problems with the new rolling stock. The order of

41WH
new trains was increased from 44 to 46, and c2c made a commitment to procure a second tranche of 26 new trains to be delivered and in service by 30 June 2002. That will achieve the complete replacement of the c2c's remaining slam-door stock. C2c is also committed to extending booking office opening hours at many of its stations.
My hon. Friend also referred to unacceptable overcrowding on c2c services. I understand that passengers travelling on the line from Rainham have experienced unacceptable levels of overcrowding on some journeys as a result of the problems with the late delivery of rolling stock. The Strategic Rail Authority monitors overcrowding on commuter services into London, and has powers to take action should passenger counts show that contractual levels of overcrowding are being broken. The last passenger counts showed that c2c remained within its contractual limit. However, the results of the autumn 2000 counts will shortly be published by the Strategic Rail Authority, and if c2c is above the limit, it will be obliged to implement an action plan to remedy the problem.
Considering the problems that c2c has experienced over the past year, it will have come as no surprise to my hon. Friend to discover that last year's autumn national passenger survey found that only 63 per cent. of passengers were satisfied with their journey, and 21 per cent. were dissatisfied. When I debated this matter a fortnight ago with my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Basildon (Angela Smith), they were surprised that as many as 63 per cent. of passengers were satisfied with these services, but that was what the survey found. More to the point, only 33 per cent. of passengers thought that c2c offered value for money. Compared with the 10 other London train operators, only Silverlink scored lower However, I have been assured by c2c's managing director that it is taking the concerns of passengers highlighted in the survey extremely seriously. C2c has agreed an action plan with the Strategic Rail Authority to address the problem areas, and I hope that tangible improvements will be seen in the near future.
There is some good news. Increases in rail fares are never welcome by passengers, especially when the service delivered falls below their expectations. I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents welcomed the decision by the franchising director to cap c2c's fare increases this year as a result of poor performance over the year to July 2000. The average permitted increase for c2c's regulated fares was just 0.3 per cent., which is 3 per cent. below inflation.
In June last year, further passenger benefits were secured when the Strategic Rail Authority reached an agreement with Prism Rail, then the franchisee of c2c, on the restructuring of the group's portfolio of passenger rail franchises. Prism committed to invest £20.5 million in areas to be agreed with the Strategic Rail Authority, and in addition will fit closed circuit television to the current order of 46 new vehicles. Under the agreement, the c2c franchise is retained through to 2011, and its other franchises are being restructured to facilitate the Strategic Rail Authority's franchise replacement programme.
42WH
Shortly after that deal was struck, the National Express group agreed to buy out Prism. The deal was accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 17 January following a consultation exercise in November last year.
My hon. Friend expresses concern about the payments made to Prism directors as part of the takeover deal. Decisions on whether to make such payments are a matter for the companies involved. However, I am pleased that National Express has undertaken to honour the obligations Prism entered into and are currently working with the Strategic Rail Authority, the rail passengers committee for eastern England and other local stakeholders to determine the best use of the committed £20.5 million.
My hon. Friend also criticises Rainham station for its various inadequacies. C2c has an obligation in its franchise agreement regularly to clean and maintain its station, and to ensure that minimum standards of facilities are met in respect of shelter, information and lighting. The Strategic Rail Authority recently secured additional customer information screens at the station to remedy some minor breaches of the franchise plan discovered during an inspection of the station last summer.
As part of an on-going exercise nationwide, the Strategic Rail Authority is considering various options for improving stations, and is discussing with Railtrack possible work at Rainham. I understand that there are no commitments as yet, but I hope that the discussions will lead to real benefits for passengers.
As I said, Prism is now a wholly owned subsidiary of National Express, which is committed to meeting all the contractual commitments that Prism had entered into with the Strategic Rail Authority.
C2c had a commitment to install bike racks at six stations that previously did not have them, but Rainham was not one of the stations chosen. As I have stated, the Strategic Rail Authority is negotiating with c2c over the £20.5 million investment secured as part of the restructuring package. My hon. Friend and the redoubtable Councillor Harry Webb may like to contact the authority expressing their wish for bicycle facilities to be provided at Rainham. We are keen to encourage integrated transport, and I would welcome any improvements for cyclists. However, Ministers are not party to such negotiations.
I accept that the quality of service experienced by passengers on c2c since privatisation, as with much of the rail network, has not lived up to expectations. We inherited a railway system that was suffering from years of under-investment, fragmented by privatisation, and with no framework for the strategic planning of the industry as a whole. Since 1997, we have been working to turn the railways around, but delivering our plans for a rail renaissance will require substantial investment and coherent strategic direction over the next 10 years. We intend to achieve those plans through implementation of our 10-year transport plan, new powers in the Transport Act 2000, new resources and new longer franchise agreements.
We want to deliver a bigger and better railway with increased punctuality and reliability, reduced journey times and higher standards of safety, service and comfort. As we set out in the 10-year transport plan, we

43WH
want 50 per cent. more passengers and 80 per cent. more rail freight. We want longer franchises in return for investment in additional capacity, better performance and better customer service.
I hope that my hon. Friend is encouraged by the planned improvements that lie ahead for the future of rail services nationally and, critically, in his constituency. Once the new rolling stock is fully introduced and the £20.5 million of additional investment comes to fruition, I am sure that his constituents will experience a more reliable and comfortable service.
44WH
Not so many years ago, the c2c network was frequently described as British Rail's misery line. As today's debate has shown, we still have some way to go before we can achieve our vision for the railways. The legacy of years of neglect cannot be turned around over night, but we expect the privatised train operating companies and Railtrack to work in partnership with one another and the Strategic Rail Authority to turn the vision of our 10-year plan into reality.
12.40 pm
Sitting suspended

Anaphylactic Shock
1 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: In 1993, 17-year-old Sarah Reading died after eating a lemon meringue pie in the restaurant of a well-known departmental store. She suffered an anaphylactic shock—an extreme allergic reaction when blood pressure falls rapidly and the patient quickly loses consciousness. The simple dessert that she ate on that day contained peanuts, to which Sarah was fatally allergic. That is an extreme case, but is certainly not rare. In 1995, Louise Westlake was served bread containing walnut butter at a dinner in a Manchester hotel and died. She knew that she was allergic to nuts, but did not expect to find nuts in butter. Laura Thesher was 19 and in her second day at St. Catherine?s college in Cambridge in 1998. The menu said:
"strawberry shortcake on red fruit sauce".
The shortcake contained undeclared nuts, and three days later Laura was dead. Ross Baillie was a national athlete, but after a training session in Bath in 1999 he ate a coronation chicken sandwich. Nuts were used in it, but not declared, and he died aged 21.
It is estimated that about 1 million people suffer allergic symptoms that could be life threatening. One in 6,000 cases treated in casualty departments in our hospitals is the result of anaphylactic shock. One in 200 children are affected, and for some the threat to their lives is very real and constant. However, nationally too few allergy consultants are available, and the GPs in my constituency report that referrals for specialist allergy care is overwhelming, yet specialist care packages can make a life threatening condition manageable. Will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking in the NHS plan to recruit and train consultants, and to offer a more rapid and sophisticated service in the treatment of allergies?
Part of the management of allergies is the avoidance of products that can cause as anaphylactic shock. Avoidance is not helped by the quality and legibility of the allergen risk labelling. Far too many major United Kingdom food manufacturers fail effectively to communicate allergen risks on their products. The font may be too small, the information is often hidden under wrapping or away from the ingredients list, which is where sufferers will automatically look for information. It is crucial that labelling on foodstuffs and loose ingredients, particularly in restaurants and food chains, is not only mandatory but conforms to strict guidelines laid down by trading standards.
It is clearly nonsense that failure to declare a genetically modified ingredient when there is no proof of harm can result in a £5,000 fine, whereas the display of information about allergens when death is known to occur is an optional extra. Will the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to make food labelling for allergens mandatory, and to ensure that environmental health officers are effectively trained to carry out inspections of food premises?
For adults managing a life style with the possibility of anaphylactic shock, the risk is problematic but bearable. Tens of thousands cope with that problem every day, and most lead perfectly normal lives. They do so often with the help of an epipen auto injector or a similar
46WH
device that enables a severe anaphylactic shock to be immediately stabilised with an injection of adrenaline until hospital treatment can be secured. The adrenaline epipen is a security policy that gives enormous comfort and security to allergy sufferers. Those at risk always carry their epipen, and a 10-second self-administered dose is usually sufficient to stabilise the condition.
However, failure to carry or have access to an epipen could prove fatal, as it was for Nicola Ratcliffe, a first-year student at Durham university. She ate an Indian meal with friends, and although she knew that she was subject to anaphylactic shock, she had left her epipen in her room. She died aged 18, before treatment could be administered.
The training of first aiders in the use of epipens and their availability when training has taken place could save a person's life in the workplace. It is on a par with a defibrillator. As recently as 5 February this year, the Health and Safety Executive supported work-based training by St. John Ambulance in the use of epipens in the workplace. Will the Department of Health consider extending first aid training to include the use of epipens in the workplace? Although no one would consider making them freely available, surely trained users in large food courts would be of particular value to the public.
The principle reason for seeking this debate is to highlight the problems faced by children subject to anaphylactic shock. It appears that children can and are being discriminated against. Only last month, Martha Atkins, a pupil at St. Paul's primary school in Radlett, was forced to move to another school because staff would not let her use an epipen in an emergency, and they refused to administer it themselves. Although such action by a school is rare, and Martha has now found a place in another school where staff will use an epipen in an emergency, the case highlighted the very real confusion that surrounds the treatment of anaphylactic shock in children.
Department for Education and Employment guidance says that children with medical needs
"have the same rights of admission to school as other children and cannot generally be excluded from school for medical reasons."
Under section 166 of the Education Act 1993, a health authority must provide help to a local education authority and to a school to support the medical needs of a child. That help could include training in the use of an epipen. The Medicines Act 1968 allows the use of prescription-only medicines by injection in emergencies when life is threatened. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 places a duty on heads and teachers with regard to the health and safety of staff and children in their care.
However, the first aid at work regulations, which go back over 20 years and have not been amended in that time, do not permit invasive techniques, even in the case of anaphylactic shock, even though they are known to be an effective treatment and a life saver. There is no legal or contractual duty on school staff to administer treatment or supervise children when taking it, although there is of course a common law duty to act as any prudent parent would, and that includes administering medicines in an emergency.
The current state of affairs is totally unsatisfactory. Heads and teachers need to know exactly where they stand in law. Given that the Special Educational Needs

47WH
and Disability Bill is about to enter the Commons, having gone through the Lords, will the Minister consider drafting a new clause specifically to include the emergency treatment of anaphylactic shock and the training of appropriate staff? That in itself would go a long way towards resolving the problem. Such a measure would not only clarify the present situation, but would enable teachers or support staff to be trained in the most simple of procedures and to be insured against any possible claim for negligence. Such clarification would bring huge comfort to thousands of parents and would remove from those children's minds the nagging doubts about the threat of an allergic reaction.
Finally, I want to draw the Minister's attention to the appalling situation surrounding Mathew Johnson, one of my young constituents. Mathew is 10 years old and suffers from a severe tree nut allergy. For the past four years he has been denied access to local authority leisure schemes—not because of his allergy, or because there is anything else wrong with him, but because of his need to use an epipen if he inadvertently goes into anaphylactic shock. The leisure centre staff say that Mathew can take part only if he is accompanied by a parent—both his parents work—or a trained nurse at the cost of £100 to £150 a day. Otherwise, he has been offered a place on a one-to-one scheme for children with learning or physical disabilities. That is totally inappropriate for a young boy who wants to play with his peer group and take part in activities.
Mathew is a normal child. He is not ill. There are thousands of Mathews up and down the country. There are 12 in my constituency alone, and I have been informed of others in Leeds, Birmingham, Croydon and Tonbridge. No child should be discriminated against in that way. It is a betrayal of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, article 31 of which states:
"Every child is entitled to rest and play and to have the chance to join in a wide range of activities".
The British Government have signed up to that article. Furthermore, Government policy supports an ever more inclusive society for our children. In paragraph 41 of "From Exclusion to Inclusion", David Blunkett is proud to say:
"We owe all children—whatever their particular needs and circumstances—the opportunity to develop their full potential."
How hollow are those commitments if children subject to anaphylactic shock can be so easily discriminated against?
I understand the situation of staff leading leisure or sporting programmes or playgroups. They are placed in an impossible position. I do not object to their trade association instructing them not to use these invasive devices. The law should protect them, and they ought to be insured against negligence. They should also receive formal training. Things could be so different. Extending existing legislation and DFEE guidance to cover all local authority approved leisure and play schemes would help. Including specific regulatory provision in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill to include leisure and play schemes would certainly help. Ensuring that all first aid training includes the administration and use of epipens and similar devices
48WH
would take away much of the mystery and mystique. Establishing a common code of practice that provides the basis for local authority legal cover for all staff using epipens, provided they have been trained, would solve the problem in a stroke. The outdated first aid at work regulations that do not permit invasive techniques, even for anaphylactic shock, clearly need to be updated.
Anaphylaxis is an increasingly common condition affecting children, and it is on the increase. It is easily managed with adrenaline. Surely a caring Government can manage their responsibility to those children affected.
1.13 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on securing this debate. He has raised a wide range of important issues, and has illustrated them by reference to some distressing deaths that have occurred as a result of anaphylactic shock He has also talked about the interesting case of his constituent who has not been able to get on to play of leisure schemes because carers are not prepared to administer adrenaline injections for anaphylactic shock. As of today, it is the only case that I am aware of that has been brought to the Department's attention, but that does not diminish its importance and the need to discuss the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Every parent in the country is apprehensive about how they would cope if a sudden medical emergency, such as an anaphylactic attack, befell one of their children. Our children's health is so precious to us that we want to be reassured that the NHS, schools and others can cope in such a situation. About 1,000 children aged 15 and under are admitted to hospital each year as a result of anaphylactic shock.
Anaphylaxis is an acute, immune reaction needing urgent medical attention that may occur in children who suffer from severe allergies. When such severe allergies are diagnosed, the children concerned are made aware from a very early age of what they can and cannot eat or drink. I am happy to say that, in the majority of cases, children go through the whole of their school lives without incident.
The most common cause of an anaphylactic attack is a severe allergy to food. The hon. Gentleman talked about nut allergies, but certain drugs such as penicillin, and the venom of stinging insects, such as bees, wasps or hornets, can also result in an attack. In its most severe form, the condition is life threatening, but it can be treated with medication. That may include antihistamine, adrenaline inhaler or adrenaline injection, depending on the severity of the reaction. Most patients are normally prescribed a device for personally injecting adrenaline. The device looks like a fountain pen and is pre-loaded with the correct dose of adrenaline. It is not possible to give too large a dose when using this device.
I should like to say a little about food allergies in general, and about what we are doing in conjunction with the Department for Education and Employment and voluntary organisations, such as the Anaphylaxis Campaign, to cope with these attacks in a school setting. I should also like to talk about the work of the Food Standards Agency in increasing our knowledge of the causes of food intolerance.

49WH
Food allergy or food hypersensitivity are broad terms that cover a range of abnormal immune responses to foods. Such terms are often misused and can sometimes be confused with other conditions that do not involve an immunological response, such as food intolerance, food poisoning or digestive tract disorders. A wide range of foods has been implicated as causing food allergies, including milk, eggs, peanuts, fish, shellfish, nuts, seeds and fruit. It has been reported that over 90 per cent. of adverse reactions in children can be attributed to four major foods: nuts, eggs, milk and soy.
Nut allergy is an umbrella term given to hypersensitive reactions to proteins found in nuts and peanuts. Oils extracted from nuts and seeds, such as sesame, are sometimes used by food manufacturers in the unrefined form. Allergens may therefore be present in a surprisingly wide and varied range of foodstuffs. Testing for an allergy to nuts will usually be combined with a general allergy test. Unfortunately, many nut allergy sufferers only learn of their allergy when they experience an adverse reaction for the first time. Once the allergen is identified—for example, arachis oil in peanuts—allergy clinics can begin advising on the most effective treatment. Tests are usually carried out in a primary care setting, although allergy clinics can provide more advanced and specific tests.
The Food Standards Agency is doing important work to improve our understanding of food allergy and intolerance. It is concentrating on three areas. The first is raising awareness of the condition among the public; the second is funding research into the causes of food allergy; and the third is encouraging informative labelling.
The FSA is continuing the "Be allergy aware" campaign launched in 1997 to raise awareness of the problem of food allergy among the catering industry. The campaign has taken the form of posters, leaflets and stickers, which were sent to over 200,000 catering establishments, including schools, with advice on how caterers can help those with severe allergies. The FSA also funds research on allergy and intolerance, with particular emphasis on severe allergies. A large programme of research on food intolerance and allergy, costing around £1 million a year, is currently under way.
The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment published a report in 1998, which addressed some of the issues behind the possible causation of peanut allergy. A further report on adverse reactions to food and food ingredients was published in July 2000. The FSA has welcomed those reports, as they help to raise awareness of the problem among consumers, the medical profession and the food industry.
The FSA has already taken on board a number of the research recommendations outlined in the COT report. It invited proposals for some of those recommendations in its research requirements for 2000–01. That research will help to formulate future FSA policy on food intolerance.
The FSA is also working to ensure that labelling is informative, so that allergy sufferers get the information they need. The UK has been urging the European Commission to bring forward proposals for changes in EU law so that certain named allergenic ingredients are always clearly and recognisably labelled. I acknowledge
50WH
the point that the hon. Gentleman made, and there is a need to press for effective action in this area. It is also worth recognising the problems that can be caused by the over-use of the commonly seen label "may contain". There is a danger that that may restrict consumer choice unnecessarily, so accurate and safe labelling is important for people who are prone to this reaction.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about allergy clinics and full-time consultant allergists. There are currently about 90 NHS allergy clinics in England and Wales, few of which have a full-time consultant allergist in post. The demand for them is high, and there can be lengthy waits. The process of confirming the source of an allergen is sometimes lengthy and difficult. Clinical immunology and allergy has recently been recognised as a separate medical specialty. Post-graduate training courses on allergic diseases are now available. It takes many years for a senior house doctor or registrar to become a fully qualified consultant. At least that process is under way, and we will be able to plan for an expansion of fully trained consultants in the years to come. That is one of the provisions to which the extra investment in the NHS can sensibly be applied.
I should like to deal with the individual case that may have given rise to this Adjournment debate, and was previously raised by the hon. Gentleman in an early-day motion. If a child has an anaphylactic attack outside school hours, I would expect, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree, that the child's parent or guardian would be the person best able to deal with it. If the attack is severe, the child's own GP or local accident and emergency department should be contacted for advice and, if required, treatment. However, that cannot apply in some settings.
In 1996, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment issued joint guidance "Supporting pupils with medical needs in schools". The guidance was welcomed by the Anaphylaxis Campaign, and was sent to health authorities and local education authorities. It covers treatment and the development of health care plans for pupils suffering from potentially life threatening medical conditions, including anaphylaxis.
The guidance suggests that if the child is not old enough to carry his own medication, it should be kept in an accessible place. It says that the injection should be given on a purely voluntary basis. Although aimed primarily at schools, the guidance was also recommended to special schools, nursery schools and further education colleges. It was produced after extensive consultation with interested parties, including professional bodies and voluntary organisations such as the Anaphylaxis Campaign.
The guidance makes it clear that each school should have an effective policy for ensuring that those pupils with medical needs receive proper care and support at school. Formal systems and procedures, drawn up in partnership with parents and staff, should underpin the policy. The objective of the policy should be to encourage the child's regular attendance and participation in school life.
Existing practice in schools is good, and is based on good communications and good protocols. Many children with long-term medical needs may not require medication during school hours, and when they do, they

51WH
can administer it themselves. The hon. Gentleman was a head teacher, so I am sure he agrees that schools should encourage that approach, so that the child does not feel different, or excluded from the normal run of school life.
On the legal issues, as a general rule school staff should not administer medication without having had appropriate information and training. The Medicines Act 1968 places restrictions on dealings with medicinal products, including their administration. There are exceptions for the administration of certain prescription only medicines in life threatening situations.
However, there is no legal or contractual duty on school staff to administer medicines, or to supervise pupils taking them. That is a purely voluntary role. I have some misgivings, which I am sure are shared, about allowing unqualified or untrained staff to administer prescription medicines as a matter of routine, which could be dangerous. That would be a cause for concern. Normally, the local health authority or trust can advise the school of the main contact to provide the necessary medical support to the school. It may be a school nurse provided through the school health service.
If pupils have medical conditions that, if not properly managed, can limit their access to school, it is helpful for schools to draw up individual health care plans. These should give school staff sufficient information to understand and support a pupil with long-term medical needs. Such plans should be prepared in conjunction with parents and the child's medical advisers, and should set out the measures needed to support the pupil in school. As a matter of routine all schools must have a clear procedure for summoning an ambulance in an emergency. In the unlikely event of a severe anaphylactic reaction, immediate medical treatment may be necessary while waiting for the ambulance to arrive. The child's doctor will prescribe medicine—usually in the form that I described earlier—in the event of an allergic reaction.
Many hundreds of children in the nation's schools are at risk of anaphylaxis. The vast majority of them are happily accommodated in mainstream schools. That is
52WH
largely due to good communication and consensus between parents, teachers, medical advisers and education authorities.
Mr. Willis: Could the Minister address the specific issue of children who are not in school, but who are in local authority play schemes, leisure centres and other settings? It is those staff who need protection under the law.
Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next few remarks. Existing practice, albeit within the existing legal framework in schools, is good and seems to work based on good communications and good protocols. There is an argument, as put forward by the hon. Gentleman today, that that practice should be extended to out-of-school and pre-school activities. The Anaphylaxis Campaign is keen and willing to get involved and to help iron things out. In the past, it has intervened when parents have raised an issue. It would like guidance to be issued similar to that issued to schools. I also acknowledge that St. John Ambulance and the Red Cross would be willing to provide training in administering adrenaline shots. They are entitled to do that already, and the Anaphylaxis Campaign is very supportive of that.
One of the purposes of Adjournment debates is to raise issues that may not have otherwise appeared on the agenda. I am unable to commit the Government to taking such a route, but I recognise the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has raised based around that individual case, and I give him a commitment to consider the arguments for extending the guidance, if appropriate, to other settings. I shall write to him in due course when my colleagues and I have had a chance to consider the issue.
The Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill is the responsibility of colleagues in another Department, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to their attention. I shall write to him on the issue of the first aid at work regulations I am not clear whether they are the substantive obstacle to improving the quality of provision in the workplace, but I undertake to consider those issues and get back to him.

Licensed Premises
1.29 pm
Liz Blackman: May I say how grateful I am to secure this debate? I was contacted and encouraged to take up this issue by the Nationa1 Association of Licensed House Managers in partnership with the Transport and General Workers Union. It relates to the workings of the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980. Pubwatch also flagged up related and slightly different issues.
The common theme has been how violence and threatened violence on licensed premises are dealt with and how the position could be improved. Most types of crime are decreasing. However, it is a timely debate given the general concern about violence and alcohol-related crime. I acknowledge the measures that the Government are already taking in respect of the problem in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which is going through the House. That introduces fixed penalty notices for offences of disorderly behaviour. It contains powers for the police to close licensed premises immediately to deal with such behaviour. It prohibits the drinking of alcohol in specified public places and raises the age of child curfews. The police already have powers of arrest to deal with violent individuals.
Violent crime is an issue and a significant number of crimes are committed on licensed premises. There are some dreadful examples in my constituency, as there are in many other hon. Members' constituencies. The result of the independent British crime survey 2000 suggests that 19 per cent. of all violent incidents occurred at pub or club premises, whether inside or in a nearby street or car park. Licensees, staff and customers were the victims and my constituency has seen its fair share of such incidents.
One response at the courts' disposal, when someone is found guilty of violence, or threatened violence on licensed premises, is to make an exclusion order, under the Licensed Premises (Exclusion of Certain Persons) Act 1980. The order can be made in addition to any sentence imposed by a court and be effective for any period from three months to two years. It may exclude an individual not only from the premises where the offence took place, but from any other designated premises.
The application of those orders has, however, been poor. In 1991, 70 orders were issued. In 1992, 62 were issued. In 1993, 47 were issued. In 1994, 25 were issued. In 1995, 28 were issued and, in 1996, 23 were issued. I am unable to obtain more recent figures from the House of Commons Library and wonder if they are still being collected as a way of monitoring the use of such orders. If not, can the Minister say why that decision was taken?
In 1997, a concern was stated in a Home Office circular, describing the orders as little used. It was distributed to the courts and police reminding them of the powers under the Act. It also urged that the order be included in training given to magistrates. I understand from anecdotal evidence provided by the pubwatch scheme that there has been some improvement in the use of orders, but it is not sufficient according to those in the licensing trades, and their use varies from area to area.
Reasons for a slight increase in numbers may be due to the reminder by the Home Office circular, an increase in pubwatch schemes and a greater partnership
54WH
approach by the police. There is, however, a long way to go before the orders are used consistently and appropriately.
There are several reasons for a possible lack of progress. There is still a lack of awareness of the Act among some licensees, magistrates and police. That is an issue that the Government perhaps need to give more thought to. There is no statutory provision for the hearing of licensees' representatives who want an extension of the order. There is no specified method of application for licensees who want to be included.
There are, however, examples of excellent practice. In Derby, the police have drafted a pro forma statement signed by all licensees in their pubwatch scheme. That is retained by magistrates and Crown courts and is accepted by them as evidence of their support for an exclusion order. Bromley Licensed Victuallers Association has sent exclusion order application forms to all members, so that, if an offence occurs, the application can immediately be handed to the arresting officer. That ensures that the request is on file and will be considered by the magistrates or Crown court at hearing.
In Bradford, the local licensee association urges members to request in any witness statements that magistrates grant an exclusion order. In my county of Derbyshire, officers are encouraged to apply where appropriate and to include a list of premises taken from pubwatch booklets from which the person should be excluded. Magistrates are sympathetic and the record of granting exclusion orders is, unsurprisingly, quite good. In 1995, 28 orders were issued nationally. Nine of those were specifically granted in east Derbyshire. In 1997, out of 23 orders issued nationally, 14 were made in east Derbyshire. I hope that that reflects not a higher proportion of disorderly behaviour in my locality, but a proactive approach by the authorities to ensure the safety of those in licensed premises.
Police information on violence occurring on licensed premises is often not used to good effect. In Bradford, a computer system automatically informs the process sergeant when such an offence is going to court, enabling the sergeant to decide whether an exclusion order should be sought—again, an effective system. Similar good practice exists elsewhere.
Usually, it is the police who recommend that an exclusion order be used, but a court can choose an exclusion order without other recommendations. A duty on a magistrate or judge to consider an exclusion order would be a way forward. I would be interested to hear the Minister's response on that, as it is already flagged up in the White Paper entitled "Time for Reform: Proposals for the Modernisation of Our Licensing Laws".
More fundamentally, why is an exclusion order not used automatically for anyone found guilty of serious assault or threat on licensed premises, be it on the licensee, other staff or the public? Does that run the risk of not being proportionate to the offence? I would be grateful if some light were shed on that.
On the granting of an exclusion order, no data is available on violent crime on off-licence premises, whose staff often feel intimidated. Does Government thinking remain committed to an extension of exclusion of named individuals from specified off-licence premises, as mentioned in the White Paper?

55WH
On the enforcement of exclusion orders when issued, the licensee or employer can remove any person who enters premises in breach of an exclusion order and a police officer, if requested, must assist. However, refusal to leave is not an arrestable offence, but a report for summons offence. If the person disobeys the order and is summonsed, he can be fined up to £1,000, sent to prison for one month, or both.
I could not obtain any information from the House of Commons Library on how often action has been taken when a breach occurs. The feeling is that action against breaches is infrequent. In any event, a summons can take between two to three months to be heard and numerous breaches of the order can be committed in the interim. Does not a more effective way of placing breaches of the order before the courts need to be looked at? It is intimidating for all concerned when an excluded person re-enters premises and blatantly flouts the law.
Enforcement is hampered by the licensee's difficulty in identifying persons who have exclusion orders placed on them. There is no provision in the Act for use of photographs. A powerful statistic is that 33 per cent. of violent offences on licensed premises are committed by strangers. The use of photographs is therefore essential.
Some forces, such as Derbyshire and Wiltshire, do supply photographs to licensees and to their staff for their confidential use. They are a useful device. Care is taken to return or to destroy them when the order ceases. Others do not use photographs and take the Act literally. I believe that a code of practice was drawn up between the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers. Can the Minister confirm that that exists and, if so, what status it has? Clearly, forces that do not use photographs are less confident about the existing guidance. What official guidance is given, or is it simply a practice that has emerged?
When exclusion orders for football offences are imposed, section 35 of the Public Order Act 1986 permits the use of photographs. Cannot that power be extended to exclusion orders under the 1980 Act, as the common denominator is violence in the social environment?
Pubwatch, a voluntary community-based crime prevention scheme, aims through partnership with the police and others to deter troublemakers and to reduce the risk of assault on licensees, staff and customers and, in essence, provides a safe social environment for all. Its activities in no small part help to challenge and to reduce violence on members' premises. When behaviour is anti-social, pubwatch operates bans on an individual or individuals, which all its members support.
Some impressive examples of schemes, such as that in Walsall, have dramatically reduced the incidence of violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) was instrumental in organising an impressive pubwatch scheme to combat the rising tide of serious assaults in his constituency, where there were 73 assaults in 12 months. In the nine months after its formation, 11 people were banned from its members' licensed premises and there was no serious assault in that period; even now, there are few such incidents. Social exclusion in that context causes isolation and can be most effective, at little cost.
56WH
Pubwatch, for all its good work, faces challenges. First, its legality in banning people from pubs in the scheme when exclusion orders have been granted has been challenged under the European convention on human rights. Pubwatch schemes in Gloucestershire and the north-east have been pressurised by solicitors acting on behalf of clients banned from pubs, stating that their actions are in breach of articles 6 and 8 of the convention. In Gloucestershire, a local inspector sought legal advice on behalf of the local pubwatch scheme from constabulary lawyers, who felt that the challenge would probably fall foul of the High Court, but as the legislation was untested, no definitive advice was given. On that occasion, it was not pursued, but the pubwatch scheme has introduced an appeals panel to strengthen its position. In the north-east, two solicitors' letters pressing the convention were sent to local watches, which lifted the bans rather than face court action.
What are the Minister's thoughts on the issue? For example, given that in common law licensees have the right to exclude anyone from their premises, does he think that a pubwatch ban can be construed as a joint exercise of an individual member's right to refuse access? Such matters need clarification because pubwatch, as a voluntary scheme, does not have the resources to fight a judicial review and lifted bans caused by uncertainty impair the effectiveness of the scheme.
In pubwatch schemes with no known policy, the use of photographs of banned persons is even more nebulous. In most instances, the police are unable to provide them, either because such photographs do not exist or because the police are precluded from doing so by the Data Protection Act 1998. The alternative is to print photographs taken from premises' CCTV films. It is unclear how the use of photographs measures up against the issue of civil liberties. Clear guidance is needed, as it is when photographs are used in town centre watch schemes.
Pubwatch is a national scheme, although its coverage is not yet national. Many schemes already have a proven track record and, in the light of increasing responsibility placed on licensees, they should receive Government encouragement— perhaps some financial support. The brewers and most pub companies are reluctant to finance and to support watches, although there are exceptions, such as the Unique Pub Company, which embraces and supports pubwatch.
Pubwatch wants to produce a national database, and more briefing information, co-ordination and training in the light of the Government's partnership agenda to tackle crime. Has the Minister any thoughts on providing such support?
Bans of up to 10 years are flagged up in the White Paper, but they will not be effective if the exclusion orders cannot be improved. Will the Public Order Act 1980 be tightened and included in a new licensing Act? Will the Minr take note of my points about the workings of exclusion orders in that respect? Will his Department collect and monitor both the statistics on orders served and summonses in breach of those orders that result in convictions? Will the Minr ensure that advice on best practice is circulated and co-ordinated to the police and magistrates in support of pubwatch? I look forward to his reply to my questions.
1.44 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) on securing the debate and on the way in which she put her case. As a Government, we have tried during recent years to give a much higher priority to the issue. My hon. Friend set out many of the reasons why that is necessary. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), who is in the Chamber. He has campaigned assiduously on pubwatch and has raised the matter with me on a number of occasions. He is an energetic advocate of that scheme on the basis of his constituency experience.
Before addressing the specific points mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, I shall set out a little of the context of the Government's approach. Although most people who drink lawfully on licensed premises do so for entirely acceptable reasons—to relax and socialise with others—there is a minority for whom that is not true. Almost 90 per cent. of the adult population take alcoholic drinks, spending about £25 billion a year on them. The village pub or "local" has been an important feature of life for a number of generations.
We expect the industry to do all that it can to manage premises responsibly and to minimise the risk of lawlessness and disorder arising from alcohol abuse. In a civilised society, it cannot be acceptable that 14 per cent. of people who responded to a Portman Group survey last year said that they had been the victim of violence inside a public house. That figure, albeit from a survey, shows the scale of the problem to which my hon. Friend referred and sits alongside other statistics to show the nature and seriousness of the issue. For example, about 13,000 violent incidents take place on or around licensed premises every week and 80 per cent. of peak time presentations to hospital accident and emergency units at the weekend are alcohol related. I commend the excellent work done by the accident and emergency department of the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff—which is spreading to other such departments—on the careful consideration of those presentations and their use to help to map the incidence of crime in particular localities and particular pubs where violent crime has taken place
The problems are not intractable, provided that the licensed trade, in the first instance, accepts that it has the primary responsibility for properly managing licensed premises to prevent trouble from arising in the first place or to ensure that it is nipped in the bud. It is an offence for a licensee to permit disorder on his or her premises. I am glad to say that the licensed trade and the wider drinks industry are showing that they take their responsibilities seriously and that they are committed to the partnership approach, which I shall set out in a moment.
I have chaired three seminars involving organisations from the licensed industry, police magistrates, local government and groups such as the Portman Group, precisely to see how we can address the issues in a partnership more effectively. That has led to a number of initiatives, first, to encourage sensible drinking and discourage unsociable drinking that leads to unruly behaviour and, secondly, to take positive action to
58WH
minimise the opportunities for misbehaviour that might be exploited by those intent on making trouble. Pubwatch schemes, based on good and strong relationships between local police and licensees, show what can be done to keep known troublemakers out of pubs and clubs in a local area.
I shall respond now to my hon. Friend's specific points on pubwatch and deal with exclusion orders shortly. I am familiar with the points that she made on the European convention on human rights, but there is no foundation for concerns in that respect. As a Government, we are keen to promote the pubwatch idea, because there is so much good evidence to support it. The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force last October, and many people are putting to the courts their arguments about a human right being violated by a particular action. My Department monitors the whole range of challenges to practices across all aspects of life that are being made under the 1998 Act. So far, the highest courts in the land have in general sustained our expectations and practices in this country. Obviously, that may not always be the case in the future. However, I will state publicly, in Committee and more widely, that we should continue to develop pubwatch. People should not be frightened of human rights legal action, and we should proceed on the basis that that is the right way to operate. It is not a Minister's role to second-guess the courts if cases are brought in those circumstances, but it would be a mistake if the valuable pubwatch initiative were in any sense derailed or diverted by legal concerns as the result of some hypothesis in those circumstances.
I am prepared to consider funding for the national pubwatch scheme to see that develop further. At one of the seminars to which I referred earlier, we discussed how we could use resources to strengthen the campaign against alcohol-related violent crime. We are already taking a number of initiatives. We have not had a formal proposal from pubwatch, but I am certainly prepared to consider a proposal positively and to see what we can do. We do think that the pubwatch approach is powerful.
The issue of photographs is a difficult one. As my hon. Friend said, in 1994 the trade body—the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association—issued to licensees guidance about photographs of excluded persons that had been agreed by ACPO. That dealt with such matters as where photographs should be kept and what should be done with them, in particular at the end of the exclusion order, but also more widely. I accept that there may be value in refreshing that document, and the Government are prepared to help do that in order precisely to raise its status.
It is important to note that the Cabinet Office's policy research unit is conducting a detailed survey of data protection issues, and some important data protection issues surround the use of photographs in such schemes. For example, there are schemes for providing retailers with photographs of shoplifters in particular shopping centres. We believe, for the record, that it is perfectly legitimate to do that, and to send photographs of known offenders around pubs in the way described. However, it is important to consider the whole situation. That is why the Government review, which is taking place at the moment and will report shortly, will take the issue forward. Allowing a local pubwatch to use photographs in the event that no legal action had been taken would

59WH
be a more difficult human rights issue. However, I will consider the use of photographs in the context of our overall approach. I shall deal in a moment with the legislation proposed in the licensing White Paper, to which my hon. Friend referred. Hopefully, that will provide the vehicle for any legislative steps that are needed to ensure that that happens in the proper way.
It is striking that 40 per cent.—a high percentage—of crime and disorder partnerships, which now cover the whole country, have highlighted drunkenness as a crime and disorder issue in their crime audit plans. Nearly 60 per cent. of crime and disorder partnerships related public order problems explicitly to alcohol. Those figures simply reinforce the central thrust of the argument made by my hon. Friend.
A series of measures are being taken in that area, including the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which is currently in Committee, which address a number of aspects, including drunkenness and disorder on licensed premises, and closure of certain licensed premises. The central context is our White Paper "Time for Reform: Proposals for the Modernisation of Our Licensing Laws" which covers the series of proposals that we intend to make to try to address the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend.
With regard to exclusion orders, which were highlighted by my hon. Friend, I can confirm that the White Paper proposed that the courts should be put under a new duty to consider making an exclusion order in any case in which someone is convicted of an offence involving disorder or violence on licensed premises or in a registered club. Registered clubs have emphasised to me that they are often the recipients of drunkenness rather than its cause. People often go to a club from pubs in the locality late in the evening, and are drunk when they arrive, rather than being drunk as a result of having been in the club. They are keen to point out that the various requirements of legislation should apply to everyone in those circumstances.
The White Paper also proposed that the courts should be able to exclude people for longer than two years, and in the most serious cases involving violence it should be possible to impose a lifetime ban on access to licensed premises, which would be a serious sanction to deal with the problem. We need to develop more rigorous use of these orders, as our figures show. Perhaps I can say a word on the figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The Minister mentioned exclusion and lifetime bans. What happens when someone ignores an order, or when the publican does so by serving a drink? Will there be a law to reprimand the publican or to fine the person who is ignoring the exclusion order?
Mr. Clarke: That issue will be addressed in the White Paper, but I can give my hon. Friend an immediate response. First, if the individual who is banned goes into a pub, he is in breach of a court order, which can be enforced by the courts using the most swingeing penalties. Secondly, it would have to be shown that the publican knew that he was serving drink to someone
60WH
who had been banned. That is obviously a more difficult issue to address, but we will deal with it explicitly in the White Paper. The particular powers that we suggest are an extension of the current powers, under which people can be excluded for a period of between three months and two years.
The overall issues that my hon. Friend for Blyth Valley has raised wi1l be addressed in legislation. It is the Government's intention to introduce legislation on this matter at the earliest possible legislative opportunity. As always, there is strong competition, but the Government believe that this is a high priority, for a wide variety of reasons.
Since 1996, information has been collected on exclusion orders along with data on other local orders which otherwise are dealt with on conviction. It has not been possible to disaggregate exclusion orders in that time, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash could obtain only the data up to 1996. We are reviewing the way in which statistics are recorded at the moment across different areas, and I give my hon. Friend an undertaking to consider how we could record this information in a more public way.
However, her fundamental point was not statistical; it was about the relatively low-level use of the orders, and how that can be increased. The key is to develop partnerships between the licensing magistrates, the police and the local licensed trade industry and to establish local crime and disorder strategies to address the issue, informed by proper data on public houses that are not orderly, including data from accident and emergency departments about where violent crime is predominantly occurring. I can assure my hon. Friend that the strengthening of those partnerships, particularly with exclusion orders in mind, will be an aspect of the discussions in our seminar groups. I shall report back to her on that in due course.
Liz Blackman: Could the Minister expand on the strategies that are in place to deal with breaking of exclusion orders that have been served, because that is an issue of concern?
Mr. Clarke: To be frank, we have not done as much work on that aspect as we should have done, but I will guarantee to take that further. I mentioned the role of the magistrates courts, the police, local government and the local licensed industry in enforcing these orders, because they can be more effective if they work together.
I conclude by saying that this issue is of exceptional importance and the Government take it very seriously. We have a great deal more to do to be able to claim that we have addressed it comprehensively, as my hon. Friend set out in her powerful speech, but I can commit the Government to doing what we can to achieve the goals which she has set, not least because of the evidence—which is unquestioned—of the close relationship between alcohol and violent crime.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Hinduja Brothers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which Ministers and officials in his Department have(a) been contacted by and (b) contacted (i) Mr. G. P. Hinduja and (ii) Mr. S. P. Hinduja since 2 May 1997; if he will list the occasions on which there was such contact; and if he will make a statement. [148077]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 31 January 2001]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on 1 February 2001, Official Report, columns 278–79W.

  It is not the normal practice of the Government to release details of officials' meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the current monthly running costs are of the Millennium Dome; for what proportion of these costs the Millennium Commission is liable; and if he will make a statement. [148522]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 2 February 2001]: The current monthly running costs of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) are between £2.5 million and £3.5 million excluding physical decommissioning costs. Monthly running costs are intended to reduce as the company moves towards solvent liquidation. The NMEC is liable for the company's costs but is able to draw on National Lottery grant awarded by the Millennium Commission.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to ensure that the contents of the Dome are not sold until the future use of the site has been finalised. [149341]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 7 February 2001]: Nothing will be sold at the forthcoming auction which would prejudice uses of the Dome including as a visitor attraction. The Government remain in negotiations with the preferred bidder, Legacy plc, in the competition to buy the Dome. The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has a timetabled decommissioning programme. Leased assets, such as lighting and sound equipment, have been returned to avoid incurring additional charges. Third party assets, such as Ford's Journey Zone and BT's Talk Zone, are being removed.

  Granada/Anglia Merger
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the 68W
  impact of the Granada/Anglia merger on the location of jobs in television production and quality of programme production. [149512]

  Janet Anderson
  Reorganisation of television production with Granada is a matter for the company itself. The licence commitments of ITV regional companies, which include obligations to provide high-quality programming, remain unaffected by changes in ownership. The recent White Paper, "A New Framework for Communications", announces that the new regulator, Ofcom, will be required to undertake a review of the regional obligations in each ITV licence whenever its ownership changes, and will be empowered to amend licence conditions to meet any concerns arising.

  School Sports
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many School Sports Co-ordinators have been appointed; and how many are in post; [148708]

  (2) what moneys have been (a) committed and (b) paid over by the New Opportunities Fund to Sport England to fund School Sports Co-ordinators. [148709]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 7 February 2001]: 140 School Sport Co-ordinators are now in place in 33 partnerships across the country. No money has been committed by the New Opportunities Fund to Sport England for this programme. Direct support for activities within the School Sports Co-ordinator Programme is available under the New Opportunities Fund Out of School Hours Learning initiative.

  Terrestrial Television
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what powers he has to require broadcasters to ensure the transmission of television programmes on the five terrestrial channels. [149669]

  Janet Anderson
  The responsibility for ensuring the transmission of television programmes on the five terrestrial channels lies principally with the BBC Governors in respect of BBC1 and BBC2, the Independent Television Commission in respect of Channels 3, 4 and 5 and the Welsh Authority in respect of S4C.

