Sitting of 22 January 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Public Libraries
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: What steps he is taking to raise the quality of service provided by public libraries. [144778]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): We have encouraged better planning and accountability in public library services through the introduction of annual library plans and a more rigorous enforcement of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. Standards of service for library authorities will be introduced from 1 April 2001, and, through the people's network programme, £170 million of lottery money is being made available to libraries to upgrade their information and communications technology infrastructure, create innovative digital content and train library staff in the use of ICT.
    Mr. Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Barnet libraries' lead for north London in securing £150,000 from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport Wolfson foundation libraries fund towards the "first steps—help your child to read" project, which will enable parents of five to seven-year-olds in schools in my constituency, such as Orion, Barnfield, Colindale, Dollis and Sunnyfields, to be more effective in supporting their children's reading? Does my right hon. Friend consider that such projects are worthwhile and should be supported?
    Mr. Howarth: I am delighted to congratulate Barnet on taking the lead in the consortium of 10 north London boroughs that have been able to receive money from the DCMS Wolfson fund. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend, who has been a strong and consistent champion of that initiative. I hope that the fruits of the programme will, as he anticipates, be of great benefit to the children of his constituents. That demonstrates the role that public libraries can play in supporting education. It is a proud and long-standing tradition that public libraries act in support of the education service, both in schools and for learners of all ages. When our national library standards
    636
    are in place, public library authorities throughout the country will be even more strongly placed than hitherto to fulfil that responsibility.
    Mr. Graham Brady: What support can the Minister offer to libraries such as the central reference library in Manchester, which provides not just a local facility but a facility of great importance to a whole region? That library has had an important role in the north-west of England, but that is being downgraded because of a lack of funding, which is available only from Manchester city council. Can the Minister suggest other avenues through which proper funding might be provided?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and valid point. Where major libraries such as Manchester central library provide a service to residents in a range of local authorities in the region, it is important that those local authorities also make a contribution to support the funding. We had the difficulties over the Henry Watson music libraries, as the hon. Gentleman will well remember. His own authority in Trafford ought to be willing to bear its share of that responsibility.

    Sports Facilities (South-West)
    Mr. David Heath: What specialist sports facilities are available in the south-west of England for young people of exceptional ability. [144779]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): The facilities available to young people with exceptional ability in the south-west of England include access to 11 specialist sports colleges and the United Kingdom Sports Institute facilities at the universities of Bath and Exeter and the Weymouth and Portland sailing academy.
    Mr. Heath: Should we not be doing a great deal more for the sports stars of the future? Is there not a case for a little more joined-up Government thinking about the matter? Should we think not only of the very good sports facilities available in the universities, as the hon. Lady said, but of those in private schools and in Ministry of Defence facilities in the south-west? Should we not make a concerted effort to make those excellent facilities available to the widest range of local education authority students who might benefit from them?
    Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Ministry of Defence has a number of very good facilities. I had a meeting last year with Captain Robinson from the Ministry of Defence, to discuss the use of its land and facilities. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck, but the hon. Gentleman is right. We are speaking to Ministers and officials in the Ministry of Defence. If the hon. Gentleman watches this space, he may well see an announcement about our working more closely with the independent sector. I had an interesting visit to Millfield, where there are some tremendous facilities. Some of them are open to local people, but we can do more. Joined-up thinking is indeed part of the Government's approach.

    Playing Fields
    Mr. Barry Jones: What steps he is taking to provide new playing fields in schools. [144780]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): Seven hundred and fifty million pounds from the new opportunities fund will bring about a step change in opportunities for young people to play sport through new and refurbished school sports facilities, including playing fields. In particular, as part of the new opportunities fund green spaces initiative, £31 million of lottery money will be made available to projects throughout the country for the creation of playing fields and community areas.
    Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. How many additional playing fields does she have in mind? Does she agree that we want our schoolchildren to exercise and compete more on playing fields than previously? Does she agree that we want the battle for national health to be won on the playing fields of our local education authorities?
    Kate Hoey: My right hon. Friend is right: there is definitely a deficiency in the number of school playing fields, in particular, because too many have been sold off. I am sure that Members would like to know that school playing field disposals are down to an average of three a month, instead of 40 a month. Research shows that local education authorities are now taking that much more seriously, and are making bids to sell off only when they are clear that all the criteria laid down by the Government and Sport England are met, to ensure that the money used from that sale is going back into better and improved sporting facilities.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: But does the Minister accept that schools like Drayton school in Banbury have lots of playing fields, but do not have anyone to teach organised games? This is an area in which there seems to be no shortage of money or initiatives, but in which no one is getting a grip on ensuring that more team sports are played in our schools. Will the Minister liaise with her colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment and can we find someone somewhere who will take a lead in trying to ensure that the quantity of team sports played in our schools increases? Lots of youngsters are desperately frustrated that they do not have an opportunity to play team games in their schools.
    Kate Hoey: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the publication of "A Sporting Future for All", a strategy which laid down clearly for the two Departments a commitment to improve physical education and school sport. The rolling out of our school sport co-ordinators will take place, and one of their jobs will be to improve and enhance competitive team sports and competitions between schools. That is very much a part of that initiative. I hope that we will see improvement in exactly the areas that the hon. Gentleman talked about.
    Some schools are doing a very good job indeed. Clearly it is not true that, across the country, there is no competition. However, in certain areas, for all sorts of reasons, we have not been doing as well as we could, which is why the school sport co-ordinators, with
    638
    specialist sport colleges, will improve physical education and school sport and bring them up to a much higher standard.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend will be disappointed to hear that there are no all-weather athletics facilities for schools or the amateur athletics association in my constituency. However, I am sure that she will be pleased to hear of a proposal to bring together the local amateur athletics association and Stanney high school in partnership with the single regeneration budget, to bring about a desperately needed all-weather facility. Does she not think that that is an extremely good example of partnerships between athletics associations and schools, which could be regarded as a model for others to follow?
    Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is quite right to point to a partnership and the way in which that can enhance facilities. Governing bodies of sport increasingly realise that they cannot isolate themselves from what is happening in schools. The link between the governing bodies, school clubs and schools will sustain a long-term improvement in sporting standards from the bottom to the top.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: But given the deficiency in playing fields, to which the Minister referred, and the need for all-weather facilities, to which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) referred a moment ago, would it not have been better to put resources into those activities rather than squandering them on the fiasco of the millennium dome?
    Kate Hoey: I am determined to make sure that the money that is available for increasing sporting opportunities for young people will be spent in a way that will help to achieve exactly what the right hon. Gentleman proposes.

    Outdoor Pursuits
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What action he is taking to increase young people's access to outdoor pursuits. [144782]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): The Department is taking action to increase young people's access to outdoor pursuits in a number of ways. Fifty million pounds from the new opportunities fund will be devoted to programmes of activity for young people, based around challenging activities, to ease the transition between secondary school and adult life. We also expect that up to £50 million of the £750 million of new opportunities fund money for school sport will fund the refurbishment of outdoor activity centres for use by schoolchildren.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware that young people who want to take up the outdoor pursuit of canoeing, perhaps inspired by the recent success of Britain's Olympic medallists in the discipline, face genuine difficulty in gaining access either to smaller lowland rivers, or the more interesting and challenging upland waters? As there are nearly 10,800

    639
    miles of such waters, but canoeists have access to just 376—a paltry 2.8 per cent—what action does she think is necessary to remedy the situation?
    Kate Hoey: I know that my hon. Friend has an interest in canoeing and that he was as delighted as we all were to see Britain's best performance in canoeing since 1920 at this year's Olympic games, where two medals were won by Paul Ratcliffe and Tim Brabants. His point was absolutely correct. There are problems that affect access to water for many water users, especially canoeists. Access is only one problem; others include balance in the relationship between anglers and canoeists. Such problems can add to the difficulties for canoeists.
    We are working closely with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Sport England and other interested groups to consider more closely the complex issues that are involved. DETR is bringing together a working group comprising all the bodies that are involved, including the Environment Agency, the Countryside Agency, British Waterways and the Countryside Council for Wales. The group is to complete its work within the next nine months when the facts will be available and we can look towards the right solution for the access of all people to water.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will the Minister explain how her proposal for a two-hour entitlement to sport and physical education in schools will work in practice? How important will out-of-school-hours provision be in achieving that entitlement? Is it not likely that, for a great many youngsters, home-to-school transport arrangements and a lack of resources, facilities and teacher time could render the entitlement worthless? Is not the reality of the Government's position that sport in schools—especially team sport, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—is a major casualty of an overcrowded and over-prescriptive curriculum?
    Kate Hoey: I do not want to engage in party politics with the hon. Gentleman, but I should point out that he fails to remember just how neglected and badly run down physical education and sport facilities became during many years of Conservative government. We are trying to redress a position in many of our schools which we accept is not good. That will not occur overnight, but the measures that we have already put on track, including the new money and the recognition that we need better-qualified staff and more support for our physical education teachers, are coming together to make a difference. As we have said, we need entitlement rather than merely aspiration. That means that if it is not happening in schools, we must ensure that it does happen.
    The school sport co-ordinators, along with the whole range of measures, will make a genuine difference, as they will bring together the specialist sports colleges and the schools in their areas to deliver good quality. It is not just about time, but about the provision of good-quality physical education. A great deal of such education is provided after school, and not only within the curriculum.

    Wembley Stadium
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What recent representations he has received regarding the future of a national football stadium at Wembley. [144783]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I have received a number of representations about the future redevelopment of Wembley. In addition, I met Sir Rodney Walker, the new chair of Wembley National Stadium Ltd., on 10 January when he updated me on the progress that had been made on restructuring the Wembley project.
    Mr. Pike: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he recognise that football supporters throughout the country increasingly take the view that the future of Wembley has become a farce? Many people are wrongly blaming the Government for that. Will my right hon. Friend now spell out to those responsible for the development of the new stadium and all the facilities that go with it that they must achieve a solution and an end to the current farcical position as soon as possible?
    Mr. Smith: Of course, we have two principal objectives. First, we want to ensure that Britain can host the 2005 world athletics championships in a good-quality, specific stadium. The decision that we made a year ago to take the athletics championships from Wembley and create a new stadium at Pickett's Lock in the Lea valley in Enfield has been proved absolutely correct by the events of the past month or two. We will now be able to provide a good location for those championships.
    Secondly, we want a good, high-quality national stadium for football and rugby league at Wembley. The Football Association and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. are leading that project; it is not a Government project. However, I am pleased that the Football Association has taken greater control of the specifics of the project, and I am especially pleased that Sir Rodney Walker is now in place as chairman of WNSL. I have full confidence that he will be able to raise the funds, get the project under way, and get a really good stadium built.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: But does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that what the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) describes as a farce, and everyone else calls a fiasco, simply reinforces the Secretary of State's incompetence? He was happy to take the credit for a plan, which he described in glowing terms but has now rejected.
    Will he accept that there is further inconsistency between him and the Minister for Sport about whether there will be standing room for spectators at football matches? He slapped down the Minister when she put forward that proposal, and suggested that there was no question of going back on his decision. However, as recently as last Thursday, Lord McIntosh of Haringey said that the issue was not closed. Is not everything to do with football and sport over which the Secretary of State presides a shambles and a fiasco?
    Mr. Smith: No. It is entirely as a result of the Secretary of State's competence that we made the right decisions in December 1999 to ensure that we have a location and a venue for the world athletics championships in 2005.

    641
    If we had taken the Conservative party's advice, we would have been left without a venue and any prospect of hosting the championships, and with egg all over our face.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Does my right hon. Friend know that there is a view that what has happened is a shambles? Appointing the vice-chairman as chairman of the board gives no confidence to the football and rugby league world—far from it. The whole board should have been dismissed and replaced with people who have sport at heart.
    Mr. Smith: Of course, the Secretary of State and the Government have no power to do any such thing. The project is owned and led by the Football Association. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), it is up to the Football Association to determine how to proceed with the project. I am pleased that Sir Rodney Walker is in charge, and I have genuine confidence that he will be able to raise the necessary finance and get the project under way.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: It is not edifying to watch the Secretary of State floundering this afternoon; indeed, the spectacle has not been edifying for the past two years. First, Wembley was to be
    a magnificent venue for athletics as well as football.
    The Secretary of State then decided that there should be no athletics at Wembley. At first, it was supposed to be the centrepiece of a British bid to host the Olympic games, yet yesterday morning the prospect of London hosting the Olympic games "filled him with alarm". By yesterday afternoon, he had remembered Labour's election pledge and was
    confident that Britain could host a world class, memorable and highly successful games in 2012.
    I am tempted to observe, "Not with him in charge." With the Secretary of State in charge, we can be confident only of muddle and dither. I am genuinely embarrassed for him.
    Is it not the case that the failure of the Secretary of State's policy on the national stadium is not the fault of Sport England, the Football Association, Wembley National Stadium Ltd. or even the Minister for Sport, as the Secretary of State would sometimes have us believe, but his fault? Will he apologise in advance to his successor who will shortly take over responsibility for these affairs and have to clear up the mess that he leaves behind?
    Mr. Smith: The only thing that should embarrass the hon. Gentleman is his continuing failure to ask sensible and serious questions. I counsel him against believing all the lurid headlines that he reads in the newspapers. All I said, I think quite sensibly and rightly, was that if we were to host a high-quality bid for the Olympics in London, as I very much hope we will, we needed to do so seriously—we needed to be prepared to invest not just in the athletics facilities but in the transport and accommodation facilities that such a bid would require. That is sheer common sense.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are the Government who have established 10-year plans to improve the transport infrastructure that will deliver the
    642
    investment and the improvement. The Conservative party would cut those plans, and would deliver the investment failure that would make a bid unsuccessful.
    Mr. Ainsworth: We shall have to put up with this Secretary of State for a little longer, I fear, so will he answer the following question? Given his wrong-headed and stubborn decision to kick athletics out of Wembley, when will WNSL start repaying the £20 million that it owes athletics?
    Mr. Smith: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman is still arguing that athletics should be at Wembley for the 2005 championships. We now know that Wembley could not have delivered a venue for them on time. If we had adopted the hon. Gentleman's policy, we would now be left with no venue. It is clear that we made absolutely the right decision in ensuring that we had an alternative location.
    Mr. Andrew Love: I welcome the decision regarding the 2005 world athletics championships. Wembley was, in fact, always a distraction from the best option available, at Pickett's Lock. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm his commitment to Pickett's Lock as the best location for athletics, and will he find time to visit the site in the near future"
    Mr. Smith: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says. Indeed, one of the major advantages of the site, which is in the Lea valley at Enfield, is that all the relevant authorities— the Lea Valley authority, the borough of Enfield, the Mayor of London, Middlesex university and UK Athletics—are all very much committed to ensuring that it is a success. David Moorcroft of UK Athletics has said:
    It really is the number one choice for a national athletics centre as it will create a dedicated, purpose-built stadium, high performance centre, throwing field and warm up track.
    That is what we are going to achieve at Pickett's Lock. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the help that he has given so far, and I look forward to collaborating closely with him for a long time to corn to ensuring that the venue is a success.

    Museums
    Mr. Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on his policy on free entry to publicly funded museums. [144784]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Our policy is to encourage all museums to offer the widest possible access to their collections. We have enabled those national museums funded by my Department which already offer free admission to continue to offer it, and we have scrapped entry charges for children and the over-60s at those that charge. We have also provided funds to enable their trustees to introduce a standard admission charge of £1 for adults from September 2001, and to allow free admission to all people who are in receipt of the major benefits, including people with disabilities.
    Mr. Loughton: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his press release of 24 July 1998, which committed his

    643
    Government to universal free entry to our national museums, was a sham, and that the pledge will now be broken? Is this not another example of the failure of the Government's ill-conceived cultural imperialism, which would have disadvantaged museums reclaiming VAT? Should not the matter be left to these important institutions themselves—along with the Government's cackhanded attempts to politicise the appointments of directors of our museums?
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: What a load of crap!
    Mr. Smith: Well, I would put it rather more delicately than my hon. Friend.
    In our 1998 comprehensive spending review document, we said:
    funds have also been set aside to take this programme further in 2001.
    That is precisely what we are doing.
    I am delighted that our programme of free admission for children has resulted in a 20 per cent. increase in the numbers of children visiting our national museums and galleries, and that the programme of free admission for those who are 60 and over has resulted in a 40 per cent. increase in visits by them to our national museums and galleries. I am pleased also that the free admission to Tate Modern that we put in place has resulted in 3 million visitors in seven months visiting it. Those are major successes, and we intend to build further on them. Incidentally, I might remind the hon. Gentleman that he comes from a party that forced those charges on to museums and galleries in the first place.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that the language that he used is not parliamentary, even as an aside
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Noting with resentment the dextrist remarks against left-handed people made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) in his supplementary question, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that the barmiest way of financing free admissions to museums and galleries would be by privatising Channel 4, as is being been proposed by Conservative Members? Does he recall that it was William Whitelaw, as Home Secretary, in the days when the Conservative party was led by sensible and serious people, who created Channel 4 as a public service corporation with a statutory public service remit? Is it not typical of that lot opposite to back down on what was done by a fine Home Secretary? Will my right hon. Friend also reaffirm that, in the many years in which this Government will be in office, Channel 4 will remain a public corporation?
    Mr. Smith: I can indeed give my right hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. This Government will not privatise Channel 4, nor will the next Labour Government. The Tory proposals on privatisation and funding which they seem to have announced today are both incompetent and alarming. First, Conservative Members would privatise Channel 4, doing immense damage to the quality and diversity of programmes and to
    644
    investment in British films and, in the process, to the future of public service broadcasting. On top of that, they say that they will spend £1 billion that simply does not exist.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the Minister, but he is not really before the House to talk about the Opposition's policy. That is not his purpose here.
    Mr. Smith: I of course accept that, Mr. Speaker. However, in identifying how best we as a Government can ensure support for our museums and galleries, I think it is important to examine various alternatives that have been suggested by various groups. That is what I am seeking to do, and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was seeking to ask me in his question.
    If I may simply finish very briefly the point about the £1 billion that Conservative Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it best that the Minister finish.
    Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, of course I accept your ruling. However, the answer to my right hon. Friend, and to ensuring free access to museums and galleries, is to put in investment from the Exchequer. That is precisely what we are doing. As a Government, we are spending £229 million on that in the current year. In three years, the figure will be £275 million.
    The figures that the Opposition have come up with, in contradistinction to ours, simply do not add up. Even if one accepted their figures, they would be £65 million short of our current support for museums and galleries. So, not only would they do great damage to Channel 4, but they would do enormous damage to our museums and galleries in the process.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The Secretary of State is still floundering, and I am tempted to use the unparliamentary language used recently by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner); the right hon. Gentleman was talking complete and utter rubbish. He has indicated clearly that it is the Government's intention to make museums, galleries and cultural organisations more, rather than less, dependent on the Treasury. That is not the right way forward for museums and not the best way to promote access.
    Having broken their promise on universal free admission, the Government have resorted to an admissions policy for national museums that poses serious questions about their ability to invest in their future development. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that as a result of the Government's inelegantly named "quids in" policy, national museums could be landed with a multi-million pound VAT bill? What guarantee can he offer them this afternoon that Customs and Excise will continue to turn a blind eye to the VAT liability after next year?
    Mr. Smith: On VAT, the answer is simple; yes, Customs and Excise has indicated clearly that the introduction of a £1 charge by a museum qualifies that museum as operating as a business and that that £1 charge

    645
    will not render the museum liable for VAT. That is the simple position, which has been restated on a number of occasions. The hon. Gentleman and his party want to fund our museums according to the fluctuations of the market and on the back of serious damage to the broadcasting environment and culture of this country. That is not the way to provide funds for the museums and galleries that we all treasure.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his continuing support for the mining museum in west Yorkshire? I also thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his support in the past. Can I appeal to my right hon. Friend to join with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to ensure that schoolchildren visit the museum so that we do not lose the culture of mining in the Yorkshire area?
    Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important issue. When it comes to serious issues about museums and galleries in this country, Labour Members, and not Conservatives, have the interests of the country at heart. It is thanks to this Government's decision to support the National Coalmining Museum of England that the museum has not only been able to survive, but will be able to thrive in the future. Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, I will ensure that children have every possible opportunity to visit it.

    Millennium Dome
    7. Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the disposal of the contents of the millennium dome. [1447851
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The disposal of the content of the dome is an integral part of the New Millennium Experience Company's programme to achieve a solvent liquidation. Work is currently under way to return those assets owned by third parties. Assets owned by NMEC will be subject to private treaty sale or public auction which is scheduled to take place at the dome site from 27 February to 2 March 2001. The sale will be handled by Henry Butcher, international auctioneers.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reply, but I am afraid that it really will not do. Why cannot he see the absurdity of selling off the contents of the dome when a number of would-be bidders for the site might wish to retain those contents? Will he confirm that Legacy was named as the preferred bidder only weeks after its £33,000 donation to the Labour party? Is not the Government's frantic handling of this sorry saga further proof that, rather than maximising the return to the public, they care only to minimise the damage to themselves?
    Mr. Smith: No. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have not been involved personally in any of the negotiations with Legacy plc. However, I understand that negotiations are proceeding with Legacy as the preferred bidder and
    646
    are due to be concluded by 14 February. If so, any sale of the contents of the dome will proceed subsequent to that date.
    Mr. Norman Baker: While the Secretary of State is overseeing the disposal of the contents of the dome, will he also take the opportunity to investigate the circumstances surrounding the sponsorship of the faith zone by the Hinduja brothers to the tune of £1 million? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to a parliamentary answer that I received on Friday, the Minister then responsible for the dome, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), made inquiries on behalf of the brothers and intervened in a matter that was neither his departmental nor his constituency responsibility, before the £1 million was made available? This seems to be a case of two people buying a very expensive entry ticket to the dome and getting nationality in return.
    Mr. Smith: No. I understand that Mr. Hinduja's passport application was dealt with in the normal way, by the normal people, under the normal terms. My right hon. Friend's then Parliamentary private secretary told Mr. Hinduja that that would be the case. That was my right hon. Friend's sole involvement. He had no involvement in endorsing or supporting the application at any stage.

    Opera
    Mr. Alun Michael: What steps he intends to take to ensure that opera is available to the widest possible range of ages in every part of the country. [144786]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Access to all the arts, regardless of age, geography or financial circumstance, is one of my Department's key policies, and one to which the substantial increase in the Arts Council of England's budget of £100 million by 2003–04 has provided a valuable boost. The Arts Council's "spheres of influence" policy, which I commend, is working to increase access to opera and ballet across the country. The policy maximises national coverage by pairing individual touring companies and receiving theatres, ensuring that high-quality opera and ballet take place in each region.
    Mr. Michael: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he share my aspiration to see opera in the United Kingdom attain an image closer to the one that it has in Italy, where it is seen as an activity for the whole community, and one in which young people can aspire with enthusiasm to develop their talents as much as they do in sport or any other artistic activity?
    Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the work of Welsh National Opera in pursuing the objective of engaging young people at the earliest possible age, through the activities of outreach and education, in several regions of England as well as in Wales? Will he confirm his continued support for that activity?
    Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend reminds us that the people of Wales have a passion for opera that is

    647
    perhaps matched only by that of the Italians. Let us hope that, as opportunities improve, more and more people in England will also develop that passion.
    I willingly join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of Welsh National Opera, which runs admirable education programmes in all the towns and cities in which they perform and tour. It bodes well for the future of Welsh National Opera that my right hon. Friend—in whose constituency it now has its headquarters—is its champion. I am pleased that the Arts Council of England has increased its support for Welsh National Opera by 8.4 per cent. in the present year. However, the support that the Arts Council of Wales has been able to give has not matched that of the Arts Council of England for some years. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use his influence in Wales to bring about a change in that regard.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Prior to the re-opening of the Royal Opera House, the Secretary of State said that he would like to see people wearing trainers viewing the opera next to people wearing dinner suits. What has been the change in the demographics of the audience over the past few months since the Royal Opera house reopened?
    Mr. Howarth: I am pleased that, under the chairmanship of Sir Colin Southgate and the direction of Mr. Michael Kaiser, a greater range of audiences has come to the Royal Opera House to enjoy wonderful opera of world-class quality. I believe that that will continue when Mr. Tony Hall arrives to succeed Mr. Kaiser, and the Government remain determined to ensure that the Royal Opera House has the opportunity to provide wonderful operatic experiences for all our people.

    Free Television Licences
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: How many families in Exeter will benefit from the introduction of free television licences for households with a member aged 75 years or over. [144787]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): TV Licensing, which administers this concession for the BBC as licensing authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that estimates of the over-75 population based on the 1991 census indicate that there were approximately 7,900 people aged 75 or over in the Exeter constituency.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a pensioner in Exeter told me at the weekend that he would vote Labour for the first time ever because this is the first Government who have done anything for him? Bearing that and the Tories' pledge to scrap free TV licences in mind, has he thought of extending that popular measure to all pensioners?
    Mr. Smith: I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has to say about his constituent. We wanted to focus the initial help on that section of the pensioner population because its members not only often have the least means, but depend more on television viewing than any others because of poor mobility. That was why we introduced the concession in the way that we did. I shall of course
    648
    draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and those are matters that we shall want to discuss further, but, in the process, we should remind the voters that the Tories have pledged to scrap that free licence.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) on finding a 75-year-old in his constituency who is so impressed by the measure? Does he agree that the hon. Gentleman is more likely to find many more 65-year-olds who are distinctly underwhelmed by the 75p rise in the basic pension that they received? Is not the real reason why the Government are so keen to give out free television licences that they want to maximise the number of people who will be exposed to the BBC's propaganda, orchestrated by the Government cronies who they have put at the head of the corporation?
    Mr. Smith: I trust that the 65-year-olds to whom the hon. Gentleman refers will note that their pensions will rise by £5 this April.

    British Library
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What guidance he gives to the British Library concerning its policy of retaining a copy of every publication published in the UK. [144788]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): We do not provide guidance on that matter as it falls entirely within the responsibility of the British Library. Section 15 of the Copyright Act 1911, as amended, requires a copy of every book published in the United Kingdom to be delivered to the British Library. The board of the British Library is aware of the important responsibility that it bears as the repository of our literacy heritage and its policy is to retain all material received under the legal deposit legislation.
    Mr. Prentice: I find that reply immensely reassuring because I found myself believing a report in The Guardian—[Interruption.] We should never believe what we read in The Guardian. A report of 11 August 2000 directly quotes a British Library spokesperson as saying:
    The discarding of books is an ongoing process.
    Reference is made to 80,000 books having been binned—weeded out by very junior staff—although I understand that that report and others that appeared in the national press is false. However, is it true that 10 per cent. of the national newspaper collection in Colindale is to be destroyed if it is not sold?
    Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his vigilance and concern. I believe a lot of what I read in The Guardian, but that story was comprehensively misinformed. The British Library is conscious of the important responsibility that it bears as the repository of our heritage of printed books and is committed to collecting and retaining all British material received by legal deposit. It has never discarded such books, and I am assured that it has no intention of doing so now. Some years ago, the library disposed of large numbers of United States Government publications, all of which were already

    649
    archived in the United States, but it is certainly no part of British Library policy or practice to engage in the sort of activities about which my hon. Friend has been so exercised.
    Mr. Fearn: Is it also the policy of the British Library to allow its extensive and very good property to be used for other cultural activities? For example, at one time it was suggested that dance events would occur there. Is it going to introduce other cultural activities and, if so, will it charge for them?
    Mr. Howarth: That is entirely a matter for the British Library. I have had the pleasure of seeing some wonderful exhibitions in the gallery in the new building, and the hon. Gentleman may have seen the remarkable tapestry that hangs by the staircase. However, it is for the director of the British Library to respond to such issues, and no doubt he will address himself to those matters.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Church Repairs
    Mr. David Ruffley: What recent representations he has made to the European Commission regarding VAT rates for church repairs. [144808]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I understand that the Church value added tax group, which consists of staff of the central institutions of the Church, is preparing for meetings with Customs and Excise and other relevant agencies that will put the Government's case, as appropriate, to the European Commission.
    Mr. Ruffley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that many clergy in my constituency of Bury St. Edmunds welcomed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's announcement in his pre-Budget report that VAT on church repairs would be cut from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent? Is he further aware that the same clergy are now very angry because they have discovered that the European Commission is now saying that it advised Her Majesty's Treasury all along that such a cut would require
    a major change to EU law …?
    In light of that, will the hon. Gentleman tell my concerned constituents, in particular, the Rev. Jonathan Ford of Christ Church, Moreton Hall. Bury St. Edmunds, what is the earliest possible date when they can expect the much needed cut in VAT on church repairs?
    Mr. Bell: I am always grateful to hear from the hon. Gentleman. Various discussions are taking place between Customs and Excise and the Church VAT group. The scenario is not as pessimistic as he paints it. We are considering possible derogations. Churches within other EU member states have the same interest in the matter. We travel on hopefully and believe that we will, in the end, reach a satisfactory conclusion. I again congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the
    650
    first Chancellor in 25 years to take an interest in the issue, on taking the lead within the European Union and on continuing to do so.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Can my hon. Friend confirm that Churches of all denominations welcome the Government's intention to reduce VAT after three and a half years of being in government? Can he also confirm that, for 18 years, the Tory Government failed to do so?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a party political point. I try to be non-partisan in this job, but the whole House welcomed the Chancellor's statement of his intention to reduce VAT on church repairs from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. It is a lengthy task, but it has been properly prepared and we are hopeful about the outcome.

    Parochial Church Councils
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What representations he has received regarding the level of quota set for each parochial church council [1448091
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners have not received representations regarding the level of quota set for each parochial church council. It is for each diocese of the Church of England to determine quota levels, in consultation with its parishes.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer, but he will be aware that many parochial church councils are having difficulty meeting their quotas owing to declining congregations. That causes the diocese a problem because it has to pay the stipends of the clergy. In view of the fact that the St. Albans diocese recently could not pay its monthly outgoings from its income and had to resort to its capital, what is the Church Commission doing to cuts its costs centrally to help dioceses in such dire circumstances?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving prior notice of that question. I regret that the St. Albans diocese has had to dig into its capital to pay for its outgoings. As for the Church Commission, its total costs in 1999 were £10 million, compared with £9.6 million in 1998. Over the past few years, it has reduced its total costs by 30 per cent. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing our best to reduce our costs, although I regret what happened in St. Albans.

    Clergy Pensions
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps are being taken to enhance pensions for the clergy. [144811]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Archbishops Council has in progress a review of the clergy

    651
    remuneration package. This will include pensions. Consideration will be given to how stipends and pensions are to be funded as well as the levels at which they are set.
    Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend mentioned the Archbishops Council, but women cannot become archbishops or bishops in the established Church. Given that the full pension entitlement goes only to those clergy who have served 37 years, that women priests are more likely to have a broken work record and that the pension scheme is non-contributory because of the low level of the stipend, is there not a case for giving additional pension contributions to women priests in recognition of this concrete—not glass—ceiling that keeps them where they are no matter how holy they might be?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I thought he might say, as he did to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, that my reply was immensely reassuring. However, he did not do that this time. I am sure that women priests will be happy to know that the Archbishops Council has started a review of the clergy's stipends and is consulting widely within the Church as part of that process. My hon. Friend's contribution will be fully taken into account.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The pensions of the clergy depend in some measure on the income that comes into the Church from its land and property holdings. Therefore, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to discuss with the commission and with the people affected the property management of the tenanted estates in my constituency and elsewhere in London, where there is considerable dissatisfaction with the way in which they are managed and with the amount of money that is charged in return for work? Will he also discuss the carrying out of an audit on the amount of property that is held by the Church which is of great value? Instead of being sold to pay for the poor, it is being held to add to the wealth of the Church. That is against every principle that I can find in the Bible.
    Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman should know that the costs of the clergy's pensions in respect of service before 1998 are met by the Church Commissioners and are underwritten by their assets. Pensions for service from 1998 onwards are met from a separate fund, to which the dioceses make contributions from the money raised by parishes. The contribution rate is subject to actuarial review every three years.
    I am sure that the Church Commissioners will be interested in the hon. Gentleman's views on the wider question of Church property and how it should be used.
    Mr. John Bercow: Has the hon. Gentleman assessed the impact of the withdrawal of the
    652
    tax credit on dividends on the level of clergy pensions? Furthermore, what discussions has he had with the Church Commissioners about the circumstances in which clergymen are dismissed either on account of their parishioners' disapproval of their religious doctrine or on account of their personal behaviour? Has he discussed what impact that might have on their pension entitlements?
    Mr. Bell: As we say in the law courts, that was two questions rather than one. However, I shall seek to answer both as best as I can. I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Pensions paid for by the Church of England through the commissioners ceased for service carried out after 1998. From that time forth, they have been a matter for the dioceses.
    I am happy to take advice on the hon. Gentleman's wider question, and I shall reply in writing. If the answer is of sufficient interest, it may be placed in the Library.

    Church Repairs
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What progress has been made towards reducing VAT on church repairs; and if he will make a statement. [144813]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): As the hon. Lady knows, we welcomed the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last November. I know that the Church of England VAT group seeks to work with those agencies and others who will seek to implement the proposed reduction in VAT. This involves negotiation with the European Commission and the necessary steps should already have been taken to ensure that this matter is rapidly put in hand.
    Miss McIntosh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply and congratulate him on the support that he has lent to the campaign. Will he push it one stage further? Contrary to the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), in my view, no change in the law is required. We need to convince people that churches are indeed historic buildings and that it is more appropriate to reduce the VAT on repairs than to employ alternative methods of raising revenue, such as affixing mobile phone masts to church spires.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, although it may be too close to a general election for me to congratulate her again on her role in the campaign. I agree with her assessment, and it may well be possible for the European Commission, through the European Union, to use derogation to achieve the reduction from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. Hon. Members of all parties will work to achieve that outcome.

Point of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had a request from the Ministry of Defence to make a statement about the circumstances in which six civilians were killed on Saturday by a UK/US missile strike in Iraq, near the town of Samarra about 75 miles from Baghdad, and the consequent destruction of a cattle feed centre? What on earth are we up to, destroying cattle feed centres? Ought not the Ministry of Defence to explain the circumstances?
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order, but I have had no contact from the Department that he mentions.

BILLS PRESENTED
  ANALYSIS OF COSTS AND BENEFITS (NAFTA MEMBERSHIP)
  Mr. Michael Fabricant presented a Bill to establish a Parliamentary Commission to investigate and report to Parliament on the costs and the benefits of membership by the United Kingdom of the North American Free Trade Agreement: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 20 July, and to be printed [Bill 32].
  EXORCISM OF CHILDREN (PROHIBITION)
  Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Michael Clapham and Mr. Andrew Love presented a Bill to prohibit the practice of exorcism on young persons under the age of sixteen: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 9 March, and to be printed [Bill 33].
Orders of the Day

  Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill
  [Relevant documents: The Second Report of the Health Committee, Session 1999–2000, on The Tobacco Industry and the Health Risks of Smoking, HC 27-I, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 4905.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.32 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Government came to office with a commitment to ban tobacco advertising. We repeated that commitment in our tobacco White Paper "Smoking Kills" in December 1998. For almost four years, we have fought for this policy in the European Union, in the European courts and in the British courts. Today, we are honouring the commitments that we have made. The Bill will ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship in this country. It will do so to protect public health, to safeguard children and to reduce health inequalities.
  Smoking kills 120,000 people in this country every year. Of 1,000 20-year-olds who smoke regularly, one will be murdered; six will die in road accidents; 250 will die in middle age from smoking; and 250 more will be killed in later life by smoking.
  Smoking is the principal avoidable cause of early death in our country. It causes 85 per cent. of lung cancer deaths. It causes cancer of the mouth, the larynx, the oesophagus, the bladder, the kidneys, the stomach and the pancreas. It causes one in seven deaths from heart disease. It is one of the principal causes of the health gap between the richest and the poorest in our country.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the Secretary of State think that it would be a good idea to talk to doctors, coroners and others to try to ensure that the number of times that smoking is put on the death certificate is increased significantly from the current handful, so that it is a factor that relatives and friends cannot ignore?
  Mr. Milburn: That suggestion has much merit. It is often difficult to define the exact immediate cause of death, but there is overwhelming medical and scientific evidence to show that smoking is the principal cause of early death, and indeed of high levels of morbidity in many parts of the country and many sections of society. It is not an exaggeration to say that tobacco smoking is the biggest public health problem that the country faces. It is literally a public health disaster. I say to the hon. Gentleman in all candour that this Government, unlike the previous one, are determined to do something about it.
  Cancer and coronary heart disease are the United Kingdom's biggest killers. Health services that treat cancer and heart disease are the Government's top priorities. In the next year alone they will receive an extra

  655
  £450 million of investment. After decades of neglect, these services are finally getting the long overdue resources that they need.
  In a modern society, however, it is not enough just to treat disease once it takes hold. Prevention is better than cure. That is why, for the first time in our country, the Government have introduced a major programme of action to prevent and reduce deaths from smoking.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: From 1970 to 1997, the prevalence of smoking declined by nearly 40 per cent. Since then, it has begun to rise. The right hon. Gentleman will of course be aware that, until the accession of this Government, the relationship with the tobacco advertising industry was characterised largely by voluntary agreements. Does he not perceive that this Government's attempt to raise prices sharply has created a smuggling market that has led to an increase in the prevalence of smoking?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on this, as he is on so many other things. The overwhelming scientific opinion, not just in this country but internationally, is that an increase in tobacco duties produce a fall in consumption levels. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman disagrees, I shall explain in more detail.
  First, we have taken fiscal measures that have increased tobacco duties, because there is a char link between price levels and consumption levels. In the last Budget, the increase in tobacco duties—£450 million across the United Kingdom—was hypothecated for use in the national health service, a measure opposed by the Conservative party.
  Secondly, we have taken measutres to crack down on the illegal smuggling of cigarettes and other tobacco products into the UK. More than £200 million is being spent by the Government on tackling this illegal trade, which poses such a health hazard to our country.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Does not the Secretary of State recognise that all around the country, but particularly in areas where there are major ports or airports, it is clear from conversations with police, prosecuting authorities and Customs and Excise officials that smuggling is on the increase? One has only to spend time in any of our seaside resorts to see smuggled tobacco openly on sale. Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the Government's mismanagement of these issues has led to a huge increase in the supply of smuggled tobacco?
  Mr. Milburn: That is not the case. I know that, unusually for the Conservative party in Parliament, there is much support for a tax harmonisation measure across Europe for tobacco, and that the hon. Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) are in favour of it. The evidence does not suggest that that would work. The idea that the smuggling of tobacco products, particularly cigarettes, is a problem peculiar to the United Kingdom is at variance with the facts. Countries such as Spain and Italy, which most right hon. and hon. Members would regard as having low taxation in relative terms, also have an enormous smuggling problem.
  656
  The truth is that, precisely because of the action that the Government are taking—the 1,000 extra Customs and Excise officers and the £250 million-worth of investment that we are putting into tackling the problem of smuggling—the number of seizures of cigarettes is rising.
  Mr. John Bercow: Given what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about the desirability of raising excise duties on tobacco, how does he explain the fact that the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), now Paymaster General, said precisely the opposite on 23 January 1995 in the Finance Bill Committee?
  Mr. Milburn: I always think that it is better to judge right hon. and hon. Members by their deeds rather than their words, and that goes for the hon. Gentleman too. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General is as committed as I am to tackling smuggling. Indeed, she has been responsible, alongside my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for pioneering the extra investment to tackle what all right hon. and hon. Members agree is a very serious problem. It might be interesting if the hon. Gentleman told us whether his party supports the extra investment that the Government are putting into Customs and Excises services.
  Thirdly, we have invested £50 million in an education campaign to inform the public of the dangers of smoking. I believe that people have a right to choose to smoke. If that is what they want to do, they have a right to do it. They also have a right to know the implications for themselves and, more important, for others, of their decision to do so. For decades, tobacco companies have spent millions peddling the merits of smoking. Today, the Government are spending millions informing people of its dangers. That is the right priority.
  Mr. John McFall: My right hon. Friend mentions education. He will be aware that the tobacco industry advertises near schools, especially in poorer areas. Does he agree that the voluntary code, which suggests a distance of 200 m, is not good enough? A mandatory element is needed, so as to ensure that our young people are not attracted to smoking at such an early age.
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In a moment, I shall refer to the rather perverse nature of some advertising and to some of the perverse claims made by the tobacco industry about the strategies behind its advertising campaigns. From all the research that has been undertaken—not only in this country but abroad—there is little doubt that the denials of the tobacco industry about the need to recruit additional smokers, especially among young people, are untrue. As my hon. Friend points out, the voluntary code has not delivered the goods. Anyone who believes that the tobacco industry makes such an investment in tobacco advertising out of the goodness of its heart is naive in the extreme.
  Dr. Liam Fox: If a voluntary code is as unworkable as the Secretary of State says, why did it deliver a big reduction in consumption between 1971 and 1996?
  Mr. Milburn: There are various reasons for the reduction in consumption. That is a long-running trend—

  657
  not only in this country but in other developed nations. Sadly, that is not true in all parts of the world. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, developing countries face the prospect of the health problems associated with tobacco consumption in this country. I realise that he has personal views on the issue; indeed, he hinted at some of them in December when he so assiduously briefed the press about a U-turn in Conservative policy. Sadly, his views seem to have been overturned by his shadow Cabinet.
  Fourthly, alongside information to encourage people to give up, we are providing more help for smokers who want to give up. Seventy per cent. of smokers say that they want to quit. We are giving them more help than they have ever had to do so. There is a £50 million smoking cessation programme; and nicotine replacement therapy and the new product Zyban are both available on prescription. Specialist services are being made available, especially in the poorest areas. Extra help is offered for pregnant women to kick the habit. We now have the most comprehensive smoking cessation services anywhere in the world.
  These services, alongside other action that we are taking, will help us meet the tough targets that we have set to reduce the number of people who smoke and to cut deaths from smoking. Over the first three years of this programme we expect almost 100,000 smokers to have quit the habit.
  The next step in this comprehensive programme of action on smoking is to end tobacco sponsorship and advertising. The Bill is not anti-smoker any more than it is anti-sport or anti-choice. It is a tough but proportionate response to the marketing and promotion of the only legally available product that is guaranteed to kill one in two of its regular, long-term users.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: I shall give way once more, but then I shall press on.
  Mr. Leigh: Smoking is bad for us—I do not do it. Of course, excess alcohol is bad for us too. No one would ever accuse smoking of making people drive cars into innocent children, beat up their wives or run amok in society. There is thus an issue of moral equivalence. What is the Secretary of State going to do about alcohol? Does he not realise that once Governments start to make moral judgments about what is bad for us or about what should or should not be advertised, they may be on a slippery slope? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take steps to discourage alcohol advertising?
  Mr. Milburn: Alcohol in moderation is probably good for people—at least so I am advised; I do not think that smoking in moderation is good for people. Of course, there are difficult issues. The hon. Gentleman poses the matter as a moral choice. Yes, there are choices to be made, but it is a question of degree. The difference between alcohol and tobacco is that the consumption of tobacco products is guaranteed to do one thing to the hon. Gentleman and to others who decide to smoke—in the end, it will cause cancer, heart disease or other fatal
  658
  illnesses. Therefore, we, as a Government, have a responsibility to act. Frankly, the previous Government refused to do so because of the moral choices that they sought to make, and I think that they made the wrong moral choice.
  The Bill will ban overt advertising on billboards, posters and in the press. It will end, with limited exceptions, advertising in shops. Only advertising at the point of sale will be allowed. Direct marketing, too, will cease, stopping the tobacco industry bombarding people with promotional material, so undermining their attempts to give up. However, the Bill will not prevent members of the general public, journalists, writers and others from talking about tobacco products, representing them on stage or film, or commenting in the press about smoking and tobacco.
  Tobacco sponsorship of sports and other events will, however, end under the Bill. Tobacco companies will no longer be able to exploit sports and public events to glamorise their products and to get their logos emblazoned across our television screens. According to the Cancer Research Campaign, the impact of such sports sponsorship is deadly. It says that boys are twice as likely to become regular smokers if they are motor racing fans and that
  this is damning evidence that tobacco sponsorship encourages young boys to take up smoking.
  Mr. Eric Forth rose—
  Dr. Brian Iddon rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Dr. Iddon: Will the Bill ban brand stretching—by which I mean the us of brand names on items such as clothing and other goods for sale?
  Mr. Milburn: Yes, it will do that, but there is an important caveat. Frankly, on so-called brand stretching—or brand sharing—we cannot have our cake and eat it. We cannot urge the tobacco companies to diversify away from tobacco production, while doing our damnedest to prevent them from diversifying into legitimate new markets. That is precisely why, although we have included such a power in the Bill, we shall consult on the detailed provisions to ensure that the phenomenon of so-called brand stretching is properly dealt with in the new legal provisions. In Committee, hon. Members—perhaps including the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—will have an opportunity to discuss those issues in detail.
  Mr. Forth: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State; he has been most generous in giving way. Some time ago, he said that price plays a large part, so does he believe that forcing the tobacco companies to stop their heavy advertising expenditure will allow them to reduce the price of the product, which, in turn, may increase its consumption?
  Mr. Milburn: That will be a matter for the tobacco companies. [Interruption.] Amazingly enough, despite the fact that the right hon. Gentleman would like to portray the Government w being deeply interventionist in industry, or as representing the nanny state—as he