  Digital Radio
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the criteria he intends to apply for digital switchover of radio. [150058]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: Digital radio is at a relatively early stage of development with take-up by consumers still very low. We have not therefore determined criteria to be met in order to achieve switchover. However, we shall keep our approach under review as the roll-out of digital radio services and receiving equipment increases.

  Television Licensing Telephone Number
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many telephone calls were
  69W
  received in each of the last three months on the television licensing telephone number; and what the cost of responding was. [150342]

  Janet Anderson
  TV Licensing, which administers the television licensing system as agent for the BBC, operates several different telephone inquiry numbers. Information provided by the BBC shows that the total number of telephone inquiries received by TV Licensing in each of the last three months for which information is available was:

  Number of calls

  October 2000

  87,869

  November 2000

  727,400

  December 2000

  528,972

  Of these, the number of calls to the over-75 helpline were as follows:

  Number of calls

  October 2000

  242,508

  November 2000

  150,733

  December 2000

  104,748

  Information on the cost of responding to these calls is not available.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  India
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what advice her Department is giving to people who wish to undertake voluntary work in Gujarat State, India, following the recent earthquake. [149464]

  Mr. Mullin
  India has a great deal of expertise in relief and rehabilitation operations and substantial resources have been mobilised in response to the earthquake in Gujarat, including medical and paramedical personnel, engineers and logisticians.

  The Department for International Development has advised those volunteers with specialist skills to contact organisations that maintain databases of suitably qualified individuals, such as RedR (Registered Engineers for Disaster Relief; 1 Great George street, London, SW1P 3AA, 010 7233 3116) and the International Health Exchange (1st Floor, 134 Lower Marsh, London SE1 7AE; 020 7620 3333). These databases are used by the United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and other nongovernmental organisations when personnel are needed quickly for short-term missions as well as longer-term assignments.

  The DFID encourages people without specialist skills who wish to contribute to do so in cash rather than in kind by contributing towards the operational agencies working in the area. The best way for individuals to help is to contribute to the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) at 52 Great Portland street, London W1N 6TB (0870 60 60 90). The DEC is the umbrella organisation that is responsible for co-ordinating the response to emergencies from charitable organisations as well as donations from the public. The DEC appeal has raised £5 million to date.
  70W
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what items have been urgently requested of her by the Indian Government following the earthquake in Gujarat State; to what extent her Department is able(a) to supply and (b) to advise on these items; and if she will make a statement; [149463]

  (2) what requests she has received from the Indian Government for assistance to survivors from the recent earthquake in Gujarat State. [149466]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Indian Government have not made any formal request for assistance, but have announced that appropriate support would be welcome.

  I refer my hon Friend to my previous response detailing the material and financial assistance my Department has given to date, given on 5 February 2001, Official Report, columns 408–09W.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what long-term programme of assistance and advice her Department is developing with the Indian Government to help in the area affected by the recent earthquake in Gujarat State. [149467]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Department for International Development's priority is to ensure that those who have survived the earth quake are cared for until normal services can be restored. The Indian Government are developing plans for rehabilitation and reconstruction; it is expected that these will be largely funded by the World bank and the Asian Development bank. We have offered advice to the Indian Government on strengthening disaster preparedness arrangements, which will include Gujarat.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is offering to the Indian Government to help young children orphaned by the recent earthquake in Gujarat State. [149468]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Department for International Development has made a total allocation of £10 million for humanitarian assistance to Gujarat.

  This is being channelled through the United Nations, the Red Cross and a number of non-governmental organisations for the provision of essential relief items such as tents, blankets, medical supplies, food, water and sanitation. All these agencies aim to focus their assistance on the most vulnerable, which will inevitably include young children who have been orphaned as a result of the earthquake.

  More specifically we have provided £1 million to UNICEF, part of which will support their child protection programme. This programme aims to identify and care for children who have been orphaned or separated from their families.

  We have also contributed £450,000 to Save the Children for the pro vision of shelter and non-food relief items for children and their families. They will also make efforts to ensure that those children placed in orphanages make contact with any remaining family by offering specialist advice to all organisations working with separated children.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what requests for assistance she has received from the Pakistan Government following the recent earthquake; [149622]

  (2) what reports she has received from the British High Commissioner in Islamabad about the effects of the recent earthquake which affected Pakistan; [149624]

  (3) what discussions she has had with the Pakistan High Commissioner to the UK about the effects of the recent earthquake; and if she will make a statement about the loss of life and damage suffered by Pakistan. [149623]

  Mr. Mullin
  According to the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) the worst affected state in Pakistan is Sindh Province, where 109,000 houses are said to be damaged (of which nearly 11,000 have been destroyed) with over 180,000 families affected. Fifteen people are reported to have died in Pakistan as a result of the earthquake The UN continues to monitor the situation. To date no appeal for assistance has been made by the Pakistan Government.

  International Family Planning Aid
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of President Bush's reinstatement of restrictions on US international family planning aid. [149613]

  Mr. Mullin
  The implications of the decision by the new US Administration to block funding to international non-governmental organisations that offer abortion and abortion counselling will become clearer over the coming weeks as guidance is issued from USAID.

  The Administration's decision is a matter for the US Government; it will make no difference to the commitment of this Government to help poor people access good quality family planning and reproductive health services.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions, and for what purpose, Lord Levy has met one or more of the Hinduja brothers since May 1997 on behalf of the Prime Minister. [148363]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 February 2001]: None. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on 5 February 2001, Official Report, column 391W.

  No. 10 Website
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Prime Minister what the most recent audience figures are for the Prime Minister's broadcasts on the No. 10 website. [148654]
  72W
  The Prime Minister
  There have been 20 broadcasts, all of which are available on the website.

  No total viewing figures are available. This is because the broadcasts can be accessed in a number of different ways—either as a streamed file, a downloadable MP3 version or as a transcript.

  The streamed versions of the broadcasts have been requested nearly 50,000 times since the first one was posted on the site on 11 February 2000. Downloads of the MP3 version and hits on the transcript page will be additional to this figure. The site statistics do not show how often these have been accessed, but the site as a whole received over 99 million hits in the nine months since it was relaunched on 11 February 2000.

HEALTH

  Blood Products
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy that user-patients should be informed if the Bio Products Laboratory withdraws blood products on the basis of past donation information relating to CJD protection requirements. [143857]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 21 December 2000]: The Department's current guidance, based on the advice from ethical experts, is that clinicians should not tell patients if they have received such products. This is because:

  the risk that vCJD might be transmitted in this way is low;

  there is no diagnostic test for vCJD;

  even if a test was available, there is no treatment.

  The guidance goes on to state that:
  "In deciding whether or not to inform a particular patient, the benefit/harm balance for their individual situation must be carefully considered. In communicating with patients who have received implicated products, it is therefore for individual clinicians to decide whether to follow this general ethical advice."

  The Department is continuously reviewing this advice to ensure that it is in line with current scientific information and ethical thinking.

  Levonorgestrel
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Levonorgestrel is licensed for use by girls between the ages of 11 and 15. [147133]

  Ms Stuart
  Levonorgestrel is available as a prescription-only medicine, without an age limit. It may therefore be prescribed to women aged under 16 years. When given for the purposes of emergency contraception, prescribers are expected to satisfy themselves, in accordance with guidelines, that the young person understands the advice and it is in their best interests to receive the treatment. From 1 January 2001, pharmacists have been permitted to supply Levonorgestrel 0.75 mg to women aged 16 years and over for use as an emergency contraceptive.
  73W
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what clinical trials involving girls between the ages of 11 and 15 years have been conducted with respect to Levonorgestrel. [147134]

  Ms Stuart
  No clinical trials specific to this age group have been undertaken in the United Kingdom. The marketing authorisation granted in 1999 for Levonorgestrel 0.75 mg tablets as a prescription-only medicine was supported by evidence from two large randomised controlled studies, one conducted by the World Health Organisation, and published data from uncontrolled studies. Most women in the clinical trials were aged between 16 and 48, but a few girls aged 14 and 15 were included. There were no data available for girls between aged 11 and 14 years. Age analysis of efficacy and safety in the randomised studies did not identify any population that responded differently to treatment.

  Professions Allied to Medicine
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much extra money was allocated to the professions allied to medicine under the NHS National Plan. [147276]

  Mr. Denham
  Under the NHS Plan there will be an extra £140 million by 2003–04 to support a major programme of training and development for all staff, including the allied health professions (formerly known as the professions allied to medicine). This is in addition to the extra £6 million made available this year to support the strategy for the allied health professions which was published in November 2000.

  Drugs Bill
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total drugs bill was, in cash terms, for the(a) Hospital and Community Health Service and (b) Family Health Service for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [149431]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Total National Health Service spending on drugs (England only)

  £ million

  Year

  Family health services (FHS) cash outturn

  Hospital and community health services (HCHS) cash outturn

  Total

  1990–91

  2,080

  460

  2,540

  1991–92

  2,317

  591

  2,908

  1992–93

  2,641

  643

  3,284

  1993–94

  2,951

  710

  3,661

  1994–95

  3,230

  764

  3,994

  1995–96

  3,498

  874

  4,372

  1996–97

  3,774

  961

  4,735

  1997–98

  4,085

  1,088

  5,173

  1998–99

  4,339

  1,211

  5,550

  1999–2000

  4,833

  1,369

  6,202

  Note:

  The figures for FHS cash outturn are net of pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS) receipts.

  NHS Waiting Lists (Jarrow)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to shorten NHS waiting lists in the Jarrow constituency. [148748]

  Mr. Denham
  No patients in South Tyneside currently wait over 12 months for inpatient treatment and the South Tyneside Health Care National Health Service Trust has consistently met their over-13-week target for out-patient appointments during the last year.

  The South Tyneside Healthcare NHS Trust is implementing several initiatives at the Charles Palmer Community Hospital, Jarrow which will help to reduce waiting times for the local community. These include a new digital X-ray service linked to the district general hospital which will allow specialist and one-stop clinics to be provided in a local setting and a new direct access audiology service which will help to shorten waiting lists and times for ear, nose and throat appointments.

  Air Ambulance Services
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many air ambulance services are provided in England; and how each of them are funded; [149781]

  (2) what representations he has received about provision of air ambulance services during the last 12 months; [149782]

  (3) what plans he has for the provision of air ambulance services within the NHS; [149783]

  Ms Stuart
  We recognise that air ambulance services have a role in delivering emergency care especially in rural areas and where road access is a problem. The services can be an effective way of getting better and faster access to hospital, and valuable in supporting inter-hospital transfers.

  Information on the number and funding of air ambulances is not collected centrally.

  During the last 12 months the Department has received letters from the general public and hon. Members asking whether the National Health Service should provide and fund air ambulance services.

  Evidence supporting the introduction of air ambulances in the NHS, however is not convincing. In 1995, the Department commissioned Sheffield university to report on air ambulances. The report failed to show benefits which would justify NHS investment.

  This lack of evidence to support the clinical or cost-effectiveness of these services does not support the funding of these services by the NHS. However, we will constantly review the position.

  North Staffordshire Health Authority
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the allocation per weighted head of population for the North Staffordshire health authority for each year from 1996–97 to date. [149638]

  Mr. Denham
  Revenue allocation per weighted head of population for North Staffordshire health authority is shown in the table.
  75W

  Allocation

  Population

  Allocation per weighted head of population

  1996–97

  202,568

  484,138

  418

  1997–98

  210,721

  480,270

  439

  1998–99

  221,771

  491,270

  451

  1999–2000

  304,458

  496,215

  614

  2000–01

  335,037

  494,419

  678

  2001–02

  362,936

  496,124

  732

  Organ Retention
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the reasons why NHS hospital trusts have been prevented from telling members of the public how many adult and children's organs they have retained in their hospitals; [149824]

  (2) when he will tell NHS hospitals trusts the form in which he will require them to set out for public information the numbers of adult and children's organs which are being retained in their hospitals; [149820]

  (3) by what means NHS hospital trusts are required to obtain his permission to tell members of the public how many adult and children's organs are being retained in their hospitals; [149822]

  (4) for what reason NHS hospital trusts have to obtain his permission before they can tell me members of the public how many adult and children's organsare being retained in their hospitals; [149821]

  (5) if he will appoint counsellors to support members of the public who may be distraught after not being given information, on his guidance, by NHS hospital trusts on how many adult and children's organs are being held by their hospitals; [149818]

  (6) for what reason NHS hospital trusts have been told that they can inform the public about how many adult and children's organs are retained in their hospitals only in a form that he approves. [149823]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 February 2001]Following the publication of the Royal Liverpool Children's inquiry report last week, a special Commission, under the chairmanship of Professor Margot Brazier, has been established to oversee the cataloguing and return of organs and tissue by National Health Service trusts in England.

  The Commission has issued comprehensive guidance to trusts on the sensitive and sympathetic handling of inquiries from relatives. This includes establishing dedicated telephone helplines and teams, maintaining contact, and providing bereavement support and counselling where necessary.

  The Commission has asked trusts not to provide specific information or begin the process of returning organs and tissue until comprehensive and accurate catalogues of organs and tissue have been completed, and approved by the Commission. This is aimed to avoid repeating the problems of misleading information and multiple burials criticised in the inquiry report.

  Transplant Centres
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to announce a final decision on whether Manchester, Sheffield or Birmingham will be the fourth transplant centre to remain in operation following the proposed rationalisation of services. [150074]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]We will issue a document in due course setting out proposals for the future of the National Cardiothoracic Transplant Service. The document will invite views on the proposals from patients, the public and appropriate organisations. A decision will be made following careful consideration of those views.

  Health and Social Services Expenditure
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the expected funding is of(a) the NHS and (b) personal social services in England per head of population in 2000–01. [150224]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  £

  Spend per head in 2000–01

  Net NHS expenditure1

  890

  Personal Social Services2

  190

  1 2000–01 planned expenditure

  2 2000–01 planned provision for PSS. Includes resources made available to local councils in England for social services through Standard Spending Assessments and special and specific grants.

  General Medical Council
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring he undertakes of the handling by the General Medical Council of complaints raised against medical practitioners practising in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [149503]

  Mr. Denham
  Although no specific monitoring of complaints is undertaken, there are regular liaison meetings between departmental officials and the General Medical Council, where both policy and specific cases are discussed. In order to better address the concerns of patients, the GMC is currently carrying out a fundamental review of its structure.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the appeal structure for claimants dissatisfied by the decision of the General Medical Council. [149504]

  Mr. Denham
  Currently, the only legal course of action open to complainants is to seek leave for the decision to be judicially reviewed. However, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has stated in another place on 20 July 2000,Official Report, House of Lords, column WA 103, that there are strong arguments for dealing with these cases at a lower judicial level. I understand a number of organisations, including the General Medical Council, are examining alternative models for new appeals arrangements. I shall expect them to consider whether these should include a legal appeals route for complainants.

  Private Hospital Referrals
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients have been redirected to private hospitals under his recently announced scheme; and what the position of such patients is in cases where treatment received proves defective(a) at the time of treatment and (b) subsequently. [150424]

  Ms Stuart
  There are no centrally held figures for the numbers of patients treated under the terms of the concordat. Health authorities have allocated funds to local commissioning bodies to make local arrangements as the concordat does not set out detailed contractual arrangements; these are left to be secured locally according to local need.

  Any patient treated making use of the private or voluntary sector under the terms of the concordat remains a National Health Service patient and their treatment remains NHS treatment. Such patients remain the responsibility of the NHS and continue to have full access to the NHS complaints procedure should they have any need to complain about treatment received.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Low-sulphur Petrol
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he estimates that all filling stations in the UK will have replaced standard unleaded petrol with low-sulphur petrol. [150227]

  Mr. Hain
  This is a matter currently under discussion between my Department and petrol retailers.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of filling stations had replaced standard unleaded petrol with low-sulphur petrol by December 2000; and how many he estimates will have done so by April 2001. [150226]

  Mr. Hain
  According to HM Customs and Excise's "Hydrocarbons Oils Bulletin", in mid-December 2000, ultra-low sulphur petrol constituted around 46 per cent. of petrol released for consumption in the UK. We are monitoring the continued roll out of ULSP across the country.

  General Mediterranean Holdings (Export Credits)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which projects involving General Mediterranean Holdings (UK) or its subsidiary companies the ECGD extended credit cover to(a) between 1992 and 1997 and (b) since 1997. [150235]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD has no record of any dealings with this company or any other of its listed subsidiaries.

  Steel Industry (Wales)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the cost of the climate change levy on each steel factory in England and Wales; if he will list the estimated cost for each of the factories; and if he will make a statement. [150256]
  78W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The climate change levy has been designed to safeguard the competitiveness of manufacturing industry as a whole. It recognises the special position of energy intensive industries exposed to international competition, including the steel sector. Sites in these sectors which meet eligibility criteria will, subject to EU state aid clearance, get an 80 per cent. levy discount provided they deliver energy saving targets in negotiated agreements with the Government.

  The final impact of the levy on individual steel industry sites will depend on whether they participate in the steel sector's energy saving agreement to get the levy discount; and also on the extent to which they benefit from or take advantage of the various levy exemptions, and also the new scheme of enhanced capital allowances for investments in energy efficiency.

  Family Friendly Employers
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of mothers from low-income households work for employers with a policy of allowing employees to reduce their hours on return from maternity leave. [150108]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  A survey of working parents recently conducted by my Department asked mothers whether a number of support provisions were made available to them by their employer on return from maternity leave, including returning to the same job on a reduced hours or part-time basis.

  83 per cent. of mothers in households with gross income of less than £20,800 said that their employer allowed them to return to the same job on a reduced hours or part-time basis, compared with 60 per cent. of those in households with gross income of £20,800 plus.

  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of fathers work for employers who allow them to reduce their hours in(a) the aftermath of the birth of a child and (b) for general childcare reasons. [150110]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  A survey commissioned by the Department for Education and Employment in 2000 reports that 34 per cent. of fathers in workplaces employing five or more staff said that their employer would allow them to reduce their hours for an agreed period of time at reduced salary.

  Enterprise, Skills and Innovation
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government have to support enterprise, skills and innovation. [150126]

  Mr. Byers
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I are today publishing "Opportunity for All in a World of Change: A White Paper on Enterprise, Skills and Innovation" (Cm 5052). Copies will be laid in the Libraries of the House and will be available in the Vote Office

  The White Paper unveils the Government's active industrial policy to help people and businesses in all regions prosper in our fast-changing world, and sets out the Government's action plan for the future. It sets out the Government's next steps for raising GDP in the regions,

  79W
  closing the skills gap, supporting industry through restructuring and nurturing new industries as they develop.

  University Innovation Centres and Technology Institutes

  The measures include a major new drive to create hubs for growth in the regions based on imaginative new partnerships between universities, colleges and businesses. World-class university innovation centres will be established in England. The first five are announced today involving companies such as BAE and Proctor and Gamble in the north-east and Hewlett Packard in Bristol. New technology institutes will be developed in each region to boost the supply of ICT and other high-tech skills and transfer of know-how to SMEs. This new network will produce a step change in the capacity of regions and communities to grow new dynamic businesses and high-tech employment. The involvement of colleges will ensure skills and know how are cascaded into the wider community.

  A new regional policy

  The Government's goal is to increase the rate of growth in all regions, addressing underperformance and building on success. Raising the trend rate of growth by 0.5 per cent. for the worst-performing regions would increase GDP in 10 years by £20 billion. The measures include:
  a new £75 million incubator fund to support start-ups and growth businesses;
  special support to manufacturing industry through a new manufacturing advisory service.
  a boost for R&D in the regions—university innovation centres and technology institutes
  developing strategies for success
  support for clusters.

  Closing the Skills Gap

  The Government inherited a situation of poor standards in schools and neglect of skills. Much has been done to tackle these problems. The goal now is to ensure all our people have the skills they need to be enterprising and creative and to deliver the world beating technical skills business needs. The measures include:
  an action plan to drive up ICT skills including training up to 10,000 people each year through the new technology institutes which will have £25 million new pump priming funding;
  reducing the number of adults with literacy and numeracy problems by 750,000 by 2004;
  building a world-class technical education system with a major rationalisation in qualifications and building up training in colleges and through apprenticeships
  a job transition service to help communities and individuals affected by redundancy to find the rights jobs more quickly.

  Innovation

  The Government's goal is to strengthen the ability of British business to innovate, ensuring that Britain has a world-class ICT infrastructure and promoting the exploitation of scientific advances by business.

  Initiatives include:
  an additional £90 million to promote the commercial exploitation of research in basic technologies, genomics and e-science;
  a £30 million fund to begin the process of ensuring as many people and businesses as possible across the UK have access to affordable broadband services. This forms part of the "UK online: the broadband future" strategy which is being published today. Copies are available in the House of Commons Library;
  measures to promote take up of digital TV, giving people without PCs access to the internet.

  Companies (EU Political Expenditure)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many United Kingdom companies he anticipates will be covered by article 3(1) of the Companies (EU Political Expenditure) Exemption Order 2001. [149925]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]The draft Companies (EU Political Expenditure) Order 2001 seeks to exclude activities such as the publication of newspapers from the definition of "political expenditure" under Part IX of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, while at the same time ensuring that the principles of accountability and transparency are properly applied in relation to political donations and expenditure by companies. The draft order would exempt any company or subsidiary undertaking whose ordinary course of business includes the preparation, publication or dissemination to the public of material such as views, opinion and comment on the news, or on public or political affairs and events, from the requirement to seek prior shareholder authorisation in respect of such activities; it would not exempt such companies from the requirement to seek prior shareholder authorisation for donations to political parties and organisations or for other forms of political expenditure.

  The order has been drafted so as to take account of possible future technological advances, and the Department does not have detailed information on the number of companies which will come within the exemption. The Newspaper Publishers Association, which represents national daily and Sunday newspapers, has eight members. The database of The Newspaper Society, which represents the regional newspaper industry, indicates that there are currently 106 regional press publishers.

  Mortgage Code Compliance Board
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response his Department has made to the most recent annual report of the Mortgage Code Compliance Board. [149838]

  Dr. Howells
  I have not made a response to this report.

  Workplace Bullying
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department is taking to(a) tackle and (b) raise awareness of the incidence of workplace bullying. [149992]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Bullying has no place in today's work environment and is unacceptable wherever it occurs.

  Legislation exists to protect workers from the most serious kinds of bullying, for instance under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Laws also cover harassment and discrimination on the grounds of sex, race and disability.

  Non-legislative methods currently available include the adoption of best practice and the dissemination of guidance to employers, employees and their representatives i.e. the ACAS 'Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures'.
  81W
  The Government's partnership strategy is based on co-operation and good communication between employers and employees, which should result in a more constructive relationship in the workplace.

  The DTI's partnership at work fund provides £5 million over a four-year period to help projects develop better employment practices within the workplace. The third round will see bullying as one of its areas of particular interest.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many ex-miners from(a) Barnsley and (b) Doncaster claiming compensation for chronic bronchitis and emphysema have died before their claims were fully processed. [149631]

  Mr. Hain
  IRISC, the Department's claims handlers, have been informed of 10 claimants in the Barnsley area who, sadly, died before their claims were fully processed, and 14 claimants in the Doncaster region.

  In all these cases, the claim will be continued by the claimants' widow or dependants. In addition, where a claimant's death certificate shows that one of the respiratory disease conditions for which British Coal was found liable either caused or materially contributed to the death, the Department will also make a bereavement award to the claimant's widow.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his target is for processing Standard Individual Export Licence applications; and how actual performance compared to these targets in the last eight quarterly periods for which figures are available. [149634]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's aim is to provide a substantive response to standard individual export licence applications (SIELs) within 20 working days. Our overall target is to achieve this in 70 per cent. of all cases, excluding applications concerning Iran or Iraq, or applications for licences to export goods which are subject to control solely because of UN sanctions.

  In December 2000, 47.7 per cent. of SIELs were processed within this target. For figures from January to November 2000, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) on 9 January 2001, Official Report, columns 496–97W. Figures were not collected on a quarterly basis before 1 January 2000. The performance for the whole of 1999 can be found in the Government's annual report on strategic export controls.

  Corus
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will examine the anti-competition implications of the decision of Corns not to sell its Llanwern plant to a competitor. [149358]

  Mr. Byers
  Responsibility for investigating any possible breach of competition law by Corns would be a matter for the competition authorities, the European Commission and the Director General of Fair Trading.82W
  I have drawn their attention to my hon. Friend's question.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the quinquennial review of the six grant-awarding research councils will take place; and what the terms of reference for the review will be. [150466]

  Mr. Byers
  I am today launching the quinquennial review of the grant-awarding research councils.

  Reviews of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are a key part of our programme to modernise government. The Government are committed to achieving better public services that are of higher quality and are more responsive to the needs of the people who use them. Regular NDPB reviews are an important element in ensuring that we have in place the right structures to deliver the Government's agenda effectively and to provide a strong focus on improving future performance.

  The purpose of the six grant-awarding councils is to deliver Government policy for publicly funded research and postgraduate training. It would be impossible to conduct a fundamental review independently from that policy. For this reason, although quinquennial review of the six councils was due in 1999, it has been appropriate to postpone their quinquennial review until the outcome of the relevant policy reviews had been completed, so that the role of the councils could be considered in that context. Together, the White Papers on Science and Innovation ("Excellence and Opportunity"; Cmd 4814) and the Knowledge Economy ("Opportunity for All in a World of Change"; Cm 2250) now provide the context for the review.

  The terms of reference for the review of the research councils are:
  The review will consider the six grant-awarding research councils individually and collectively.

  The review of councils will be undertaken in two stages:
  The first stage will examine the role and organisation of the councils, by reference to their charters and missions, evidence of work already undertaken to review and improve performance, current best practice for NDPBs and the councils' contribution to the delivery of Government policy for publicly funded scientific research and training in the context of the new White Paper. It will set the detailed terms of reference for the second stage.
  The second stage will examine the efficiency and effectiveness of the councils' operations. It will look for further opportunities for improving performance by reference to such issues as boundaries between the councils, management structures, aims and objectives, role of funded institutes, performance targets and service standards, use of processes and new technology, delegated authority and accountability and changes to the operating environment since the councils were awarded their royal charters in 1994, including the modernising government agenda.

  The review will consider, in particular, how the councils can best fulfil their strategic role in identifying the key areas for future investment in research that will offer the best opportunities for science, social development, industrial application and economic growth.

  The review will be conducted in accordance with the current Cabinet Office guidance (published on 31 January 2000) and will include consultation, either in person or in writing, with members of council, staff of the executive

  83W
  and the councils' customers and key stakeholders. It is expected that a number of working groups will be established to address key issues in detail in the second stage.

  The review team will be directed by a review board, which is chaired by the Director General of the Research Councils, Dr. John Taylor, and with a membership which will include key representatives of both industry and academia drawn from the stakeholder communities. The review board will ensure that Ministers, the Treasury, the Cabinet Office, and the staff and customers of the councils are kept informed of the progress of the review and will facilitate the gathering of information for the review team and their communication with staff and other stakeholders.

  The review team will be supported by officials in the Office of Science and Technology, with specialist advice as appropriate. The aim will be to complete the review within approximately six months, as recommended in the Cabinet Office guidance.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Surveys
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1991–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98, (g) 1998–99, (h) 1999–2000 and (i) 2000–01, (I) his Department"s total spending on quantitative and qualitative surveys of policy issues by focus groups, opinion polling, task forces or other means and (II) the cost of each individual project. [146595]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not collect separate data on expenditure on the categories listed. It would involve disproportionate expense to retrieve this information from various sources and itemise the individual projects.

  Iraq
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the Arab world about the continuation of sanctions on Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [149745]

  Mr. Wilson
  We maintain regular dialogue with the Governments of the Arab world on Iraq. I recently had the opportunity to discuss this matter with the Foreign Minister of Egypt.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from the UN Interim Administrator for Kosovo regarding the security situation in Kosovo and Southern Serbia. [149775]

  Mr. Vaz
  The new special representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) visited London shortly before taking up his post, and held discussions with me and with senior officials. Staff of the British Office in Pristina are in close touch with him, and we seek actively to support 84W
  him in his important work. This mandate does not extend to Southern Serbia outside Kosovo, but we receive regular reports on the situation there from various sources.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the security situation in(a) Kosovo and (b) Presevo Valley. [149774]

  Mr. Vaz
  UNMIK and KFOR are working actively to improve public order and counter extremist activity in Kosovo. Although isolated violent incidents continue to occur, most of the province is calm. There have been a number of violent demonstrations recently in Mitrovica, to which KFOR and UNMIK have responded. British troops, as part of the KFOR reserve, were temporarily deployed there. We fully support UNMIK's efforts to promote greater inter-communal peace in the town.

  We remain concerned about the risk of serious violence in the Presevo Valley area of Serbia, and commend the FRY authorities for the restraint they have so far shown. We welcome the recent announcement by Belgrade of proposals to resolve the conflict, and the fact that some representatives of the ethnic Albanian armed groups also seem prepared to negotiate. The United Kingdom, with our partners and allies, will want to do whatever we can to support a peaceful outcome.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the UN Interim Administrators for Kosovo regarding the current violence by military demonstrators against NATO peacekeepers in Kosovo. [149776]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have been in regular contact with the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) about the demonstrations against KFOR peacekeepers in Mitrovica. We condemn all acts of violence against KFOR. We support UNMIK' s attempts to build confidence and ethnic tolerance in the town.

  WEU
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the European Union is required to abide by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 when it takes over as the new employer of the Western European Union staff. [149899]

  Mr. Vaz
  I will write to my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Sierra Leone (Conflict Diamonds)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact on dealing in illegal diamonds in Sierra Leone of his initiatives on conflict diamonds. [149989]

  Mr. Wilson
  As part of HMG's initiative to tackle the problem of conflict diamonds, the UK played the lead role in promoting UN Security Council resolution 1306, which was adopted on 5 July 2000 and imposed a ban on the direct or indirect import of all rough diamonds from Sierra Leone to the territory of UN member states. The resolution provided for an exemption from the ban for diamonds controlled by the Government of Sierra Leone through a certificate of origin regime. This exemption came into effect on 6 October 2000 when the UN
  85W
  Sanctions Committee Chairman reported to the President of the Security Council that an effective regime was fully in operation.

  It is too early to assess the impact of the new regime on the illicit diamond trade. However, we anticipate that it will enhance the capacity of the Government and people of Sierra Leone to benefit from the country's diamond wealth, while limiting the rebels' income from illegal trade. In addition to the combative systems already in place, the UK is promoting a UN Security Council resolution recommending a package of measures against Liberia, identified as the rebel Revolutionary United Front's primary supporter in a recent expert panel report. We also co-sponsored resolution 55/56 on conflict diamonds, adopted by the UN General Assembly last December, and are working with Governments, industry and civil society to develop an international certification scheme, as mandated by that resolution.

  Pakistan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he intends to make to the Pakistani authorities over the use of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan; [150210]

  (2) what recent representations he has made to the Pakistani authorities concerning the use of blasphemy laws. [150211]

  Mr. Wilson
  We remain concerned at reports that Pakistan's blasphemy laws continue to be abused. We have repeatedly raised our concerns with the Pakistani authorities and have called for the abolition of the death penalty under the law, or for them to be repealed. Most recently, an ad hoc EU Troika mission visited Pakistan on 20–21 November and raised these concerns with the Pakistani authorities.

  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Pakistani Government regarding the situation of Ahmadi Muslims. [150217]

  Mr. Wilson
  We remain concerned about the position of Ahmadis in Pakistan. We are particularly worried over the application of the blasphemy laws to them. We have ensured that the Pakistani authorities remain in no doubt about these concerns. We continue to raise our concerns with the Pakistanis and will monitor closely the plight of the Ahmadis.

  United Nations Security Council
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his counterparts in other EU countries regarding seats on the United Nations Security Council. [150115]

  Mr. Battle
  The Secretary of State has regular exchanges with a number of EU partners on issues relating to membership of the United Nations Security Council.

  We continue to press for early enlargement of the Council, including new non-permanent and new permanent seats. We support the creation of five new permanent seats: for Germany and Japan plus three developing states.
  86W
  The question of an EU permanent seat is not on the agenda. Under the UN Charter, only states can be members of the United Nations or its Security Council.

SCOTLAND

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the new public bodies established by her Department since May 1997. [145639]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Between May 1997 and 30 June 1999, the following non-departmental public bodies were established by the Scottish Office:

  NDPB

  Date established

  Clinical Standards Board for Scotland

  1 April 1999

  Scottish Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards

  9 November 1998

  Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

  1 April 1999

  The Scotland Office was set up in its present form on 1 July 1999. No new public bodies have been established by my Department since that date.

  Long-term Care
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she has received on proposals by the Scottish Executive to provide free care for the elderly; and if she will make a statement. [148947]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Health care and social care are devolved matters for the Scottish Executive.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Pre-paid Envelopes
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many hon. Members have been requested to make payments for prepaid House of Commons envelopes which have not been used in accordance with the rules of the House; and how many hon. Members have been ordered to make such payments following complaints since May 1997. [150348]

  Mrs. Roe
  Supervision and enforcement of the regulations for the use of House stationery and post-paid envelopes are a matter for the Serjeant at Arms. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Education and Employment Committee
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the President of the Council what information she received on the contents of the Education and Employment Committee's report on access to higher education, and the proceedings of the Committee prior to the publication of the report. [150052]

  Mrs. Beckett
  None.

DEFENCE

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when it is intended to restart test firing of depleted uranium shells at Dundrennan in Kirkcudbrightshire; how many shells will be fired; and over what period. [148152]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 February 2001]The current programme of proof firing Charm 3 depleted uranium rounds is due to recommence on 19 February 2001. A total of 60 rounds will be fired in five serials during the next seven months. Subject to weather conditions, the programme is expected to be completed by the end of September.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is considering the availability of cost-effective alternatives to depleted uranium munitions; and if he will make a statement. [150216]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence has for many years conducted research into weapon and armour materials and designs. Research and consultation with allies continues to include the search for potential alternatives to depleted uranium and to identify and characterise their cost effectiveness and environmental impact. Depleted uranium still has a significant margin of operational effectiveness over alternative materials when employed in anti-armour weapon systems. In recent years, a new tungsten round has been developed for the Royal Navy's Phalanx close-in weapons systems that offers superior performance (anti-armour qualities are not important for this weapon system). So, since 1996, all replacement ammunition for the Phalanx system has been of the tungsten variety.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with work to identify a voluntary screening programme for service personnel and civilians who have served in the Balkans and who are concerned about exposure to depleted uranium. [150464]

  Mr. Spellar
  The first phase of work to identify a screening programme, which we intend should be equally applicable to Gulf veterans as to those who have served in the Balkans, has been completed. We are publishing today a consultative document setting out the technical issues associated with such a programme, inviting advice and comment in particular from a wide range of expert bodies. A copy of the consultative document is being placed in the Library of the House, and it will also be available on the MOD internet website.

  The next step in our work is to develop firm proposals for screening, taking into account the advice and comments we receive in response to the consultative document. Those proposals in turn will be the subject of wide consultation.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if enriched uranium, U-236, and other radioactive material from nuclear processing plants is used in the manufacture of depleted uranium munitions in Britain. [147412]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 7 February 2001,Official Report, column 521W.

  HMS Gannet
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to extend the use of HMS Gannet for anti-submarine warfare beyond April 2002. [149852]

  Mr. Spellar
  Beyond April 2002, HMS Gannet will be used as a forward operating base for anti-submarine warfare activated as and when required, as well as a permanent base for search and rescue operations.

  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in securing an alternative MOD use for the site of HMS Gannet when it ceases to operate on anti-submarine warfare function in 2002. [149853]

  Mr. Spellar
  No alternative military use has so far been identified by my Department. Naval Air Command is currently reviewing the options for the provision of single living accommodation (SLA) as part of the conversion of HMS Gannet to a forward operating base. One option could be to retain the SLA on the Greensite, but no decisions have yet been taken.

  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider the availability of adjacent sites to HMS Gannet in his assessment of its alternative future use by his Department. [149854]

  Mr. Spellar
  No alternative military use for the Greensite at HMS Gannet has so far been identified. The availability of adjacent land has been taken into account, as have the very strict commercial aviation safety regulations which would constrain any development.

  Defence Estate
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the properties from the Defence Estate (i) disposed of since July 1988 and (ii) scheduled for disposal by June 2002 and (b) the disposal receipts (i) received and (ii) estimated to be received by June 2002. [148938]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on employing short-term locums by the Defence Secondary Care Agency in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [149894]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what mess facilities are available to DMS officers at the Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham; when a dedicated officers' mess for personnel at the centre will be established; and if he will make a statement. [149895]

  Dr. Moonie
  Currently, there are no dedicated mess facilities for Defence Medical Services (DMS) officers at the Centre for Defence Medicine, which is to open in April in Birmingham. In the short-term, arrangements are
  89W
  being made to hold some mess functions at other officers' mess facilities in the local area. Several options to provide mess facilities in the longer term are now being explored. Precise time scales cannot be determined, but we envisage having such facilities in place within about four years.

  Royal Navy Aircraft (Radar Altimeters)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which RAF and Royal Navy aircraft are fitted with RADALT; if he plans to introduce RADALT as standard across all aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [149898]

  Mr. Spellar
  Radio altimeters (RADALT) are fitted to the following Royal Air Force and Royal Navy in-service aircraft types:RAF—Hercules; C 130K; Nimrod; Jaguar; Canberra; Sentry; Islander; VC10; Sea King; Wessex; Chinook; Puma; Tornado; Harrier; BAE 125; BAE 146; TriStar; Dominic.
  RN—Sea Harrier; Sea King; Lynx.

  A feasibility study is under way to determine whether radar altimeter fitment to RAF Hawk aircraft would be practical.

  Hawk Crash (Cumbria)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the conclusions and recommendations of the inquiry into the fatal crash of a Hawk aircraft over Cumbria in October 1999; what steps his Department is taking to address the conclusions of the inquiry; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [149897]

  Dr. Moonie
  The RAF board of inquiry into this accident concluded that the aircraft deviated from a safe flight path and hit the ground.

  The board recommended that consideration should be given to the fitting of either a ground proximity warning system (GPWS) or a radar altimeter (RADALT) to the Hawk fleet. Due to compatibility difficulties with the existing avionics and the anticipated remaining life of the Hawk fleet, the fitting of a GPWS is not being pursued. However, the feasibility of fitting RADALT to the fleet is being explored as a matter of urgency. The board also recommended that a voice channel should be incorporated in the Hawk accident data recorder (ADR) and this is currently being investigated.

  The costs associated with the fitting of RADALT or a voice channel in the ADR have not yet been determined.

  A further minor recommendation, with no safety implications, concerned a revision to post-crash management procedures. This is being done, with no additional costs.

  Low-flying (Northumberland)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hours of low-flying are logged per day by pilots over Northumberland; how many days of low-flying there are per year over Northumberland; which countries the pilots who practise low-flying over Northumberland are from; and if he will make a statement. [149896]
  90W
  Dr. Moonie
  From information available for the last three years, the number of hours low-flying booked by aircraft in low-flying area (LFA) 12, the airspace over Northumberland, Durham and north-east North Yorkshire, was as detailed:

  Total hours booked in LFA 12

  1997

  4,926

  1998

  3,983

  1999

  3,009

  It is likely that LFA 12 would have experienced some low-flying on most weekdays.

  In 1999 there were 1,917 fewer hours flown than in 1997, a reduction of 39 per cent.

  An annual statement on the pattern of low-flying in the United Kingdom is produced by the MOD, and this is placed in the Library of the House. The next annual statement will be published in the summer and will cover the period from April 2000 to March 2001.

  Detailed statistical information by LFA is not held of the country of origin of those pilots flying in the UK low-flying system. However, during 2000 foreign aircraft took part in less than 0.5 per cent. of the total sorties booked in the UK low-flying system.

  International Criminal Court
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will take steps to ensure the protection of military personnel from prosecution for their activities in both operational and non-operational activities in the proposed International Criminal Court; and if he will make a statement; [150032]

  (2) what measures he has taken and representations he has made to ensure the protection of military personnel and their activities in both operational and non-operational mode from prosecution in the proposed International Criminal Court. [150031]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]A principal purpose of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Bill now before Parliament is to ensure that UK service personnel are protected from malicious or ill-founded prosecution by the ICC. The Ministry of Defence has been closely involved with the legislative details to guarantee this.

  The Bill has been constructed to achieve this protection by using the principle of complementarity embodied in the ICC statute. Complementarity means that individuals cannot be tried before the ICC if they have been subject to genuine and effective national legal investigation or proceedings. Any allegations of war crimes against UK service personnel would therefore be dealt with by the UK and not by the ICC.

  All offences included in the ICC Bill are already reflected in international law, and the armed forces are already bound by them in their conduct of operations.

  To preserve the principle of complementarity, it is essential that domestic law allows investigation and, where necessary, prosecution of all offences contained in

  91W
  the ICC statute. The ICC Bill accordingly defines offences exactly as in the ICC statute. To do otherwise, or to exclude service personnel from the provisions of the Bill, would leave them without full protection from malicious or ill-founded allegations and prosecutions.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Work Permits (Professional Sport)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many work permits have been issued to non-European Economic Area(a) professional basket ball players, (b) golf professionals, (c) rugby football union players, (d) rugby football league players, (e) horse racing jockeys, (f) cricket players, (g) ice hockey players and (h) association football players in (i) England and Wales and (ii) Scotland in (A) 1996–97, (B) 1997–98, (C) 1998–99 and (D) 1999–2000. [148882]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 7 February 2001]Information held by the Department does not distinguish between England and Wales, and Scotland, and it does not separately identify rugby football union players from rugby football league players. As the seasons between the different sports overlap, for ease of reference the information requested has been presented by calendar year.

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Professional basketball players

  85

  92

  70

  88

  87

  Golf professionals

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rugby players

  227

  261

  204

  180

  158

  Horse racing jockeys

  12

  3

  3

  3

  6

  Cricket players

  189

  239

  263

  285

  352

  Ice hockey players

  66

  55

  52

  64

  79

  Association football players

  53

  53

  67

  78

  76

  Figures include all approvals for work permits, work permit extensions, and change of employers.

  Departmental Policies (Morecambe and Lunesdale)
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, including statistical information, the effect on the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [149121]

  Mr. Wills
  Details of the effect on the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency and Lancashire LEA of a range of the Department's policies have been placed in the Library.

  Teacher Vacancies (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school teacher vacancies there are in schools in the London borough of Wandsworth. [149367]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Full-time teacher vacancies in maintained schools in the London borough of Wandsworth at January 2000 are as follows.
  92W

  Number of vacancies

  Vacancy rate (Percentage)

  Nursery/primary

  Wandsworth

  13

  1.7

  England

  1,420

  0.8

  Secondary

  Wandsworth

  10

  1.7

  England

  1,250

  0.7

  The number of regular teachers in maintained schools in England increased by 6,900 between January 1998 and January 2000 (7,400 in England and Wales).

  There was a growth of more than 2,000 in the number of people training to be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the impact of tuition fees and the abolition of maintenance grants on (1) student drop-out rates; [149456]

  (2) the number of applicants for university. [149457]

  Mr. Wicks
  We have no evidence to suggest that the student support arrangements we introduced are affecting non-completion rates or the demand for higher education. The non-completion rate in the UK has remained broadly steady at 17–18 per cent. since 1991–92. Data from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) on the number of people accepted for entry to full-time and sandwich courses in higher education in the UK in 2000–01 show an overall rise of 1.5 per cent. or over 5,000 students compared to the previous year. This follows an increase in enrolments in both 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  Student Expulsions
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students have been expelled from universities in England and Wales as a result of nonpayment of debts in each of the last five years. [149459]

  Mr. Wicks
  Data are not held centrally on expulsions from higher education institutions as a result of nonpayment of debts.

  Bett Report
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received from higher education bodies and institutions on the recommendations of the Bett report. [149664]

  Mr. Wicks
  My Department has received several representations from higher education bodies, institutions and individuals. The Bett report was to the employers, not the Government. However, the Government recognise that funding is a factor in recruitment and retention of staff and is providing £50 million in 2001–02, rising to £110 million in 2002–03 and £170 million in 2003–04, to support increases in academic and non-academic pay. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is currently consulting institutions, representative bodies and unions on the human resource strategies which will underpin the allocation of funds.

  Higher Education
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the cost of living in the south of England on recruitment of non-academic staff in higher education. [149665]

  Mr. Wicks
  My Department has made no such assessment. The recruitment of staff is a matter for higher education institutions. However, the Government are providing £50 million in 2001–02, rising to £110 million in 2002–03 and £170 million in 2003–04, to support increases in academic and non-academic pay. This will give higher education employers more flexibility to address recruitment and retention difficulties and modernise their reward systems.

  Music and Ballet Scheme
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children are assisted with their fees with the music and ballet scheme; how many are recruited annually; and what is the average cost per child to public funds. [149751]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In the current academic year 2000–01, 749 children hold aided places under the music and ballet scheme at an average cost per pupil to public funds of £14,845. All parents using the scheme are required each year to make a declaration of the family's income in order for their contribution towards school fees to be assessed.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the recent review of the music and ballet scheme and the subsequent consultation with interested parties. [149753]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We value the music and ballet scheme, and want to see it continue and develop. The final report on the review was received in summer 1999 and we consulted more than 60 organisations and other interested parties in the autumn of that year. We announced last April that we accepted, in principle, all 20 recommendations in the report: they covered scheme objectives and decision-making, scheme development, and financial arrangements (including the restructuring of the parental contribution scales). In response to one of the key recommendations, we established last summer an advisory group for the music and ballet scheme to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the operation, monitoring and future development of the scheme.

  Supported Employment
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what studies he has commissioned into the future demand for supported employment involving the first or rehabilitated employment of persons disabled and out of work and of the unit cost of widening access to employment for those in these categories. [149754]

  Ms Hodge
  My Department has not commissioned recent studies into the likely future demand for supported employment, though such studies have been commissioned in the past. I announced radical improvements to the Supported Employment Programme on 8 December 2000 which will result in the programme being opened up, for the 94W
  first time, to people who were formerly claiming incapacity benefits or were long-term unemployed. The programme will be known as Workstep from April 2001.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what studies he has commissioned into incentives to move into open employment from supported employment and the likely impact on those providers of supported employment who fail to qualify for those incentives. [149756]

  Ms Hodge
  My Department has not commissioned studies into incentives to move into open employment from supported employment, although my Department and the Employment Service receive regular feedback from providers and clients on this issue. We will continue to provide the training and support people need to progress from supported to mainstream employment. This is an important part of the modernised Supported Employment Programme (Workstep) which I announced on 8 December 2000. We expect that rates of progression from the programme will vary between providers and we will monitor the effects of incentives during the early years to see if there is a need to make any changes.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what studies he has commissioned into the nature of open employment taken by those leaving supported employment and into the skill grades and remuneration involved compared with those available under their previous supported employment. [149757]

  Ms Hodge
  My Department has not commissioned studies into the nature of open employment undertaken by people leaving supported employment because the numbers making such a move have been very small. One of my aims in modernising the Supported Employment Programme is to introduce improvements which will increase the numbers of people who move from the programme and into mainstream employment. The modernised programme, which will be known as Workstep from April 2001, will be subject to evaluation to provide information about what happens to people who leave it.

  Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what monitoring he has carried out of the responses of the Council of the University of Liverpool to the Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry; and what assessment he has made of the ability of the Council of the University of Liverpool to investigate the matter and take disciplinary action where appropriate. [149874]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Education and Employment in the Lords has asked the Council of the University of Liverpool to keep her informed of progress in the Council's consideration of disciplinary action of those employees of the University named in the Redfern report on the Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital. I understand that the president of the University Council has already established a panel of lay members of Council to take this work forward. I am confident the Council will properly discharge its duties.

  New Deal Consultancies
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what payments have been made to(a) Wildcat Corporation and (b) other bodies for consultancy services given in relation to New Deal and the reform of New Deal; and if he will list the subject of each project, the consultancy provider and the fee paid in each case. [149891]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]All payments to the Wildcat Corporation have been made from private funds. Information on consultancies is not kept centrally, and could not be gathered in the form requested without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Departmental Initiatives (Pendle)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what initiatives embarked upon since May 1997 have benefited Pendle; and if he will make a statement. [149912]

  Mr. Wills
  The information has been placed in the Libraries.

  School Funding (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional standard spending assessment for Leicestershire would be required were it funded at the average for English counties for(a) primary and (b) secondary pupils based on the SSA for 2001–02. [149985]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the 2001–02 education SSA per primary and secondary pupil for Leicestershire and England.

  £

  SSA

  Leicestershire

  England

  Primary per pupil

  2,292

  2,588

  Secondary per pupil

  2,960

  3,313

  If Leicestershire's SSA per pupil for primary and secondary schools were the same as the national average it is estimated that its 2001–02 education SSA would be £14.8 million higher. Between 1997–98 and 2000–01, funding per pupil in Leicestershire has increased by £310 in real terms. In addition to an increase of £14.7 million in education SSA, schools in Leicestershire will benefit from an estimated £6.7 million in Direct Grant in 2001–02. The authority will also receive £100,000 as its share of the extra £52 million made available to provide support to help some LEAs manage funding changes in 2001–02.

  Education Business Links
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the(a) £6 million additional funding announced in press notice 2001/0073 and (b) £23 million funding for Education Business Links will be ring-fenced for that purpose and what proportion is discretionary expenditure for learning and skills councils. [150114]
  96W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  All of the £23 million for Education Business Links, of which the additional £6 million is a part, will be ring-fenced for that purpose.

  London Weighting
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in which local education authorities teaching staff are eligible for London weighting allowance. [150191]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There are separate allowances for inner and outer London and the fringe. For these purposes:

  1. "The Inner London Area" means the area comprising the areas of the inner London councils as defined in section 163(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988 and the areas of the London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Brent, Ealing, Haringey, Merton and Newham;

  2. "The Outer London Area" means Greater London, excluding the Inner London Area; and

  3. "The Fringe Area" means:
  in Berkshire: the districts of Bracknell Forest, Slough and Windsor and Maidenhead;
  in Buckinghamshire: the districts of South Buckinghamshire and Chiltern;
  in Essex: the districts of Basildon, Brentwood, Epping Forest, Harlow and Thurrock;
  in Hertfordshire: the districts of Broxbourne, Dacorum, East Hertfordshire, Hertsmere, St. Albans, Three Rivers, Watford and Welwyn Hatfield;
  in Kent: the districts of Dartford and Sevenoaks;
  in Surrey: the whole county; and
  in West Sussex: the district of Crawley.

  Future of Education
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future of education. [150204]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 12 February 2001,Official Report, columns 22–24.

  Stagecoach Theatre Schools
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when a response will be made to the founder of the Stagecoach Theatre Schools, about whether the Stagecoach Schools will be required to register with Ofsted's Early Years Directorate and be subject to the relevant training criteria and staffing ratios. [150347]

  Ms Hodge
  It is not our intention that Ofsted should normally register activity-based settings such as drama, dance, or music schools where child care is incidental to the main purpose of the provision. We are exploring how that can be achieved effectively. I shall write to the founder of Stagecoach Theatre Schools shortly with a proposed way forward.

  North Southwark Education Action Zone
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to publish the North Southwark Education Action Zone account for 1999–2000. [150349]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The 1999–2000 annual accounts for North Southwark Education Action Zone will be signed off and laid before Parliament by the Comptroller and Auditor General when the National Audit Office (NAO) has completed its work and is satisfied it can give a full opinion. The NAO will then publish the accounts.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet representatives of the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service to discuss its funding. [150339]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Arrangements have already been made for a meeting with Home Office officials on 13 February. The above request will be considered in the light of the outcome of that meeting.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), of 2 February 2001,Official Report, column 338W, if he will make it his policy to list applications from Tibetan asylum seekers separately. [150057]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]For statistical purposes, asylum claims from Tibetans are classed as applications received from the People's Republic of China. There are no plans to change this procedure.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Putney will receive a reply to his letter of 14 November on behalf of his constituent Mr. Juricic (Ref. J252287). [148438]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 9 February 2001]I wrote to my hon. Friend on 12 February 2001.

  I am sorry for the delay in responding.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prison inmates in category (i) A, (ii) B, (iii) C and (iv) D, were being held in prisons in England and Wales on 1 January. [149620]

  Mr. Boateng
  Provisional information showing how many sentenced adult male prisoners are in category A, B, C and D prisons is given in the table.98W
  Remand prisoners are not usually categorised except for some remand prisoners held as category A prisoners. 7,857 male prisoners were being held on remand at the end of January. Of these, 241 were being held as category A prisoners.

  Women and young offenders may be placed in category A establishments but are otherwise categorised as suitable for open or closed conditions. Provisional information shows that at the end of January 2001 there were three sentenced adult female prisoners and one remand female prisoner in category A prisons. Sixteen male young offenders were also held in category A prisons.

  Number of sentenced adult males held in each category of Prison in England and Wales for the end of January 2001

  Category of prison

  Number1

  Category A

  703

  Category B

  7,701

  Category C

  26,817

  Category D

  4,030

  1 Excludes sentenced adult males recently arrived and awaiting categorisation

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were serving a life prison sentence for murder in England and Wales on 1 January. [149619]

  Mr. Boateng
  Provisional information for 31 December 2000 shows that there were 3,325 males and 124 females serving life sentences for murder in prisons in England and Wales at that time. Information on prison population is available in successive volumes of "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (Chapter 1 of the 1999 edition, CM 4805).

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the date of application of the earliest application for naturalisation which is awaiting determination by his Department. [147634]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 29 January 2001]The information in the form requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, as at 31 December 2000, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate was starting consideration of applications for naturalisation made on 4 June 2000. There is a small number of cases older than this, where initial consideration is being given. Some cases received after 4 June have also been started. Applications for registration as a British citizen are started as they arrive.

  Deportation Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women are being held in prisons in England and Wales awaiting deportation from the UK. [149621]

  Mr. Boateng
  Provisional information for 31 December 2000 shows there were 101 males and no females being held in prisons in England and Wales awaiting deportation.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much additional funding in real terms has been allocated for employing Immigration and Nationality Directorate caseworkers in each of the last three years; what additional real terms funding is planned for the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [149546]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]Overall expenditure on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) (excluding asylum support costs) over the last three years was:

  £ million

  Cash

  Real1

  1998–99

  209.0

  218.2

  1999–2000

  260.0

  265.2

  2000–01

  594.5

  594.5

  1 At 2000–01 level

  Since November 1999 IND has recruited about 500 extra asylum decision makers and recruitment is continuing. The costs of those decision makers are met from the overall IND budget and not allocated separately.

  For the next three years the IND budget (excluding asylum support costs) is:

  £ million

  Cash

  Real1

  2001–02

  549.5

  536.4

  2002–03

  555.9

  529.1

  2003–04

  553.9

  514.4

  1 At 2000–01 level

  Spending on caseworkers for future years will continue to be met within overall budget levels and will be decided annually taking account of expected work load.

  Race Equality
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the race equality employment strategy of his Department. [149837]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 28 July 1999 I published my race equality employment targets for the recruitment, retention and career progression of minority ethnic staff within the Home Office and its service areas, that is, the police, the fire, the prison and the probation services.

  The first annual report was published on 27 October 2000 and showed that the Home Office and its services are making good progress towards putting in place systems to deliver the sought outcomes by the end of the programme period.

  Police Recruitment
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown, both nationally and for each individual police force area in England and Wales, by major category of expenditure, of the(a) cost to date and (b) planned cost of the national police recruitment campaign. [150043]
  100W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]The first phase of the police recruitment campaign ran from September to November 2000. The second phase of the campaign is running now and will finish in mid-March 2001.

  The costs by media are listed as follows. All costs are excluding VAT:

  £

  Phase 1 (Expenditure)

  Phase 2 (Planned expenditure)

  Total

  Television

  2,230,759

  1,623,696

  3,854,455

  Cinema

  374,254

  424,025

  798,279

  National Press

  647,565

  481,015

  1,128,590

  Women's Press

  85,629

  0

  85,629

  Ambient Media

  56,000

  6,950

  62,950

  Radio

  40,000

  109,870

  149,870

  Online

  0

  60,000

  60,000

  Total

  3,434,207

  2,705,566

  6,139,773

  In addition, approximately £840,000 has been spent on advertising production, bringing the total expected campaign spend to £6.98 million excluding VAT.

  The costs of future phases in 2001 have not been finalised.

  The costs cannot be broken down by individual police force as media for the campaign have been bought nationally.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take following the agreement made at the Leeds Castle meeting of the Central Local Partnership concerning the review of emergency planning. [150462]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister proposed that the arrangements for emergency planning in England and Wales be reviewed and I have set up a Steering Group to take forward this review. It will identify strengths and weaknesses in the current arrangements for emergency planning; suggest ways in which the community preparedness for emergencies can be enhanced; consult widely with stakeholders and provide advice to Ministers on the result of the consultation.

TREASURY

  Census
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2001,Official Report, column 565W, on Census 2001, what proportion ofhouseholders' questionnaire forms for the 1971 to 1991 census have been destroyed. [149785]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  101W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John M. Taylor, dated February 2001:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what proportion of householders questionnaire forms for the 1971 to 1991 censuses have been destroyed (149785).
  The Census returns for the censuses from 1971 to 1991 are in my custody and none have been destroyed.

  Sharman Review
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government have received Lord Sharman's Review of Audit and Accountability in the 21st century. [150461]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have received LordSharman's Review. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

  I am most grateful to Lord Sharman for reviewing this important and complex area, and for conducting his Review so speedily.

  The twin principles of accountability of the Executive to Parliament and independent scrutiny by the Comptroller and Auditor General are enormously important to good government. Present arrangements have evolved gradually over the past century and it is valuable to have the benefit of Lord Sharman's views on how these arrangements should now be developed to best fit the 21st century.

  The Government will consider Lord Sharman's recommendations very carefully with a view to improving the present system of accountability, and will issue a formal response in due course.

  VAT
  Mr. Bob Russell,
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the levels of value added tax charged on new build and work to existing buildings. [148455]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have received a range of representations about VAT on new build and work to existing buildings.

  Aggregates Levy (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the percentage change in the price of aggregates in Northern Ireland following the imposition of the aggregates levy; and if he will make a statement. [149637]

  Mr. Timms
  Aggregates prices vary considerably according to mineral quality, local conditions, and the commercial decisions of individual firms. The flat rate aggregates levy will therefore have a variable percentage impact on aggregate prices.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates the volume of Northern Ireland aggregate production lost to quarries in the Republic of Ireland will be as a result of the aggregates levy; and if he will make a statement. [149636]
  102W
  Mr. Timms
  The to international competitiveness of the Northern Irish aggregates industry will not be affected by the levy as imported aggregate will be subject to the levy when commercially exploited in the same way as UK produced aggregate, and UK aggregate which is exported will be relieved.

  Ultra-low Sulphur Petrol
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the Government have made of the availability of ULS diesel fuel in rural parts of Scotland, Wales and each of the English regions. [150333]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Ultra-low sulphur diesel now forms 100 per cent. of the road diesel market in the UK.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to extend the lower rate of VAT to include repairs to listed buildings in addition to historic places of worship; and if he will make a statement. [149763]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 February 2001]One of the Government's key objectives is a decent home for everyone. We ace pursuing this through the plans we announced in the pre-Budget report for a reduced VAT rate on conversion services and a zero rate for the sale of renovated homes that have been empty for over 10 years.

  Capital Gains
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the proportion of estates that benefited from exemption of capital gains unrealised at death in the last year for which figures are available; and what the(a) average and (b) median benefit was; [146262]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the proportion of estates that benefited from exemption of capital gains unrealised at death; and what the (a) average and (b) median benefit was in each of the last three years. [146154]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]The latest available information for 1998–99 to 2000–01 is as follows:

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Proportion of estates with net CGT liability in absence of exemption for capital gains accrued but unrealized at death (Percentage)

  8

  9

  9

  Estates with net CGT liability

  Average net CGT liability (£)

  20,600

  21,900

  21,500

  Median net CGT liability (£)

  6,700

  7,070

  7,010

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those items of the programmes run by the Ministry of Defence, Department for Education and Employment, Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry, Department for Culture, Media and Sport,
  103W
  and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which are classified as (a) Government spending and (b) Government investment. [150185]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Government spending plans for 2001–02 through to 2003–04 were set out in Spending Review 2000, New Public Spending Plans 2001–04 (Cm 4807), showing resource and capital budgets.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the administrative costs of implementing the Working Families Tax Credit to(a) businesses and (b) the Treasury; [149859]

  (2) what estimate was made of the costs of administering the working families tax credit within the Inland Revenue. [149860]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the costs to employers of operating the Working Families Tax Credit and the Disabled Persons' Tax Credit are given in paragraphs 40–46 of the regulatory impact assessment for the Tax Credits Bill 1999.

  The cost to Inland Revenue of managing and paying these tax credits for the six months to shown in note 3 to the trust account, on page 83 of Inland Revenue's annual report for the year ending 31 March 2000.

  Both documents are available in the Library of the House.

  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) widows and (b) widowers with care of their children are in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit. [149856]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not available. The application form for the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) does not ask whether the applicant is a widow or widower.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the Inland Revenue's guidance on software for administering the Working Families Tax Credit; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of these guidelines in dealing with circumstances where credits cease. [149370]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue produces specific guidance to payroll software developers which includes guidance on the Working Families Tax Credit. I am not aware of any representations on this matter.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies have reported(a) difficulties in operating the Working Families Tax Credit and (b) overpayment of tax and national insurance as a result of the Working Families Tax Credit [149375]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue provides detailed guidance to employers and the majority of them are paying tax credits to their employees correctly.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to ensure that jobseekers in receipt of Working Families Tax Credits are not disadvantaged in jobseeking as result of on-costs associated with their employment. [149372]
  104W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Payment of tax credits by employers reinforces the link between tax credits and the rewards of the work.

  In the January 2001 "Employer's Bulletin", sent to all employers, employers were advised that they must not charge their employees for paying tax credits through the payroll.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the Working Families Tax Credit on recruiting intentions among small and medium-sized enterprises. [149373]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Working Families Tax Credit is just one element in a comprehensive programme of tax and benefit reform to help make work pay and provide incentives to move up the earnings ladder. Other elements include reductions in income tax and reforms to national insurance contributions. These measures are underpinned by the national minimum wage which guarantees fair minimum standards of pay.

  Combined with policies to move people closer to the labour market and make them more effective at competing for jobs, the Government's tax and benefit reforms will help increase the effective supply of labour.

  Tax Rates
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional yield from levying a 50 per cent. income tax rate on(a) taxable incomes and (b) gross incomes above £100,000; and if he will estimate in each case the (i) income tax and (ii) capital gains tax. [148940]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full-year effects in 2001–02 of making the changes are set out in the table.

  Change in 2001–021

  Income tax yield (£ billion)2

  Capital gains tax yield (£ million)3

  (a) 50 per cent. rate for taxable incomes over £100,000

  4—

  130

  (b) 50 per cent. rate for gross incomes over £100,000

  3.4

  130

  1 Estimates are consistent with the November 2000 pre-Budget report

  2 Income tax estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes

  3 Capital gains tax estimates take into account the likely effect on yield of changes in the volume of disposals in a full year caused by taxpayers' behaviour

  4 I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Alan Simpson) on 15 January 2001, Official Report, column 126W

  National Insurance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are owed outstanding national insurance contribution rebates for the 1999–2000 tax year, broken down into(a) those with personal pensions and (b) those in contracted-out money purchase pension schemes. [143508]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are approximately 683,000 people awaiting a NIC rebate for the 1999–2000 tax year. This figure represents approximately 1.4 per cent. of the total end of year receipts received so far.
  105W
  The outstanding total can be broken down as follows:

  (a) 656,000 people with a personal pension;

  (b) 27,000 people who are in a contracted-out money purchase scheme.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Housing Investment (North-West)
  15. Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on housing investment in the north-west. [148456]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The north-west is, like all regions, benefiting from the substantial increases in resources already made available and the further increases planned for the next three years. The resources allocated to local authorities in the north-west for housing investment in 2001–02 amounts to around £350 million which is well over twice the amount allocated for 1997–98 by the last Government.

  Regional Assemblies
  16. Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to enable the creation of regional assemblies in those regions where there is known to be support for their creation. [148458]

  Ms Armstrong
  We remain committed to move to directly elected regional government, where there is support as demonstrated in referendums. As steps in this direction, we have supported the development of a stronger role for the regions, through the work of the chambers, regional development agencies and Government offices, and we are encouraging the regions to take forward the debate on governance.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met the Prime Minister to discuss the introduction of regional assemblies. [148459]

  Ms Armstrong
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has regular meetings with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, during which a number of issues are discussed.

  North-West Development Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he next intends to meet officials of the North-West development agency to discuss its activities in Cumbria. [148460]

  Mr. Prescott
  I met with the north west development agency on the 26 January to discuss the agency's activities in Cumbria and my hon. Friend's objections. Considerable time was spent in discussion of the location of the regional and sub-regional offices. The north-west development agency assured me that as well as having a sub-regional office (in Penrith), they will maintain a presence in West Cumbria.

  Weymouth-Dorchester Relief Road
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the earliest date by which the Weymouth-Dorchester relief road could be built; and on the basis of that timetable, on what date central Government finance for this project will start. [148461]

  Mr. Hill
  The Weymouth relief road was provisionally accepted for funding in its current form subject to successful completion of planning and statutory procedures. The Government will be discussing with the promoters the suitability of the scheme for procurement under the private finance initiative.

  Dorset county council's local transport plan specified the proposed date for the start of construction as April 2005.

  Disadvantaged Communities
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the policies his Department has pursued to address the problems faced by disadvantaged communities. [148462]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government's policies for tackling the problems faced by these communities are set out in "A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal" about which I made a Statement on 15 January, 2001 Official Report, columns 27 to 30 when it was published. This action plan, to be implemented by the whole of Whitehall, overseen by the new neighbourhood renewal unit, aims to narrow the gap between deprived areas and the rest of the country so that in 10–20 years no one should be seriously disadvantaged by where they live.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to speed up planning decisions on proposed renewable energy installations. [148463]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have set in hand the preparation of regional renewable energy assessments and targets to provide the framework for more positive and strategic planning for renewable energy development at regional and local levels. This in turn will feed through to planning decisions on individual renewable energy projects.

  London Underground
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the public-private partnership for the modernisation of the London Underground to take effect. [148464]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced earlier this month that he had reached agreement with the Commissioner of Transport for London, Bob Kiley, that we will work together and with London Underground on modifications to the public-private partnership. If we can agree mutually acceptable changes, the PPP bidders will be asked to submit revised proposals.
  107W
  The Government have not, and will not, set an artificial timetable for completion of the PPP as this would weaken our ability to ensure that it delivers the best deal for London.

  South East England Development Agency
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what support the South East England development agency has given to the local economy of the south-east. [148465]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  SEEDA has:invested £63 million in community and physical regeneration
  supported more than 160 rural development projects
  attracted 34 new companies to the south-east
  invested £4.2 million in projects to upskill people, supporting over 20,000 enterprises
  developed initiatives to promote enterprise, innovation and cluster development.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (North-West)
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many areas in the north-west of England are benefiting from the neighbourhood renewal fund. [148466]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government are providing £900 million over the next three years through the neighbourhood renewal fund to improve services in the most deprived areas. Twenty-one local authorities in the north-west of England will benefit from this fund.

  Housing Policy
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the methods by which his Department develops housing policy. [148467]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government develop housing policy through consultation, research and analysis. In December we published "The Way Forward for Housing", which sets out our policies to meet our objective to give everyone the opportunity of a decent home. This followed up a successful consultation on the housing Green Paper, widely recognised as the most comprehensive review of housing policy in a generation.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on housing policy in south-east England. [148477]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Government"s aim is to ensure that everyone has a decent home. Last December, we published our "Housing Policy Statement: The Way Forward for Housing". This set out our plans for achieving this, including the introduction of the "Starter Home Initiative", designed to help key workers in areas of high housing cost such as the south-east. The recently published revised regional planning guidance for the south-east recognises the importance of affordable housing statement, together with the role housing investment can play in regeneration and sustaining rural communities.

  Air Services (Regional Airports)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to develop international air services to non-London airports. [148468]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  Since June 1998, all bilateral partners with whom we did not already have liberal air services agreements have been offered unrestricted access to all UK regional airports, so long as UK airlines are also allowed to operate on the same routes. In addition, whenever possible we explain the opportunities available at regional airports during air services negotiations.

  Rail Network (East Sussex)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on planned investment in the rail network in East Sussex. [148469]

  Mr. Hill
  Go Via will invest up to £20 million over a period of up to 20 years as the preferred counterparty for the new replacement South Central franchise. East Sussex will benefit from electrification between Uckfield and Hurst Green and Ashford and Hastings, new rolling stock and station refurbishment including platform extensions.

  Traffic Levels
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the effects of rising traffic levels on the Government's sustainable development strategy. [148470]

  Mr. Meacher
  In "Achieving a better quality of life" (January 2001), our first annual report on progress by the country as a whole towards sustainable development, we noted that road traffic levels continued on a rising trend. Road traffic has been rising steadily since the 1950s. In recent decades that growth has been closely associated with the underlying rate of economic growth.

  A key objective of policy is to break that link, improving access for people and goods while reducing traffic growth and tackling the impacts of congestion and pollution. Our 10-year plan for transport includes a wide range of measures aimed at achieving these objectives.

  The most recent provisional traffic figures, published last week, show that in 2000 road traffic grew by 0.7 per cent. (after adjustment for the effects of fuel shortages in the autumn). This was the lowest increase in traffic for many years, and occurred despite economic growth of 3.2 per cent. during the year.

  Local Transport Plans
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on implementation of the local transport plans. [148472]

  Mr. Hill
  The local transport capital settlement announced on 14 December 2000,Official Report, column 202W, provided an £8.4 billion boost for local transport improvements over the next five years. Local authorities are responsible for delivering the proposals in their local transport plans. Authorities are required to submit annual progress reports on the delivery of their

  109W
  plans. My Department will assess progress not only on the plans themselves but also progress towards the local transport outcomes envisaged in our 10-year plan for transport.

  Industrial Development (Greenbelt Land)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on industrial development on greenbelt land. [148473]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Construction of new buildings for industrial development is inappropriate development in designated green belts except where it involves infilling or redevelopment of a major developed site in an adopted development plan. There remains a presumption against inappropriate development in green belts, as set out in planning policy guidance note 2.

  Integrated Transport
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met the British Chambers of Commerce to discuss progress towards achieving integrated transport in Britain. [148475]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State has not had the opportunity to meet the British Chambers of Commerce to discuss integrated transport in Britain, although meetings with individual chambers have taken place. Lord Macdonald will, however, be addressing the British Chambers of Commerce annual conference on 28 March, where I am sure the subject of transport policy will be raised.

  Ports
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on modernising British ports. [148476]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government announced the publication of a ports policy paper, "Modern Ports", on 27 November. Ports have an important role in integrated transport policy. The paper identifies a number of specific initiatives we hope to pursue. We intend to promote better regulation of the industry, and agreed national standards and good practice for port management and port operations alike. The paper sets out a balanced policy on port development which aims to make the best use of existing and former operational land, secures high environmental standards, but supports sustainable projects for which there is a clear need.

  Neighbourhood Wardens
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the neighbourhood wardens programme. [148478]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We announced the first round of 50 successful bids for the neighbourhood wardens grant on 18 September 2000. A further announcement on the success of an additional 36 schemes is being made today. The successful schemes are of a good regional spread, tackling issues on improving the environment, quality of life and community safety.

  Housing Investment
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on plans for investment in(a) social housing and (b) council housing. [148474]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The spending plans for 2001–02 to 2003–04 announced following last year's spending review provide for significant increases in housing investment by both local authorities and registered social landlords. These increases, which build on the substantial additional resources already made available through the capital receipts initiative and the 1998 spending review, reflect our commitment to bring all social housing in England up to a decent standard by 2010 and to provide additional social housing in areas where there is a need for it. Allocations for housing capital expenditure by local authorities have been increased from £750 million in 1997–98 to £2.6 bill ion in 2003–04, while allocations for investment in new housing by registered social landlords will increase from £0.7 billion to £1.2 billion over the same period.

  EU Structural Funds (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last discussed with the European Commission matters relating to the Merseyside objective 1 programme that have been referred to the DTI state aid unit; and when he expects the project to be approved. [147848]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Those project proposals that require notification will be put to the European Commission for approval. None of the proposals for funding from the Merseyside objective 1 programme has as yet been put to the EC and the Secretary of State has not entered into discussion about them. Advice is being sought on a number of project proposals for this programme and it is likely that additional information will be required on some before notification can take place. Approval is a matter for the EC and notifications are dealt with as quickly as possible.

  Transport Plan
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many of the new light rail lines mentioned in paragraph 6.61 of the 10-year transport plan he forecasts will start to be built over the period 2001–02 to 2005–06; and what the forecast public expenditure will be, including public resource and public investment, in the period on those lines; [149110]

  (2) how much of the money mentioned in paragraph 6.61 of the 10-year transport plan he forecasts will be spent over the period 2001–02 to 2005–06; and what will be the forecast public expenditure, including public resource and public investment, in that period on those schemes; [149106]

  (3) how many of the strategic road network schemes mentioned in paragraph 6.73 of the 10-year transport plan he forecasts will start to be built over the period 2001–02 to 2005–06; and what the forecast public expenditure will be, including public resource and public investment in the period on those schemes: [149107]
  111W
  (4) how much of the support to urban and rural bus services mentioned in paragraph 6.61 of the 10-year transport plan he forecasts will be spent over the period 2001–02 to 2005–06; and what will be the public expenditure, including public resource and public investment, in that period on those schemes; [149105]

  (5) how many of the trunk road by-passes mentioned in paragraph 6.73 of the 10-year transport plan he forecasts will start to be built over the period 2001–02 to 2005–06; and what the forecast public expenditure will be, including public resource and public investment, in the period on those schemes; [149108]

  (6) how many of the schemes in the Highway Agency's targeted programme of improvement mentioned in paragraph 6.73 of the 10-year transport plan he forecasts will start to be built over the period 2001–02 to 2005–06; and what the forecast public expenditure will be, including public resource and public investment, in the period on those schemes. [149109]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 February 2001]"Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan" assumes that public expenditure on local transport in England in the period 2001–02 to 2005–06 will total £30.7 billion. Of this, £12.4 billion is capital expenditure, of which £8.4 billion will be provided to local authorities outside London through local transport plans. Public resource expenditure is assumed to be £18.3 billion.

  The plan assumes that £2.5 billion of public resource expenditure will be used to support urban and rural bus services in England between 2001–02 to 2005–06. This figure excludes expenditure that the plan assumes the Mayor will provide for bus services in London. In addition, local authorities outside London will be taking forward a number of major bus projects and will be using a significant proportion of the capital resources available to them for smaller-scale schemes on bus-related measures.

  Of the £30 billion of public expenditure to eliminate the backlog in local road and bridge maintenance, complete the bridge strengthening programme and replace life-expired lighting on local roads over the 10-year plan period mentioned in paragraph 6.61 of the plan, the plan

  Table 1: Progress on light rail lines

  Scheme

  Capital cost1 (£ million, cash)

  Government support2 (£ million, cash)

  State of progress

  Nottingham Express Transit

  3180

  3,4180

  Under construction

  Tyne and Wear Metro: extension to Sunderland

  100

  50

  Under construction

  Manchester Metrolink extensions: three lines (Oldham-Rochdale, Ashton under Lyne, Manchester airport)

  5513

  6256

  Construction to start in early 2002

  Docklands Light Railway: extension to London City airport

  98

  730

  Construction could start in 2002 and be complete by the end of 2004, subject to the outcome of an application for Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA) powers

  Midland Metro extensions: two lines (Birmingham city centre, Wednesbury-Brierley Hill)

  165

  8—

  Provisional view announced that scheme passes economic appraisal. Construction could start before 2005 subject to outcome of an application for TWA powers

  112W
  assumes that revenue spending on highways maintenance by local authorities will be £10.1 billion in the period 2001–02 to 2005–06. A further £3 billion of capital expenditure for local road maintenance will be provided in this period to local authorities outside London through local transport plans.

  Paragraph 6.32 of the plan states that the specific schemes on the strategic road network to be progressed by the Highways Agency over the period of the plan will depend on the outcome of the multi-modal studies and decisions taken in the context of regional planning guidance. The only forecast that can be made about the number of schemes to be started in the period 2001–02 to 2005–06 is in respect of those committed trunk road schemes currently included in the targeted programme of improvements. Contracts for 13 of these schemes will be let in the current financial year (2000–01). The Agency expect contracts for a further 25 schemes, including nine by-passes, to be let in the period 2001–02 to 2005–06, subject to completion of statutory procedures for 13 of these schemes. The 10-year plan anticipates that public expenditure on the strategic road network will total £9.4 billion between 2001–02 and 2005–06. Of this, £5.7 billion will be capital expenditure and £3.7 billion will be resource expenditure.

  The most advanced proposals for light rail schemes, which would deliver 13 new lines, are identified in paragraph 6.61 of the plan. The current position on each of these projects is set out in table 1. There are also a number of other proposals which are at a less advanced stage, including new systems in Merseyside and Hull and extensions to Midland Metro, Tyne and Wear Metro, Manchester Metrolink, South Yorkshire Supertram and Nottingham Express Transit. Work on these proposals is not yet at a sufficiently advanced stage to be able to forecast whether they could be under construction by 2005–06 or the level of public expenditure that might be involved. However, the plan assumes that public capital expenditure on light rail outside London between 2001–02 and 2005–06 will total £1 billion. The actual amounts will depend on progress with individual schemes and the funding packages agreed with promoters.

  In London, it will be for the Mayor to decide priorities within the resources available to Transport for London.
  113W

  Table 1: Progress on light rail lines

  Scheme

  Capital cost1 (£ million, cash)

  Government support2 (£ million, cash)

  State of progress

  Leeds Supertram (three lines)

  434

  8—

  Economic appraisal under consideration; announcement to be made as soon as possible. Construction could start before 2005

  South Hampshire Rapid Transit System

  190

  8—

  Economic appraisal under consideration; announcement to be made as soon as possible. Construction could start before 2005 subject to the outcome of an application for TWA powers

  Bristol Light Rapid Transport

  194

  8—

  Economic appraisal under consideration; announcement of provisional view to be made as soon as possible. TWA powers not sought yet. Construction could start before 2005 subject to the outcome of an application for TWA powers

  1 Capital cost figures are in some cases estimates

  2 Government support figures are for capital expenditure

  3 PFI

  4 Government provide resource expenditure to support payments made under PFI deals

  5 Total construction costs of the Metrolink extensions

  6 Government support may also include resource expenditure if a performance and availability payment regime is adopted

  7 Support for the DLR extension is being drawn from the Capital Modernisation Fund

  8 No decision yet

  Spinnaker Tower, Portsmouth
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reach a decision on the order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 that has been requested in respect of the Spinnaker Tower at the Millennium site in Portsmouth; for what reason there has been a delay in the processing of this application; and if he will make a statement. [149563]

  Mr. Hill
  We expect to reach a decision very soon. A principal cause of delay has been that on two occasions, in September 1999 and in May 2000, the applicants revised their proposals. We had to ensure that interested parties were given a proper opportunity to make representations on those revisions, and on some further material that was submitted last August about radar impact.

  Transport and Works Act
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the procedures his Department follows in making orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992; what his Department's target time-scale is for the process of granting an order; and if he will make a statement. [149562]

  Mr. Hill
  Where an application is made for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992, and objections are received, the Secretary of State may choose either to hold a public local inquiry or to conduct exchanges of written representations between the parties. The choice of procedure will depend upon the nature and extent of the objections made. Either way, the aim is to ensure that the views of interested parties are given a proper airing in the interests of natural justice and informed decision taking. Following receipt of the inspector's report in an inquiry case, or the conclusion of the written exchanges, the Secretary of State carefully considers all the views expressed before coming to a decision.

  The Department' s target time-scales for determining TWA applications depend upon the procedure followed. Where an inquiry is held, the target is to issue a decision
  114W
  within six months of receipt of the inspector's report. For cases subject to the written representations procedure, the target is to reach a decision within four months of the conclusion of that procedure.

  Transport Act
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he proposes to publish under section 268 of the Transport Act 2000; and on what date. [149561]

  Mr. Hill
  Later this year we intend to publish, for consultation, proposals for guidance under section 268(7) of the Act, and proposals for regulations under section 268(2), relating to use orders and speed orders, and 268(6), relating to procedures.

  Planning
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require councils to require detailed plans to be made available at outline stage in respect of areas which have been offered protection by being made conservation or guideline areas, and for approval to be tied to the specific proposals. [149646]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have no plans to do so. Where an application is made for outline planning permission, the local planning authority may grant permission subject to a condition specifying reserved matters for the authority's subsequent approval. However, the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 enables authorities to require within a month if receiving an outline planning application further details from applicants where they are of the opinion that the application ought not to be considered separately from all or any of the reserved matters.

  It is for planning authorities to decide whether to accept changes to planning applications after they have been submitted, provided that they do not materially change the

  115W
  character of the development, or to require a fresh planning application. Where changes are accepted, it is for authorities to decide whether further publicity is desirable.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will require identified objectors to be notified when post-application discussions between planning officers and applicants is to take place; [149648]

  (2) if he will standardise the levels of confidentiality applied to pre and post-application discussions between applicants and planning officers in p1anning cases across local authorities; [149640]

  (3) if he will require greater openness in post-application discussions between planning officers and applicants and their representatives; [149647]

  (4) if he will codify the rules on pre and post-application discussions between planning officers and applicants or their representatives. [150025]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have no plans to do so. However, all discussions should be carried out within the guidelines set out in the Local Government Association's "Probity in Planning" and local authorities' own planning codes of practice.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will establish a planning ombudsman. [149642]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have no plans to do so. The local government ombudsman is the independent and impartial body charged by Parliament with investigating complaints about local authorities.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what effect pre-application discussions between planning officers and applicants are designed to have on planning decisions. [149643]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We attach great importance to early consultation between developers and local planning authorities on development proposals. Pre-application discussions provide an opportunity for proposals to be revised and refined (for example, to reflect local planning policies) before planning applications are submitted and thus facilitate a speedier and more efficient processing of them.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require councils to make statements of planning authorities available to objectors at an earlier stage than at present, and before deadlines for submission of their statements. [149644]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Streamlined statutory procedures for handling planning appeals were introduced, following public consultation, in August last year. These require other parties to submit their comments or statements of case to the Secretary of State on the same time scale as local planning authorities and appellants submit their statements. The operation of the new procedures is being monitored, but we have no current plans to change them.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning appeals were lodged with his Department in each 116W
  of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and how many appeals were dismissed by his Department in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [149810]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The following is information provided by the planning inspectorate about planning appeals to the Secretary of State under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

  Year

  Appeals received in year

  Appeals refused in year

  1990–91

  26,692

  17,522

  1991–92

  22,121

  14,963

  1992–93

  17,959

  11,853

  1993–94

  14,979

  9,138

  1994–95

  14,651

  8,098

  1995–96

  14,653

  7,461

  1996–97

  13,767

  7,819

  1997–98

  14,182

  8,366

  1998–99

  14,381

  8,354

  1999–2000

  14,772

  8,046

  School Transport
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to issue guidance to local education authorities on the age of vehicles used for the transportation of schoolchildren. [149807]

  Mr. Hill
  I have no plans to issue guidance to local education authorities about the age of vehicles used for the transportation of schoolchildren. All buses and coaches, irrespective of age, are required to meet the same maintenance and operational standards, which are enforced through the operators licensing scheme, annual testing and roadside spot checks.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the requirement for all coaches and minibuses that carry groups of children on organised trips to have seatbelts available applies to all types of school journeys. [149806]

  Mr. Hill
  Regulations require that every child must be provided with a seatbelt when a group of three or more children are travelling in a coach or minibus on an organised trip. School journeys where the key element is the transport of children would fall into the category of organised trip. However, seatbelts for children are not required in coaches and minibuses which are providing a transport service for the general public or which are being used to provide a registered local bus service.

  Powershift Programme
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have received help from the Powershift programme to convert their vehicles to run on alternative fuels in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [149741]

  Mr. Hill
  In the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000, the Powershift programme offered grants towards the cost of converting 4,566 vehicles to run on alternative
  117W
  fuels. Of those recipients, 208 grants were to private individuals and 615 were private companies or public organisations.

  Television Reception
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to take measures to ensure housing agencies and associations are legally responsible for providing television reception to their tenants and residents. [149663]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  None. Responsibility for providing for television reception is a matter of contract between social landlords and their tenants and residents. Many tenants and residents of social housing are, in common with owner-occupiers, responsible for providing for their television reception. In situations where television reception depends upon shared aerial systems, social landlords may be responsible (as part of tenancy terms and conditions) for the supply and upkeep of those aerials.

  Rural Bus Subsidy
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will make an announcement on the allocation of the rural bus subsidy grant to local authorities for 2001–02. [150328]

  Mr. Hill
  We expect to make the announcement of the local authority rural bus subsidy grant allocations for 2001–02 shortly.

  Sub-regions (South-West)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his reply of 8 February 2001,Official Report, column 648W, what different underlying economic realities are reflected in the proposed sub-regions. [150341]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The sub-regional approach draws on the report of the independent panel who conducted the public examination of the draft regional planning guidance (RPG) in March 2000. Their report was published on 3 August 2000 and copies were placed in the House of Commons Library. Chapter 4 of the report sets out their reasoning, including economic issues, which informed the proposals in the published proposed changes to the draft RPG.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 2001,Official Report, column 648W, which parliamentary constituencies fall within each of the proposed sub-regions. [150340]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The proposed sub-regions are broad areas which each have key economic features in common and therefore offer a basis for spatial planning. The areas overlap and it is not therefore possible to be as specific as the question suggests. The proposals remain subject to public consultation and comment.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 118W
  what public expenditure is planned for (a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04 for the single regeneration budget. [150220]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  £872.8 million for 2001–02. There are no figures for 2002–03 and 2003–04 because the single regeneration budget (SRB) will be combined with the regiona1 development agencies, other programmes to form a single budget that will fund a wide range of activities.

  Road Congestion
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met the CBI to discuss the problem of road congestion. [148445]

  Mr. Hill
  Ministers have extensive meetings with organisations both in the public and private sectors as part of their duties. Such meetings usually cover a range of topics. It would be impractical to maintain a central record of meetings with representatives of external bodies or the details of such meetings.