  659
  suggests from a sedentary position—it will be for the tobacco companies to determine such matters. However, our responsibility is to protect the public and, more importantly, children, from the adverse affects of tobacco advertising. That step should, and could, have been taken many years ago, given the evidence available to the previous Government.
  Mr. Richard Allan: The Secretary of State mentions the influence on children. The internet will increasingly be the medium by which they will receive advertising, and so on. The Bill properly makes provision for that, but there are problems with service providers regulating the internet's content. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will consult the Internet Service Providers Association and others who want to enforce the ban, to ensure that a proper system exists so that a designated authority can notify them of any problem and give them a reasonable time in which to respond?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. In considering how tobacco companies advertise today, it is important to contemplate how they might seek to advertise tomorrow. Clearly, internet trading is increasing. Overwhelmingly, that is good; it brings positive benefits for consumers. However, we have included a power the better to protect consumers in future from precisely the advertising and promotional activities that we know have been so detrimental to public health in the past. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department, through its officials, has already been in contact with internet service providers in this country to talk through some of the implications, and I think that there will be further consultation on the issue. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
  Tobacco companies will of course be free to make donations to sporting or artistic events, provided that those donations do not promote tobacco. We have always said that we do not want the ban on tobacco advertising to harm sports. Our intention remains to implement the policy and the timetable on sponsor ship agreed with our European partners in 1998. Subject to consultation, UK sports and events will have until July 2003 to find alternative sponsorship. Global sporting events will have until October 2006 to do the same provided, first, that they do not sign new contracts with tobacco companies and, secondly, that they phase out the current sponsorship that they receive. It is my intention to publish draft regulations for consultation on sponsorship during the passage of the Bill.
  We did not lightly make the commitment to end tobacco sponsorship or advertising. We estimate that tobacco companies spend about £100 million each year on advertising and promotion. The cosy fiction from the industry is that that has nothing to do with increasing consumption levels, still less with persuading children or young teenagers to start smoking. It is, the industry claims, only about maintaining brand loyalty. That story might be more convincing were it riot for the facts: the fact that, for decades, those self-same companies even denied that there is a link between cancer and cigarettes—indeed, some even promoted the life-enhancing qualities of tobacco consumption. Even today, some companies continue to deny that passive smoking; is dangerous, while others refuse to publish the additives that they put in their cigarettes.
  660
  Despite the history of denial, some facts are emerging from the companies. Most important of all is the fact that tobacco advertising is not neutral in its impact: it is all about recruiting more new smokers. As the former chairman of the board of one advertising company who has worked for tobacco firms so clearly put it:
  the cigarette industry has been artfully maintaining that cigarette advertising has nothing to do with total sales. This is complete and utter nonsense. I am always amused by the suggestion that advertising—a function that has been shown to increase consumption of virtually every other product—somehow miraculously fails to work for tobacco products.
  It is obvious enough to most people: every year, the tobacco industry in this country has to replace the 120,000 customers it kills through the consumption of its products. The target market are young smokers, including children. Why? Because fully 90 per cent. of smokers start before they are 20 years old.
  The polite fiction behind the tobacco industry's advertising campaigns has been exposed by recent revelations and research: for example, the revelation that Imperial's marketing plan for Canada in the late 1980s involved targeting
  men aged 12 to 17—
  I repeat, 12 to 17—and women "aged 12 to 34". Research has proved that the most commonly remembered brands even among children as young as 11 are those that are the most heavily advertised. Further research, published in the British Medical Journal in 1993, on Embassy Regal's "Reg" campaign concluded that it
  held most appeal for teenagers, particularly 14–15 year old smokers.
  There is little doubt among informed scientific and medical opinion that tobacco advertising and sponsorship is nothing less than a recruiting sergeant for children and young teenagers to start the tobacco habit, and it is precisely to safeguard these children and generations yet to come that we are introducing the ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship.
  Some have argued that it is unfair to ban the advertising of a legal product. As I said at the outset, I happen to believe that people have a right to choose to smoke. It can be argued that consumers make a choice to do that when they start smoking. However, because nicotine is so enormously addictive—according to the Royal College of Physicians—it is much harder for smokers to exercise an equivalent freedom of choice to give up smoking.
  Tobacco advertising and sponsorship are based on a big lie. They seek to get more people to smoke by conveying the idea that smoking is glamorous, when in fact it is dangerous, and that it enhances the quality of life, when in fact it serves to shorten people's lives.
  Sir Peter Emery: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was sorry to hear him say that he was not anti-smoking. I hope that many of those who speak in the debate are anti-smoking. Given how difficult it is to get legislation into the Government's schedule, is it not a pity that the Bill does not deal with passive smoking? There is no mention of that in the Bill or in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Equally, I have heard nothing about increasing the size of the warning on the tobacco pack. That should have been increased to 50 per cent. a long time ago.
  Mr. Milburn: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a long-standing campaigner on these issues, particularly

  661
  through his association with the National Asthma Campaign, and I know that he is concerned about the impact of the consumption of cigarettes, and tobacco products more generally, on young people and adults. I should like to set the right hon. Gentleman's mind at rest.
  First, we are taking action through Europe on advertising. We want to ensure that there is appropriate advertising to warn smokers of the health hazards that they face when they smoke cigarettes or other tobacco products. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that negotiations are going on between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament about the new directive that has been proposed.
  Secondly, on passive smoking, the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the initiatives that we have taken forward with the hospitality sector—with pubs, clubs and restaurants, through their public places charter. Providing that we can make the necessary inroads, I believe that that will make a real difference to passive smoking.
  Finally, the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Health and Safety Executive has just finished consulting on an approved code of practice dealing with the issues associated with passive smoking and its impact not just on consumers in pubs, clubs and restaurants, but on workers in those environments, who do not have the option of ducking out after an hour or so—they must remain there permanently. I hope that those measures will help to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we take extremely seriously the issues associated with passive smoking.
  Given the impact of smoking on public health, the Government have a responsibility to act. We have a duty to inform, so that if people want to smoke, they do so on an informed basis, not on the basis of advertising hype. The Government also owe a duty to the wider community, to help smokers give up and to protect children from ever starting up. That is precisely what the Bill seeks to do.
  The Opposition state in their amendment that there is insufficient evidence that the ban would reduce tobacco consumption. Surely even the Conservatives, with all their links with the tobacco industry, do not believe that tobacco firms spend £100 million a year on advertising and sponsorship out of the goodness of their hearts.
  Surely even the Conservatives accept that if tobacco advertising increases consumption, as everyone but the industry acknowledges that it does, less advertising should reduce it. That is supported by precisely the evidence for which they ask.
  As long ago as 1989, the US surgeon general concluded that
  the collective empirical, experiential and logical evidence makes it more likely than not that advertising and promotional activities do stimulate cigarette consumption.
  Two years later, research found that a 10 per cent. increase in advertising expenditure would lead to a 0.6 per cent. increase in consumption.
  More recently, in its report entitled "Curbing the Epidemic", the World Bank noted that
  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.
  662
  It predicted that a European Union-wide ban on tobacco advertising would reduce tobacco consumption by about 7 per cent.
  The most compelling evidence comes not from abroad, however, but from research undertaken in this country. The most compelling evidence comes from the research commissioned and published by the Department of Health when the Conservative party was in government. In 1992, the chief economic adviser to the Department of Health, Professor Clive Smee, examined evidence from Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand—countries where tobacco advertising had been banned—about the impact on consumption levels. The fact that consumption fell by between 4 and 9 per cent. in those countries led Smee to conclude:
  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 evidence is overwhelming. It all points one way, and it pointed in that direction when the Tories were in office and did precisely nothing about it. A ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship is a sensible public health measure which will reduce the burden on the health service, protect children and save lives.
  Mr. Nick Harvey: Did the Secretary of State note that the 1992 report to which he referred was found to be convincing by the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), who was Health Secretary at the time? She sent a memo to the then Prime Minister, stating that those findings had been made and that she believed them. Does the Secretary of State note the contrast between that and the stance that the Conservative party is taking today?
  Mr. Milburn: The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) will have to speak for herself. Sadly, she is not here today, although her proxy is. I believe that voices in the Conservative Government wanted to ban tobacco advertising and that there were arguments in that Government. However, those voices lost the argument not just once but on a succession of occasions.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: May I warn my right hon. Friend against the little bit of disinformation that has just been given by the Liberal Democrat party? In 1993, the Secretary of State for Health was not in favour of banning tobacco on the grounds of the information in the Smee report. However, three members of the Cabinet were, including a very senior member, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was then Deputy Prime Minister and believed that tobacco advertising should have been banned as early as that date.
  Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. He has campaigned long and hard on these issues and he is clearly privy to information that I do not have before me. I should be grateful to see it; perhaps he will allude to it in the speech which, I am sure, he will seek to make in a moment or two, should he catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. There is no doubt that there was an argument at the time in the Conservative Government and the Conservative party.
  Dr. Fox: That is a matter for debate.
  Mr. Milburn: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is allowed to debate. As he knows, policy making should always be

  663
  based on the facts. The facts help the case: they were overwhelming and were made clear by officials in the Department of Health. They were made clear time after time, but sadly, the Conservative Government chose to ignore them.
  Mr. Swayne rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman, and I am not going to give way again.
  The Conservative Government failed to act on the evidence then, and the Opposition refuse even to acknowledge the evidence now. The Conservatives failed to ban advertising and sponsorship in this country. What is more, they blocked a ban in other European countries too, and blocked it consistently between 1989 and 1997. It was not until the election of a new Labour Government that the block was removed.
  I was hopeful that the Conservative party would use the Bill to change its policy: to learn some lessons from its history—rather than simply living in it—by supporting the Bill today. Indeed, that is what the Conservative spokesman on health in the Scottish Parliament, Mary Scanlon, said would happen. She told the Scottish Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee on 10 January 2001
  My party also supports the Bill, the fact that it is UK-wide legislation, and the ban … should the Tories win the next general election, we will pursue the legislation.—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, Health and Community Care Committee, 10 January 2001; c.1347.]
  I know that it is difficult to find a policy on which all members agree in today's Conservative party. I know also that even a month is an eon in Tory party policy-making terms. However, even the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) seemed to be moving in the same direction as his Scottish colleague when, only last month, he told The Times that
  if it comes to a choice between public health and the tobacco industry I think public health would be a priority.
  The Conservative party's priority is plain for all to see. The hon. Gentleman's words were all spin and no delivery. Rather than learning from their mistakes, the Conservatives are about to repeat them. Their opposition to this Bill shows once again that, for them, the interests of public health always come a poor second to those of the tobacco industry. They claim that they want evidence, but the evidence is overwhelming. Smoking kills. Advertising and promotion of tobacco products imposes enormous costs on our health service and does enormous harm to the health of our nation. Its effects are felt most acutely in the poorest parts of our country.
  We estimate that, in this country alone, a reduction in smoking following an advertising ban such as that proposed could save the NHS up to £40 million a year on treating smoking-related diseases. More importantly, we estimate that 3,000 lives a year will be saved in the UK in the longer term.
  A ban on tobacco advertising is backed by a majority of the public. It is backed also by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians, the Cancer Research Campaign, Diabetes UK, the National Consumer Council and the Consumers Association.
  664
  Overwhelmingly, however, it is the evidence that commands support for the Bill. That evidence comes from the industry itself, in the scale and strategy of their advertising campaigns. It comes from across the globe, where bans have already served to significantly reduce smoking. It comes also from medicine and science, which have shown the damage done by smoking and nicotine addiction, as well as the contribution to starting smoking that is made by advertising.
  The Opposition ask for evidence. It is all around them, but they simply choose not to see it. It screams out to them from billboards across the country. Advertising works; smoking kills. Advertising smoking both works and kills. Today, we can begin to break that link. Where the previous Government failed to act, this Government will now do so. We will act to protect children; we will act to reduce smoking; we will act to save lives. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.8 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof: "That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill because there is insufficient evidence that its provisions would lead to a quantifiable reduction in tobacco consumption and yet they entail a serious restriction of freedom of expression; it contains no provisions to combat the increase in the prevalence of smoking amongst vulnerable population groups which is due to the growth in importation and sale of illegal tobacco products; nor does it address the difficulties of those sports which stand to lose financial support as a result of its provisions." This debate is not about whether smoking is a bad thing. It is a bad thing, as the statistics recited by the Secretary of State make clear. More than 30,000 lung cancer deaths alone are attributable to smoking, which accounts for two thirds of the difference in life expectancy between the richest and poorest people in the United Kingdom. Half of all teenagers who smoke will die from tobacco-related diseases. I do not need the statistics, because I worked as a junior doctor in a ward that specialised in respiratory diseases. I have watched people coughing up their blood supply because of their lung tumours and seen relatives suffer along with their loved ones. Closer to home, my grandfather died of lung cancer.
  I have no love for the tobacco companies, but that is not the point of this debate. While our policy aim must be to secure decreased consumption and prevalence of tobacco in a sustainable way, the debate is about whether the Bill is acceptable in itself and as part of the wider policy. We must, therefore, consider past and current trends in smoking. We must also consider whether a ban is acceptable in itself, whether a ban such as that proposed would work and what other measures are needed.
  The Secretary of State refused point blank to accept the facts pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). In some of his sillier comments about the previous Government's policy, he betrayed his lack of grasp of some of the issues. Until 1997, under the previous Government, the United Kingdom was doing well in reducing smoking through a combination of price mechanism, education and voluntary controls on advertising.
  Let me remind the Secretary of State of some of the changes that the Conservative Government introduced to advertising in 1994. Advertising expenditure on cigarette

  665
  brand posters was limited to 30 per cent. of that spent in 1980. Poster advertising was not permitted close to, or visible from, schools and educational establishments for young people under the age of 18. Advertisements were not allowed to appear in publications that were directed wholly or mainly at young people who were under 18. Advertising cigarettes or hand-rolling tobacco was prohibited in cinemas, on videocassettes for sale or hire, and in computer games, other computer equipment or software. Those were important steps forward, and I am sorry that the Secretary of State chose to deprecate them. There was a consensus in the country and among all parties that that was the correct way forward.
  We were one of the most successful countries in reducing smoking prevalence. Between 1971 and 1996, tobacco consumption was down by more than 37 per cent., and prevalence by more than 40 per cent. Yet between 1994 and 1998, cigarette advertising was in steep decline and the amount spent on main media advertising fell by 46 per cent. At the very least, there is no direct link between advertising and smoking.
  Since 1997, total United Kingdom tobacco consumption has increased. Since the Government have been in office, more people are smoking because an increasing number of people have access to cheap, smuggled cigarettes. Since 1996, the black market has flourished as annual tax increases of 3 and 5 per cent. above inflation mean that many consumers who refuse to pay £4.22 for a packet of 20 cigarettes have looked elsewhere. It is now estimated that more than 30 per cent. of the manufactured cigarettes and 80 per cent. of the hand-rolling tobacco smoked in this country avoid UK taxes. It is a classic case of over-taxation having the opposite effect on behaviour to that intended. Falling tax revenue is also likely to occur because we are in the declining part of the tax yield curve.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Why do tobacco companies advertise?
  Dr. Fox: Clearly, they advertise because there is a large market and each company wants to increase its share of it. Every 1 per cent. increase in market share is worth £120 million. As the Secretary of State said, it is a legal market, and it is entirely understandable that the companies want to increase their market share.
  By using a sensible mix of taxation policy, voluntary restriction on advertising and education, we were able to reduce smoking prevalence over a long period. Under this Government, it has increased. Despite the Secretary of State's words, more people are smoking, using different forms of tobacco and therefore putting their health at risk under this Government than were doing so under the previous Government.
  Mr. David Faber: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend. Does he seriously believe that cigarette companies spend vast amounts of money on advertising purely to persuade existing smokers—an ever-diminishing breed—to give up or change their brand and that they have no interest in persuading young people and non-smokers to join the smoking club?
  Dr. Fox: It is clear that cigarette companies do not want people to stop smoking; they want people to continue smoking and to use their products. I deeply
  666
  regret that; I do not believe that smoking should be encouraged. However. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that, under the Government whom he supported, we did extremely well. Smoking consumption was declining through a judicious mix of the three policy elements that I described. However, it is now increasing under a Government who tall, the talk, but do not introduce the policies to product the effect that they claim they wish to achieve. It is not sloganising that makes the difference, but a mixture of Government policy that achieves the desired result.
  Let me consider a point that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West mentioned: banning advertising of a legal product. Doubtless there is a strong libertarian argument that contends that when the Government make a product available without restriction to adults, commercial freedom should be respected and individuals should be able to choose between products. According to that argument, it would follow that advertising was a legitimate method of providing choice between those products.
  We already accept the need for restrictions on advertising. Indeed, the last Conservative Government introduced such restrictions. We need to ask in what circumstances we would move from voluntary restrictions to a ban in law, and I know that a genuine debate is taking place about that. Some people believe that there are no circumstances in which a ban could be contemplated. I have disagreed and still disagree with that absolutist view, as I made clear in my response to the Queen's Speech.
  Public health considerations must be taken into account, but I do not think it acceptable to ban the advertising of a legal product unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that such a ban will work, and unless no alternatives are available to achieve the same end. The ban must also be part of a comprehensive and workable strategy, and not simply a piece of tokenism.
  Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry to pose what I fear is a difficult question. Is my hon. Friend saying that, if the Bill is passed, we shall repeal it and return to voluntary restrictions?
  Dr. Fox: I have al ways felt that, just as I had to practise evidence-based medicine, we ought to practise evidence-based policy. We shall find out whether an advertising ban is effective in reducing consumption, because the Bill will become law—we must be realistic enough to recognise that—and we shall see whether it works. We may be proved wrong: we may see a dramatic reduction in consumption. I doubt it.
  All I can tell my right hon. Friend is that we shall need to look at the evidence as we find it at the time. I would not, in general, want to depart from evidence. If it is said that consumption has been reduced dramatically as a result of a ban, it is surely common sense to unpick the argument.
  Mr. Bercow: I am listening intently. Given that approximately 79 per cent. of the cost of a packet of 20 cigarettes goes directly to Treasury coffers, will my hon. Friend—before moving to the next stage of his argument—take us through, as it were, what he presumably sees as the green light that this policy gives smugglers?
  Dr. Fox: That will be the next stage of my argument. If my hon. Friend is patient, we shall get there.

  667
  In considering whether a ban would work, we should consider two groups in particular.
  Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: I shall give way in a moment. I know that the hon. Gentleman has a long track record on this issue.
  We need to consider the influence of advertising on smoking among children—which my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) mentioned—and also the increased number of women who now smoke. Those are both adverse trends. Research conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in 1998 failed to find any significant influence on the uptake of smoking by children. The characteristics most likely to be found in children who subsequently began to smoke were gender—girls smoked more than boys, and we know now that that is a continuing trend; having brothers and sisters who smoked; having parents who smoked; living with a single parent; not intending to stay in full-time education after six years; and having relatively newer negative views about smoking.
  The question of why girls are increasing their level of smoking is perplexing. There is evidence to suggest that a wrongly assumed effect on weight is one factor. I suggest that the image of waif-like supermodels having a smoke is far more likely to affect consumption in that key and vulnerable group than any brand advertising.
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman says that we shall need to see the evidence. I understand that last month, following his public comments about supporting a ban if he found enough evidence in favour of one, he was sent four bundles of independent evidence, including the Smee report, by the charity Action on Smoking and Health. Has he read them, and is he convinced by the arguments?
  Dr. Fox: This is not a simple yes-or-no case—[Interruption.] Yes of course I nave looked at the evidence sent to us.
  As I shall explain in a moment, I do not think that there is convincing evidence that, in the absence of a wider policy, an advertising ban would be as effective as the Government claim. Many of the studies show that an advertising ban can be successful only if it is fully supported by a fully comprehensive anti-smoking policy. Such a policy is, however, profoundly missing in the Government's overall policy. The need for such a policy is amply demonstrated by the single fact—no other is needed—that, under the Government's policy, smoking is increasing. It is as simple as that.
  I believe that both the current Government and previous Governments are at fault for failing to listen to the evidence of those who wanted to introduce new education policies. All the evidence has shown that a successful smoking education policy not only requires the right message, but that message must be applied for an adequate length of time and to the right age group. All the evidence suggests that there is no point in aiming an anti-smoking message based on mortality or morbidity at people; in their teens, as teenagers simply have no concept of their own mortality. Effective anti-smoking campaigns must be targeted at people in their mid to late-20s, who are far more receptive to such messages. No Government have taken on board that evidence, but hon. Members on both sides of the House should alter their policy on the matter.
  668
  In considering whether a ban would work, we must examine the Bill's list of exemptions. No offence is committed if the tobacco advertisement is in communications between those who are engaged in the sale of tobacco products; information sent to consumers who request it; a foreign publication whose principal market is not the United Kingdom; in-flight magazines on non-United Kingdom airlines; a place, or on a website, where tobacco products are offered for sale, as long as it is in accordance with regulations.
  There are quite a few exemptions. A shop that sells cigarettes will still be allowed to have cigarette advertisements in the most prominent position in the shop. Advertising within shops is some of the most potent advertising available. Moreover, who decides whether the United Kingdom or somewhere else is the principal market for a magazine? In Committee, we shall explore those technical details.
  In his intervention on the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) raised the issue of brand stretching, which is the use of tobacco brand names on non-tobacco merchandise or services—such as Marlboro clothing, Dunhill golf equipment and Camel boots. Is it true that the Department of Health has been in talks with cigarette manufacturers, and that an outline agreement has been reached whereby the Government will accept the continued legal availability of current brand-stretched products on the understanding that no new brand-stretched products will be legally available after implementation of the ban? I think that the House would like to know whether there is such an agreement. I wonder whether the Secretary of State's silence indicates his assent.
  If brand stretching is banned, how would the Government control the import of new lines of such products? Would individuals have to declare such products? What regulation would that require? How would such control ever allow diversification, which is the sensible opt-out route for the tobacco industry? If the Secretary of State was indicating a U-turn on the issue in his allusion to it in his speech, we would welcome it.
  We must deal with the real reasons why tobacco consumption is increasing in the United Kingdom. If, as I believe, hon. Members on both sides of the House are genuinely concerned with stopping smoking, we must examine the real reasons why more people are using tobacco now than were using it three years ago.
  In 1999, total consumption of hand-rolling tobacco was a cigarette equivalent of 21 billion, which is 100 per cent. more than the figure when the single market was introduced. No United Kingdom duty was paid on almost 80 per cent. of that consumption. The Government themselves estimate that, in 1999–2000, total cigarette consumption was about 76 billion, of which 13.6 billion—18 per cent—were smuggled. The Tobacco Manufacturers Association estimated the figure to be slightly higher than that, at some 20 per cent. However, on his own admission, between 1997 and 1999 the Chancellor lost potential tax revenue, excise duty and VAT totalling £5 billion owing to smuggling. Even if the tax take increases for each of the next three years—no one believes that that will happen—it will still be below the 1996–97 figures. So much for extra money for the NHS.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman listed what he seemed to point out were loopholes in, or exclusions from, the ban on

  669
  advertising. Can we look forward to Tory members of the Committee proposing to block all those loopholes, or was it just a lot of cant?
  Dr. Fox: I am pointing out the weaknesses in the Government's proposals. The Government said that they had to have a total ban, but then brought in lots of exemptions in different areas. We are questioning not the principle of bringing in a ban, but the workability of a ban, which is a separate issue. There are many issues that Committee members will want to explore.
  The Chancellor took two years to take steps to attempt to curb tobacco smuggling. Those steps were too little, too late in terms of the revenue lost. The Chancellor increased by £300 million over three years the resources available to Customs and Excise, compared with his own admitted tax loss of £5 billion.
  Tobacco consumption in the UK is rising because the real price of tobacco is falling. The risk of the Government's approach is that, by their mistaken policies on taxation and by getting on the wrong side of the tax yield curve, they will increase smuggling and depress the price. What is worse, a ban on advertising will result in a battle to retain market share that is based on further price cutting rather than on advertising. The Government may, from the best of intentions, get the opposite result to that which they seek.
  On 8 March 1998, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek)—a Labour Back Bencher—was quoted in the Sunday Mirror:
  Cheap cigarettes smuggled in from the Continent have caused a smoking epidemic among children, a Labour MP warned yesterday. Dr. John Marek said that the problem would worsen if Chancellor Gordon Brown increased the tax on tobacco in the Budget later this month.
  "The problem is like an iceberg, plain for all to see. But the Government is pretending it isn't there, even though it is costing the Treasury £800 million a year in lost duties."
  How right the hon. Gentleman was. Headlines such as "Ciggy pirates prey on kids" and "Rise in child smokers is blamed on bootleggers" are the result, if not the intention, of the Government's policies.
  Mr. Miller: I have been listening carefully to the difficult arguments being made by the hon. Gentleman. Why did smoking among young people go up during the last five years of the Tory Administration?
  Dr. Fox: It is a question of getting the balance right between price mechanisms, advertising and other elements. We got the balance right because consumption was going down. That is the ultimate test of the use of taxation in terms of public health: consumption fell all the way to 1996 and has gone up since 1997. That is the test. Is the policy working, or is it just rhetoric? I know that new Labour measures everything by the rhetoric, but what matters is whether consumption is going up or down. The policy is failing.
  We find it difficult to take lectures on moral rectitude from a Labour party that was exposed, in the run-up to the election, as having received substantial funding from Philip Morris for a business breakfast for the Prime Minister—as well as the whole sorry Ecclestone episode. The then Minister for Sport wrote:
  670
  The Government will publish a White Paper next year setting out measures to tackle tobacco consumption.
  After considering the issue of sponsorship in great depth the Government has proposed excluding Formula One from the scope of the proposed EU Directive on tobacco advertising and sponsorship which is currently being negotiated. We have always made clear that we are pursuing twin objectives of reducing smoking and of safeguarding sport from any effects arising from the loss of tobacco sponsorship.
  Bernie Ecclestone gave the Prime Minister £1 million. The Prime Minister gave Formula 1 an exemption. The Government's tobacco policy was up for sale, and it is not for them to lecture anyone else on the moral aspects of the issue.
  The arguments are complex, and there is a genuine debate to be held on the matter. However, the Government have failed to say why a ban is the only way forward. Unlike the previous Conservative Government, they have failed to implement a successful anti-smoking strategy. They have failed to reassure us that they can be taken at face value and that their policies are not up for sale. There is no doubt that smoking kills, or that it needs to be reduced. We are all agreed on that. However, tokenism is not enough. We need a proper comprehensive strategy that admits that the increase in tobacco consumption since Labour came into office has damaged health. We need the Government to accept their failures and get us back on the track to reduce smoking. Like most of the Government's public health policies, this one is a failure.
  4.31 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I think it is fair to say that the Tories had a parrot opening the debate today: there was nothing in the speech of the shadow Health Secretary, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) that could not happily have been said by a representative of the tobacco industry. That reflects the attitude of the Tory party.
  The hon. Gentleman' s suggestion that the Labour party's tobacco policy could be bought by financial sponsorship must entitle him to the Nobel prize for bare-faced cheek. For 18 years, the Tory party secretly received funds from the tobacco industry and its friends, and complied with everything that the industry asked for. For 18 years, the Tories refused to change the law to ban tobacco advertising. For 10 years, they and their German allies did everything they possibly could to block the European directive to ban tobacco advertising It was only when a Labour Government came into office that the possibility was reached of the blocking minority in the European Union being lifted. That was because we wanted a Europe-wide tobacco advertising ban, which would have been beneficial to everyone. Sadly, as a result of the activities of the tobacco industry and the Tory party's German allies, we lost the case in the European Court. I find it strange to think of the Tories all happily celebrating a European Court decision, because their Eurosceptics do not usually like decisions from that direction.
  Dr. Fox: During the 18 years of the previous Conservative Government, tobacco consumption fell in the United Kingdom. Over the three years of the present Government, including the period during which the right hon. Gentleman was Health Secretary, tobacco consumption has risen. Which one is the failure?
  Mr. Dobson: The major failure of the Tories was not to stop the rise in young people taking up tobacco smoking during the last few years of the Government of

  671
  the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). Hardly anyone takes up smoking when they are an adult; nearly all smokers start when they are children. There was a large increase in the number of children smoking under the Government of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon. That fed in to the present problem, as the hon. Gentleman ought to understand, because those people are now adults. I agree that the number of children smoking is still increasing, and that is why we need to target our efforts on them.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not. I do not have a great deal of time.
  The Tory party received money for 18 years from the tobacco industry and its friends, and agreed to do everything that the industry asked: to lay off it and not make life difficult for it. The Tories certainly did that. I suppose that we should not expect anything else from a party that recently accepted £5 million from someone who now wants to decide on its European policy and have a veto on who should become its party leader.
  Everybody, even the Opposition, recognises the immense damage that tobacco smoking does. The tobacco industry is the only industry in the world that sells a product that will result in the death of half of those who follow the maker's instructions. We read in today's newspapers that some people at Railtrack and Balfour Beatty may be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter over the Hatfield train accident. I am sure that none of them thought that they were running a dangerous railway or knowingly did so. None of them would have expected passengers to be killed. However, the people who run the tobacco industry know that their customers will die, and we ought to introduce some moral equivalence into the debate.
  The people who run the tobacco industry kill 120,000 of their customers every year. Consequently, they have to recruit another 120,000 to catch up. That gives the lie to the ridiculous suggestion that, it some way, tobacco advertising is all about competition between brands. The idea that the tobacco industry spends tens of millions of pounds on advertising, but not to increase sales, is absurd. No one could believe that—apart, apparently, from those who propagandise on behalf of the tobacco industry, which sadly includes Tory Front Benchers. We must give the lie to that idea.
  The other lie that the tobacco industry constantly peddles is that it does not target its marketing effort on children. Of course it does, because children are virtually the only people who take up smoking. Hardly anybody takes up smoking as an adult, so the tobacco industry—knowingly and malignantly—has attempted to "catch 'em young." Unless it is restrained, it will do everything it can, in any way it can, to do that.
  Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for all the efforts that he made as Secretary of State to deal with precisely those issues. We have repeatedly heard from Conservative Front Benclicrs about tobacco consumption levels, but the July 2000 edition of the statistical bulletin "National Statistics" shows that the overall prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults
  672
  aged 16 and over was 28 per cent. in 1992 and 28 per cent. in 1996. By 1998, that figure had not increased, but had fallen to 27 per cent. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that, and on the fact that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. With respect to the Secretary of State, that is a very long intervention.
  Mr. Dobson: As one would expect from my right hon. Friend, his intervention was singularly well informed—and rather better informed than the statements of his opposite number, in the sense that it actually contained some facts. Over the years, I have learned not to accept a single proposition made by Conservative Members unless it has been seriously checked. Their propositions are usually wrong. I once foolishly accepted something that one of them said; it turned out to be terribly embarrassing.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is it not a fact that, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State, about 3,000 people a week were giving up smoking for the last time—while alive, that is? Is that level of cessation not rather higher than his successor's stated target?
  Mr. Dobson: I did not catch what my right hon. Friend said about targets. As far as I remember, when writing the tobacco White Paper, we stretched the targets out and made them tougher. Although we need to improve on past performance, improvements have been made and it would be foolish not to accept that.
  However the marketing effort of those who run the tobacco industry is made—through advertising or by other means—it is targeted on young people. That is one reason why we have to introduce the ban as quickly as possible. It will not do everything, but it will help to reduce the incidence of people who take up smoking. It is vital to include sponsorship of sport in the ban because it is clear that it is targeted on sports that will attract the attention and approbation of young people, in particular young men.
  I utterly deplore the behaviour of some parts of our fashion industry—a matter to which the hon. Member for Woodspring referred—which have encouraged models who do not smoke at other times to parade on the catwalk smoking. We need to ask whether the tobacco industry is financing some of the organisations involved.
  Mr. John Greenway: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned sponsorship of sport. If there is one thing that we have learned from the debate, it is that smoking among girls and young women is increasing. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that the sponsorship of darts by Embassy cigarettes encourages young women to smoke?
  Mr. Dobson: I am a bit on the chubby side myself, but I admit that the idea of fat guys hurling darts is not likely to provoke many young girls to take up smoking, and that there are other factors at work. Nevertheless, the tobacco industry has not given up on getting boys to smoke. It is still making a huge effort to ensure that more boys than girls smoke. We have to try to reduce smoking by everyone.
  The advertising ban has to be part of a wider effort. I know that some people, including, perhaps, some of my colleagues, do not agree, but we tend to assume that

  673
  teenagers have heard of all the horrors that can result from smoking because we ourselves have heard them. I doubt whether they have. I do not think that those aged 10 to 15, 16 or 17 have been exposed to a substantial campaign on the health dangers of smoking, as people of my age and others were. We need to put more effort into that. It is not true that young people know and completely discount the dangers, although I accept that they may discount them to an extent because people of that age do not think that they are ever going to die. We must publicise the dangers in a better and more effective way.
  We also need to emphasise the danger to others. Many people are worried about the impact of smoking on their fellows. Emphasising the danger of secondary smoking would be useful. We must step up the substantial effort that is being made to get people off their addiction to tobacco by building on the special effort which was started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell) when she was Minister for Public Health and which is being continued by Ministers currently at the Department of Health.
  If we need to form a judgment about the nature of the tobacco industry, we should remember that, not so long ago, it was denying that tobacco was addictive. Indeed, some of the industry still denies that. It is not long since the industry was denying that smoking was bad for people's health. As I understand it, some people still deny that. Given those recent denials and what we know about the industry's commitment to keeping the tobacco industry going, all we are doing is catching up with the people who sell death to half their customers.
  We should try to get ahead of the game. We need to be informed about what the tobacco industry plans for its next effort to build up the smoke force. We therefore need to consider carefully the possibility of requiring the tobacco industry to disclose to the Department of Health all its market and technical research.
  We know from published material that 20 years ago the industry was preparing for the possibility that tobacco advertising might be banned. What is the industry planning now? The people of this country are entitled to know what it is planning, so that we can plan to counter it.
  We certainly know that the industry plans to sell more and more cigarettes in the third world. In countries where people are already dying from AIDS, malaria and a host of other diseases and from poverty, the tobacco industry—which is virtually all located in the most prosperous parts of the world—wants to sell cigarettes to the most impoverished people so that even more of them will die prematurely. That is a deplorable position for the directors of the tobacco companies to take.
  Mr. Chope: Is the right hon. Gentleman attacking his own supporters and many others who live in Southampton and work for British American Tobacco? It is a proud company, which exports almost all its products and employs thousands of people in this country. Is he attacking the workers of that company for being involved in the industry?
  Mr. Dobson: No, not at all. The tobacco industry claims it can diversify into other spheres, and I want it to do so. Perhaps it could use its marketing skills to sell
  674
  other products. It obviously has great marketing skills, because it has done well in the circumstances that it has faced. I want it to take the opportunity to provide alternative jobs so that people in Southampton work not on something that kills half the company's customers but on something that is good for its customers. I suspect that, provided that they were guaranteed a job, many workers would prefer to do that.
  Let us not pretend that the tobacco industry's bosses have ever been concerned about the work force who manufacture cigarettes. Sales have not gone down very much, but the number of people working in the industry has plummeted, because it has mechanised so much. That was the best way of keeping cigarettes cheap. We should not suggest that the management of the tobacco industry are in any way concerned about the people who work in it.
  The Government's proposal is a big step forward. I regret that the European directive was delayed and then stopped, but that is all the more reason for getting on with this Bill. I remind the House that we are debating a product that kills half the people who take up using it. It is a serious matter and we need a serious measure to tackle it. This is a serious Bill, and I commend my right hon. Friend and his colleagues for introducing it.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Nick Harvey: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I echo the words with which he concluded his remarks. This is a serious subject, since the effect of smoking on a number of health conditions should not be underestimated. The most obvious of those conditions is cancer, but there can be no doubt that smoking also has a profound impact on cardiac health, diabetes and a variety of other conditions.
  Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly welcome the Bill's introduction. Our on regret is that the Government are giving effect to their 1997 election pledge to ban tobacco advertising only in the fourth Session of the Parliament. I accept that the first strategy failed when the European directive ran into a successful legal challenge. Although the Ecclestone affair will not have impacted on the Department's enthusiasm to deal with this matter, it may have caused the Government some embarrassment and subdued their business managers' appetite for putting the issue into the public eye again. In view of that, I appreciate all the more the fact that we are now dealing with a Bill that will make a significant contribution to reducing smoking levels.
  How confident are the Government that the Bill can withstand any subsequent legal challenge? The proposition that it might infringe the principles of free speech and violate article 10 of the European convention is as unattractive as it is unconvincing, not least because there are provisions in the convention giving an exemption when issues of health promotion come into play. Advertisers of other products do not enjoy unfettered freedom of expression, and it is entirely right for Parliament to impose such limits as it sees fit. It will be an interesting spectacle to see free marketeers in the tobacco companies, and the r friends in certain quarters on the Conservative Benches, using European measures to curb the right of the United Kingdom Parliament to do as it sees fit.
  We have already heard considerable rehearsal of the tobacco industry's argument that its advertising does not increase consumption or encourage people to take up

  675
  smoking. The industry maintains that advertising is aimed at promoting brand loyalty, persuading people to switch brands or launching new brands. The Secretary of State referred to evidence given by a former chairman of an advertising company that had multi-million dollar tobacco accounts. It is worth dwelling on that gentleman's remarks. He said that that argument was "complete and utter nonsense."
  Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that making cigarettes is a relatively cheap process, with little economy of scale. It is very easy for new entrants to get into the market. That is prevented by creating a marketing economy of scale, with huge expenditure on brand advertising.
  Mr. Harvey: That may very well be true, but it is not a matter of much importance. The fact is that too many cigarettes are being consumed, and it is clear that the companies' advertising efforts are aimed at expanding the market.
  Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?
  Mr. Harvey: No, because if the hon. Gentleman's comment is no more helpful than the previous one, it will not get us anywhere.
  Mr. Swayne: It is much more helpful.
  Mr. Harvey: I am disinclined to believe that.
  The former chairman of the American advertising agency said:
  I am always amused by the suggestion that advertising, a function that has been shown to increase the consumption of virtually every other product, somehow miraculously fails to work for tobacco.
  He is right: the argument is completely ludicrous.
  Mr. Swayne: What about toothpaste?
  Mr. Harvey: Advertising of all products is designed both to compete with other brands for customers within an existing market and to expand the market.
  In 1992, the Department of Health's chief economic adviser carried out a comprehensive study of all the evidence, and concluded:
  The balance of evidence thus supports the conclusion that advertising does have a positive effect on consumption.

  He studied the impact of advertising bans that had been imposed elsewhere, and concluded:
  In each case the banning of advertising was followed by a fall in smoking on a scale which cannot be reasonably attributed to other factors.
  As I said earlier, that argument was accepted by the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) I did not say that she reached the conclusion that she ought to have reached—that there should he a ban—because, regrettably, she did not. My point was that it was not a study carried out by an obscure official that had gained no credence. The then Secretary of State clearly accepted the burden of the finding. Thus it was that she sent a memo to the Prime Minister saying that
  tobacco advertising does affect total consumption
  676
  and that bans had a "useful effect". Indeed, the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—both in the Cabinet at the time—even went as far as to send a memorandum arguing that a ban was "the credible way forward". Regrettably, as has been said, that approach did not win the day in the Conservative party at the time. However, at least these arguments were being advanced, and being advanced by people in a prominent position in the Cabinet.
  What a far cry from today's Conservative party, which, to all intents and purposes, is opposing the Bill when—as I read in the Sunday newspapers—at least five of its Front-Benchers have accepted perks and hospitality from tobacco firms, including invitations to prestigious sporting events, during the lifetime of this Parliament. The evidence that the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey accepted back in 1993 was right, as were the efforts of senior Cabinet members. It would be more to the Conservative party's credit if it were to accept that logic now.
  Of course tobacco advertising increases overall consumption. What other industry has as urgent a need to recruit new customers as one that kills 120,000 of its existing customers each year—about 330 every day—through the use of its product?
  An advertising ban means that manufacturers cannot compete for customers on the basis of promotion. The argument goes that that will leave them only one option—to compete more vigorously on price. Needless to say, price is one of the most significant factors in consumption levels. The Bill's success depends largely on the elasticity of demand in the medium to long term, and the willingness of the manufacturers to trim their prices.
  Will manufacturers respond to the ban by lowering prices, as they have done in some other countries? If the same happens here, it is to be hoped that the Government of the day in Britain, of whatever colour, will not hesitate to step in with higher levels of tax and duty and redouble their efforts on smuggling.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to lose his place, but I am sure that he will find it again easily. If the proportion of teenagers who occasionally, if not regularly, use illegal drugs—when their prices are higher and there is no advertising—is roughly the same as those taking up cigarettes as their main tobacco product, are the lessons to be learned to do with fashion rather than with advertising and possibly even price? Price and advertising must play some part, but the greatest effect on teenagers must surely be peer pressure.
  Mr. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point when he says that fashion has a great deal to do with this subject. Surely it is almost the raison d'être of a great part of the advertising industry to cultivate an idea of fashion. Although teenagers adopt fads and trends to do with all sorts of things that are not commercially advertised, I do not believe that the advertising of products plays no part in determining fashions. It seems self-evident that advertising plays a huge role in doing just that.
  The Government ought to be pursuing an agreement for a global ban. I was interested in the point made by the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, that so many

  677
  cigarettes are exported to developing countries. A few years ago, when I was travelling on the upper deck of a double-decker bus in Jakarta, I struggled to determine whether the pollution was greater outside or inside the bus. As I looked around at my fellow passengers, I noticed that I was the only person on the entire upper deck of the bus not smoking a cigarette. The fact is that, as the going has got tougher in the developed world markets, the tobacco industry is devoting more of its efforts to selling into developing countries.
  There is definitely a need for international effort. Pictures of sporting events taking place in countries with no tobacco advertising ban in place will continue to be transmitted to this country. Of 17 venues for Formula 1 racing, only two countries—the United Kingdom, with its current voluntary agreement, and France—prohibit tobacco advertising. So 15 of the 17 venues will continue to carry sponsorship. A global agreement on sporting sponsorship, reached at the World Health Organisation, would have the acceptance of the FIA—the Fédération Internationale de 1'Automobile—which will, in any case, phase out tobacco sponsorship of Formula 1 and world rally championships by the end of 2006. That might be achieved sooner if we engaged in negotiations with the FIA; otherwise, it will be at least six years before exposure to such motor-racing sponsorship is ended.
  Without concerted efforts to create an international agreement, it will take much longer to end other types of sporting sponsorship. At the world health assembly, 191 countries agreed to commence negotiations on the framework convention on tobacco control. That offers encouragement for an international effort.
  I am concerned about how the Secretary of State and Ministers with responsibility for Scottish matters will interpret advertising at the point of sale. Shops and kiosks are allowed to display products, which they typically do around the till. Will guidelines cover the precise size and location of displays? The lesson from New Zealand and elsewhere is that manufacturers exploit lax regulations. Price lists are blown up to a huge size and are displayed beside counters. Perspex counters are packed with cigarette packets. Shops and kiosks use lighting to display and highlight brand colours.
  We need to be clear about what the regulations will mean for direct mailing; manufacturers will test the rules unless they are made explicit. Will a tobacco company be able to mail people whose names are on lists bought from other companies? In many cases, forms and surveys warn that information will be passed on to interested parties unless a box is ticked. If the box is not ticked, will that be allowed to be seen as an expression of interest in a particular brand? If the brand is mentioned in the box caveat—meaning, "We will pass this information on to a particular tobacco company if you do not tick this box"—how will that work under the regulations? The detail is most important.
  Under the proposals, manufacturing companies will be able to sponsor events as long as they do not use the name of their brand. However, if cigarette companies can increase consumers' awareness of their products, will not that enable manufacturers to promote their brands more effectively? If, for example, the name of the company is the same as that of its brand, will it still be able to sponsor an event? As we have already heard, certain tobacco
  678
  companies use their brand name for completely different products. It will be important to consider those developments.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) mentioned websites. They should be subject to close regulation, although there is good will. We should ensure that such regulation is effective.
  I hope that the Government's estimate that the advertising ban could reduce tobacco consumption by 2 or 3 per cent. will prove to be correct—indeed, I hope that consumption will fall further than that. Such a worthwhile advance would fully justify the legislation. If the UK tobacco trade experienced a fall in turnover of £300 million a yeas—a drop in its profits of about £20 million a year—that would be welcome, especially if there was a concomitant saving for the national health service of between £20 million and £40 million a year.
  No one knows exactly what the effects of a ban would be. When the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), was challenged by one of his colleagues, he said that, in future, the Conservative view would be evidence-based and that the test would be whether a ban had brought about a dramatic fall in tobacco consumption
  Mr. Chope: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the letter to Private Eye from Mr. Michael Stewart, who, having analysed tobacco consumption in the 22 countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development from 1964 to 1990 in order to estimate the effect of advertising bans in six of those countries, concluded that the consumption of tobacco had increased by 4 per cent as a result?
  Mr. Harvey: I do not understand how consumption could have increased "as a result." I would take issue with the use of the phrase There has certainly been an increase around the world, and such things have followed different trends and patterns at various times. I acknowledge that none of us knows exactly what the impact will be but, unlike the Conservative spokesman, I do not believe that the test should be a dramatic decrease in smoking; even a modest decrease would mean that the Bill had been a price well worth paying.
  If only a few lives were saved or a few families were spared the misery of seeing one of their loved ones die a horrible, lingering death, it would be worth while. If people avoided hiving to undergo expensive and particularly nasty treatments and if that resulted in only a small saving to the national health service, it would be worth while. The suggestion is that the poor tobacco companies will have their freedom of expression curtailed, but that is a small price to pay, even if only a few lives can be saved and just a little misery avoided.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: It is good to speak in the House once again and to see my old friends and comrades who have campaigned on this issue and proposed similar legislation over the years. It is also good to see their labours coming to fruition.
  I hope that you will not be upset, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I digress slightly. This important Bill deals with a totally devolved matter—the advertising of tobacco products—yet it is being fully handled by this Parliament,

  679
  and rightly and properly, too. It is being handled under the convention proposed in the other place by Lord Sewel. He gave an undertaking that legislation on devolved matters would be dealt with by this Parliament only after the approval of the devolved Assemblies. That is a splendid, courteous and decent way to deal with such matters, and everyone in this Parliament is to be congratulated on doing so now, as we will benefit from the fact that we will not have our time taken up with such complex legislation. When people complained about the devolved Assemblies, they used to ask whether we would have two Bills a year. It is clear to me now that Scottish legislation was piggy-backed on to an immense number of Bills, so it is good that the Sewel mechanism is still available to us and that we are given powers under it.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: Surely all Scottish law has to comply with the European convention on human rights. One of the reasons why the Scottish Parliament decided not to introduce its own ban—with which many people would agree—was that such an Act was considered to be non-compliant with the convention and, therefore, had to be introduced via Westminster.
  Mr. Galbraith: No, that had absolutely nothing to do with it. It was all to do with the fact that advertising does not respect boundaries; it does not suddenly stop when one crosses a boundary. As with many matters, it was agreed that it was important to have exactly the same regime on both sides of the border, with minor variations. That is correct and appropriate for many matters. Something similar is happening in another place tonight on stem cell research—a non-devolved matter, provisions on which must apply to both areas. Even when such matters are devolved, it may be necessary that we act together, and I am grateful to everyone for doing so now.
  I am particularly pleased to speak tonight because, as a Scottish Office Minister, I led the United Kingdom delegation in the European Union when the directive that we thought would solve the problem was passed. The matter was easily and speedily dealt with when the blocking efforts of the Conservative party and its cronies were ended. The directive went through on the nod, and we thought that our dreams had been realised and everything had been sewn up. Unfortunately, that did not prove to be the case. I am grateful to the Government for bringing the matter before us once again.
  In my speeches, especially those on such matters, I usually like to go into detail and cite the scientific evidence and facts. However, my guns have been spiked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who dealt at some length with the detailed facts.
  When we are at a loss for something to say, we sometimes fall back on moral outrage and rhetoric about how bad, antisocial and deplorable smoking is and how we must stop it. I feel some emotion in that respect because, as one who has had a lung transplant and has grossly impaired lung function, it pains me greatly to see those who should have normal lung function damaging it. However, what really annoys me is the tobacco companies trying to convince people that they should damage their lungs, impair their lung function and reduce their quality of life. That is as close as I come to any expression of moral outrage about the subject.
  We have heard the figures concerning the problems and costs of smoking and the number of people in this country who die each year from smoking—100,000, and 10,000
  680
  of those live in Scotland—so there is no need for me to repeat them. However, in the context of public health, when we are considering how to prevent an individual from doing something and thereby increase his life expectancy, we have to remember that the issues are multi-faceted and that we have to use many different tools.
  Many of the things we do that harm our health and that we want to stop are related to our position in society—in other words, social class predetermines people's actions. That is often related to wealth and various other factors. We should constantly remind ourselves that, when dealing with prevention and promotion, the most important thing we can do is to improve an individual's status, well-being and economic position in life.
  When people ask me how much we have spent on public health promotion, I am always sure to include the £5 billion that has been spent on the new deal. Giving someone a job, providing structure, and giving them a stake and a future in society are all about health promotion, because they give that individual an interest in society and in living and fighting for the future, and a reason not to indulge in harmful and health-damaging practices such as smoking and other forms of abuse.
  It is necessary but not sufficient to address that important aspect of the problem: even if we do all that, we still have a job to do in many other respects. We know that many people want to give up smoking and that many try; the number of those who want to continue to smoke is limited. As the Conservative spokesman said, giving up must be part of a comprehensive anti-smoking strategy. We have such a strategy in place, but people still continue to smoke or take up the habit.
  The next line of attack comes under the broad heading of education and knowledge—setting out the facts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) talked about that, but the Opposition decried such efforts, saying that no good is done by talking about mortality or morbidity, and that until the Government get their policy right, we will make no inroads into the problem. That underestimates the value of making clear to people the outcomes of smoking, especially when that is done in connection with raising people's status in society and making them realise that they have a future. Such efforts are important, although their impact is to some extent limited—we all know those who work with people who are dying, whose legs are falling off, who are suffering heart attacks or cancer, but who continue to smoke themselves.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) says that it is important to get the right message to the right group of people, so that we do not talk to them about things that are not part of their experience. The hon. Gentleman comes from Scotland, so I shall be parochial for a moment and suggest that he watches the recent anti-smoking advertising campaign used by the Health Education Board for Scotland: it is a pop video showing young women smoking and men running away from them. HEBS has an excellent track record in getting its advertising absolutely right, and I commend to every hon. Member the HEBS anti-smoking campaign for young women.
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I, in return, invite him to look at some extremely effective advertising from the

  681
  United States, which was not allowed in this country, and which shows the impact of smoking on young men? Smoking can lead to impotence, which is, of course, a turn-off to a female audience. I am sure that we can trade many more examples.
  Mr. Galbraith: Thank goodness I never smoked then, eh?
  Mr. John Maxton: I did.
  Mr. Galbraith: Well, I know what my hon. Friend's problem is. A previous hon. Member, Mr. Jerry Hayes, has commented on these matters in the past, so there is no need for me to add to that. Nevertheless, I thank the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) for the advice, which I shall pass on to all my friends.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the HEBS campaign, which is indeed excellent, but is not one of the problems—the hon. Gentleman may be coming on to this—the fact that for every million pounds that HEBS spends, it is out-spent tenfold by the tobacco companies trying to get the opposite message across?
  Mr. Galbraith: I agree. That has been a perennial problem. We will not be able to match the value of the tobacco companies' advertising campaigns, although we can match them in other ways.
  I mention the HEBS campaign to contradict what the hon. Member for Woodspring said about the failure to get the message right. HEBS always gets it right—for example, in its "Think about it" campaign. Telling people not to do something, on its own, is not necessarily valuable. I once went round groups of younger people in various parts of Scotland, asking them about drugs and smoking. I asked them what would make them start taking drugs, and they replied, "You telling me not to." That provided some useful discipline.
  The next issue is the price escalator. All parties agree that it has an effect. The hon. Member for Woodspring suggested that when the price of cigarettes fell in real terms, an increase in smoking followed. Whether he is right or wrong, price is clearly an important factor.
  The contentious point is the value of advertising. The hon. Gentleman made a silly point when he asked whether smoking increases or decreases as a result of advertising. He was never known as an academic giant at university, and the reasons for that are obvious from that comment.
  The question is not whether smoking increases or declines, as there are variations and trends. The question is whether the situation would be different without advertising—whether any increase would be smaller or whether any fall would be greater without advertising. That is the evidence that should be sought. The relationship is not straightforward.
  Without conducting difficult control trials, the matter is difficult to prove. We should not look for one final silver bullet that would resolve the issue, as suggested by the hon. Member for—is it Wood Green? [HON. MEMBERS: "Woodspring."] I knew that it was something like that: thick, wood.
  682
  We should begin by collecting other information, all of which affects the evidence. Rarely in science does one piece of information provide the final proof. Different methodologies, techniques, populations and interventions are used, and when they all begin to point towards a conclusive proof, that is taken as evidence. We all know that nothing can ever be proven absolutely by science, other than analytical factors. Everything is an attempt at falsification, but the more evidence that is collected and the more it points to one factor, the more useful the exercise.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. We all know that smoking is addictive. I believe that we are going too far in trying to stop people smoking. I understand that Mr. Branson has announced a ban on smoking on Virgin trains, which will affect my constituents and those of my hon. Friend. Does my hon. Friend think it is fair for companies to be able to stop people smoking for six or seven hours, which is the length of the journey at present? [Hon. Members: You're joking.] All right, I am being generous to Virgin.
  I agree completely that there should be a ban on advertising and a ban on smoking on public transport. However, as for long-distance travel, we must accept that people are addicted and should make facilities available for them, so long as that does not affect any other passenger.
  Mr. Galbraith: I am sorry, but I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. However, I do not want to give my "I'm an anti-smoking fascist" speech tonight, although I believe in all of it. Over the years, I have found it offensive to be in carriages with people who are smoking. If a miner can go down a mine for eight to 10 hours and not smoke, surely someone can be stuck on a train or plane and not smoke.
  Mr. Maxton: Is my hon. Friend aware that British Airways and, increasingly, other airlines have no-smoking policies? Although the previous Speaker, Lady Boothroyd, was furious with British Airways when she flew to Australia on a 12-hour flight and was not allowed to light a cigarette for the whole journey, most people can do it without any bother at all.
  Mr. Galbraith: Splendid lady, Lady Boothroyd. I liked her very much and I am sorry if she was discomfited, but such measures are important and necessary.
  I believe that we should set an example in the House by stopping smoking in the Tea Room and similar areas—[Interruption.] I knew that that would get some support. I am not in for a cheap laugh but, now and again, it happens: there we are.
  Mr. Barron: Earlier, my hon. Friend mentioned miners—I have had personal experience regarding miners—working underground for long hours without access to their cigarettes. People took snuff and chewed tobacco at that time as a way of getting nicotine into the system. Nowadays, however, we have much cleaner delivery systems, such as nicotine patches and chewing gum, for people who are bothered by their addiction on long-haul flights and even long train journeys.
  Mr. Galbraith: I look forward to the day when I am on a plane, and officials and stewardesses come round and ask if I want a whisky or a nicotine patch.