  Local Democracy
  Jean Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on initiatives to extend local democracy. [148442]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have put in place a wide range of initiatives to begin to reinvigorate local democracy. These include piloting new ways of voting, giving people real choice about how they are governed locally, and giving councils real powers to listen to and lead their local communities.

  Rail Policy
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that there is common purpose in the planning, investment, strategies and operations of Railtrack and train operators. [148471]

  Mr. Hill
  The Transport Act 2000 created the Strategic Rail Authority, with the purposes of promoting the use of the railway network for the carriage of passengers and goods, securing the development of the railway network and contributing to the development of an integrated system of transport of passengers and goods. The authority will develop strategies for rail development in accordance with the 10-year plan. The authority, the Rail Regulator and the Health and Safety Commission are the three pillars of railway regulation.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much funding from the EU was(a) available to and (b) received by the UK fishing industry in each of the last five years for which figures are available [146230]
  119W
  Mr. Morley
  The EU made funds available to the UK from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance under 1994–99 programmes of structural aid for the fisheries sector. The programmes covered Objective 1, Objective 5a and the PESCA Community Initiative. The indicative sums set out in the programmes at the beginning of the programme period were as follows:

  Objective 1 and 5a

  Year

  m euros

  £ million 1

  1994

  20.61

  12.81

  1995

  20.60

  12.81

  1996

  20.62

  12.82

  1997

  20.61

  12.81

  1998

  20.63

  12.83

  1999

  20.63

  12.83

  3 At end 1999 conversion rate 1 euro = £0.6217

  PESCA

  Year

  m euros

  £ million1

  1995

  1.132

  0.7

  1996

  1.712

  1.064

  1997

  1.937

  1.204

  1998

  1.672

  1.039

  1999

  1.899

  1.181

  1 At end 1999 conversion rate 1 euro = £0.6217

  A further 0.66 million euros (£410,000) was subsequently awarded to the UK towards the end of the PESCA Programme.

  The funding received by the UK fishing industry for these years is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Objectives 1 and 5a

  PESCA

  1995

  7.26

  —

  1996

  15.87

  —

  1997

  10.61

  0.094

  1998

  8.41

  0.437

  1999

  12.52

  1.225

  The following amounts were paid in formation grants to producer organisations:

  Year

  £ million

  1995

  0.047

  1996

  0.183

  1997

  0.101

  1998

  0.025

  1999

  0.014

  In addition the following amounts were paid by the Intervention Board Executive Agency under the fish withdrawal schemes:

  Year

  £ million

  1995

  1.51

  1996

  2.83

  1997

  2.22

  1998

  1.10

  1999

  0.57

  BSE
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the European Union countries in which cattle have been discovered to have BSE, indicating the measures taken to prohibit the import into the United Kingdom of beef products in each case. [146576]

  Ms Quin
  Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom have all reported indigenous cases of BSE.

  In line with EU legislation the UK has prohibited the import of beef and beef products from Portugal but has not prohibited imports from any of the other countries listed above. UK consumers are protected regarding products that are imported from any of the other countries listed above by the EU-wide requirement to remove specified risk materials from the food chain.

  Crop Protection Chemicals
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the joint industry submission, Minimising the Environmental Impacts of Crop Protection Chemicals, Revised proposals February 2001. [148864]

  Ms Quin
  The November 2000 pre-Budget report announced that, in the run-up to Budget 2001, the Government wished to see the Crop Protection Association (CPA) make further improvements to the package of voluntary measures that the industry has been developing over the past year. This latest submission from the CPA and from a number of other stakeholders involved in the supply and use of crop protection products, was received by the Government on 29 January. It is currently being evaluated.

  Crop Loss (South Yorkshire)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assistance his Department is providing for farmers who have lost crops through persistent wet weather in Don Valley; [149074]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the value of crops lost due to adverse weather causing groundwater saturation in (a) Don Valley constituency and (b) South Yorkshire. [149075]

  Ms Quin
  The recent exceptionally wet weather in Don Valley and South Yorkshire has caused a number of difficulties for farmers, ranging from delay in normal seasonal cultivations to the actual loss of certain crops, in particular potatoes and sugar.

  The Government have taken a number of steps to try to protect CAP payments to farmers and to provide £11.6 million in flood-related funding to the operating authorities to help defray exceptional emergency costs which would otherwise fall in part on farmers and the wider public.

  In addition to the measures announced in reply to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on 24 January 2001, Official Report, columns 594–95W, my right hon. Friend the Minister informed the House on 1 February that the European Commission had confirmed a number of further changes to our national implementing

  121W
  arrangements for the Arable Area Payments Scheme this year. These include the ability to pay aid on certain partially failed crops and to allow farmers to set-aside land after 15 January where they have been unable to re-sow crops or where existing crops have been so flood damaged as to be incapable of yielding a harvest. We will shortly be writing to all farmers to explain in full what can now be allowed.

  Sea Defence Projects
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance he will give to the relevant authorities and agencies in Devon to secure EU funding towards sea defence projects in the county. [149514]

  Mr. Morley
  There are limited opportunities for EU funding towards sea defence projects. Relevant authorities and agencies are aware of these opportunities and can apply for funds. Of course the Government provide substantial funding for sea defences.

  Prion Diseases
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been undertaken to establish the means by which a normal prion becomes a rogue prion; and if he will make a statement. [149659]

  Ms Quin
  The generally accepted theory is that exposure to the rogue prion protein causes the normal protein to convert into the disease or rogue form. The mechanism by which this conversion occurs is not fully understood, but is the subject of research in a large number of laboratories throughout the world. Officials in MAFF keep updated on the progress of this research. They also monitor the progress on other, less widely accepted, theories for the conversion, such as exposure to organophosphates and manganese. Details of all the publicly funded work on prion diseases being undertaken in the UK can be found on the Medical Research Council's website at www.mrc.ac.uk.

  French Beef Import Ban
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of the European Commission case against France in relation to the French ban on the import of British beef. [R] [149687]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 February 2001]: The progress of European Court of Justice cases is a matter for the Court. The French Rejoinder to the Commission Response and Observations on the UK Statement in Intervention were submitted by 22 December 2000. This concluded the written part of the procedure. There may be an oral hearing at the request of the French Government or the Commission. Judgment is not expected before the summer.

  Set-aside (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of agricultural land in Leicestershire is subject to set-aside; and what the annual cost was to public funds of the set-aside in the most recent year for which figures are available. [149986]
  122W
  Ms Quin
  The area of set-aside in Leicestershire on claims made in 2000 under the Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS) was 12,694 hectares or 12 per cent. of the total area claimed for. But because not all agricultural land is either eligible or claimed for under AAPS, the proportion of set-aside in relation to agricultural land in the county as a whole is estimated at around 6.7 per cent.

  At the 2000 payment rate, the payment for this area of set-aside would have been £2,712,000 from EU funds, to which the UK Exchequer contributes. In addition some £92,000 will be paid shortly as agrimonetary compensation of which half will be funded by the EU and half direct by the UK Exchequer.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the annual loss of income to commercial fishing resulting from the recreational angling industry's catch under the total allowable catch terms of the Common Fisheries Policy. [149543]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: The economic effect of the quota reductions for 2001 will vary according to the extent to which the UK is able to catch its quota allocations. In some cases the quotas for 2001 are higher than the catches made in 2000.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food(1) what representations he has received calling for the removal of the recreational angling industry from the total allowable catch terms of the Common Fisheries Policy; and if he will make a statement; [149544]

  (2) what representations he has received from the recreational angling industry on the Common Fisheries Policy; and if he will make a statement. [149550]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 February 2001]: On 16 January 2001, officials met with representatives of sea angling and vessel chartering interests. The discussion was constructive and covered a number of matters relating to the Common Fisheries Policy including the application of TACs and quotas to landings made by boat anglers. It was confirmed following consultation with the European Commission that account had to be taken of such activity in managing fisheries.

  Animal Exports
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's policies to prevent cruelty to animals exported live from the United Kingdom. [150281]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government operate a twin-track policy to protect the welfare of animals exported from the UK. We ensure that the rules are met while animals are within our jurisdiction and urge the European Commission and other member states to give enforcement the same high priority. We will continue to promote improvements when the Commission's report on member states' implementation and enforcement of the EU rules is discussed in Brussels.

  IACS Payments (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to make IACS payments to farmers in Gloucestershire. [150221]

  Ms Quin
  The Regional Service Centre at Worcester started to make payments on 16 November; the earliest date that payments could be made after the amendments agreed under the Agenda 2000 proposals. To date, the Regional Service Centre has 98.5 per cent. of Gloucestershire's applications processed for payment. This equates to over £18 million. The RSC expects to be able to pay those of the remaining claims that can be paid in the next few days.

  Flood Defences (Tewkesbury)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will discuss with the Environment Agency the introduction of a floodgate at Gloucester and a guillotine gate at Tewkesbury; and if he will make a statement. [150327]

  Mr. Morley
  The responsibility for deciding which projects to promote and their timing rests with local operating authorities, such as the Environment Agency. I am advised that the agency has no plans to promote such works at Gloucester or Tewkesbury since they would provide limited reduction in flood risk. Consequently the question of discussions does not arise

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement about the accuracy of his Department's data base submitted to television licensing for the purposes of adjudicating upon applicants for free TV licences; [150343]

  (2) how many applicants for free television licences have been required to present proof of their date of birth at a post office as a pre-condition for their entitlement. [150344]

  Mr. Rooker
  The administration of the free TV licence scheme has been a considerable success, and some 2.8 million free licences have been issued with the help of the database supplied by this Department.

  This administration of the scheme is not a matter for my Department. It is the statutory responsibility of the BBC.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff are employed by TV Licensing; and how many of them are engaged in reconciling applications for free licences from those aged 75 years and over with the Department of Social Security database. [150345]

  Mr. Rooker
  This is not a matter for my Department. It is the statutory responsibility of the BBC.

  Benefit Take-up
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of people who are(a) eligible to receive (i) Housing Benefit
  124W
  and (ii) Council Tax Benefit, in (A) Scotland and (B) each local authority area in Scotland and (b) actually claim the relevant benefit in each case. [148128]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Number of households in receipt of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit for each local authority area in Scotland

  Housing benefit caseload

  Council tax benefit caseload

  Scotland

  479,000

  555,000

  Orkney

  890

  1,240

  Shetland

  1,030

  1,220

  Western Isles

  1,510

  3,230

  Scottish Borders

  7,380

  8,610

  Clackmannanshire

  4,950

  5,560

  Falkirk

  13,740

  15,580

  Stirling

  5,650

  6,940

  Dumfries and Galloway

  10,770

  12,670

  Fife

  31,970

  35,980

  Aberdeen

  15,810

  17,260

  Aberdeenshire

  9,320

  10,260

  Moray

  5,520

  6,860

  Highland

  14,480

  18,460

  Edinburgh

  33,180

  40,050

  East Lothian

  6,580

  7,790

  Midlothian

  5,580

  7,190

  West Lothian

  13,640

  15,710

  Argyll and Bute

  6,320

  8,230

  East Dunbartonshire

  4,290

  6,330

  West Dunbartonshire

  12,520

  14,520

  South Lanarkshire

  28,340

  37,510

  North Lanarkshire

  34,460

  43,050

  East Ayrshire

  10,510

  12,360

  North Ayrshire

  14,010

  16,310

  East Renfrewshire

  3,520

  4,980

  Glasgow

  102,550

  113,950

  Inverclyde

  9,540

  10,850

  South Ayrshire

  8,500

  10,600

  Renfrewshire

  19,500

  20,780

  Angus

  7,770

  9,260

  Dundee

  20,680

  22,860

  Perth and Kinross

  7,720

  8,960

  Scottish Homes

  7,020

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households, which may be a single person, a couple or a family.

  2. The figures for the whole of Scotland have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. The figures for individual local authorities have been rounded to the nearest ten.

  4. Caseload figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated.

  5. Housing Benefit figures exclude any Extended Payment cases.

  6. Council Tax Benefit totals exclude Second Adult Rebate cases.

  7. Scottish Homes do not administer Council Tax Benefit.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent, caseload stock-count taken in August 2000.

  Departmental Policies (Morecambe and Lunesdale)
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, including statistical information, the effect of his Department's policies and actions on the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency since 2 May 1997. [149122]
  125W
  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to our overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than constituency level data, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Morecambe and Lunesdale since May 1997.

  We are spending an additional £7 billion a year on support for families and children. This includes significant increases in child benefit, which will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from 9 April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive child benefit, and in Morecambe and Lunesdale 10,850 families benefit.

  We have launched the New Deals to help lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since August 1998 the number of people claiming Jobseekers' Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,323,600 to 1,044,900; in Morecambe and Lunesdale the number has reduced from 2,300 to 1,900. The number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased over the same period from 955,000 to 909,200 nationally. In Morecambe and Lunesdale the number has increased from 1,400 to 1,500.

  Next year we will be spending £4.5 billion a year extra in real terms on pensioners as a result of our policies. The Winter Fuel Payment has continued to tackle fuel poverty. Last winter, around 10 million pensioners, of whom 18,900 were in Morecambe and Lunesdale, benefited from the payment. We have now extended the scheme to include eligible people from age 60 so that even more older people will benefit. This winter, households that qualify will receive an increased payment of £200. The Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) targets the poorest 1.6 million pensioner families, 2,800 of whom live in Morecambe and Lunesdale. These pensioners will benefit from our alignment of all MIG rates from April 2001, giving single pensioners at least £92.15 each week—a real increase of £12.45 for the poorest pensioners.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims had been made by people living in Copeland for the winter fuel allowance by 31 January; and how many people in Copeland are eligible to receive winter fuel allowance. [149175]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information regarding how many claims were made by 31 January is not available in constituency format and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  126W
  However, latest information shows that over 14,000 Winter Fuel Payments have been issued in the Copeland constituency for winter 2000–01.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of this season's Winter Fuel Payments were not issued by(a) Christmas 2000 and (b) February 2001. [149667]

  Mr. Rooker
  All automatic payments where entitlement was established were made before Christmas. Payments made in respect of successful claims determined by 9 November were also made before Christmas.

  Benefit Applications (Medical Visits)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many visits are made per day on average by visiting medical practitioners who assess benefit applications. [149744]

  Mr. Bayley
  On average, 767 visits have been made each day by visiting medical practitioners on behalf of Sema Medical Services between the period November 2000 to January 2001.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants receive lifetime awards of Disability Living Allowance; and how many of them receive on-going assistance from Motability. [149836]

  Mr. Bayley
  Information linking provision of Motability assistance with a life (or, since January 2000, an "indefinite") award of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), as opposed to a fixed period award of appropriate length, is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Minimum Income Guarantee (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people from Leicestershire have contacted the Minimum Income Guarantee helpline since the new advertising campaign began; and how many people are in receipt of the Minimum Income Guarantee for the first time as a result of returning a completed application form. [149995]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested regarding the number of people from Leicestershire who have contacted the MIG claimline is not available.

  By the end of January, the take-up campaign had resulted in around 82,000 successful claims in total.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of(a) 30 October 2000, (b) 22 November 2000, (c) 10 January and (d) 8 February relating to her constituent, Mrs. Sue Brown of Broxbourne. [150336]

  Mr. Bayley
  A reply to the hon. Member's letter of 30 October 2000 was sent on 6 December 2000. A reply to the hon. Member's letters of 22 November 2000, 10 January and 8 February 2001 was sent on Monday 12 February.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many CSA compensation claims have been made; how many and what percentage of these claims were instigated by(a) the CSA on behalf of their clients and (b) the clients directly; and what was the average amount of compensation paid in the cases brought by (i) the CSA on behalf of their client and (ii) the clients directly. [149792]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mr. Doug Smith to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated February 2001:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.
  The Agency will consider making a compensatory payment where a client has suffered an actual financial loss due to clear errors or delays on the part of the Agency. In addition, redress can be considered for inconvenience, embarrassment or severe distress caused by the actions of the Agency. These latter (consolatory) payments can be paid over and above any other payments to recognise that some impacts are other than financial. In 1999/2000 these made up 19% of the total compensation paid out.
  I am sorry I am not able to give you the information in the format that you requested. The Agency does not differentiate between those payments instigated by the client and those by the Agency. However, Table One in the attached annex shows compensation payments made from 1995/1996 to 1999/2000. Table Two shows a breakdown of the payments for 1999/2000.
  Although the Agency's caseload has continued to increase, in 1999/2000 the number of complaints reduced along with the number of compensation payments made.
  Where the Agency considers compensation because of Deferred debt, or loss of use of the money paid as compensation for delay and error, it is not necessary for a client to make a claim. The Agency considers such payments automatically.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Table 1: Compensation payments made from 1995–96 to 1999–2000

  Year

  Number

  Value

  1995–96

  186

  114,000

  1996–97

  983

  656,000

  1997–98

  2,136

  1,101,000

  1998–99

  5,466

  4,350,000

  1999–2000

  5,408

  3,075,000

  Table 2: Breakdown of compensation payments 1999–2000

  Element

  Consolatory

  580

  Financial Loss

  2,119

  Delay

  291

  Other

  85

  Total

  3,075

  Table 3: Deferred debt payments 1999–2000

  Payment type

  £000

  Deferred debt

  2,024

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will issue guidance to staff working in the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service about mobility and job security; and if she will make a statement. [149558]

  Jane Kennedy
  Guidance has already been issued. Under the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act, employees transferring to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service will do so on terms equivalent to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations. They will retain their current terms and conditions including those relating to mobility and to job security.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department where the workforce for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service will be accommodated after 1 April; and if she will make a statement. [149556]

  Jane Kennedy
  Nearly all staff transferring to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service will be accommodated in the same locations as they are working in before 1 April. Those few who have to move offices will be accommodated as close as possible to their current location. Self-employed staff and others who work at home will continue to be able to do so.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the anticipated(a) workforce at each grade and (b) caseload per officer is for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service from 1 April; and if she will make a statement. [149554]

  Jane Kennedy
  Staff who presently deliver these services are expected to transfer to the Children and Family Court Advice and Support Service and caseloads on transfer are expected to be similar to present caseloads.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment has been made of potential discrepancies relating to pay for persons in the Probation Service and the new Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; and if she will make a statement. [149559]

  Jane Kennedy
  My officials have reviewed the different pay scales of staff who will transfer from the Probation Service, and other employers, into the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). It is clear that there are many variations between different groups of staff. Under the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act, employees transferring to CAFCASS on 1 April will do so under terms equivalent to the Transfer of Undertakings and (Protection of Employment) Regulations. It will be a priority for CAFCASS to negotiate a harmonisation of terms and conditions.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service will issue guarantees in relation to detriment and continuity of service for transferring employees; if it will be possible
  129W
  for members of staff to transfer back to the Probation Service at a future date; and if she will make a statement. [149557]

  Jane Kennedy
  Employees transferring to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) will keep their continuity of service. Staff will, of course, be free to apply for posts in the Probation Service in the future. I expect CAFCASS to act as a good employer in relation to conditions of service in the future.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what costs have been incurred to date in establishing the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; what is the planned budget for the next financial year; and if she will make a statement. [149553]

  Jane Kennedy
  The costs of establishing CAFCASS amount to a total of £11.6 million for start-up costs. These, together with the staffing costs, have been met from within the provision of the three sponsoring Departments: LCD, the Home Office and the Department of Health. The planned budget for next year is £72 million in running costs plus £9.1 million capital.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on progress in establishing the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; and on what date the service will be operational. [149552]

  Jane Kennedy
  The service will be established on Sunday 1 April 2001 and will be operational from Monday 2 April as planned. Staff and other main stakeholders are playing an invaluable role alongside my officials in shaping the unified service.

  The chair, the board, and the chief executive of CAFCASS have been appointed. All the necessary transfer arrangements for children's cases, and for staff, accommodation, finance and IT, will be in place on 2 April.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations she has received on trade union recognition for staff at the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; what response has been made to those representations; and if she will make a statement. [149555]

  Jane Kennedy
  Several representations have been received and the CAFCASS chairman-designate, Anthony Hewson OBE, announced on 12 February that the National Association of Probation Officers would be a recognised trade union within CAFCASS. Representations from other trade unions are being considered.

  Public Records
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she proposes to take action to ensure that full details of this year's Schedules from Public Record Act Instruments of Extended Retention and Closure are accessible to(a) hon. Members and (b) the public. [149635]
  130W
  Mr. Lock
  Copies of the retention and extended closure instruments will be supplied to the Libraries of both Houses after their signature by the Lord Chancellor.

  Extended closure instruments are made available to the public on open shelves in the Public Record Office's reading rooms at Kew. Retention instruments are not on open shelves at Kew, but are available for public inspection on request.

CABINET OFFICE

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if the special advisers working for her will relinquish their posts when the next general election is called. [149322]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Schedule 1 (Part 2) of the "Model Contract for Special Advisers" sets out the rules for special advisers on their involvement in political activities, including their participation in election campaigns.

WALES

  Corus
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the occasions on which he met representatives of the Corus Steel company between July 2000 and 1 February; and if he will make a statement. [150234]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I had a number of meetings and telephone conversations with senior executives of Corus, including both the Chairman, Sir Brian Moffatt, and the former Joint Chief Executive, John Bryant. In addition, on 8 December, I paid a visit to the company's Port Talbot plant.

  During these exchanges, I took every opportunity to impress on the company the importance of steel making in Wales, and the need to take full account of the dramatic improvements that have been made in productivity, the continued strengthening of the euro, and other significant factors in reaching decisions about the future of their UK operations.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the occasions on which he met the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the job losses at Corns in Wales, prior to the announcement on 1 February; and if he will make a statement. [150252]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet frequently with the First Secretary and, during the weeks of speculation about the future of Corus plants in Wales, that has been a regular topic for discussion between us.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the cost of clearing the site of the Corus Steelworks at Llanwern after production of steel ceases at the site; and if he will make a statement. [150230]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None. I am urging Corns to reconsider its plans. However, the cost of any site clearance is a matter for the company.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Prison Service Custody: Juveniles
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln The Lord Bishop of Lincoln asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the increased number of children and young people held in prison custody, when they will implement in full Section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and end the remanding of 15 to 16 year-olds into Prison Service custody.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, significant steps have already been taken. In June 1999 the Government introduced court-ordered secure remands to local authority accommodation for 12 to 16 year-old girls, 12 to 14 year-old boys and 15 and 16 year-old boys who were vulnerable and for whom a place was available. There are now 165 remanded 15 and 16 year-old boys in Prison Service custody, compared with 247 in April 2000.
The scope for further progress depends very much on the numbers sent to custody by the courts, the needs of sentenced juveniles and the provision of new accommodation. We have plans for 400 more places but there are other demands on them. We are meanwhile improving standards in the Prison Service juvenile estate.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he not agree that, in locking up children, England and Wales fall short of standards outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are, of course, very aware of those standards but there are circumstances in which, sadly, young people have to be detained. The Government's policy attempts to provide effective education and training for young offenders so that when they return to a life outside the prison estate they are fit for employment and want to become fully fledged citizens in the full sense of the term.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, who is responsible for the rights and welfare of these young people while they are in custody? Are there any special arrangements made within the Prison Service?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, obviously the service itself is responsible for those young people. I am sure that the service will take full cognisance of
134
their individual circumstances and seek to ensure that they are fully aware not only of their rights but also of their responsibilities. We believe that that is most important.
Lord Warner: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Youth Justice Board has funded 120 bail supervision and support schemes and that these are reducing the need for the courts to remand young people to custody and secure accommodation? Does he, like me, welcome the efforts that the youth offending teams and the officers in the secure estates have made to improve the regimes and the quality of treatment provided for young offenders in this country?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, the noble Lord is the chair of the Youth Justice Board, and should be greatly congratulated on the work that the board has undertaken. I fully endorse the noble Lord's comments and observation. It is with considerable delight that I say that bail supervision and support schemes funded by the board are having a beneficial impact on the total remand population. I understand that it is down 22 per cent from April 2000 to January 2001. We believe that that is real progress. Later this year the Youth Justice Board will implement the intensive surveillance and supervision programme which will manage persistent young offenders, including those on bail, in the community as an alternative to custody. Again, that is progress and is something which all Members of your Lordships' House should congratulate the board on achieving.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the High Court ruling in the case of Flood that girls should not be held in adult prisons and of the Home Secretary's commitment on 8th March 1999 that from April 2000 no 15 and 16 year-old girls would be held in prison? Can he confirm that that commitment has been honoured, or is it accurate that last week 94 girls aged 15 and 16 were still being held in prisons?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am certainly happy to confirm that the Home Secretary did indeed give that commitment. It is a sad fact that some young girls of the age range that the noble Baroness referred to are held in prisons. It is not something that we are particularly happy about. They are a priority group for taking out of the prison estate. That is our policy and objective. We have made steady progress towards that and we shall continue to do so. That group, together with vulnerable young males, must remain one of our top priorities in the forthcoming period.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the serious criticism of our penal institutions by Sir David Ramsbotham, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, and by the Director-General of the Prison Service, Martin Narey? Does he accept that there are serious oppressive conditions in some of our penal institutions? Will he consider, therefore, the possibility

135
of making more use of bail for young people rather remanding them in prison conditions? I refer in particular to 15 to 16 year-olds.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the answer must be yes, we are aware of the criticisms. We are aware of the point made. I am sure that the noble Lord followed what I said earlier. It is our intention to ensure that young people can be supervised on bail in the community. The number of such young people in custody is reducing. We are making encouraging progress. The noble Lord would no doubt like to congratulate us on doing that.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords—
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Baroness Trumpington: I am bigger than you! My Lords, the Minister has repeatedly talked of progress. If what the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, said is true I do not see any progress. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us what progress has been made.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, fearsome spectre though the noble Baroness makes—I quiver in her presence—I have been pleased to note today some important progress. The Government inherited a fairly poor—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it happens to be the case. We inherited a mess. We have had to rationalise and improve the service and provide effective and proper accommodation for younger offenders. Noble Lords have already heard of the important work that the Youth Justice Board has undertaken. I believe that our policies are effective. They address the real needs of those in the community. In the end they will help young people to turn from a life of offending.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the progress the Government have made already on this matter. Will the Government consider recommending that sentencing authorities, whether they are dealing with young individuals or older people, consider a sentence which will involve community service and not prison custody? Prison custody in almost every case involving non-violent offenders has no greater prospect of success and costs over 10 times as much to the community.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his background knowledge and experience through personal contact in this field. During a number of exchanges, I have stated that it is our intention to strengthen the purpose of sentences that are served in the community. That applies to both young and older offenders. That is the way we intend
136
to proceed. Recent legislative moves have taken us in that direction. I am glad to see that those moves are supported.

Working Time Directive and Drivers' Hours
2.45 p.m.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee asked Her Majesty's Government:
How the working time directive will affect road transport operations in the United Kingdom and Europe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, at last December's Transport Council, European Transport Ministers agreed that mobile workers would be subject to a separate directive on working time. The impact on the UK's road transport sector will depend on the final text which is still subject to negotiation with the European Parliament. As currently drafted, we would have three years to implement these proposals into UK legislation.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I remind the House that I have an interest. The Minister will have discussed these matters in detail with the Road Haulage Forum. However, bearing in mind that the average age of a lorry driver is 53 and there is already a shortage, what is the Minister doing to avoid an even more severe shortage in the future?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl is correct. We are discussing this and other measures with representatives of the industry, unions and the Road Haulage Forum to modernise the road haulage industry. We believe that there is substantial efficiency to be gained. We believe also that the prospect of, and the run-in time for, the implementation of this working time directive will lead to some changes in shift patterns which will be advantageous to efficiency and the well-being of the drivers. The whole point of the working time directive is that drivers—whether or not 53-plus—should not be subject to excessive time at work.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, with this excellent proposed directive to limit the hours of driving, why did the Government abstain on the vote of the Council of Ministers rather than support it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we supported the bulk of the proposition. As is normal in European negotiations, there were a number of moves that we could not support and we were unhappy with parts of the deal. We very much welcome the improved proposal in relation to night work. It gives greater flexibility than the original proposition.

137
However, the maximum hours—there is an average of 48 hours—are set in this proposition at 60 hours. We were looking for at least an interim derogation from that to 65 hours. That would have allowed for greater flexibility in shift patterns. Part of the road haulage industry indicates that that works. As I indicated, the bulk of the agreement is acceptable to the UK Government. We are now in a period where the final text will have to be produced. The European Parliament's assessment of it will also have to be taken into account. We are some way off the transposition of this proposal. It will be a three year run-in once the directive is in force. Therefore, there is substantial time for the industry to adapt.
Baroness, Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, who is responsible for checking the tachometers? Is it the employer or a separate inspectorate? How does one assess whether drivers have worked the hours which match the directive?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the directive is concerned with total hours, not simply driving hours. EU directives which are in force for most of the road transport sector relate to driving hours—that is, hours at the wheel—which are governed by the tachograph. The responsibility for the tachograph is primarily that of the driver, subject to the employer's responsibility. Enforcement is by the Vehicle Inspectorate checking at the roadside or elsewhere.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us strongly support the outcome of the December Council? It dealt with a sector that had been excluded from the working time directive. The provisions have been a long time coming and the compromise reached meets the essential needs of both sides of the industry. We should all support its early implementation.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's remarks. I recognise that the provisions are in line with much of what he and his colleagues in the trade union movement have campaigned for. However, on his call for rapid implementation, we need time to adapt the shift patterns worked in the industry, as occurred in manufacturing and other industries with the general working time directive.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, does the Minister believe that the introduction of the working time directive has made the British economy more competitive internationally or less?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the main competition is with countries in the European Union, the point of the working time directive and other related legislation is to create a level playing field.

Ex-Miners' Compensation: Speed of Payment
2.51 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government
What progress has been made in the payment of compensation to ex-miners suffering from dust-related diseases.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, to date the department has registered nearly 134,000 claims for respiratory diseases, 28,000 of which are from Wales. Progress has been slow, but payments are now starting to flow. In total, £113 million has been paid in respiratory compensation, of which £27.1 million has been in Wales. Taken together with compensation for vibration-related diseases, in recent weeks we have paid out about £1 million a day across Britain, with £1 million paid out in Wales alone last week. However, that is not good enough. We are constantly seeking to streamline the process and speed up payments further. New assessment centres are being opened and more doctors recruited. We are looking into using mobile testing units in some areas.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that one of the major stumbling blocks for early settlements is the shortage of consultants? If more were taken out of the National Health Service for that work, it would tend to cause resentment among the general public. Will the Government consider approaching the judge with a view to waiving some of the regulations? That might help to achieve earlier settlements. Does the Minister appreciate that the issue has become a national scandal in Wales? It needs to be tackled urgently.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that the shortage of doctors has been a major stumbling block. We have about 200 respiratory disease consultants working on the scheme, mostly in mining areas. Healthcall, the contractors, are now looking outside mining areas for additional consultant expertise. The agreement could be varied effectively only with the consent of both sides. That would be difficult, although I have no doubt that the judge will take account of all the issues when he holds his next meeting on 16th March. I agree with my noble friend concerning the outrage in Wales and sympathise very much with what he says.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in the debate on this subject on 19th December, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract, his noble friend Lord Sainsbury said that the Government had introduced a fast-track arrangement to expedite matters? What offers have been made under that arrangement and to what extent have they been taken up?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. £74 million has been offered under the fast-track arrangement, of

139
which only £25 million has so far been claimed. That leaves nearly £50 million unclaimed. That is disappointing. Peter Hain has extended the deadline for claims to be made, but the situation is not satisfactory.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: My Lords, we all appreciate the efforts that the department has made to speed up the claims, but many people feel that the situation has reached saturation point. The consultants that are needed are not there to be recruited. That means that many miners will have to wait up to five years, despite all the best efforts that are being made. Is my noble friend also aware that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury assured me on a previous occasion in the Chamber that he would look again at my suggestion that the miners who had already been assessed and awarded industrial injuries benefits for this disease should be paid with no further examination? He also informed me that he would have to get the permission of the judge and the acting solicitors.
Having received that information, I wrote to Mr Justice Turner, who told me that he found my suggestion interesting and would put it to the review body on 16th March. If the judge and the solicitors are sympathetic, can the Minister assure me that the department will support my suggestion?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have carefully studied the correspondence between my noble friend and the Ministers—Mrs Liddell and now Peter Hain—and that between my noble friend and the judge. If there were any mileage in using the DSS assessment, we would be keen to do so. Discouragingly, the correlation between DSS assessments and assessments under the scheme is poor. As my noble friend will know from the reply sent to him by Peter Hain, there are only 11,100 successful DSS recipients, of whom 7,000 have already received or been considered for offers. The scope for improvement in that direction is not great. I am sorry to have to give such a disappointing answer.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, as 134,000 people are applying or are eligible, would it not be in the interests of the Government and of the miners—many of whom have waited so long that one wonders whether they will survive to get any compensation—to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, who has lived with the problem for six to eight years to my certain knowledge, and maybe for more than 10 years? How many of the 134,000 are yet to be assessed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is obvious from my previous answers that we have listened very closely to my noble friend Lord Lofthouse and to others who know a great deal about the issue. I in no way seek to defend the slowness of the process, but, given that the question has come from the Conservative Benches, I have to point out that this Government immediately accepted the findings of the
140
court and immediately took action to implement them. The number of claims being received week by week is still higher than the number of claims being settled. That is the measure of the problem. If anybody had said two years ago that there would be 134,000 claims, they would have been laughed at. That is the scope of the problem left to this Government because of many years of neglect by the previous government.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, at the present rate of progress, how long will it take to settle all the claims? During the past three years, a number of applicants have died before their claims were fully assessed. Do the families of those who have been able to prove their entitlement but who then died benefit?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. It has been clear from the beginning that we have always given priority to older claimants and to the widows and beneficiaries of those claimants who have died. It is tragic that so many of the claims have been resolved by death rather than by payment in full. Widows have a high priority and interim payments are made to them even if the final claim has not been fully processed.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, given the speed with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is busily preparing a basket of goodies—or should I say bribes?—for the electorate in anticipation of the coming election, can the Minister say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to use all the power at his disposal, together with the generosity he is showing in other areas, to speed up this process? As the Minister said, the Government have decided to implement the compensation system in full, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said, many people are dying. Can the Chancellor not now get round the problem and deal with it once and for all, as it seems possible for him to do in many other areas?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wish it were only a question of money. As has been clear throughout these exchanges, the problem lies in the slowness of making claims, the lack of response to some of the offers that have been made, and, above all—this is the most difficult problem at the moment—the shortage of suitably qualified doctors. If it were simply a matter of money, the issue could have been dealt with a long time ago.

Church Building Repairs: VAT
3 p.m.
Lord Geddes Lord Geddes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What current proposals they have for the rate of value added tax to be levied on the repair of church buildings.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are continuing their discussions with the European Commission in relation to a reduced VAT rate for repairs to listed places of worship. A

141
preliminary reply has indicated that the matter will be considered by the Commission in its general review of reduced rates, which will take place in 2003. In the interim period, the Government are considering special arrangements to help congregations to pay for repairs to listed places of worship.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware of not only the extreme distress but the grave financial situation in which parochial church councils find themselves, having relied on the autumn Statement of his right honourable friend the Chancellor? Those councils have spent, or have planned to spend, accordingly, but now find that they have not been given the reduction in VAT which they were promised. Supplementary to his Answer, can the noble Lord advise the House what the special arrangements are, from whom they emanate, and whether the money is merely going from one pot to another or whether it is new money that is being proposed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, looks back at the pre-Budget report, he will find that the Chancellor's Statement was very cautious. He indicated that the Government were sympathetic and would put the case to the European Commission. He said no more than that. Under those circumstances, I believe that it would be unwise for people to spend money in advance of agreement on this matter.
As to the other special arrangements to which I referred in my original Answer, I do not believe that the noble Lord will expect me to give details in advance of the Budget, when it is likely that such special arrangements will be announced. However, I cannot even promise that that will be the case.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, can the Minister comment on the accuracy of the report in last Saturday's Daily Telegraph, which said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
"will shortly give churches grants worth about £20 million",
in order to deal with the problem of the time lag until European legislation on VAT changes becomes clearer?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to have to tell the right reverend Prelate that that report is pure speculation. However, I am interested in the figures which the Daily Telegraph gave because I, too, read the article. I believe that it is worth considering the matter in the context of the fact that English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund are offering £25 million for the repair of historic churches in this financial year under the joint grant scheme; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is offering £2.8 million—at least, it did last year—to the Churches Conservation Trust; and English Heritage has offered £3 million to cathedrals, totalling more than
142
£30 million of grants. On the other hand, the Church's own best estimate of the cost of VAT paid for historic churches is approximately £20 million.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate whether the Government are giving further thought to the reduction of VAT on house repairs in general? In that connection, is he aware that, with guidance from the Treasury, on the Isle of Man such VAT has been reduced to 5 per cent? When will the Treasury help us to do that on the mainland?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am entirely aware that there is a perverse incentive in the fact that repairs are standard-rated, whereas alterations are zero-rated. This problem arose because in 1984 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer withdrew relief for alterations without withdrawing it for repairs. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, knows, since 1977 our powers to introduce new zero-rates are extremely limited.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge the extraordinary cost-effective contribution made by the Church of England to our national heritage? Does the Minister consider it equitable that the burden of maintenance of some of our country's wonderful jewels—our churches—should be borne heroically by the volunteers in our parishes and by our worshipping communities when elsewhere in the European Union we find that the state intervenes, as does the general public?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, says, some of the glories—in some parts of the country, the only glories—of our architectural heritage are our historic churches. I pay tribute to the volunteers and fund-raisers who help to keep them in order. However, I must remind the noble Baroness of the figures that I have already given: we are giving in the region of more than £30 million in grants to historic churches., while acknowledging that the churches are losing £20 million in VAT.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is my noble friend aware that the French Government have reduced the rate of VAT on home improvements from 21.5 to 5 per cent? As a result, the take-up of work by reputable builders, who pay their taxes and whose customers pay their taxes, has increased by between 25 and 30 per cent. Did my noble friend see the report in the Sunday Times which stated that over the past few months alone members of the Federation of Master Builders have reported one MP, two Peers and a premiership football manager, all of whom have demanded illegal VAT-free cash refurbishment deals?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am shocked to hear what my noble friend said in his closing remarks. If he cares to give me further details, I shall see that, if they have done anything illegal,

143
Members of Parliament and Peers are pursued properly under the law. However, I am aware of the reductions under Annex K of the 6th directive in relation to labour-intensive services. We did not take the view at the time, and we do not take the view now, that that is a particularly cost-effective way to encourage employment, even if it were on a permanent basis. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner knows, those reductions have been introduced only as an experiment for three years.

Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Donoughue.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Liaison: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Perhaps I may detain your Lordships for a moment to explain briefly that this report proposes the speedy setting-up of the Select Committee on Human Cloning and Stem Cell Research, called for when the House approved the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2000 on 22nd January. It also proposes the terms of reference for the committee and a timetable for the committee to report.
The report also proposes that the setting-up of the Select Committee to scrutinise treaties should be placed on hold until we see how the new arrangements in another place work with regard to the issue of scrutinising treaties.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 30) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
A Select Committee on human cloning and stem cell research A Select Committee on human cloning and stem cell research
1. On 22 January 2001 the House approved the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2000, and in doing so agreed "that this House calls on the Government to support the appointment of a Select Committee of the House to report on the issues connected with human cloning and stem cell research, and to undertake to review the regulations following the report of that Select Committee".
2. We have accordingly considered how best to make available the necessary resources for such an ad hoc committee. In order to avoid undue delay in setting it up, we recommend that the Science and Technology Committee should be reduced from two units of activity to one for the duration of the existence of the new committee.
3. The use of such a reduction in order to allow for other committee activity was first proposed in 1992 in the report of the Committee on the Committee Work of the House, under the
144
chairmanship of Earl Jellicoe: "If the House is to take on some other committee activity, priorities and the availability of resources will from time to time dictate that the Committee must operate through a single sub-committee, or itself conduct an inquiry in the absence of sub-committees." Hitherto this proposal has never been put into effect, but there are several reasons why it is appropriate now:

(1) The new committee is on a scientific subject. So the balance of committee activity in the House will be broadly unaffected.

(2) This arrangement will make it easier for members of the Science and Technology Committee to be chosen to serve on the new committee, should the Committee of Selection so wish, and will make available the resources of the Science and Technology Committee, in particular the services of its specialist assistant.

(3) One of the two sub-committees of the Science and Technology Committee is currently undertaking a series of short inquiries and follow-ups, and therefore its work can be suspended quickly without curtailing any current inquiry.

Terms of reference
4. We propose that the new committee should have the following terms of reference:
"To consider and report on the issues connected with human cloning and stem cell research arising from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2000."
5. We also propose that the new committee should be asked to report by the end of 2001.
A Select Committee to scrutinise treaties A Select Committee to scrutinise treaties
6. In our Third Report, Session 1999–2000, we reported as follows on the proposal, originally put to us in 1999, for the appointment of a Select Committee to scrutinise treaties:
"The Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords recommended as follows: 'The Liaison Committee should consider the establishment of a Select Committee to scrutinise international treaties into which the Government proposed to enter' (Cm 4534, Recommendation 56). In February 2000 the House of Commons Procedure Committee began an inquiry into 'Parliamentary Scrutiny of Treaties and the Ponsonby Rule'. We propose to await the report of the House of Commons Procedure Committee before making a recommendation on this matter."
7. The House of Commons Procedure Committee has now reported, recommending against the setting up of a Commons committee specifically to scrutinise treaties, and proposing that each treaty should be referred to the relevant departmental committee. The Government response to the report accepts this recommendation, and in particular accepts that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office "should send every treaty subject to ratification, along with its explanatory memorandum, to what it adjudges to be the relevant select committee. It would then be for that committee to decide whether to take further action on particular treaties, whether by holding informal discussions with the lead Department, consulting with other select committees, or taking formal evidence and reporting to the House."
8. The House of Commons Procedure Committee, in rejecting the appointment of a Commons sifting committee for treaties, concluded: "We believe that Lord Wakeham's proposal of such a committee in the reformed House of Lords may have merit." The Government response to this recommendation was as follows: "This is primarily a matter for the House of Lords, but that House will doubtless wish to consider the arrangements for the scrutiny of treaties in the House of Commons when making any decision."
9. We have concluded that we should wait to see how the new arrangements in the Commons develop before making any recommendation.
Lord Elton: My Lords, since the recommendation was made in 1999 to have a Select Committee to advise your Lordships on the impact on the United Kingdom of treaties which are subsequently ratified, I wonder whether I am the only Peer who still much regrets the

145
decision to wait. I should have thought that the present juncture, with the Treaty of Nice awaiting ratification, made it rather important that we have such a committee.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, says, but a number of factors were considered by the committee. Recently, there has been a considerable increase in the number of committees, including the one I have just mentioned. We are about to start an animal research committee and, of course, the Constitution Committee was introduced last week. The new arrangements in the House of Commons are just coming into effect. I think that the committee felt that it would be wise to await judgment on how such procedures in the other place work before we take a final decision on the issue of a committee in your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 27) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
1. Appointment of Sub-Committees and the Advisory Panel on Works of Art Following is the report referred to:
1. Appointment of Sub-Committees and the Advisory Panel on Works of Art
The Committee appointed the following Sub-Committees and Panel—
FINANCE AND STAFF SUB-COMMITTEE

B. Andrews

L. Astor of Hever

L. Colwyn

L. Craig of Radley

L. Filkin

L. Harris of Greenwich

L. Harris of Haringey

B. Jay of Paddington

L. Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Chairman)

L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn

L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank

L. Strathclyde with the Clerk of the Parliaments.

ADMINISTRATION AND WORKS SUB-COMMITTEE

L. Carter

L. Colwyn

L. Craig of Radley

L. Evans of Parkside

L. Harris of Greenwich

L. Henley

B. Hilton of Eggardon

L. Mackay of Ardbrecknish (Chairman)

B. Massey of Darwen

L. Monson

L. Phillips of Sudbury

L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn

B. Richardson of Calow

B. Seccombe

146
with the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
LIBRARY AND COMPUTERS SUB-COMMITTEE

L. Ahmed

L. Butterworth

E. Erroll

L. Evans of Watford

L. Hobhouse of Woodborough

E. Listowel

L. Lucas

L. Methuen

E. Northesk

B. Rendell of Babergh

L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn (Chairman)

B. Wilkins

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
REFRESHMENT SUB-COMMITTEE

L. Ahmed

L. Burnham

L. Carter

L. Colwyn (Chairman)

B. Darcy de Knayth

V. Falkland

L. Geddes

L. Harris of Greenwich

B. Pitkeathley

L. Stone of Blackheath

V. Tenby

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
ADVISORY PANEL ON WORKS OF ART

L. Freyberg

L. Gavron

B. Hilton of Eggardon (Chairman)

L. Jacobs

L. Lloyd-Webber

B. McIntosh of Hudnall

L. Mancroft

L. Palmer

B. Rawlings

Ly. Saltoun of Abernethy

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulatory Reform Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Power by order to make provision reforming law which imposes burdens]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("(3) and") and insert ("(2A) to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, which is purely a paving amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.

147
13, 24, 25, 37, 38 and 40. This group of amendments goes to the heart of what I believe is the central issue on the Bill.
We need to spend a minute or two on the background of the Bill to explain the significance of this group of amendments. We on these Benches welcomed the objective of the Bill. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Razzall said so in the debate on the gracious Speech. The Bill will enlarge the powers in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and enable those powers to be used to improve post-1994 legislation as well as pre-1994 legislation. However, in our view the Bill should be used for broadly deregulatory purposes or for the rationalisation and clarification of existing powers. It should not be used as a general power to enlarge burdens by order.
The Government presented the Bill as a deregulatory Bill. In Committee I referred to a number of passages in the speech made at Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. The fact that the objects of the Bill are primarily seen as deregulatory was made even clearer by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on day one of Committee. Perhaps I may briefly refer to his speech. He stated:
"it is necessary, in order to achieve our wider objectives … to envisage the possibility of continuing or re-enacting some regulatory burdens in order to achieve a greater removal of other burdens, and of introducing new burdens on some people in order to reduce the aggregate amount of burden on those people or on other people".
He went on to state:
"In that sense, to the extent that we have extended the scope of the 1994 Act, it is not out of any intention to increase the amount of burden in total, or even in detail. The intention is to use the whole range of facilities and abilities and powers available to us to more effectively reduce burdens than the 1994 Act made possible".—[Official Report, 23/1/01; cols. 223–24]
That is a clear statement of the Government's purpose behind the Bill. It is one which I believe is entirely satisfactory. But the Bill as drafted gave us cause for concern. Clause 1(1) sets out the four objects of the Bill. Each are clearly free-standing. We have no problems with Clause 1(1)(a):
"the removal or reduction of any of those burdens";
nor with paragraph (b):
"the re-enacting of provision having the effect of imposing any of those burdens, in cases where the burden is proportionate to the benefit which is expected to result from its retention";
nor with paragraph (d):
"the removal of inconsistencies and anomalies".
However, we have major problems with paragraph (c):
"the making of new provision having the effect of imposing a burden which—

(i) affects any person in the carrying on of the activity, but

(ii) is proportionate to the benefit which is expected to result from its creation".

That plainly gave a free-standing power to increase burdens without any requirement to link that increase with the reduction of other burdens. Clause 3 provides valuable safeguards against the abuse of the powers conferred by Clause 1, but none of those safeguards in
148
Clause 3, as it now stands, requires any link between the increase of burdens on some, and the reduction of burdens on those people or others.
It is not enough to say, as Clause 3(2) does, that there must be a balance between the public interest and the interest of persons affected by the new burden. That is not meaningless, obviously, but is a condition which can be almost always satisfied because governments are not in the habit of imposing burdens for the sake of imposing them; they impose them because they think that there is benefit to be obtained from that. That is not in any real sense a safeguard.
The power in Clause 1(1)(c) therefore went beyond what we regarded as the proper purpose of the Bill. It also plainly goes beyond the Government's own intentions as stated in earlier debates on the Bill, both by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. We therefore tabled amendments which were debated in Committee. The effect of those amendments was intended to be to remove Clause 1(1)(c) as a freestanding object but to allow the creation of new burdens where those new burdens were proportionate to the benefits resulting from the removal or reduction of other burdens. That amendment bears some similarity to what is now Amendment No. 9 tabled by the Conservative Front Bench, though there are significant differences.
Originally we tabled those amendments again at Report. At that point the Government approached us and indicated that although they were not willing to accept the wording of our amendments, they were willing to accept the principle of linkage between new burdens on the one hand and on the other hand the benefit to persons affected by the existing burdens. The upshot of those discussions was the amendments which appear in this group, which I understand the Government are willing to accept.
We therefore need to go through the amendments in a little detail. As I said, Amendment No. 1 is purely a paving amendment. The two key amendments are Amendments Nos. 13 and 25. Amendment No. 13 adds a new subsection (2A) to Clause 1 and states:
"An order under this section must include provision made by virtue of subsection (1)(a)".
In other words, any regulatory reform orders must include some element of deregulation. That is a significant step forward, but on its own it is pretty obviously not enough. There is no linkage or balance between deregulation and new regulations. Therefore, a small deregulation element could frank the imposition of extensive new burdens.
Further amendment is therefore necessary and it is achieved by Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 which add a new condition to Clause 3(2). That provision requires the Minister to be,
"of the opinion that the provisions of the order … strike a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of the persons affected by the burden being created".
That is not adequate. However, Amendment No. 25 requires that the Minister must also be satisfied that the extent to which burdens under existing law are

149
removed or reduced justifies the making of the regulatory reform order. In other words, there must be not merely some reduction in the burdens but a reduction sufficient to justify the order as a whole. One cannot decide whether that new condition is satisfied without looking at the balance between deregulation and new regulation.
The amendment refers not only to the removal or reduction of burdens but also to other beneficial effects for persons affected by the existing law. That means that one can take into account not only the direct removal of burdens but also the fact that the changes, while not formally removing a burden, might make it easier to discharge.
It is also true that the new condition in Amendment No. 25, set out in the new paragraph (b), is a subjective test not an objective one because it is a matter for the opinion of the Minister. However, if that opinion is plainly unsubstantiated by the facts, it will be a matter for judicial review. More important in practice, the document which must be laid before Parliament under Clause 6 must explain how that condition is satisfied. That requirement appears in Clause 6(2)(f).
That explanation will be examined by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in your Lordships' House and by the Deregulation Committee in the other place. If those committees do not agree that the conditions in what will become Clause 3(2)(b) are satisfied, the proposal will go no further.
The other amendments in the group, Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 40, are consequential and do not need to be treated separately.
I believe that the Government's acceptance of the principle of linkage between new regulation and deregulation—that linkage being contained in these amendments—removes our only substantial objection to the Bill. Those amendments having been made, we should be happy to see it passed. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on his extremely clear exposition and I agree in particular with the following elements. The extracts which he quoted from speeches made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh and myself at Second Reading and in Committee reflected our view of the purpose of the Bill. The proposal he makes in Amendment No. 1 and in other amendments in the group give better effect to that purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is correct in saying that we will agree to the amendments he has tabled. Their effect would be that there could not be an RRO which did not comply with the provision in Clause 1(1)(a) and it must therefore be deregulatory. I also agree with his remark that that of itself would not
150
provide the protection he was seeking and that therefore the addition to Clause 3 has been tabled. It provides that,
"the extent to which the order removes or reduces one or more burdens, or has other beneficial effects … makes it desirable for the order [which contains new burdens] to be made".
That means that there must be a consideration of the burdens going and the burdens coming and a consideration of whether in those circumstances it is desirable to proceed with the order.
Dealing with the matter as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, covers many of the concerns which were expressed in Committee and to which the Government have listened. We will therefore support Amendment No. 1 and the subsequent amendments.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask a simple question following on from what he said. He will remember that at Second Reading and in Committee I commented on "new new burdens"; in other words, burdens flowing from Acts of Parliament which have no trigger clauses for them or any orders flowing from them. Does the acceptance of Amendment No. 1 remove that anxiety?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not follow what the noble Lord says. He referred to "new new burdens" and I am lost at sea as regards his question. I apologise.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I understand that the new burdens referred to are alternative; in other words, they are substitution burdens of a greater or lesser extent. That is what the Bill and these amendments provide. However, perhaps we may take an unlikely scenario: that of the fox hunting Bill which is currently going through another place. It is not beyond conceivability that that Bill will fail before a general election. Were it so to do, I understand that up to the time of the noble and learned Lord accepting the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, under Clause 1(1)(c) it would be possible to produce what I call "new new burdens"; in other words, the regulation of fox hunting. However, am I correct in believing that with the linkage produced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that would no longer be possible?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may say for the record that it would be inconceivable that fox hunting would remotely be considered under a regulatory reform order. Anyone would regard it as so controversial as to be wholly inappropriate for such a provision. All the committees would immediately indicate that.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, have two effects. First, one cannot have an order which does not have some deregulatory effect. Secondly, before the Minister can promote such an

151
order he must be satisfied that the benefits which come from imposing new burdens are balanced by the old burdens which are removed.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his constructive response. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, after ("any") insert ("charitable, educational or business").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who tabled the amendment, perhaps one may give it a run for its money. I assume that the noble Lord, in seeking to insert the words,
"charitable, educational or business",
was seeking to achieve clarity as to the extent of the measure proposed by the Bill. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Norton, indicated that he would come back to try to restrict the word "activity" in Clause 1. The effect of the amendment which he tabled would cripple the Bill and I shall explain why. It would restrict the activities which could benefit from legislative reform to those persons engaged in charitable, educational or business activities and to only a narrow interpretation of those categories of persons. That is because the noble Lord's list of qualifying activities omits any qualifying phrase, such as "or otherwise", which is in the existing Act.
That phrase was construed as including charities, the voluntary sector and the individual, but not public bodies. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and moved by his amanuensis the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, would restrict Ministers to even less than that. It would mean that an order could not reform burdensome legislation that affected the individual in his or her private capacity, or voluntary organisations or any public body in the wider public sector, such as NHS trusts. For example, in the vaccine damage case burdens are placed on those who apply for compensation. They are not engaged in charitable, educational or business activities, and yet a regulatory reform order could not help them because it would not fall within that activity.
The Bill seeks to move away from the acknowledged deficiencies of the deregulation process. Under the 1994 Act only the subject or person, however described, be it a trade, business, profession or otherwise, could benefit. That approach represents a mistaken view which we should not carry forward in this Bill. Governments no longer just regulate and prohibit but provide services and facilitate. The regulatory reform power would not be used to take burdens off government and the wider public sector merely to make life easier for them. This is not a Bill about administrative convenience. The tailpiece of
152
Clause 2(1) will prevent them from getting rid of burdens which apply only to them, such as the general duty to maintain the NHS. For example, we should be able to deal with burdens on hospitals, doctors or policemen. For all those reasons, I urge the noble Lord not to go as far as to press the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I have no such intent. I am not the amanuensis of the noble Lord; I merely sought to keep the amendment alive for the Minister's excellent explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("with a view to") and insert ("for the primary purpose of achieving").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee the Minister indicated that it would not be appropriate to use the word "solely" in this context as that would have an unduly inhibiting effect. I have heeded that. The noble and learned Lord also said that the words "with a view to" were adequate. I respectfully disagree. If amended, the opening words of the clause (which I paraphrase) would read:
"A Minister of the Crown may by order make provision for the purpose of reforming legislation … for the primary purpose of achieving one or more of the following objects".
I should like to make two points clear at the outset. In Committee it was perhaps inferred that by proposing amendments we on this side of the House did not favour regulatory reform. That is not so. We are wholly in favour of the proposition that it is desirable to introduce an effective and safe means of achieving regulatory reform. That said, the power to amend primary legislation by secondary means which is contained in this Bill is unusual and potentially far-reaching. The power represents a singular shift in the balance of power away from Parliament and the courts and into the hands of Ministers. For that reason, it is a power which should be jealously guarded and strictly policed.
The Bill grants a dual power: the power to amend primary legislation by secondary means and the power to impose new burdens. By that means the Bill places unprecedented power in ministerial hands. Given the nature of that power, one immediately asks: what are the effective safeguards against abuse? As the Minister said in Committee,
"one is looking all the time at the terms of the Bill and its scope. The wider the scope, the more safeguards there must be".—[Official Report, 23/1/01; col. 193.]
I am pleased to hear that that is the view of the Minister. However, the Bill provides no effective substantive safeguards. The measure before us provides only a form of procedural safeguard; namely, use of the super-affirmative procedure. In Committee the Government placed great reliance upon the existence of the super-affirmative procedure. However, that reliance is misplaced. However great may be the powers of scrutiny that are available, vital

153
checks and balances are missing. We believe that there are almost no safeguards as regards the scope of the power itself, in which case the Bill will be a weapon in the armoury of the government of the day. Procedural safeguards will count for little, not least should your Lordships' House fall victim to future reform.
I am pleased that the Government have accepted the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Notwithstanding that, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 9. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway should like to deal with Amendment No. 6 separately. I apologise for not making that clear at the outset of my speech. The purpose of' Amendment No. 3, in common with Amendments Nos. 6 and 9, is to ensure that, while maintaining the aim of the Bill, adequate safeguards are included. The elephant test previously proposed by the noble and learned Lord for the use of the power is, with all due respect, meaningless both as a descriptive definition and as a threshold test. Amendment No. 3 inserts a first threshold test which any RRO should be required to pass; namely, that its primary purpose is regulatory reform.
The words "with a view to" are manifestly too wide. They may be appropriate when the purpose and use of a power is clearly defined, but that is not so here where the purpose is wholly undefined. The use of the words "the primary purpose" meets the objection raised by the noble and learned Lord in Committee. They are not in any way restrictive, provided the Bill is used for its proper purpose; they will ensure that the Bill is used for its proper purpose and for that purpose alone.
As to Amendment No. 6, I have heard the Minister's observations this afternoon. I have also read with care and interest the Minister's observations in Committee. However, the Minister stated repeatedly that there was no question of any increase in the burden of regulation, and that the power to increase the burden would be used only on very rare occasions. As if to underline the point, there was produced a list of 51 current categories of measures which required attention as candidates for regulatory reform. However, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that none of them would increase burdens. I seek confirmation that when the Minister said that there would be no increase in burdens he meant that there would be no net increase. The concern is that there is no need for the provision if it is true to say that in any event there will not be an increase in the burden. I refer in particular to the second day in Committee when the Minister said:
"If it is seriously suggested that the effect of this Bill will increase burdens, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, or anybody else will tell me which of the 51 examples of measures that are high on our priority list for regulatory reform orders will actually increase burdens. Of course they will not".—[Official Report, 25/1/01; col. 403.]
We believe that Amendment No. 9 is preferable to the amendment which has been accepted by the Minister because in that event there is only a need to ensure that Clause 1(1)(c) is subsidiary to Clause 1(1)(a), (b) and (d). Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) is presently a free-standing provision which permits the
154
creation of burdens regardless of whether the other objectives laid down in that subsection are intended to be achieved. However, were the Minister to accept our Amendment No. 9, the position would be such that Clause 1(1)(c) would be subsidiary. I hope that the House will forgive my predicament; I have only just been told that the first group of amendments has been accepted. The provision would hang, and rest, only upon the objects in Clause 1(1)(a), (b) and (d) being achieved. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am in the same position of difficulty as my noble friend Lady Buscombe, with perhaps slightly less excuse because I have been in your Lordships' House in the past 10 days and she has not. As I understand the group of amendments that have just been accepted, the amendment removes most of our anxieties about Clause 1(1)(c); namely, the making of new provisions. Although I chose a somewhat inapt example in fox-hunting, I had envisaged a future government creating a burden where no legislation affecting that particular issue exists on the statute book. That is what I have been most determined to avoid. I understand now that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, removes that anxiety. I see that the noble and learned Lord is nodding this time, although I clearly confused him utterly last time. It could be that I also confused myself.
Lord Haskins: My Lords, I regret that I was not able to take part in the Committee stage debate on this issue, but I have read Hansard. I share the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to ensure that the powers in the Bill are put to the correct use; namely, to improve the quality and reduce the burden of regulation. Goodness knows, there is plenty of work for us all to do on this front, since the powers of the old Deregulation and Contracting Out Act have virtually withered away. I look forward with pleasure, therefore, to the Government taking action on the 51 examples that they have so far put forward. That should keep everyone hard at work for some time to come.
So, I believe that there would have been little risk of "wicked Ministers" using the powers to bring forward inappropriate and burdensome regulations. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which the Government have just accepted, make that even more unlikely. Therefore, the noble Baroness should rest easy because the task force will be watching events with great interest and will deal with recalcitrant Ministers in the appropriate manner. In the circumstances I suggest that the noble Baroness should not press her amendments.
I should like to revert to our discussions in Committee, when the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, mentioned my views on enforcement. I was sorry not to be present to respond at the time. Perhaps I may take an early opportunity to do so now, as it may help the House when it returns to these issues later today.

155
The issue of enforcement has been a consistent theme in my three and a half years as chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force. In many cases, businesses and citizens understand, and even support, the objectives behind a regulation. The real problem arises as to the unpredictability of enforcement: businesses need to know where they stand.
In the foreword to our last annual report, I commented that the Government's objective should be to simplify the enforcement process for those on the receiving end. Those being regulated constantly complain that they do not understand their obligations; that they are not given enough time and help to comply; and that enforcers have too much of an inclination towards retribution.
I am a great believer in having as much flexibility and discretion as possible in the process of getting people to comply with the law, consistent, of course, with being effective. This approach has worked well in the Inland Revenue, which no longer treats every taxpayer as a potential tax evader. Inspectors now concentrate on helping the majority of citizens who want to do things properly, and focus their punitive efforts purely on the villains.
The Government have consulted widely on enforcement. All parties were in favour of a voluntary approach based on co-operation between enforcers and business. This resulted in the introduction of the code of best practice known as the enforcement concordat. The principles of the code are not dissimilar to the five principles of good regulation promoted by the task force. They include consistency, proportionality and openness, together with a clear complaints procedure and tough service standards.
The concordat requires enforcers to discuss the circumstances of the particular case with business and, if possible, resolve differences informally, before formal action is taken. Enforcers are also required to distinguish clearly between what is simply good advice and what is a legal requirement with which businesses must comply.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, noted that 84 per cent of local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales and 80 per cent of central government agencies had already signed up to the concordat. He hoped that all of them would have signed up by this July.
The task force is in favour of this voluntary approach to good regulation—it seems to me to be the best means of achieving fair, effective and flexible enforcement. Indeed, our "enforcement" report published in April 1999 described the concordat as the cornerstone of good enforcement policies and procedures.
However, we also recognise that voluntary agreements need legislative support where things go wrong. That is where the enforcement provisions in the Bill should help. They are intended to assure business that the Government can bring pressure to bear on enforcers who fail to apply best practice as agreed in the concordat.
156
The power for Ministers to set out a code of good enforcement practice should give business, the voluntary sector and consumers the confidence that the Government will be able to take action where enforcers fail to comply with best practice. It will give the concordat more credibility; businesses will know that enforcers will not be allowed to simply ignore it.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, has tabled amendments which will be discussed later. As I understand it, the noble Lord played a part in the inclusion of a section in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 giving businesses a statutory right to challenge the intended actions of enforcers in the courts. However, that section has, so far as I know, been used only once. The Government have been told by business, the voluntary sector and consumer groups that those groups are content with the concordat approach. I support the Government on the issue, as the provisions of the section mean that enforcers will be called to account if they fail to comply with best practice.
I hope, therefore, that when the House turns its mind to these issues again, as I know the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, intends that it should, it will do so with a clearer understanding of where I stand on these matters.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have every sympathy with the predicament of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has explained the position, but perhaps I may explain it as I understand it.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and others raised a concern that, as drafted, Clause 1(1)(c) allowed a Minister to promote an RRO which only imposed burdens and did nothing else. The effect of the first substantive amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is that one cannot get an order off the starting block under the procedure proposed by the Bill if it adds burdens, unless it also removes or reduces burdens. So, any order that has the object of increasing burdens must also remove burdens. The provision does not go as wide as was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. It would not be enough simply to re-enact burdens, and it would not be enough to remove inconsistencies. An order must, if it adds any burdens, also remove burdens.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, went further, and we agree with him. The noble Lord argued that it is not enough to say, "Well, if you can find some teeny-weeny burden to remove, that opens the door". He is saying that that is not enough. The Minister must also be satisfied that the reduction in burdens made by the new order justifies or makes desirable the making of the order. The noble Lord has, in effect, removed the free-standing nature of Clause 1(1)(c), which deals with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, but he has gone further and said, "Looking at the reduction or removal of burdens, there has to be a desirability, in the opinion of the Minister, before the order is made".

157
We took the view that that was a legitimate point. We took the view that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, deals with that point. It deals with a similar issue to that dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in Amendments Nos. 6 and 9. It deals with it in a different way, but we think that the protections proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, are adequate. I invite the noble Baroness not to move her amendments when the time comes.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with Amendment No. 3. In Committee, the noble Baroness proposed the insertion of the words,
"for the sole purpose of".
At that time I explained that the words in the Bill as it stood were more than robust enough to deal with what she sought. The noble Baroness has now changed her approach. Instead of saying,
"for the sole purpose of",
she seeks to insert the words,
"for the primary purpose of achieving".
With respect to the noble Baroness, that is worse. It is not an improvement at all. It would no doubt be said by lawyers, if I may use the phrase, "Well, if it has a primary purpose, it can also have a secondary purpose". That would be precisely what both the noble Baroness and the Government seek to avoid. It would provide a broader power than the wording we currently have, when an order must be made with a view to the objects listed in Clause 3. As I said in Committee, any order under the Bill must be made to achieve one of the objects in Clause 1. There can be no doubt about that. I respectfully suggest that the noble Baroness's amendment makes the position worse. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment No. 3 and not move the other amendments standing in her name in this group.
I shall not respond to the detail of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, because it relates to a much later amendment. However, I understand why the noble Lord made his remarks at this stage—because they are more about enforcement. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said about the Better Regulation Task Force keeping an eye on matters. That is a good thing.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his response to the amendments. I am sorry in some ways that Amendment No. 9 was not accepted in lieu of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We have one small concern. Are we not trying to compare apples with pears in relation to comparing a new benefit with the removal of an old burden?
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, for what he has been able to say to us so far. However, I hope that, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Vinson, it is not his intention that I should attempt to relay his comments to my noble friend. That would be impossible. I hope that the noble Lord is able later today to repeat some of what he said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("the burden") and insert ("it is necessary to retain the burden and the burden to be retained").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 8. By these amendments, the required purposes of any RRO, and I paraphrase, will be either,
"the re-enacting of provision … in cases where it is necessary to retain the burden and the burden to be retained is proportionate to the benefit which is expected to result from its retention",
or,
"the making of new provision having the effect of imposing a burden which … is necessary for the purpose of reforming that legislation and is proportionate to the benefit which is expected to result from its creation".
By proposing these amendments, I seek to achieve a dual purpose in answer to arguments raised in Committee: first, to state what it is we regard as the appropriate approach to the retention or creation of a burden; and secondly, to clarify what has in the past possibly been a subject of misunderstanding.
I shall deal first of all with the misunderstanding. The use of the word "necessary" in this context is not intended to imply some form of proportionality test, to be applied ex post facto to determine whether the retention or creation of a burden is proportionate. It is intended as a threshold test. Only after this threshold has been passed does the question of proportionality arise.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the word "necessary" when added to this clause did not add anything because:
"If it is not necessary to do something to achieve a benefit, it follows that it is necessary not to do it in order to be proportionate".
He went on to say:
"There is nothing added by the word "necessary" which is not already available in the legal concept of proportionality".—[Official Report, 23/1/01; col. 178]
With the greatest of respect, the noble Lord fell into the very trap which it is the purpose of this amendment to avoid. One cannot allow an elision between the two concepts of necessity and proportionality.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships a working example. Section 5(2) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 makes provision for the issue of interception warrants. These are warrants which may be used to intercept postal and telephone communications. The subsection reads as follows:
"The Secretary of State shall not issue an interception warrant unless he believes—

(a) that the warrant is necessary on grounds falling within subsection (3); and

(b) that the conduct authorised by the warrant is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct".

First, the warrant must be necessary. Then, and only then, is it required to be proportionate. If the warrant is not necessary, proportionality does not come into it. It does not arise. The threshold test of "necessity" is not satisfied and the warrant cannot be issued.
That Act grants a variety of powers, all broadly similar in nature, which for want of a better description I shall call "powers of executive interference". The dual test—that of necessity followed by a requirement of proportionality—is adopted within the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act on no fewer than 10 occasions. It is a format with which the draftsman is well acquainted. This Bill, and that Act, have this in common. Each is intended to enable a degree of executive interference. In the case of this Bill it is the imposition not merely of new regulations, but new burdens, which is the interference with which I am concerned.
I compare and contrast the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (d) in the Bill, where we do not propose a "necessity" test, with paragraphs (b) and (c). Neither paragraph (a) nor (d) is concerned to create or recreate a burden. It is only where there is a burden that the test of "necessity" should require to be satisfied. I shall deal, first, with paragraph (b). We are being asked to vest in a Minister the power to impose burdens in the name of regulatory reform. As a matter of principle, if it is not necessary to re-enact a burden, then in the context of deregulation, that burden should not be re-enacted. If a burden which is a possible candidate for re-enactment cannot pass the "necessity" test, we do not want it. Keeping such a burden, even if it could be said to be "proportionate", would be unnecessary and would amount to regulation for regulation's sake. If new burdens are to be imposed by means of secondary legislation, they should, at the very least, be demonstrated to be necessary. If they are not, there is no justification for imposing them. This is no more than is required in practice of primary legislation and I can think of no reason why, in principle, secondary legislation of the kind with which we are concerned should be any different. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, these amendments propose a twofold test in relation to retaining burdens and imposing new burdens. First, it is said that the retention or imposition of the new burden should be necessary and, secondly, that it should be proportionate. The Government hold to the position they adopted in Committee; namely, that if the word "proportionate" imports into it the concept of necessity, then if the burden is unnecessary, it cannot be proportionate either to impose it or to retain it. That remains the Government's position. With respect to the noble Baroness, I do not think that anything stands between us here.
In support of her argument for a twofold test, the noble Baroness relied on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. She referred to a provision which states, in effect, that where X thinks that it is necessary to impose an interception order on the grounds set out in Section 3, then such an order can be made where it is proportionate to do so. That is a totally different situation because in that example the RIP Act lays down that such an action will be
160
necessary where—I do not recall exactly what is written in Section 3, but I imagine that it is termed along the lines of, "where it is necessary to fight crime or to discover information in the national interest"—it identifies precisely what is the context of necessity. It is a workable definition and a context is provided.
What context does the noble Baroness have in mind when she refers to necessity in her additional test in Clause 1(1)(b) and (c)? Is it necessary because of an overriding legal imperative? Is it necessary to maintain the integrity of the state or is it, as I think she may mean, that a burden is imposed only where the balance—having regard to the benefits that may accrue from it—is in favour of imposing it rather than getting rid of it? If that is the correct interpretation of her approach, then that is precisely the effect of the word "proportionate". The introduction of the word "necessity" would lead to confusion because there is no context. Furthermore, it would not give that which she seeks.
I covered these points in our discussions at the previous stage. Perhaps the noble Baroness could cite a practical example—not from a different statute in which plainly there is a statutory context, because the action is "necessary" under the terms of Section 3—of where a regulation or a burden is either being imposed or retained which is not necessary but is proportionate.
As I said earlier, I do not think that there is anything between us in what we seek to achieve here. We are discussing simply the method of achieving it. In the light of what I said, I earnestly suggest that the noble Baroness should reconsider her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I have listened to what the Minister has had to say as regards my amendment. I have to respond by saying that I entirely disagree with him. On that basis, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 149.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Arran, E.

Colwyn, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Attlee, E.

Courtown, E.

Biffen, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Blatch, B.

Denham, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dundee, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Elles, B.

Brightman, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elton, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Erroll, E.

Buscombe, B.

Freeman, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Byford, B.

Geddes, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Goschen, V.

161

Gray of Contin, L.

Onslow, E.

Greenway, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Peel, E.

Henley, [Teller]

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hooper, B.

Rawlings, B.

Howe, E.

Rees, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Renton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Kimball, L.

Rogan, L.

Kingsland, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Saatchi, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Seccombe, B.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lucas, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Luke, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Marsh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Monson, L.

Vinson, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Waddington, L.

Naseby, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Northesk, E.

Wilcox, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gale, B.

Addington, L.

Geraint, L.

Ahmed, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Goodhart, L.

Alli, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Amos, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ampthill, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Andrews, B.

Greaves, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gregson, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Grenfell, L.

Avebury, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Barker, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Harrison, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Haskel, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Haskins, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hayman, B.

Blease, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Borrie, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bragg, L.

Hooson, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Brookman, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hoyle, L.

Burlison, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Christopher, L.

Islwyn, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Jay of Paddington,. (Lord Privy Seal)

Clinton-Davis, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jeger, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Crawley, B.

Judd, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Kirkhill, L.

David, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Levy, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lipsey, L.

Desai, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dixon, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Donoughue, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Dubs, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Elder, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Ezra, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

McNally, L.

Falkland, V.

Maddock, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

162

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Simon, V.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Slim, V.

Mishcon, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Stallard, L.

Northover, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Orme, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L

Palmer, L.

Strange, B.

Parekh, L.

Taverne, L.

Patel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Peston, L.

Tenby, V.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Thornton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Rea, L.

Turnberg, L.

Redesdale, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Varley, L.

Rennard, L.

Walmsley, B.

Richard, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Roper, L.

Whitaker, B.

Sandberg, L.

Whitty, L,

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Wilkins, B.

Serota, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("retention") and insert ("reenactment").
The noble Lord said: This is a modest drafting amendment. It seeks to clarify the extremely difficult terminology of Clause 1(1)(b) of the Bill At Committee stage I attempted a much more ambitious clarification in the form of Amendment No. 3, which did not find favour with the Government. This amendment is a much more modest attempt to clarify the words "its retention" at the end of Clause 1(1)(b). We should always put ourselves in the position of those who subsequently have to try to interpret these provisions. Admittedly, the parliamentary draftsman faced a challenging task in drafting this Bill. However, I believe that the replacement of the word "retention" by the word "re-enactment" will enable Clause 1(1)(b) to be much more readily understood. I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and also to prove that I am now in my place. Unfortunately, I was the victim of signalling problems earlier today. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for moving, in my absence, an earlier amendment standing in my name. I now know how a Member of the other place feels sitting with a speech that cannot be delivered. My only consolation is that I can claim that it would have been excellent.
As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, mentioned, this amendment was tabled in Committee. At that time I understood the point made by the Minister in response to the noble Lord. I suggested that, to ensure that the paragraph was internally

163
consistent, the problem might be resolved by the use of the word "re-enactment". I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has a valid point. I am therefore pleased to support his amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, need speak to prove that he is in his place.
With regard to whether we should replace the current word "re-enactment" with the word "retention", as I explained in Committee, I believe that, apart from being unnecessary, it would be positively damaging. As we have said on numerous occasions, any proposal aimed at reforming a substantive legislative regime would almost certainly not need to amend many parts of the Act of Parliament affected. Even if it did, it would do so only consequentially—for example, by way of renumbering—but those unamended parts would still form part of the new regulatory regime. We have many times heard the example of the 120 pieces of legislation that presently form the fire regime, many of which, if brought together in one place, would involve reenactments of the existing legislation but would not be changed in any way.
As the noble Lord's amendment is worded, the burdens are "retained". He suggests that the use of the word "retained" would make it clear to the public. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, underlines the point by suggesting that the word "retained" be used by reference to "burdens" in another part of the same provision. We want to go one stage further than retaining them, do we not? We want to allow an order to incorporate those unamended parts, which would result in one piece of legislation that would be much easier to understand and apply.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am suggesting that the word "retention" should be replaced by the word "re-enactment". It is the other way round.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my draft says, "Remove 're-enactment' and insert 'retention'."
A noble Lord: It is the other way round.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, if I may say so, the argument that the Minister advances is entirely logical!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise for that. The note that I have is based on the precisely opposite contention. It is obvious that I have considered the matter on a false basis. I shall consider it and return to it at Third Reading.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 6, I should inform the House that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 15, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to leave out Clause 1(1)(c) in order to remove the power conferred to make new provisions. The amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and retabled for Report stage, would also have removed Clause 1(1)(c). If it had not been withdrawn, I would have supported that amendment as a reasonable compromise position with which the House could live. However, I fear that I cannot live with the revised form of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and accepted by the Government. Clause 1(1)(c)—for reasons that I shall give in a moment, and fairly shortly—is wholly unacceptable.
On Second Reading, the noble Lords, Lord Haskins and Lord Dahrendorf, in two remarkable speeches, identified and expressed the paradox of the Bill: that to alleviate and remove the heavy load of government it was proposed to strengthen the hand of government and to give it unprecedented powers to legislate by order. That would indeed remain the position under the revised form of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which is acceptable to the Government. It is this unprecedented power under paragraph (c) to which objection is taken.
At the outset it may be said that in the Bill as drafted there are no safeguards as to the exercise of that wide, unprecedented power such that, I suggest quite seriously, it could have ever been considered acceptable by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee as envisaged in the conclusion of its report.
I make no bones about it. Paragraph (c) is wholly deviant from the constitutional requirement that secondary legislation must lie within the remit of a specific delegation of power under a specific Act of Parliament, so that if, without such remit, an order is made, the judiciary will declare it ultra vires the Act and unenforceable. But paragraph (c), as a total departure, would confer a kind of single source of power under primary legislation to enable the Government to introduce any secondary legislation imposing burdens on persons carrying on any activity. This could not be treated by the judiciary as ultra vires under this generic delegation of power under paragraph (c). This is a totally novel, unprecedented situation of considerable danger.
Why so? Because it would breach the fundamental doctrine of a separation of powers as between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. In effect, it lifts the lid off Pandora's box to govern by decree for the sake of some administrative convenience. The functions of the judiciary would be slighted; there would be no effective control over misuse of executive

165
power; and the Government propose to use the legislature to introduce this wholly unacceptable structure for an entirely new style of government.
The judiciary will no longer decide, as a matter of construction, whether the secondary legislation is without the delegation of power under the Act; under Clause 1(1)(c) that simply no longer arises. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth truly said at Second Reading that this is a major constitutional Bill. The powers conferred are excessive and take the Bill beyond deregulation. The problem which lies at the heart of the Bill is the power to change primary legislation by order. My noble friend said that the solution is to remove, or considerably amend, subsection (1)(c). With respect to the House, I suggest that that is the only solution. It is not the solution afforded by the Government's acceptance of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
The only ground under subsection (1)(c)—as long as it stays in the Bill—on which the judiciary could declare a new provision ultra vires or unlawful could be that the burden was not proportionate to the benefit. But that is not a question of legal construction; it is a complex process of assessment which would have already been taken by two Houses of Parliament. In those circumstances, no court would intervene with a decision which had been taken by two Houses of Parliament, on a qualitative assessment, approving the order. So there is no effective judicial control. This is a dangerous situation; an unconstitutional situation. The only way to deal with it is to remove Clause 1(1)(c). I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as has occurred already in the course of the Report stage, there now cannot be an order which imposes a burden in accordance with Clause 1(1)(c) unless it also reduces or removes burdens under Clause 1(1)(a). In addition, before the Minister can propose any order which imposes burdens, he must be satisfied that the order is desirable as a result of the burdens it removes.
The purpose of including Clause (1)(c), as has been made clear at all stages, was to permit the streamlining and improvement of regulatory regimes, very often by reducing many burdens but, in addition, perhaps replacing five burdens with one. If the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was to be followed, that would not be possible. The decision for the House in relation to the noble Lord's amendment is whether one wants to remove that ability. Does one want a Bill which allows regulatory reform orders where indeed burdens can be imposed, but only in the context of an order that removed other burdens and allowed the streamlining of regulatory regimes? I would respectfully suggest—particularly having regard to the safeguards which have now been introduced as a result of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—that the far better course is that one should allow such regulatory reform orders.
I could not disagree more with the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, put his case. He said that there were no safeguards. There is a requirement that the Minister has to be satisfied that
166
the order does not remove any necessary protection or prevent the exercise of rights that an individual may expect to retain; there is a requirement for consultation; there is a requirement that a committee of each House should satisfy itself that the order has been proved, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said; and there is a requirement for both Houses of Parliament to pass the order.
This is a parliamentary procedure and it is for Parliament to ensure that appropriate orders are allowed and inappropriate orders are not allowed. I respectfully invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as always, I listened with respect to what the noble and learned Lord said. I heard his suggestion that what he proposes is a better course. I profoundly disagree for the reasons I have given. I am also very concerned that the provisions in Clause 1(1)(c) are not being treated as a matter of strict construction. That is our duty and advisory function when considering any Bill and the use to which the provisions could be put by any government. We have heard protestations from the Government Front Bench as to the use to which they intend to put paragraph (c) and not on matters of policy, whatever that may mean. Reference has been made to good governments, wicked governments and control freak governments. That is simply not to the point having regard to the plain provisions of the Bill which is about to become a statute.
This is not the time to carry on further argument. Obviously, the noble and learned Lord and I look at this matter from a totally different point of view. It is also obvious that the representation of our respective cases cannot marry exactly, but there is no reason why we should not regard each other's views objectively. I would certainly like further time to study the observations made by the noble and learned Lord. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Norton of Louth Lord Norton of Louth moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert—
("() is necessary to compensate for the removal of an existing burden").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be brief because I suspect that the matter may have been overtaken by what was discussed earlier. The motivation, as we discussed at Committee stage, was to ensure that Clause 1(1)(c) was not free-standing, but linked to the removal of a burden. I believe that at Committee stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, thought that I was arguing that it did not matter if they were unrelated and that as long as one burden was removed it did not matter if one was added. There did not have to be a link between the two. I tabled this amendment as a marker because I believe that there should be a link between the two, but if in

167
the light of what happened earlier this afternoon the Minister is able to indicate that there is a linkage I shall be satisfied. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know when the noble Lord joined us but the effect of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, were that one could not have Clause 1(1)(c) unless the order is covered in Clause 1(1)(a). In addition, it has to be the opinion of the Minister that the removal of the burdens justifies the making of the order. That does not mean that the Minister has to be satisfied that the burdens imposed, when weighed against those removed, are not a balance. The balance is identifying what burdens are being removed from the citizen and whether that makes the order desirable. If, in the opinion of the Minister, that is so, then and only then is he entitled to promote the order. There is not the direct link that the noble Lord proposes in his amendment, but there has to be a consideration and a conclusion by the Minister that the overall reduction in burdens justifies the making of the order.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that response. In principle, I would like to believe that he would prefer to go further and that there is a link. I understand what is being said. I am very pleased with what the Government have accepted in principle. I would like there to be a link where a new burden is added, which compensates for a burden which is reduced. In principle that is desirable. In the light of what has already been accepted, I do not wish to push the matter further. There has been an advance, but I do not believe that it goes far enough. I welcome what has been achieved so far. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert
("(1A) An order may not be made under subsection (1) above—

(a) until a Select Committee of either House, or both Houses, upon scrutiny of the draft order as laid has reported that such order if made would be in conformity with the provision of such subsection and would not impose any offence, obligation, liability or administrative control not in force on the date on which this Act takes effect which involves the burden of any sanction, or increase the burden of any sanction, in force on the date on which this Act takes effect, and

(b) unless both Houses of Parliament shall have debated and approved the making of such order as laid in draft, or (if so advised) as amended.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment makes mandatory provision for meticulous and methodical examination of any order laid under this Bill to ensure conformity with the provisions of Clause 1(1) and the general provisions of the Bill, as amended through the revised amendment of the noble Lord, Lord
168
Goodhart. It ensures that, on meticulous examination, there is total conformity with the provisions of the Bill. It further ensures that the making of an order as laid or amended may only be approved after debate in both Houses.
It is the ultimate, if not the only effective safeguard, which could commend itself perhaps to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee as a safeguard against the misuse of what are, without question, wide and unprecedented powers conferred by this Bill. In that context it would also strengthen the role of Parliament in calling government to account in the due exercise of the functions of this House.
This amendment is supported by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. It delays making an order until there has been scrutiny of the draft, as laid by a Select Committee in either or both Houses. I accept that it is implicit that to avoid undue delay some flexible limit of time for scrutiny and report by the Select Committee must be given consideration. It is also requisite that there should be administrative arrangements for debate which inhibit a perfunctory decision or resort to the guillotine.
My noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree referred to the recent change in procedure in another place on Bills concerning the constitution which are now taken under the guillotine without the agreement of the Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, took the point as regards adequate time for scrutiny. He said that orders emanating from this Bill concern our core functions and that necessary time for scrutiny was essential.
This is a main constitutional Bill. It derogates from the fundamental concept of the separation of powers. It confers new powers to legislate by order, as already asserted by Amendment No. 6. In principle, parliamentary scrutiny will confer the only effective safeguard irrespective of the drafting of this amendment. As mentioned on Amendment No. 6, the supervisory functions of the judiciary have been slighted.
The wording of this amendment would inhibit the imposition of,
"any offence, obligation liability or administrative control not in force on the date on which this Act takes effect which involves [or increases] the burden of any sanction",
by order under this legislation. It reflects the concern, as already expressed by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, that, under the Bill, primary legislation could be changed by order. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, before we leave Clause 1, especially paragraph (d) relating to,
"the removal of inconsistencies and anomalies",
I have one brief point to make which reflects my noble friend's desire to see enhanced safeguards within the Bill. During our detailed considerations in Committee, we did not spend very much time on this little "get-out" paragraph at the end of the clause.
When the Minister addresses the points raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway about additional parliamentary safeguards being inserted