  683
  To conclude, I said that most of the evidence in favour of a ban had already been given to the House by the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Woodspring made claims against that evidence and said that smoking had increased in recent years, so there was a great calumny by the Labour party. I have just been looking at the figures from the statistical bulletin for July 2000 which start in 1978 and, I accept, only go up to 1998. When one looks at the figures, one sees a variation over the years—they go up and down a bit. If anything, the overall figures dropped in absolute terms by 1 per cent. from 1996 to 1998. That is based on a data collection base of 12,295 and sampling within that, so we may wonder just how significant or otherwise that drop is.
  When one looks at the age cohorts within those statistics, one sees that the reduction continues year after year for the over-35s, all the way from 1978 onwards. However, presumably because a lot of smokers die, the extent of that reduction decreases. When one looks at groups in which people take up smoking—the 16 to 19-year-olds and 20 to 24-year-olds—one sees a significant increase, all the way from 1992 onwards. That increase has not occurred only since the Labour Government came to power, so the great calumny does not hold, and the situation cannot explained only by the fact that cigarettes are cheaper. Every year since 1992, there has been an increase, and the largest and most significant increases, we all agree, are in the female population.
  New people are taking up cigarettes. It is no good blaming that on the fact that cigarettes are cheaper. From the available evidence, there is no question but that advertising has an effect, and the group on which it has that effect consists of young men and—because of the nature of the advertising—especially young women. Although nothing can be proved absolutely, we would be failing in our duty if we did not recognise the effect that advertising has on the consumption of cigarettes, and especially their uptake. As everyone has said, advertising is designed to encourage uptake. It is not about changing brands, but about encouraging an increased uptake at a rate sufficient to offset those who give up or die. The House would be failing in its duty if it did not take some measures to try to alleviate that problem, along with the others. That is why I hope that all hon. Members will support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
  5.25 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: I have always believed that when one has any sort of interest in the subject that is being debated, one should declare it I have no financial interest whatever in tobacco, but I have been chairman of the National Asthma Campaign for 12 years and am also chairman of the House of Commons all-party asthma group. As I said, I take no money from tobacco, but giving to related charities has cost me a lot of money, so it is the other way around.
  I am in favour of the Bill. It contains weaknesses, but any steps that can be taken to limit the number of young people who are likely to take up smoking deserve the support of all parties. I am sorry that it does not have such support.
  Like the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who pursued
  684
  during his years as Secretary of State for Health a policy that tried to deal with the problems of smoking. I am sorry for the right hon. Gentleman, who was most honourable in giving way to pressure to stand for a certain post. I do not think that he wanted that post, and when he did not get it, he was dumped most unceremoniously and in an ungentlemanly manner by his party leader. I think that more hon. Members should make such comments in his support.
  I should like to deal with some of the medical evidence that does not come directly from the doctors. The Select Committee on Health posed a number of intriguing questions to cigarette manufacturing companies when it prepared its excellent second report, entitled "The Tobacco Industry and the Health Risks of Smoking." It asked:
  Do you agree that smoking causes lung cancer beyond all reasonable doubt?
  British American Tobacco—or BAT—said that it did. That was the answer not of the medical profession, but of a tobacco manufacturer. Philip Morris, another tobacco company, stated:
  There is an overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart diseases, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers…smokers are far more likely to develop serious diseases, like lung cancer, than non-smokers.
  Those are not medical organisations, but cigarette manufacturers themselves. When such evidence is given by the manufacturers, surely we should begin to accept it without any further argument.
  The Health Committee went on to state in its report:
  Bearing in mind that asthma causes 1.400 deaths per year, we do not regard asthma attacks as merely unpleasant and believe that policy goals related to ETS
  —or environmental tobacco smoke—
  must take account of the real health risks it possesses.
  We must realise that asthma is an aspect not only of ordinary cigarette smoking, but of the effects of passive smoking on people in trains, aircraft and all social situations.
  It is intriguing to note the National Asthma Campaign's estimate that some 3.4 million people in the United Kingdom have asthma. It estimates that one in 25 adults and one in seven children have the condition, at an annual cost to the UK of £2 billion, including costs to the national health service alone of £670 million-odd a year.
  Smoking can cause asthma. Babies whose mothers continue to smoke during pregnancy have an almost 50 per cent. risk of being born wheezy or with breathing problems. Cigarette smoking is a common trigger of asthma, and causes difficulties for up to 80 per cent. of people who suffer from it. When I, as an asthmatic, walk through one end of the Upper Committee Corridor, where smoking is allowed, my asthma is affected. That happens when I simply walk past a place where one or two members of staff are, quite legally, smoking. It is an example of the way in which passive smoking can affect people.
  People have a right to expect clean, smoke-free air at home, at work, on public transport and in public places. I am sorry that the Bill does not do more to give effect to that. It presented an opportunity to take further action on passive smoking; that opportunity has not been taken. I am critical of the Bill because of that.

  685
  It is ungallant of several hon. Members to try to discredit the attempts of previous Conservative Governments, starting from nothing, to limit advertising generally and on cigarette packets. Those were positive measures and credit should be given to the Conservative Government for introducing them.
  Mr. Bercow: Before my right hon. Friend focuses on the achievements of the previous Government, does he advocate a ban on people smoking in public parks or when walking along the streets?
  Sir Peter Emery: I do not like to see people smoking when walking along the streets, because it is rather bad manners. However, I do not advocate a ban. One cannot attempt to limit smoking in the open air, and I do not believe that anyone who supports the Bill suggests such a limitation.
  The latter part of the reasoned amendment is acceptable. It mentions the Bill's inability to do anything about sporting aspects or the importing of illegal products. Those matters must be tackled, and it is right of the Opposition to criticise the Government when they do not do that. However, I do not agree with the amendment's suggestion that there is "insufficient evidence" that the Bill
  would lead to a quantifiable reduction in tobacco consumption.
  I believe that it would. I suppose that it depends on our definition of quantifiable. I do not want to get into that debate, however.
  My approach is that, if the Bill leads to any reduction in smoking by young people, it is worth while. That applies especially to young women. The dangers that they face if they continue smoking when they become pregnant have been medically proved time and again. I should therefore like much more of the space on the cigarette packet to have to contain a medical warning. I suggested that it should take up 50 per cent. of the space. I believe that that happens in Australia. We cannot give that warning too frequently.
  Let me consider the problem of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton—
  Mr. Chope: Christchurch.
  Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry, I meant my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). Christchurch is very near Southampton.
  Mr. Chope: Neither Southampton Member—both Southampton constituencies are unfortunately currently represented by the Labour party—is present to defend the interests of those working at British American Tobacco in Southampton. I therefore believed that I needed to intervene in the debate.
  Sir Peter Emery: I was about to say that I fully understood my hon. Friend's position. I understand his feeling that he should defend people who may see their jobs put at risk. It is right that a Member of Parliament should highlight that problem, because it is another problem with which the Government will have to cope.
  686
  I should point out, however, that a further problem—a considerable problem—is posed by exports overseas, which, according to my hon. Friend, account for most production in his constituency. I am not certain that we ought to export illness just to save jobs at home. That is a difficult thing to say, but it needs to be said.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: One Member who did not stand up for his constituents is the Secretary of State for Health. Just outside his constituency is a tobacco factory employing 600 people, most of whom live in the constituency, which makes cigarettes purely for export. The Secretary of State said that he wanted the factory to close.
  Sir Peter Emery: I will not go into that, but my hon. Friend has made his point, and will doubtless expand on it in his own speech.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Peter Emery: Yes, for the last time.
  Mr. Morgan: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, according to the logic of the Conservative amendment, the Bill will be ineffective and therefore no jobs will be put at risk?
  Sir Peter Emery: I do not think that that is so, and I think the hon. Gentleman is perverse in attempting to lead me down what my father used to call a "salle de cul"—his description of a cul-de-sac.
  Advertising must in some way have an effect on the creation of new smokers. The aim is to lead those who do not currently smoke to start smoking, to make up for the hundreds of thousands who, over the years, die as a result of smoking or else give up. The only way in which the industry can keep going is by attracting new smokers. Where must the industry turn? It must turn to younger people, especially women. It is a little like the Roman Catholic Church, which says that if you catch them young, you are likely to have them for ever.
  I do not believe that the Bill will entirely cure the problems, but it is worth supporting if it does something to limit the amount of cigarette smoking by the young. I hope very much that my colleagues on the Front Bench will not oppose it tonight.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. The speeches that we have heard so far—with the exception of the Tory Front-Bench spokesman's—have been excellent. That of my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) was certainly excellent, and it is a particular pleasure to see him here today. I commend the efforts made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who had so much to do with the tobacco White Paper. I also thought that the Liberal Democrat contribution made a great deal of sense.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden said that it was interesting to see colleagues and comrades who had been involved with the issue for so long. That applies to none more than my hon. Friend the

  687
  Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). It may be "ungallant"—as the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) might say—of me to mention this, but I remember listening for hour upon hour, as a member of the Front-Bench health team, to attempts to wreck Bills that my hon. Friend was trying to introduce. I see a remarkable contrast between my experience of the last Government and what the current Government are doing, and I hope the Bill soon becomes law.
  The previous Government's line on the issue is partly echoed in today's reasoned amendment. In the many hours of debate on Bills supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley and by other Labour Members, Conservative Members argued that such legislation would restrict personal freedom and personal choice. I note that today's reasoned amendment states that the Bill would be a
  restriction of freedom of expression.
  That argument is nonsense, and we need to puncture it by examining the evidence on the impact of advertising on the decision, particularly by young people, to smoke.
  The reasoned amendment is squalid, and I am sad that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) supports it. I had thought that he had fundamentally changed the Conservative party's position on the issue. It saddens me that they are back to their previous position—hand in glove with the tobacco industry.
  The Health Committee, which I have chaired in this Parliament, recognised very early the fundamental importance of the connection between smoking and ill health. Indeed, right at the start of this Parliament, tobacco and the health risks of smoking were the first issues that we identified as requiring an inquiry. We were prevented from conducting a major inquiry into the issue by the legal action being taken against British tobacco companies by former smokers in relation to the health effects that they had suffered. While the matter was sub judice, we were long prevented from examining it. Nevertheless, in our first report at the start of this Parliament, the Committee expressed our concerns about Formula 1's exemption from the sponsorship arrangements.
  The right hon. Member for East Devon quoted the Health Committee's 1999 report on the tobacco industry and the health risks of smoking. I was disturbed about many of the issues that we examined in that long inquiry. Although I do not profess to have the detailed knowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley and some other hon. Members have about the tobacco companies' activities, the Committee spent many months investigating the tobacco companies' knowledge of the health implications of smoking. The fact is that, even before I was born, the tobacco companies were aware of a clear connection between smoking and cancer.
  I was amazed to discover that the first statement in the House on the connection between ill health and smoking was made way back in 1952 or 1953. Hon. Members were thus made aware many years ago of the connection between smoking and ill health. I am concerned that, for very many years, the tobacco companies have turned a blind eye and suppressed the evidence that they had on the connection.
  In our inquiry, the Committee attempted to assess the motivation of young people who start smoking. We were particularly concerned about evidence which has already been mentioned today on the increasing number of young
  688
  people who smoke. Using the Select Committee's powers, we required four of the main advertising agencies serving some of the principal tobacco companies operating in the United Kingdom to submit their papers detailing their communications with the companies to which they were contracted. We asked for specific documents, especially those on market research and the creative briefs recording the policy agreed between client and agency.
  Several thousand pages of paperwork comprising hundreds of documents were submitted to the Committee. Of the huge amounts of evidence that the Committee assessed, perhaps those documents best laid bare what can only be described as the truly cynical behaviour of the tobacco companies and the advertising and promotional firms that served them. Not even in the litigation in the United States, in the class action suit against American tobacco companies, had such material seen the light of day.
  As the Secretary of State said in opening the debate, so far, advertising arrangements have been governed by a voluntary code agreed between the Department of Health, cigarette manufacturers and importers and the Advertising Standards Authority. Among other things, the code requires companies to ensure that
  Smoking should not be associated with social, sexual, romantic or business success…advertisements should not link smoking with people who are evidently wealthy, fashionable.
  Advertisements should…avoid employing any approach which is more likely to attract the attention or sympathy of those under the age of 18…no advertisement should exaggerate the pleasure of smoking or claim that it is daring or glamorous to smoke.
  The advertising papers that we obtained completely discredited the case for voluntary agreements. We found no explicit evidence that the tobacco companies knowingly and specifically targeted children, but abundant evidence that they went to great pains to portray smoking as cool or glamorous in ways certain to entice youngsters.
  The aim of a 1998 CDP/Gallaher promotion was to
  boost Benson and Hedges image with style-conscious 18–24s.
  A creative brief for Rothmans suggested:
  we want to engage people's aspirations and fantasies
  so that they will think,
  I'd like to be there, do that, own that.
  We concluded that it was hard to see how material intended to engage the fantasies of 18-year-olds would leave 14 or 15-year olds unmoved. Independent research confirms that the preference among children—the vast majority of smokers begin smoking as children—was for premium and heavily advertised brands.
  I strongly welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. I hope that it will have an important impact on the health of the nation. Nevertheless, I want to express one or two concerns. I have spoken previously about my concerns about clause 18, and the issue of Formula 1 in particular. The first report of the Health Committee in this Session related to that subject. Evidence to the Committee showed that market research concluded that Formula 1 sponsorship made the Benson and Hedges brand "very powerful" as a consequence of its associations with
  young, fast, racy, adult, exciting, aspirational but attainable environments.
  Formula 1 was praised for the image of being
  fast, furious, dangerous; living life to the full.

  689
  Sadly, we all know that many smokers do not live life to the full, because smoking creates ill-health and shortens lives. Like many of us, I have seen at first hand friends suffering a long-drawn-out death directly related to their consumption of cigarettes.
  I cannot accept the Government's argument about the exemption of Formula 1. The arguments used in respect of Formula 1 could have been made by other sports. I have a particular interest in rugby league; the same arguments could have been made to exempt certain sponsorships in that sport. I am glad to see that rugby league is getting rid of its connection with products such as Silk Cut. I hope that the Government will look at the issue again.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras asked what the companies were planning next. My concern is whether the Bill anticipates the future tactics of tobacco companies. Whatever measures the Government take, we can be sure that the tobacco companies and the agencies that they employ will devote enormous resources and ingenuity to their circumvention.
  The Committee uncovered plans to advertise heavily in English language newspapers bought by UK nationals in Spain, as well as other projects, including advertising using billboards outside foreign embassies in the UK, since these were not UK territory; starting pirate radio stations; offering golden cigarettes in packs to create millionaires across the country; organising demonstrations in Hyde Park; and even using Silk Cut to sponsor Elastoplast. We need to anticipate those possibilities. They are matters that will, no doubt, be considered in Committee.
  Another issue is the failure of the Bill to introduce a tobacco regulatory authority, about which I understand the Government's concerns. Clive Bates of Action on Smoking and Health recently made a valid point in his argument for such an authority. He said:
  We've got the Food Standards Agency for food, the Medicines Control Agency for medicines. For tobacco we've got one man and a dog—and the dog's dead.
  That sums up the situation.
  Mr. Dobson: The dog was probably a smoker.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: It has been argued by a number of people, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley over a long period of time, that we need a tobacco regulatory authority to examine product safety. There are many arguments about whether the product is safe, whether it can be made safer, and whether there is any such thing as a safe cigarette. Many of us have grave doubts about that. A regulatory authority could also consider addiction, the arguments about whether low tar is less harmful, and, particularly, marketing strategies. It is nonsensical that nicotine replacement products are currently regulated but cigarettes are not. That seems absolutely absurd.
  I understand that the Government have not introduced proposals for a regulatory authority because of a lack of parliamentary time, and because of the need for a Europe-wide regulatory body. I appreciate that, but I hope that, even at this stage, they will give further consideration to the strong arguments that have been made for the introduction of such a body.
  690
  Despite the qualifications that I have raised, this is a positive Bill. I warmly welcome it, and I hope that it will make a fundamental difference to the health of the nation.
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: First, may I say that I have, in the past, agreed to be an arbitrator in tobacco suits outside this country? I was not chosen to do so, so I earned no money in that way, but I wanted to declare that interest.
  The critical issues are how to reduce the number of people taking up smoking, and how to shorten the time that people are smokers. The Government have not adopted Clive Smee's estimate of a 7 per cent. impact of a ban on tobacco promotion and advertising. In their assessment, they have suggested 2.5 per cent., which I would guess involves a range from nought to 5 per cent. If that is the case, at most, 95 per cent. of the influence on people's smoking is presumed not to involve deliberate advertising or promotion.
  As I suggested when I intervened on the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), people are more likely to smoke if those around them smoke. Very few people suddenly say, "I would like to go out and buy some cigarettes, and try them by myself." They are nearly always offered a cigarette by someone else, or they start to think that if people slightly older than them smoke, they ought to try it. That gets them into the experimental phase, and from there they enter the confirmed smoker phase, after which the question is one of how soon they give up.
  I suspect that more than half the people who take up smoking as a serious habit give up for the last time while still alive. I am not concerned with people such as Kipling, who found it very easy to give up because he gave up a thousand times. I estimate that many people share my experience, which was to smoke for about 20 years and then stop. I was one of the very few who took it up after the age of about 21, and I took it up because I had a friend who smoked.
  If we are seriously interested in knowing what is happening, we should not quote figures in this debate that are two years out of date. When I had responsibility for helping to reduce the incidence of drink-driving casualties, a woman from Coca-Cola, Penny Hughes, came to see me. She showed me a succession of cohort studies that illustrated, in relation to carbonated drinks, what every six-month or one-year age group was doing in every six-month period and beyond.
  Why can the House obtain every month the figures for the increase in retail prices to one part in 1,000, if we accept the statistics—or one part in 100, if we listen to the publicity—within a month of those figures becoming available? Why can we all say what the bank rate is? Whenever the rate changes, or even when it does not change, month by month, it is headline news. Why do we know to one part in 1,000 what the unemployment benefit claimant count is every month? We know those figures because they are calculated every month, and because people believe that it is important to know them.
  Why, therefore, are we working with figures on the incidence of adult smoking—and for people aged about 15 or 16—that are two years out of date? Why, in the White Paper published in December 1998, are we limited to graphs showing the incidence of smoking in people

  691
  aged between 11 and 15 with a peak of about 14 per cent., and figures for those aged 16 and over, which show a rate two or three times higher?
  We should be demanding up-to-date figures and asking Ministers why they do not publish them, if they are available. I bet that the tobacco companies have them. Why do not those who are concerned with reducing the harm caused by smoking publish those figures once a month, once a quarter, or at least once every six months? We could then debate what is changing and what is not, how the circumstances differ from one region of the country to another, and the class figures. Perhaps I should refer to those as the analysis of socio-economic groups, to put it in more politically correct language.
  We must also ask why the White Paper on smoking contains nine pictures of people smoking. Page 7 has a picture of a young woman smoking on page 11, a man lights up; on page 19, girls are seen sharing a packet of fags; page 31 shows someone smoking; page 33 shows an older person smoking; a young mother is shown smoking on page 43; on page 68. there is a picture of a young man—I assume—smoking; page 72 has a man smoking; and a girl is shown smoking on page 81. If those who produce a Government document devoted to reducing smoking cannot show a single stub on the ground or a single ashtray—in other words, the things that are likely to make people think—one must wonder whether there might be some kind of spin, rhetoric or presentation involved.
  I do not want to make this a party-political argument, because the issue is far too serious and is one in which not enough attention is paid to what I call the other 95 per cent. I shall not, therefore, develop many of the arguments about the ban and the promotion issue, except to say that there is no evidence anywhere in the world that a ban on tobacco advertising and promotion makes a very significant difference, although it might make a significant difference. To those who say, "If it saves only a few lives, it is worth while," I respond that the reason why we have just about the best—perhaps I should say the least worse—road casualty rate in the world is that people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and I, anl Labour Members when they were previously Ministers, did not implement worthwhile provisions because they might save one life; we did so because they were likely to have a significant influence on what many people were doing, most of the time.
  I shall give examples in which there could be a read-across, and from which we can learn a lesson in relation to this smoking business. When it became perfectly plain that parents should belt their children up in the backs of cars, using child restraints or seat belts, it was not until Esther Rantzen and the "That's Life" programme gave nine minutes to a doctor in, I think, January 1986, followed up by a bit of help from the Department and some video evidence—none of which cost much—that the rate of purchases of such restraints for children trebled from 300,000 a year to 1 million a year. The following year, when legislation on the matter went through Parliament, a single Member of Parliament or of the House of Lords could have blocked it, but no one did. That illustrated a change in the popular mood and in the culture.
  692
  If our first action had been to introduce a law stating that one could not take a child unrestrained in a car if a restraint was available—or that one could not take an unrestrained child in a car at all—there would have been arguments about restraints for 10 years, rather than arguments about protecting children and about what would work best.
  Another example—one that I have used before in the House—is that of young men and drinking and driving. In 1987, the number of occasions on which young men drove a car having consumed more than the legal limit of alcohol was roughly 2 million a week. About two years later, that figure had evaporated to 600,000. A habit that was socially acceptable but illegal and body-breaking was reduced by two thirds with no changes in the law, in sentencing and in enforcement.
  That change was made because people began to behave more acceptably, and what was acceptable also began to change. With the help of the Central Office of Information and some inspired people in the advertising and promotions world, we in the Department of Transport began to monitor the answers to the question, "Do you think that you have to drink at a party to enjoy yourself, even if you are driving home?" In 1987, the answer was usually yes; in 1989, it was usually no. There was criticism in the newspapers and from the British Medical Association and various others that we were taking the wrong approach, but, by using that question and knowing the incidences, we knew that what we were doing was working. We also monitored the answer to the question, "Will people think that you are a wimp if you say no to a drink because you are driving?" The answer switched from predominantly yes to no.
  I want to make two or three recommendations on smoking, but not because they relate to the Conservative amendment or the Bill. We should stop saying to young people of 13, 15 or 17 who smoke, "You are too young." We must say, "You are taking up smoking at the age at which young people are expected to take up smoking. You are doing an expected childish thing." Although these figures are probably out of date, we should add to that, "Do you know that marketing managers are paid £170,000 a year to find their share of the 5,000 replacement smokers needed each week?"
  Earlier, I asked about the real cessation figures. Again, I may have used the wrong figures or ones that are out of date, but I believe that about 5,000 people a week were stopping smoking and would never do so again—2,000 because they had died and many, but not all, prematurely. Some people, such as Deng Xiaoping in China, died in their eighties, but perhaps he would have made it to his nineties if he had not smoked. About 3,000 people gave up for the last time while still alive. Tobacconists were selling roughly the same number of cigarettes a week, although there may have been a secular decline, which meant that 5,000 people a week were starting to smoke. The marketing people had the responsibility to get at least their share of that number.
  If 15 or 16-year-olds want to keep a marketing manager in £170,000 a year, a £25,000 motor car and unchallenged expenses of £250 a week to take people to lunch, all they have to do is fall in line when their turn comes and become a smoker. I do not know the experience of other hon. Members, but when my children learned to speak, their first sentence was, "It's not fair." They had a sense of injustice and of being exploited. One should say to

  693
  young people not, "Don't smoke, it's no good for your health," but, "Do you know that people out there expect you to fall in line and become a smoker? By the way, if you don't, that £170,000 will drop to £120,000 because the £50,000 a year bonus will go. The next car will cost £15,000, not £25,000, and the £250 a week for expenses will go to someone else." Young people would see the fun in not doing what is expected of them.
  We must change our attitude to seeing people smoke. Instead of looking a person in the eye in a challenging way and saying, "What a blithering idiot you are, wasting as much money on fags each day as most people spend on the national lottery in a week," one ought to turn about and appear to wipe away a tear. In the same way that people might be sympathetic if I were wearing a red ribbon because someone close to me might be affected by HIV or AIDS, the signal of wiping away a tear would say, "I'm deeply sympathetic, but I'm sorry—I can't do anything about it." Most people can take criticism; what they cannot take is sympathy. Extending sympathy to those who smoke is a smart idea.
  I want the Government regularly to publish up-to-date figures on their three targets: the young, expectant mothers and the overall adult population. About 700,000 babies are born each year, which is not a large number, and there are about 1.4 million new parents—it takes two to tango. It is worth remembering that the figures researched and produced by Arthur and Peggy Wynn show that the chances of a child having an identifiable severe congenital malformation are about 0.8 per cent. if the father does not smoke, but about 2 per cent. if he does. Those figures are worth publicising.
  I damn the media for paying so much attention to the triple vaccine and related issues when coverage of smoking could make a significant difference to postponing the deaths of about 2,000 people a week. No one from the media is in the Gallery for the debate, even though smoking is perhaps one of the biggest public health issues. Media efforts could make the work on drink-driving look pretty insignificant, although it was obviously worth while.
  Let me make a suggestion to the Government: why not pick out one or two people from, for example, the British Lung Foundation and give them the same honours that have rightly been given to people involved in the heart world? Lungs matter just as much as hearts, and smoking is bad for both, so acknowledging the British Lung Foundation and other organisations would make sense.
  My final point takes us back to the facts, or the statistics. We know about smoking and health because of the work of medical statisticians such as Bradford Hill, Peto and Doll. Some have rightly been recognised, but have often had to wait 20 or 30 years. Too often, our debates in the House are not backed by science. Members, whether Ministers or otherwise, are damned if they use statistics, but evidence-based medicine ought to be matched by evidence-based politics. We need people who are persistent on these issues—not just in tackling the law, but by being willing to take up the microphone and speak out, as I and others did over drink-driving. That would probably make a difference for the estimated 95 per cent. of smokers who would not be affected by a ban on
  694
  tobacco advertising al d might produce a matching impact for those—between 0 and 5 per cent.—who might be affected by a ban.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Like the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), I ought to declare an interest. I am chairman of the all-party group on smoking and health, whose secretariat is the charity Action on Smoking and Health, with which I worked for many years.
  It is undeniable that cigarette smoking is the single largest avoidable cause of premature death and disability in Britain today. Reducing smoking would result in massive health gains, particularly for the most disadvantaged sectors of society. The prevalence of smoking in Britain has fallen substantially since the health risks of cigarette smoking were made known to the public, but appears to be stabilising at about one adult in four. To achieve further significant reductions in smoking, we must address the reasons why people begin smoking and continue to smoke knowing that it could kill them.
  The Government are taking action in several areas to help to reduce the number of people addicted to smoking. The Bill will greatly add to that reduction and result in an improvement in the nation's health. Conservative Members have decided to table an amendment. I want to comment on that, first by reminding the House of what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said in the Queen's Speech debate. I am sorry that he is not in his place. He said:
  I give the Secretary of State a commitment that I will be open-minded about the issue.—[Official Report, 7 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 150.]
  However, he has put his name to an amendment saying that the House
  declines to give a Second Reading
  to the Bill. In my view, that is hardly an example of open-mindedness. At the Dispatch Box, the hon. Gentleman produced the red herring of increased tobacco consumption. As the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) rightly pointed out, the figures are not up to date. As the hon. Gentleman said, smoking statistics ought to be available in the way that other statistics are available, because each day, 300 of our fellow citizens die prematurely of smoking-related diseases. That being so, we ought to have better statistics. Having said that, it is clear that the hon. Member for Woodspring misled the House when he said that consumption is greater than ever before.
  The amendment also says that
  there is insufficient evidence that its provisions would lead to a quantifiable reduction in tobacco consumption.
  That is not true. Several hon. Members have mentioned the report by Dr. Clive Smee, the chief economic adviser to the Department of Health. No one who has read it could argue that there is insufficient evidence on the subject. The report, which was published in 1992, studied countries that had introduced partial bans on tobacco advertising, and discovered only a marginal fall in cigarette consumption. As we all know—or should know—when faced with limited restrictions, the tobacco industry does not reduce the money that it is prepared to spend on pushing its product; it merely switches to other forms of promotion That is why there was only a slight fall in consumption.

  695
  As soon as those countries introduced comprehensive bans, the picture began to change. Let us consider the statistics that marked that change. They were clearly stated in the Smee report and cannot be denied. In Norway, consumption dropped by 9 per cent; in Finland, by 6.7 per cent; in Canada, by 4 per cent; and in New Zealand, by 5.5 per cent. The average fall in cigarette consumption was 7 per cent. when advertising was banned.
  It beggars belief that the hon. Member for Woodspring should again stand at the Dispatch Box, as he did last month, saying that he wants to see the evidence: the proof exists and has done so for many years. People need to have the will to seize on the evidence and decide what action to take.
  The Smee report said that the fall in smoking was on a scale that
  cannot be reasonably attributed to other factors.
  That means that it was directly related to an advertising ban. The report concluded:
  The balance of evidence thus supports the view that advertising does have a positive effect on consumption.
  Of course it does: millions of pounds are spent each day on advertising products in the media so that we will consume them. It is ludicrous to suggest that tobacco advertising stands on its own in relation to other campaigns because its purpose is not to encourage consumption.
  Mrs. Spelman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the first instance, it is the job of the Department to produce up-to-date information? Indeed, the Opposition's role is often hampered by a lack of access to departmental information, especially if it is not centrally held. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made the point that any ban cannot be as effective as the Government might hope while the floodgates are open to smuggling.
  Mr. Barron: It is hard to accept that criticism from the Conservatives. The Government have put millions of pounds into providing scanners at ports to check lorries and other vehicles for smuggled cigarettes. The hon. Lady should not shake her head. The previous Government never so much as thought about spending that money, let alone having the will to spend it. This Government have had to tackle smuggling—not just of tobacco and alcohol, but of other products—and are acting on it. Once again, the Conservatives are introducing a red herring. The hon. Lady refers to the need for information. The evidence on tobacco advertising, promotion and consumption has been available for a long time—although in 1993, the then Opposition were denied access to details on the Government's decisions in relation to the evidence in the report.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: First let me say that I have an interest, to which I shall refer later. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only reason why there is a market for smuggled tobacco is that there is a market for tobacco? Remove the market for tobacco and we remove the need to smuggle.
  Mr. Barron: That is absolutely right. If there was no demand for the product, that would certainly be the case.
  696
  I honestly believe that it is stupid to argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove that a ban would reduce consumption. It is not upheld by the facts. The Government are cautious—perhaps even prudent—in estimating that the Bill will reduce consumption by about 2.5 per cent. In light of the evidence of the Smee report, I would expect the figure to be much higher. Even on the Government's estimate, though, 3,000 premature deaths a year—roughly eight a day—will be avoided. Although that is a small fraction of the total number of premature deaths that result from smoking, it equates to the death toll on our roads. It is ridiculous—and inconceivable—for any serious politician to oppose legislation that might prevent deaths on that scale, yet the amendment attempts to defeat the Bill on Second Reading.
  The hon. Member for Worthing, West mentioned drink-driving. That issue was tackled not just by getting to know what young men thought about it, but by using advertising to highlight the ills of drink-driving. Advertising works—ask the tobacco companies. We must recognise what has happened before, and the way in which successive Governments have denied the truth about the link between tobacco advertising and consumption.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I also have an interest to declare, which I, too, shall refer to later.
  I accept the health statistics and—absurdly for a retailer—I should like tobacco sales to be reduced, but we have got to be effective. On smuggling, hon. Members only have to ask retailers in their constituencies about their sales to discover that a disproportionately large amount of hand-rolling cigarette paper is sold when compared with the amount of tobacco. We need to control smuggling more effectively because that will help to stop cut-price tobacco and cigarettes coming into the country. It is the price that is important to many people.
  Mr. Barron: It is indeed, and when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he used his Budgets to introduce a real increase in tobacco taxes, which reduced consumption. The price mechanism works and I am pleased that the present Chancellor is continuing with the policy. A price increase does reduce consumption.

  I agree that tobacco smuggling is serious. There is no doubt that it is much easier for young children to get their hands on smuggled tobacco than it is for them to buy tobacco from retail outlets. Smuggling does undermine retail outlets, but the answer is not to make concessions to the tobacco industry. The industry lobbies us every year for concessions but the fact is that tobacco taxation does reduce consumption. We need to be better at catching criminals who are flaunting and breaking the law and who have outlets for massive amounts of smuggled goods such as tobacco. We should all concentrate our minds on that, as, indeed, the Government are doing.
  The amendment contains the word "quantifiable", which seems to be very important to Opposition Members. However, it seems that their argument has been equally important to the tobacco industry, which has consistently prevaricated in the same way. I remind the House of the Health Committee's decision on the European directive. At the time the Committee was chaired not by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield

  697
  (Mr. Hinchliffe) but by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe). In its report of October 1993, the all-party Committee recommended:
  The Government cannot continue to procrastinate on the issue of an advertising ban on the grounds that it is awaiting a level of proof about its effectiveness which is, in the nature of things, unobtainable.
  I know that some Conservative Members are in favour of legislation, but such procrastination, which has been around for decades, is reflected in the amendment that is before us. If Labour Front Benchers had tabled such an amendment, I would have refused to go through the Lobby to support it. It is about time that we had an open and honest debate on the issue. The Opposition's reference to a "quantifiable reduction" is nothing more than a smokescreen, which confirms what many of us already know and firmly believe: the Conservative party as a whole—if not all its members—is addicted to the tobacco industry.
  Reference has been made to the correspondence that took place in 1993. I shall quote an attachment to a letter dated 5 November 1993—sent by the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) to the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and copied to members of his Cabinet—outlining the Department of Health's conclusions on the Smee report. Paragraph 7, headed "The review of the effect of tobacco advertising", said:
  The Department of Health discussion document on the effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption … was published in October 1992 and comments were invited on it. The substantive comments have been considered. The conclusions from this review are as follows:
  i. tobacco advertising does affect total tobacco consumption, not just brand share.
  For years and years, we have heard people inside and outside the House—the Tobacco Manufacturers Association and many others in the tobacco industry—harping on that the issue is about brand share and not consumption. We have even heard that argument today, but it is not true.
  The attachment added:
  Further restrictions on tobacco advertising up to and including a ban could therefore be expected to reduce smoking.
  ii. other countries have introduced bans which have had a useful effect in their particular circumstances;
  iii. from the evidence available, it is not possible to quantify the size of the effect of a ban in this country with any degree of certainty.
  That does not mean that a ban would not reduce consumption in this country, because the first and second conclusions clearly suggest that it would.
  I also have a reply, dated 16 November 1993, to that letter which sent to the then Prime Minister by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was then not only President of the Board of Trade but Deputy Prime Minister. It states:
  I have seen Virginia Bottomley's minute to you of 5th November on the outcome of her Department's review of the effect of tobacco advertising on smoking and proposing to announce in the Government's Action Plan her intention to renegotiate the voluntary agreement on advertising.
  698
  In her minute Virginia takes the view that whilst there are arguments for and against a ban on tobacco advertising the evidence available does not justify that course of action. I find this a surprising conclusion given that the Department of Health's review suggested that further restrictions, including a ban, would reduce smoking, and thus save lives, even though the effect could not be quantified with any certainty. Further, the paper acknowledges the failure to make satisfactory progress in reducing smoking among 11–15 year olds towards the Health of the Nation target.
  I recognise there is a delicate balance between those who favour a total ban on tobacco advertising and those who believe a tougher voluntary agreement with the industry is the best way forward to achieve the Government's aims in reducing smoking and therefore protecting public health.
  Nevertheless, I am persuaded by the medical evidence, acknowledged in Virginia's paper, that a ban on tobacco advertising would not only further reduce smoking but would also contribute to improvements in people's health and avoid the damaging economic burdens which the consequences of ill-health place on business.
  The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) referred to that point in his speech.
  The then Deputy Prime Minister's letter adds:
  Further, there does seem to me to be an inconsistency in a policy which continues to defend tobacco advertising even in a restricted form with a policy deigned to reduce smoking further through encouraging the prohibition of smoking in public, on transport or in the work place. Indeed, I would argue that if the Government really wishes to demonstrate its commitment to achieving the Health of the Nation targets and to inspire confidence in its actions on reducing smoking and illegal sales, an outright ban instead of some half-way house of severely constrained advertising is the credible way forward.
  The Deputy Prime Minister in the previous Government wrote that letter to the then Prime Minister just a few years ago. However, although the Conservative party is now in opposition—thank goodness—it has tabled an amendment against Second Reading.
  The view of the right hon. Member for Henley was shared by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who, in a letter to the then Prime Minister, said:
  I have seen Michael Heseltine's letter to you of 16th November concerning Virginia Bottomley's minute to you on tobacco advertising, dated 5th November.
  I fully support the views and arguments in Michael's letter. If the Government wants to be seen to be serious about reducing prevalence of smoking and improving people's health the right course of action would be to go for an outright ban on tobacco advertising. A ban on advertising could indirectly help the achievement of my Department's efforts to ban or restrict smoking in public places, by which we contribute to the overall policy on smoking.
  All the arguments made in those letters—some of them have also been made by Conservative Members tonight—show we could have and should have had a more comprehensive policy against tobacco.
  In the bundle that I received there was also a letter dated 9 November from another Cabinet member, passing comment on freedom of expression—a phrase that appears in the Opposition's amendment today. Those words are not new; they have been around for a long time in the politics of tobacco. This letter was from the then Chancellor of the. Duchy of Lancaster, William Waldegrave, who wrote:
  I strongly support Virginia's intention to tighten further the voluntary controls on tobacco advertising and perhaps also sports sponsorship (indeed, I myself would not have opposed an outright ban if Virginia had felt able to move that far—the argument which her Paper stresses, about whether to curb the freedom to advertise a