169
into the Bill, I wonder whether he could define a little further exactly what is meant by the removal of "inconsistencies" and, in particular, the removal of "anomalies". During the course of our deliberations on the disqualification Bill, I recall the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, referring to that legislation as an "anomaly" and saying that it was a simple tidying-up measure. I should like to know whether that sort of legislation could be put through Parliament by order under this Bill.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that I can assist the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. If he wishes to have a discussion on inconsistencies and anomalies, he can table an amendment. I am sure that the House would not appreciate it if I strayed from the amendment on the Marshalled List. After all, that is what we are supposed to be considering.
I must say that I am surprised to see Amendment No. 10 here. I thought that we spent a good deal of time in Committee discussing the fact that the procedures of the House are matters for this House, not for government by way of legislation. I am still very firmly of that view. How the House organises its affairs is a matter for the House; it is not a matter for legislation. Therefore, many—though not all—of the matters referred to in either paragraph (a) or (b) of the amendment are matters for the House to consider by way of its own procedures; for example, whether or not to have debates, under what circumstances, and at what stage. It would be presumptuous of the Government to seek to impose such restrictions on the House.
I have a further problem with the amendment in that it would return the restrictions to the Bill that were contained in the comparable amendment tabled in Committee and which, presumably, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, withdrew on the basis that he had an improved version for this stage. It has become a mantra for this Bill, but it is worth repeating: the power contained in the Bill is a wide one, but one that is surrounded by robust safeguards. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to that when addressing Amendment No. 3. Although I know that she does not agree that we have achieved those safeguards, she recognises that that is the structure of the Bill.
The Bill provides that a Minister will have to show that any new burden imposed by an order is proportionate and that, in his or her opinion, it also strikes a fair balance between the rights of the persons involved and the interests of society at large. That applies to Clause 1(1) and Clause 3. We should not forget that the consultation process would have to be thorough in exposing those issues and seeking views, including the views of those likely to be adversely affected. The Minister will have to document his reasoning and submit the proposal for rigorous scrutiny by the two committees. The House is then free to vote on the matter when it comes before it for affirmation. As I said in Committee, any Peer can table
170
a companion Motion to amend the Motion to approve the committee's report. As a result, the draft order would be taken up and re-laid, with amendments. That is how I approach this part of Amendment No. 10.
The amendment seeks to limit the order-making power by ruling out the introduction of,
"any offence, obligation, liability or administrative control not in force",
on the day that the Bill is enacted, if it,
"involves the burden of any sanction".
Let us consider the implications. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it would be a very good move if an order were to simplify a highly complex, regulatory regime by replacing a whole gamut of licences with one simple, transparent licence for all. And that the reform should take into account appropriate changes in circumstances since the parent Act was enacted. It is possible that this hypothetical new licensing regime with the simple, transparent licence would only be workable in the sense of the protections that it offered to consumers if there were some sort of penalty for non-compliance. That is not just a possibility; it seems to me to be almost inevitable. However, it would be impossible under the terms of the amendment now before us.
The proposed restriction would make it impossible to carry out some of the most worthwhile reforms. The classic example is reform of fire safety regulations—one of the key examples of what would be possible under this Bill—which could be ruled out if the amendment were carried. Another example is the worthwhile and sensible reform of weights and measures legislation. There has to be some power and there have to be some penalties, but they do not have to be set out in the complex, often out-of-date and burdensome way that applies at present.
The amendment would also reintroduce a problem that we had with the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It proposes an arbitrary, date-driven cut-off date that would quickly render the Act useless as a tool for worthwhile reform. Therefore, for those three reasons—the interference with the privileges and processes of the House, the removal of the possibility of having penalties for the new orders that would he required to remove greater burdens, and the arbitrary cut-off date—I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps he can answer one simple question. Does the noble Lord consider that the present structure of the Select Committees in this House is adequate for the consideration of super reform orders, such as those under the fire safety and the weights and measures legislation? Alternatively, does he believe, as I do, that some changes will need to be made?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it would be presumptuous for me to express a view on the matter from this Dispatch Box. However, as a Member of the House, I can, like the noble Lord, express a view. If the noble Lord is suggesting that there will be an increase

171
in work for the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, then, objectively, the answer must be yes. That was anticipated when the 1994 Act was before the House. When it came to the point where an increase arose in the workload of the committee, it was dealt with accordingly. If there were to be a greater increase in the workload of that committee—I express this view as an ordinary Member of the House, not as a member of the Government—it would be up to the committee to say to the Government, "Well, you'll have to have a queuing system. You'll have to introduce these measures at a rate that will enable us properly to consider them". Similarly, the committee might say that it needs greater resources in order to consider such measures. All those scenarios are possible, but they are not for the Government to prescribe.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Yes, my Lords, this amendment would impose restrictions; indeed, that is the object behind it. The whole object of this proposal is to preserve the traditional constitutional position. If you want to amend all the fire regulations or those relating to weights and measures, you would do so in the manner in which it has always been done—namely, by primary legislation. That is the traditional way in which matters have been dealt with, and that is how matters should continue to be dealt with. My amendment would ensure that the traditional system is observed.
As to the other question about the House having sovereignty over its own procedures, I think the noble Lord would agree that on more than one occasion I have asserted that such should be the case. However, this does not in any sense derogate from that concept. In the circumstances, I should like to consider the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 1, line 24, after ("made") insert ("and which contains provision that it shall be deemed as "legislation" within the meaning of this subsection").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are concerned that the Bill permits any legislation whatsoever, whether or not in force, to be amended on the basis of a two-year rolling timetable. We on these Benches do not understand why a two-year rolling timetable is necessary. If legislation is found to be misconceived, inconsistent, anomalous or generally in need of regulatory reform, why should it be necessary to wait for two years before doing something about it? Why not act immediately?
It is no answer to say that legislation needs time to bed down, because if the hypothesis is correct no amount of bedding down will do any good. Conversely, if bedding down may do some good, and that can be seen to be so, why impose a time limit? Those who are tasked for the job of regulatory reform are perfectly well able to judge whether or not the initial legislation is bedding down satisfactorily; and
172
they can time their intervention accordingly. While some protection is better than none, we are driven to the conclusion that the purpose of this provision is to provide an illusion of protection when in fact it provides none at all.
We are acutely aware of the view of many of your Lordships that the introduction of a two-year rolling period is an invitation to legislative slackness. I hope I shall be able to demonstrate that that is a separate point. I am here concerned with the establishment of legislative safeguards against an abuse of the powers granted by this Bill. That is why we are proposing an alternative in this amendment.
The 1994 Act provided a clear measure of protection. No legislation was to be subject to regulatory reform unless it was already on the statute book when the 1994 Act was passed. This Bill abandons that safeguard entirely, yet replaces it with none. In our submission, the absence of any such safeguard makes the Bill open to abuse. It would be possible to pass primary legislation with a view to its amendment in the name of regulatory reform. In two years' time, what ought to have been the subject of primary legislative scrutiny will be passed by secondary means. Indeed, under the terms of Clause 1(2)(a) what was passed the first time around will not even have had to come into force.
We therefore propose that two safeguards should be introduced, although it will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that I have sought to retain the two-year rolling period as well. The first safeguard requires that we be told here and now what are regarded as proper candidates for regulatory reform. We have been provided by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, with an informal shopping list of current legislation which is deemed worthy of regulatory reform. It appears on the Cabinet Office website and is to be seen as a list of categories rather than as a list of statutes or orders.
I must admit that is a start and, in deference to the noble and learned Lord, had it been possible I should have proposed an amendment whereby the list should go into this Bill in the form of a schedule. I am unable to propose such an amendment because, although the list is a long one, it comprises no more than a list of categories and not one of specific provisions. However, I should make it clear that I would not oppose a proposal that, instead, this Bill should contain a provision similar to that contained in the 1994 Act; so that all antecedent legislation is subject to these reforming powers. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to consider such a provision.
Secondly, in order that some measure of control can be kept upon the use of this Bill, all future legislation which contains what is regarded as regulatory content should identify itself as such. The Government have repeatedly stressed, as I understand it, that this Bill will not be used for politically controversial measures. Therefore it must follow that the inclusion of such a provision in primary legislation will itself be non-controversial.
This provision also meets the objection from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that legislation may be passed after the passing of this Bill which is part of a pattern of legislation passed before it, all of which will need to be reformed as a package. This requirement will therefore serve a two-fold purpose, without undermining the purpose of the Bill. It will prevent abuse of the system and, given the passage of time, it will define that which the elephant test cannot; namely, the type of legislation to which the power granted by this Bill is intended to apply. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I confess to being in a difficulty which has occurred to me on a number of occasions in the last few years. I do not know whether to speak to the amendment or to the speech, because they are so different. I think that I shall have to do both—
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I was going to suggest that he did both, so that he would cover all eventualities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, let me explain what the amendment would do and then I will turn to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. The amendment would limit the scope of reform to legislation which specifies that it is eligible. That would rule out all legislation passed before this Bill receives Royal Assent because no legislation that has been passed says that this legislation is eligible under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001—
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way so swiftly once again; but I recall either the noble Lord or his noble and learned friend saying this afternoon that the task of the 1994 Act was now exhausted, so that it should not matter whether or not the Bill applied to that class of legislation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course it matters. I will have to turn to the speech rather than to the amendment now, because the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, admitted that the 1994 Act was restricted in the sense that it only covered legislation up to and including the 1993–94 legislative Session and did not include legislation afterwards. Therefore we are all agreed that it has ground to a halt, albeit an honourable halt, because very little of the legislative burden is going to consist almost entirely of legislation not subsequent to the 1993–94 legislative Session. This amendment does quite the opposite. It states that nothing before the passage of this Bill, and, indeed, given the two-year rolling period, nothing for two years after the passage of the Bill, will be considered for inclusion in the powers of the Bill. The legislation would have to state that a matter is eligible for consideration under the Regulatory Reform Bill—no legislation states that—and that when the Bill is passed it cannot be considered for two more years. Therefore, no provision can be included for two years after the passage of this Bill.
174
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that he had considered putting the 51 examples on the face of the Bill. This amendment would rule out all of the 51 examples. We have a problem with the amendment. I have great difficulty in addressing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, because it is based on a misunderstanding of what his amendment means and does.
I appreciate his concern about the two-year period. We debated that matter in Committee. He expressed the view at that time that the provision would encourage sloppy drafting because the draftsmen and the Government would say, "It does not matter if we get it slightly wrong because we can put it right in two years' time using a regulatory reform order". Our response to that was—and I stick by that response—that we would be astonished if that were to be the case. It would be a poor way to proceed given the difficulties of getting a regulatory reform order through. The obstacles to be overcome and the safeguards in the Bill would result in primary legislation being preferred in any circumstances that were at all dubious.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is no longer present, considers that primary legislation ought to be used all the time. He really does not believe in regulatory reform at all and he made that entirely clear in his previous speech. However, we consider that the cut-off point which we propose here; namely, that one cannot alter a measure until two years after at has been passed, is entirely reasonable. When we consulted on the matter in 1999, there was general agreement that it was reasonable. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee supported the view. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, as a member of the committee, expressed that view in Committee. The rolling cut-off which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, addressed in his speech is an important part of the provisions of the Bill ensuring continuity and consistency between it and the 1994 Act. Therefore, even if the amendment did not mean what it does mean, we would oppose the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, advanced.
5 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I must say I do not see the problem that he sees in this amendment. The 1994 Act will remain on the statute book until this Bill becomes law, if it does become law. The 1994 Act will apply to everything up until that Act is repealed. Thereafter, this Act will take over.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the 1994 Act applies only to legislation up to and including the 1993–94 legislative Session. Nothing between 1994 and 2001 would therefore be covered. We are dealing with a whole series of statutes over a period of time. If we cut out permanently seven years of legislation, we would cut the heart out of this legislation.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I shall, in the light of that, look at the amendment again. But I think the

175
clear thrust of the amendment to the operation of the Bill in future is manifest. If the Minister will address himself to that matter when I reintroduce the measure again at Third Reading, I shall respond more fully. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("(2A) An order under this section must include provision made by virtue of subsection (1)(a).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("the Minister thinks") and insert ("is").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 20, 23, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 34. These amendments highlight a fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition in the approach to the policing of the powers granted by the Bill. On the one hand, there is a desire to restrict access by individuals to the courts for the purpose of mounting an effective challenge to inappropriate secondary legislation. On the other hand, there is a desire for openness and a recognition of the fact that no wrong should be left without a remedy.
It was suggested during Committee that parliamentary scrutiny provides a better and more secure form of policing than the courts. With the greatest respect, that cannot be so in this case. When Parliament is required, as here, to pass legislation by secondary means, its ability to exercise its policing powers is restricted. That is why the opportunities for secondary legislation are rightly and properly limited and it is precisely why those affected by such legislation should be able to have effective recourse to the courts.
It was also suggested that, if recourse to the courts were to be permitted, the courts would be inundated with applications, not from those who are required to bear the burden of regulation but from pressure groups intent on using the courts as a soap-box from which to air their views. I was somewhat surprised to hear that said. Regardless of whether a pressure group might have the right to bring a certain matter to court, if the law provides a remedy it does so as a means of righting a wrong. No application may be made to the court in a vacuum.
Furthermore, it is not my experience that the courts will hesitate before dismissing applications which are lacking in merit, particularly in the field of judicial review. The courts are not overrun with unmeritorious applications and even if they were, they have adequate powers to protect themselves. I am therefore driven to conclude that the objection to this amendment, and to
176
others like it, is not based upon a concern for the wellbeing of the courts but is an objection to judicial scrutiny of the exercise of ministerial power. That being so, in my submission the objections to this amendment are ill-conceived.
The Bill shifts power away from Parliament and into the hands of Ministers. Parliament's policing powers are limited and yet nothing is offered in the Bill by way of replacement. The courts are the obvious alternative as a policing authority and yet they are being rejected on, in our view, insubstantial grounds. This amendment, therefore, and others like it, redresses the imbalance of power which the Bill will otherwise create. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, under the Bill as it stands, should a Minister do something which no reasonable Minister would do—if he acts perversely—judicial review is possible. The courts may intervene at someone's instance. That, to my mind, is appropriate. But, under the various amendments in the group we are discussing, anyone could go to court to say that a Minister's decision on a whole range of matters was simply wrong on its merits. That seems to me to undermine completely the whole approach of the Bill which is, of course, concerned to give, through the super-affirmative resolution process and through the scrutiny committees and so on, a superior form of parliamentary scrutiny, if I may put it that way.
If, for example, Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 were passed, instead of a Minister accountable to Parliament deciding what in his opinion is a fair balance between the public interest on the one hand and the interests of a person on whom a burden is being imposed on the other, someone could properly go to court to determine that on its merits.
More remarkably still, if Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 were passed, instead of a Minister accountable to Parliament deciding whom he should consider or who might be a representative body to be consulted among affected interests, a court would be entitled to do so. This group of amendments would undermine the superior form of parliamentary accountability which is embodied in the Bill and would raise a wholly extended form of judicial review far beyond anything we understand by that phrase.
My evening yesterday was enlightened by reading an article by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in the journal Counsel of February 2001. As the article is not only written by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, but also describes him as the Shadow Lord Chancellor, I take it that it represents something near an official point of view.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I may have been described as the Shadow Lord Chancellor but it was not an article written in any official context. My own views on the matters form the substance of the article.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I am happy to be enlightened on that point. However, perhaps I may quote a passage from the article. The noble Lord will realise that my eyebrows rose a little when he talked a

177
few moments ago about the Regulatory Reform Bill shilling powers from Parliament to the executive. In the article the noble Lord refers to the Human Rights Act and states:
"The Human Rights Act engineers a massive shift of power from parliament to the courts where the judges will be confronted, as the Lord Chancellor has accepted, with legal choices which offer immense scope for political moral and philosophical disagreement ".
The noble Lord raises the question, very reasonably, about the difficulty of establishing the necessary legitimacy of judges to deal with the important matters in that Act. I readily agree that the Regulatory Reform Act is an entirely different matter. However, does the noble Lord think that some of those phrases are appropriate for the Regulatory Reform Bill? It deals with a balance between burdens and benefits, and such issues as who is a suitable body to be consulted on specific orders. Does he not think that it would be a massive and unjustified shift of power from Parliament to the judges if one rules out the phrase "in his opinion" wherever it appears in the Bill and, according to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, it was possible to get a judicial decision on the merits of any of those matters which are more appropriate to Ministers and Parliament?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, should welcome the view of my noble friend. Members of the governing party complain frequently about our inconsistency. My noble friend has been totally consistent in his views today and in the article.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I think that it will be appropriate for me to speak at this point because Amendments Nos. 20 and 23 are identical to amendments which I moved in Committee, and which I put forward for Report stage although I withdrew them subsequently.
The argument on which I relied to a considerable extent in Committee was a somewhat double-edged sword. I said that it would be wrong to make the test subjective when that did not represent what happened on the ground. The position is that the Minister states his opinion. In your Lordships' House that comes before the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. That committee does not consider whether the Minister's opinion is rational but whether the proposed order meets the test and conditions in what will be Clause 3(2). In practice, although not on the face of the Bill, the test is objective rather than subjective although the body that tests it in this House is the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee rather than the court.
That position is something of a two-edged sword. One could say that in those circumstances it does not matter enormously whether on the face of the Bill the test is objective or subjective. Whichever it is, the committee will consider it. If the committee comes to the conclusion that the Minister's view is incorrect even if not irrational, in practice it is unlikely that that order would be allowed to go forward to the House. If it went forward, it would be unlikely to succeed.
178
In those circumstances, therefore, I do not regard this group of amendments as being of major significance. In view of the fact that the Government have made what I believe to be substantial and important concessions over the amendments contained in the first group I would not be minded to press this group of amendments.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, because the Government have made some move towards strengthening the level of detail in the Bill does not mean that we should not improve it further.
When replying to a previous amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Kingsland, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was in two minds as to whether he should speak to the amendment or the speech of my noble friend. When addressing this group, Members of your Lordships' House are in the same position: whether to address what is contained in the Bill or the assurances given by Ministers as to how the Bill will operate.
In their speeches, Ministers have gone to great lengths to reassure the House that there are only targeted and specific circumstances in which the measure could be used. However, the Bill states nothing of the kind. The instances where it can be used are extremely wide. That is why I strongly support my noble friend. We need to take out more of the subjective nature of the Bill.
The whole Bill is about what "the Minister thinks"—whether the Minister thinks some piece of legislation should be amended which is not at the top of the Government's priority list. We have heard time and again about fire safety legislation. If safety is a priority of the Government, perhaps they should consider bringing forward in primary legislation a new fire safety Bill which draws all the measures together. I wonder how many ministerial speeches would have to be rewritten to delete fire safety legislative arguments.
The words "the Minister thinks" appear throughout the Bill. There are instances where such a phrase is appropriate in legislation. However, in a Bill which is so open to abuse, to have such latitude for a Minister is not appropriate. I support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, fire safety is one of 51 examples. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, would like us to bring forward 51 Bills to deal with each of those issues. That is an interesting proposition.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I cannot let the noble Lord get away with that. He has used the same example at every stage of the Bill and done so at great length. That is why I drew attention to it. My noble friend Lord Kingsland said earlier that perhaps we should write those 51 examples into the Bill. Let the

179
Government get that through and then bring forward another Bill if they want. Then there might be something to consider.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not mind being accused of using the fire safety example, but I very much mind being accused of doing it at great length. If the noble Viscount measures the column inches on fire safety, he will find that they do not amount to much.
We dealt with the issue thoroughly in Committee. We have not changed our opinion since then. The procedure in the Bill, which the amendments would alter, is the same as in the 1994 Act. It has been there all the time and has not caused any difficulty. The Conservative Party introduced that legislation, which included the provisions for the Minister's opinion.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I know that my party did that. The noble Lord will recall that I was sitting in the position that he is sitting in now. That is still reasonably fresh in my memory. The Bill is much wider and goes much further than the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It therefore needs much more powerful provisions to limit its effects.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as is well known, I dispute that claim. Bearing in mind the amendments that we have accepted from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, today, the relationship between the scope of the Bill and the safeguards included in it is highly defensible. We have nothing to apologise for and no need to make different provision from that in the 1994 Act. We still have the principle of thorough consultation and intense scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament. As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said in Committee:
"We do not think that the right course is to allow the courts, after Parliament has scrutinised the legislation with the relevant amount of information and in the necessary degree of detail, to try to unhinge the process".—[Official Report, 23/1/01; col. 208.]
Of course, that is subject to the legitimate point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, about judicial review. If the Minister acts unreasonably, judicial review is possible under well established principles. However, the amendments would give the courts much greater scope to intervene or to be approached to intervene.
I shall deal with the amendments in turn. Although they all have the same thrust, it is necessary to consider them individually. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, tabled comparable amendments in Committee to Amendments Nos. 20 and 23. He made the correct observation about them. They relate to the safeguards in Clause 3 of necessary protection, rights and freedoms and fair balance. That is carried over from the 1994 Act. The provision has worked well and the committees have been vigilant to police it. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out today that the Minister reaching an opinion is the starting point. That happens before any consultation takes place and before the matter comes before any committee. There
180
are provisions to make sure that if the consultation is unfavourable, the adverse results of consultation are brought before the committees of both Houses. The committees then have the duty of considering whether the Minister's opinion is reasonable and deciding whether the proposal before them removes any necessary protection, as in Clause 3.
Removing the Minister's opinion from the Bill would leave the power to decide to the courts, not to Parliament. I do not want to get involved, as a mere market researcher, in a disagreement between the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, although it sounded to me as if it was abusing plaintiff's attorney, for which I was grateful. Surely the protection for the public is that the Minister has to make a judgment before going to consultation and before the matter comes before Parliament, and that the Minister is accountable to Parliament.
Amendment No. 14 deals with such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental provision as the Minister thinks appropriate. The question of what is incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental is objective. There are examples in legislation that show what that means. If the Minister does not determine what provision to include, that leaves open the question of who is to decide on the appropriateness, which is, by definition, a matter of judgment.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 relate to whom a Minister consults about a proposal. It is not possible for a Minister to know whether a particular body is representative of a certain group of people. He can only form an opinion. The starting point has to be someone's opinion. On Amendment No. 32, the Minister thinking that it is appropriate to vary the proposals is a factual precondition. If the Minister thinks that it is appropriate to vary the conditions, he must undertake such further consultation as appears necessary. It would be nonsensical to remove the reference to what the Minister thinks. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are purely consequential.
We have not learned any more from this debate than we learned from the same debate in Committee. The Government's position is the same: the public interest is best protected by the Minister exercising his duty to form an opinion and that being tested by consultation and by the parliamentary process. The amendments would remove that.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, very much for giving my article in Counsel some publicity. I doubt that it would have received it otherwise. That article is about the relationship between the courts and Parliament in its primary legislative mode in the particular context of the Human Rights Act 1998. We are considering, here, a delegated legislative procedure in which most of the safeguards depend on particular conduct in your Lordships' House, not on procedures set out in detail in the statute. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, the parallel is not fair, although I have no objection to his attempting to draw it.

181
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government's position clearly on each amendment. The Opposition disagree with it and we would like to test the opinion of the House.
5.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 152

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Astor, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Attlee, E.

Kimball, L.

Biffen, L.

Kingsland, L.

Boardman, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Buscombe, B.

Lucas, L.

Byford, B.

Luke, L.

Caithness, E.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Moynihan, L.

Coe, L.

Northesk, E.

Colwyn, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cox, B.

Onslow, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Cranborne, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Patten, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peel, E.

Denham, L.

Rawlings, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rees, L.

Dundee, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Freeman, L.

Rogan, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saatchi, L.

Geddes, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goschen, V.

Selborne, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanham, B.

Stewartby, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hasiam, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Swinfen, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Thomas of Gwydir, L

Holderness, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Home, E.

Vinson, L.

Howe, E.

Waddington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Addington, L.

Blease, L.

Ahmed, L.

Borrie, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bragg, L.

Alli, L.

Brennan, L.

Amos, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Ampthill, L.

Brookman, L.

Andrews, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Archer of Sand well, L.

Burlison, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Barker, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Barnett, L.

Christopher, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Billingham, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

182

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Craig of Radley, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

David, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McNally, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Maddock, B.

Desai, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dixon, L.

Marsh, L.

Dubs, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Elder, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Erroll, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Molloy, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Newby, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Orme, L.

Gale, B.

Parekh, L.

Geraint, L.

Patel, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Peston, L.

Gilbert, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Puttnam, L.

Goodhart, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Greaves, L.

Roper, L.

Grenfell, L.

Russell, E.

Hardy of Wath, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sawyer, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Shepherd, L.

Harrison, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Haskel, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Haskins, L.

Simon, V.

Hayman, B.

Slim, V.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hoyle, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Islwyn, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Jacobs, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Thornton, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.(Lord Privy Seal)

Tordoff, L.

Turnberg, L.

Jeger, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Uddin, B.

Judd, L.

Varley, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Walmsley, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Weatherill, L.

Levy, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lipsey, L.

Whitaker, B.

Listowel, E.

Whitty, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wilkins, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.40 p.m.
Clause 2 [Meaning of "burden" and related expressions]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No.15
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("includes") and insert ("means").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. In Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, explained that the use of the word "includes" was deliberate as paragraphs (a) and (b) which followed were intended to include examples of burdens only, without restricting the natural meaning of the word. He gave as examples of burdens which would not fall within (a) and (b) but which would, none the less, be burdens within the natural meaning of the word, outright prohibitions and appeals mechanisms.
I have some difficulty with that analysis. First, the structure of paragraph (a) is such as to indicate a broad approach to the definition. The words used are effective to define wide categories, not mere instances. Secondly, I do not believe that an outright prohibition is anything other than a restriction within the meaning of paragraph (a), likewise an appeals mechanism. The breadth of definition in paragraph (a) seems to me to catch both.
We are left with the clear impression that the use of the word "includes" is intended as some form of escape clause. I have no objection to the use of an escape clause if its use is warranted, but given the broad definition in paragraph (a), I can see no reason why such an escape clause should be necessary.
I can deal with Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 together. From the website of the Cabinet Office, and in particular the sites which give details about the Bill and potential regulatory reform orders, we can soon expect to see a package of business-friendly initiatives, reform of outdated, overlapping and over-burdensome legislation; clearer and better-targeted legislation and a climate that encourages thriving business.
I am sure that your Lordships are excited by those prospects. However, it is not entirely clear from the website—in fact, it is not clear at all to the Opposition—that those new initiatives will allow Ministers to make regulatory reform orders which permit Ministers, government departments and local authorities to incur further expenditure.
I would be grateful, therefore, if the Minister would make clear, to the extent that he can, whether or not the Government intend to use the Bill for the purpose of making regulatory reform orders that remove conditions or limits which prevent the incurring of expenditure. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we debated the first issue in Committee; namely, is it right to say "includes" or should the definition in 2(1)(a) be exhaustive? The approach that we have taken is the one adopted in the 1994 Act, where the word "includes" was used and not the word "means", which is the word proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I am unaware of that causing difficulty in terms of definition. The noble Lord skated over skilfully, but, with the greatest of respect, inadequately, the argument that had been advanced in
184
Committee by the Government. When it was said in Committee that the appeal procedure that he wanted to include might be a burden the noble Lord said that the word "restriction" includes an appeal procedure. I do not think for one moment that that is right. If that is not right, one can see that it would be far more sensible, when one defines "burden", to say that burden includes the things set out but leave it to Parliament to define "burden" in its ordinary, natural meaning. Ministers, the scrutiny committees and both Houses of Parliament will have an opportunity to consider the matter.
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that he has addressed the fact that the word "burden" has worked well, that it is sensible; and that it is a word that has an ordinary meaning. He has not dealt with the arguments advanced in Committee.
As regards the second group of amendments, are there occasions when we would want to remove conditions which prevent expenditure? Yes, there are. The example that was given was conditions attached to the granting of vaccine-damage compensation. It would be our intention specifically to make it easier for Ministers to incur that expenditure for the benefit of the parents and the vaccine-damaged child.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 and for the particular example he gave. He will not be surprised to hear that I remain unhappy with his explanation in respect of Amendment No. 15. It is clear on the face of the Bill that a restriction is a burden. If I follow his argument correctly, it is therefore strange to find it as part of the definition of "includes". I have no objection to the noble and learned Lord having an escape clause to sweep up those circumstances that are not defined. However, in my submission the proper form of legislative drafting is first to define "burden" and then at the end to provide a clause or expression which picks up all those instances which are not dealt with. Does the noble and learned Lord not agree that that would be a happier way of achieving the objective he seeks?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that I do not. It is sensible to say that Parliament, the committees and Ministers are well able to understand the word "burden". Too great a complexity in how we define something means that we would depart from the ordinary, natural meaning of the word.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The word "burden" is crucial to the function of the Bill. In our submission it therefore merits specific definition. That is why I continue to be unhappy with the reply given by the noble and learned Lord. I shall reflect on the matter and may return to it at Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("only affects") and insert ("affects only").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raised the issue of the discrepancy in the placing of the word "only" in Clause 1(5)(c) when compared with Clause 2(1) where the words come in a different order.
The complexity and brilliance of the argument raised by the noble Baroness indicated the problems that can arise where words intended to mean the same thing come in a different order. I do not share her concerns, because in a number of respects I failed adequately to follow them. However, the brilliance of the argument requires that the amendment be made so that nobody else can seek to take advantage of a difference in the order of the words. In those circumstances, we have made it the same in both places. I thank the noble Baroness for drawing this matter to our attention. I hope that in those circumstances she agrees to the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, as noble Lords will see, I am eager to thank the Minister and pleased that he has taken the time to explore and consider the points. I am happy to accept and support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Limitations on order-making power]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 2, after ("opinion") insert ("that the purpose of the order is not politically controversial and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, no one has yet succeeded in identifying those areas of legislation which are appropriate candidates for regulatory reform, although in Committee we were told by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that if anyone came up with an adequate definition the Government would consider it seriously.The elephant test showed us that although we could not define a suitable candidate we would know it when we saw it. In our view, that is not satisfactory because an attempt at definition, as an attempt, defines nothing. It seems to me that if we cannot define what our elephant is, we should at least attempt to define what it is not.
We have repeatedly been assured that the Bill will not he used to legislate matters which are politically controversial. However, nowhere in the Bill does that assurance appear. That omission is easily remedied. Let the Minister concerned be required to be of the opinion that the matter is politically non-controversial.
If it is the intention of the Bill to avoid matters of political controversy, no Minister should be permitted to bring forward legislation without first having satisfied himself that it is so. The amendment ensures
186
that in future any Minister wishing to use the Bill will be bound by the assurances given to your Lordships' House.
I am aware that an order may be deemed controversial without that controversy having a political aspect. I considered whether it might be appropriate to broaden the exclusion which the amendment would provide but thought better of it. It would not be desirable that reform could be prevented in such circumstances and for that reason I have adopted the phrase used by the noble and learned Lord the Minister.
There is the added safeguard that by the time the Minister comes to make his order he will have gone through the consultative procedures required by Clause 5. Whether or not the order taken as a whole is politically controversial is a matter about which by that stage he will be well qualified to have an opinion. No doubt the Minister's opinion could then be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the normal way. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I understand the motives for the amendment. It is based upon what was said during Committee but I do not believe that it would be appropriate to put the words on the face of the Bill.
As has been repeatedly stated by everyone involved, the power in the Bill is not suited to large and controversial measures. The entire procedure contained in the Bill would weed out such proposals. A highly contentious issue would come up against serious problems during the consultation period and the Minister, obliged to set all this out in the document he placed before Parliament, would have to reflect that explicitly. The scrutiny procedures in Parliament, involving careful examination by committees and the co-equal status of the two Houses, are such that any Minister would obviously be ill-advised to choose this route.
Of course, that does not mean that no proposal could contain any controversial provision, but the consultation and scrutiny process would allow opposing views to be tested. There will always be disagreements about the best way to achieve a particular goal, however desirable that goal might be, and this Bill provides an excellent method of achieving a consensus as to what that best method might be. However, that is quite different from highly political and highly controversial legislation which would not be suitable for treatment under the Bill. It would be simpler to get such legislation through via primary legislation.
The phrase adopted—namely, "not politically controversial"—also has a degree of imprecision which would not be appropriate for insertion in a Bill. Therefore, for two reasons—first, that the processes envisaged in the Bill would ensure that such a measure never got through and, secondly, that the phrase is

187
imprecise—we respectfully submit that the wording is not appropriate to incorporate in the Bill. We invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I hear what he says but he will appreciate that we are all searching for a way of identifying the areas of legislation which are appropriate candidates for regulatory reform in this way.
I accept that there is a degree of imprecision in the terminology that we have proposed. It is not ideal; it is not perfect. However, we are deeply concerned that the door is wide open for any form of legislation to be considered relevant or right for regulatory reform as opposed to primary legislation.
We shall consider the matter further and perhaps return to it at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 3. after ("remove") insert ("or reduce").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in rising to speak to Amendment No. 22, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 39. I do so with some trepidation because it relates to fire safety, although I am using that as an example for the protection of life safety. I have tabled the amendments in response to considerable consultation with outside bodies and concerns expressed to us about some of the implications with regard to regulatory reform. Concern has been expressed that in trying to reduce regulations we might also reduce safety.
Any watering down of regulations protecting life safety is a delicate matter. Proper concern, for example, for small businesses hampered by red tape, should not outweigh the need to maintain an appropriate level of fire safety for employees and the general public. It is possible that regulatory reform procedures could remove antiquated and disused statutes, facilitating modernisation, consolidation and rationalisation of fire safety standards. That must be good.
However, the Fire Safety Development Group in particular worries that the provision could be extended to cut back on fire safety demands. The amendments are intended to ensure continuity and improvement in public safety and ensure that they remain a core principle of good regulation. Many in the fire community believe that the amendments are essential for the Bill to achieve its objectives. They would be consistent with principles promoted in Section 1(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, stating that existing health and safety law cannot be replaced unless substituted by legislation which maintains or improves upon present standards. The 1974 Act was a measure taken to rationalise and consolidate safety law.
Furthermore, the Better Regulation Task Force accepts the need,
"to safeguard health and safety or protect citizens from harming themselves".
I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, it may assist the noble Baroness to know that, in my experience, when such issues come before the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee it interprets the word "remove" as meaning not only to remove absolutely but to remove to some degree or in some part. Therefore, while I entirely sympathise with the noble Baroness's objective, I am not sure that the amendment is necessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sympathetic to the thrust of both amendments and to the thinking behind them. Perhaps, with the permission of the Fire Brigades' Union, I may continue to use fire safety as an example. I am happy to do so. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right about Amendment No. 22. The point is not merely that the word "remove" will be interpreted by the committee as including any lesser part but also that the word "any" is significant. An order may not reduce the level of necessary protection and the Bill already achieves the purposes intended in Amendment No. 22.
I must give the same reply in respect of Amendment No. 39. As it stands, Clause 6 allows for consideration of,
"whether the existing law affected by the proposals affords any necessary protection and, if so, how that protection is to be continued".
The amendment would add "or improved, and ensured", and that must be desirable.
I deal first with "ensured". The word "continued" in Clause 6(2)(d) already covers this in legal and legislative terms and there is no need to add the word. The word "improved" is interesting. It is intended to cover those instances when necessary protection is increased. That is not necessary. This part of the Bill deals specifically with the "necessary protection" test; namely, how existing protection is being maintained. It would not be appropriate to dilute that by including other material which was not part of the test. That is not to say that any increase in protection should not be discussed. The point is already covered by paragraph (i) at the bottom of the page. Clearly, the words,
"any benefits … which are expected to flow from the implementation of the proposals-,
include improvement in protection.
I hope that in this case too the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, recognises that, however well-meaning the amendments, the Bill already covers the points which they raise.
6 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his reassurance in relation to the customary response of the Delegated Powers and

189
Deregulation Committee to such terminology. The Minister is aware that these are in a sense probing amendments to the extent that we seek reassurance. I believe that I heard words of reassurance in the Minister's response. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 7, after ("opinion") insert ("—(a)")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert (", and
(b) that the extent to which the order removes or reduces one or more burdens, or has other beneficial effects for persons affected by the burdens imposed by the existing law, makes it desirable for the order to be made.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Statutory instrument procedure]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert ("subject to such amendment or amendments as both Houses shall agree upon in respect of any order made under section 1(1)(b) or (c)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee on 25th January your Lordships generously allowed me to explain a t some length (at cols. 366 to 369) why I believed this amendment to be important. It gives noble Lords the power to amend rather than wholly to reject an order. I hesitated before I re-tabled the amendment. However, I want to raise this fundamental issue again, in particular because at present there is considerable feeling in the country, first, that there is far too much regulation, and secondly, that Parliament is losing its effectiveness in controlling a powerful executive.
I am well aware that one of the principal arguments against allowing the amendment of statutory instruments by either House is that it could slow down the tidal wave of secondary legislation which is habitually put through both Houses. In Committee, the arguments put forward by me and others in support of the amendment were responded to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on the basis that,
"the super-affirmative process already permits the amendment of regulatory reform orders … Furthermore, it affords the opportunity for amendment".—[Official Report, 25/1/01; col. 370.]
The first essential point to make clear—I do not intend to repeat the arguments that I put forward in Committee—is that when the noble Lord made those two statements he was not speaking about amendment at all. The truth of the matter is that this House has no power of amendment with regard to secondary legislation. We can kill it or not. If we pass a Motion to annul or a Motion to amend, by convention the effect is to kill the order. That gives the Government three choices: to abandon the secondary legislation; to
190
bring it back in a form which is consistent with the Motion passed; or to reintroduce the instrument unamended. But we must avoid confusion by talking about an existing power to amend where none exists. We are in an all-or-nothing situation: if we reject it we risk throwing out the baby with the bath water.
The reason why only one Motion to annul has been passed in, I believe, over 50,000 statutory instruments is precisely that the absence of a power intelligently to amend deters most noble Lords from simply striking down what is, in most of its detail, a sensible and constructive instrument. That is the reason why, on rereading Hansard, I was wholly dissatisfied with the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. One part of his argument with which I agree is that,
"it is right that both the House and individual Peers should have the power to propose amendments that are thought necessary to a particular draft regulatory reform order. That is essential to proper parliamentary scrutiny".—[Col. 37.]
That is the point. Such a power is essential, and we do not have that power. As a result, Alice in Wonderland circumstances arise, as happened last Thursday, when there was extraordinary confusion in relation to the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements)(Access to Information)(England) Regulations 2000. That is a natty little title. The House considered two Motions alongside each other, both of which, if passed, would have had the effect of killing the instrument.
Those comments and this amendment, far from containing any implied criticism of the work of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, endorse the committee's conclusions. Perhaps I may quote the end of conclusion 65 to the committee's second report on the Bill:
"Only Parliament itself can decide whether this guidance from the Committees"—
here and in another place—
"and the unfettered and important power of either House to refuse to approve the final draft order makes this unprecedentedly wide power acceptable".
My amendment builds on that and gives your Lordships power to make real improvements. I believe that it would be extremely helpful to the work of Parliament under the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if I had said only what I am quoted as having said by the noble Lord, I would have been dissatisfied with it. However, I said a great deal more, which I shall try to repeat as efficiently and with as little time-wasting as possible. What I said then was that the power of amendment was achieved by the power of a Member of this House to table a companion Motion to the Motion seeking approval of the order. The companion Motion could propose an amendment. If the amendment was agreed the Minister would have to take up the order and lay it in amended form, abandon it, or start again and decide to use primary legislation. Those are the three options which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, fairly set out in his speech.