  699
  legal product, was effectively conceded years ago when cigarette commercials were banned from just those media whose methods of advertising were thought to be most effective).
  We all know very well that the principle that is still thrown around in the debates was breached in 1964 by—and I am pleased to say this—the then Labour Government, who achieved a voluntary agreement to ban the advertising of cigarettes on national television. Initially, the agreement was to ban cigarette advertising before the 9 pm watershed but, in 1965, the agreement was extended to cover the hours after 9 pm. The tobacco industry was no longer allowed to advertise in that powerful national medium, and it is no wonder that the statistics show a decrease in tobacco consumption since that time. Advertising worked. That is why the industry spent money on television advertising. It is interesting that, when that advertising was stopped, tobacco companies switched their money into sponsorship so that they were able to keep their logos appearing on the television screen by sponsoring Formula 1 cars or cricket matches from Lords. They deliberately increased their sponsorship so that they could get their brand names on to television even though the 1964 Labour Government had reached an agreement with them that they should not do that. When we stop them spending money in one area, the companies move into another, if the door is left open. That will be crucial as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
  William Waldegrave's letter continued:
  The more robust we are in our public altitude towards smoking, the more credibility we will have in pursuing our key Health of the Nation targets; in resisting the draft EC Directive on subsidiarity rather than policy grounds; and in refuting the arguments that our drive to improve public health is blunted in respect of tobacco consumption by our need for the revenue that smoking generates.
  The Health Secretary's letter to the Prime Minister said that the Government would make it clear when they renegotiated with the tobacco industry that they would not support the European directive. That was a major mistake in public health terms, and not only in the United Kingdom. The Bill, which was promised in our manifesto, is being introduced in what could be the last Session of this Parliament, instead of having been introduced in the first. We wanted to remove the blot left by the Conservative party for all those y ears, improving the health not only of this nation but of many other member states.
  Tobacco products have enjoyed unparalleled freedom from the safety regulations that apply to virtually all other food or drug products available in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield spoke about nicotine replacement treatment. NRT, because it is a medicine, is highly regulated—one has to ask a pharmacist whether one can buy and use the products—while cigarettes are freely available almost everywhere. That is extraordinary given the damage that smoking does. Nowhere else in our society is there such a lack of controls.
  Think of all the money that we have spent on BSE, not only by introducing special beef regimes on farms but by taking other necessary measures such as setting up the Food Standards Agency to give us more independence in food checks. Tobacco, on the other hand, is freely available, yet 300 of our fellow citizens die prematurely from it each day.
  The evidence is clear, if people are prepared to sit and read it. Opposition Front Benchers were sent four independent reports just before Christmas, showing
  700
  clearly that tobacco advertising influences consumption. It is clear from the evidence—if people are prepared to read it—that voluntary agreements between tobacco manufacturers and Government have failed to deliver the potential gains in public health. The evidence is in the Smee report, and in many other independent reports.
  Voluntary agreements do not work, and it is time for legislation. I hope that the Government will strengthen the Bill as it goes through Parliament and consider introducing a tobacco regulation authority, as the all-party Health Committee unanimously recommended. We need to regulate tobacco as strictly as we regulate food and drug products that carry far lesser risks.
  It is about time we had a comprehensive system for trying to prevent people from starting smoking and getting them to give it up. We need to do more than has been done in years gone by. I am pleased that the Bill has been introduced, alongside all the Government's other strategies, but I think that there is further to go. It dismays me to see Members of Parliament, who ought to know better, trying to block the improvement of the individual health of thousands of our citizens by means of their reasoned amendment.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I would like to agree with the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), as the sincerity with which he argues his case is appealing, but I fear that in some key respects his argument is flawed.
  The Bill is in keeping with a Government policy towards tobacco that is essentially discredited. The Government have certainly increased spending on education and programmes for quitting smoking, but their excessive tax policy, predictably and perversely, is having precisely the opposite effect. They are presiding over an increase in tobacco consumption as a result of smuggling. Thousands of legitimate retail businesses have been seriously affected by the trend, and now we have another misconceived measure that will not achieve what its supporters claim it will.
  Supporters of the Bill claim that it will reduce tobacco consumption. There is a danger of losing sight of the market reality that, in the United Kingdom, tobacco companies are competing ferociously against one another in a diminishing legal market. The Government claim in the explanatory notes that the Bill will reduce tobacco consumption by 2.5 per cent. We still await the firm evidence for that anticipated reduction.
  The hon. Member for Rother Valley and others have placed great emphasis on the 1992 Smee report. As I understand it, they have correctly analysed, interpreted and summarised its findings, but they have overlooked the fact that subsequent surveys have shown that many of its findings were fundamentally flawed, mainly because they were incompatible with proven consumption trends.
  The hon. Gentleman referred, fleetingly, to four recent reports. Perhaps he can tell me after this debate what they are—I would like to read them. In return, I advise him to consult the 1993 Stewart surveys, which said that they did not find
  any negative effect of advertising bans on tobacco consumption. Indeed … they may have had the opposite effect to that intended.
  I refer him also to the 1996 KPMG report, which concluded that

  701
  there is overwhelming evidence to support the proposition that advertising bans on tobacco products do not reduce tobacco consumption.
  Perhaps the key point in the KPMG report is that, in two of the countries that Smee had studied, it found the reverse effect: in Italy and Norway, consumption had increased following the introduction of a ban.
  Sir Peter Emery: Is it not the case that the KPMG survey was financed by the tobacco industry?
  Mr. Hunter: I cannot answer that question, but if my right hon. Friend is telling me that that is so, clearly I accept what he says.
  The Government claim that the Bill will reduce smoking by children, but the 1990 report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, "Why Children Start Smoking", found that advertising had no significant influence, and the McDonald surveys of 1993 concluded:
  there is no evidence in any of the studies to suggest, if advertising were banned, it would make the least difference to the propensity of children to smoke.
  If we want to stop children smoking—I am one who does—we must recognise that the most effective way is to limit their access to cigarettes by making the laws prohibiting under-age sales more effective; implementing education programmes designed to discourage children from buying cigarettes and encourage adults to exercise more responsibility; and by clamping down on the illicit importation of cigarettes. I acknowledge that the Government have taken considerable steps in that regard but one has only to go to some outlets, such as two in my constituency and one or two in neighbouring Reading, to see that there is no visible slow-down of the importation of these smuggled goods.
  Mr. Bermingham: I will declare my interest later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I catch your eye. In the meantime, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it might be a start if we persuaded tobacco companies not to export British-made cigarettes with British-made health warnings to such places as Benidorm from where they promptly come back in the form of British cigarettes with a British health warning? If the health warnings on those cigarettes were in a foreign language, it would enable people to detect them more easily as they came into the country.
  Mr. Hunter: If I follow the hon. Gentleman correctly, and sly practices of that nature are being undertaken, of course they are to be condemned. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point.
  There is a second reason why the Bill may not achieve its objectives and may actually result in an increase in tobacco consumption. Price is the single most important determinant of total tobacco consumption. The Government acknowledge that, via their policy of increasing excise as a means of reducing overall consumption. However, if manufacturers cannot advertise, the only means by which they will be able to compete will be through distribution and price war. Just as consumption falls when prices rise, so consumption will rise when prices fall. If further proof of the effect of price is needed, one has only to look at the current black market in cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco.
  702
  Thirdly, it is right to stress that the Bill infringes fundamental freedoms. It is not against the law in this country to manufacture or import tobacco products, to sell tobacco products—except to children under 16—or to buy and smoke tobacco products. A tolerant society that respects minority interests should not ban things simply because some people disapprove of the informed personal choice made by others. The imposition of a statutory ban on advertising a product that is legally available by retail sale to adults is unprecedented.
  Mr. Barron: I invite the hon. Gentleman to give his opinion. Given that advertising cigarettes on television has been effectively banned in this country—whether on a statutory or voluntary basis—since 1964, does he believe that only that ban should be enshrined in law and nothing else, and is his a principled position; or is he not happy with any of the restrictions on promoting tobacco that there have been over the years?
  Mr. Hunter: I am extremely happy, and I believe that the strategy followed by the previous Government was working. We had a combination of education programmes and a controlled increase in taxation. The scale of smuggled cigarette products and rolling tobacco had not reached current levels, and there was a reduction in smoking. That strategy, of which a voluntary advertising code was an essential feature, worked.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The hon. Gentleman talks about the rights of minorities. Which particular minorities will be affected by a ban on advertising? Is he talking about British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco or some other hard-pressed minority?
  Mr. Hunter: I will answer that question very directly. The Bill offends against the fundamental principle of freedom of speech. It inhibits the freedom of tobacco companies to inform the public about their goods and the freedom of the public to receive information on products. The reality of that is not changed by the Secretary of State's view that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights and with fundamental freedoms.
  Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hunter: Not at the moment. The Secretary of State's statement is only an opinion and has no strict legal effect.
  Unpopular though this view may be, I argue that the Bill is not simply without public benefit but will inflict damage, because it is counter, and will be proved to be counter, to its objectives. It treats fundamental freedoms, enshrined in the European convention on human rights, with derision. This is an ugly Bill.
  6.45 pm
  John Robertson: I want to discuss some of the features of the research paper and to give examples of the effect of smoking on the people of my constituency, Anniesland.
  I am an asthma sufferer; I carry an inhaler with me at all times. My daughter also suffers from asthma, so I think that I understand what passive smoking does to someone

  703
  like me. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said that people have rights when it comes to smoking. I have rights as an individual who is affected by passive smoking, and I demand that those rights are upheld so that I am not affected by someone else's carelessness or thoughtlessness.
  Tobacco advertising and sponsorship of media events are not a problem to some, as we have seen from the contributions of some Conservative Members. However, we are the elected representatives of the people of this country and we must protect them even when they do not want to be protected.
  I want to look at the effect that advertising has on the young in particular. Direct advertising—on billboards, in publications and in shops—provides general advertising of tobacco brands. Some people, such as the hon. Member for Basingstoke, would say that that is quite acceptable. However, the point is that a killer drug is being advertised—tobacco kills people.
  Indirect advertising—or hero worshipping, as I call it—is much more sinister. We were talking earlier about Formula 1. Young people would loves to drive those racing cars. Actors who smoke a particular brand on movie screens influence young people to be like them—to get the girl, to get the boy, to be successful, to be cool. Subliminal advertising is perhaps the most sinister of all. With product placement, actors smoke a particular brand, with the pack placed in front of the camera to show the brand name. For example, James Bond has his Turkish cigarettes. There are many other examples, but I am not going to name those brands.
  Smoking is anything but cool. The results of smoking are many. People need to clean their clothes because they smell and the people sitting next to them, who do not smoke, also have to clean their clothes. Smoking discolours teeth and hands; and it makes smokers ill, it makes others ill, and it eventually kills.
  Some 120,000 people in the UK die from smoking each year, and that is too many. My constituency is part of Glasgow, which has one of the highest percentages—well above the national average—of people who die from smoking-related illnesses.
  If reasons were needed to ban advertising, we need only look at the number of children aged between 11 and 15 who were smoking regularly in England in 1996. The figure was 390,000. In 1998, 31 per cent. of all children aged between 16 and 19 smoked. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health may have more up-to-date figures.
  Anyone who has watched a person die of lung cancer knows why we need to protect the young and vulnerable in our society. My father-in-law and his wife both died from lung cancer within six weeks of one another—if ever anything advertised why not to smoke, it would be watching someone fade away and die from cancer.
  Advertisers show smoking as relaxing and calming, and as something that makes people successful. The truth is that smoking costs the taxpayer millions of pounds in health care. In 1997, we spent £2,756,000 on anti-smoking advertising alone. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us the health care costs of smoking? How many days are lost? The cost must run into billions of pounds.
  Mr. Evans: I preface my question by repeating that I want to see tobacco consumption drop. The hon.
  704
  Gentleman refers to the importance of tobacco advertising. At the bottom of such advertisements, a health warning is printed. When the advert disappears, so will that warning. Does he not think that will be damaging? The warning is far more important to me—I always look at that; it influences me far more than anything a tobacco company could say. What does he recommend the Government do to replace all those warnings on tobacco advertisements that smoking is damaging and that it kills?
  John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention as he reminds of something that I forgot to include in my speech. If the matter were left to me, I should do away with cigarettes and the tobacco industry altogether.
  Familiarity supposedly breeds contempt, and perhaps that may be true when the slogan is always printed in the same place on the pack—people no longer read it. If we were really trying to be good, we should implore the tobacco companies to be more jazzy with their slogan and move it about a bit. However, that would cost them money on their packaging, so they might not want to do it.
  I had the impression that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) did not think that what the Government were doing was much good. He seemed to think it was better to do nothing than try to do something. That is a strange view. Surely, if we want to improve things, we need to do something more rather than leaving things as they are. He said that the number of people who were taking up smoking, and who were smoking, was on the increase. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) might argue with the hon. Gentleman on that point. However, if it is true, perhaps we should do something about it—doing nothing is not an option. We should be finding innovative ways to stop people smoking—as I thought we were trying to do.
  I find it sad that Conservative Members are engaging in point scoring on a subject that affects people's health. When 120,000 people are dying each year, should we be bandying points about whether cigarettes are being imported illegally? Should we not be saying that we will do our best to stop that? We should never get away from the fact that we want to stop young people from taking up smoking in the first place. Scoring points off one another—saying, "My Government have done this and your Government have done that"—is not what we should be about. We are trying to protect the young people of this country; we are also trying to protect the rest of the people in this country—to stop them dying.
  Some of the comments made by Opposition Members are unbelievable. They made feeble excuses and said that we should vote against the Bill because of tobacco smuggling and because people are smoking more. We need to consider such measures because we are trying to improve the health of the nation.
  People in the tobacco industry claim that they do not target the young. If that is so, why do young people begin to smoke? Surely, if there was no advertising—no sight of the product—sales would be affected.
  Under the Bill, it would continue to be possible to keep cigarettes near the till in a shop. We need to examine that matter. Young children buy sweets or magazines and if they are confronted with cigarettes in a colourful display,

  705
  they will think that smoking is okay. They will realise that they can buy cigarettes when they are old enough. I suggest that cigarettes could be kept by the till, but in a cupboard where they cannot be seen. If people want to buy them, they can ask for them. If cigarettes are in a glossy display, that influences our children.
  Do children learn about smoking from their parents? That is possible. My mother smoked; I did not take it up but my sister did, so perhaps she was influenced by my mother. However, that does not explain why children whose parents do not smoke take up smoking. Why do they do so? Peer pressure was mentioned earlier; it is probably the most important factor.
  We should not represent smoking as being cool. I watched a television interview with Robbie Williams—a particular favourite of a couple of my daughters—during which he was smoking. The media must exercise responsibility. Why was Robbie Williams interviewed smoking? Why did he smoke when he knew that it would influence many young fans—especially those in the 11 to 15 age group that we have mentioned? We must get across to people the message that they must be responsible; just as hon. Members should exercise responsibility, so should people who attract high media coverage. Given his influence on young people, why was Robbie Williams not asked to put out his cigarette? Education is needed—unfortunately, it would appear, for the Opposition as well.
  We need to reconsider the provisions in clause 4 on the display of tobacco products near tills. Under clause 8, free samples and gifts of money or coupons are to be prohibited. The short-term effect of the provision is to prevent branded products—such as cigarette lighters—being given away, thus stopping the advertising of tobacco brands. That is a sensible measure and the Government are to be congratulated on it. There may be a loophole, though. The research paper notes that people will be exempt from prosecution if they can show that they did
  not know and had no reason to suspect that the purpose of the free distribution was to promote a tobacco product.
  That is not acceptable, and that aspect of the Bill should be strengthened. It is inconceivable that a person would not realise that a cigarette brand name has something to do with a tobacco product.
  Clause 9 deals with the prohibition of tobacco sponsorship. The Government want the matter to be dealt with quickly. I want it to be even sooner than the date of 1 October 2006 referred to in clause 18–30 July 2003 is mentioned in the research paper. That extra few years is too long.
  Some of the targets cited in the research paper are on the safe side. We shall be forgiven for not meeting targets, but we shall never be forgiven for not trying. Although I accept that it is better to be realistic than adventurous, the best work is usually done when targets are challenging but attainable. The target set for 2010 could and should be met earlier—perhaps by 2008. I should be interested to hear whether the Minister agrees with that. Perhaps she could explain why we need to wait until 2010 to achieve modest improvements.
  706
  I am pleased that the education campaign is high on the agenda, with an emphasis on young people. I am also pleased that tighter regulation and enforcement is a high priority. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the Bill, and I hope that it receives the vote that it deserves tonight.
  7 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) in the debate, because at least he was honest; he said that if he had his way, he would abolish tobacco. I am afraid the denizens of the Labour party at its headquarters in Millbank may be circling around the hon. Gentleman, because although the Government may not know how the ban will affect cigarette consumption, as sure as eggs is eggs they will know how many Labour party supporters smoke. The hon. Gentleman's remarks, although honest, will not be well received by the Labour party.
  I was struck by a remark made by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). He accused the Conservative party of being addicted to the tobacco industry, but I am addicted to personal freedom. The essential point is that the Bill represents a serious restriction on the freedom of companies to advertise a freely available and legal product.
  Mr. Barron: May I be more succinct and ask the hon. Gentleman what is the difference between the Bill and the ban, which started more than 30 years ago, on advertising cigarettes on television? Why has he never proposed that we get rid of such voluntary agreements, which have been accepted and negotiated with the tobacco companies since 1964?
  Mr. Atkinson: Surely the hon. Gentleman can understand that there is a fundamental difference between something that is compulsory and something that is voluntary. Irrespective of whether people like tobacco or think it dangerous, the proposal is that we should tell the companies, whose product is legally available for sale, that they cannot advertise it. That is a form of censorship. If this were the United States, there would be outrage at the Government's proposals because they represent an attack on freedom of the press and the individual, and freedom of expression.
  Mr. Barron: Let me put another point to the hon. Gentleman. Pharmaceutical products are licensed, restricted and regulated in this country. I cannot get them free because I have an income, but I can get them on prescription from my doctor. They are controlled and cannot be advertised because, although they can improve health, they can also damage it. The product that the hon. Gentleman defends damages health to the extent that 300 people die prematurely each day from its legitimate use. How can he say that it is wrong to restrict its advertising if that is done with pharmaceutical products, which can also endanger life?
  Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I said that people are permitted to advertise a freely available product. Aspirin and other products that can be bought over the counter can be advertised freely, but restricted medicines, which are available to pharmacists, cannot be advertised. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman cannot understand that there is a world of difference between the two.

  707
  Some hon. Members like to demonise the tobacco industry, but it is important and employs thousands of people, including many in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Health. They have rights, too. They have the right to have their case properly argued. The Government have failed to produce the figures on which they base their contention that tobacco consumption will fall if there is a ban on its advertising.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The hon. Gentleman said that he was interesting in protecting personal freedom, but surely there is a world of difference—to use his phrase—between personal freedoms and corporate freedoms, especially as we are talking about large multinational corporations.
  Mr. Atkinson: That shows the nonsense of the Government's view. There is no difference. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to demonise international corporations as though they were sinister bodies.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: They are.
  Mr. Atkinson: There we have it. That was never more obvious than when the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), accused the tobacco companies and said, in a rather brutal speech, that the previous attempt to stop tobacco advertising was blocked by the tobacco industry and its German allies. I am surprised that he did not talk about Krauts, because he was clearly playing the world-war-two card.
  In fact, the tobacco industry and its German allies went to the European Court of Justice and said that the directive, passed by the European Commission, was unlawful and the European Court of Justice agreed. The directive had to be scrapped because the court found that it was a public health measure which had been wrongly introduced as a single-market measure.
  The current Secretary of State for Health also had a go at the tobacco industry when it went to the High Court. Any citizen is entitled to go to the High Court to seek redress when someone—including the Government—behaves wrongly. The industry won; the High Court ruled in its favour and the Secretary of State said:
  I am appalled that the tobacco companies are trying to undermine a clear manifesto commitment for which there is such widespread public support.
  That is a disgraceful remark, given that someone had gone before one of the highest courts in the land and won the case.
  The reason why we are here tonight is, of course, cynicism. We all know that the Secretary of State has failed to improve the national health service and cut waiting lists—one of his key manifesto pledges. We also know that he does not want another manifesto pledge—to abolish tobacco advertising—to be added to his blacklist. That is why he is trying to push the Bill through, even though I suspect that, in his heart of hearts, he knows that his statement that the Bill complies with the European convention on human rights will be challenged and may not be sustainable.
  The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) said that he was glad that the Scottish Parliament had decided not to proceed with a similar Bill
  708
  but to support United Kingdom legislation. Under the Scotland Act 1998, all Scottish law has to comply with the European convention on human rights, and the Scottish judges will strike it down if it does not. The Scottish Parliament did not grab the opportunity to make a few headlines, because it knew perfectly well from its clear legal advice that the Bill does not comply with the European convention and is likely to fall. I do not understand why the Secretary of State and the Minister will not wait to find out what happens to the European directive. That would have been the obvious solution.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman fails to understand why many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel such passion about the Bill. Surely he misses the fact that the tobacco companies have a track record of cynically aiming their product at young people and targeting the developing world. My particular concern has always been the fact that young people are not protected from advertising, product placement and all the other wiles of a tobacco industry which, on the record in the United States and the United Kingdom, is not like other companies, does not have the same standards and has to be watched carefully at every step in terms of management, competence and strategy. That is the difference.
  Mr. Atkinson: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. If he had been in his place earlier, he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) make an excellent speech, explaining precisely why—he certainly convinced me—he believes young people start smoking. They start smoking not because of advertising but because of peer pressure and their friends' behaviour. There are many reasons why they start smoking, as my hon. Friend said in an intervention. Sadly, many young people take recreational drugs. Those drugs are outlawed and not advertised, yet they still take them in increasing numbers. It is by no means clear, to say the least, that advertising has any effect on that. If the hon. Gentleman cannot prove beyond all reasonable doubt that advertising affects young people and will cause a fall in the consumption of cigarettes, we should not take away the freedom of expression to which the tobacco industry and its clients are entitled.
  Mr. Sheerman: Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned about the large amount of data showing the relationship between exposure to advertising and people taking up a particular product? If that relationship does not exist, why on earth do people advertise in the first place? There is a relationship between brands, selling, marketing, advertising and consumption: that has been clear since commerce began. Furthermore, the tobacco companies' track record causes some of us to remain concerned that, even if the Bill is passed, they will get round it. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that free cigarettes are given to many pop icons so that they will smoke on television—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is becoming more of a speech.
  Mr. Atkinson: I am not aware of such a practice and I should be surprised if such a thing were done and television companies allowed it. To my regret, I have now forgotten the first point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman).

  709
  If one is going to take away people's freedom to express their views, to promote their legally available product and to tell their customers what is and is not available, the evidence has to be 100 per cent. copper-bottomed, but it is manifestly not so in this case. Tonight, several hon. Members have bandied around the Smee report. When it was originally published, claims were made that the report stated that banning tobacco advertising would cut consumption by 16 per cent. However, a week later, the newspaper concerned was forced to publish an apology, saying that Mr. Smee had
  looked at the conflicting evidence of bans in other countries and made no estimate for the UK.
  We see how figures can be manipulated.
  I have remembered the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. The reason why companies advertise—so market research people tell me—is to encourage brand loyalty. I am neither a market research expert nor an advertising person, but I suspect that the claims of such people are as valid as those made by the militant anti-smoking lobby. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who looks as though he wants to intervene.
  Mr. Bercow: I resist.
  Mr. Atkinson: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon.
  Several speakers have rightly identified as one of the problems causing the recent increase in tobacco consumption the amount of smuggled cigarettes and rolling tobacco coming into this country. I represent a constituency in the north-east of England, and there can be no doubt that the north-east is the capital of the bootleg cigarette. One of the tobacco companies recently conducted a project whereby it paid cleaners at certain football stadiums—I am not allowed to say which ones—to pick up empty cigarette packets after matches; the company has now revealed that one in every three packs is imported. We know that vast quantities of cheap cigarettes are coming into the north-east. I am told that in parts of Durham and similar places, one can pop into a club, leave an order and get a carton of 200 cigarettes a few days later.
  Such activities are no longer regarded as an offence. By forcing up tax on tobacco to an unsustainable level, the Government have turned loads of people into acquiescent criminals. Buying bootleg cigarettes is no longer perceived as wrong.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Atkinson: Ah, I see that my hon. Friend has risen to the occasion. I give way.
  Mr. Bercow: I found intervening irresistible in the face of my hon. Friend's eloquence. On the question of motivation, one can speak only for oneself. I briefly smoked cigarettes at secondary school, not because of any advertisement, but because two of my schoolmates did so. However, does my hon. Friend accept that, on discovering that one of them was a member of the Socialist Workers party, I thought it inappropriate to be seen in his company, whether smoking or otherwise?
  Mr. Atkinson: It is clear that my hon. Friend was a man of principle from an early age.
  Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend accept that tobacco smuggling on a large scale has a double-whammy effect? First, people are able to get tobacco products very cheaply; secondly, the tax lost to the Exchequer is money that does not go into the national health service, education, law and order and other essential services, which is a real problem for the Government.
  Mr. Swayne: Five billion pounds.
  Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is quite right. It is estimated that very large sums are lost—perhaps as much as £5 billion, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) says. Problems arising from high taxation forced Canada to reduce the price of cigarettes, with the result that the authorities made more money than they had before because people stopped bringing bootleg products over the border from the United States.
  I have another point to make about how the proposed ban will affect smoking habits. It can be argued that, because advertising aims to identify brands and make individual brands popular, the brands advertised are often premium brands that many young people like to smoke. The danger of banning advertising is that it might make bootleg brands even more popular: their tar content is often higher than that of premium brands; they are, therefore, far more dangerous cigarettes than the premium brands sold in this country. Perversely, a ban might damage young people's health, not help it.
  To return to my central point, the Government have failed to produce any figures that convince me that a ban on tobacco advertising would reduce consumption of cigarettes. The individual liberty of the citizen should therefore prevail.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I begin by declaring a series of interests. I was for many years a smoker; I am not now. I took ill as a result of smoking, suffering a major heart attack three and a half years ago. I have for years represented in the courts smugglers, crooks and criminals who have smuggled, fiddled and defrauded—and been acquitted, usually owing to my efforts—in connection with cigarettes, alcohol and just about every other substance one can think of. I have been a guest of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association at Lords cricket ground and rugby league cup finals, where the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has sat at the same table and joined the same company as me. I have represented tobacco agents; I have attended operas, shows and musical entertainments, all declared and all paid for by the tobacco industry.
  Mr. Bercow: All offences will be taken into account.
  Mr. Bermingham: Quite right.
  I have a track record about which I can be truly appalled. Tonight, I hope to try to bring some sanity and levity to what is not merely a serious argument but a deadly one: how do we stop people smoking?

  711
  I stopped because I had a heart attack. Believe me, dying is not a pleasant experience—I know that only too well. Coming back is quite a frightening experience—the broken ribs, the red marks on my chest. The look of sorrow on the faces of my family who still cared for me and who realised how stupid I had been in walking into a self-imposed death sentence—that is something that will never leave my mind. To those in the Royal Free hospital here in London who saved my life, and to the nurse whose name I do not know who taught me how to stop smoking, I will owe eternal gratitude, as will my wife, my family and my sons.
  I say that in all seriousness and sensibility, because the cause of my being in that hospital was my own crass stupidity. Forty years or more ago 1, like so many young people, thought that I, a fit, robust, handsome idiot, could play rugby, smoke my fags, down my pints and get the girls. I thought that it was clever. I did not realise that my clothes smelled; I did not recognise the stink and inconvenience that I caused to other people, or the damage that I would cause to my family and friends. However, time has taught me something, which is why I rose to speak in tonight's debate. If nothing else, I hope that the lessons that I have learned in life will persuade at least one person not to smoke again, one retailer not to sell cigarettes, or one smuggler not to bother smuggling; then, my experience will have served a useful purpose.
  What does tobacco do for people? It relaxes them, we are told. It also clogs up their arteries. It makes people suave and sophisticated, we are told. They have smelly breath and smelly clothes. It is cool, we are told. Is it? Who is cool with a piece of ash dangling from his or her fingers? No one. It took me 50-something years to learn that. I have learned, but I do not condemn others who smoke. I merely ask them to learn from my example.
  People speak about human rights, as the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) did a few moments ago. I know a little about human rights, having practised for more than 30 years. Human rights and the convention have been around a lot longer than since October last year. They have been around since the early 1950s, long before I became a practising lawyer.
  Human rights are a two-way process. When I smoke and my smoke invades someone else's space, it is that person's right that I have invaded, and that person's human right that I am abusing. I am asking someone else to endure or enjoy what I am taking upon myself. When I encourage someone to do something, I invade that person's human rights, because the behaviour in question may be harmful. Do I have some privilege that entitles me to do that? Surely the other person is equally entitled to the right to clear air. Surely the customers at the table next to me in the restaurant are entitled to enjoy their meal without my pollutant passing quietly past their noses. Let us forget the human rights argument. It does not take us anywhere.
  We have the commercial right to sell a product. If we had had this debate in 1901, I could have suggested that we adjourned to the local cocaine or heroin den. Those were legal. Tobacco was legal, too. We remember why the licensing laws were imposed: it was feared that the ladies in the munitions works in the years from 1914 onwards might drink too much gin before they filled the shelves.
  712
  Legality is only what society rules it should be. There are those who argue that cannabis should be legal. That is a legitimate argument, although I do not agree with it. People have long argued that tobacco should be legal. I understand the argument, but what about heroin, cocaine and cannabis? What about alcohol?
  I argue against myself, because I cheerfully admit that I do not mind the odd drop myself, even if I break the occasional toe—as was reported in the press on Saturday—when my shoe does not fit and I kick the shoe off and hit the wall instead. That is one of those tragedies.
  Let us consider what is contained in the Bill. It is no radical measure. It merely states that tobacco shall not be advertised. As has been pointed out, we agreed some time ago that there should be no tobacco advertising on television. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) made a simple and telling point when he said that if we think that cigarettes are bad for people, and that it is rather silly to smoke, we should persuade others by example that our point of view is right. As a society, we should begin to behave responsibly about such matters.
  I was watching television last night—which programme does not matter—and throughout the film, I could see the cigarette packet. Those cigarettes were not just invented. At the beginning of the century in Ireland, for example, one of the brands of cigarette available was Carrolls.
  Why do we not take the sensible point of view? Why do we not acknowledge that smoking is not good for people, and that it is rather a silly pastime? Pop stars are the icons of our young, as we well understand, and they should not give a bad example by smoking. They should not be filmed for cinema or television while they are smoking: as has been said, they should be asked to put their cigarette out.
  How many times was I asked, when I smoked, to put my cigarette out before an interview and before filming began on the green or somewhere round the House? Hundreds of times. Why do we not insist, in films, television plays and the soaps to which we are all to some degree addicted, that there is no smoking?
  Mr. Barron: One of the answers to that question, as regards movies made in America, is that actors such as Sylvester Stallone have had contracts to promote tobacco while they were making films.
  Mr. Bermingham: That is precisely my point. If society were responsible, and it became known to those who make films that we would not tolerate smoking, they would not portray smokers in their films. If we make it obvious to them that that is what we demand, as a society and as a European market—a massive market—we will find the Americans rather quick on the uptake when it comes to brass. If they know that no such contracts will be permitted in films to be shown in the United Kingdom and on the continent, we can bet our bottom dollar that Sylvester Silverstone or whatever he is called—a Freudian slip, perhaps—will soon cease to require such contracts and the makers will not be able to enforce such terms.
  If we have the will, there is no problem. We must also deal with other aspects, such as smuggling. I shall give a simple example. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pass on to the Treasury a message that there is a little thing that Customs officers could do that would help.

  713
  At present, people can bring into the country enough cigarettes and so on for their own needs. I shall return to what that means. Customs officers will not confiscate the excess number of cigarettes that people have.
  In a recent case, I asked a Customs officer what he considered enough for one's personal needs, and he said "several thousand". I said, `What?" In the old days, when people came in from abroad, 200 fags was the maximum. Now they can bring in a van load, and stack the booze up to the roof—"It's all for me own consumption, guy. I've got four crates of wine here, two pallets of beer, two and a half thousand fags. We're going to have a party." People say it every day, coming through Dover, Folkestone and God knows where else.
  If we were serious, we should say, "Two hundred fags—that's your lot. The rest will be confiscated." We would be surprised how quickly the incoming amount would go down.
  I know from professional knowledge and experience that in the south-east of England, 83 per cent. of all hand-rolled tobacco is smuggled. There is a town in Belgium, whose name I shall not advertise for fear the mole might seek to use it, where there are seven warehouses that do nothing but provide hand-rolled tobacco for southern England. We are aware of that, but the Belgian Government will not co-operate because it is not an offence in Belgium, so we cannot extradite anyone to stand trial in this country. I should hate to tell the House how much the Revenue lost in that case in which I was involved. Lorryloads—not truckloads—of tobacco were coming in.
  For once, let us get real about the present situation concerning cigarettes. In Benidorm, there are warehouses stuffed full of English manufactured cigarettes with English health warnings on the packets. They are brought back in, having been shipped out. Provided they are brought back a couple of thousand at a time, the whole lot will come through.
  Mr. Barron: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is different from a family or tourists returning from holiday in France and bringing in a few bottles of wine and, perhaps, cigarettes in their car? Is that not different from the white van trade, in which people leave the country on ferries at heavily discounted rates, late at night, and return before dawn with vans full of goods? No one knows where those goods come from because there are no retail outlets open during the night over in France and Belgium.
  Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am not against Mr. and Mrs. Smith and baby Smith coming back with 200 fags for mum, 200 for dad, a few bottles of wine and the odd bottle of whisky. That is fine. I am against what is actually happening. There are two or three guys with a van loaded with 2,000 or 3,000 cans of beer, boxes of whisky and wine, and 4,000 or 5,000 fags. We all know what happens. They go down to their local club, go round the back and say, "Mrs. Smith, did you want 400?" or "Mr. Jones, you wanted a crate of wine too, didn't you?" That is criminal activity, and it must be stopped.
  The minute one starts cutting that down, one cuts down the market. It is all very well to say that, of course, one got three containers-full at Felixstowe the other week.
  714
  Felixstowe gets containers' full every week, as do the country's other ports. Believe me, from what I understand, we are merely scratching the surface. Once we get rid of the ethos in society of "owt for nowt"—meaning the smuggled amount—and its not being very naughty when people do such things, we will begin to cut smuggling and start to destroy the differential. The policy of jacking up revenue costs will then work. However, if we jack those costs up each year and the volume of stuff coming in grows, that policy is counterproductive.
  Mr. Evans: I disagree with hardly anything that the hon. Gentleman has said. However, surely it would be far better for the Government to direct all their attention to smuggling and get away from the existing price differential? Two tiers of cigarettes and tobacco are available in this country: that which is smuggled, which is very cheap, and that which is obtained over the counter—which I deal with—which is very expensive. Banning advertising will have hardly any impact either way. The price differential and the availability of cheap cigarettes are a real problem.
  Mr. Bermingham: I disagree, because people will then go back to asking what advertising is all about. Advertising makes a product known. When I was seven—well, I concede that there were not many advertisements then, as we were just coming out of a world war, although that is another story. As advertising was not prevalent then, I had better move on a few years to the time when I was a young man. In those days, advertising billboards encouraged people to smoke cigarettes—whether Philip Morris, Players, Capstan, Craven "A" or whatever. I am beginning to show how many cigarettes I know about.
  Of course, that encouraged people, as we began to choose and market-test. We would test one brand against another. There should be no advertising, and no billboards for Silk Cut, Benson and Hedges, Marlboro, or any other of today's cigarettes. After all, we are seeking to discourage young people from smoking and, if we can discourage people from smoking at 15 and keep them from smoking, we will have taken real customers out of the market. Discouraging a 60-year-old from smoking does not take so much out of the market.
  That is why the Bill has value. Nothing should be advertised and, with a bit of luck, we can begin to persuade people to adopt a culture in which smoking is not encouraged and in which people on television do not smoke. On the radio, it does not matter, because one cannot see people—which is why I have always thought that radio was quite a good medium. Furthermore, if tobacco is not in the papers, although people who smoke will, presumably, learn about brands by word of mouth they will not know the difference between one and the other. With a bit of luck, that will continue to discourage people.
  If we have an attack on smoking which combines education, disincentive, denial of advertising and persuasion, with a bit of luck, someone reaching the age I was a few years ago will not go through what I went through. As a result of my own stupidity, I suffered a major heart attack which, frankly, was caused by smoking. It just ain't worth it. If we can get that message

  715
  across with the aid of the Bill and other measures, perhaps we will have done something useful at the beginning of this century.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I shall try to be brief, as we have rehearsed most of the main arguments for and against the Bill.
  Many of us probably have a personal interest in this matter. In my case, my father, who was a heavy smoker, died shortly after he retired. I have no wish to see my grandchildren seduced by advertising when they grow up, and, potentially, have their lives cut short. The proposals are long overdue. The voluntary ban on all television advertising was agreed in 1965, but what is the difference between advertising on television and all the other kinds of advertising in which the tobacco companies are involved? As the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said earlier, the tobacco manufacturers have always found alternative ways around whatever ban we have put in place. Even now, they are trying to find a way around the bans that we are planning.
  We should see the Bill as part of a process. The scale of profits involved in that industry are such that tobacco manufacturers have a huge incentive to find ways around the Bill, so we may well have to return to the subject. Ministers will need to be robust when they consult on the regulations which the Bill, if enacted, will allow them to impose. Over the years, we have seen the way in which the industry has been able to prevaricate and string out the negotiations about health warnings, for example.
  The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) read out from the Select Committee report confessions from some companies that smoking caused cancer. British American Tobacco was one company that admitted that. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not read out the comments of other companies, which still tried to deny that their products caused cancer or heart disease. We are against many major manufacturers who still refuse to admit that they are peddling a lethal product. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) was right that those companies know just how lethal their product is, but have no willingness to admit it to the electorate.
  Mr. Bercow: I understand the vantage point from which the hon. Gentleman approaches the subject. However, with reference to what he said about regulations, will he confirm that he is not suggesting that they should be subject to the negative rather than the affirmative procedure of the House?
  Mr. Morgan: It is more important that the regulations should be robust and that they should achieve something rather than be something that we can get around in a hurry. I am quite happy for those that are intended to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
  We should not have any sympathy for the tobacco industry which, for many years, has been a cynical manipulator of its clients and potential clients. One has only to look at the evidence that the Select Committee obtained from the industry's advertising agents to see how true that is. Nothing could be more cynical than the industry's sponsorship of sport, which was designed to
  716
  improve its image and the attractiveness of the product by associating it with health-giving activities that are full of life. Recent research at the university of Strathclyde showed that children as young as six associate certain brands of cigarettes with excitement and fast cars. If that is the message that is being conveyed to children as young as six, it is certainly getting across to children and young adults who are in the cigarette manufacturers' target range. Of course, the bitter irony is that the more that people consume the product, the less fit they are; indeed, they will be less able to participate in the activities that are being associated with it.
  The tobacco manufacturers' main objective is to recruit new smokers. We must all be worried about the increase in the number of young smokers. It has been pointed out that it is considered fashionable to smoke, but that fashion is assiduously developed and reinforced by much of the advertising that manufacturers target at the particular brands that young people are seen to be willing to take up.
  The manufacturers are also keen on putting people off giving up smoking. That is why they try to associate certain health messages with particular brands. For example, some brands are sold as low-tar cigarettes. In other words, they are alleged to be less of a risk to those who smoke them. Of course, much of the evidence suggests that it depends on how people smoke the cigarette rather than on which cigarette they choose. Low-tar brands can be just as dangerous as high-tar brands. The manufacturers' other objective is to make their consumers into addicts. The product does that naturally and without effort, so no effort at all is required from them in that respect.
  We must be concerned about slippage on the Bill, especially if comments on the timing of the general election are to be believed. Perhaps the next debate, which is on the programme motion, gives us some hope in that regard, but there are obviously no guarantees on what happens to the Bill in the other place. I hope to hear from the Minister for Public Health that the Government intend to push the Bill through the House of Lords just as vigorously as through the House of Commons.
  Of course, the Bill is not the only measure that is necessary. Many hon. Members have rightly alluded to the problem of smuggling. There is no doubt that the availability of bargain cigarettes that are seen as very cheap will increase consumption, especially among the groups that have access to such products. As the hon. Member for Rother Valley said, the sale of such products has a double disadvantage, as it avoids all the legal restrictions that are currently in place, including those that relate to children under a certain age, which are of particular concern. Pressure must be stepped up, to try to cut smuggling, but we should not allow it to become a red herring. The availability of a cheap product is more likely to increase consumption if advertising has already made that product desirable. A product sells not merely because it is cheap, but because people want it; cheapness will be a bonus.
  We must question the morality of cigarette companies that achieve huge sales of their products in other countries of brands that are not smoked much in those countries. As other hon. Members have pointed out, it is often clear that such brands are meant for the United Kingdom

  717
  market because of the health warnings that they display. The Select Committee on Health was informative about that matter. I know that the loophole has now been closed, but the Committee told us that imports to Andorra amounted at one stage to seven packets per head for every man, woman and child of its population. The tobacco companies have a great moral responsibility for what is happening to their products. They must be responsible for allowing them to be sold to such countries in the full knowledge that they will come straight back to the United Kingdom, without, of course, incurring duty.
  We have heard the argument that the advertising ban would deprive companies of the ability to convey information about their products to the consumers. The tobacco companies have had decades to convey to consumers the information that their products kill. They have not taken that opportunity during the past five or so decades, so, as far as I am concerned, they have forfeited their right to convey any other information about their products.
  The Bill has obvious gaps. The hon. Member for Wakefield mentioned the need for a regulatory body and it was pointed out that there are regulatory bodies for medicines and food. It is ironic that we have regulatory bodies for products that are, by and large, good for people, but not for tobacco, which everybody apart from its manufacturers says is bad for people. We would be well advised to establish such a body.
  I might repeat some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) about Scotland, as many of the hon. Members now present were not in the Chamber to hear his speech. The Bill affects Scotland. Many of its provisions deal with matters that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, which has decided none the less that they should be considered in Westminster. The Secretary of State mentioned in his opening remarks the comments made on the Bill some weeks ago by the Scottish Tory health spokesman, but his research was not quite up to date.
  Last Wednesday afternoon, the Scottish Parliament debated and agreed to what is known as the Sewel motion. As the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden explained, Lord Sewel agreed during the passage through the House of Lords of the Bill that became the Scotland Act 1998 that, even if the Westminster Parliament was to legislate for devolved matters in Scotland, it would not do so until the Scottish Parliament passed a resolution in agreement. I do not think that Lord Sewel ever thought that his name would go down in Scottish constitutional history during his tenure in office. None of those listening to him thought so either, but there it is.
  Interestingly, the so-called Sewel motion received all-party support and went through unopposed. I know that the House of Commons has no Conservatives who represent Scottish seats, but because of proportional representation in the Scottish Parliament—a policy that the Tories opposed at the time—there are Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Greenway: We did win a by-election.
  Mr. Morgan: One swallow does not make summer.
  718
  The Conservatives' leading and only speaker in the debate on the Sewel motion was Ben Wallace, a Conservative regional Member for North-East Scotland.
  He said:
  The Conservatives support the aims of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. As a unionist, I recognise that some legislation, especially on subjects that impact on all of us in the British isles, is best dealt with in a Westminster context.
  Mr. Wallace had some reservations about the Bill, but most of them related to the fear that it would fall because of an imminent general election. His other reservations were based on the view that the Bill did not go far enough. 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.—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 17 January 2001; Vol. 10, c. 279–280.]
  As the Scottish Conservatives are contesting the Westminster election, those of us who have votes in Scotland must ask whether they are in favour of the Bill, or whether they are under the control of the English Conservatives, who are against it. Perhaps they are saying one thing in Scotland and another thing elsewhere. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) might want to tell us about that.
  Following the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), I point out that, given the significantly higher incidence in Scotland of heart disease, lung cancer and so on, tobacco advertising is clearly of great importance. If the Bill can reduce even by one the number of deaths in Scotland, it will have done its job. I think that it will do a lot more, however, and I trust that it will make speedy progress here and in the other place.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I support the Government's objectives in the Bill, which is very important. Hon. Members from all parties made many contributions and advanced honest arguments, but choices have to be made. As somebody who used to smoke, I have been on both sides of the fence. It is said that the worst people are those who are reformed, but I have also benefited from the tobacco companies as a former director of a rugby club that was financially supported by them. I believe that the tobacco industry puts money into rugby because that sponsorship has influence. Much of today's debate is about whether advertising influences. I believe that it does.
  The prime example is Formula 1. The purpose of advertising in that sport is to influence people and to increase the power of the tobacco industry. People ask whether advertising really has an effect. Of course it does. Young children have toys that bear the advertisements. Very young people recognise a racing car that is covered in sponsorship from a tobacco company. That has an influence on children, who are vulnerable. We should end that.
  Let us consider the sports that are sponsored. Rugby league has benefited for many years from one of the longest periods of sponsorship, through the Silk Cut challenge cup. That is an annual event that has been played at Wembley and, dare we say it, at Edinburgh, and it may go to Wales. Rugby, fishing, darts, greyhound

  719
  racing and clay pigeon shooting have all benefited from sponsorship. I do not detract from the benefits that the tobacco industry has brought those sports, but there comes a time to recognise that sport and tobacco are not compatible. Far from it; they should be separated. The tobacco industry did not benefit t lose sports because it believed in them, but because it believed that advertising had influence. We revert therefore to the argument about influence. The sports that I have mentioned continue to benefit from sponsorship.
  The Government acknowledged that sport needed financial support. In 1997, when we came to office, we rightly set up a taskforce chaired by the then Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who was challenged to find alternative sponsorship. The taskforce had many members. I do not how successful they were, but they should have succeeded. The Government should be obliged to find alternative sponsorship for the sports that will lose the income that they have had for many years. I thank the tobacco industry for what it has lone for sport, but I believe that the two cannot continue together.
  Young people recognise brands of tobacco. Youngsters who play rugby league at Wembley see that the cup is sponsored by a tobacco company. They can see representatives of Silk Cut and the tobacco kiosk that is set up outside the ground. That can encourage young people—perhaps the next generation of young rugby stars—to take up tobacco through their involvement in the sport.
  Although I cannot detract from what tobacco companies have done for sport, it should not be sponsored by a killer. Tobacco kills people. As I have said, if children's toys carry tobacco advertisements, something is sadly wrong. Surely the time has come to change that.
  The figures are awful. Those for 1998 show that 31 per cent. of 16 to 19-year-old men and 33 per cent. of 16 to 19-year-old women smoke. That makes 1998 one of the worst years since 1978. That is unacceptable. Smoking is considered trendy; we ought to do something about that and put people off.