191
The special parliamentary procedure for regulatory reform orders involves a greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny than the ordinary affirmative resolution procedure and, in the way that I describe, affords the opportunity for amendment. The amendment does not add anything to what we already have.
The point about taking it away and re-tabling it is that, if there is general disapproval of the regulatory reform order, the Minister would have to take it away and start the whole process again right from the very beginning. He would have to go through the consultation process, produce the results of that consultation and go before the committees of both Houses. In that way, certainly, there would be the equivalent of a fatal Motion; in other words, exactly what happens to an affirmative resolution now or a Prayer to annul a negative resolution.
However, there is an alternative option. If an amendment is proposed and carried in the House on a companion Motion to the Motion to approve the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee report, then, because at this stage the order has not been formally laid, the Minister could take up and incorporate the amendment. He need not go through all the earlier procedures. He could come back to the House rather quickly with an order which incorporated the order that had been approved in the House. That is an improvement on a fatal order. Therefore, I argue that the House has the power to amend an order. I know that that is not in quite the formal sense that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, looks for, but it achieves the same effect.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, with respect to the Minister, it achieves the same effect, which is to kill off effective parliamentary scrutiny. The proof of the pudding is in the statistics. It is no accident that only one annulment order has ever been ever passed in this House. That is precisely because it is such a laborious procedure, which half the Members of the House do not understand. The Government wish to have greater executive freedom, but it is unsustainable from the parliamentary point of view to continue down this route. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) Sections 1(2A) and 3(2)(b) do not apply to a subordinate provisions order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another amendment relating to the new protection that is given through Clause 3(2)(b). The amendment was not included in the original group because it goes somewhat outside the field covered by those groups. It therefore seemed appropriate to deal with the amendments separately.
The position here—a point raised by the Government—was that in the case of a subordinate provisions order it is possible that although the order as a whole will satisfy all the conditions in the now amended Clause 3(2), there may be certain circumstances in which a subordinate provisions order merely imposes, let us say, a transitional burden without containing any offsetting transitional removal or reduction. It will probably happen relatively rarely, indeed, if at all, but the subordinate provisions orders seem to play a useful part as orders which do not require the full treatment. It would be unfortunate if, merely because some minor provision increased a burden without any offsetting reduction or removal of burdens, the subordinate provisions order procedure could not be used and it had to be included as part of a full order going through the full and really rather elaborate consultative procedure. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for pulling the amendment out of his earlier group. I can see the reasons for doing that. Not only does it deal with a related but different point, but also it refers to new Section 1(2A) which was introduced by the noble Lord's amendment earlier today.
It is sensible to exclude subordinate provisions orders from the new limitations. If we were to insist that a subordinate provisions order cannot only impose burdens, we would be preventing fee increases. Those are exactly the kind of examples that we considered in Committee and on Report. We do not want to burden Parliament with a full regulatory reform order every time we seek to increase a fee. Again, the scrutiny committees will have recommended in their reports to each House on the main order what could be included in a subordinate provisions order. They have that power. On that basis, we are happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Preliminary consultation]:
[Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 not moved.]
Lord Norton of Louth Lord Norton of Louth moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) In fulfilling the requirements of subsection (1), the Minister shall comply with the provisions of the code of practice for written consultation in force at the time at which the Minister decides to consult on his proposal.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 31, I shall speak also to Amendments No. 35 and 43 which are grouped with it. In Committee, I moved an amendment to provide that the Minister should publish an invitation to all interested parties to make submissions. The intention was to ensure a more open process. Instead of empowering the Minister to consult certain specified bodies and those that he thought appropriate to consult, the amendment sought to permit all those who wished to make submissions to do so. In so doing, I sought to bring the provisions of the Bill into line with

193
the Government's draft code of practice on written consultation. The code states, as one of its criteria, that documents should be made widely available and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested parties.
On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made clear that it was the Government's intention to publish the fact that consultation was being carried out and he outlined ways in which the announcement could be made. I have no objections to what he proposed. On the face of the Bill I would like to see some requirement for that to happen.
At that stage, the Minister's objection to my amendment was twofold. The first was that it was difficult to decide what was meant by a "general announcement". It may well be difficult to define what we mean by a general announcement but as my amendment did not use those words it is not a crucial objection. The second was that the code of practice could change over time and therefore its wording should not appear on the face of the Bill. As I pointed out, my amendment imposed a requirement to publish an invitation and it was difficult to see how that might change over time.
The Minister resisted the amendment. He nonetheless conceded that there might be a case for specifying that the Minister should comply with the code of conduct issued from time to time. Amendment No. 31 therefore provides for that. The Minister said that he would consult with other departments because the requirement would apply more widely than the Bill. Strictly speaking, it would not as the provision is specific to the Bill, but it would doubtless make it difficult for Ministers not to comply with it in consulting on proposals brought forward under the provisions of other Acts. That, I should have thought, is an argument for the amendment. I suspect the Minister probably thinks so too. If he is not able to accept the amendment, with which he has indicated some sympathy, then the House may wish to help the Minister to get his way in his dealings with departments by pressing it. So I believe that there is a strong case for the amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 35, which is logically grouped with Amendment No. 31. I appreciate that in bringing forward this amendment as well it may appear that I am now wanting my cake and eating it. At Committee stage I proposed an amendment stipulating that there must be a minimum period of eight weeks for consultation. I recognised then that there were possible objections to the proposal. I outlined them and the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, kindly repeated them. I also indicated that an alternative was to stipulate a 12-week norm, with the Minister having to make a special case for shortening the period. My amendment today embodies that alternative approach. In so doing, it also meets the points raised by the Minister.
The 12-week requirement is in line with the provisions of the code of practice for written consultation. As I mentioned a few moments ago, I know that the Minister does not want the precise
194
provisions of the code to appear on the face of the Bill. However, I think that there is a case for a period to be stipulated—that is, independent of a requirement to abide by the code.
The case for some specified period appearing m the Bill was made rather well by the Minister himself, albeit in another context. He advanced the case that those who wanted to make representations should have priority and that they should have some certainty in knowing how long the period of consultation should be. He made that argument (at col. 400 of the Official Report on 25th January) in respect of the 60-day period for parliamentary consideration of a draft document. I am sure that the Minister would not wish to argue that there should be one rule for parliamentary consultation and another for government consultation. There is thus a case for having a specified period. Those who are being consulted, those whom the Minister says should have priority, will know the time that there will be for consultation.
In Committee, the Minister argued that there would also need to be some flexibility. There may he occasions when rapid consultation is necessary; for instance, as a result of a court judgment. My amendment allows for that. The Minister may provide for a shorter period, but he will need to make a case for it. He will have to report to Parliament his reasons for judging the circumstances to be exceptional. He will need to be in a position to justify his actions.
My amendment thus provides for both flexibility and transparency. Stipulating a norm on the face of the Bill makes it difficult, but not impossible, for Ministers to reduce the period. I believe that this creates a more powerful discipline than that imposed by the code of practice. It should therefore appear on the face of the Bill, in addition to a general requirement to comply with the code of practice.
I turn to Amendment No. 43, which can be seen as complementary to my earlier amendment, stipulating a period for consultation. However, I wish it to be treated as a free-standing amendment. It requires the Minister, in supplying details to Parliament of the consultation he has undertaken, to state the period allowed for consultation.
We have discussed already the recommendations embodied in the draft code of practice. The norm is 12 weeks and the minimum is eight weeks. I think that there is a simple and straightforward case for the Minister to tell Parliament how long the period for consultation was. The Minister, one presumes, will usually state that it was 12 weeks. If he says that it was a shorter period, then Parliament will be alerted to that fact and can require the Minister to explain the reasons for reducing it.
In responding to the amendment, the noble Lord may well say that, if the consultation period is eight weeks, then the Minister will normally explain the reasons for it being that short. The circumstances are likely to be exceptional and therefore will form part of the Minister's report to Parliament. That may well be the case, but it is not an argument against the

195
amendment. I want to ensure that the use of the eight-week period is kept to a minimum. Knowing that the period will have to be included in the information supplied to Parliament acts as a useful discipline. Ministers are less likely to go for a shorter period, except when the case clearly justifies it, if they know that the period will be drawn to the attention of Parliament.
The amendment itself stipulates no norm or minimum period. It merely requires that the period of consultation is notified to Parliament. That strikes me as sensible and unobjectionable. One knows when it is one of those days and nothing goes right. So far, it has been one of those days. I am hoping that, on this occasion, the Minister will make my day. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth in relation to Amendment No. 31 and to speak also to Amendment No. 36, which is similar to Amendment No. 31. Indeed, in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, pointed out that an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth was based on criteria laid down in the Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultation exercises. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, went on to say that he would be prepared to consider whether a provision should be included in the Bill specifying that the Minister should comply with the code of conduct which is issued from time to time. I have taken that as an invitation to table this amendment so that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, can now tell us the result of his considerations and his reasons for coming to whatever conclusion he may have come to.
I sincerely hope that he has come to the conclusion that the right course is to impose an obligation on the Minister to observe the criteria laid down in that code of practice as issued from time to time so there can be no doubt that the consultation exercise envisaged in the Bill is conducted properly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for the care that they have obviously given to this matter since the Committee stage and for the way in which they have not simply come back with existing amendments but have thought through the issues involved. I have done the same. The trouble is that it does not lead me to the same conclusion. I am sorry for that because I know that in the end we all want to achieve good consultation.
Perhaps I may deal first with Amendments Nos. 31 and 36, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, have very much the same effect. The code does not have any legal status and in that sense it lacks legal force. The effect of including on the face of the Bill a requirement of compliance with the code would be to give it legal force. At the moment, the provisions of the code merely set out what is currently accepted as good
196
practice. It is generally agreed that that could change from time to time—possibly for wicked reasons but much more likely for benign ones. If we were to include it on the face of the Bill to give it legal force, we would be giving Ministers, when they were changing the code of conduct, the power to legislate. That cannot be right. Any such power should be subject to scrutiny by Parliament.
Quite apart from that constitutional point, I am of the view that there is no need to place this requirement on the face of the Bill. Ministers are committed to observing the code of practice scrupulously when there are proposals under the Bill. They should depart from it only where exceptional circumstances justify them doing so. I can assure the House that Cabinet Office instructions on these matters are taken very seriously indeed. If it is argued that exceptional circumstances justify them departing from the code, they will give reasons for the departure and they can be challenged on those reasons, both here and in another place. The scrutiny committees decide whether the consultation has been carried out properly and they have not in any way shied away from saying that consultation has been inadequate—whether in terms of the amount of time provided or in terms of the people who are consulted. Therefore, for both constitutional and practical reasons, I really am opposed to having a provision of this kind.
Amendment No. 35 puts the 12-week minimum consultation period on the face of the Bill. However, it rather loses effect by giving the Minister the power to vary the time if,
"he is of the opinion that it is essential to do so".
If the Government were to put such a wide-ranging ministerial power on the face of a Bill, they would be ferociously attacked. In any case, what does the Bill actually say? Clause 6(1)(b) states that the Minister has to give details of any consultation undertaken as required by Clause 5(1) or Clause 5(3). What does "details of any consultation" mean unless it includes the time taken for the consultation; and if that is in conflict with the Cabinet Office code of conduct, the reasons for departing from that. This answer applies also to Amendment No. 43, which concerns the length of consultation in the Minister's report. What else could Clause 6(2)(j) specify, if not the time taken and those consulted?
Given the care taken not to make the provisions unworkable, I do not think that these amendments would add anything to the Bill. I regret that my consideration between the Committee stage and Report has not led to a more favourable result.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I, too, regret that the Minister has not been able to make my day. I may have to follow in the same vein. A conflicting commitment means that I may not be able to be here to move my next amendment.
I see the force of the Minister's words as regards the legal implications in his response to Amendment No. 31. He has made a valid case. However, I am far less

197
persuaded by his response to Amendments Nos. 35 and 43. He used the same argument to respond to both; namely, that under Clause 6(2)(j) the Minister is bound to give details and therefore the period will be stipulated. I do not think it follows at all that the Minister will have to specify the time period. As the Bill is presently drafted, the Minister may choose to do so, but if I were the Minister I am sure that I would be able to think of a great many other details to include here, without feeling that it was necessary specifically to mention the period.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I, too, can think of many other details to include here, but does the noble Lord really believe that I would be able to get away without specifying the length of the consultation period and those who were consulted? I think not.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I should like to think that that would be the case. However, if the necessary scrutiny provisions were in place, then that would be the case. It is dependent on us, in a sense, to ensure that that is what will happen. That is the reason why I should like to reinforce the point, rather than simply relying on the hope that the mechanisms will be in place and that the members of the relevant committee will be able to check that it is the case. I see no objection whatever to placing a requirement on the Minister to state the period of consultation. I cannot see what objection could be raised to that.
Obviously the Minister will give other details. I ask only that, among those other details that must be provided, he will also provide the period for consultation. That strikes me as completely unobjectionable. I should like to place on the record that I do not feel that the argument which has been advanced by the noble Lord answers that point. I believe that a case can be made for putting a more precise form of words on the face of the Bill. For that reason, I am disappointed with the Minister's response and hope that there may still be time for wiser counsels to prevail. In the interim, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 to 36 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Document to be laid before Parliament]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendments Nos. 37 and 38:
Page 5, line 23, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) how the proposals further the object mentioned in section 1(1)(a),").
Page 5, line 24, after ("proposals") insert ("also").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 5, line 35, leave out from ("satisfied") to end of line 36.
On Quest ion, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, before calling this amendment, I should point
198
out that if this amendment is agreed, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 42, tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 5, line 41, leave out ("and, if so, either the estimated amount or") and insert (", the estimated amount and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 arises from a contribution made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The noble Lord pointed out the curious detail in Clause 6(2)(h)—namely, that the matters specified which the Minister has to lay before Parliament include the estimated amount of any savings or increases in costs estimated to result from these proposals, or the savings or increases in costs to be expected, but not both.
I can see no reason why details both of the estimated amount and of the reasons why savings or increases in costs are to be expected should not be laid before Parliament. That said, I am pleased to note on the Marshalled List Amendment No. 42 proposed by the Minister. I look forward with interest to hearing what he has to say in relation to both this amendment and his own amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, not surprisingly, I, too, am grateful to see that the noble and learned Lord has responded to the point I raised in Committee. I shall be happy to support either of these amendments, but I anticipate that the noble Baroness will feel able to give way to the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness graciously told the House, this matter was first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He pointed out the anomaly that she has repeated in her contribution today. I was lost for words when the noble Lord first raised it and said that I would write on the matter. I was unable to come up with an explanation. My response has been to table Amendment No. 42.
The only difference between the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness and my amendment is that I have put in the words "wherever practicable". That appears to be sensible. Amendment No. 42 recognises that it may not always be possible for a cost estimate to be made with great precision. How does one value, for example, the cost savings gained by making it easier for people to book weddings at registry offices? What savings would arise from making it easier for people to register births in Welsh? These are important matters, but I am sure that we all recognise that they may not be easy to quantify with great precision. That is why it is sensible to include the words "wherever practicable".
As always, it will be for the committee and the House to satisfy themselves as to whether any particular case meets the requirements of the Bill and,

199
in particular, the provisions of the amendment. I invite the noble Baroness now to withdraw her amendment, on the basis that I shall then move Amendment No. 42.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I shall be pleased to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 5, line 41, leave out from ("so") to end of line 42 and insert ("—

(i) the reasons why savings or increases in cost should be expected, and

(ii) if it is practicable to make an estimate of the amount, that amount and how it is calculated,").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Representations made in confidence or containing damaging information]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 6, line 9, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee, we expressed our concern as regards the obligation on the Minister to disclose the fact that a person had made representations, even when such disclosure might result in reprisals. We took from the Explanatory Notes the example of an elderly person living near a public house who had previous complained about the noise made by its clients. It was suggested that such a person might want to give details of further disturbances that might be caused if a proposal to extend the opening hours succeeded. It was pointed out that, if a Minister was obliged to disclose the fact that a particular person had made representations in those circumstances, it would be easy to work out that that particular person had objected. He or she might then risk reprisals.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, did not deny that it was conceivable that a regulatory reform order was so precise in its application that disclosure of the identity of a respondent to consultation could damage the respondent. However, he then went on to say that he believed that that would be highly unlikely.
However, if what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said was right—namely, that such a risk is highly unlikely—nevertheless there is still a risk. Moreover, the risk in question is one that the Government themselves identified in their own explanatory statement. In our submission, those who make representations as part of the consultation process must be protected from reprisal, however infrequent that risk of reprisal might be.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, continued in his speech to give an example of situations in which it would be right for a Minister to disclose the representations made. He said:
200
"If someone approached a wicked Minister, not of this Government or even the previous one, and asked him not to proceed with a particularly regulatory reform, or, worse, to proceed with it because it would assist his despicable financial interests, should the Minister be able not to disclose those representations? Surely, the case for open government must be that when a consultation process is in place Ministers are not at liberty to pick and choose the representations or the names of respondents to make available to Parliament. That is the case on the other side, which I believe is a stronger one".—[Official Report, 23/1/01; col. 398]
His example supports the proposition that in certain circumstances the Minister should be able to disclose representations. However, in our submission, it does not address the issue as to whether or not a Minister should be obliged to disclose the fact that a particular respondent has made representations. In other words, the noble Lord's example deals with whether or not the substance of a respondent's representations should be disclosed. Clause 7 already prohibits that, if the respondent requests the Minister not to disclose the representations.
This amendment suggests a compromise, which will give the Minister discretion as to whether or not to disclose the identity of the respondent. A good Minister will be concerned about elderly persons who risk reprisals. In that case, he will not disclose the fact that the respondent has made a representation. By contrast, a good Minister will want to expose those who make representations to assist their own financial interests. In those circumstances, the good Minister will be able to disclose the fact that those respondents have made representations. In the spirit of compromise, I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when I have a particularly good argument in Committee, I like to repeat it on Report. When the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, repeats my arguments for me, I am not sure what to do. In Committee I argued that I recognised the difficulty of the elderly lady. However, the alternative which would result from Amendment No. 61, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in Committee, and this amendment would be very much worse. That is not dependent on disclosing the substance of the representations made; it could be dependent on disclosing the name of the person making the representation.
Let me outline the situation as it appears in the Bill. In circumstances where a respondent has requested that the Minister should not disclose his representations, the Minister shall disclose the fact that the respondent has made representations but shall not disclose those representations unless, first, he has consent to do so and, secondly, those representations are anonymous or are made sufficiently anonymous as not to identify them with that respondent. So the name is given but the details of the response are not given without consent, unless made anonymous.
The purpose of requiring Ministers to disclose the names of respondents to the committee is to prevent them from being subjected to undue pressure to make particular changes to legislation. I repeat that a weak or corrupt Minister might want to keep secret

201
representations that were to the financial or political advantage of the Government and might influence his judgment. We would certainly wish to head off concerns about the possibility of secret representations from those with financial interests. Although it is a matter of protecting Ministers, it is also a matter of protecting the public from Ministers who might misrepresent the consultation process for their own ends.
The effect of the amendment would be to allow the Minister to choose not to disclose the name of a particular respondent who had asked that his representation should not be disclosed. He could be pressurised, intimidated or influenced by the strong representations of someone with a particular financial interest. In the interests of fair and open dealing, the committee should be able to see that such a person had made representations. As I have said, a wicked and corrupt Minister may take advice from unsavoury people with strong interests in a particular proposal. It will be sufficient for the committee to see that suchand-such a person had made representations. It could draw its own conclusions about what representations had been made.
A balance has to be struck—and there is no perfect answer—between openness and protection. I acknowledge the point about the elderly lady. However, I believe that, in 99 cases out of 100, the elderly lady who, to use the noble Lord's example, is upset about changes to the licensing law, will make her appeal to Parliament or to Ministers, not in the context of a regulatory reform order but in the context of a particular application for a licence. That situation is not covered by the amendment. In the balance, the principles of thorough, open consultation and intense scrutiny must surely outweigh the difficulties identified by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I had hoped that he would with open arms accept my compromise amendment, which seems to meet both his and my concerns. However, that is not so. I prefer the amendment that I tabled in Committee to the amendment that I have now tabled on Report. I therefore intend to return to the former at Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Parliamentary consideration of proposals]:
Lord Norton of Louth Lord Norton of Louth moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 6, line 43, at end insert—
("() The period for parliamentary consultation may be extended by a period not exceeding twenty days if a committee of either House, vested with responsibility for considering the document, resolves prior to the expiration of the sixty days specified in subsection (2) that such an extension is necessary.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have tabled this amendment in the light of the discussion that took place in Committee. It seeks to provide some flexibility in terms of the time taken by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation to complete its consideration of the draft documents laid before it. As was acknowledged in Committee, the burden on the
202
Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee is likely to be considerable. Much may be done through the provision of additional resources. However, we may need to provide additional time, which may be necessary because of the sheer volume of documents under consideration or because a particular document requires extended scrutiny.
The amendment also seeks to meet the objection raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to my amendment allowing a shorter period. The noble Lord said that the people who want to make representations should have priority and need to know what period would be involved. My amendment retains the 60-day period. Therefore, people will know that there is a 60-day period. The amendment allows for that period to be extended if a committee considering the document decides that it needs the extra time. No one will be in a position to claim disadvantage as a result of the 60-day period being shortened, because there is no provision for that.
I appreciate that the 60-day provision may have been sufficient for documents considered under the provisions of the 1994 Act. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie—referred to by the Minister at col. 400 on 25th January—that the procedures under the Bill may provide for a greater level of scrutiny than that afforded to most Bills. However, neither point argues against this particular amendment. We are dealing with a new situation in which the burden on the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation may be extensive and in which a greater level of scrutiny is desirable. To say that the super-affirmative procedure provides better scrutiny than that undertaken on primary legislation is no reason for suggesting that the scrutiny should not be even further improved. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth is absolutely right. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, earlier told me that it was not unlikely that the committee would want to have more resources. I put it no higher than that. He quite rightly framed his words very carefully because, as I understood it, he was not speaking as a Government Minister but in a personal capacity.
The extra resources involved may well mean an extra 20 days for consideration of a vast consolidation measure such as fire safety—I hate to mention it again after the criticisms earlier—or, indeed, weights and measures. I have not done an exhaustive study of how many statutes and regulations there are involved with weights and measures, but there might be almost as many. It seems to me that the extra resources could be of time rather than of money or personnel. I think that my noble friend is absolutely right.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the reason why I then refused to express an opinion on the resources of the House as a member of the Government is exactly the reason why I refuse to do so now. The resourcing and structure of the committee is a matter for the House, not for the Government. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and I have

203
both said more than once that we support any move to look in detail at the issue of the resourcing of the committee. That is as far as we can go.
The argument for resourcing—which is not the only argument being put forward with this amendment—is not one which we can accept. It would involve the Government usurping the privilege of the House. We are not in a position to dictate to the House how it should run its own affairs. If the resourcing argument is being pursued, I shall have to recall what I said before: that exactly the same fears were expressed about the 1994 Act; it was thought that the committee would be overwhelmed by orders under the DCOA—and it was not.
If the thing is wildly possible, as Lewis Carroll said, if there were to be a risk of that, then, quite apart from the resourcing possibilities, there is a relatively easy remedy—and that is for the committee to insist on a queue. It could say "We have not got time for this. You cannot present it until next month or the month after", or whatever. The issue of resourcing is not a strong argument for this amendment.
The argument against this amendment concerns transparency. We have a 60-day period, which is well recognised; everyone understands it; everyone who has to respond to any invitation from the committee knows the time-scale. If we suddenly introduce the possibility of an extension of 20 days—even setting on one side the difficulty which might arise if the committee of one House stuck to 60 days and the committee of another House went to 80 days, which is a serious problem—you lose transparency. I do not think that there is anything to be gained by this amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed by the Minister's response. I take his point about resourcing of the committees in general terms, but in terms of providing extra time I do not accept his argument. This is not limiting Parliament, it is strengthening it. It is not usurping it because there is already a 60 day provision in the Bill. I do not accept the argument that for transparency people must be clear about the 60 days because, as I said, they will still get 60 days. This is just adding on.
Furthermore, to repeat a point that I mentioned in an earlier amendment, the Government are saying "We must have 60 days—no more, no less—so that people know that there are 60 days"; but, when it comes to consultation by Ministers, the norm should be 12 weeks, but it can be reduced to eight weeks. Where is the transparency in that? It is one rule for the Government and one rule for Parliament.
I do not intend to press the amendment today. I only wish to put on record that the arguments against it have no weight at all. I shall rest on the transparency of my argument in response to what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Codes of practice relating to enforcement of regulatory requirements]:
Lord Vinson Lord Vinson moved Amendment No. 46:
Leave out Clause 9.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I make no apology for returning to the amendments that were brought forward by myself and others in Committee. For those who were not present then, the 1994 Act recognised the problem that there were occasions when the regulator was over-zealous in the application of regulation; that the regulatee had no simple remedies and that many an injustice was done. Many of these instances had been recorded in the past; they are now happening much less. I believe that the 1994 Act is working rather well. The Bill as it stands reverses that and changes what was a statutory right of the regulatee to certain appeal procedures and to know where he stood to a voluntary code that may or may not be incorporated.
The 1994 Act effectively gave the regulatee the right to know, in the broadest terms, under which law or statute he was being regulated. If this was contentious, there was a right to discuss the problem with the regulator's immediate superior; and if and when he was to be prosecuted, he was to be told the rights of appeal. To repeat what I said in Committee, this brought a fair balance between the regulator and the regulatee in that those applying the regulation had to be certain that they had got it right. They had to think twice as they applied it and they had to be fair in its application knowing that the matter could ultimately be taken to appeal.
As our amendments indicate, I totally accept that the previous law was over-prescriptive. The reason for bringing the matter back on Report is that I had hoped to see a scintilla of a recognition of the problem from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am sure that he believes that small businesses should be given some protection. The difference between us is that he would leave it to a voluntary approach, whereas many of us on this side of the House feel that the protection should be statutory.
I was unfortunately not in the Chamber when the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, was here. I understand that he cannot be here this evening. He has had the great courtesy to let me see his speech. I am sure that he will not mind if I quote a couple of paragraphs from it. He said:
"Those being regulated constantly complain that they do not understand their obligations; that they are not given enough time and help to comply; and that enforcers have too much of an inclination towards retribution".
Exactly. He continued:
"However, we also recognise that voluntary agreements need legislative support where things go wrong. That is where the enforcement provisions in the Bill should help. They are intended to assure business that the Government can bring pressure to bear on enforcers who fail to apply best practice as agreed in the concordat".
There is nothing between us—but the concordat is voluntary, the code is voluntary, and what goes into it is voluntary. Although the Minister can press ultimately for certain provisions to go into the code, if

205
we have not got in place the enforcement procedures that we would like to see, it will probably not be until something goes wrong that the Minister will press for those provisions to be included, by which time the harm will be done.
The object of these amendments—I am grateful to the House for allowing me to take them together—is to maintain a statutory approach to the problem so that a fair application of the law can be made. The approach on offer from the Government is the reverse of that; they favour an entirely voluntary approach. I accept that there are instances when the voluntary approach is good, but I see no reason why the essence of Schedule 1 to the 1994 Act should not be repeated in the new Bill and made mandatory. The whole issue should be reflected in the new codes as a right. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I begin with an apology to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for being absent at the Committee stage. I hope that he will indulge me, as I hope your Lordships will, if I try to outline arguments in support of my noble friend Lord Vinson as regards this set of amendments. They are arguments which I could have deployed at an earlier stage.
I was the Minister responsible for the implementation of the 1994 Act in the period 1995 to 1997, principally concentrating effort on the number of orders brought forward. In retrospect, I admit that there was some delay in seeking to bring forward the orders under the enforcement provisions of Section 5. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, indicated that there had been very few examples of Section 5 being used. In fact, those matters were incorporated in the food standards legislation. I do not believe that there were any direct examples.
The essence of my argument in support of my noble friend Lord Vinson is as follows. First, the Government say that Schedule 1 to and Section 5 of the Act have not worked. But the truth is that it has never been tried. There are reasons for that. The consultation that was under way when the previous administration left office related to the extension to different areas, such as home care and environmental health, the provisions of Section 5 of the 1994 Act. The election intervened and the new Administration, the present Government, considered the results of the consultation exercise that had been set in train and reached the conclusion that a new approach was needed.
Secondly, to a certain extent the wrong people were questioned in the consultation exercise. There is an impressive list of some 550 organisations and individuals. But I believe that the point my noble friend Lord. Vinson is making is that the very person whom Section 5 of the 1994 Act was designed to protect was the small businessman, who, by definition, is very difficult to consult. If the Minister would glance down the consultation list—I am sure he is already familiar with it—he will see that it is very difficult to
206
pick out all the organisations representing very small businesses that one would normally expect to find. It was a perfectly proper consultation exercise. However, it largely consulted the regulators and representatives of business, not the very people whom that section was designed to protect: the small businessman, who stood to be protected by a procedure under the Act involving a minimum of two written notices and a maximum of three. The first was at the request of the person who was to be regulated when the regulator said that he had concerns about a particular factory, restaurant or shop. I speculate, because the Act was never extended to those fields.
At that stage the person affected had the right to ask, in writing, for the justification and explanation of the reasons. There were two other mandatory processes to which my noble friend has referred; namely, the right of the person affected to have the regulator spell out his rights of representation and also the right of appeal when the enforcement notice was delivered.
I grant that all these are referred to in the concordat and, I assume, in the proposed code of practice. But the two fundamental concerns that I share with my noble friend Lord Vinson are, first, that a concordat can never, by definition, be accepted by 100 per cent of the universe affected. No voluntary code ever has been. Even if we reached 95 per cent or 99 per cent, I would argue with the Minister that the voluntary code is not as secure or protective of the individual small businessman as a statutory code. That is the first reason.
The second reason is that the code itself, referred to in Clauses 9 to 11, is a permissive code. I grant that its operation is certainly more flexible and universally applicable than the more constrained procedure in Section 5, where the Minister has to pick specific pieces of legislation in order to trigger the application of the statutory protection. But the code is permissive. To say to the affected small businessman, "If the regulator has not proceeded in accordance with the code, you have the right, when you appeal to the tribunal, to draw its attention to the fact that the procedures have not been followed", is simply not as protective as a statutory code.
Therefore, I believe that the solution that I commend to the Minister for reflection is reasonable in that it suggests minor word changes to the provisions in Clause 9 relating to the code; namely, it would change "may" to "shall". I shall not specify which particular lines are appropriate because goodwill is needed in terms of the expertise of the Civil Service and the Minister in deciding, if he is persuaded by the argument, that a mandatory code is right. It should be ensured, either by a commitment made by the Minister or on the face of the Bill, that the code itself will include the steps that were included by Parliament in the 1994 Act They are very clear steps. I know that there was controversy over the expression "minded to". My noble friend has proposed an amendment in an attempt to clarify that. The noble Baroness on the Benches opposite was concerned about precisely what that meant. There may have been ambiguity in the

207
minds of some of those who were consulted. I believe that the matter can be dealt with by sensible amendment.
I commend this approach to the Government. We do not propose these amendments lightly. In essence, they are designed to protect the small businessman, even if only once. An amendment to the Bill to provide a statutory mechanism of controlling enforcement will be justified if only one small businessman believes that he is not aggrieved and that the correct methods have been followed. Therefore, I intend to lend my support to my noble friend.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I oppose this group of amendments. I am a firm believer in codes of practice: they are universally accepted, and they are a way of explaining legislation. I accept that a code must be clear and well written. Then, it can be of great help to those who have to comply with the regulatory requirements. I fall back once more on the knowledge I gained from my work on the Health and Safety Commission. In many cases we issued codes of practice. Ironically, the response was that they were helpful and gave comfort to those trying to understand new legislation. They were particularly popular with smaller and medium-sized enterprises which did not have their own legal departments to consider legislation. They therefore fell back on guidance from bodies which helped the Health and Safety Commission to draw up the codes of practice it brought forward. To remove references to codes of practice from this particular Bill would be counterproductive. I urge that the codes remain.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I certainly join the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, in her belief in codes of practice, but they should be guaranteed codes of practice. As my noble friends have said, the trouble with this Bill is that it is a permissive code of practice. The Government may well respond and say, "Well, this was consulted upon and these are the arrangements that were ultimately decided upon". But I have a cartoon on the wall of my office at home which depicts one man answering the telephone, who is very red in the face and becoming more and more flustered. On the shelf above his head there are five hats, each of which has a name on it—for example, Sales Manager, Personnel Manager, Accountant, telephone answerer and Order Clerk. Noble Lords will recognise the scenario of a very small business.
The point that my noble friend Lord Freeman made was that a very small business is not a member of any organisation. The person concerned is on his own. Therefore, by definition, he cannot have been consulted—but even if he were consulted, he certainly would not have answered. So the people for whom these codes of practice are meant to be useful have not been involved in their creation. Indeed, I wonder whether the Minister can guarantee that we shall have such a code of practice.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, when we discussed Clause 9 of the Bill in Committee on 25th January, the noble
208
Lord, Lord Vinson, made what I thought was a remarkable statement at col. 407 of Hansard. Indeed, he said something rather similar this evening; namely, that the enforcement procedures enshrined in the 1994 Act were responsible for improvements in the previously over-zealous behaviour of enforcement officers.
However, Section 5 of that Act, which deals with enforcement, was in fact applied only once. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, that I have gained this information from paragraph 16 of the Explanatory Notes on the Bill which states that the section,
"has been applied directly only once, in the Deregulation (Improvement of Enforcement Procedures) (Food Safety Act 1990) Order 1996".
After all those years, it was only applied on the one occasion. When stressing the significance of removing over-zealous enforcement from legislation and the importance of the Act, the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, failed to mention this evening that it was an enabling Act only and that it meant absolutely nothing unless and until it was applied to particular pieces of legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who has had to leave the Chamber for the moment, said that Clauses 9, 10 and 11 of the Bill, which are meant to replace Section 5 of the Act, are a considerable improvement on the previous legislation, whether or not they are amended as proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, is quite right to say that enforcement procedures have been improving and that it is now commonplace for discussion and negotiation to take place between enforcement officers and businesses, whether small or big, before an enforcement officer rushes in, so to speak, to take court action. But that may be because enforcement officers themselves have realised the sense of that approach as, indeed, have the local authorities who often employ them.
The enforcement concordat has been somewhat belittled by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson. However, it incorporates best practice as it exists in enforcement and underpins the new clauses of the Bill; indeed, it is fully in line with it. I give way.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. One cannot measure the number of burglaries that have not happened as a consequence of a piece of legislation stating that burglars would be hanged. When the 1994 Act was introduced, the whole of the regulatory world was "abuzz", not least thanks to the excellent work of Christopher Booker, because it realised that the reason for the Government introducing these clauses in 1994 was that things had gone seriously wrong in terms of the fair application of regulation. Therefore, to state that the power has been used only once is to miss the entire point that the whole atmosphere was changed as a result of the 1994 Act. The concordat had not even been thought of at that time. So we can say with all honesty that the Act has done a great deal of good, but we cannot measure it by the specific times that the conditions were used. If I may say so, I believe that the noble Lord is barking up the wrong tree.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I do not believe that there is that much between us. If the noble Lord is saying that the 1994 Act contributed to a change of climate and of culture whereby enforcement officers became accustomed to discussing and negotiating instead of rushing in immediately with an enforcement order, I entirely agree with him. But we are now in the year 2001, we are living at a time when the culture that prevailed nine or 10 years ago has changed enormously. The present position is surely such that it emphasises the case for the Government's determination today to secure best practice results in an enforcement concordat, which can be readily changed from time to time as desired, and—as I was about to say before the noble Lord intervened—to back it up with a statutory reserve position in Clause 9. That seems to me to be perfectly satisfactory.
I expressed concern at Second Reading on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, mentioned this evening; namely, the proportion of local authorities that have signed up to the concordat. At that time, November 2000, the figure stood at only 75 per cent. However, I was reassured in that respect because the Minister said in Committee that the figure had risen to 84 per cent a nd that it is expected to reach 100 per cent by July. Therefore, it does not seem to me to matter very much if there is some slippage and one does not achieve that 100 per cent. The Government have made out their case for the voluntary approach backed by a reserve statutory power that can be brought into effect if anything should go wrong. That is both the best and the correct way to go forward.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 52, which I believe would make the position of the previous legislation worse. In reply to the consultation that the previous government conducted in December 1996, businesses said that they were puzzled when they received a "minded to" enforcement notice. They were confused between that notice and enforcement action. If we changed the wording from "minded to" to "intends to", l should have thought that the risk of confusion would be even more likely to occur. I see no value at all in that amendment. Unless the Government have suddenly changed their mind as a result of this afternoon's debate, I believe that their view is the correct one.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I shall speak briefly and entirely in support of my noble friends Lord Vinson and Lord Freeman. I also support what my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said in this respect. I should emphasise the fact that we are trying to make some progress on these issues. I trust that the Government will accept that we are deeply concerned about these clauses as they stand. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lord Freeman in relation to Clause 9. As the Bill is currently drafted, we are talking about codes of practice that do not have statutory force.
210
It would be otiose to repeat the arguments put forward this evening by my noble friends. However, it is important for us to reiterate the fact that, as we see it, there is currently no reserve statutory power in Clause 9. We are in favour of codes of practice but the present code of practice is something that could be entirely ignored; indeed, it does not have to exist at all. All we are doing in suggesting that the word "may" be changed to "shall" is emphasise the need to include in the Bill this reserve statutory power to give the code of practice some statutory force.
Also I would stress that it is regrettable that the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, is not in his place at this time when we are debating important issues which are highly relevant to his role as chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this debate has followed very closely that which we had at Committee stage. In addition there was the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, which was followed up by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that we should change "may" into "shall" in Clause 9(1) in line 24. I shall deal with that point later.
In general, I do not think that the arguments have differed significantly from those which were advanced in Committee. The amendments seek to remove the new enforcement provisions in the Bill. They would retain the old Section 5 of the 1994 Act, including the "minded to" provisions, and modify the old minded to" provision. However, the objectives behind our provisions in Clauses 9, 10 and 11 are very similar to those behind Section 5. Here we are all together; we are intending to counter bureaucratic, inflexible and overzealous enforcement. I do not think there is any difference between us on that.
However, it is the case that the old Section 5 procedures were hardly used—I would go so far as to say that they were never used—and that is why the previous government launched a consultation exercise on using Section 5 in respect of legislation in the field of trading standards, care services and environmental health in December 1996. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, was the Minister in the Cabinet Office—I guess he was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—and he referred to Section 5 of the DCOA 1994 because he had responsibility for it.
It has been said that the consultation could not have covered small businesses, and indeed I acknowledge it is difficult to cover individual small businesses—I say that as somebody who ran a small business for 30 years myself and I really know about the problems of small businesses. I am not saying I was the only one, but I have done that. The responses to the consultation included the Better Regulation Task Force, which itself certainly has excellent contacts with small businesses, and a whole range of other people involved in small business. These included the Dorset Local Business Partnership, the National Association of Funeral Directors, the National Federation of Residential Landowners, the National Market Traders Federation, the Office of Fair Trading, which is in constant contact with small businesses, the

211
Restaurants Association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Scottish Licensed Trade Association and so on. A serious effort was made by the department of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, to contact small businesses; and it had a degree of success.
The feedback showed, first, that local authority enforcers felt the "minded to" provisions were too bureaucratic and could be manipulated by illegitimate businesses. It also showed that businesses were not entirely convinced, and sometimes confused the "minded to" notice with total enforcement action. The noble Lord, Lord Borne, reminded us of that.
That is why we decided not to pursue the Section 5 procedures, but to draw up the enforcement concordat. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, apologises for not being here tonight because of another engagement. He did want to take the opportunity to express his support for the Government's proposals and the enforcement concordat. The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, has a copy of his speech and will, I am sure, acknowledge that.
The enforcement concordat has now been adopted by over 84 per cent of local authorities and 80 per cent of central government enforcement agencies. We expect the rate to be virtually 100 per cent, and I can assure the House that if there are central government enforcement agencies that have not signed up by next July we have ways of making them talk and we will undoubtedly do so.
There was a further consultation exercise in September 1999 on the specific issue of the "minded to" provisions, with the reserve power to issue a code of practice. Most businesses and enforcement organisations which responded to the consultation supported the proposal: they welcomed the extra protection that good enforcement practice would provide against over-zealous and inflexible enforcement.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said that the code is permissive. Signing up to the code is permissive—although we shall make sure that it is not very permissive—but once the code has been signed up to, it is not permissive. You have signed up to it and you have to abide by it: you can expect to come under fire if you do not abide by it. It is a more flexible tool to counter bureaucratic, inflexible and over-zealous enforcement than either the old Section 5 or any amended Section 5.
Let me say why this is more flexible and more effective. First, the new power is not limited to specific pieces of legislation. It could be applied where necessary by geographic area or by type of enforcer. Incidentally, I am told that the list I read out in relation to Section 5 of the DCOA 1994 referred to our consultation in September 1999 and not that carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman. I am sorry about that but I do not have information about the previous government directly to hand.
212
Section 5 can be applied only by specifying each individual piece of legislation to which it should apply. It cannot target intervention on specific problems without imposing unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on other organisations where intervention is not necessary.
Secondly, the new power does not specify the procedures in advance. They could be tailored to address the circumstances in any code of practice, and they could be consulted on. So we can develop the code with a particular problem in mind where difficulty has been proved. That is a good deal more flexible and effective.
Thirdly, any code of practice on enforcement set out in the Bill, once enacted, would almost certainly include procedures like those in the concordat, because the concordat includes procedures similar to those in the Act, but less cumbersome and bureaucratic. For example, the concordat says:
"Before official formal enforcement action is taken, officers will provide an opportunity to discuss the circumstances of the case and, if possible, resolve points of difference, unless immediate action is required."
So the concordat provides for enforcement officers to explain what action is necessary and over what timescale. They can also give an explanation of the right to appeal. We could have other "best practice" from the concordat, if we had a code under the Bill, which would go further than the provisions of the 1994 Act. We could require enforcement officers to distinguish legal requirements from best practice advice and we could require enforcement officers to provide suitable opportunities for discussion. We could require them to provide useful information to the business, or to work with businesses to assist in compliance. None of these is possible under Section 5, and they seriously weaken a provision which was made but never actually enforced.
I hope I have convinced the House that what we are proposing here is more effective and enforceable in the issue of "may" versus "shall". I have assumed that was in line 24, but it could be line 40 on page 7. I am not sure if that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, meant. If she meant to alter line 40, that would not give any greater legal force to the code; the code would be statutory anyway. There is a statutory right to take breaches into account. If that is thought to be material, it will be taken into account. If that is not thought to be material, introducing the word "shall" will not give the provision any greater weight. If line 24 were meant to be altered, I repeat that we shall pursue non-compliance with vigour. We use the word "may" to allow the Minister to exhaust all other non-statutory avenues to improve the practice being followed by enforcement officers in the field.
Earlier this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, on behalf of the Better Regulation Task Force, welcomed the non-legislative approach. The Minister could ask the enforcement organisation voluntarily to commit itself to adopt and implement the enforcement concordat. That would involve the enforcement organisation producing an implementation plan, monitoring reports and

213
explaining progress. That voluntary approach would not be possible if the wording were changed from "may" to "shall".
The arguments for the provisions in the Bill and against retaining or restoring the provisions of the 1994 Act are overwhelming. They are practical, principled and very much in support of the small businesses whose interests are represented by those on the other side of the House. I acknowledge their sincerity in producing them, but I hope that they will not pursue the amendments.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I think that the only thing between us is means rather than ends. I shall deal with one or two of the points that were raised. As regards the so-called "minded to" provisions, as far as I can see in the original Act the words "minded to" were not used at all. The word "considering" was used and it metamorphosed into the term "minded to" which has a more subtle meaning but misses the point.
I accept that that Act was over-prescriptive and overdone, but, undoubtedly—I think that we can perhaps all acknowledge this—its very presence led to a marked improvement in the fair application of regulation. That is what we all want to see preserved. By suggesting in our Amendment No. 52 that the word "considering"—which is in the original measure—be changed to "intends" you have to consider the point at which the provision was to be used. By changing the wording to "intends", the regulating officer does not at that point have to spell out the appeal procedures. What I think bugged the regulating officer—I can see the problem—was that at the point when he was just threatening (a threat is an important part of his armoury and a perfectly fair one) he had to spell out the appeal procedures and it rather pulled the rug from underneath his threat. If he was considering bringing the full weight of the law against someone who had probably done something seriously wrong, he had to spell out the appeal procedures. By changing the wording to "intends" he can threaten without weakening his position. That measure is designed to help. It has possibly been misinterpreted by noble Lords on the other side of the House. I am not a lawyer and perhaps we did not express the measure as well as we should have done, but the change of wording seeks to strengthen the position of the regulating officer.
That said, I hope that we can agree that there has been a marked improvement in the application of regulation thanks to the schedules to the 1994 Act. We on this side of the House want to see that position preserved. We do not want to see any slippage. We believe that that position is best preserved either by maintaining the provisions of that Act, or by changing "may" to "shall" in the relevant places so that the procedures introduced in the earlier legislation are consistently incorporated into any new voluntary concordats or any new voluntary codes. We do not think that it is satisfactory for them to be voluntary; they should be mandatory. This section of the Bill removes the statutory protection that small firms had against aggressive, unfair and unreasonable practice in
214
this regard. We think that that protection can only be preserved by inserting "shall" instead of "may" in the relevant parts of Clause 9. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter.
We on this side shall not press the amendments at this hour, but we will certainly return to the matter at Third Reading. To repeat myself, although we are all trying to achieve the same ends, the means suggested to achieve those ends by the noble Lord opposite are inadequate and are not sufficiently strong. We wish to make a better job of them. I shall withdraw the amendment but intend to return to the whole subject at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Making of codes of practice by Ministers of the Crown]:
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Making of codes of practice by National Assembly for Wales]:
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Repeals and savings]:
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Lord Dahrendorf Lord Dahrendorf moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 12. insert the following new clause—
REPORT TO PARLIAMENT
(". A Minister of the Crown shall lay before both Houses of Parliament from time to time a report on the operation of this Act, including a report on the operation of orders made under the Act, and any need for their amendment.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on two occasions we have debated the safeguards which could be built into the operation of the Bill once it is enacted. It seemed to me then, and it seems to me now, that a report to this House with a subsequent debate is a modest but important contribution to such safeguards.
In Committee the Minister told us that the Government were, as he put it, open-minded about the issue and would consider it further. I have also considered my amendment further and have changed it in two respects. First, I accept that to lay a report every year is too rigid a provision. It is sufficient for one to be produced from time to time, especially if it is understood that the first such report would be made after two years or so. Secondly, in phrasing the amendment I have preferred to use the wording which the delegated powers committee used in paragraph 20 of its second report. I hope that noble Lords and, of course, the Government will find this an acceptable way forward. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, is certainly an additional safeguard as regards the correct implementation of the Bill. I look with sympathy on his efforts to make it more attractive to the Government, which is clearly important if one is to succeed in changing "resist" to "accept" on the Minister's brief.