  Perhaps some hon. Members believe that banning advertising will affect only a few people. I acknowledge that statistics can be made to support both sides of an argument. However, if the statistics claim that we can deter 3,000 people a year from smoking, that should be a sufficient reason for banning advertising. If it deters one person, that is good enough. I believe that thousands of people are influenced by advertising and that banning it would benefit not only those whom we deter from smoking but the national health service.
  People ask why I felt that I had to speak in the debate. Doctors and consultants who came to my surgery in 1997 shortly after the new Government were elected said that they believed that the Government were right to ban tobacco advertising. For some, banning advertising will never go far enough, while others will never accept such a ban. However, we must strike a balance. When those doctors and consultants expressed their views, I listened to them and took their opinions on board. Those views were reinforced by visiting a hospice and talking to people who said, "I wish I'd never smoked." We should take account of their regret in our debate.
  720
  If we can save 3,000 people, or only one person, a year, that is a justifiable and sufficient reason for banning tobacco advertising. Those doctors and consultants were right, as are the people who work in hospices and contacted me. We should listen to those experts in health who believe in saving people's lives and in a better quality of life. We can play our part by supporting the Government to ensure that people—perhaps thousands of people; we shall never know—are saved.
  We must acknowledge the fact that the tobacco industry employs people in well paid jobs in this country, but we must not let it stop us. The companies that have made billions of pounds over many years should consider alternative employment for people who work in the industry. We should persuade them to look for alternatives and re-employ people. There is nothing wrong with considering alternatives for the futures of those who have had good-quality, well paid jobs. They have a right to work, and we should not dogmatically say, "You must stop tobacco production tomorrow." We will not do that.
  The Bill is a stepping stone, onto which we can all step today. Some hon. Members may have a personal interest in not banning tobacco advertising, but if they can stop a young person smoking by banning tobacco advertising, they should cross that first stepping stone. It is important to have a healthy nation. We can begin by ensuring that people do not smoke. Smoking is the biggest killer if we take account of lung cancer, heart disease, other related diseases and passive smoking, which although easily dismissed some years ago, is now acknowledged as a killer.
  If we can begin to deter people by banning advertising, we should do so. All hon. Members who know someone who has died through smoking should think about that person's family and how they suffered. They should consider how those people started smoking: through a nudge and a wink at school or because they saw some trendy advertising.
  Let us return to the issue of Formula 1. Some of the onlookers will be members of the international set who want to be involved in Formula 1 racing, but some will be young people who want icons—and their icons will be the drivers whose cars are covered in tobacco advertisements. That, surely, is wrong. Is this really about a belief that racing cars are important to the tobacco industry? No: it is about the tobacco industry getting a return on its investment in advertising on those racing cars. That is the reality—and the reality is also that young people are influenced, and young people are vulnerable. For that reason, whichever sport is involved—and not many are involved now—we should end tobacco advertising. The House has a moral obligation to ensure that that happens, so that young people have a chance not to be influenced.
  Many would like to take the proposals a stage further. The time for that will come—not in the short term, but when reports are produced in the longer term. People will then begin to recognise that tobacco results in serious illnesses, and to take account of the number of deaths caused by smoking in this country and throughout Europe.
  As we begin to allow the export of misery—for that is what we are doing in ensuring that people in the third world will die because of the tobacco industry—

  721
  the industry, given all the money it has made over many years, should stand up and say "We are seeking alternative employment for the workers, but we should also seek alternatives to make the shareholders happy. We ought not to make them happy through the export of misery and death, and we ought not to make them happy with tobacco advertisements in sport."
  The time has come for the industry to reconsider its future. It is a global player with many interests, and it ought to think about where it wants to be next.
  Mr. Swayne: Is there not every possibility that the tobacco industry will be laughing all the way to the bank? Advertising is a powerful economy, excluding new entrants to the market. Making cigarettes is cheap, but manufacturers are prevented from doing so by the huge costs involved in marketing. The hon. Gentleman's proposals would end that: they would institutionalise the exclusion of new entrants, at no cost to the manufacturers.
  Mr. Hoyle: I did not realise that we would hear the cuckoo so early in the year. Yes, cigarettes are exported, and yes, they are very cheap to manufacture, but it should not be forgotten that advertising is very cheap in third-world countries. It is the expensive Formula 1 advertising that we should end. That is what influences young people. People aged 16 to 19 are increasingly attracted to smoking because of advertising in high-profile sports such as Formula 1. Such advertising must end because, whichever way we look at it, it is ultimately about death and misery.
  We should embark on the first stepping stone now, and our action should be replicated throughout the world. It is no use saying that making cigarettes in the third world is cheap, because what we are talking about is brand image. People do not buy the cheapest cigarettes from third-world countries; far from it. They buy cheap cigarettes, but well-known brands, which they see advertised on racing cars. The Opposition are not facing up to that. Those are the high-profile brands that are being smuggled into the country.
  We are not talking about the smuggling of an unknown brand of cigarettes which people do not smoke. That is the whole point. I realise that smuggling is a major problem. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) mentioned it earlier, and he must have an interest in ensuring that it does not happen, because tobacco sales will no doubt have fallen in his shop. I agree with him that we must do something about smuggling, because it is a problem for the Exchequer, and it means that cheap cigarettes are on the streets where young people may be able to get hold of them. I am not talking about cheap cigarettes that are not advertised on racing cars or elsewhere in sport; I am not talking about unknown brands. Brands of influence are being sold on the streets.
  Mr. Evans: My heart is warmed by the hon. Gentleman's generous sentiments about my business. He says that people do not smoke brands of cigarette that are not advertised. He will know that a brand of hand-rolling tobacco that was not available in shops in the United Kingdom, and was therefore not advertised in the United
  722
  Kingdom, obtained an enormous market share simply because of its price and availability generally. His argument in that regard is thus completely destroyed. Let us attack smuggling rather than concentrating on advertising, which has a lot to do with brand but nothing to do with market share.
  Mr. Hoyle: What we should be talking about is brand cigarettes, which I am talking about. At the end of the day, it is not unknown brands that are sold through smuggling. I think even the hon. Gentleman might just see the connection between brand awareness and the smuggling of brands that are sold. However, I understand his point about hand-rolling tobacco. The majority of such tobacco now being sold is smuggled: in fact, one would be hard pressed to find a shop that is moving hand-rolling tobacco. Similarly, pipe-smokers favour particular brands, but if a brand is cheat enough they will smoke it.
  At the end of the day, we are talking about finished cigarettes. Without doubt such cigarettes are smoked because of brand awareness. No unknown brands are being sold on the streets: recognised brands are what are being sold, apart from hand-rolling tobacco, which is in a different category.
  The hon. Gentleman takes every opportunity to appear on television or on Radio Lancashire. If he is serious about people's health, here is a chance for him to promote the health of people in the north-west: he can take that small step today. I look forward to seeing him in the Lobby if he really does care about the health of those people, especially young people. That is what we must end: the influence of tobacco advertising on young people through sport and other media.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), because we both serve on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, but I am disappointed that he belittled one of the most successful British export manufacturing activities—the production of tobacco products. He apparently thinks that everyone employed in that industry should be fired and given alternative employment. That argument must be offensive to all who are employed in wt at is a very responsible industry. Surely we should allow individual sovereign nation states to decide for themselves whether they wish to make tobacco illegal. If a foreign country allows tobacco to be lawfully consumed, why should not British exporters have a chance to take a share in the market?
  Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is welcome in one respect? Previously, the Government attempted to pursue their policy by using the European Union. Is it not infinitely preferable that the measure is being considered in this place, rather than imposed on us by that alien and evil empire?
  Mr. Chope: Although I understand my hon. Friend's point, I have to tell him that, unfortunately, the Government are still intent on using an alliance with their European partners to stop United Kingdom tobacco manufacturers exporting to countries outside the European Union products to the specification that those countries want for their consumers.

  723
  Although I share the concern of the hon. Member for Chorley about the incidence of smoking among young people, the examples that he gave are based on a fallacy. He cited motor racing, rugby league, fishing, darts, greyhounds and clay-pigeon shooting and suggested that the glamour of tobacco sponsorship for those sports leads young people to smoke. Given that the incidence of smoking is much higher among young women than it is among young men, I could use those same facts to argue that young men who follow those sports realise that, to be successful in sport, one must be fit and that it is bad to smoke. One could also argue that more women choose to smoke because they do not follow those sports or gain exposure to that glamour. The hon. Gentleman's argument on that point is fallacious.
  The hon. Member for Chorley is the type of person who would read The Independent, so I am surprised that he was not influenced at all by its leading article, on 9 December 2000, attacking the Bill. The article states:
  There is no evidence that advertising encourages young people to smoke who otherwise would not. It is all a matter of persuading existing smokers that one brand is preferable to another. Young people take up smoking because it is cool in a sub-culture beyond the reach of billboards or racing car logos or because they want to lose weight. Or because they want to do something of which grown ups disapprove.
  I think The Independent has hit the nail on the head.
  One of the Government's first Bills was designed to introduce a total ban on handguns, including those used in the Olympic sport of pistol shooting. Public safety was the avowed justification for a ban, which it was said would reduce the number of armed robberies involving handguns. Since then, however, as the latest Home Office statistics show, the incidence of violent crime involving handguns has mushroomed. That legislation did not achieve its avowed purpose, but it did succeed in restricting freedom and depriving very many British sportsmen of an opportunity to participate internationally.
  The justification for this Bill is that an absolute censorship of tobacco advertising will increase public safety. The facts, however, do not support the Government's argument—which is a similarly bogus argument to the one deployed, at the very beginning of this Parliament, on handguns.
  I shall not repeat the points made so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who tore apart the Smee report and drew attention to KPMG's much more recent report. In an earlier intervention, I quoted from a letter from Mr. Michael Stewart—about which some hon. Members said we require expert advice. The letter, which appeared in Private Eye on 12 January 2001, states:
  A few years ago I analysed tobacco consumption in the 22 countries of the OECD over the period 1964 to 1990, in order to estimate the effect of tobacco advertising bans in the six countries which had introduced such a ban. The best estimate of the effect of total advertising bans was of an increase of about 4 per cent. The probability of the effect being a decrease in tobacco consumption was only one in 40.
  For hon. Members who are interested, the full report can be found at www.mikestrt.dircon.co.uk.
  The report was done by an independent expert. Some Labour Members suggested that, because KPMG was paid for its objective work by tobacco manufacturers, that work must be unsound. It could be said, equally, that Mr. Smee was beholden to the Department of Health because it paid
  724
  for his work. Ultimately, however, he had to write a letter to The Times to stop the arguments that he had deployed being traduced by the Government.
  Fortunately, we come to the House not only with evidence, but with our inherent common sense. Cannabis, Ecstasy and cocaine are not advertised, but their use is increasing. Attempts by the Government to engage in counter-advertising to highlight the risks have been a total failure. There can scarcely be an adult who is unaware of the adverse health effects of smoking. Indeed, I do not think that any children aged 12 to 16 are unaware of the adverse health effects of smoking. Under the national curriculum, all those children have classes that tell them about both legal and illegal drugs and substances.
  Young people cannot be under the illusion that smoking does not have a health impact. However, they think that smoking will not affect them. Moreover, quite often, the Government's arguments are undermined by counter-arguments suggesting that, if one gives up smoking after 15 years, one can overcome any ill health effects occasioned. Such an argument leads particularly young people to believe that they can smoke for the first 10 or 15 years of their adult life, give up smoking and still be healthy. We shall have to see the impact of arguments that cigarette smoking may cause young people to be unable to conceive. I fear that such arguments will have no effect.
  Banning advertising of a lawful product is not justified on the evidence presented by the Government, and it is certainly not justified in principle. The Bill, however, is bad on another count, as it seeks to cover up the Government's complete failure to achieve their avowed manifesto and public health objective of reducing smoking, particularly among those under 16.
  In their first Budget, in July 1997, the Government increased tax on a packet of 20 cigarettes by 19p, with effect from 1 December 1997. The justification for the increase, as stated at paragraph 2.23 of the Red Book, was that
  The Government is committed to increasing tobacco duties on average by at least 5 per cent. a year in real terms (compared to the previous Government's 3 per cent. commitment) as one measure aimed at reducing tobacco consumption and dissuading young people from starting smoking.
  The Government also said that they were alert to the problem of tobacco fraud, smuggling and cross-border shopping, and announced a review to report by the end of 1997.
  Those were the Government's intentions, but what has happened in practice? Successive duty increases—in March 1998, 1999 and 2000—have resulted in the tax on cigarettes increasing by about one third. Cigarette consumption has remained more or less constant—I believe that it has increased slightly—whereas the yield from tobacco duties has decreased.
  Whereas in 1997–98, £8.3 billion was raised in tobacco duty, this year's pre-Budget report, which was issued in November 2000, shows that the Exchequer expects to obtain £7.4 billion from tobacco duty in the current year. That is £900 million less than was raised in the Government's first year. The projections for next year are that, despite an increase in tobacco duty in line with inflation or above, the yield will still only be £7.6 billion.
  Mr. David Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman about to say that a future Conservative

  725
  Government would reduce taxation on tobacco because doing so would increase revenue and have a negligible effect on tobacco consumption and, therefore, on health?
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my argument. On the Government's information, we expect that, this year—as the tax has been increased by one third and consumption has stayed the same—the yield from tobacco tax will only be £7.4 billion. There is a shortfall of £3.5 billion per annum in tax revenue for the Government. In the same way as the last Conservative Government recognised the law of diminishing returns in relation to high levels of income tax, I hope that, in preparing our manifesto in opposition, we shall be robust and face up to the fact that it is better to repatriate control over tobacco to the lawful elements of this country than to have one third of it controlled by unlawful elements. We could then get the revenue from that tobacco. If we reduced tobacco tax by about £1.20 a packet, it would result in increased income for the Government and increased control over tobacco in this country.
  Mr. Taylor: In the 1960s, my two sisters and I lost a father to chronic bronchitis and emphysema from heavy smoking. I predict that many thousands of families in future generations will neither forget nor forgive a Government who encourage tobacco smoking, as the hon. Gentleman predicts for an incoming Conservative Government—which, hopefully, will be many decades away if that is typical of the policies that they espouse.
  Mr. Chope: In giving way to the hon. Gentleman, I had not realised that he was going to completely misrepresent my argument. My argument is that one third of the cigarettes consumed in this country are available to young people at a quarter or a third of the price in newsagents. That is generating the increase in smoking among young people. It is offensive and I hope that the next Conservative Government will change it.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that the evidence suggests that smuggled tobacco products sold in this country are sold disproportionately to the most vulnerable groups in society?
  Mr. Chope: Absolutely. The Government's White Paper gives the example of a couple on income support who are smokers. In 1994, they were spending some 15 per cent. of their income on tobacco. Now, following the sharp increases in tax, that has increased to 20 per cent. or more. Is it any surprise that they seek opportunities to buy tobacco at reduced prices? That is happening in the marketplace. I know that Labour Members do not understand the marketplace but, for those of us who do, it is gratifying to realise that, as a result of the Government's ludicrous policy of increasing tax, the market is intervening and showing the policy to be totally counterproductive.
  I have never smoked, but I am full of admiration for those who do. If they did not, the public programmes for which they pay through their taxes would have to be funded to a greater extent by me. However, as a lawyer, I am concerned about the application of the law of
  726
  diminishing returns, which results in us having by far the highest tobacco taxes in Europe. I am concerned also about the way in which otherwise law-abiding citizens are forced to engage with or aid and abet, the new criminal underclass, which is engaged in the tobacco smuggling that the Government have created.
  On 2 October last year, the Daily Echo—my local newspaper—carried on its front page the headline "Smugglers Smoked Out." Incidentally, the newspaper had a splendid photograph of packs of 200 Superkings and Lambert and Butler cigarettes; I do not know whether that will still be allowed if the Bill becomes law. The story described the discovery of 19 passengers on a late-night flight from Tenerife to Bournemouth international airport with 32 suitcases filled with 650,000 cigarettes. Nine people were questioned while another 10 vanished without bothering to collect their luggage.
  Customs and Excise estimated the value of the cigarettes to be £130,000, which should have carried a duty fee of £104,000. It was claimed as the biggest seizure of cigarettes from a single plane in the UK. The nine passengers arrested—five men and four women—were not from my constituency, but from the Worksop and Chester area. They may have missed their jackpot on that occasion but, on the latest evidence from Customs, more than £3 billion in tobacco duty is being avoided this year. That is the equivalent of the contents of 30,000 flights like the one that Customs was lucky enough to find at Bournemouth last year. What use are 1,000 extra enforcement officers in bucking the market in contraband which the Government have done so much to bolster with their high tax policy?
  Mrs. Eileen Gordon: Is the hon. Gentleman, like me, looking forward to the DTI report on the alleged collusion by British American Tobacco in smuggling?
  Mr. Chope: The DTI is looking into the matter, but the Treasury Committee reported before Christmas that there was no basis whatever for the wholly unfounded allegations made against the British manufacturer in question. In accordance with my belief that a person, company or corporation is innocent until proven guilty, I shall wait to see the evidence without jumping to any conclusion, which I fear the hon. Lady is intent on doing. Those of us who believe in the market are seeing that it is working, and I hope that the Government will now face up to reality.
  I wish to refer also to the EU tobacco fund. I do not know whether Members are familiar with it, but it is something to which we all contribute as taxpayers in this country. One of the roles of the EU fund is to identify, and spend money on research into a less harmful form of tobacco. Let us assume that, unlike most European programmes, this one is successful in identifying a less harmful form of tobacco. How will that product obtain market entry without advertising? I give that as an example of the absurdity of restricting advertising of consumer products and consumer access to information about them.
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman knows that people become addicted not to tobacco but to the nicotine content of cigarettes. Tobacco is one of the dirtiest and most unhealthy ways of taking nicotine into the system.

  727
  In terms of nicotine replacement therapy, there are many ways of treating or satisfying someone's addiction to nicotine without having to smoke tobacco. The hon. Gentleman is scoffing at something that scientists are looking into seriously to stop the daily deaths of people who smoke tobacco.
  Mr. Chope: I am not scoffing at the idea. I hope that we shall be able to find a less dangerous form of tobacco. If we succeed in so doing and the product is marketed by a tobacco company, how will the company be able to inform the market at which it is aiming of the virtues of its new, healthier cigarette if it cannot advertise them? The hon. Gentleman has not answered that question.
  Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is obviously convinced that the market is working well in terms of tobacco advertising and consumption. To what extent does he believe that the following should be factored into marketing calculations: the cost of national health service treatment; the premature cessation of employment of people who retire for reasons of ill health, as my father did at the age of 50; and the loss of a father from a family 20 or 30 years before the end of the natural lifespan that he might otherwise have enjoyed? How are those issues to be factored into the market that the hon. Gentleman so admires?
  Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman's Government have already factored the issues in by saying that the cost to the health service is between £1 billion and £1.5 billion a year. The yield from tobacco duties to the Exchequer was, under the Conservative Government more than £8 billion; it has now dropped to £7.4 billion. The difference between those two figures is £700 million or so; one could spend quite a lot of that on nicotine patches and counselling for smokers. However, the Government are losing that revenue at present, because it is going into the black—and very dirty—economy.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the attempt to find and promote a less harmful tobacco substitute. Does he agree that probably the least effective way to secure take-up of such a new product would be to arrange for the European Union to promote it? If it were to do so, minimal take-up would be the most likely consequence.
  Mr. Chope: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I am very sceptical about whether the money being invested in the tobacco fund will help it to achieve its avowed objective. I note with dismay the fact that we, as taxpayers, are still subsidising to a large extent tobacco growers in the rest of Europe who produce tobacco of such low quality that it is, apparently, fit to be exported only to the third world.
  There are all kinds of pragmatic arguments against the Bill. However, its most offensive aspect is that it proposes a total ban on the advertising of a legal, much-used product and denies consumers information that would enable them to make an informed choice. Last week, the House was reminded that Hitler's Government were the only previous European Government to achieve a ban on foxhunting. Over the weekend, we heard that the Government intend to take DNA samples from people who have been arrested as suspects but then acquitted.
  728
  One is bound to recall the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller, a Protestant minister who spoke out against the Nazis so courageously during the second world war. [Interruption.] Labour Members may not want to be reminded of the first couplet, which states:
  First they came for the Jews. I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
  The updated new Labour version would read, "First they came for the handguns. I did not speak out because I do not shoot with pistols. Then they came for the huntsman. I did not speak out because I do not hunt. Then they came for the tobacco advertisers. I did not speak out because I do not smoke." We know that the Government will go for the smokers, the drinkers, the fishermen, and the shotgun-owners. All those people will be in line for regulation by this intolerant, oppressive Government. I oppose the Bill vehemently.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Adrian Bailey: I support the Bill, and I make no apologies for saying that my attitude to smoking and tobacco advertising has been determined from a young age by my experience of the suffering caused by tobacco in my family. I suspect that many other people who take the line that I do have seen their families similarly touched by this appalling manifestation of the market economy.
  My first involvement with death was when I was seven. I saw my grandfather—a jovial, 6 ft 4 in giant of a man, full of vitality and a marvellous example to his grandchildren—reduced within six months to a white, skeletal, hacking wreck: he died of lung cancer through cigarette smoking. My father was so affected that he gave up cigarette smoking. When I saw my father's X-rays shortly before he died, the surgeon pointed out the damage that had been done to his lungs by his years as a cigarette smoker 30 years before.
  In that context, I must take issue with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who said that young people smoke because the Department of Health has told them that they can give up later in life and the damage will be rectified. The Department has never said that. It has said that it is worth giving up smoking at any stage because one's life will be prolonged compared with those of people who continue to smoke. I saw that in my father: he lived longer than he would have lived had he continued to smoke, but the damage done to his lungs by years of smoking was a significant factor when he died.
  I grew up determined that, whatever other health risks I might face in life, smoking was one that I could well do without and that I would do everything in my power to ensure that others did without it. My opposition to smoking is reinforced by my experience in my constituency of West Bromwich, West. Deaths from lung and heart disease are 20 per cent. above the average, which is a major reason why the area is a health action zone. The Smee report, which I heard derided earlier, estimates that a ban on tobacco advertising would reduce smoking-related deaths by about 2.5 per cent.—perhaps 1,500 or 1,600 a year. That represents only a small fraction of the 120,000 who die annually, but it is well worth the Government taking action to save those lives.
  To turn the argument around, if a natural disaster or a train crash killed 1,600 people, many of those Members who defend the rights of tobacco advertisers would be up

  729
  in arms demanding that the Government take action. Deaths from lung cancer occur quietly each day, are spread across the country and are witnessed only by hospital staff and grieving relatives so they do not have the public impact of a spectacular disaster killing 1,600 people. None the less, 1,600 such deaths cause as much misery, grief and suffering for those left behind as the same number of deaths in a disaster.
  For a long time, my particular concern has been the impact of smoking on young people—teenagers and, in particular, young women. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) referred to statistics showing that the number of smokers is falling nationally, although it is rising among teenagers and especially among young women. That is no surprise. We have had a long battle with my 18-year-old stepson, trying to stop him smoking. Smoking is part of the cool image, and young teenagers are insecure and sensitive to being kept out of social circles. It is so easy for them to succumb to the temptation to have a cigarette when a packet is passed round.
  Mr. David Taylor: Given the statistics that my hon. Friend has mentioned and his description of the particular problems facing young people, is he not astonished—even nauseated—by Conservative Members who, when given the choice of safeguarding children's health or backing a tobacco industry that pollutes the atmosphere and poisons its patrons, go so unerringly for the tobacco industry?
  Mr. Bailey: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments and agree entirely. What concerns me is that young people are bombarded with images of a certain predetermined, glamorous way of life, and the tobacco industry has been clever in attaching itself to that image.
  I have heard much this evening about the association of tobacco advertising with Formula 1 racing. It is obvious that young people who are interested in the fast cars of the motor racing circuit will associate that glamorous life with cigarette smoking, given that the logos are so prominently displayed on the cars. I do not pretend that we will change all that in one fell swoop by banning tobacco advertising or sponsorship, but we will eliminate one pressure that affects young people's behaviour and encourages them to take up cigarette smoking.
  I especially welcome the proposed end of tobacco sponsorship in other sports. It has always been a source of amazement to me that sports such as rugby league and cricket, which demonstrate athleticism, vitality, health and vigour, should be used as a vehicle for promoting a habit that will destroy all those qualities. Tobacco manufacturers have again been clever in associating themselves with those sports. They know that the participants are icons and appear to promote the habit, even if they do so without their agreement.
  I welcome the Bill. It is totally inappropriate for a Government to invest money in the health service and promote a health policy if they leave out this part of the equation, which will improve our health standards. The banning of tobacco advertising was a key manifesto commitment in the last election, and I am proud to have the opportunity to back it. I look forward to the day when
  730
  we realise our health targets secure in the knowledge that the Bill has played a part in reversing a trend that has done so much damage to sc many people over so many years.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: The Bill is well intentioned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, smoking is bad. Labour Members, in particular the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), have said much about how bad smoking can be, and mentioned the illness and death that it causes. However, the issue for many Opposition Members is whether the Bill goes beyond what is reasonable in respect of a legal product.
  My first declaration is that I am a lifelong non-smoker. It would not bother me if everyone gave up. In fact, many of us suffer in polite tolerance the smoking of our colleagues and friends. I suspect that many other right hon. and hon. Members who have never smoked would agree with my observation that smoking in restaurants has ruined many a good meal. I find that practice extremely distasteful. I want to make it clear from the outset that the less people smoke, the happier I am.
  There has been a welcome noticeable reduction in consumption in recent years. We have been told how a mixture of policy-voluntary agreements on sports sponsorship, a ban on television advertising and the promotion of health education—has made a major contribution to reducing smoking by two-fifths in the past two or three decades. However, the central question that the House must ask is whether a ban on what remaining advertising and promotion is permitted within voluntary agreements and existing regulations will achieve a further reduction in smoking, which is the justification for the Bill.
  I confess that I had not appreciated the extent to which consumption is rising as a result of the illegal import of cheap cigarettes. That should not have come as too much of a surprise to us, because we all know—however rural or urban our constituencies may be—that such products are available. In fact, two of my constituents are postal workers and they were recently arrested at Hull docks with a car full of £17,000 worth of cigarettes. They went to prison for three months, and admitted to a previous offence. Cigarette smuggling should not come as a surprise, because the same problem arises in respect of cheap drink.
  For reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) enumerated, it is a cause of considerable sadness and concern that the decline in tobacco consumption appears to have halted.
  Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend will understand why I was surprised when, in response to my intervention on his speech, the Secretary of State said that smuggling was not on the increase. In addition to our mutual concerns about smuggling—he mentioned one case—my hon. Friend shares my passion for sport. Does he share my concern that the Bill, far from controlling smuggling, will have a harmful effect on sport? We may both be non-smokers and we may both wish to discourage smoking, but will it do any good if the Government smother an industry that employs many people, damage sport and encourage

  731
  smuggling? Is that not typical of this Government? The road to hell is paved with good intentions—intentions which actually do a lot of damage.
  Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes his own point. I was going to use less provocative language, because I want to encourage the Minister to meet us part of the way. I wanted to speak because of my concern about what will happen to some sports in the next three or four years and the danger of a possible ban on other products. I shall return to that issue shortly.
  I declare another interest: for the past 13 years or so, I have advised the sales promotion and incentive industry. That industry has accepted the Government's position that there should be a complete ban on the promotion of tobacco products. Indeed, several years ago, some companies involved in the manufacture and sourcing of promotional products decided that they no longer wished to be involved with the tobacco industry. I assure the House that I am not in any way lobbying for change.
  That approach, however, has had an impact of which the House should be aware. Many small businesses, manufacturers and sourcing agents suffered severely financially when the Government tried to rush through a ban based on the European directive, which was eventually declared illegal. A central feature of that was the ban on loyalty coupons in cigarette packets, which caused some tobacco companies to cancel contracts. One of the major high street retailers, Argos, is involved in coupon redemption to a substantial extent. We are not talking about tacky, cheap products: we are talking about some of our most prestigious manufacturers of cut glass, china, hi-fis, televisions and so on. Whatever line we take on whether a ban is justified and what impact it will have, we must be careful about the speed with which we introduce it, since there could be an adverse impact on legitimate businesses. Some of the industries concerned may operate in our constituencies. The potteries have had a bad time in the past 25 or 30 years—
  Mr. David Taylor: That is because you have been in charge.
  Mr. Greenway: No, it is because of overseas competition. The hon. Gentleman should not be silly.
  Coupons are to be banned under clause 8. I hope that the Minister will look into that in Committee, because it is capable of differing interpretations. The idea is that it is wrong to have coupons because they promote the product, but the incentives industry would say that they are there to reward loyalty.
  I note that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is laughing, but the fact is that coupons tie people to a brand over a long period. There is a finely balanced argument about whether people smoke more in order to collect more coupons. If the Government's argument about price is justified, people cannot afford to smoke more, and the industry's research does not come to that conclusion. Manufacturers seek to defend their market share, and if the market overall is diminishing, they seek to do so all the more.
  732
  Many other products—teabags, toothpaste, breakfast cereals—have promotional product attached to them from time to time that is focused on keeping people loyal and stopping them purchasing the cheaper alternative with a Tesco, Sainsbury's or Asda label.
  Mr. Dobson: My understanding is that the coupons are there to keep people buying what they have been buying. As one of the biggest problems with an addiction is that it is hard to get off it, surely we do not need a commercial incentive for people to stay on the product. Perhaps we could come up with a coupon that is redeemable only when one gives up.
  Mr. Greenway: That is a contradiction in terms. Many people have given up cigarette smoking—and the more the merrier. The people who collect the coupons are regular smokers who stick to the same brand in order to get their bone china or their television. The impact on their smoking habit is at most negligible.
  The industry has accepted that the Government want to ban the coupons, so to that extent the argument is over. I made my point simply to draw attention to the fact that measures can have unforeseen adverse consequences.
  The voluntary agreement largely regulated sports sponsorship for many years. I believe that it contributed hugely to the reduction in smoking over recent years. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) who, sadly, is not in his place, raised the question of the taskforce. I would like to contrast the fortunes of various sports, all of which are reliant on tobacco sponsorship.
  A number of right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned Formula 1 motor racing. From what has been said, one wonders why it has been given an extension. We understand that the global argument is the reason. Formula 1 and snooker have been given until 2006—continuing with existing sponsorships; they cannot have new ones—to find alternative sponsors.
  That contrasts sharply with the world of darts, which has to terminate its present arrangements by 2003. A few months ago, I received a letter from the British Darts Organisation, and the position has not changed since then. It referred to the taskforce and to the unfairness of the situation. The general secretary/director, Olly Croft, made this point:
  The "Task Force" was simply a gesture to give the impression we were being given assistance. In truth, there probably isn't a business out there which can replace the funding we receive from Imperial Tobacco … Our main concern is that we only have until 2003 to save our sport.
  I hope that the Minister is listening, because there is a need for fresh thinking. The letter continues:
  What would help enormously is an extension to 2006 like Formula One and snooker. We can fulfil the Government criteria of being a global sport …
  The number of countries which are members of the World Darts Federation or associate international members of the British Darts Organisation shows that that claim can be justified.
  It seems to me, and to many others who have considered the matter, that it is perverse for the Government to say that two sports are global and can have the extension to 2006, while other sports, such as darts and one or two others that have been mentioned, cannot. I hope that the Government will reconsider that issue.

  733
  I believe that clause 9 is capable of conflicting interpretation. In all these sponsorships, the products themselves are not promoted. In many instances, the name of the tobacco manufacturer is promoted, rather than the product.
  I am concerned that when promotional activity comes to an end, the health warnings that have been associated with it—particularly in sport—in recent years will also come to an end. It is important that the Government appreciate that if they introduce a complete ban on all tobacco advertising and sponsorship, they will also have to introduce substantial advertising in relation to the health issue. I share the thoughts of some Labour Members and of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends about the evil of tobacco and of smoking.
  Much has been said about young people, particularly girls, smoking. It flies in the face of logic to think that Imperial Tobacco sponsoring the world darts championships somehow encourages teenage girls to smoke cigarettes. I cannot see the link. It is much more likely that young girls think that smoking is cool and regard it as a way of keeping their weight down. They do not see the promotional material associated with sports; rather, in every television programme that they watch, young women of their age and slightly older—the people they look up to—smoke cigarettes as part of the plot. Earlier, we heard that even catwalk models have a cigarette in their hand—to show glamour.
  The Government have a duty to examine such matters. If they believe that influences such as advertising, promotions and so on encourage smoking, they must pay attention to all the behaviours that persuade young people to smoke.
  Mr. David Taylor: If the Government were to pursue the course outlined by the hon. Gentleman and dissuade the arts and entertainment industry from such product exposure, is it not possible that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen and Daily Mail leader writers would leap to their word processors and describe that as the latest example of iniquitous political correctness?
  Mr. Greenway: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but our society discourages the showing on prime-time television of a number of behaviours. I merely make the point that it is illogical for the Government to single out advertising and promotions where clearly there is no link between that vulnerable age group and the activity that they want to ban, while other activities—as the House in general agrees—do encourage such young people to smoke.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: No, I really must continue.
  Mr. Dobson: I think I am going to agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Greenway: Well, in that case, I give way.
  Mr. Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as there is such a high incidence of models and supermodels
  734
  smoking on the catwalk, it would at least be a good idea to examine the relationship between the tobacco industry and the fashion industry?
  Mr. Greenway: I have made that point. I suppose that I am trying to make two points at the same time. The first is that what the Government have singled out is not the cause of the problem that they want to solve. The second is that, if the Government are serious about solving the problem, that relationship is one of the matters that must be tackled.
  There is a third element: whatever the provisions of the Bill, the tobacco industry will rightly find other forms of promotion to ensure awareness of the major manufacturers. For example, the Bill would permit Imperial Tobacco to sponsor a production by Opera North in Leeds—heaven knows the company could do with the money—
  Mr. Dobson: What about Carmen? It is set in a cigarette factory.
  Mr. Greenway: Carmen would be a good choice. However, all that Imperial Tobacco could show was that the production was sponsored by Imperial Tobacco—for that small mercy, we give much thanks. Imperial Tobacco would not be able to blazon its name all around the Grand Theatre—nor would it want to do so.
  Given that this matter has a European origin, there is real concern in sport—as well as in other organisations—that, when the ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship is a done deal, the Government will turn their attention to something else, and that that could well be alcohol. When the Secretary of State responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), he rightly said that alcohol in moderation does not pose the same problems as tobacco. The case for a ban on alcohol advertising and promotion could not be made on the basis of those criteria. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, or the Under-Secretary in winding up the debate, can assure the House that the Government realise that a similar draconian ban on alcohol promotion would be a disaster for many sports.
  It is interesting that Carling has given up its sponsorship of the premier league, but the only real bidder to take over as sponsor is Budweiser—another drinks manufacturer. One of the world's premier steeplechases is sponsored by Martell. The House must be alert to the damage that would be done if such sponsorships were ended. That damage goes way beyond any case that has been made by those who support the ban.
  I have made it clear that I personally regard smoking as a distasteful habit I would not worry if everyone gave up smoking. However, a ban on the promotion of any legal product raises a difficult issue of principle. That principle is conceded in the Bill. Tobacco is a legal product, yet the House is being asked to ban its promotion and advertisement. That leaves wide open the prospect that the same argument will be extended to other products.
  My personal view is that strengthened voluntary codes, which has achieve I much so far, would have been preferable. I hope that the Government achieve their modest but important objective of a 2.5 per cent. cut in tobacco smoking, although I suspect that they might have achieved it any way and that, if they do not, it will be

  735
  because of the problem of illegal importation. Having listened to much of the debate, I think that the differences between the parties have been over -stated; our objectives are shared, it is our methods that are the cause of disagreement. The significant reduction in smoking under the previous Conservative Government convinces me that we have every right to put our arguments and concerns about the Bill before the House tonight.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Sometimes the historic significance of legislation is not always understood when the House passes it. For example, Harold Wilson's Government will be remembered for many things, but their most important and enduring legacy is their Open university legislation. This debate has not been widely attended. Nevertheless, the Bill will probably be one of this Labour Government's more important measures and will have an enduring and positive impact on the lives of many people in this country. I am therefore proud not only to vote for the Bill, but to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak in its support.
  I approach the Bill as a socialist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh!"]. I shall tell the House why I do so. This is an example of how the interests, influence and clout of the big battalions—those industries with lots of money that can lobby effectively to maintain a pernicious, evil trade—are used to persuade decent people that it is somehow wrong to begin to curtail she industries' selfish interests. That underlines what is often wrong with our society, and we must start to tackle it.
  I also speak as a socialist in response to all that has been said about the age groups to which the marketing of tobacco products is directed. Those who are most vulnerable are the poorest and most disadvantaged members of our society—groups whose indices of poor health are among the highest. I am thinking many of my constituents who would do all they could to break away from addiction to tobacco products; they know that they are addicted. They would we I come Parliament's intervention to begin the process of diminishing the likelihood of such products being purchased by them and future generations.
  Mr. David Taylor: My hon. Friend says that the marketing of tobacco is often focused on certain age groups and social groups. Is there not a risk that, as tobacco consumption in western countries steadily decreases, as it has been doing, tobacco companies will try in all sorts of illicit ways to find a market for their noxious weed in developing countries?
  Mr. Mackinlay: If my hon. Friend will be patient, I shall address that point, which is a side issue to the Bill.
  Alas, the Bill does not go far enough. One of the things I was going to say in my peroration—I may repeat it still—is that I hope that the Bill is only the start of a comprehensive strategy both to drive down demand for tobacco here in the United Kingdom and to frustrate and prevent the efforts of those evil companies to market their products elsewhere in the world where people are extremely vulnerable. The Bill does not deal with that,
  736
  but my hon. Friend, other hon. Members and I give the Government notice tonight that we intend to press them again and again on the subject, because it is a moral issue.
  Mrs. Spelman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mackinlay: Before I do so, let me tell the hon. Lady that although neither I nor any other hon. Member is indifferent to the impact of a ban on existing jobs, the Bill will not have an immediate effect. No sudden social or political armageddon will afflict those employed by the tobacco manufacturing industry tomorrow morning—the process will be a gradual one. No one can rely on arguments about the impact on jobs. Slave traders could have used such arguments—no doubt, they did—a century and more ago.
  Mrs. Spelman: I rise to help the hon. Gentleman put pressure on the Minister to examine the sale of tobacco in developing countries by making him aware that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), who is my party's international development spokesman, has written to tobacco companies appealing to them to extend the voluntary code themselves to sales in developing countries.
  Mr. Mackinlay: That is like banging on a door with a wet sponge—the companies are not going to do that. They have duties to their shareholders to maximise profits and minimise losses. If the hon. Lady is so naive as to expect them to do as they have been asked, we might as well give up. The fact is that law is required to protect and promote those who have a social conscience and who want to change the basis of their trading. I shall deal with the pathetic Opposition in a moment. First, I turn my attention to the Government, to award some plus marks, to tell them that they could do better, and, in one area, to offer the criticism that is my trait.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) mentioned what was happening in other countries. My notes contain the phrase "West cigarettes". The gangsters of the tobacco companies have, of course, got in on the new and burgeoning market economies of central Europe, where they have the audacity to market a product called West cigarettes in a deliberate effort to convey to the young people of central Europe the notion that the product is sophisticated and all part of the great leap forward to freedom that started in 1989. That scandalous, spiteful, petty and corrupt marketing ploy is illustrative of the point my hon. Friend was making in his intervention.

  Mention has been made of the disparity in the treatment of darts and Formula 1. I think it is disgraceful that the Labour party ever tainted its hands with that Formula 1 money. We beat our breast and recognise that. I always welcome the sinner who repents, and we will never do it again—we had better not, anyway. I am convinced that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others know that it was wrong, and that it must not happen again. Will we get a comparable undertaking from the official Opposition?
  The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) spoke fairly well and I listened to everything that he said, but he went off at a tangent. No one is suggesting that there should be legislation to reduce sponsorship by the alcohol industry.

  737
  As so often happens, the Opposition are trying to play it both ways. On a moral level, many Opposition Members share our concern that this wretched product is killing people, but they are under instructions from their leadership, and to some extent they have been bought by the industry. They convey a message of social concern, but acquiesce in an absurd and wicked trade.
  The Opposition claim that the promoters of the Bill do not understand the market incentive industry. I do. We have been told repeatedly that the objective is to maintain market share and to prevent others trespassing into that market. That is true, but another objective is to promote the product and to lock people into addiction. There are sometimes different strategies for each objective, but the strategies are complementary. Of course, tobacco promotion is designed to lock people into addiction—
  Mr. David Taylor rose—
  Mr. Mackinlay: No, I cannot give way. The Whip has, rightly, been making signals to me. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand.
  The Opposition amendment criticises the Government for not doing more to combat smuggling and bootlegging. That is what I find most repugnant about the Opposition—if they had tabled an amendment calling on the Government to do more, that would have been legitimate; but they are using their charge as an excuse for not doing any of the things outlined in the measure. The Bill and other measures are required on the statute book, but there should be increased prosecution of bootlegging.
  It is interesting to discover from a parliamentary answer that I received tonight that, prior to 1996, there are no figures for the loss to the Exchequer from tobacco smuggling. That lot—the Opposition—acquiesced in the corrupt smuggling when it began, and now it has got out of hand. The Government should do more.
  When I watched a fly-on-the-wall television documentary about four weeks ago, I was disappointed by the way in which Customs and Excise were pursuing the matter. Someone who had a carload of bootleg products was allowed to go through, despite the fact that he had been warned previously and that was on record.
  The Government should put some effort into stopping the sale of tobacco products out of bags in markets, invariably to people who are already disadvantaged, but in my view the Government are not doing enough to hit the big battalions. Much more could and should have been done both by the Conservative Government and by the present Labour Government. I welcome the introduction of new technology to combat smuggling in the port of Tilbury in my constituency, for example, but we needed more, and sooner, in all the principal ports of the United Kingdom.
  I received a parliamentary answer tonight to my question about the extent of smuggling of bootleg products from countries in the European Union and outside. It is obvious from the reply that the Government do not know. It is an important issue, but I imagine that the Foreign Office is sensitive about it. There is clearly a great deal of smuggling via Mediterranean countries outside the EU. The Government's not knowing the extent of the problem underscores the fact that, to coin a phrase,
  738
  there is insufficient joined-up government in tackling it. I hope that once various Departments have read tonight's debate, which is front; d by health spokespersons but with innocent parties also involved, there will be joined-up government resulting in a greater strategy being brought to bear on combatine smuggling, especially that from outside the European Union.
  I shall wind up, as I have described the way things are. Basically, as win a lot of things in the House, the Government and the Opposition are both to blame and, in some respects, are boll the same—or both their arguments have legitimacy. The Government need to do more to combat bootlegging. Other hon. Members will have experience of legitimate retailers, desperate not to buy bootleg products but no longer able to compete and so falling into a difficult situation. We owe it to them to combat bootlegging.
  As I said, criticisms must be made now, but it was the Conservative Government who allowed the matter to get out of hand. We could and should have done more, but we are addressing the matter now. Equally, however, the Opposition, in coming along and voting against this moral measure, are simply revolting. Decades from now, people will look back in amazement at the fact that the Conservative party whipped its Members into supporting an industry that was killing large numbers of people every day. Conservative members will stand condemned by history for having done so. At least the Government have begun the process or' fighting back against a pernicious trade.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I had better declare my interest straight away as possibly the only person to take part in the debate who retails tobacco products. I speak with a lot of experience, as my grandfather started the business in the 1920s, my father took it over and I have worked in it for many years.
  It is always a delight to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mack inlay). If he was as full of common sense as he was of p fission, we might have made progress on the issue. At least my heart is warmed by the fact that he and the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) have spoken up on behalf of businesses just like mine and wish to protect our businesses by introducing the Bill and by cracking down on smuggling.
  My father died of cancer at the age of 59. He was a 40 to 60-a-day man and, as a child, I remember him smoking good old Woodbines, Capstan, Players and Senior Service. I d o not think he could have smoked stronger cigarettes. Only when he was dying did he switch brands to Silk Cui and eventually gave up smoking altogether. Sadly, however, it was all too late. I come to this argument not only as someone who now owns a business and retails what is a legal product. I would like to see an enormous reduction in the consumption of tobacco, but, even if the Government banned tobacco, we would not attain zero consumption in this country.
  We ought to look carefully at the arguments about how to ban tobacco consuumption and ask whether we will be able to do that by means of the Bill. My answer is that we will not. However, I urge the Government to consider retailers when introducing any regulations under the Bill, and to use common sense. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) suggested that everything

  739
  should be served behind shutters—almost under-the-counter stuff. I ask him to spend a day with his local newsagent or tobacconist and m e how practical his proposal is then. It is simply not realistic, and we need realistic regulations. I am sure that tobacconists, newsagents and retailers will hell whenever they can, especially to get across the message about just how damaging cigarette and tobacco consumption generally is. That will not damage my business too much, and it will not damage many other businesses. The exception is perhaps the specialist tobacconist, if which this country has far too few these days.
  There has been a general decline in consumption, but also in the percentage of profit that is made on the price of cigarettes. Tobacconists cannot rely on tobacco these days; it is on other products that they make a lot of money. When people give up cigarettes, they tend to go on to confectionery pretty sharply. In percentage profit terms, more money is made on a quarter of sweets—we do not want any of that metric nonsense hi re—than on a packet of cigarettes, so I am sure that other avenues will be found.
  The problem is how to get the message across. I am sure that peer pressure influences many youngsters. Advertising will not have such an influence. Young people will not open their newspapers, look at advertisements and say, "Ah yes, I must go out and buy some Silk Cut or Marlboro or whatever". Much of the current advertising seeks to entice people to change brands. A number of companies, many of which are international, are involved in the cigarette and tobacco business, and they want to promote their brands in whatever way they can.
  Mr. Swayne: Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that tobacco manufacturers produce a number of brands that they market heavily to compete against other brands of their own? The reason for that is precisely the same as that which makes a toothpaste manufacturer use such marketing: it is a means of discouraging new entrants into the market who will be deterred by high marketing costs, but not by low production costs. That is the reason for such behaviour.
  Mr. Evans: I agree with my hon. Friend. There are a number of brands that we call own brands, of which Red Band is the one that my business sells. Such brands are sold on price, as many people on limited incomes go for the cheapest cigarette, whatever it happens to be. I suspect that the price of many brands will be reduced if advertising goes out of the window. There will be price competition, but the legitimate tobacco price is extremely high. Indeed, I do not know how anybody can afford to smoke these days, it is so expensive. A lot of price cutting will occur if we ban advertising, as that will be tobacco companies' only means of inducing consumers to buy their products.
  I gave the hon. Member for Chorley an example involving hand-rolling tobacco. Some time ago, a brand that was not advertised at all in this country achieved a huge share of the market because of the enormous amount of smuggling that was occurring. The two well-known tobaccos are Golden Virginia and Old Holborn: this one came from nowhere. About a third of customers were smoking a hand-rolling tobacco of which I had never
  740
  heard, as it had never been advertised and was never available from my wholesaler. People were buying it merely on the basis of price.
  There are two prongs to my attack. I shall mention them later, but the Government need to adopt those suggestions more than to introduce the Bill. I believe that the Bill is probably mere political correctness. That is what it is all about. I am sure that the Government are well intentioned, but I do not think that the Bill will have any effect. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I think that the warning displayed on tobacco products and advertisements is far more persuasive than the advertisements themselves. A tobacco company can put anything into advertisements. One has to look long and hard at some of them before one can work out what they are promoting and what brand they involve. It is likely to be the warning underneath an advertisement that tells people that it relates to a tobacco product. That is far more persuasive to me than anything else.
  We know that, even if we ban advertising, introduce proper education and stop smuggling, it will not mean that everybody gives up. Indeed, although it is beyond belief, there are nurses and doctors who smoke.
  Mr. Mackinlay: They want to give up.
  Mr. Evans: I suspect that everybody who smokes wants to give up. I do not know anybody who does not smoke who wants to start. I have not spoken to anybody who says, "I don't smoke, but I'd love to take it up some day." Of course, it happens the other way around, and smokers are all looking for an excuse or reason to give up. Smoking is addictive, and there are nurses and doctors who see and live with the consequences every day who continue to do it.
  Speaking as a retailer, I believe that the measure will have no impact. However, education will have an effect. As vice-chairman of the all-party drugs misuse group, I believe that we should do more to educate on all substance abuse—that covers tobacco. We should consider a good programme of research and education for our youngsters. We cannot start too early; we should ram home the message time and again. I have heard people suggest that smoking is cool. However, proper education can convey the message that it is unattractive.
  We should also act on smuggling. The price of cigarettes is a more important factor than others. There must be a reason for the increase in smoking in this country since 1996. I believe that it is due to the price mechanism. In my business, we are selling more hand-rolling tobacco papers than ever. However, sales of hand-rolling tobacco have almost dried up; we are hardly selling any. My business is not unique because that is happening throughout the country.
  My business is in Swansea, and although the tobacco arrives at our ports, it gets to wherever there is a market. That happens because of prices. Will the Government consider the measures that they should take? The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) mentioned indicative levels. People can bring in thousands of cigarettes and claim that they are for their use. That is unrealistic. The Government should reconsider the measures that are being introduced to clamp down on smuggling. The illicit trade exists; it has no health warnings and no bans on sales to under-16s. The only consideration is how to make a quick buck, and the illicit trade does that wherever possible.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I strongly support the Bill and I wish that it had been introduced many years ago. The measure should go further; for example, the deadlines should be brought forward. Additional measures should be introduced—perhaps not in the Bill—to counter the attractions of smoking, especially to the young.
  I accept that advertising is about market share, but it is also about suggesting that smoking is respectable, cool and stylish. When I was young, I smoked 35 cigarettes a day. I was foolish then; perhaps I have learned a little wisdom in the 32 years since I gave up. I have also become much richer. I estimate that I have not spent £50,000 on cigarettes. I use that sum when I speak to young people to try and persuade them not to smoke. The financial argument is persuasive.
  Cigarette smoking is strongly and quickly addictive. Smuggling is about encouraging a loss leader. The Government and the retailers, not the tobacco companies, make the loss. The idea is to get people addicted: catch them young, get them hooked and sell to them for the rest of their lives. I found it difficult to give up. Perhaps young people believe that they can give up smoking. However, I know many people of my age who desperately want to give up but cannot because the addiction is too strong.
  Addiction means that there is no free market. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to the market often. However, markets depend on elasticity of demand, which can be reduced by making a product addictive. People are prepared to pay more for the same quantity because they have to have the drug.
  Young people and poorer people smoke more cigarettes than others. Their health is damaged in other ways, because they spend perhaps less on good food, and on going to the swimming pool and activities that would make life healthier, more enjoyable and possibly longer.
  I support the Opposition's view that we must have stronger measures to control smuggling, not only to benefit retailers but to prevent young people from buying cheap tobacco and becoming addicted. Smuggling also creates an atmosphere of petty criminality. It is not good for society when people get into the habit of effectively breaking the law daily. We should have stricter controls on the smuggling not only of cigarettes but of alcohol and illicit drugs. I emphasise that point, which I have made in writing to Ministers several times.
  9.35 pm
  Mrs. Eileen Gordon: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). I entirely support the Bill, which I also see as a tribute to my late friend Audrey Wise, who felt strongly about the issue. When we took part in the Health Committee's inquiry into the tobacco industry, she really went to town on the industry representatives and the advertisers.

  I have the minutes of the evidence here. What haunted me as I heard it—and several of my colleagues felt the same—was the thought of a friend who had died of lung cancer. I had seen him, once a fine strong man, gradually turn into a bag of bones.
  The tobacco companies are killing off 120,000 of their customers each year in this country. They have to replace them, and advertising is part of that—which is why we should ban it.
  9.36 pm
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I shall begin by testing the House's collective memory of English literature. I wonder who else remembers Rudyard Kipling's "A Smuggler's Song":

  Five and twenty ponies,

  Trotting through the dark—

  Brandy for the Parson,

  'Baccy for the Clerk;

  Laces for a lady, letters for a spy,

  Watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by!

  For "the wall", we might as well read "the advertising"; and "the Gentlemen"?—well, the white van trade. Nothing much has changed since Kipling's day, because nothing will work as long as society is complicit in the illegal import of tobacco. While that continues, we have a major problem on our hands.
  Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Lady give way? Mrs. Spelman: I want to make a little progress.
  Here we all are, discussing tobacco and debating legislation that misses the most important aspect of the problem facing the country. That was the major motivation for our amendment. It is true that smuggling is a serious problem, but again the Government have failed to define it correctly, and are therefore unable to tackle the cause.
  The prevalence of smoking has increased under the Government, notwithstanding efforts to educate people about the health risks Money was thrown at the problem at the time of the millennium—I well remember the "quit smoking" campaign—but the prevalence is rising. Such measures, like those in the Bill, ignore the fact that most of the increase in smoking is due to the steep rise in illegally imported tobacco.
  There are no accurate figures to quantify the volume of tobacco products that enter the country illegally. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) drew attention to the gap that had been caused by our inability to obtain answers to our questions. Questions have been tabled to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the level of illegal imports, and to the Home Office on how many people have been stopped and how successful prosecutions have begin; but the information is, as I have said, very difficult to obtain. How are we supposed to do our job as an Opposition if we cannot get information from Government?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), seems to find it funny that the Government cannot answer our question about how much illegal tobacco has come into our country, bum I think that that is serious. All that the hon. Lady and I can rely on is the tobacco industry's own estimate that one in four cigarettes is illegally imported. How does it reach that estimate? It is rocket science: people go to football stadiums and pick up cigarette packets the t have been dropped. That enables the industry to "guesstimate" the percentage that has been imported illegally.
  Just in case the Secretary of State begins to feel a bit comfortable, let me tell him that he has a real problem on his hands. While average of one in four cigarettes may be illegally imported, in his neck of the woods the figure

  743
  rises to 48 per cent. That, surely, is a serious matter. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to point out that some of the more vulnerable members of society live in parts of the north-east, and have succumbed to an addiction to illegally imported tobacco. It is a fact that 80 per cent. of lone parents smoke, and that 60 per cent. of the unemployed smoke. The Government are currently failing to protect those vulnerable people with any substantial measure that would successfully tackle addiction.
  Having established that the Government are ignoring the real problem associated with tobacco, let us consider the workability of the Bill. That, after all, is what we are here to do.
  Mr. Dobson: Does the hon. Lady accept that every one of those smuggled cigarettes is produced by an allegedly reputable tobacco company? Is it not about time that tobacco companies did something about the smuggling of their product—[H0N. MEMBERS: "The Government."] No; that is like saying that the Government are responsible for smuggling. Smugglers are responsible for smuggling. It is quite clear that the tobacco companies themselves make a fortune from smuggled cigarettes. It is their job to stop it.
  Mrs. Spelman: The right hon. Gentleman made a substantial speech, and he has now made a long intervention. Just in case that intervention should create a false impression, I should reiterate the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) —that the Opposition have no love of tobacco companies. We want vulnerable people to be protected, the law to be upheld and smuggling to be curtailed. Any suggestion that there is an alternative motivation is completely wrong.
  It is worth recalling that the Bill started life as botched European legislation. This would not be the first time, and may not be the last, that we have had to pick up legislative fragments from that part of the world. Nevertheless, the Opposition share the Government's aim of reducing the prevalence of smoking. It is of cow se unacceptable that 125,000 people die each year from smoking-related causes.
  Mr. Bob Russell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Spelman: No, I shall not; I have already had to take a long intervention in my short speech from the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
  The question is about the Bill's practical workability. I invite hon. Members to go to their local newsagents who supply a large variety of magazines—273 different magazines in the case of my newsagent—and to talk to them about the practicalities of looking through each of those magazines. How are newsagents supposed to look through each magazine to establish whether it carries tobacco advertising? The provision is simply unworkable.
  Those who have spoken for retailers have made the point that they are the casualties of the Government's failure to legislate on smuggling. Retailers have lost their quite legitimate businesses because of the Government's failure to legislate on smuggling.
  The Government will have to tackle the fact that the tax differential between British tobacco and continental tobacco is so great that it is driving quite legitimate
  744
  electronic trade in the product, using modern media methods. I have severe doubts that the Bill will succeed in tackling the internet sale of illegal tobacco. Where do any of those websites, as global businesses, reside?
  This is a funny Bill that is constructed in an extraordinary way, specifying tobacco-sales offences on which people may be found guilty, but then providing a series of defences and reasons why they should be let off the charges. One defence provided in the Bill is that someone simply did not know what he was doing or was unable to foresee the effects of his action. Such a defence seems, in the words of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), substantially to reduce the Bill's effectiveness.
  A large part of the Bill is devoted, more seriously, to brand sharing. I think that we would all do well to be aware that many non-tobacco products are sold bearing names that originally derived from tobacco companies. One trading company—World Wide Brands International—sells clothes, bags, shoes and other products using the name Camel, and initially it used the Camel tobacco logo. Subsequently, it completely changed its logo, and it now calls itself Camel Active. However, its products would be banned by the Bill.
  Consequently, the Government have invited that company to suggest amendments that recognise the type of diversification that it has undergone. I am disquieted at the idea that it is all right for that company to diversify, and that a provision to help it may be cobbled together for inclusion in the Bill, but that the Government are not quite so keen—unless I misheard the Secretary of State earlier—on the tobacco companies diversifying. Surely we want the tobacco companies to diversify, if at all possible, and to produce something other than tobacco.
  We had a substantial exchange on the issue of sports advertising and tobacco, and various Labour Members quite rightly pointed out that the preferential treatment enjoyed by Formula 1 and snooker creates a very unlevel playing field for other sports. It is perverse that Formula 1 would have no difficulty in replacing its tobacco sponsorship; in fact, tobacco sponsorship is already declining. However, Formula 1 has an extension, no doubt because of the special relationship that the Government enjoy with Bernie Ecclestone. Yet sports such as darts—referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) —and other minor sports will have much less chance of replacing tobacco advertising. The Government could at the very least have created a level playing field.
  Why cannot we take a lead from other countries where sports are now sponsored by health funding sources to relieve them of tobacco advertising, sending the strong signal that sport does your health good? If that can happen in other places, why not here?
  We are legislating for a ban on tobacco advertising on the eve of a general election, ticking the box on the last of Labour's manifesto commitments with a token measure that entirely misses the whole problem with tobacco in this country. That is a familiar pattern that the Opposition are used to. This is yet another failure of the Labour Government to make a correct diagnosis of a problem and propose legislation to deal with the cause of it. Resources are then misplaced and the electorate is disappointed in the end by a failure to deliver.
  9.46 pm
  The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): I welcome the opportunity to wind up what has been a detailed and thorough debate on the Bill. We have had some informed contributions, and I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for his speech on the impact of advertising on children, for his work in setting in train a lot of the action on smoking and for his work on health inequalities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) mentioned the marketing strategies of the tobacco industry. I thank the Health Committee for its work on eliciting fascinating and comprehensive information from the tobacco companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)—who was the first to propose a private Member's Bill on the subject—made a strong argument about the evidence in favour of a ban on advertising. My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) welcomed the fact that the Scottish Parliament decided to act under the Sewel convention for United Kingdom-wide legislation.
  I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) who, against the views of those on his Front Bench, referred to the health risks of smoking, particularly in pregnancy and to those with asthma. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) about the strong evidence in favour of a ban. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of global action. I certainly support that and we are taking that initiative forward through the World Health Organisation. He raised a series of points that we will discuss in Committee, although I will try to cover them in the time that I have left.
  The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) referred to statistics. I can tell him that the biennial surveys of smoking have become annual from 2000; that will help us to get more up-to-date information. I am happy to look at further proposals to improve the information available to us.
  The hon. Members for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) refused to accept the evidence that exists and decided instead to defend the freedom of the tobacco companies to promote their lethal product in any way they choose.
  My hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), as well as the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan), set out the benefits of the advertising ban.
  The hon. Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) used a curious argument; we should not ban tobacco advertising as we would be getting rid of the warnings as well. If the tobacco companies thought that the combined effect of their advertising and the warnings was to reduce tobacco consumption, they would pull their advertisements. We only need the warnings because we have to handle £100 million of tobacco advertising.
  Mr. Evans: Does it not enforce our case that tobacco advertising is intended to influence brand switching, whereas the warning has the benefit of reducing consumption?
  Yvette Cooper: That is nonsense and I will come later to the issue of tobacco advertising increasing consumption.
  The hon. Members for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) did their best, but once their party decided, in the words of the hon. Member for Woodspring, to chow e the tobacco industry rather than public health, they were always going to find it rather sticky to come up with health arguments to defend their case.
  Dr. Fox: I hope that the hon. Lady will take that back, because I did not at any point say that we had chosen the tobacco industry rather than public health. What I said was quite the reverse, and she knows it. She should apologise for that clear distortion.
  Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman said a month ago that, faced with the choice between the tobacco industry and public health, he felt that public health should take priority. The evident e presented throughout the debate has shown that public health will derive huge benefit from a ban on tobacco advertising, and the hon. Gentleman has clearly chosen the interests of the tobacco industry over the interests of public health.
  I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's claims about the wonders of the voluntary agreement, and the question of whether tobacco advertising affects children, in a minute. Let us start with a few facts. The hon. Gentleman claimed that the number of smokers fell throughout the Conservative Administration and rose under Labour. In 1948, 52 per cent. of the population were smokers. That proportion fell steadily for 46 years, until, in 1994—under the Conservative Government—it stopped falling.
  In 1994, while Conservative Ministers were talking about the importance of voluntary agreements and opposing an advertising ban in Europe, the trend of 46 years stopped. Between 1994 and 1996, under the Tory Government, smoking prevalence rose for the first time since 1948, from 26 per cent. to 28 per cent. So much for the hon. Gentleman's marvellous voluntary agreement and his party's marvellous smoking policy.
  The latest figures which cover the first year of the Labour Government show smokers falling from 28 per cent. to 27 per cent. of the population in 1998. It is true that smoking among young people has continued to rise, but it has been rising since 1992. It rose throughout the whole of the previous Parliament.
  I agree that the causes of the rises and falls in the numbers of smoker are complex and many. However, the difference between the Labour party and the Conservatives is that the Conservatives believe that we should carry on with the Tory policies that were no longer bringing smoking rates down. They were policies that left smoking rates rising and failed to address the deep-rooted inequalities related to smoking.
  The Government believe that that is just not enough, and that we have to do more to ensure that the falls in smoking are echoed across every group in society. That is why we are rolling cut the biggest programme of publicly

  747
  funded smoking cessation in Europe, with Zyban and—shortly, I hope—nicotine replacement therapy available on prescription. That is also why eve are funding major sustained health education campaigns, with particular support for pregnant women and ethnic minorities, and why we have—for good reason—introduced the Bill to ban tobacco advertising.
  Many hon. Members have described the links between smoking and ill health. Each year, 120,000 people die in the United Kingdom—more than 13 people every hour—from illnesses caused by smoking. Smoking is also one of the biggest causes of the health inequalities that pervade our society.
  Mr. Bob Russell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman did not contribute during the debate, and I must try to respond to all the points that have been raised.
  I strongly support adults' right to choose to smoke, and to choose to spend their money on legal products. That is their choice, and it is not under threat from the Bill. Nothing in the Bill will stop adults having the choice to smoke, to purchase tobacco or to receive information about the tobacco products in which they are interested. It will stop the tobacco companies having the right to use their considerable profits to bombard children and adults, smokers and non-smokers, with seductive messages to persuade them to smoke.
  The tobacco companies have made billions over the decades by selling an addictive pre duct that kills. They use £100 million of those profits each year to promote those products afresh, not only to current smokers considering which brand to buy, but to current smokers struggling to give up, to former smokers trying to maintain their resolve, and to non-smokers who might be tempted to start.
  Given the health risks, I believe t tat it is right that we should support smokers who want to give up and right that we should work to reduce the number of children who start smoking. The tobacco advertising ban is key to that. For a start, tobacco advertising clearly makes it harder for people to give up. In the last few years, a Silk Cut Ultra advertisement has carried the huge strapline:
  JAN ONE: What better time to move to 1 mg?
  As hon. Members may know, on 1 January many people make the new year's resolution to try to give up smoking, but that advertisement explicitly trios to persuade them that shifting brand is a better new year's resolution after all. That explicitly challenges someone's right to choose to give up smoking. Even though 70 per cent. of smokers say that they want to stop, smoking is addictive and hard to give up and tobacco advertising makes giving up harder.
  Tobacco advertising also makes it more likely that children will start smoking. Many Members, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, described the evidence that tobacco advertising is targeted at and appeals to young people and also affects children. I want to cover a couple of points in particular. The tobacco industry claims that it targets only young adults, not children, and the Tories claim that a voluntary ban is sufficient to protect children. How aver, between June 1998 and May 1999, the committee monitoring the voluntary advertising agreement found 11 examples of posters carrying tobacco advertising in sight of schools.
  748
  The idea that children see tobacco advertisements only in sight of schools is ludicrous. If the tobacco industry accepts that there is a case for removing advertising in sight of schools because it affects children, it should also accept the case for removing hoardings anywhere else where children might see them. The Conservatives accept the case for removing advertising hoardings near schools. Why can they not accept that there is absolutely no logic to stopping advertising outside the local primary school while tolerating it opposite the swimming pool, the toy shop or the bus stop where children get the bus to school? Children do not open their eyes only when they walk through the school gates. They have their eyes open on the way to school, on the way to the shops and in the car as their parents drive them around.
  Hon. Members raised a series of specific issues which I am sure we will cover in Committee. In particular, they raised questions about brand sharing. While there is no intention to undermine genuine business diversification, as hon. Members pointed out, the potential for tobacco companies to get round the ban with branded T-shirts, boots and micro-scooters is considerable. That is why the matter is covered in the Bill.
  The issues surrounding sponsorship have been rehearsed many times in the House. The Government signed up to the European Union directive and the Prime Minister made it clear in the House that it is not the intention of the tobacco advertising ban to harm sports, but the bottom line is clear: all tobacco sponsorship will be banned by 2006 at the latest—of sports, of theatrical events, of music, of everything else as well. Hon. Members asked about proposals to prevent advertising on the internet. We will need to discuss that in Committee.
  All the talk about tobacco smuggling is a complete red herring. Action on smuggling and action on advertising are not alternatives or an either/or. I support action on smuggling, which is why I support the measures taken by the Government, who are investing more than £200 million to counter it. However, that is not a reason not to support a ban on advertising as well. It is absolutely right that we ban tobacco advertising and take action on smuggling as well.
  The Opposition set out their priorities: to back the tobacco industry over protecting health and to back the rights of the tobacco industry over the rights of our children and support for a healthy start to their lives. The Bill will not prevent individual choice, but it will prevent the tobacco industry from using its mighty financial muscle to advertise and promote a product that kills. For the sake of the children who will be tomorrow's victims of lung cancer, coronary heart disease and other diseases, I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 316.

  Division No. 70]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Brady, Graham

  Baldry, Tony

  Brazier, Julian

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Bercow, John

  Burns, Simon

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Butterfill, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Cash, William

  Boswell, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  749

  Clappison, James

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Collins, Tim

  Maples, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Mates, Michael

  Cran, James

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Norman, Archie

  Duncan, Alan

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Ottaway, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Paice, James

  Flight, Howard

  Prior, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Randall, John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Garnier, Edward

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gibb, Nick

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gill, Christopher

  Ruffley, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gray, James

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Green, Damian

  Shepherd, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hammond, Philip

  Spring, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Steen, Anthony

  Hayes, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Heald, Oliver

  Swayne, Desmond

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Syms, Robert

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Horam, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Tyrie, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Viggers, Peter

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Walter, Robert

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Wells, Bowen

  Lansley, Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Leigh, Edward

  Whittingdale, John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lidington, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Liliey, Rt Hon Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Loughton, Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Luff, Peter

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beard, Nigel

  Ainger, Nick

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Allan, Richard

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Allen, Graham

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Benton, Joe

  Ashton, Joe

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Berry, Roger

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Austin, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Bailey, Adrian

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Banks, Tony

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Barron, Kevin

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Battle, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Bradshaw, Ben

  750

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Gidley, Sandra

  Breed, Colin

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Goggins, Paul

  Browne, Desmond

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Burnett, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Burstow, Paul

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Grogan, John

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Casale, Roger

  Hanson, David

  Caton, Martin

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Cawsey, Ian

  Harvey, Nick

  Chaytor, David

  Healey, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hill, Keith

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoey, Kate

  Coleman, Iain

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Colman, Tony

  Hope, Phil

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Corston, Jean

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cotter, Brian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Crausby, David

  Hurst, Alan

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hutton, John

  Cummings, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Illsley, Eric

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Darvill, Keith

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Joyce, Eric

  Denham, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dobbin, Jim

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kemp, Fraser

  Doran, Frank

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Drew, David

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Edwards, Huw

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Efford, Clive

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lammy, David

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Fisher, Mark

  Laxton, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lepper, David

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Livsey, Richard

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lock, David

  Galbraith, Sam

  Love, Andrew

  Galloway, George

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gapes, Mike

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gardiner, Barry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonnell, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McFall, John

  751

  McIsaac, Shona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Salter, Martin

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  McNulty, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacShane, Denis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McWalter, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mallaber, Judy

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Snape, Peter

  Moffatt, Laura

  Soley, Clive

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Moore, Michael

  Spellar, John

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Steinbeng, Gerry

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

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

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Stringer, Graham

  Mountford, Kali

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Norris, Dan

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Neill, Martin

  Todd, Mark

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Touhig, Don

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Trickett, Jon

  Pearson, Ian

  Truswell, Paul

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pike, Peter L

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pond, Chris

  Tyler, Paul

  Pope, Greg

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Watts, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Webb, Steve

  Primarolo, Dawn

  White, Brian

  Purchase, Ken

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rammell, Bill

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Raynsford, Nick

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Rendel, David

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Willis, Phil

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winnick, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Wood, Mike

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Woolas, Phil

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Roy, Frank

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ruane, Chris

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 11.

  Division No. 71]

  [10.17 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cummings, John

  Anger, Nick

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Allan, Richard

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Allen, Graham

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Darvill, Keith

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davidson, Ian

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Austin, John

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bailey, Adrian

  Denham, John

  Banks, Tony

  Dismore, Andrew

  Barron, Kevin

  Dobbin, Jim

  Battle, John

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bayley, Hugh

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Beard, Nigel

  Doran, Frank

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Drew, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Edwards, Huw

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Efford, Clive

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Benton, Joe

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Faber, David

  Berry, Roger

  Feam, Ronnie

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fisher, Mark

  Blizzard, Bob

  Frtzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Flint, Caroline

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Breed, Colin

  Galbraith, Sam

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Galloway, George

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gapes, Mike

  Browne, Desmond

  Gardiner, Barry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burnett, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burstow, Paul

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gidley, Sandra

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Goggins, Paul

  Cann, Jamie

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chaytor, David

  Grogan, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clwyd, Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Healey, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hendrick, Mark

  Colman, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cooper, Yvette

  Heppell, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corston, Jean

  Hill, Keith

  Cotter, Brian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoey, Kate

  Crausby, David

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hope, Phil

  753

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moore, Michael

  Hurst, Alan

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Hutton, John

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morley, Elliot

  Illsley, Eric

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

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Joyce, Eric

  Norris, Dan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  O'Brien, Bill (Notmanton)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kemp, Fraser

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pearson, Ian

  Khabra, Piara S

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kidney, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pike, Peter L

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Plaskitt, James

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pond, Chris

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pope, Greg

  Lammy, David

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Laxton, Bob

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lepper, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Levitt, Tom

  Purchase, Ken

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rammell, Bill

  Linton, Martin

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lock, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Love, Andrew

  Rendel, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McCafterty, Ms Chris

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rogers, Allan

  McDonnell, John

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McFall, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rowlands, Ted

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Roy, Frank

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruane, Chris

  McNulty, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  MacShane, Denis

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McWalter, Tony

  Salter, Martin

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Martlew, Eric

  Sheerman, Barry

  Maxton, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Merron, Gillian

  Singh, Marsha

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  754

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Truswell, Paul

  Turner, Dennis (Wolvem'ton SE)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Tyler, Paul

  Snape, Peter

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Soley, Clive

  Wareing, Robert N

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Watts, David

  Spellar, John

  Webb, Steve

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  White, Brian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stringer, Graham

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Willis, Phil

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Winnick, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wood, Mike

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Worthington, Tony

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Todd, Mark

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Touhig, Don

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Trickett, Jon

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  NOES

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cash, William

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hunter, Andrew

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Leigh, Edward

  Mr. Christopher Chope.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance regarding the extremely unfortunate and wholly improper intervention by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), via his private secretary, for the purpose of securing an English passport for a substantial donor from whom the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in suckering a large amount of money for the dome. Can you advise me on the best authorities within the House to whom I can refer such a gravely serious matter and what would be the best way in which to go about it?
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Home Office has already answered a parliamentary question on the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers. No doubt he will be able to find ways in which to follow up that answer to seek further information.

  Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill (Programme)
  10.30 pm
  Yvette Cooper: I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill—

  Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill (Programme)

    Standing Committee
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

    2. Proceedings in the Standing Commitee shall (so far as not previously concluded) he brought to a conclusion on Thursday 8th February 2001.

    The Bill is important, as the speeches tonight have acknowledged, and we have had a good debate. The motion proposes that the Committee stage should end on 8 February. We think that that gives sufficient time in which to debate a Bill of this length and nature. I am sure that we shall make good progress in Committee and give the Bill proper scrutiny.
    Mr. John Redwood: Will the Minister explain how many sittings and hew many hours of deliberation she envisages will take place during that period, which is ridiculously short given the seriousness of the many issues raised by the Bill?
    Yvette Cooper: That will be a matter for the Programming Sub-Committee to decide That answer has been given many times before and I am slightly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman feels the need to ask the question again.
    The Bill delivers the Governments commitment to ban tobacco advertising. Today, we have had the opportunity thoroughly to debate the arguments For and against such a ban, and the Government have consulted twice on the matter.
    Mr. Leigh: For what reason has the date 8 February been picked?
    Yvette Cooper: That date has been chosen because we think that it allows sufficient time in which to debate a Bill of the length and nature of the one before the House, and we think it important to programme the Committee stage of the Bill's passage.
    We remain committed to implementing in the United Kingdom broadly the same policy as was set out in European Union directive 98/43. We have already consulted twice, so there has been extensive public debate on the matters that the Bill covers. We shall, of course, want to ensure that there is sufficient time in which to debate the key areas of interest in Committee.
    Mr. Bercow: Does the Minister know what are to be the terms of the draft resolution to be submitted to the Programming Sub-Committee in respect of the Standing Committee? That draft resolution will specify the number of hours intended for consideration of the Bill. Is the hon. Lady aware of that? If she is aware of the proposed number of hours, would she be good enough to share her knowledge with the House?
    Yvette Cooper: I am not aware of what the draft resolution will propose. The issue will go to the
    756
    Committee of Selection on Wednesday and further information will be provided in due course about the timetable for the Programming Sub-Committee and the resolution that will be submitted to that Committee.
    Today's debate has given us some idea of which issues and aspects of the Bill members of the Committee will want to scrutinise. It is clear that hon. Members will want to return in Committee to matters such as the internet. We have listened to the views that have been carefully expressed today.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: How can the Minister have an idea of what date the Committee stage should finish if she has no idea of the total number of hours of debate in Committee?
    Yvette Cooper: That is a matter for the Programming Sub-Committee. This is the standard way in which programme motions are discussed—
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the Minister for raising a point of order at this stage, but I should like to ask you a question. We are being asked to vote on a programme motion that would deliver up Committee stage on 8 February without knowing how long the Committee is to sit. Would it not be best if the Minister went to get advice and returned to the House to tell us on how many occasions the Committee will sit and for how long; and if, in the interim, we adjourned?
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Sit down and shut up—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I shall try to deal with the matter myself. This is not a matter for the Chair. It must continue to be a matter for debate. We have been debating such programme motions for a few weeks, and the debate must proceed as those have done.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order that the Leader of the House should say from a sedentary position "Shut up" to a member of the Opposition?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: As it happens, I was dealing with the point of order, and I did not hear anything that was said. However, I realised that there was a disturbance that was attracting attention, and I signified to those on the Government Front Bench that I hoped that matters of order could be dealt with solely by the Chair. I call Yvette Cooper.
    Yvette Cooper: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Programme motions are a standard procedure and many have been debated. One of the main advantages of timetabling is that the Committee can concentrate on the important issues and the Opposition will have time to make their points. The suggested date, 8 February, will provide enough time in Committee. It goes without saying that the Programming Sub-Committee will consider the detailed timetable and decide how frequently the Committee needs to sit. I commend the motion to the House.
    10.36 pm
    Mrs. Spelman: This is the first time that I have attended a debate on a programme motion, and I was rather taken aback by the Minister's long-suffering tone. I am intrigued about why the Government are going about matters in this way. It seems that we are putting the cart before the horse. No formal discussion of the out-date took place, so I am trying to come to terms with 8 February as the proposed date.
    I do not think that I am the only hon. Member who is slightly confused by the introduction of the programme motion process. In the first week after the Christmas recess, I met many of the younger Labour Members who were not a little surprised to find that modernisation of the House had led to us sitting later than usual. Things had not quite gone according to plan.
    By now, the Government must be aware that the Opposition do not agree with programming or the use of the guillotine in the consideration of Bills. Although I may be comparatively new to politics, there seems to me to be a certain lack of logic on the Government's part. They enjoy the fact that we do not have fixed-term Parliaments in this, the mother of Parliaments, yet they want to fix the timetable for their own legislation. That is illogical.
    Many of us who have the honour of speaking from the Dispatch Box have spent an enjoyable period in our respective Whips Offices. My experience of being a Whip was that a deal was struck informally with respect to the time required for a piece of legislation. I was sometimes amazed to find how accurate those informal arrangements turned out to be, especially when, as a Whip confronted by a large Bill, one had to make the best guess about the length of time that would be required.
    I discovered that a certain pattern of behaviour ensues. Almost invariably, the Government flap about getting their legislation out by the date informally agreed, while the Opposition, like an elastic band, are capable of stretching here, contracting there, and effectively landing the plane on the stroke of the agreed time. We gave the Government no reason to doubt the honour of our word that the Bill would be properly examined, they would have their legislation within a reasonable period and we would honour the agreement that we had made.
    I am therefore nonplussed that we have moved to the new method of imposing timetables. That undermines the House's ability to decide whether time is being used effectively. It simply gives more power to the Executive—yet the Government claimed that things could only get better.
    As we get the hang of these 45-minute debates, a certain pattern is emerging. First, the out-date does not provide a key to the time that will be allocated. In effect, what is in the Order Paper is pretty meaningless. No discussion has taken place about how long the sittings should be, how many we should have on a particular day and whether we should continue past 7 o'clock. There is no guidance for my colleagues about the length of time required for the Bill, which renders this exercise somewhat meaningless.
    Mr. Redwood: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Leader of the House has now left discourteously halfway through her remarks? Does she realise that the Leader of the House has comprehensively bungled the
    758
    modernisation of the House? Arrogant insistence on guillotines means that Government Members now go home later than they otherwise probably would do, while we are still frustrated because we do not get the right opportunity to make the right points on the right issues. It is all a plot to upset Government Back Benchers and to try to hog the debate to stop real opposition.
    Mrs. Spelman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his apposite intervention. Like him, I was fairly shocked by the strength of the reaction from the Leader of the House to one of my colleagues, especially because we are at an early stage of trying out the new procedure. I thought that she might like to stay and see how it is working. Surely, having been party to introducing the new method of dealing with the timetabling of Bills, it would be good for her to see how that is working out in practice. Perhaps her departure had something to do with the offhand tone and long-suffering air with which the Minister introduced the programme motion. Frankly, the motion is a waste of time and it is difficult to see why it has been given such importance on the Order Paper. It requires people to be present for 45 minutes to go through the motions of discussing a timetalble which, in any event, has to be negotiated tomorrow or the next day.
    Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that things are becoming curiouser and curiouser? Would it not be helpful at this stage for the House to be told whether the Government Whips have discussed the intended allocation of time, but have simply not vouchsafed that rather important information to the Minister herself, or whether—despite the fact that, in only a matter of days they will have to table a draft resolution—they simply have not got round to discussing the matter at all? Which sort of cock-up is it?
    Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend has pointed out the confusion that reigns. I do not know the answer to his question. I suspect that we shall not get an answer, although it is highly pertinent to the question of whether or not we spend time on the matter. Certainly, the benefit or otherwise of programme motions must be properly assessed. I come from the business world, where we would not dream of introducing a new procedure without reviewing accurately, after a short period, whether or not it was effective. However, programme motions were introduced with very little discussion; we have been lumbered with them and they do not seem to work very well. If we are not careful, they will become one of the great institutions and traditions of the House, although not if my hon. Friends and I resume power shortly, when things, of course, wi11 change once again.
    Mr. Swayne: Having listened to the debate, my hon. Friend will be aware that a significant number of Government Members were critical of the Bill, which, they said, did not go far enough. Would it not have been proper for this debate to have been delayed by at least a couple of days so that the Government could take some account of what was said on Second Reading before gauging precisely the length of time needed to accommodate reservations expressed, even by their own Members, in Committee?
    Mrs. Spelman: Yes, I wholeheartedly concur with my hon. Friend's views. I invite the Minister to look closely

    759
    at tomorrow's Hansard, as several important interventions were made by Labour Members about the flaws, loopholes and lacunae in the Bill. That, in itself, is worth serious reflection.
    Mr. Leigh: I cannot help noticing the coincidence that the Committee stage of the Hunting Bill—I serve on that Committee—is also programmed to finish on 8 February. Perhaps it makes no difference how big or controversial a Bill is, as all Bills will end on 8 February. As we are now in a joke of a Parliament, why do we not just line up all Bills on 18 November and say that they will all end on 8 February—[Interruption.] The Minister is chatting to her colleague and is not interested in the debate. The motion has nothing to do with the Bill, but is to do with getting enough Bills through in time for the Government's pathetic general election. That is what they want.
    Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend has correctly pointed out that we should be extremely worried about 8 February. The Government have continued the practice of being able to call a general election when they want. We are all trying to read the tea leaves for signs of when that may be. It looks as though 8 February may be of considerable significance.
    Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the effects of an early finish date of 8 February is that it will preclude the small businesses that will be grievously affected by the Bill from making representations on its detail?
    Mrs. Spelman: That extremely valid point was skirted over in the Second Reading debate Labour as well as Opposition Members pointed out that the Bill will substantially hurt retailers and place them in a difficult, powerless position, because it does nothing to deal with the trade in illegal tobacco, which is undercutting their legitimate business. That point was raised on Second Reading, but it is difficult to see where that is reflected in the Bill.
    The serious point concerning these programme motions is that the amount of time available in Committee will be hammered out between us in the Programming Sub-Committee—this debate puts the cart before the horse—which will take place behind closed doors and with no record of the discussion. I doubt whether Labour Members who objected to the flaws and lacunae in the Bill will be on the Sub-Committee that decides how much time we spend on this measure. We have no idea who will form that Sub-Committee. I doubt whether those who expressed concerns to their own Ministers will be hand-picked to take part in the important scrutiny of the Bill.
    I invite the Minister to respond to the question repeatedly asked by Conservative Members about programme motions: why cannot transcripts of the Sub-Committee meetings be made available to Members? If hybrid Select Committees have transcripts of meetings, why cannot we have transcripts of the meetings that take place behind closed doors and determine the time that is to be spent debating legislation that we have been elected to scrutinise?
    Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend makes an extremely pertinent point, which is validated by recent experience.
    760
    Does she agree that one of the merits of publishing transcripts is that it removes any scope for doubt or argument about what had or had not been said at a Programming Sub-Committee? That problem arose last week, when the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), had one recollection of what he had said the previous day and I had another. There was no evidence to disprove either him or me.
    Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent example of how this process is not working. If the Government get round to reviewing the changes that they have made to the legislative procedure by introducing these programme motions, I hope that they will take on board that important example of why they do not work well. We should not forget that these motions replace a system in which the usual channels—Whip to Whip—used to agree amicably on what would be a reasonable time in which to scrutinise a Bill. That system worked perfectly well and was based on trust. The loss of transparency and the refusal to permit a record of these secret Sub-Committee meetings has undermined the trust. That is the difference.
    Mr. Redwood: As a former Minister, I brought Bills before the House from time to time, and I never wanted them to be guillotined because we could not be sure at the beginning how many amendments would be needed to perfect them. It was only fair to give the Opposition reasonable time to debate substantial amendments. Does my hon. Friend fear, especially given the internet interests, that many amendments to the Bill, including some that the Minister has not foreseen, will warrant more time?
    Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My experience as a Whip in dealing with Bills is that it is difficult at the outset always to foresee precisely how much time will be needed to consider a Bill clause by clause. Mile posts were set for some of the longer Bills. That is not unreasonable. However, placing too many mile posts for the Greater London Authority Bill meant that substantial parts of the measure were not scrutinised properly before it was passed to another place.
    Mr. Hogg: I want to build on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made. If there is insufficient time in Committee to table amendments, they may be tabled in another place. They will subsequently return to the House, where we will be denied proper time to consider them. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is yet another example of an undemocratic process that the Government are introducing?
    Mrs. Spelman: My right hon. and learned Friend emphasises the damage that is caused when measures are not properly scrutinised at each stage of their passage. We are in a special period; the Prime Minister fired the gun on "Breakfast with Frost", and we all know that the sand is running through the hour glass and that our legislative debates may shortly be curtailed. The worst of all worlds would be to rush through a measure that is improperly scrutinised and unworkable. Several times on Second Reading, I emphasised to the Minister that some provisions are not workable and will require substantial amendment to put them right.

    761
    I shall finish the series of points on the general lessons that we have learned from the programme motions on several Bills in the past two or three weeks. The Government always assure the Opposition that they can determine the amount of time that is spent in debate. However, the new programme motion invalidates the offer. The Opposition may flag up to the Government the clauses that they regard as important while the Government are setting greater constraints on the time that is required for each stage. That will make it much easier for a Government Back Bencher to speak in Committee and prevent the Opposition from reaching the provisions that they wish to consider.
    Perhaps the Government regard my view of their workings as too cynical. I was accused earlier of having a naive view of the tobacco industry. Any naivety that I have does not extend to the Government's workings—once a Whip, always a Whip. Of course, Whips look for opportunities to hasten or delay measures accordingly. The programme motion is likely to deprive the Opposition of the time that we need to scrutinise the measure properly.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that Programming Sub-Committees are an affront to democracy? Not only are the transcripts of their proceedings unavailable to the public, but the public are not allowed to attend, and the votes and proceedings are not recorded. Indeed, rulings from the Chair are not recorded. We therefore cannot know what rulings form precedent for future Committees. That is an affront to democracy and the procedures of the House.
    Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend has summed up probably far better than me the fundamental flaws of programme motions. He has hit the nail on the head: they are undemocratic. The Government are powerful and have a huge majority, but they are using a dramatic tool to force through legislation. That means that the measure is bound to be compromised by the lack of time that the Opposition would otherwise have had to scrutinise the Bill effectively.
    We believe that the Government's position is especially flawed on the Bill that we are considering. In trying to tackle tobacco advertising, they have left an open goal for smuggling. The consultants KPMG summed up the problem: a ban on advertising will not work unless it is accompanied by comprehensive legislation to deal with control of tobacco smuggling.
    The Bill is flawed and the Opposition's ability to scrutinise the measure effectively will be constrained. That combination means that we shall return to the same problem in two or three years. It will probably be aggravated by an even greater quantity of illegally imported tobacco, which undermines legitimate trade and causes smoking to increase. The Government will have only themselves to blame.
    10.54 pm
    Sir Peter Emery: The motion is an aberration from what the Government originally presented, and is, I believe, entirely incorrect. There has been no consultation between Government and Opposition: indeed, the
    762
    Government have admitted that they have no idea what the Opposition wish to discuss, or what amendments they may wish to table. Yet it was the Government who said that the procedure whereby the date by which a Bill left Committee was announced would ensure that the Opposition would be able to discuss what they wanted in Committee. The Government have apparently gone back entirely on that undertaking.
    The sole reason for establishing Programming Sub-Committees was to ensure that every part of a Bill was debated, but we are being asked to have the Bill out of Standing Committee in just two weeks, when the Committee's members have not yet been appointed. The working of the Committee, following the Sub-Committee's recommendation, was meant to be decided by those who would consider the Bill, but apparently that is not happening.
    If the Government still believe that they can make acceptable the concept of a procedural motion setting the date by which a Bill must leave Committee, they must ensure that they have consulted the Opposition about the amount of time that they need. If they do not do that, they will be going back on their undertaking.
    Mr. Leigh: Hon Members, including Government Front Benchers, have heard what my right hon. Friend is saying. Does he now feel betrayed? In the Modernisation Committee he tried to achieve an honourable reform of the House's procedures, but the Government are not interested in giving fair time; they are only interested in arbitrary deadlines. They are making a mockery of what my right hon. Friend was trying to achieve.
    Sir Peter Emery: I am, indeed, immensely disappointed by the way in which things are going. If the Opposition decide that we need, say, 32 debates, we shall be sitting on Wednesdays; we shall be sitting until midnight three days a week. Is that what the Government want hon. Members to go through? If so, it is a nonsense.
    If we are not to revert to the old procedures whereby half a Bill was never discussed in Committee, which all hon. Members condemn, we should try to ensure that the Opposition's views and the time that the Opposition need are taken into account, and that we reach an understanding that does not lead to a debate such as this. It is a waste of time, but it will go on and on unless we can make the procedure work properly.
    10.59pm
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: I have no direct interest in the tobacco industry, but I am delighted to say that I have enjoyed some splendid hospitality courtesy of the tobacco industry, particularly when clay-pigeon shooting with right hon. and hon. Friends from both Houses. Modesty prevents me from saying which Member held the Commons trophy for two successive years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on. Name him."] No, I am far too modest.
    I also look forward greatly to attending the England-Italy match at Twickenham on 17 February, courtesy of Imperial Tobacco.
    Having said that, let me add that I am not a smoker. Like other hon. Members, I cannot ascertain what Rudyard Kipling would say were he here. However, I suspect that he would believe, as I do, that the Bill is a thoroughly draconian, illiberal and un-British measure.

    763
    It is absolutely and utterly disgraceful that the Government believe that four Committee sittings will be sufficient to address the Bill's many complex issues.
    Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman was surmising what Kipling might have said about the circumstances. Is he aware that Orwell called advertising
    the rattling of a stick in a swill bucket…?
    Is it not time that we brought to an early end the advertising of tobacco, which brings to an early end the lives of so many people in the United Kingdom? If, as the Government suggest the Bill reduces the number of smokers by 2.5 per cent—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Taylor: That is eight people a day—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will sit down immediately when the occupant of the Chair rises to intervene. I wish to point out to him that that intervention has nothing to do with the specific motion that we are now considering. It was a Second Reading point.
    Mr. Howarth: I entirely agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was an inordinately long and irrelevant intervention. If the hon. Gentleman had said that 1984 is coming to pass in 2001, his remarks would have been much more accurate and relevant.It is astonishing that the Government are moving a timetable motion to confine debate on the Bill to four sittings when—as I understand it from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) —the Health and Social Care Bill also is due to be reported from Committee on 8 February.
    Mr. Bercow: And the Hunting Bill
    Mr. Howarth: Yes.
    What is the Government's great rush to get those Bills, particularly the two health Bills, out of Committee on the same day if it is not simply to clear the decks for a general election? Ministers persist in that rush regardless of the impact that the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill will have on businesses and on the enjoyment which the public gain from the many sporting fixtures that are held with the tobacco industry's support.
    The Government are able to hurry the Bill—there are no restraints on them—using this timetable motion because Mr. Bernie Ecclestone is no longer a part of the equation. Many business men have given money to political parties to sustain them. Many business men have given money—and continue to give money—to support the Conservative party because it believes in freedom and in enterprise. However, Mr. Bernie Pcclestone is alone in buying a change in policy.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is going well off beam.
    Mr. Howarth: I acknowledge your censure, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that I am making is that the Government have had the four years of this Parliament to introduce the Bill. We are now debating a timetable motion to hurry through—at an obscene pace, in only four sittings—an illiberal measure that they could have
    764
    introduced earlier. I contend that Ministers are hurrying the Bill through now, but that they would not have done so two years ago, when Mr. Bernie Ecclestone had given them a million quid to buy off their opposition to the advertising of tobacco products in Formula 1 racing. I hope that everyone who attends Formula 1 will note what the Government have done to their sport.
    The Committee will need more than four sittings to debate the Bill. I do not know whether any of my right hon. or hon. Friends have read clause 20, but if any of them have and can tell me what it means, I would be extremely interested to know. It is a most extraordinary clause. It states:

    (1) Apart from this section, this Act comes into force on such day as the appropriate Minister may by order appoint.

    (2) Different days may be appointed under subsection (I) for different provisions and for different purposes.

    Clause 20 is a wholly catch-all clause—[Interruption.] It is good to know that the Secretary of State is taking an interest in the issues, even if his junior Ministers are not. I have read the Bill to discover when its provisions are to come into force, but have found nothing except the extraordinarily vague clause 20. The Government's explanatory leaflet suggested that their intention was that the Bill should come into force two months after Royal Assent, with a further three months to allow for certain other factors. I read nothing at all about the banning of tobacco advertising or the sponsorship of motor racing; I had to hear that on the "Today" programme. I understand that it will be 2006 before tobacco advertising is restricted on Formula 1. That is precisely the sort of point that we need to discuss so that the people of this country can understand the Bill.
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is suggesting that the Committee will need a lot of time to table exploratory and probing amendments because the Bill is so comprehensively useless at telling the House and the wider British public what it intends for whom and when. Just as we know nothing about the number of hours allowed under the guillotine, we know nothing about when the Act will come into effect. Does my hon. Friend agree that our Front-Bench colleagues should table probing amendments?
    Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend, as on so many occasions, is entirely right, but I am not sure that they should be probing amendments. They should be substantive amendments, so that the people of this country can see exactly what the Bill is about. We heard it argued earlier that the Bill had serious implications for small businesses; that applies also to not-so-small businesses. The Bill also deals with internet services and proposes that an internet service provider should not publish or distribute, or cause to be published or distributed, a tobacco advertisement of which it is unaware. That looks to me like a gaping hole in this draconian measure, which I hope will be exploited to maximum advantage. However, I heard the Minister of State on the radio this

    765
    morning trying to explain away how internet service providers will not be affected by the Bill. It seems to me that they will. There is so much uncertainty—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a Second Reading speech. He must direct his remarks exactly to the programme motion that is before the House.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Howarth: Of course.
    Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend said that he thought that tobacco advertising at motor racing was not going to be banned until 2006, and I understand that tobacco advertising at all other sporting fixtures will be banned by 2002. Does he think that the timetabling of the Bill allows us to probe how and why these differences come about?
    Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his guidance. I had the privilege of seeing him on Friday in his wonderful constituency which has been so well-served by him for such a long time. That is the kind of perceptive remark that we get from Conservative Members. Why is the Bill being thrust upon the House with so little debate when its principal targets will not be affected, according to the Minister—on the radio, and not here in Parliament—apparently until 2002 or 2006?
    Mr. Hawkins: Further to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) on the Government's open betrayal of what they previously indicated, does my hon. Friend recognise the particular anger that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mentioned earlier about the inconsistency in terms of darts? Darts is a sport that is well liked in his constituency and mine and its ban would take effect in 2002 or 2003. Those involved feel that they are being discriminated against by comparison with the Government's more generous treatment of Formula 1.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. As he knows, Mr. Bob Potter, a constituent of his, who has a splendid hotel in my constituency, hosts darts competitions at Lakeside—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) sat down before I could reprimand him, but the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) should not be pursuing his current line because it has to do with the Bill and not with the programme motion.
    Mr. Howarth: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had not intended to be led astray by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Leigh: Is it not somewhat ironic that the 650 elected Members of the House of Commons are worth two weeks, while one man—Mr. Bernie Ecclestone—is worth six years?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that I have heard enough on that subject. The hon. Member
    766
    for Aldershot should get on with his speech or complete it because at the moment it appears to be strung together with a number of interventions from colleagues who may wish to catch my eye.
    Mr. Howarth: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; it not my intention that you should regard my remarks as strung together.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: The hon. Gentleman should be strung up instead.
    Mr. Howarth: I was in the hon. Gentleman's consistency on Saturday and did not suggest that he should be strung up; perhaps I made a mistake.