215
However, given that the measure is supposed to be a stricture and one that puts the government of the day under pressure to conform, and to demonstrate that they have conformed with assurances that were given and with the spirit of the legislation, to say that they should report from time to time is in my view not sufficiently powerful because they could simply decide not to report. If the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, intends that the first report should be produced after two years, perhaps the amendment would benefit from having that written into it.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am slightly confused by the arguments of my noble friend and of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, because it has become the practice of the Select Committee to produce an annual report itself. I am unsure what extra measures a government report would produce. There is no earthly reason, of course, why the annual report of the Select Committee could not be debated in your Lordships' House and the government of the day could put whatever slant on it they felt appropriate at that time.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I do understand the rationale of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. The order-making process which the Bill sets out—the process is in the 1994 Act; the scope of the Bill is wider than the 1994 Act—is plainly an important procedure. It depends upon a close working relationship between the Government, the scrutiny committees and each House. I do not think that the noble Lord's point would be met simply by a report from the scrutiny committees or Parliament—a somewhat vague phrase. If there is to be a consideration of how the Act is working, the Government should be compelled to say how they see it working. That process is not suited to adversarial politicking. The right approach is for the Government to set out how they see the Act working, with a free flow of information from the committees and Parliament.
Having said that, I do not think that it is appropriate to put the report requirements on the face of the Bill. However, I can and do undertake on behalf of the Government that a Minister of the Crown will report to this House three years after enactment—I say three years rather than two years; I am not sure that that is a critical point between us—on the operation of the regulatory format should it become an Act. I undertake that that report will cover the operation of the order-making process and any associated constitutional and procedural issues. As the debates to date have indicated, these are areas of key concern to your Lordships' House. It is right that the government of the day should address them fully.
After that first report, it would be for the government of the day and the House to decide on the need for any further report. The timing, scale and
216
scope of the next report seems to me a matter best decided after that. I do not think that it would be right for such reports to reopen matters of policy which had been debated fully during the consultation, scrutiny and approval stage of the order-making process. There would be no point if a reformed regulatory regime order was working smoothly. Indeed, it could cause uncertainty. But the process—how the system is working—needs to be looked at.
I hope that I have reassured noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, about our intentions and that our views are the same. Our undertaking could not bind future governments. It would be helpful to the House if the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, were to indicate the attitude of her party were it to be confronted with the need to produce a report. The House would be reassured if the noble Baroness indicated that it would be the present intention of her party to produce a report at the appropriate time.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that undertaking. Although an undertaking is second best, it is significantly better than nothing. We have an important and unusual Bill before us. Therefore I believe that special procedures should be in place to enable Parliament, and above all your Lordships' House, to scrutinise progress when the Bill is enacted.
I accept the undertaking in the spirit in which it was given. I hope that it will be accepted by others. It is an undertaking which would be accepted on these Benches. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]

Business
Lord Burlison: My Lords, as consideration of the Regulatory Reform Bill is now complete, the Unstarred Question is no longer restricted to the one hour that is available for Business in the dinner hour. Instead, a limit of one and a half hours now applies. This, and the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will not be speaking means that the speaking limits have changed significantly. It may be for the convenience of the House if I say now what those new limits are.
The time available to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and myself will be 10 and 12 minutes respectively. The time available for each of the other speakers is increased from four to nine minutes. Let me assure those noble Lords who do not wish to extend their speeches at such short notice that they will attract criticism neither from these Benches nor, I suspect, from any other Bench.

The Reserve Forces
7.45 p.m.
Lord Freeman Lord Freeman rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for sustaining the role and effectiveness of the Reserve Forces.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the extension of the time available for this short debate is most welcome. I declare an interest, in that I served as the honorary president of the Council of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association in the United Kingdom. I follow my noble friend Lord Younger and before him Lord Ridley. They were most distinguished and long-serving members of the council. I have had the honour to serve as president with two chairmen: one, recently retired, General Sir Edward Jones, with whom your Lordships will be most familiar; and the new chairman, Colonel Mike Taylor, who is most welcome in this new position, coming as he does from the North West and with particular knowledge of several vibrant Reserve Forces' organisations. It is a great privilege to have worked with Sir Edward and to work with Colonel Mike.
In the time available to me to open the debate, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to concentrate on the reserves rather than our excellent cadet organisations. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if we return at an indeterminate date in the future to discuss the challenges facing the cadet organisations. However, I shall concentrate on the reserves. It may also be for the convenience of those noble Lords who have recently joined us in the Chamber, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, if I repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, indicated. The time limit of four minutes now becomes nine minutes due to procedural changes. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, was concerned about the brevity of the time available to him. Doubtless he will be able to expand his comments.
The Reserve Forces have responded with good will and firm commitment to the challenges presented by the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and the Strategic Defence Review. These have been tumultuous times for the Reserve Forces and cadets' organisations. They have got stuck in and got on with the job of implementing the Government's requirements. The role of the reserves has changed from that for the infantry, for example, of combat to support.
I think that many of us welcome the specialist units in the Reserve Forces because they have a great deal to contribute. However, we should not forget that, prior to the Strategic Defence Review, the Territorial Army numbered some 59,000 in established strength and is now down to 41,200. That is a dramatic fall. We have seen the number of TA infantry battalions fall from 33 to 15. The consequence for many of the inevitably regionally county-based Reserve Force organisations has been dramatic. I pay tribute to the smooth reorganisation that has occurred in recent years to achieve that substantial reduction.
The reserve numbers for the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force have not changed so much. They remain broadly unchanged or slightly
218
increased, in some cases with more specialist roles. The great burden of this reduction has fallen on the Territorial Army and in particular the infantry.
The reserves make a significant contribution to military capability in this country. Ten per cent of the UK army personnel in the Balkans are and have been in recent years individual reserve volunteers. The same percentage of our flying squadron establishment is made up of reserve air crew.
The reserves make a significant contribution. As the present Secretary of State pointed out in a recent written article, the reserves could have made an even bigger contribution in Kosovo as the Government faced the prospect of wholesale mobilisation. One or two units were on the verge of being called up en bloc.
I hope that at some point a reserve unit will be called up as a whole—a formed unit, as the Army describes it. That would be particularly helpful for the infantry. For a number of years, individual reservists have volunteered for service and been posted to the units that need them in the field. It could be appropriate to consider the use of formed TA units for certain peacetime roles. For example, in my part of the country the East of England regiment has six TA companies and about a dozen depots in counties stretching from Lincolnshire down to Suffolk. If it were possible, appropriate and useful to call up one or two companies from that disparate spread of volunteers, it would do wonders for morale and, I suspect, for recruitment and retention. They are trained in many different locations and sometimes they train together. With the appropriate notice, calling up a formed unit would present a challenge that our soldiers would appreciate and rise to.
That has happened before. In the Falklands in 1995, the 4th/5th Rangers supported the regular battalion of the Royal Irish Rangers. Apparently that worked well. If we do that, as I hope that we shall, we must give the employers and the volunteers sufficient notice to ensure that we have the co-operation of the employers and the families.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur is unable to be with us. He is the chairman of the communications working group within the National Employers Liaison Committee. NELC has performed a valuable role in encouraging large and small employers to support the operation of our reserve units.
The reserves play a vital role in our communities. Our reserve forces and cadet organisations are often the only uniformed military body in a city or county. Regular units could be very far away. They help to remind our population of the importance of having well trained regular and reservist troops. In a civil emergency, such as the recent flooding in Yorkshire and Sussex, the reserve forces can play a valuable role. Local authorities call out or ask for assistance from local reserve units on a local basis. In future, we shall need a regional or national organisation. We have a lot to learn from the experience in the United States.
Links with the local Member of Parliament are also important. I hope that the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme can be extended to reserve forces and will encourage constituency Members of Parliament of whichever party to take an interest—and sometimes participate—in the training of their local TA units.
Finally, I shall deal with the perception of our reserves. It is very important not to treat our reservists as part-time regulars. They are not. They are in a wholly different position in terms of their employment and their obligations to their families. They are volunteers with special skills, but they are in local employment. We must be sensitive to the burdens that we put on them. Any mobilisation or call-up in peacetime of a formed unit should be dealt with skilfully and with long-term planning.
I salute the reserves throughout the country in all our Armed Forces. I know that your Lordships will do likewise.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject. The United Kingdom has a long tradition of Reserve Forces. The yeomanry, trained bands and militia all pre-date bodies such as the Territorial Army, but they expressed the same sentiment of local defence. In Northern Ireland recently, more so than in any other region of the United Kingdom, we have been able to benefit from the deployment of the Regular Army and the reserve, albeit in unfortunate circumstances.
The deployment, structure and strength of the Army reflects Government foreign policy to a large extent. Just as foreign policy in 1908, when the Territorial Army was formed by the then Secretary of State, Richard Haldane, differs from the foreign policy of today, so the Territorial Army is a much different force from what it was at its inception.
The Territorial Army has proved to be a skilful chameleon in its ability to blend into its circumstances. The original structure of the TA, as a second-line Army, served it and the British people well in two world wars. However, the situation in post-Second World War Europe called for a very different force.
In the 1960s, the Territorial Army adopted a more recognisable form as a force designed for immediate integration into the Regular Army at short notice. The threat of the Warsaw Pact dictated that shift from a second-line force to one capable of being rapidly integrated and deployed throughout Europe in support of the Regular Army.
Since the major reforms of the late 1960s, the Territorial Army has been subject to many other changes, from the expansion plans of the early 1980s to the culling announced only two years ago. The 21st century will inevitably bring new challenges and the operational requirements of the Reserve Forces will shift accordingly, but it is clear that the Territorial Army and Reserve Forces have a future in the 21st century.
220
The definite need for the Reserve Forces, increasingly in support roles to front-line soldiers, is without question, even though there are major issues to be dealt with on the means of sustaining effective Reserve Forces.
It is essential that the Territorial Army, in its independent, non-specialist units, should continue to organise geographically as widely as possible to maximise the number of citizens who have easy access to TA units. In an era without conscription, the Territorial Army is more than just a component of the Army. It is an important point of intersection between the public and the Army, just as the jury system provides a point of intersection between the public and the courts. As the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said, the Territorial Army is a visual manifestation of—indeed, the sole point of contact with—the Armed Forces for many people in the United Kingdom.
The Territorial Army and the Army Reserve have always been inexpensive, accounting for a disproportionately low portion of the defence budget. In the 1980s, the Territorial Army cost only 4.5 per cent of the Army budget, yet it provided 33 per cent of the Army's potential mobilised strength. That is good value for money.
Although one recognises that the format of future military action will depend less on front-line ground troops, the reserve resources should be refocused and retrained rather than reduced, especially when one remembers their importance in the community. The problem of wastage must continue to be addressed. Although the 1998 reforms announced by the Government included proposals to deal with wastage, more must be done.
Undoubtedly it is true that civilians gain much from their participation in the Reserve Forces. However, they must have the incentive of the skills and experience which they gain being properly valued in civilian life and in their civilian employment. Indeed, expanding training and giving volunteers greater opportunities to gain a broader range of skills can only increase the attraction for potential recruits. With the emphasis of the Reserve Forces shifting to support and logistics, there is definite scope for expanding the range of training available.
The continuing unfortunate public perception of the Reserve Forces as "weekend warriors" must finally be put to the sword. With over 900 reservists being mobilised for duties in Bosnia and Kosovo since the Reserves Training and Mobilisation Centre became operational, and with the continuing integration and redirection of the Reserve Forces, those forces are becoming an increasingly integral part of the Army—an Army that is, indeed, dependent on an effective and efficient reserve force.
However, increasing mobilisation of the reserves for peace-keeping and other duties must not act as a deterrent to potential recruits. Heavy and sometimes over-frequent mobilisation of Reserve Forces may lead potential territorial recruits to believe that the commitment that they wish to make would not satisfy the demands that would be placed on them.

221
One is not suggesting that training commitments should be lessened or that the Reserve Forces should operate on a charitable "contribute what you can" basis. Instead, those who make up the Reserve Forces should continue to be able to consider themselves as Reserve Forces and primarily as civilians. Civilians who give valiant service and who support the national interest and foreign policy by acting as Reserve Forces are essential to the effectiveness and capability of our Army and Armed Forces. The role of the Reserve Forces may evolve and change, but surely our dependency on the Reserve Forces will be a constant.
The Government must continue to maintain an effective reserve force. They can do so only by the continual deployment and development of a reserve force that offers potential recruits skills and rewarding experiences that properly reflect society's appreciation for their service.
8.3 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as someone who is completely unmilitary, I find that I have an almost embarrassing number of interests to declare in this debate, for which I believe the House should be extremely grateful to my noble friend. I speak as a former honorary colonel of the 4th Battalion of the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment, now as a deputy honorary colonel of the amalgamated Rifle Volunteers, in which that battalion is incorporated, as president of 2203 Squadron of the Hertfordshire Air Cadets, and, of course, as a former, very junior Minister in the Ministry of Defence, responsible at one time, among other things, for the Reserve Forces.
Ever since I first became interested in these matters, it has seemed to me that governments of all hues have consistently grossly undervalued the Reserve Forces. I need not tell your Lordships, who are probably—in fact, certainly—infinitely more experienced than another place in matters of this kind, why that is so. Nevertheless, I want to emphasise that it seems to me that, even in today's world, territorial affiliations are a source of remarkable morale and, therefore, of powerful recruitment for the Regular Army.
On its return from Germany recently, the 1st Battalion of the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment found that to be true. That battalion has always been well recruited but, after a prolonged absence in Germany and also after service in Bosnia, it was very short of soldiers. Thanks to the territorial affiliations of that battalion, which were very much encapsulated by the powerful connections of the then 4th Battalion of the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment, it was remarkable that it made up that deficiency in record time. In these times when retention is increasingly difficult, particularly for the infantry, that in itself seems to me to be reason enough to ensure that a close connection exists territorially between territorial battalions and their regular affiliates.
I also believe that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, were absolutely right when they emphasised the important role that Reserve Forces now play in plugging the gaps which increasingly the
222
difficulties of recruitment and retention make appear among the regular forces, again particularly in the infantry. Again, perhaps I may tell your Lordships of a particular instance.
It is remarkable that since 1st July 1999 from C and E Companies of the Rifle Volunteers in Dorset and Devonshire alone—those are the two remaining companies of what used to be the 4th Battalion of the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment in an amalgamation which, thanks to the good will on all sides, has taken place and worked but which I cannot help feeling was a very serious error indeed—37 officers and soldiers have served, or are still serving, with the Regular Army.
When one considers the remarkable proportion of the Reserve Forces from those two companies that that represents, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it illustrates all too clearly the severe difficulties which the Regular Army, in spite of denials from Ministers in your Lordships' House, is experiencing in that respect. Of course, noble Lords will be aware that those are secondments, either under the full-time reserve service—the S Type engagement—or under voluntary mobilised service.
Understandably, when confronted with constant cuts, the Regular Army protects itself first above all. But, inevitably, under that pressure it becomes short term in its views. The Territorial Army loses and, for the reasons that I have explained, I consider that in the long term the Regular Army loses as well. I believe that it is up to us, as politicians, to take a slightly longer view because we cannot expect the Regular Army to do anything other than take a short view if it is under that type of pressure.
For the reason that I have given, if the Territorial Army is to survive and flourish, I suspect that it is not enough that it should be merely, although it is a very important role, the home connection for regular battalions. It also needs a role at home. That is why I was so pleased to hear my noble friend compare the role which the National Guard plays in the United States with what could be done here.
It is true that we hear daily predictions of natural disaster in our country as a result of global warming and other factors. I have no idea whether or not those predictions are true. I know only that if parts of the world where other noble Lords live are under as much water as mine is, they would believe in global warming and its effects all too clearly.
It seems to me that it would be extremely sensible for the Territorial Army to be given a role in which it was one of the first elements of manpower to be called upon in the event of local natural disaster. I believe that my noble friend was absolutely right about that. It is a role which I believe he and I both suggested when we were members of the same government but which unfortunately our colleagues refused to consider. I hope that this Government will take a more sensible view.
I want to add one further point. My noble friend brushed lightly over the role of cadets. However, he and I both know that, just as the Territorial Army with

223
all its potential and its remarkable esprit de corps has been undervalued regularly in recent years, equally the potential benefits of a strong cadet force have been undervalued. They have been underfunded. I am sorry to find that some of the ideas that were current when I was in the Ministry of Defence have not been implemented.
I was struck by a programme which was initiated, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear, by Members of your Lordships' House; namely my noble friend Lady Blatch, who was then in the Department of Education, and another of my noble friends who was then a Minister in the Home Office. The programme tried to ensure that there was a coordinated expansion of Army cadet force detachments all over the country. A number of pilot projects were undertaken.
I remember visiting a number of new cadet attachments in Middlesborough and South Shields. The net result of the new detachments was a dramatic decrease in the level of youth crime in those areas. I remember vividly not only the grateful reaction of the local Chief Constable but also that of parents at the effect of the new Army cadet force detachments. After my departure from the Ministry of Defence I was disappointed that the government of which I was a member hurried to dismantle the plans which were hatched in your Lordships' House. I hope that this new Government will revive them. They would be valuable not only to the Army, which has become an object of derision in far too many of our educational institutions, but also in terms of what the cadet force can do for the community.
Your Lordships should be grateful, as always, to my noble friend for raising these important matters. I hope that this Government will do a little better than the government of which I was a member, in ensuring that the Reserve Forces are valued, better funded and given a more specific and direct role in the affairs of the Army in particular. I believe that the Army has cut off its nose to spite its face in these matters. I think that my noble friend and I are at one on that.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing this debate to the attention of your Lordships. I endorse all that he and others have said. I shall concentrate my remarks on the TA Medical Services. However, before I do so, I should like to re-emphasise two points already made because they are particularly important. I must also declare an interest as Honorary Colonel of 306 Field Hospital.
First, the TA is to be congratulated on being 90 per cent recruited in all arms and corps with the exception of the Royal Corps of Signals and The Royal Army Medical Corps, which I shall cover later. However, there is a limit to the numbers of TA that can be used for operational duty. Overuse will dry up the pool, resulting in an ineffective TA. Any government must ensure that the TA is resourced properly.
224
Secondly, a greater effort must be made to ensure that training is carried out at battalion level so that a commanding officer can train his battalion properly for war. In addition, as my noble friend emphasised, serious consideration should be given to reinforcement by companies or platoons as opposed to individual reinforcement, where it can be difficult for separate TA individuals to develop the essential military ethos and team spirit.
I turn to the Royal Army Medical Corps TA. The Army Medical Services TA establishment was increased by the Strategic Defence Review. At that time there existed an acute shortage of doctors, nurses, radiologists, physiotherapists and pathologists. To reach the establishment required needed an immediate recruiting drive. After the Strategic Defence Review, and as at September 1999, the TA was 4,336 troops below strength. Its establishment is now 7,000. As at 9th February it has a shortfall of just over 2,000. Its recruiting deficiency has halved, but it is still a matter of serious concern. The Army Medical Services TA is to be congratulated on its excellent recruiting results achieving half this particular target. During September to December last year, 211 doctors, nurses and other personnel associated with professions allied to medicine have been recruited, which equates to about 50 individuals per month.
Training for the Army Medical Services TA has improved immensely during the past few years, due to the new Army Medical Services Field Training Centre at Stensall. This is an outstanding training facility for all medical units. It is constructed as a hospital in the field with all its associated stores and medical equipment. It will be particularly beneficial to the four field hospitals recently tasked with a 60-day mobilisation role.
306 Field Hospital is a specialist unit. As its colonel, I can verify that high morale, enthusiasm and keenness is displayed at all times. Its personnel are proud to be members of the TA. They look forward to their annual camp and the two weekend training periods. They are dedicated to their unit and their highly responsible role. I am convinced that if called upon, 306 Field Hospital will be capable of providing timely and high-quality medical care to the Armed Forces on operations and in peacetime.
Many of the Army Medical Services TA have supported the Royal Army Medical Corps in the Balkans, serving alongside their regular counterparts, as have the medical reserves from the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. That not only demonstrates a will of the Territorial Army to serve on operations, but shows that it is capable of using its skills alongside its regular counterparts, and is much commended. I am proud to say that 306 Field Hospital has sent its fair share of medical and non-medical personnel to the Balkans.
Finally, there is a real need for relationships between the MoD and the National Health Service to improve. There should not be a problem with the specialist units as they are recruited from across the UK and would not cause gaps on mobilisation. However, other

225
TA field hospitals depend on manning from the same areas in which National Health Service hospitals have their catchment areas. It is those National Health Service Trusts that are wary about the TA, as a major mobilisation could cause large gaps in their staff who are already under establishment. Proper contingency plans should be drawn up and agreed by the MoD and the National Health Service now.
We owe a great debt of gratitude to all our Reserve Forces who are a link between the military and the civilian community. We should give them much greater prominence throughout the United Kingdom.
8.18 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for bringing to our attention the Reserve Forces at this time. I had the privilege of serving in a Territorial Army formation for some years. I am still connected, on the periphery, to specialist regiments in the Territorial Army, but should like o refer to the Reserve Forces in general.
As the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and other noble Lords stated, the Reserve Forces deserve credit for embracing the radical need for change caused by the Strategic Defence Review. The review was to their benefit and was sensible. It has resulted in their being more usable and much more used, as we have seen and as various noble Lords have mentioned. However, it must not end there. We must not leave it at that. New ways must continue to be found in which our Reserve Forces can further contribute to the ongoing and future military operational commitments and to provide the training required for this.
I have spoken to people in all three Reserve Forces. They are conscious of the need for reservists to be trained to do their jobs and of the need for them to put in the hours necessary to obtain the required skills. However, we must remember that reservists are not regular sailors, soldiers and airmen; they are volunteers. A volunteer, man or woman, is a special person and usually has a full-time job.
The problem is that the MoD must provide a strong and flexible leadership with a personnel management system which understands the unique circumstances of a reservist and his employer. I am fully aware of the Volunteer Reserve Forces Campaign and pay tribute to it, particularly the excellent Employers Abroad Scheme, which should be encouraged. However, I understand that still more needs to be done in order to ensure that opportunity is given for people to achieve their civilian and military aspirations. Speaking as someone involved in industry, although now rather ancient, I believe that it is all about an employer releasing a young man or woman who returns to the shop floor or the office with skills that can only enhance the commercial interests of the company.
I am also perturbed by the public relations of the Reserve Forces. It would seem that the public relations department believes that as only 2 per cent of the total defence budget goes to the Reserve Forces they can receive only 2 per cent of the public relations effort. That is not right; the Reserve Forces deserve better.
226
Furthermore, excellent though the public relations department is, I always find that it is on the defensive. The Reserve Forces do not need that. They want a proactive campaign to get their message across. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that Napoleon said that one does not win battles by defending. A little bit of attacking by the public relations department, certainly in the provincial press and media, would help the reservists because there is a good story to tell.
In the past few years, all governments have mucked about with the Reserve Forces—the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. Indeed, they have been mucked about four or five times. The one thing that the Reserve Forces do not need is to be messed about any more. They have a job to do and they need the full support of government and of all of us. They also need the individual and unit resources to train and to be able to take their place alongside a regular outfit. They need great affection and encouragement. The Minister is aware that, standing where I stand, I am not greatly political but I believe that the Government of the day must give the Reserve Forces the resources to do the job. If you work it out, you will realise that it is not too expensive. As the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, said, we owe a debt of honour to our Reserve Forces.
8.25 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Freeman for introducing the debate. Perhaps I may remind the House that I am a serving TA officer, albeit at a reduced level of activity compared with recent years. When I use the term "TA", I use it as shorthand for Reserve Forces. not just the Territorial Army.
The SDR was well received but it had two serious flaws. One was the damage done to the TA, particularly the Infantry. The other was deliberately under-funding the MoD by means of the 3 per cent so-called "savings". The TA thought that the SDR would be the definitive review, but now, apparently, there is another one under way. No doubt it was made necessary in order to balance the books and certainly no one expects it to be an overall enhancement. Can the Minister confirm whether a review is in progress? Does he agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, that the TA does not need to be messed about any more?
I am a logistician and a REME TA officer. However, I believe that the reduction in the capability of the TA Infantry was a serious mistake. First, the TA, in terms of the conceptual, moral and physical components of fighting power, was or even is more than a match for anything other than regular troops from a developed country. Secondly, I believe that our military planners place too much reliance on host nation support in the area of operations, particular for rear area security. Modern operations plan for very long land lines of communications. How can they be made secure against terrorists, bandits and the like?
My noble friend Lord Cranborne has in the past complimented one of my humble contributions. It is now my turn to return the compliment. Among other things, he talked about what I call "military aid to the

227
civil community"—MAC C—and particularly for natural disasters. One of the difficulties is that charges have to be made for military support, even when supplied by the TA, even when the activity would be extremely good training value and even when good for morale, recruiting and public perception. Perhaps we should have special regulations for MAC C supplied by the TA. After all, the direct marginal cost would be negligible compared with the value obtained.
It seems to me that all the recent reviews have assumed that each TA unit needs to have a specific war or operational role. That was fine in the old Warsaw Pact days when we practically knew which wood in Germany we were to hide in. Nowadays, the only certainties are that any deployment will be unexpected; the composition of the force will be uniquely tailored to the operation; and time will be short. That was certainly the case for the planned for, compulsory mobilisation for Kosovo, which in the end proved to be unnecessary. What is important is to be able to train within a deployable unit that could be expanded without too much pain in time of need. Any noble Lord who thinks that that will not be necessary in future had better read the histories of the First and Second World Wars
I suggest that the need for a specific role is often used as an excuse for a cut. We need units which are deployable, possibly in practice only as a formed subunit—for example, a company or squadron-sized unit—but with a less specific role in the ORBAT. After all, if the warning time for an operation that requires large-scale effort is so long, why do we need such specific plans for the ORBAT? I do not suggest that there should be any uncertainty about the function of a unit, but purely the specific deployment role.
There seems to be some concern within the staff about whether a compulsory mobilisation of the TA would be successful; in other words, whether most of the soldiers would turn up. The relatively unsuccessful operational deployment of a TA company to the Falklands is often quoted as evidence of the difficulties. To be honest, if I was invited to go to the Falklands for six months I would probably politely decline. The reason is that the general public, even your Lordships, would not regard it as highly commendable and it would not have the "street cred" (if I may put it that way) of Kosovo.
On the other hand, a TA REME recovery company, of which I was in command at the start of the Kosovo campaign, found itself within a few days of being compulsorily called up. Although we did not know at the time how close we came to it, it was obvious that something was about to happen. One cannot keep these things quiet. However, I never detected any concern among my soldiers about being called up because they knew that it would be for an important national effort. Furthermore, they knew that their employers would be more relaxed about losing them for a while for a Kosovo rather than a Falklands-type operation. I am not convinced that it would be wise compulsorily to call up TA formed units except for operations.
228
I believe that the public must be absolutely committed to any compulsory mobilisation of formed units or sub-units. From that public support would flow employer support, which is a very severe problem. Despite the efforts of NELC, at a low level employer support can be patchy, to say the least. A decision as to whether a soldier can go on annual camp or a training weekend is made at a very low level in the organisation, often the soldier's immediate line supervisor. A line supervisor may not be aware of the policy direction of the chairman. I recognise that I am slightly at variance with my noble friend Lord Freeman. I am sure that my noble friend is regularly briefed by commanding officers who are eager to have their units mobilised. However, I believe that to do so without public support would be unwise.
The SDR calls for more usable and better trained TA, but planning assumptions are that many TA units should be able to deploy within 90 days. Clearly, that is not realistic given the experience of the Kosovo timescale. Furthermore, individual TA soldiers with no more than two weeks' extra training are deployed on operations. In my experience, to be operationally effective TA soldiers without previous regular experience need to train for about 50 man training days per year. Noble Lords should be aware that TA soldiers who have served on operations are the very experienced ones. It is also important to understand that it is extremely demoralising for a unit to have its man training days restricted for financial reasons. If that happens one runs the risk of attracting volunteers who are motivated for all the wrong reasons. In short, they become—I hate to use the term, but it is accurate—bounty hunters.
I believe that the TA would be much more usable and better trained if individuals were encouraged to train for up to 50 man training days per year. The difficulty lies in finding the funding. Despite the fine words of the SDR, there has been no increase in man training days. Can the Minister say how the TA is better trained and more usable if there has not been an increase—in certain cases, it is the reverse—in man training days?
In the few seconds left to me, and before the noble Baroness begins to become agitated, I should like to comment on the announcement of the heavy equipment transporter contract which uses a combination of PFI and sponsored reserves as provided by the Reserve Forces Act 1996. In principle, I warmly welcome that development. I shall table a separate Unstarred Question to flush out some detail that at the moment is somewhat sparse. There appear to be some concerns or uncertainty about the amount of military training to be undertaken by the sponsored reserves and the performance potential of the vehicle selected, but I shall leave that for another time.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I follow the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, in welcoming many aspects of the recent review, which has increased the effectiveness of our voluntary reserves but, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, rightly remarks,

229
makes them less of a territorial army. There is a tension between the two which we need to understand and recognise. In terms of improving the effectiveness of the voluntary reserves what has been achieved is very worthwhile. To some extent we have lessened the old Regular Army/TA divide. I now understand that the Regular Army treats the reserves much more as an extension of itself. The idea that there should be full-time reserves who serve with the Regular Army is very much a step in the right direction, and the plans for the mobilisation of a substantial part of the voluntary reserves for Kosovo showed the effectiveness of that.
Given the long-term demographic trends flagged up by both of the non-White Papers which the Government kindly sent me the other day, particularly the ageing British population and the fact that manpower requirements become a much more difficult problem, we on these Benches believe that the use of and dependence upon reserves is likely to increase. In the past we on these Benches have urged that the Government should perhaps look at shorter terms of full-time service, particularly in the Army, as one way forward. That is also a way to avoid some of the immense problems of long-term service in the Army to do with housing, wives, children and so on. Thai is a further way in which we see closer integration of reserves with small regular units.
I also agree strongly with those who suggest that reserve and cadet training is a valuable way to provide new skills to people who have failed to pick up skills in school. The extent to which the US uses specialist training in particular within its armed services as a means of extending additional skills to those who have failed in school is an example that we should consider. Certainly, we should also note the American experience of effective, well trained reserve units.
I strongly agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, said about the Defence Medical Services. I simply note that other specialist areas, such as intelligence, linguistics and the new units to provide expertise in information warfare, are also part of the way forward.
I believe that noble Lords should invite the Minister to return in future to the question of assistance to the civil community within the United Kingdom. That requires further attention. The loss of territorial units spread around the country contributes further to the decline of what used to be civil defence. That is not something on which the voluntary reserves can easily double up.
I should like to flag up one issue that will arise. Under the European Defence Initiative, aid to the civil community abroad, in particular the provision of a mobilisable police reserve, is another issue to which this House and the other place must give attention. We lack a mobilisable police reserve at present. When we come to consider the Armed Forces Bill we shall discover that the Ministry of Defence Police is not the potential for that reserve. Clearly, that is something that we do not have and must invent.
230
In conclusion, I simply echo the importance of the Reserve Forces, the extent to which the recent reforms have improved their effectiveness and the importance of maintaining and extending what has been achieved in the past two years.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, your Lordships owe a particular debt to my noble friend Lord Freeman for introducing the debate. In so doing, my noble friend recounted the time that he spent in the Minis try of Defence. However, he omitted to mention that he was also a chartered accountant. The work of chartered accountants has had much to do with the financial state in which we find the reserve forces today.
As noble Lords have said, the numbers in the Territorial Army have dropped by 18,000. That makes it much more difficult for the TA to operate as formed units. There is no doubt that the reserve forces have done a good job in filling in the holes where the regulars do not have the men to do it on their own. But this is not the Territorial Army which we have known and loved since 1908.
The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, talked about the increase in public relations on behalf of the Territorial Army. I was brought up into this because my father, who was one of only three territorial major-generals, was director of public relations throughout the second half of the war. He kept his Territorial Army interests very strongly at heart.
The local newspapers are an idle lot. They are only too pleased to get someone to write their copy for them. So if local units do that they will get very good publicity. But it is no good waiting for the Minis try of Defence to do it for them; they have to do it themselves.
As has been pointed out, the bulk of those who have been called in to work with the Regular Army have been the specialists. Infantrymen have not been so much in demand. It is with this in mind that Her Majesty's Government have decimated, or, rather more than decimated, the territorial infantry battalions. The next Conservative government will have to decide whether it is in the country's interest to restore the TA to its former size—a change of policy which will inevitably involve the restoration of the infantry battalions. The regular services will also be strengthened by such a policy, as the TA, including the infantry battalions, provides a core for the recruitment of regulars. My noble friend Lord Cranborne made particular reference to that point. Thought will also have to be given to the reversal of the policy of selling off the TA centres, which at present play a major part in the life of the areas in which they are situated.
The Government are firmly committed to an increase in the Regular Army, but they have not been very successful with it yet. Recruitment has done well. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that. But retention is still very poor. News of the recently published document Pay 2000 seems to be exacerbating the situation. For the present, it would he extremely unwise to reduce the number of the reserves,

231
even accepting the point that the Government aim to make them more effective. It should be said, in parenthesis, that Britain is almost the only country which does not have a proper reserve force. The United States has eight National Guard divisions.
The Government seem to be committed to the European force outside NATO. Goodness me, we have heard enough about that. In a written reply in another place last December, the Secretary of State not only killed the traditional Territorial Army, but said that it would play a part in the work of that European force. It is difficult to see how it can do so without infantry and without formed units of any specialisation.
The relationship between the TA and the Regular Army has never been close. Now the regulars, and the Government, are in favour of individual drafting rather than keeping the force in formed units. As matters stand, the need for formed units, particularly of infantry, is relatively small, except for Petersberg tasks, but there can be no guarantee that that situation will continue. There can be no guarantee that matters will not change. Even if we do accept that there will be no change, we are entitled to a firmly-voiced caveat that the Government must get it right. There is, as yet, no evidence that they are doing so.
The reduction in the number of centres must damage the still important role of the TA as a social asset. If we continue, as seems to be the case, to be flooded out, the TA will play an increasingly important role in such emergencies. The Ministry of Defence and its friends are apt to say that the cost of this should be charged to the Home Office or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and not the defence budget. So it should. That is what the oft-proclaimed concept of joined-up government is about.
In the bulk of the potential tasks that the TA will be called on to fulfil, it is important to emphasise the geographical nature of the reserves. That continues to have considerable social value for local and national emergencies. The role of the TA in knitting together a community should not be forgotten. My noble friend Lord Freeman talked about a unit which was based partially in Lincolnshire and partially in Suffolk. That is nothing: my noble friend Lord Cope pointed out that there is one which is based partly in Croydon and partly in Bristol.
The reserve forces are an admirable example of the volunteer principle and the togetherness principle. The Government's policy is doing much to damage it.
The House of Commons Select Committee on Defence has been conducting a major inquiry into Armed Forces personnel issues. I ask the Minister to confirm that, when the committee reports, the Government will receive its recommendations with an open mind, or even with a predisposition to accept them. Elsewhere, particularly with regard to DERA, the Government have looked at the committee report and ignored it, saying, "This is what we will do anyway". I hope that they will not do that with regard
232
to the reserve forces. I particularly hope that they will be robust in their fight against the common enemy—the Treasury.
Inevitably, the debate has concentrated on the Territorial Army. There has been relatively little mention either of the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force or the cadets. I would make one point. When I was director general of King George's Fund for Sailors, we played a large part in supporting the sea cadets. I can speak only for the sea cadets and not the other two forces. They played an enormous part in keeping the youth of the towns, and particularly the very bad areas, on a straight line.
I mention another point in passing. My noble friend Lord Freeman talked about the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. That is a remarkable body and great tribute should be paid to Sir Neil Thorne, formerly the Member of Parliament for Ilford South, for the work and support—both physical and financial—that he has given to that scheme. Without him I do not believe that it would exist.
The debate has emphasised many, if not all, of the problems facing a government who have to decide the balance between the regular forces and the reserves. The Government may not have the problem much longer, but they should set out the options in a manner in which men and materiél can be used in the most effective manner. It would seem that the current policy does not entirely do that.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for introducing this subject and giving us the opportunity to pay tribute to the very real contribution made by the Reserve Forces in support of their regular counterparts. I appreciate the comments of noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a superb debate. I know that each and every one of them, in raising the issues that confront the Reserve Forces, have done so with sincerity. My noble friend Lady Symons would have wished to make an input to the debate, but regrettably she is overseas on departmental business. I hope that I shall be able to reflect some of her views during my contribution.
The Reserve Forces, both volunteer and regular, constitute a significant part of the country's Armed Forces. As well as around 200,000 regular personnel, the services can call on over 47,000 volunteer reserves and over 190,000 regular reserves. Yes, Territorial Army numbers fell, but of necessity, following our Strategic Review of post-Cold War operational requirements. But numbers of all volunteer forces have stabilised, or in some areas, as was noted by noble Lords, are starting to rise. These forces make a crucial contribution to our military capability and a crucial contribution to the United Kingdom's reputation as a force for good in the world.
The Strategic Defence Review enabled the Ministry of Defence to define more clearly what it required of volunteer forces in the future. Their main contribution has switched from reinforcement of UK forces engaged in major conflict to supporting regular forces

233
deployed on a much wider range of operations. The reserves are integral to our ability to expand our forces in times of crisis. The more flexible use of reservists also gives us the opportunity to harness skills not readily found within the regular Armed Forces. We believe that it makes sense to use reservists in roles where their particular skills are most useful, rather than in filling combat roles for which the regular forces have more relevant and up-to-date training.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, asked for a formed unit to be called on at some point. As we continue to make use of the Reserve Forces in a number of different ways, the use of formed units is always an option and forms part of our planning in the long-term.
The Government are making ever-increasing use of the powers the Reserve Forces Act introduced just over four years ago. That Act, with its new powers, and safeguards for reservists and employers, underpins the Government's policy of making the Reserve Forces more integrated, more relevant and more useable. By introducing more varied forms and categories of reserve service, the Act has enabled more people to take up the opportunity to serve, in ways that fit their personal circumstances.
In particular, I should like to highlight the success of full-time reserve service and the implementation of the sponsored reserve concept. There are now around 1,200 reservists serving on full-time reserve service terms. They are making a significant contribution to alleviating shortfalls in regular manpower, alongside around 470 volunteer and regular reserves who are currently called out in support of operations in the UK and overseas. This is not to treat reservists as part-time regulars, as was suggested during the course of the debate. Such service provides an opportunity for individual reservists to volunteer to work alongside their regular colleagues for a fixed term. We believe that such opportunities are good overall for morale, recruitment and retention in the Reserve Forces.
My noble friend Lady Symons announced last October that the Ministry of Defence had signed the first contract for the use of special members of the Reserve Forces—more familiarly known as sponsored reserves—in the RAF's Mobile Meteorological Unit. Last month, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, she also announced that the privately financed heavy equipment transporter project was one where the preferred bidder was likely to deliver a significant proportion of the service by using sponsored reserves.
A number of noble Lords drew attention to the restructuring of the Territorial Army under the Strategic Defence Review. I believe it is clear that the TA is now better balanced to support the SDR scales of effort and the expeditionary nature of our defence forces. We require specialists such as signallers, logistic units and medical personnel for deployment in the Balkans and other theatres. Those are precisely the areas that were strengthened under the SDR. Territorial Army personnel have greeted their new roles with enthusiasm. Moreover, despite the reductions caused by the SDR, the level of TA
234
volunteering to support the Regular Army on operations remains high, despite having a smaller TA on which to draw. I pay tribute to the members of the TA for their continued commitment and enthusiasm. In response to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, perhaps I may say that there is no intention further to restructure the Reserve Forces.
In order fully to implement the Strategic Defence Review, we are studying ways in which the Territorial Army and the regular Reserve Forces can be better integrated and given more effective roles. That is not to say that the Ministry of Defence is complacent. The TA advertising campaign continues to ensure that the TA is generally well manned. The department is running a spring recruitment campaign, which is focusing specifically on officers and the Army Medical Services nationally. The campaign culminates in a national TA Day on 31st March. Overall, 57,383 people attended last year, which represents an 83 per cent increase on 1999. We hope to improve on that this year.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, mentioned the cadet forces. I welcome their comments. The Government have made available funds to support the Army Cadet Force's recruitment campaign and we are seeking to ensure that cadet organisations are fully integrated into the Government's youth initiatives.
The Defence Medical Services have for many years relied on the use of reservists to augment regular medical teams. While the overall reserve manning situation is showing some signs of improvement, there are still shortages in some key areas; for example, accident and emergency physicians, surgeons, anaesthetists and critical care nurses.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, drew attention to the need for employer support. The majority of NHS trusts have adopted a positive attitude with regard to the volunteer reserve status of their employees. A number of initiatives are being implemented at present which are designed to encourage NHS trusts to support membership of the Reserve Forces. Those include the establishment of the National Employers' Liaison Committee Medical Working Group, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, made the point that it was not possible for the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, to be present for the debate. I know that it must have been important business to have kept him away from such a debate. The schemes allow NHS managers to see defence medical personnel in an operational environment. Visits to the Balkans have demonstrated to NHS managers the professionalism of the Defence Medical Services on operational deployments.
The MoD is continuing actively to recruit medical reservists. Between 1st September 1999 and 30th August 2000, 388 professionally qualified medical workers were recruited into the TA. This recruitment figure shows a net gain of 203 and this TA campaign will continue to be funded until at least the autumn of this year. The focus of this year's campaign will be on the recruitment of nurses.

235
The MoD has spent considerable time examining ways to remove the practical difficulties that can prevent it from making the best use of its reservists. For example, the concept of reserved occupations was withdrawn with effect from 1st January this year. The department took this decision because the Reserve Forces Act allows all employers to seek exemption from mobilisation of their employees. We consider that it is no longer necessary to provide some employers with a permanent exemption from call-out for their entire workforce.
We recognise that in order to be able to call on so many volunteers, as the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, mentioned, we need the support of employers. We have to fully persuade employers of the real benefits that they can derive from employing reservists, such as the training and motivation of their workforce. That is the message that the MoD and the Reserve Forces, along with the cadet associations, will be fully involved in delivering.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and a number of other noble Lords also mentioned the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. We welcome the attempts to develop the scheme so that it includes more contact with members of the Reserve Forces and hope that Members of both Houses will take advantage of the opportunities that the expanded scheme will offer. We
236
are grateful to the associations for being so willing to help with developing the scheme. The Director of the Reserve Forces and Cadets, Brigadier Lang, is looking at ways to take forward the suggestions made.
As president of the Council of the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association, the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, is an eloquent advocate of the value of the Reserve Forces to this country. We have seen a measure of his passion here tonight. The volunteer associations provide invaluable assistance to the MoD in generating support for the Reserve Forces from local communities. Their day-to-day support of reservist activities and their management of much of the reserve estate play their part in sustaining the effective role of the Reserve Forces. I believe that the past year has required more hard work and greater dedication than usual from the associations. As the impact of SDR changes to the Reserve Forces took hold, this was vitally important.
There are a number of points which I may not have covered. I shall write to noble Lords in response to those questions which I have not been able to cover in my remarks. However, I thank all noble Lords who give so much of their time to this worthy cause. In conclusion, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the members of staff of all the associations for their continued unstinting efforts.
House adjourned at three minutes past nine o'clock.

  Newbridge-on-Wye: Proposed Biomass Power Plant
  Newbridge-on-Wye: Proposed Biomass Power Plant
  ECGD: Claim Payments and Premium Income
  ECGD: Claim Payments and Premium Income
  Grant-awarding Research Councils: Quinquennial Review
  Grant-awarding Research Councils: Quinquennial Review
  Self-determination Claims
  Self-determination Claims
  Zimbabwe: Encouragement of Good Governance
  Zimbabwe: Encouragement of Good Governance
  Sudan: Cathedral Bombing
  Sudan: Cathedral Bombing
  Sudan: Abduction
  Sudan: Abduction
  Zimbabwe: Freedom of Expression
  Zimbabwe: Freedom of Expression
  Army: Operational Tours
  Army: Operational Tours
  Defence Diversification Agency
  Defence Diversification Agency
  Armed Forces Pay Review Body Recommendations
  Armed Forces Pay Review Body Recommendations
  Doctors' and Dentists' Pay: Review Body's Supplementary Recommendation
  Doctors' and Dentists' Pay: Review Body's Supplementary Recommendation
  Audit and Accountability: Sharman Review
  Audit and Accountability: Sharman Review
  Lord Chancellor: Judicial Sittings
  Lord Chancellor: Judicial Sittings
  Metropolitan Police: Sickness
  Metropolitan Police: Sickness
  Oakington Detention Centre
  Oakington Detention Centre
  Emergency Planning: Review
  Emergency Planning: Review