    Profound issues arise from the Bill, of which there has been no satisfactory explanation from the Government—just a bored look from the Under-Secretary. I am sorry to have to say to her that her attitude to the House is thoroughly contemptible. This Bill is very serious—it will affect many and could well damage many sporting events that people enjoy—Yet all the Minister can do is look bored and weary, waiting until 8 February when she can get this wretchedly illiberal measure on to the statute book, attack successful business and deprive many people of sports that they enjoy.
    11.12 pm
    Mr. Hogg: This is an arrogant motion; it should not be before the House.
    The motion provides that the Bill leaves Committee by 8 February, but the truth is that we do not know whether that allows sufficient time. We do not know when the Bill will go into Committee or how many sittings there will be. How can we possibly say whether there will have been sufficient time to consider it by 8 February?
    We can say some things with certainty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) drew attention to the fact that there will not be sufficient time to consider amendments. That is most certainly the case if the Bill is to report by 8 February. Indeed, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), amendments will then be tabled in the other place and this House will not have sufficient time to debate them. That is a denial of democracy.
    There is another denial of democracy. The Bill has just begun its progress. We can argue whether it is desirable, but on any view, it represents a serious attack on liberty. People who have small businesses in my constituency wish to make detailed representations on the Bill, but all of us know full well that they will not have sufficient time in which to do that. They are being denied the opportunity to express their criticism of the Bill through their elected Members.
    Mr. Bercow: Is not It the position of the Under-Secretary succinctly encapsulated thus: "I do not know how many sittings of the Committee there will be; I do not know how many amendments there will be; I do not know how much time for consideration there will be; but something in my stars says none the less that 8 February is the right day for conclusion"?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right, with one further observation, to which I was about to draw the House's

    767
    attention. In justifying the programme motion, the Undersecretary said, "We think that this is sufficient time." That is not reassuring to the House. The Government may think that there is sufficient time, but what is their agenda? We do not.
    11.14 pm
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I have known the Under-Secretary for as long as we have been in the House; I know that she is an honourable Member. Surely in arriving at the date of 8 February she must have known how many amendments would be tabled in Committee. Perhaps she will come to the Dispatch Box and share with the House her knowledge of the number of amendments that will be tabled in Committee. However, she may not know that figure; I certainly do not My hon. Friends do not know how many will be tabled. Given that—
    It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [7 November], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 79.

    Division No. 72]

    [11.15 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Coleman, Iain

    Ainger, Nick

    Colman, Tony

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Corston, Jean

    Austin, John

    Cousins, Jim

    Bailey, Adrian

    Crausby, David

    Banks, Tony

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Barron, Kevin

    Cummings, John

    Battle, John

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Beard, Nigel

    Cunningnam, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Darvill, Keith

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Davidson, Ian

    Benton, Joe

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dawson, Hilton

    Berry, Roger

    Denham, John

    Betts, Clive

    Dismore, Andrew

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Dobbin, Jim

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Doran, Frank

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Drew, David

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Edwards, Huw

    Browne, Desmond

    Efford, Clive

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Ennis, Jeff

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Fisher, Mark

    Cann, Jamie

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

    Caplin, Ivor

    Flint, Caroline

    Casale, Roger

    Follett, Barbara

    Caton, Martin

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Cawsey, Ian

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Chaytor, David

    Gapes, Mike

    Clapham, Michael

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Goggins, Paul

    Clelland, David

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clwyd, Ann

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Cohen, Harry

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    768

    Grocott, Bruce

    Moffatt, Laura

    Grogan, John

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hain, Peter

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Moriey, Elliot

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

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

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Hanson, David

    Mountford, Kali

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Mudie, George

    Healey, John

    Mullin, Chris

    Hendrick, Mark

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Heppell, John

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Hill, Keith

    Norris, Dan

    Hinchliffe, David

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Hoey, Kate

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hope, Phil

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Pearson, Ian

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Hurst, Alan

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hutton, John

    Pike, Peter L

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Plaskitt, James

    Illsley, Eric

    Pope, Greg

    Jenkins, Brian

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Purchase, Ken

    Rammell, Bill

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Joyce, Eric

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Kemp, Fraser

    Roy, Frank

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Ruane, Chris

    Khabra, Piara S

    Ruddock, Joan

    Kidney, David

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Salter, Martin

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Lammy, David

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Laxton, Bob

    Sheerman, Barry

    Lepper, David

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Levitt, Tom

    Singh, Marsha

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Linton, Martin

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Lock, David

    Love, Andrew

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    McDonnell, John

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    McFall, John

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Snape, Peter

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Soley, Clive

    McNulty, Tony

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    MacShane, Denis

    Spellar, John

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    McWalter, Tony

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Mallaber, Judy

    Stringer, Graham

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Martlew, Eric

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Maxton, John

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Merron, Gillian

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Timms, Stephen

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Todd, Mark

    Miller, Andrew

    Touhig, Don

    769

    Trickett, Jon

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Truswell, Paul

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Wood, Mike

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Woolas, Phil

    Wareing, Robert N

    Worthington, Tony

    Watts, David

    Wyatt, Derek

    White, Brian

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Mr. Kevin Hughes and

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Mr. Graham Allen.

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Loughton, Tim

    Amess, David

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Bercow, John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Maples, John

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Moore, Michael

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Burnett, John

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Burstow, Paul

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Ottaway, Richard

    Cash, William

    Page, Richard

    Chope, Christopher

    Paice, James

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Prior, David

    Randall, John

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Cotter, Brian

    Rendel, David

    Cran, James

    Robathan, Andrew

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Duncan, Alan

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Fabricant, Michael

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Feam, Ronnie

    Sanders, Adrian

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Gidley, Sandra

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Gray, James

    Swayne, Desmond

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Syms, Robert

    Hawkins, Nick

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Hayes, John

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Tyler, Paul

    Webb, Steve

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Whittingdale, John

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Hunter, Andrew

    Willis, Phil

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Leigh, Edward

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lidington, David

    Mr. Peter Luff and

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Mr. Stephen Day.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    TOBACCO ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act, and

    (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—[Mr. Touhig.]

    The House divided, Ayes 275, Noes 15.

    Division No. 73]

    [11.29 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Darvill, Keith

    Ainger, Nick

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Davidson, Ian

    Allan, Richard

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Dawson, Hilton

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Denham, John

    Austin, John

    Dismore, Andrew

    Bailey, Adrian

    Dobbin, Jim

    Banks, Tony

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Barron, Kevin

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Battle, John

    Doran, Frank

    Bayley, Hugh

    Drew, David

    Beard, Nigel

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Edwards, Huw

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Efford, Clive

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Ennis, Jeff

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Fisher, Mark

    Benton, Joe

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Flint, Caroline

    Berry, Roger

    Follett, Barbara

    Betts, Clive

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Gapes, Mike

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Gidley, Sandra

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Goggins, Paul

    Browne, Desmond

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Burnett, John

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Burstow, Paul

    Griffiths, Win (Bndgend)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Grogan, John

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Hain, Peter

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Cann, Jamie

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Hanson, David

    Casale, Roger

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Caton, Martin

    Healey, John

    Cawsey, Ian

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Chaytor, David

    Hendrick, Mark

    Clapham, Michael

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Heppell, John

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hill, Keith

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clelland, David

    Hoey, Kate

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hope, Phil

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cohen, Harry

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Coleman, Iain

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Colman, Tony

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hurst, Alan

    Corston, Jean

    Hutton, John

    Cotter, Brian

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cousins, Jim

    Illsley, Eric

    Crausby, David

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Cummings, John

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Joyce, Eric

    771

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Rendel, David

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Khabra, Piara S

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Kidney, David

    Rowlands, Ted

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Roy, Frank

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Ruane, Chris

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Ruddock, Joan

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Lammy, David

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Laxton, Bob

    Sanders, Adrian

    Lepper, David

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Levitt, Tom

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Linton, Martin

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Lock, David

    Singh, Marsha

    Love, Andrew

    Skinner, Dennis

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    McDonnell, John

    McFall, John

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Smith, Liew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McNulty, Tony

    Snape, Peter

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Soley, Cive

    McWalter, Tony

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Spellar, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Martlew, Eric

    Stringer, Graham

    Maxton, John

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Merron, Gillian

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Miller, Andrew

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Moffatt, Laura

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Moore, Michael

    Timms, Stephen

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Todd, Mark

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Touhig, Don

    Morley, Elliot

    Trickett, Jon

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

    Truswell, Paul

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Mountford, Kali

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Mudie, George

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Mullin, Chris

    Tyler, Paul

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Watts, David

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Webb, Steve

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    White, Brian

    O'Neill, Martin

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Pearson, Ian

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Willis, Phil

    Pike, Peter L

    Wood, Mike

    Plaskitt, James

    Woolas, Phil

    Pope, Greg

    Worthington, Tony

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Purchase, Ken

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rammell, Bill

    Mr. Graham Allen and

    Raynsford, Nick

    Mr. Kevin Hughes.

    772

    NOES

    Bercow, John

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Chope, Christopher

    Paice, James

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Robathan, Andrew

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Hayes, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Mr. Edward Leigh and

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Mr. Douglas Hogg.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

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

      LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
      That the draft Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.—[Mr. Touhig.]
      Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Division deferred till Wednesday 24 January, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT
      That the draft Local Government Best Value (Exclusion of Non-commercial Considerations) Order, which was laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.—[Mr. Touhig.]
      Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Division deferred till Wednesday 24 January, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
      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 Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (Procedure) Rules 2001, which were laid before this House on 13th December, be approved.—[Mr. Touhig.]
      Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Division deferred till Wednesday 24 January, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
    That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (The Convention on Mutual Assistance and Co-operation between Customs Administrations (Naples II)) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 14th December, be approved.—[Mr. Touhig.]
    Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 24 January, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That the Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Amendment (No. 3) Order 2000 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  Ordered,
  That the Non-automatic Weighing Instruments Regulations 2000 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Touhig.]

  SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
  Motion made,
  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. Touhig.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
  Motion made,
  That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
  Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
  Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
  Line 48, 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
  774
  paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Touhig.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made,
  That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July. —[Mr. Touhig.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  PROCEDURE COMMITTEE
  Motion made,
  That Mr. Barry Gardiner be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Mr. David Lammy be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
  Motion made,
  That Dr Nick Palmer be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mr. Mark Hendrick be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
  Motion made,
  That Mr. Stephen Hepburn be discharged from the Administration Committee, and Caroline Flint be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
  Motion made,
  That Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Mr. Tony McWalter be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  Work Permits
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise on the Adjournment of the House the case of Aura Sabadus. I am grateful to the Minister for replying to the debate I am sure that that courtesy will be appreciated by those concerned. I usually prefer not to raise specific cases on the Floor of the House in this way, but sometimes the circumstances of a particular case leave us with no alternative.
  Aura Sabadus is currently living in the west country. She is 23 years of age. She came to this country from Romania about nine months ago and works at a Christian charity in Torquay. She is not only a committed Christian, but is here to improve her English. She has been an English scholar for many years. She obtained a first-class degree in journalism from the university of Bucharest. It was obviously entirely appropriate for her to come to this country to improve her English, while working in accordance with the terms of her visa.
  Given the sort of young woman that Aura is, perhaps it is not surprising that she realised that opportunities would exist in this country to develop her English skills further. She did several things, one of which was to find out whether, in the light of the degree that she had obtained in her own country, it would be possible to study for a degree in this country. Indeed, she has been offered a place to study for an MA in media relations at Goldsmith's college, part of the university of London. She also took the opportunity of writing to Lord Rothermere, saying that she was in the country and was interested in journalism, to find out where that might take her.
  Aura's problem is that if she followed any of those lines of inquiry so that she continue her English studies, she would be in breach of the terms of the permit by which she is here at present. I wrote to the Minister, setting out several circumstances—about which I shall briefly tell the House in a moment—that seemed to make hers a suitable case for the exercise of ministerial discretion. The Minister wrote to me on 21 November; the most relevant part of her letter states:
  Under the Immigration Rules a person who is a visa national and who wishes to study in the United Kingdom must obtain an entry clearance for this purpose before travelling to the United Kingdom. An application to remain in the United Kingdom from a visa national already here in another capacity will be refused.
  That is a general statement of the law and, obviously, the law must be applied. There is no doubt that switching—the jargon for coming here under one guise and then trying to switch to another—is open to abuse. Both Aura and I accept that, but equally, she is no ordinary young woman.
  After Aura wrote to Lord Rothermere, she was contacted by the editor of The Western Morning News, Barrie Williams. I think that Mr. Williams would take it as a compliment if I say that he is a hard-bitten journalist; he is not the sort of person who would go along with a beguiling story. He said:
  I met Aura today and she is a great kid with a real passion for journalism such as you only rarely see these days. Ideally, she should be getting enrolled on a journalism course in the UK or
  776
  starting work immediately and training on the job. However, the terms of her visa are so strict that I cannot even offer her unpaid work experience or freelance assignments. As things stand, she must go back to Romania in March—where she has little or no chance of fulfilling her ambitions.
  It will be obvious from the way I am introducing this debate that I understand why the law has to be as it is and why it must usually be enforced in all its rigour, but it is not inflexible; Ministers enjoy discretion. I know from previous correspondence with the Minister that she assiduously considers individual cases to find out whether discretion should be exercised. I shall give two examples, chosen virtually at random, to show how the rigour of the law can occasionally be mitigated.
  Perhaps I should mention in passing that there is one way in which Aura Sabadus could have ensured that her path was a great deal smoother. The position might have been very different indeed if she had said that she was an asylum seeker. I understand that there were 6,790 applications in October 2000—even more than there had been a year previously. There is a backlog of 74,000 undecided cases, and the queue for appeals is growing. I understand that, in 1998, Britain received more than 1,000 asylum applications from Romania, which is the fifth highest number in Europe. None of that is the Minister of State's fault, but it is ironic that, had Aura Sabadus been one of those Romanians in the queue of 1,000—had she said, "I am an asylum seeker"—her situation today might be very different.
  This young woman came here, albeit on a visa, and then looked around for opportunities that might be available to her—at her own expense, let me say. However, because she has done things in a proper manner, she finds herself disadvantaged in a way that she would not have been had she acted in a more underhand fashion.
  As I say, there are cases in which Ministers have exercised their discretion: we have read in recent days that two nurses from Zimbabwe are to be admitted to this country to work in the national health service in Wolverhampton, even though both are HIV-positive. On a lighter note, one has in mind the footballer Juninho, whose work permit obliged him to play a certain number of matches for his club, Middlesbrough. He did not play a sufficient number of matches, which put him in breach of his application for a work permit—I appreciate that that case involves a permit for work rather than for study, but it illustrates that discretion is available to Ministers. In the first instance, Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment turned down his application, so he did as anyone would—he wrote to his Member of Parliament who, in turn, wrote a letter. Ultimately, the Minister concerned was able to change his mind.
  Coincidence matters in such cases: the Member of Parliament whom Juninho approached is the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—the Prime Minister. I am not yet Prime Minister, and Aura Sabadus is unlikely to become an international footballer, but Juninho's case makes the point that discretion is available. Tonight's debate revolves around whether Ministers might, even now, exercise their discretion in respect of Aura Sabadus.
  Barrie Williams has said:
  This lass is a gem, with a perfect grasp of English and I would love to be able to help her. She will be an asset to this profession and to this country.
  He might have gone on to say more—that she will be an asset to her own country. I believe that I am right in saying that no less a figure than the Prime Minister is

  777
  on record as saying that he wants to encourage overseas students, because he wants those who are students today but who will be leaders of their countries in 15 or 20 years' time to have a positive idea about Britain. Surely he is right. This is not merely a case of saying in a charitable and outgoing way that we should exercise discretion because Aura Sabadus is a most worthwhile young woman; in a practical way, we should recognise that it is people like Aura Sabadus who, in due course, will be major players in their own country. Given the opportunity to do so, it would be better if, when they return to their country, they carried with them a positive experience of this country.
  I have outlined the facts as briefly as I can. The hour is late and the Minister, to her credit, knows the facts, as I have written to her about them. It strikes me that what I am asking for tonight is not unreasonable. To put it at its most neutral, there is a clear case to be made for Aura Sabadus. She has backers—people who are not easily taken in and who are able to vouch for her bona fides. That must be taken into consideration. Equally, it is clear that we are not dealing with an application of the law in which discretion is not possible.
  I only hope that the Minister, without giving any commitment about her final conclusion, will be able to go so far tonight as to acknowledge that the case is an interesting one that appears to go beyond the norm. Although all I have said this evening will have to be checked out, I believe that it is clear that Aura Sabadus is a young person who could be encouraged. If, in the end, she can show that she has backers and a place to study in this country, and that she can do that not at the state's expense, it should be possible for her to be given a chance. One can easily imagine all sorts of ways in which this young woman could have swung the lead dramatically and so not been in the position she is in tonight; instead, in her own way, she is trying to play it by the book. I hope that the Minister, who has taken the trouble to come along to reply to the debate personally, will able to see her way clear to offering Aura Sabadus some encouragement.
  11.54 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I thank the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he introduced this short but important debate. I am grateful for his kind remarks, and I appreciate that hon. Members do not introduce Adjournment debates, especially on such a subject, unless they feel particularly strongly about the case in question. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman on a number of similar matters, and I know that he feels strongly about them. I know from the correspondence that he initiated that he has pursued the case of Miss Sabadus with considerable interest.
  As the hon. Gentleman explained, his ambition for Miss Sabadus and for the people who clearly feel that she is a person of exceptional ability is for her to be allowed to start working as a journalist in the United Kingdom or to be enrolled as a student on a journalism course. It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that she has a distinguished background in her studies in that area. I entirely understand her desire to come to the United Kingdom for a worthwhile career.
  However, the immigration rules, which are the same as those that pertained under the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member, are clear. A person who
  778
  is a visa national, as is Miss Sabadus, and who wishes to come to the United kingdom for any purpose must hold the appropriate entry clearance when he or she enters the country.
  The hon. Gentleman is right about the purpose of those rules. When Miss Sabadus applied for and was issued with an entry clearance, she came under the Home Office concession for voluntary workers. She advised the entry clearance officer in Bucharest that she had recently obtained her degree in journalism and wished to come to the UK in order to gain experience of the English language. That has been confirmed by the hon. Gentleman this evening.
  Had Miss Sabadus informed the entry clearance officer that she intended to study or gain work experience in her chosen profession while in the UK, it is likely that her application for entry clearance as a voluntary worker would have been refused. As the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience in government, as well as from his constituency experience, consideration is given to the purpose for which the application is made.
  If Miss Sabadus had mentioned that she wanted to become a student, she would have been advised how to apply for the correct entry clearance as a student; had she wanted to work, she would have been informed about the work permit system. It would have been for her to satisfy the requirements of the immigration rules in that respect.
  As the House knows, a person who wants to take employment in the United Kingdom must hold the necessary work permit issued by the Department for Education and Employment before arriving in the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has been modernising the work permit arrangements to ensure that procedures for employers are simplified and that the system reflects the United Kingdom and global labour markets. We are in a period where capital is extremely mobile, and skilled labour, too, is increasingly mobile. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would agree that work permit arrangements should reflect the desire of employers for flexibility.
  Miss Sabadus arrived in the UK as a voluntary worker and has leave to remain in the country until 31 March. A condition of her leave to enter is that she may not take any other form of employment, paid or unpaid, during her stay. If she does so, she will be in breach of her conditions of stay and will be expected to leave the country. She clearly wants to do things properly, which we appreciate. At present, she has not made a formal application for further leave to remain.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the no-switching rule. He was right to outline the reasons why the rule is there. Unfortunately, it is there because, on a number of occasions the system has been open to abuse by people who have switched from one category to another so that they could prolong their stay when they had no basis for doing so.
  In this particular case, there do not appear to be any compelling circumstances that would justify the granting of leave to remain exceptionally outside the immigration rules. Nor, on the evidence provided, do there appear to be any compassionate reasons why Miss Sabadus cannot return home when she has completed her time here as a voluntary worker. That is not to say that she is not a lady of considerable potential and ability, as the hon. Gentleman made clear. That has been recognised by

  779
  numbers of people in the United Kingdom, and Miss Sabadus clearly has impressive qualifications in her own country. However, the tests for Ministers and officials are those compelling and compassionate grounds. Saying that they are not present in this particular case is no reflection on the applicant's abilities.
  If Miss Sabadus has found a prospective employer, he or she should apply for a work permit on her behalf, but Miss Sabadus will be expected to leave the United Kingdom by 31 March, when her stay as a voluntary worker expires. If an employer wants to do that and makes an application, Miss Sabadus will then need to obtain an entry clearance from the entry clearance officer in Bucharest, and she will be expected to meet the requirements of the immigration rules. She may also want to study in the UK. Again, she will have to show the entry clearance officer in Romania that she has been accepted for a full-time course of study and has sufficient funds to maintain and accommodate herself.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the Prime Minister's initiative on overseas students. The whole House would agree that it is in the great interests of the UK that as many bona fide students as possible should come to the UK to study. That is because, first, we expect them to receive a first-class education here and, secondly,
  780
  it is important for economic and cultural ties. As the hon. Gentleman outlined in his helpful remarks, it is very important indeed for people to go away with a positive impression of the UK. It is important for people, who, one day, may be extremely distinguished in their own countries, to have a favourable view of the time that they may have spent as students in the UK.
  All those options are open to Miss Sabadus. However, in these particular circumstances, she must obey the rules, which are waived very exceptionally in the most compelling and compassionate circumstances. She must return to her country and make an appropriate application for entry clearance. I am sure that people who follow our deliberations will read the remarks that the hon. Gentleman and I have made. Of course, as I have said, the rules and requirements must be met and bona fides have to be examined. However, there is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and those who have backed this applicant feel strongly and sincerely about her case, which they have pursued vigorously. I am sure that all those factors will be taken into consideration by an entry clearance officer, should any application be made in future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Twelve midnight.

PRIME MINISTER

  Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions on which he stated in public that the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, introduced in Session 1997–98, had been blocked in the House of Lords. [146438]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave in the House to his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) on 17 January 2001,Official Report, columns 344–45.

  Ministerial Interests (Property Lettings)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those Ministers that(a) have interests in the letting of property and (b) use the letting and relocation company Cendant (i) to let their properties and (ii) to purchase new ones; and if he will list those ministries that use Cendant for relocating and housing their civil servants. [146279]

  The Prime Minister
  Guidance to Ministers on handling financial interests is set out in the Ministerial Code. Detailed information in the form requested is not held centrally.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Prime Minister how he is planning to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day; and how the Cabinet will be commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day. [146375]

  The Prime Minister
  Together with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other ministerial colleagues, I am planning to attend the national ceremony in central London on the evening of Saturday 27 January.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Correspondence
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will reply to the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Lewes, dated 14 June. [144378]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 9 January 2001]: As the letter refers to issues which are not relevant to my responsibilities as Secretary of State, it is being dealt with by my constituency office.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the introduction of paid parental leave. [146122]
  398W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  In developing the Green Paper "Work and Parents: Competitiveness and Choice", a large number of meetings were held with employers and their representatives, employees and their representatives and voluntary organisations. Paid parental leave was discussed at many of these meetings alongside many other matters. A list of many of those who contributed to the review was included in the Green Paper.

  Defence-related Debt
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the debt owed to the United Kingdom by heavily indebted poor countries is for defence-related business; and what the value of this debt is. [145933]

  Mr. Caborn
  Records indicate that less than one per cent. (under £20 million) of debt owed to the ECGD by Heavily Indebted Poor Countries is for defence-related business.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2000,Official Report, columns 218–19W, on manufacturing, what procedures are in place for interested outside bodies, including employers' organisations and trade unions, to make representations to the ministerial groups which discuss industrial issues including job losses. [146485]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Ministers receive frequent representations from outside bodies interested in industrial issues, including job losses. These are taken into account in discussions in the informal ministerial meetings and groups to which I referred.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those sections of United Kingdom manufacturing industry in which his Department expects to see(a) earnings growth and (b) job growth. [146921]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department does not make forecasts of earnings growth and employment growth in manufacturing sectors.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance he has issued to small employers regarding the Working Time Directive Regulations. [146507]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Guidance on the Working Time Regulations, aimed at employers and workers alike, has been available since the Working Time Regulations came into force on 1 October 1998. New 'user friendly' guidance was issued on 30 March 2000, following discussions with representatives from both sides of industry on the format. The document is easier to navigate, which assists smaller businesses with limited resources.

  A copy of the current guidance is held in the Library of the House.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to publish his proposals to amend employment tribunal procedure rules. [146054]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to my written answer on 27 November 2000,Official Report, columns 381–82W. I expect to lay the amendments to the regulations before Parliament in early March, subject to completion of statutory consultation with the Council on Tribunals.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance he will issue to employment tribunals on differentiating between a weak case which has no real chance of success and a case with merit which may be unsuccessful. [146055]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The regulations will provide that an application or a defence may be struck out on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the complaint. It will be clear that this provision applies to cases which have no real prospect of success rather than an arguable case.

  The employment tribunals are independent judicial bodies and the application of the regulations in an individual case is for them to determine.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications were registered by the Employment Tribunal Service in 1999–2000; how many applications were successful; in how many cases costs were awarded; in how many cases costs were awarded against the respondent; and what the average costs were in each case. [146056]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Employment Tribunals Service registered 103,935 applications in 1999–2000. During this period, a total of 83,409 cases were disposed of, of which 10,349 (12 per cent.) were successful at a hearing. Costs were awarded in 407 cases (0.48 per cent.), of which 291 were awarded against the respondent. The average cost award was £1,700.09.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the reasons for excluding energy from waste from the Renewables Obligations. [146381]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No final decision has yet been made on the renewables that will be included in the Obligation.

  The various sources of renewable energy are at different stages of development. In our October 2000 Consultation Document on the Renewables Obligation, we took the view that large-scale hydro (i.e. exceeding 10 MW installed capacity) and energy from waste (energy recovery from municipal solid waste and from mixed streams of industrial and commercial waste) could be seen as already commercially viable, well established in the market, and able to compete with electricity from fossil fuels. This view took into account the indirect support provided to energy from waste projects by the landfill tax. The Government invited views on the proposal that these two renewable energy sources, large-scale hydro and
  400W
  energy from waste, should be excluded from the Obligation, in order to enable resources to be concentrated on those renewables needing continued support.

  The response to the consultation has been considerable and diverse and is being carefully analysed before decisions are made.

  Sub-post Offices (Scotland)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices have(a) reduced opening hours and (b) closed (i) permanently and (ii) on a temporary basis since May 1997 in each Scottish local authority area; and if he will make a statement. [145907]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: The Post Office does not hold figures by local authority area.

  Post Office
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Post Office assets have been written off as part of the £100 million exceptional charge in the first half 2000–01 accounts. [144145]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: I have been informed by the Post Office that a small charge was included against restructuring costs for overseas acquisitions as certain operations were merged and redundant ones closed.

  Steel Industry
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Chairman of Corus plc in the last two months regarding the future of the steel industry. [146661]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had a number of discussions with the Chairman of Corus in the last two months on a range of issues. It would not be appropriate to divulge the details of commercially confidential discussions between Ministers and companies.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received from the trade unions regarding the future of employment in the steel industry. [146662]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is in regular contact, on a number of issues, with trade unions representing employees in the steel industry. In addition, in November I hosted a meeting with trade unions, metals industry representatives and Government which focused on what all parties could contribute to ensure the future competitiveness of the metals industries, including steel.

  Humberside Business Link
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will place in the Library details of the time, place, duration, content and nature of the conversations that took place between A4E and the four unitary authorities of Humberside before the awarding of the Business Link services contract for Humberside to A4E; [145140]
  401W
  (2) when A4E will deliver its business plan for Humberside Business Links; and for what reason (a) it has been delayed and (b) the existing Business Link was invited by A4E to write the proposed business plan; [145141]

  (3) for what reason the bid for Somerset Business Links by A4E was withdrawn; [145142]

  (4) if he will list those organisations, firms and businesses whose support was claimed by A4E when it made its application for the Humberside Business Link contract. [145143]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: The award of contracts for local delivery of Business Link services is an operational matter for the Chief Executive of the Small Business Service. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend with his response.

  Letter from David Irwin to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 22 January 2001:
  I have been asked by Stephen Byers to respond to the four Parliamentary Questions you have tabled concerning the Small Business Service's decision to make Action for Employment (A4E) the preferred bidder to deliver the new Business Link service in Humberside.
  The Small Business Service (SBS) has been developing a new network of local Business Links to begin operations from 1 April 2001. A high standard for award of preferred bidder status to any organisation was set and regional panels were convened to assess paper bids and receive a presentation from each bidding team. The panel was dominated by owner/managers of small and medium enterprises who were carefully briefed to judge the bids against the criteria. In the case of Humberside, after a first round where the existing Business Link partnership failed to meet the criteria, an open competition was held. The regional panel for the open competition was unanimous in its recommendation to me that the bid from Action for Employment (A4E) met all the criteria and clearly made the best offer for SBS customers in Humberside. The issue of local support for A4E was not a contributing factor to their success at the regional panel.
  The A4E bid contains statements regarding contact they had with a range of local organisations in Humberside and nationally with whom they would hope to work to provide business support to SMEs in the area, should A4E be the successful bidder.
  The four local authorities (which, through the Humber Forum, all supported the unsuccessful bid from the existing Business Link partnership) complained to the SBS that they had been misrepresented in the A4E bid for Humberside. the bid indicates that each of the local authorities had been contacted by A4E but through the Humber Forum, the local authorities have denied that any such contact took place. I asked A4E for details of the contacts they had made and was given the names of the individuals to whom they had spoken in the relavent departments of the local authorities and a note of the conversations that took place. I am content that A4E have not attempted to mislead the SBS by claiming support for their bid which did not exist. I am attaching a list of the individuals with whom A4E spoke.
  More recently, when I met some of the representatives of the Humber Forum, they expressed concern about the business planning process being undertaken by A4E. The preparation of A4E's first draft business plan for Humberside has taken a little longer than they had originally hoped because of difficultes in the area, including a negative approach by some of the supporters of unsuccessful bids. Nevertheless, I understand that the process is on track with some initial planning material currently under discussion with our regional manager, and other practical steps in place including the appointment of a Chief Executive for the Humberside operation. It is not the case that the existing Business Link has been asked to write the proposed business plan although A4E have invited the Business Link and other interested organisations locally to contribute to their plan—which is a strategy the SBS would encourage in all its Business Link operators.
  402W
  The Humber Forum has sought to draw a parallel between the situation in Humberside and that in Somerset. The A4E bid for Somerset included some errors and overstatements about contacts with local organisations. Even though I accepted that these were not deliberate attempts to mislead, I considered that A4E's mistakes in the Somerset bid made it too difficult for the SBS to support them in their attempts to form the necessary relationships in Somerset. This is significantly different from the situation in Humberside. In particular, both the three local enterprise agencies and the Chamber of Commerce have indicated that they are quite happy to work with A4E and simply want to get on with providing a first rate service to small businesses.
  The members of the Humber Forum have repeatedly asked me to undertake a review of the decision to award A4E preferred bidder status in Humberside because of their concerns about the original bid and the progress being made in business planning. I have done so and concluded that there is no evidence to warrant me overturning the recommendation made by the regional panel—especially as it was so clear about the benefits for customers that A4E would deliver in Humberside.
  I would be very happy to meet you to discuss this matter further and to facilitate a meeting with A4E if that would be helpful.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with ASW/Co Steel with respect to(a) climate change levy assistance, (b) rate reduction and (c) financial assistance. [146049]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has received correspondence on the climate change levy and is fully aware of the company's concerns. My officials have also met with the company to discuss the levy and other issues of concern.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Jason Pope
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts he has had with UNITA in order to obtain information about Jason Pope. [144023]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has raised the case of Jason Pope with UNITA officials many times since Jason's disappearance. This contact has been in accordance with UN sanctions against UNITA with the permission on humanitarian grounds from the UN Angola Sanctions committee.

  The last time officials made contact with UNITA representatives to raise Jason's case was in Washington on 9 December 2000. Jason's parents have been informed of this exchange.

  We will continue to explore all possible sources of information and assistance to try to establish Jason's whereabouts and the facts of what happened.

  Israel (Travel Advice)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last reviewed his Department's travel advice in relation to(a) Israel and (b) Jerusalem; and if he will make a statement. [144368]
  403W
  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The Travel Advice Unit updates its information on each country regularly as circumstances warrant. Our diplomatic missions in each country—in this case, the British Embassy in Tel Aviv and the British Consulate General in Jerusalem—consider changing our advice to British travellers after every significant event involving that country.

  Our Travel Advice for Israel was last updated on 22 December 2000. The Travel Advice for Jerusalem was last updated on the same day. The latter advises against all non-essential travel to Jerusalem in the current circumstances.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions the UK delegation to a meeting of the European Council of Ministers has been led by someone other than a Member of Her Majesty's Government; and if he will list those involved. [145646]

  Mr. Vaz
  On 8 June 2000 Nicol Stephen, Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning in the Scottish Executive, led for the UK at the Education Council. This was the only occasion since May 1997 that the UK has not been represented in the Council of Ministers by a Member of the Westminster Parliament. This substitution was agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, and was fully in line with the Government's agreement with the devolved Administrations.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what ways non-governmental organisations will be involved in the UK delegation to the UN Special Session on HIV/Aids in June. [146036]

  Mr. Hain
  There will be full consultation with non-governmental organisations in the run-up to the UN Special Session on HIV/AIDS this summer, and we hope that some NGO representation will join the UK delegation to the Special Session.

  British Indian Ocean Territory
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Government of Mauritius concerning future sovereignty of the Chagos Islands. [146142]

  Mr. Battle
  We have received regular representations from the Government of Mauritius about the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory. The most recent have been from the Mauritian Foreign Minister this month.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to publish studies on the economic viability of the Chagos Islands; and if he will make a statement. [146141]

  Mr. Battle
  The Report of the Preliminary Study on the feasibility of re-settlement on the outer islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory was placed in the Libraries of Parliament in July 2000, and made available to others 404W
  directly affected, such as the lawyers for the Applicant in the recent court proceedings and the Governments of Mauritius and the United States. We expect that the Reports of the further stages of study will be made available similarly when the work to be done by independent experts is completed.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what external legal advice he has received on the legal status of the Chagos Islands and Diego Garcia in respect of rights of self-determination of its peoples. [146128]

  Mr. Battle
  We have not sought any external legal advice.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the budget for 2000–01 for the administration of the British Indian Ocean Territory is; and how many of the relevant officials are(a) United Kingdom based and (b) locally based. [146143]

  Mr. Battle
  The British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) Appropriation Ordinance 2000 provided an expenditure in the financial year 2000–01 of £2,301,000. Of this sum £132,000 was provided for administration, with the bulk, £1,800,000, being provided for fisheries protection and related issues. Subsequent in-year revision of the estimates suggest that the total will be in the region of £2,050,000.

  Revenue was originally estimated at £755,000. But revenue (from fisheries licences chiefly) has been better than predicted and it is now estimated that total revenue for the year will be nearer £1,500,000.

  (a) Four FCO officials based in London work part-time for the BIOT Administration. Their staff costs are not currently borne by the BIOT Government. A further six part-time officials based in the UK, the Principal Legal Adviser and various judicial appointments, have their fees paid for by the BIOT Government.

  (b) There are 22 military personnel based in the territory who are appointed officials of the BIOT Administration in addition to their Service functions, primarily in policing, customs and similar services. Their staff costs are not currently paid for by the BIOT Government.

  In addition, a Senior Fisheries Protection Officer and a number of crew from the Fisheries Protection Vessel who are, from time to time, appointed as Fisheries Protection Officers are paid for either directly or indirectly by the BIOT Government.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have been made for Chagos Islanders to visit the islands since the recent court ruling or the right of return. [146140]

  Mr. Battle
  Following the court judgment a new BIOT Immigration Ordinance was enacted to allow the Ilois to return to certain islands in the territory, to visit or stay, without requiring a permit.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the mandate is of the UN Security Council to endorse air-strikes over Iraq. [145230]
  405W
  Mr. Hain
  UK and US aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone over Iraq are not conducting a bombing campaign, as my hon. Friend implies. They only take action in self-defence, as is their right under international law. We have no wish for this confrontation to continue: it could end tomorrow if Iraq stopped shooting at our aircraft.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Turkey about the export of oil to Turkey from Iraq. [145231]

  Mr. Hain
  We have made the Turkish Government aware of our serious concerns about the trade in illegal oil through Turkey which we are keen to see stopped. The UN Sanctions Committee discusses Iraq's oil exports, both legal and illegal, on a regular basis.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss UN Resolution 1284 with the Governments of(a) France, (b) Russia, (c) China and (d) Malaysia. [145233]

  Mr. Hain
  We have held regular discussions with the Governments of France, Russia, China and Malaysia on Resolution 1284 in the context of wider discussions on Iraq in the Security Council, since the resolution was adopted. All Security Council members have made it clear that they are working for the resolution to be implemented in full.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on placing on hold humanitarian flights to Iraq. [145234]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK has consistently approved humanitarian flights to Baghdad. We place flights on hold, and then usually only on a temporary basis, where cargo or passenger details are insufficient to ensure that UN sanctions are not being breached. These holds are lifted as soon as we are satisfied with the additional information provided. We encourage organisations to provide additional humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people—and called on them to do so in SCR 1284. We assist those who wish to do this by air with their applications for Sanctions Committee approval. However the resumption of scheduled commercial flights involving financial transactions with Iraq would be a clear contravention of the sanctions resolutions.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with UNICEF about the deaths of Iraqi children. [145235]

  Mr. Hain
  We share UNICEF's concern that the children of Iraq have suffered greatly at the hands of a dictator who cares nothing for their welfare. We, however, do care about them. Under SCR 1284, a UK initiative, the humanitarian programme in Iraq has grown eightfold since it began in 1997. With up to $16 billion available this year, there is no reason why Iraqi children should go short of food, medicine or other humanitarian supplies unless Saddam decides to deny them.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an assessment of the capacity of the Iraqi oil industry to export oil. [145237]
  406W
  Mr. Hain
  We welcome recent statements by the Iraqi Oil Minister that Iraq is increasing oil production again to return to the pre-Gulf War levels reached last year. Iraq's decision to halt oil production in December 2000 denied the Iraqi people over $650 million of humanitarian relief in December alone. We remain sceptical of Iraqi claims that they are unable to maintain production because of a shortage of oil spare parts when Iraq spent only 2 per cent. of the $600 million allocated to Iraq by the UN for oil spare parts during the last six months of 2000. Oil spare parts are also included in the UN's "fast-track" system which has already processed more than $3 billion worth of goods.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contracts have been blocked by the UK Government, which are clearly designed for humanitarian purposes. [145238]

  Mr. Hain
  Under the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 1284, contracts clearly designed for humanitarian purposes for the supply of foodstuffs, medical, agricultural, educational, water and sanitation supplies and oil spare parts no longer require Sanctions Committee approval but only need to be notified to the UN Secretariat. Under Security Council resolution 1330 these lists of "fast-track" goods are being extended to include goods in the electricity and housing sectors also. This year alone, more than $3 billion worth of humanitarian goods have been "fast tracked" in this way to Iraq.

  The UK holds less than 2 per cent. of all other contracts, which are circulated to the UN Iraq Sanctions Committee, and only does so when there are serious concerns that the goods could be used in Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction programmes. Holds are generally placed temporarily until assurances have been received about the end-use or in-country monitoring of these goods. It is the Iraqi Government who place blocking holds on UN humanitarian supplies.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of UN stock reports on the distribution picture for food and medicines verified by UN observers. [145239]

  Mr. Hain
  We have seen no recent UN reports specifically on the distribution of food and medicine in Iraq. However, we note that in his most recent report the UN Secretary-General called on Iraq to improve its contracting, ordering and distribution of the food basket and called for more effort to ensure the timely distribution of supplies to address the nutritional needs of the Iraqi people. We also note the Secretary-General's comment that the lack of a cash component—which the Iraqi regime refuses to discuss with the UN—is hampering the transportation of supplies for the targeted nutrition programme in central and southern Iraq.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the operation of the "Oil for Food" programme in relation to Iraq. [145240]

  Mr. Hain
  The "Oil for Food" programme has grown eightfold since 1997. Providing billions of dollars of humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people again this year, "Oil for Food" remains the largest UN aid programme ever. "Fast-track" procedures introduced by the UN last year mean that more goods, including foodstuffs, medical,
  407W
  agricultural, educational, water and sanitation supplies and oil spare parts no longer require Sanctions Committee approval, thus reaching the Iraqi people more quickly. So far this year, more than $3 billion worth of goods have been processed in this way. However, despite the programme's success, we remain concerned that a lack of co-operation from the Iraqi regime continues to hamper the delivery of this aid to the Iraqi people.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Chief Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal on the use of ammunition with depleted uranium in war operations in the Balkans being put on the agenda of the Hague Tribunal. [146440]

  Mr. Hain
  The Secretary of State has received no such representations.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what invitation has been received from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to send experts to investigate the soil and the export of food and wine in relation to the problem of depleted uranium. [146434]

  Mr. Hain
  HMG have not received any invitation from the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Intelligence Services Act
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what assessment he has made of the compatibility of section 7(1) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 with the UK's obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights in so far as it relates to the conduct of the United Kingdom's security service within the territories of countries that are signatories to the convention; and if he will make a statement; [146147]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the compatibility of section 5(3) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 with the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, in respect of Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [146145]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 are fully compatible with the United Kingdom's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

  US Research Programmes (Diego Garcia)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates his Department gave approval to the United States Government to carry out research programmes in Diego Garcia in the last five years; what the titles were of each of the research programmes; to which United States Department or agency approval was given in each case; and on what dates the results of each of the research programmes were given to the Foreign Office. [146645]

  Mr. Battle
  In May 1998 approval was given to the United States' State Department for "Cable Survivability Tests" in Diego Garcia, and again in April 2000 for further tests on cable survivability. Final results will be available to us on request once this research is complete.
  408W
  In autumn 1998 the US Navy based in Diego Garcia were asked to conduct an environmental impact assessment on their ship cleaning methods. The research results, entitled "Ecological Assessment of the Potential Environmental Consequences of the Military Sealift Command's Ship Husbandry Activities at Diego Garcia", were provided to the Foreign Office in December 1999.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Job Losses
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the number of job losses over the period(a) October 1998 to September 1999 and (b) October 1999 to September 2000 in (i) the cereals sector, (ii) the pig farming sector, (iii) the dairy sector and (iv) the hill-farming sector; and what forecasts he has made for employment in those sectors for the year October 2000 to September 2001. [143840]

  Ms Quin
  In addition to correspondence with individuals and interested organisations, Ministers and officials hold regular meetings to discuss many economic aspects of agriculture, including employment.

  Figures on the agricultural labour force are collected in the Agricultural and Horticultural Census. The Census is conducted annually each June, and the figures show the total labour force in June for each sector.

  The available figures are presented in the table. A breakdown by farm type is not yet available for June 2000.

  Total labour force by farm type

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Cereals

  52,762

  49,537

  n/a

  Pigs

  7,900

  6,507

  n/a

  Dairy

  55,567

  52,177

  n/a

  Hill

  33,066

  31,962

  n/a

  All sectors

  390,968

  373,715

  349,782

  Notes:

  1. Does not include farmers on minor holdings. Does not include workers employed by contractors.

  2. EC farm types are indicated in the table.

  Source:

  Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  The Ministry does not publish forecasts of employment.

  Food Labelling
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will monitor the use of the Red Tractor scheme to ensure that it is not used on imported food products. [144759]

  Ms Quin
  The "red tractor" logo was developed by the National Farmers Union and is administered by an independent body, Assured Food Standards. It is not an indication of origin, but signifies food that has been produced in accordance with certain industry-run assurance schemes and therefore meets designated standards.
  409W
  While the Ministry supported the establishment of the logo, it does not have responsibility for monitoring it and currently has no plans to do so. The Food Standards Agency does have general responsibility for food labelling.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the cost of the proposed egg labelling scheme is. [144760]

  Ms Quin
  The costs to industry associated with this measure, which will come into force on 1 January 2004, are:Labelling of packs —costs should be negligible as this already takes place for the majority of eggs on the UK market. In addition, the long lead-in period provides time for any redesigning of packs that may be necessary.
  Stamping of eggs —all eggs sold under the Lion Code, which present over 75 per cent. of domestic production, are already stamped. Those egg packers who do not already have egg stamping facilities could incur capital costs of at least £5,000 plus running costs of up to 1p/dozen, depending on throughput, and labour costs of around £10,000 per annum.

  There will be no significant changes in enforcement costs.

  I refer to the Regulatory Impact Assessment of 18 December 2000 which relates to Explanatory Memorandum 11244/00 of 12 October 2000.

  Fishing Fleet
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many UK fishing vessels there were in(a) May 1992, (b) in May 1997 and (c) at the latest date for which figures are available. [145579]

  Mr. Morley
  Information is not available for the dates requested. However the table sets out the numbers of vessels in the UK fleet as at 1 January 1992, 1997 and 2000, the latest year for which figures are available.

  UK fishing fleet (including Channel Islands and Isle of Man)

  Number of UK fishing vessels at

  10 metres or less overall length

  Over 10 metres overall length

  Total

  1 January 1992

  7,538

  3,873

  11,411

  1 January 1997

  6,091

  2,576

  8,667

  1 January 2000

  5,920

  2,120

  8,040

  Source:

  UK Sea Fisheries Statistics

  Classical Swine Fever
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pigs have been slaughtered under measures to contain the recent outbreak of classical swine fever. [145602]

  Ms Quin
  74,793 pigs have been slaughtered on infected premises and as dangerous contacts to contain the recent outbreak of classical swine fever.

  Stickler Cow Premium
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the reasons were behind the delay in early payments to farmers of the suckler cow premium. [145919]
  410W
  Ms Quin
  Producers who submit Suckler Cow Premium Scheme (SCPS) claims early in the application period normally receive advance payments from November onwards. Advances in respect of 2000 Scheme year claims began in December.

  The reason why payments began later than in previous years stems from the introduction of a rule allowing producers to claim premium on heifers, up to a limit of 20 per cent. of the total number of animals on the claim. The rule was introduced as part of the Agenda 2000 package of CAP reforms. Although it is relatively straightforward in itself, it necessitated a number of detailed changes to be made, including to the computer system used for making SCPS payments. These changes have taken longer to make than the usual year on year changes which are normally made to the system. As a result, the facilities were not available to RSCs to enable the advances to be paid in November.

  Agri-environment Schemes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the 10 highest grants paid are to farmers in England for each environmental aid scheme. [145780]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: The main agri-environment schemes in England are Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the Countryside Stewardship Scheme and the Organic Farming Scheme. The 10 highest payments made under each scheme in the year 2000 were:

  £

  Environmentally sensitive areas scheme

  Countryside stewardship scheme

  Organic farming scheme

  1.

  116,109

  89,371

  70,139

  2.

  159,573

  63,663

  66,123

  3.

  122,912

  60,285

  65,934

  4.

  120,541

  42,698

  52,666

  5.

  115,681

  40,773

  50,591

  6.

  112,640

  39,339

  45,909

  7.

  111,479

  35,580

  43,609

  8.

  89,225

  33,394

  42,440

  9.

  71,895

  33,020

  41,769

  10.

  67,418

  32,782

  39,970

  Note:

  Although each payment was for a single agreement, some agreements involved multiple beneficiaries, such as commoners' association.

  Farmers may receive payments for additional environmentally friendly activities from English Nature, the Countryside Agency, English Heritage, local authorities or National Park Authorities.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the change in the prevalence of bovine TB is in areas where badger culling schemes(a) have and (b) have not taken place; and if he will make a statement. [145782]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: The Government's cattle TB strategy includes a badger culling trial which is designed to establish whether culling badgers reduces the incidence of TB in cattle. The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG), which is overseeing the trial, has advised the Government that

  411W
  disclosing the number and location of cattle breakdowns in trial areas could compromise the scientific integrity of the trial before it is completed. The Government have accepted this advice. When robust results are available from the trial, they will be made publicly available.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the level of TB among badgers in(a) Wales and (b) other parts of the United Kingdom. [145779]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: There is no reliable means of testing for bovine TB in live badgers but broad estimates of disease levels can be made from post-mortem examination of badgers killed on roads. The most recent information available from this source is as follows:

  Area

  Wales1

  England1

  Scotland1

  Northern Ireland2

  Carcases examined

  71

  1,174

  0

  216

  Of which:

  TB positive

  13

  133

  0

  31

  1 1998 figures, the most recent year for which 12 months' data are available

  2 Figures for 1 December 1998 to date

  Equivalent data for England and Wales for the period 1972 to 1996 can be found in the Krebs Report, Appendix 11, p170.

  The trials currently in progress will provide additional data on the prevalence of TB in badger populations in trial areas.

  BSE
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those countries that have confirmed cases of BSE. [146076]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: The information requested is as listed and also on the MAFF departmental website at: http://www.maff.gov.uk/animalh/ bse/index.html

  BSE in other countries

  Countries with confirmed cases in homebred cattle:

  Belgium

  Denmark

  France

  Germany

  Ireland

  Italy

  Liechtenstein

  Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  Portugal

  Spain

  Switzerland

  United Kingdom

  Countries with confirmed cases in imported cattle only:

  Canada

  Falklands

  Oman

  Note:

  Data as at 16 January 2001

  Modulation Scheme
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reasons underlay the decision to introduce a flat rate modulation scheme; and if he will make a statement. [146151]

  Ms Quin
  The decision to implement modulation at a low flat rate was made after full consultation. Given the particular challenges facing all sectors of the farming industry, we concluded that it would be inequitable for modulation to be applied to certain sectors and not others.

  This approach offers a simple and transparent system, allowing farmers to understand readily the impact of modulation on their businesses, and one which is relatively simple to implement. It takes into account the need to avoid giving incentives to farmers to alter their businesses artificially in response to modulation, or to defer the implementation of business restructuring which would otherwise make economic sense, and it strikes a balance between the benefits of expanding rural development measures and the importance of avoiding distortion of competition with farmers in other member states which are not applying modulation.

  Tenant Farmers
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his estimate is of the number of(a) male and (b) female tenant farmers between the ages of 55 and 65 years. [146150]

  Ms Quin
  The information relates to the number of holders aged 55 to 64 in England. This is the latest available information and is included in the table.

  Tenure

  Male holders

  Female holders

  Total

  Tenanted only1

  4,642

  214

  4,856

  Mixed tenure2

  7,324

  355

  7,679

  Owner occupied only3

  20,387

  3,089

  23,476

  Neither owned nor tenanted4

  585

  54

  639

  Total

  32,939

  3,712

  36,651

  1 Where all area farmed is rented in

  2 Where part of the area farmed is rented in and part is owner occupied

  3 Where all area farmed is owner occupied

  4 Where none of the area farmed is owned or rented, eg share farming

  Note:

  The table does not include holders on minor holdings

  Source:

  The EU Farm Structure Survey 1997

  Information from the 2000 EU Farm Structure Survey will be available in early summer of 2001.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme—Ongoers—will open for applications; and if he will make a statement. [146750]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am pleased to be able to announce that the Ongoers element of the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme is today being opened for applications and will remain open for six months. This announcement completes the delivery of a further component of the
  413W
  Government's Action Plan for Farming. It is particularly pleasing to announce the opening of phase two of a scheme that will make a significant amount of money available to the UK pig industry, a sector that has suffered over the past two years. While market conditions have improved recently, the scale of the debt incurred over those difficult times continues to be a major restraint on the industry's ability to prepare itself for the future. The Government's restructuring scheme will go some way towards remedying that situation.

  The aim of Ongoers is to help pig producers reduce costs, overcome any competitive disadvantage and restore long term viability to their businesses. It will achieve this by providing an interest rate rebate on loans linked to an agreed business plan.

  Phase one of the scheme—Ongoers—was opened on 4 December 2000 and since then over 1,500 application forms have been sent out in response to telephone and e-mail requests.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Solicitor-General for what reasons his Department did not reply to the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock on 19 October 1999 [refs. 94621 and 94622]; and if he will make a statement. [146299]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have written to my hon. Friend and have answered the questions today.

  Richard Watson
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the reasons for, and circumstances relating to, the decision of the CPS not to offer evidence at the trial of Linda Watson and Amanda London-Williams on 8 June 1999. [146125]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service decided to offer no evidence in the case against Linda Watson and Amanda London-Williams only after very careful and detailed consultation between the Crown Prosecutor, Queen's and Junior counsel for the Crown and the Crown's forensic science expert. The decision that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction was made following the late receipt of evidence from a forensic science expert for the defence about the trajectory of the fatal shots. The Crown's own forensic expert was unable to offer any evidence by way of rebuttal.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Solicitor-General for what reasons the senior CID officer overseeing the murder investigation relating to Richard Watson was not consulted prior to the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to present evidence in the trial of Linda Watson and Amanda London-Williams on 8 June 1999; and if he will make a statement. [146124]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service decided to offer no evidence in the case against Linda Watson and Amanda London-Williams only after very careful and detailed consultation between the Crown Prosecutor, the Queen's counsel and Junior counsel for the Crown and the Crown's forensic science expert. The 414W
  decision that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction was made following the late receipt of evidence from a forensic science expert for the defence about the trajectory of the fatal shots. The Detective Inspector dealing with the police inquiry was kept fully informed as decisions were made.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Security Costs
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the cost of each of the last three years, of(a) the police officers and (b) the civilian court staff employed in the Parliamentary Estate; and if he will make a statement. [145725]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Parliament has an agreement with the Metropolitan Police Services to provide security on the Parliamentary Estate.

  Expenditure by the House of Commons for police officers and civilian staff including associated costs in the last three financial years, from 1997–98 to 1999–2000 are as follows: for 1997–98 £4.8 million for police officers and £5.8 million for civilian staff; for 1998–99 £5 million for police officers and £5.9 million for civilian staff; and for 1999–2000 £5.3 million for police officers and £5.8 million for civilian staff.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  HIV/AIDS Drugs (Africa)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had recently with the pharmaceutical industry concerning the supply of anti-HIV drugs to countries in Africa. [146067]

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with pharmaceutical companies about making AIDS drugs available to developing countries at more affordable prices; and if she will make a statement. [146098]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development is in dialogue with the pharmaceutical industry, developing countries and the international community to try to reduce the cost of anti-retroviral therapies to treat HIV/AIDS in developing countries. The initiative by a group of pharmaceutical companies to reduce the cost of anti-retroviral therapies for developing countries was a positive step, but even at greatly reduced prices they remain unaffordable for many people in developing countries.

  We are also working with developing countries to put in place basic primary health care systems in order to deliver basic drugs and other care to all in need. The drugs are complex to administer and require constant monitoring of the treatment regime. Many developing countries do not have primary health care systems and thus, whatever the price of drugs, have no means of delivering care to the poor.

  Labour Standards
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she plans to take to ensure that the importation of goods to the United Kingdom from less developed countries will not adversely affect the poor through unjust working conditions, low wages and the lack of recognition of workers' rights. [145944]

  Clare Short
  The UK strongly endorses the efforts of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to extend the enforcement of core labour standards in all countries. For example, the UK ratified the ILO Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour in March 2000 and is working with the ILO to achieve the widest possible ratification and implementation worldwide. My Department is preparing a new Framework Agreement between DFID and the ILO.

  There is no evidence that increased exports from poor countries lower labour standards. On the contrary: increased exports help support economic growth which is essential to the reduction of poverty.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in what ways her Department is seeking change in World Trade Organisation policies to benefit the poorest countries and to achieve the international development targets and a more equitable trading system. [145942]

  Clare Short
  My Department is pushing for a new trade Round that will help developing countries reduce poverty. This includes substantial cuts in high tariffs and in trade-distorting subsidies. The Government will also support an approach that recognises more explicitly that WTO members are at different stages of development. We

  Deaths to UK Gulf veterans 1 April 1991–31 December 20001 Causes (coded to ICD-9)2

  ICD chapter

  Cause of death

  Gulf

  Era

  Mortality rate ratio

  All deaths

  411

  466

  1.03

  All cause coded deaths

  468

  457

  1.04

  I-XVI

  Disease-related causes

  168

  208

  0.82

  I

  Infectious and parasitic diseases

  3

  2

  1.52

  II

  Cancers

  69

  77

  0.91

  III

  Endocrine and immune disorders

  1

  4

  0.25

  V

  Mental disorders

  8

  11

  0.74

  VI

  Diseases of the nervous system and sense organs

  7

  4

  1.77

  VII

  Diseases of the circulatory system

  60

  79

  0.77

  VIII

  Diseases of the respiratory system

  9

  5

  1.82

  IX

  Diseases of the digestive system

  6

  12

  0.51

  IV, X-XVI

  All other disease-related causes

  5

  14

  0.36

  EXVII

  External causes of injury and poisoning

  300

  249

  1.22

  Railway accidents

  4

  1

  4.04

  Motor vehicle accidents

  109

  85

  1.30

  Water transport accidents

  4

  1

  4.04

  Air and space accidents

  25

  17

  1.49

  Other vehicle accidents

  0

  2

  0.00

  Accidental poisoning

  9

  12

  0.76

  Accidental falls

  8

  6

  1.35

  Accidents due to fire/flames

  0

  1

  0.00

  Accidents due to natural environmental factors

  2

  2

  1.01

  Accidents due to submersion/suffocation/foreign bodies

  15

  6

  2.53

  Other accidents

  31

  26

  1.21

  Late effects of accident/injury

  0

  2

  0.00

  Suicide and injury undetermined whether accidental

  85

  80

  1.07

  416W
  will double our commitment to capacity building for developing countries to help them negotiate and implement commitments more effectively. We have also urged the WTO to adopt the International Development Targets.

DEFENCE

  Gulf Veterans
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the latest figures are for mortality rates among(a) Gulf veterans and (b) the comparison group. [146850]

  Mr. Spellar
  Peer reviewed scientific data comparing the mortality of UK Gulf veterans to an era group of service personnel who did not deploy to the Gulf were published for the first time in The Lancet on 1 July 2000. An update to these figures was provided by the Ministry of Defence to the House on 20 July 2000. The Ministry of Defence has undertaken to continue to monitor the mortality of both Gulf veterans and the era group and will publish updated figures on a regular basis. The figures as at 31 December 2000 are shown in the table.

  Overall, in the period 1 April 1999 to 31 December 2000 the mortality of UK Gulf veterans was only slightly greater than that of the Control group. The number of Gulf veterans dying from disease related causes is rather less than for the control group, whereas the number of Gulf veterans dying of external causes is rather higher than for the control group. The Ministry of Defence will conduct a more detailed analysis of road traffic accidents, to establish whether there are any underlying trends that might help explain this excess.
  417W

  Deaths to UK Gulf veterans 1 April 1991–31 December 20001 Causes (coded to ICD-9)2

  ICD chapter

  Cause of death

  Gulf

  Era

  Mortality rate ratio

  Homicide

  5

  4

  1.26

  Injury resulting from the operations of war

  3

  4

  0.76

  Other deaths for which coded cause data are not yet available

  9

  9

  —

  Overseas deaths for which cause data are not available

  2

  3

  —

  1 Service and Ex-Service personnel only.

  2 World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 9th revision, 1977.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what date he proposes to make a decision on United Kingdom participation in the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the Joint Strike Fighter project. [143328]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 17 January 2001,Official Report, columns 226–28W to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe).

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to monitor the findings of NATO allies about depleted uranium monitoring in the Balkans. [144670]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on 15 January 2001, Official Report, columns 41–42W. The UK will take an active part in the further steps announced by the Secretary General of NATO on 10 January 2001. Participation in this further work will give the UK full visibility of the findings of NATO allies.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Lord Robertson's speech given in Stockholm relating to the effect on peace-keepers serving in international missions in the Balkans of depleted uranium. [146435]

  Mr. Hoon
  The NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, issued a statement on depleted uranium on January 2001, for further details of this statement I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on 15 January 2001,Official Report, columns 1–42W. The Ministry of Defence has welcomed the NATO measures which were outlined in this statement. I understand that Lord Robertson reiterated NATO's view on depleted uranium during a press conference in Stockholm on 11 January 2001.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department is taking to review its policy towards depleted uranium in Iraq. [145236]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence does not have information about the current levels of depleted uranium (DU) in Iraq. Although we are well aware of suggestions that the use of DU-based ammunition during the Gulf conflict has caused an increase in ill-health, including 418W
  deformities, cancers and birth defects, in Iraq, especially around Basra, Al Zubayr and Um Qasr, we have not so far seen any peer-reviewed epidemiological research, or any other properly validated research, to support these claims. Furthermore, there is no evidence that illnesses of the type reported are uniquely associated with or indeed consistent with exposure to DU. Of course, the Government would consider carefully any reliable medical or scientific data that may emerge concerning the incidence of ill health in Iraq.

  UK tanks, which were equipped with DU-based rounds during the 1990–91 Gulf conflict, did not operate in those areas of southern Iraq in which it has been suggested that there is an increased level of ill health compared to other areas of the country.

  We understand the World Health Organisation (WHO) is in discussion with the Government of Iraq about three proposals to improve health in Iraq. The proposals, which are still in the outline stage, focus on the improvement of health planning, the building of training links between Iraqi health personnel and outside health institutions, and improvement of research and treatment of emerging diseases, such as cancers. We understand that the Government of Iraq have agreed the proposals. The WHO will now presumably approach donors for funding. The Department for International Development has already indicated that it will consider funding for projects aimed at improving epidemiological data on, and health care planning, in Iraq—provided that these meet their project criteria. If implemented, these projects should provide valuable information on the health needs of the Iraqi population.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops and medical auxiliaries have been subject to exposure to depleted uranium from NATO and allied forces in(a) Iraq, (b) Kuwait, (c) Bosnia, (d) Kosovo and (e) other parts of the Balkans, arising from military conflicts in those areas in the last five years. [145292]

  Mr. Spellar
  There is no evidence of which the Ministry of Defence is aware to suggest that any allied or NATO troops or civilians have suffered any exposure to depleted uranium that might be harmful. No specific data exist on individuals' possible exposure to depleted uranium, either in the Gulf or the Balkans. However, in recognition of the fact that recent press coverage will have caused some concerns among our people, I announced an initiative to identify an additional appropriate voluntary screening programme for our Service personnel and civilians who have served in the Balkans—9 January 2001,Official Report, columns 877–90. We will do this

  419W
  on the basis of the best available science. We will consult appropriate national bodies including the UK National Screening Committee of the UK Departments of Health and the Royal Society. It is our intention that this screening programme should be equally applicable to Gulf veterans.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the reason for the year-by-year variation in the testing of depleted uranium shells since 1995. [145297]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) on 19 June 2000,Official Report, column 27W.

  The 120 mm anti-armour round Challenger Armament 3 (CHARM 3) for Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank was in development at the beginning of this period and was the only ammunition with DU content being fired at Kirkcudbright ranges. Firing peaked in 1997 with a Biases Trial to establish weapon system accuracy. Most of the subsequent firing was part of the proofing regime for production rounds that will be complete by September 2001.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communication he has received from the Royal Society in respect of its current inquiry into the effects of the military use of depleted uranium on human health and the environment. [145288]

  Mr. Spellar
  At the Royal Society's request, two sessions of Ministry of Defence evidence were held as part of its ongoing inquiry. My Department has also received two letters from the Royal Society and of course will be in consultation with them and others about the screening programme I announced on 9 January 2001,Official Report, columns 877–90. I understand that the Royal Society plan to publish their report in the summer of this year.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response he has made to the representations made to him by the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association over exposure to military personnel of depleted uranium in Operation Granby in 1991. [145291]

  Mr. Spellar
  On 8 September 1999, following a meeting with veterans, I announced that the Ministry of Defence was offering to re-test those veterans who had been tested in Canada for depleted uranium. In November 1999 a draft protocol under which this testing might be carried out was put before veterans associations, including the National Gulf Veterans and Families Association (NGV&FA), for discussion. Regrettably, the NGV&FA has not appeared willing to discuss this proposal for testing with us. It is our intention that the screening initiative I announced in the House on 9 January 2001,Official Report, columns 877–90 should be equally applicable to Gulf veterans.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if his Department is monitoring the health checks being conducted by Spain, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Norway, France and Belgium, on peacekeeper troops who may have come into contact with depleted uranium whilst deployed in the Balkans; [145289]
  420W
  (2) what recent discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts about the health effects of depleted uranium on military personnel and civilians during Operation Granby in the Gulf in 1991. [145287]

  Mr. Spellar
  In my statement to the House on 9 January 2001,Official Report, columns 877–90, I stressed the importance of co-ordinating our approach with allies. The Ministry of Defence, both independently and through NATO, is therefore monitoring very closely the health checks being proposed or conducted by our allies on troops who believe they may have been exposed to depleted uranium (DU). The North Atlantic Council met on 10 January 2001 to consider the possible health effects associated with the use of DU munitions. After that meeting, the Secretary General affirmed that NATO allies are committed to ensuring the health and safety of their Service personnel and to avoiding any ill-effects for the civilian population and personnel of the non-governmental organisations as a result of NATO military operations. Allies agreed that NATO should continue to co-operate fully with investigations by nations or multinational organisations on the possible effects of exposure; to produce information on the use of DU munitions during operation Deny Flight and Deliberate Force in 1994 and 1995; and to consult fully with all present and past NATO SFOR and KFOR contributing countries.

  On 15 January 2001, the NATO Chiefs of Medical Military Services Committee (COMEDS), the senior medical advisory committee of NATO, held a meeting to discuss the health concerns of Balkan peacekeepers. At this meeting, a common NATO medical approach was agreed. This was that each nation should analyse the mortality rates of its Service personnel; analyse the rate of illness among its Balkans veterans; compare them with control groups and national matched statistics, and correlate the collection of morbidity data with known health hazards in theatre.

  A NATO meeting was also held on 16 January 2001 to establish a working group to act as a clearing house for the exchange of information, between the allies and more widely, on any health risks associated with the use of DU munitions.

  While this activity has arisen in the context of concerns about use of depleted uranium in the Balkans, the discussions are also relevant to the suggested health effects of DU in the Gulf.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines his Department follows when deciding at which sites depleted uranium munitions may be(a) fired, (b) stored and (c) transported. [144989]

  Mr. Spellar
  The land firing of Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions has been concentrated at two MOD ranges in the UK; at Kirkcudbright in Dumfries and Galloway, and Eskmeals in Cumbria. The Statutory Regulations which govern the use of DU on all ranges in the UK are the Radioactive Substance Act 1993, which controls radioactive waste discharges to the environment and the Ionising Radiation Regulations published in December 1999 which came into effect on 1 January 2000. These are part of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and enforced by the Health and Safety Executive. The firings are conducted with the full
  421W
  knowledge of the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. In addition, the MOD Explosive, Storage and Transport Committee lays down the policy and standards for the storage and transportation of all conventional military explosives held by the UK MOD and this includes DU munitions. These standards are then enshrined as necessary in Single Service regulations and working practices.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations have been received from the campaign against depleted uranium. [145295]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department received a letter from the Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (CADU) dated 9 January 2001 and is in the process of replying.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research is being conducted by(a) his Department and (b) DERA into alternatives to the use of depleted uranium munitions. [145298]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency has been investigating, on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, a range of materials as possible alternatives for depleted uranium (DU) which is used in ammunition for the Challenger II battle tank. I he research over the past few years has focused on studying the physical characteristics of DU alloys that make them especially effective in battlefield engagement. Based on this knowledge, the suitability of alternative materials is being assessed.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the toxic effects on the liver of the ingestion of particles of depleted uranium. [145276]

  Mr. Spellar
  None. The level of chemical toxicity of depleted uranium (DU) is similar to that of other heavy metals such as lead. Much research has been done into heavy metal poisoning and its effects are well understood. If soluble particles of DU were to be ingested, this could indeed give rise to health problems. However, this is very unlikely, as the DU residues found on the battlefield are generally in the form of solid fragments or relatively insoluble oxides. Should any of these oxides be ingested, most would pass straight through the body and so the risk of any health effects arising from such exposure is negligible. Kidney damage is the chief indication of heavy metal poisoning. The incidence of kidney disease among the 3,000 or so patients who have been to the Gulf Veterans Medical Assessment Programme is no higher than would be expected in the general population.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has reviewed the evidence presented to inquiries held by the United States Congress into the potential hazards of the use of depleted uranium munitions. [145296]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department works closely with our US counterparts and follows developments there attentively, including inquiries held by Congress.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out where the signal message on depleted uranium hazards dated 25 February 1991 from his Department, to which he referred in his answer 422W
  to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) of 30 November 2000, Official Report, columns 727–28W, was found. [145294]

  Mr. Spellar
  The signal referred to was found in the private papers of the Commander Medical who served in the Gulf with 1 Armoured Division. Copies were not found in any official records held by my Department.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if depleted uranium shells have been transported by(a) air, (b) road and (c) rail to (i) Aberporth, (ii) Llanbedr and (iii) Sennybridge; [144985]

  (2) if depleted uranium shells have been (a) stored and (b) fired at (i) Aberporth, (ii) Llanbedr and (iii) Sennybridge. [144986]

  Mr. Spellar
  Depleted uranium shells have not been transported by air, road or rail to Aberporth, Llanbedr or Sennybridge. Neither have depleted uranium shells been stored or fired at these locations.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to substitute depleted uranium rounds with other equally penetrative rounds. [146296]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is currently no plan to replace the depleted uranium penetrator in the CHARM 3 round used in the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank. At present this penetrator outperforms all known alternatives. The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) is continuing to conduct research into the potential of alternative materials.

  In 1990 we commenced the replacement of depleted uranium rounds for the Phalanx naval close-in weapon with tungsten rounds. In this system tungsten provides an equally effective capability at lower cost. It was possible to use tungsten in this case because the system does not rely specifically on the penetrative capabilities afforded by depleted uranium. This is not the case for the CHARM 3 round.

  Thermobaric Weapons
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department sponsors(a) research into and (b) the development of thermobaric weapons; and if he will make a statement on his policy on thermobaric weapons. [146071]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 16 January 2001,Official Report, column 144W, to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker).

  Smart Procurement
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the oral answer given by the Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for New Forest, East, on 15 January 2001,Official Report, column 17, on smart procurement, if he will list the problems which would be caused to the Eurofighter Typhoon by its being fitted with a cannon. [146379]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 27 November 2000,Official Report, column 420W, to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

  Research and Development and Procurement Expenditure
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total expenditure is on(a) research and development and (b) procurement for each of the armed services; and what proportion of each budget for each service is spent in Scotland in the current financial year. [146178]

  Mr. Spellar
  The forecast total expenditure on research and development for 2000–01 is £438.5 million. Separate figures for equipment procurement for each of the armed services are not held centrally, however, the forecast total for 2000–01 is £5,256 million. Concerning Scotland, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on the same subject on 16 January 2001,Official Report, column 147W.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how his Department calculates the number of people employed in defence and defence-related industries in the regions of the UK; what multiplier is used; and how many people are so employed in(a) each region of England and Wales and (b) Scotland. [146177]

  Mr. Spellar
  Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) publish "UK Defence Statistics 2000", which contain estimates of UK regional employment directly resultant from the Ministry of Defence equipment expenditure. The method used to provide national and regional employment estimates requires the combination of two elements. First, a breakdown of MOD equipment expenditure with UK industry (using the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)) and second, a multiplier which measures sales per employee for each of the industries receiving defence spending (derived from the ONS Business Enquiry and the Labour Market Survey). Dividing the first by the second gives an estimate of those employed directly on defence contracts. The methodology does not therefore include indirect employment.

  The provisional figures for the number of people employed by defence industries in 1998–99 are listed in the DASA publication, "UK Defence Statistics 2000", a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Statistics of this type are updated on a regular basis and posted on the DASA website: http://www.dasa.mod.uk/products/ukds/2000/index.html.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the open-days at Porton Down were ended; and what plans he has to resume them. [145352]

  Dr. Moonie
  Prior to 1980, there were two Ministry of Defence establishments at Porton Down—The Microbiological Research Establishment which held a week of open days during 1968 and the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment which undertook a similar exercise the following year. The formal openings of these establishments were only ever intended as one-off events and there are no plans for a repeat. However, the successor to these two establishments, the Chemical and 424W
  Biological Defence Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, hosts numerous visitors throughout the year from the local, research and media communities.

  E-bomb
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to develop an e-bomb to disable computers; what research he is sponsoring into such a weapon; and if he will make a statement. [146072]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is our policy to keep abreast of technology in this and many other areas. I am withholding further information under exemption 1a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Maritime War Graves
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is towards the policing and protection of maritime war graves within(a) British and (b) international waters. [146081]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: The Ministry of Defence police will investigate allegations of misappropriation of wreck material from naval wrecks whenever notified that an offence has been committed, either in British or international waters.

  HMS Sheffield
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the West Indies Guard ship is currently situated. [146050]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: The Atlantic Patrol Task (North) duty ship HMS Sheffield (formerly known as West Indies Guard ship), is scheduled to deploy for the Caribbean in early February. She is currently alongside in Portsmouth on 14 days' notice for operations within the Caribbean area of responsibility.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Turkey about the use of the Incirlik airbase in South-eastern Anatolia for allied sorties into Iraq. [145232]

  Mr. Hoon
  We remain in regular contact with the Turkish Government on a range of issues including our use of the Incirlik airbase. We greatly value the continued Turkish co-operation and support for the coalition's humanitarian patrols of the Iraqi no-fly zones.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the value of DERA's assets is; and what proportion of them is held in Scotland. [146176]

  Dr. Moonie
  The value of DERA's fixed assets for the financial year 1999–2000 is £580.1 million. Some four per cent. of these assets are held in Scotland.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list properties owned by his Department which are awaiting disposal. [146174]
  425W
  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held centrally. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the details have been collated and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2001,Official Report, column 568W, on the Children's Tax Credit, if he will provide corresponding estimates on the basis that the rate of the credit in April is £10 per week. [146319]

  Dawn Primarolo
  On the basis of the Children's Tax Credit (CTC) at £10 per week, the estimated full year yield from reducing the annual threshold at which CTC begins to be tapered away for 2001–02 is given in the following table.

  £ million

  Reduction to CTC threshold

  Estimated full year yield

  £1,000

  39

  £2,000

  70

  £3,000

  100

  £4,000

  140

  £5,000

  190

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated loss was to the Treasury of the smuggling of tobacco products for each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [146106]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HMCE published estimates for revenue (excise duty and VAT) lost to the Exchequer through tobacco smuggling for the period 1996–99 in the "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling" document published on 22 March 2000. There are no estimates prior to 1996. The tobacco assessment for 2000 is in the process of being prepared and will be published in due course.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further measures he proposes to combat tobacco smuggling from countries(a) within and (b) outside the EU; and if he will make a statement. [146105]

  Dawn Primarolo
  On 22 March 2000 I announced the `Tackling Tobacco Smuggling' strategy and a £209 million investment to implement it. The strategy is designed to reverse the growth in tobacco smuggling into the UK within three years and reduce it below current levels in the longer term.

  A copy of the strategy document can be found in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of(a) cigarettes and (b) other tobacco products sold in the United Kingdom he estimates are smuggled into the United Kingdom from countries (i) within and (ii) outside the EU; and if he will make a statement. [146104]
  426W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's "Tackling Tobacco Smuggling" strategy, published on 22 March 2000, provides a breakdown of revenue loss by the methods by which cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco are smuggled into the United Kingdom.

  The Government's strategy aims to put cigarette smuggling, regardless of where it is sourced, into decline.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people from Lancaster and Wyre are claiming Working Families Tax Credit. [145616]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Copies of the latest quarterly inquiries giving statistics for the Working Families Tax Credit and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit are in the Library. They contain estimates of the number of recipients in each parliamentary constituency, and in each local authority.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of families with children where at least one parent works are receiving Working Families Tax Credit. [146102]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: It is estimated that 1,129 thousand families with dependent children were in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) awards at the end of August 2000.

  No estimates are available for August of the total number of families with dependent children where at least one parent was working for at least 16 hours per week.

  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how long it has taken on average for a business to be reimbursed by the Inland Revenue those moneys paid to employees as working family tax credits; [145460]

  (2) what representations he has received from Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Industry about delays in reimbursement to businesses of moneys owed by the Inland Revenue relating to payment of the working families tax credit; and if he will make a statement on the Inland Revenue's reimbursement policy. [145534]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 January 2001]: The scheme for paying tax credits through the payroll is designed to ensure that employers have the money they need to pay the tax credit at the right time.

  Employers who receive notification to pay tax credits can apply for advance funding from the Inland Revenue if they think that they will have to pay out more in tax credits than the PAYE tax, NICs and student loan deductions which they have to pay to the Inland Revenue for the same period. As long as the application for funding is made at least nine working days before the first tax credit payment is due the Inland Revenue should be able to get funding to employers at least three days in advance of the first day on which they will pay tax credits.

  I have seen a copy of representations made by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Industry to David Irwin of the Small Business Service who will be replying directly.

  VAT (Housing)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to limit the proposed VAT reduction on conversion of dwellings into a different number of dwellings to conversions that follow explicit planning consent and to prevent houses in multiple occupation without the benefit of explicit planning consent from benefiting from any reduction. [146395]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government propose to limit the reduced rate for conversions to those that, where necessary, have obtained planning permission or building regulations approval.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue yield of introducing VAT at(a) 5 per cent. and (b) 17.5 per cent. on rent of (i) commercial properties and (ii) domestic properties. [146254]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the cost of the VAT exemption for the rental of commercial and domestic properties are given in the Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs tables published by HM Treasury in November 2000. Revenue estimates of introducing VAT at 5 per cent. on the rents of these properties are not available.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on the house building industry of introducing a 5 per cent. VAT rate on new construction. [145593]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have no plans to introduce a 5 per cent. VAT rate on new construction.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on planning decisions of imposing a 5 per cent. rate of VAT on new building on greenfield land. [145592]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no evidence to show that VAT would have any influence on planning decisions taken by local authorities.

  Petroleum Tax Allowance
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue yield for the next five financial years of abolishing petroleum revenue tax oil allowance. [146253]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available, but the tax cost of oil allowance for 2000 is given in the November 2000 "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs", and in "Inland Revenue Statistics 2000", copies of which are available in the Library. The cost of oil allowance in future years will depend upon future levels of oil and gas prices and production.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the yield in 2001–02 of increasing the rate of income tax to 50 per cent. for annual taxable incomes in excess of £50,000. [146840]

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

  VAT Exemptions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue yield of introducing VAT at(a) 5 per cent. and (b) 17.5 per cent. on (i) private educes ion. (ii) for profit health care and (iii) not for profit health care. [146255]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the cost of the VAT exemption for private education and health services are given in the Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs tables published by HM Treasury in November 2000. No separate estimates have been made for profit and not for profit health care. Revenue estimates of introducing VAT at 5 per cent. on private education and health services are not available.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue yield of extending VAT to(a) the United Kingdom portion of international passenger transport, (b) water and sewerage and (c) domestic passenger transport at (i) 5 per cent. and (ii) 17.5 per cent. [146259]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the cost of the zero-rate of VAT for passenger transport and water and sewerage are given in the Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs tables published by HM Treasury in November 2000.

  Work (Financial Rewards)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has put in place to increase the financial reward from work. [146120]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have put in place a series of reforms to increase the financial rewards from work.

  The national minimum wage of £3.70 an hour ensures fair minimum standards of pay and has benefited between 1.2 and 1.5 million people since its introduction in April 1999. The introduction of the 10p tax rate in April 1999 halved the marginal tax rate for 1.8 million people in low-paid work. Reforms to National Insurance Contributions and in particular the abolition of the unfair entry fee, and the rise in the Lower Earnings Limit, have taken an estimated million low-paid workers out of paying national insurance, while protecting their entitlement to benefits.

  The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is designed specifically to increase the financial rewards to work for low and middle income families with children. This recognises the particular problems faced by parents in seeking work and includes specific help with child care costs through a new Childcare Tax Credit. On average, families on WFTC are £30 a week better off than under Family Credit. Combined with the, minimum wage WFTC ensures a minimum income for a family with someone in full-time work of £214 a week.

  Job Losses (North-West)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many jobs were lost in the North West of England in each year between 1989–90 and 1999–2000. [145206]
  429W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Peter Kilfoyle, dated 22 January 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about jobs lost in the North West of England in each year between 1989–90 and 1999–2000 (145206).
  Information is not available for job losses.

  Widows Bereavement Allowance
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been paid in friendly settlements of claims by widowers of the widows bereavement allowance under the European Convention on Human Rights. [146298]

  Dawn Primarolo
  One friendly settlement to a widower of under £5,000 (including legal costs) in respect of a claim to widows bereavement allowance has been made. The terms of the settlement were published on 9 November 1999 by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

  Public Spending
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate(a) the size of the change in public spending on goods and services in the first year and sustained relative to base and (b) the size of the change in taxation needed in each case to secure a 1 per cent. point cut in interest rates, assuming broadly unchanged domestic demand; and if he will estimate the effects on the effective exchange rate index for sterling. [145866]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: It has been the practice of successive Governments for many years not to run Treasury model simulations in order to answer Parliamentary Questions, principally on grounds of cost.

  Euro
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he gave approval to the proposal by the Bank of England to auction 500 million euro notes on 16 January; and what the purpose of the initiative is. [145626]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The Chancellor approved the proposal by the Bank of England to replace HMG as issuer of notes denominated in euro in March 2000. The decision was announced to the public in a press notice dated 21 March 2000. Proceeds of the note issuance will add to the foreign exchange holdings of the Bank of England.

  Equitable Life
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is intended that the report into the FSA's management of events concerning Equitable Life will be(a) completed and (b) published. [144142]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 8 January 2001]: The FSA's report will cover both the FSA's role as prudential regulator and its exercise of its functions under the Financial Services Act 1986. The report is likely to take some months to complete and will be published.

  EC Budget (Scotland)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the sum allocated in the draft EC Budget and Adopted EC budget for 2000 to the European Movement will be spent in Scotland in the 2000–01 financial year. [145659]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is within the remit of the Commission to decide the criteria for the targeting of such funds.

  Miners' Pension Fund
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to hold talks with Miners' Pension Fund trustees regarding the proportion the Government takes from Miners' Pension Fund surpluses. [146233]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department maintains close links with the Trustees and their representatives, and discussions continue between the Scheme and the Department over the scope for further targeted benefit improvements following the announcement, last August, of a real-terms increase of almost 9 per cent. in miners' pensions.

HEALTH

  MMR Vaccine
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which strains of attenuated viruses have been used in the creation of the MMR vaccine over the past 10 years. [145130]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Measles, mumps and rubella combination vaccines contain three attenuated viruses. Since 1992, the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccines that have been used in the national immunisation programme (MMR-11 and Priorix) have comprised the following strains: Ender' s Edmonston strain and Schwartz strain used in the preparation of the measles component; Jery1 Lynn strain used in the preparation of the mumps component, and Wistar strain used in the preparation of the rubella component.

  Before 1992, some children in the United Kingdom may have received a combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine that contained the Urabe Am 9 mumps strain.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what medical reasons single antigen measles and mumps vaccines are not licensed in the United Kingdom. [145131]

  Yvette Cooper
  The policy for protecting children from measles, mumps and rubella is a two dose schedule of the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccines. This is based on the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) and the assessment of the safety of the vaccine by the Committee for the Safety of Medicines.
  431W
  This policy has been endorsed on 12 January 2001 by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Nursing and the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association.

  Separate doses of single antigen vaccines given at intervals leave children vulnerable to the risk of potentially serious disease. The JCVI advises that there are no benefits from giving the single antigen vaccines compared with the combined vaccine and that a schedule of separate vaccines is less safe than the combined vaccine.

  The MCA advises that the single antigen vaccines for measles and mumps currently being imported are unlicensed. Further to my replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) on 19 June 2000, Official Report, column 49W and to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) on 24 November 2000, Official Report, column 354W, I have now been informed by the Medicines Control Agency that there are extant licenses for measles and mumps vaccines. However there are no vaccines available for use in the United Kingdom that meet the specifications of those licenses and the vaccines that are in use are not licensed. All single antigen measles and mumps vaccines in the UK are not licensed for use in the UK.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on allowing parents to choose separate vaccinations for children against measles, mumps and rubella. [145913]

  Yvette Cooper
  The policy for protecting children from measles, mumps and rubella is a two dose schedule of the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccines. This is based on the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) and the assessment of the safety of the vaccine by the Committee for the Safety of Medicines.

  This policy has been endorsed on 12 January 2001 by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Nursing and the Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association.

  Separate doses of single antigen vaccines given at intervals leave children vulnerable to the risk of potentially serious disease. The JCVI advises that there are no benefits from giving the single antigen vaccines compared with the combined vaccine and that a schedule of separate vaccines is less safe than the combined vaccine. It is not the policy of the Department to offer this schedule.

  Emergency Hospital Re-admissions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of patients aged 75 years and over were readmitted as emergencies within 28 days of their discharge for each quarter for the last two years in each NHS Trust, or Health Authority, by NHS region. [141506]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assumptions underlay the estimate of the number of new care packages which would be available; when these packages will be available; how much each package will cost; how many hours of contact will be provided; and if sufficient staff are available to support the extra packages. [141501]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 13 December 2000]: Figures provided by councils show that the number of people in England aged 65 and over per 1,000 population who were being helped to live at home increased by 2 per cent. between 1998–99 and 1999–2000. This amounts to an additional 15,000–20,000 people.

  Information is not available centrally on the number of contact hours used for the full range of community-based home care services. Contact hours are recorded only on home help and home care services. Information on the number of staff is available only for those employed directly by social services departments. No figures are collected on staff who work in the independent sector.

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the results of his survey of Social Services Departments in respect of the change in the number of nursing home and residential care home beds between October 1999 and October 2000. [141500]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 13 December 2000]: The data were collected in order to inform judgments about local preparedness and were not part of a national survey within the Department's arrangements for collecting, validating and disseminating national statistics on social care. It would therefore be inappropriate to publish the information.

  Chlamydia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will summarise the result of the pilot studies on Chlamydia; and if he will make a statement. [145355]

  Yvette Cooper
  As the pilot study only finished in September we are still analysing the results. The final report is expected in the spring and this will be used to help develop national policy via the sexual health and HIV strategy and the National Screening Committee.

  Wycombe General Hospital
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on how many days since 1 December 2000 Wycombe General Hospital has been on red alert; [145596]

  (2) how many patients were waiting (a) in accident and emergency for beds and (b) in the medical assessment unit at 9 am on each of the days from 1 December 2000 to 10 January 2001 at Wycombe General Hospital. [145595]

  Ms Stuart
  This is day to day management information and, as such, is not collected centrally.

  I understand that the medical assessment unit at Wycombe General Hospital did not open until 5 January 2001.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost to the National Health Service is of a full course of chemotherapy to treat breast cancer. [145599]

  Yvette Cooper
  No comprehensive national data are currently held on the costs of chemotherapy to treat breast cancer.

  It is expected that reference cost data (unit cost data on a range of hospital and community based health services) will include the costs of chemotherapy based around the drug regimens currently in use. The data for the 2000–01 financial year will be available in autumn of 2001.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost is to the National Health Service of a full course of radiotherapy to treat breast cancer following a mastectomy. [145597]

  Yvette Cooper
  The length and time for a course of radiotherapy can vary dependent on the size and classification of the type of cancer involved. A particularly virulent form of the disease may require a higher dose of a certain type of radiotherapy in a relatively short period of time, while another form may require a lower dose over a longer period of time. Therefore there is no 'standard course' of radiotherapy to treat breast cancer following a mastectomy.

  Within reference costs, we hold information on the national average cost of the different types of radiotherapy based on the number of fractions (doses) given to a patient. Examples of these for 1999–2000 are shown in the table.

  £

  HRG code/Health resource group label

  Mean average

  w11

  Complex Teletherapy, More than 12, Less than 24 Fractions

  845

  w17

  Complex Teletherapy with Imaging and Multiple Planning, More than 23 Fractions

  831

  In total, there are 35 such categories and full details of these are contained in the reference cost 2000 publication available in hard copy or on the Department of Health website. Copies of the publication are available in the Library.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will seek medical and scientific evidence from the World Health Organisation and the European Union on the use of incinerators to burn waste in other countries; and if he will make a statement. [145843]

  Ms Stuart
  Incinerators emit a variety of pollutants of potential concern on health grounds, as indeed do many industrial processes. Our regulation of incinerators therefore requires emissions to be tightly controlled, at a minimum consistent with the limit values prescribed in European Union legislation. These regulatory decisions, and the limit values themselves, are based on the best evidence from the scientific and medical community on the effects of air pollutants, including World Health 434W
  Organisation and EU sources, (which commissioned work explicitly for the recent adopted Waste Incineration Directive).

  Any new information from the WHO or the EU, and any substantial scientific studies of the health impacts of waste incinerators to be published in the scientific literature are kept under review by officials, and if necessary can be referred for consideration by expert advisory committees such as the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to add NHS trusts in Northumberland and Tyneside to the list of trusts providing digital hearing aids. [146008]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department will study the results of the modernising National Health Service hearing aid services project at the 20 participating NHS trusts to determine how changes to hearing aid services are rolled out to the NHS. Pending the outcome of the project, other hospitals are able to access the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency contract for digital hearing aids where the service criteria are met.

  Medical Training (North-East)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning proposals for a York-Hull Medical School; and what assessment he has made of them. [146034]

  Mr. Hutton
  I am aware that the Universities of Hull and York have submitted a proposal for the establishment of a joint medical school. This is one of 22 proposals submitted by higher education institutions in England to provide the extra medical school places indicated in the NHS Plan in December 2000. Responsibility for the allocation of medical student places in England lies with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and I am unable to comment on the individual proposals that have been submitted.

  A joint implementation group of officials from the Department of Health, HEFCE and the General Medical Council, which is jointly chaired by Professor Liam Donaldson, Chief Medical Officer and Sir Brian Fender, Chief Executive of HEFCE, will be considering these proposals and making recommendations to HEFCE about where the extra places should be allocated. The group is currently considering the proposals and will make their recommendations later this year.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision there is for medical training in the North East. [146033]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are medical schools at Newcastle University and Leeds University which come within the Northern and Yorkshire region of the National Health Service Executive.

  Embryology
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what distinction he has made between human embryos
  435W
  described as (a) poly-nucleate embryos, (b) pre-embryos, (c) pre-implantation embryos and (d) early embryos in the Ninth Annual report of the HFEA. [146117]

  Yvette Cooper
  Research using human embryos cannot be conducted without a licence issued by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and is subject to strict conditions laid down in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The HFEA publishes an annual report which includes details of all licensed research projects. These terms appear in the titles of research applications as submitted by researchers.

  A poly-nucleate embryo is an embryo which contains cells with more than one nucleus. "Pre-embryos" and "early embryos" are not terms found in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which refers to "embryos". A pre-implantation embryo describes an embryo before it is implanted into the womb.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on recent events concerning the handling of frozen embryos at the Hampshire Clinic; and what other IVF clinics are under investigation by the HFEA. [146116]

  Yvette Cooper
  The police are investigating recent events at the Hampshire Clinic and the North Hampshire Hospital Trust. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has suspended treatments at these clinics. No other IVF clinic is under investigation by the authority although all licensed centres have been asked to carry out a special audit of embryos and gametes in storage. We expect to receive the results of this audit shortly. All licensed centres are also subject to annual inspection.

  Child Protection (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were on the Social Services Department's at risk list in each London borough council as at 1 January; and if he will make a statement. [146119]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of children on the child protection register of each London Borough Council as at 31 March 2000 is shown in the table.

  London borough

  Number of children as at 31 March 2000

  Barking and Dagenham

  110

  Barnet

  181

  Bexley

  137

  Brent

  112

  Bromley

  172

  Camden

  179

  City of London

  1

  Croydon

  294

  Ealing

  84

  Enfield

  101

  Greenwich

  255

  Hackney

  263

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  153

  Haringey

  226

  Harrow

  148

  Havering

  106

  Hillingdon

  129

  Hounslow

  214

  Islington

  221

  Kensington and Chelsea

  70

  Kingston upon Thames

  37

  Lambeth

  212

  436W

  London borough

  Number of children as at 31 March 2000

  Lewisham

  217

  Merton

  87

  Newham

  223

  Redbridge

  73

  Richmond upon Thames

  83

  Southwark

  164

  Sutton

  101

  Tower Hamlets

  130

  Waltham Forest

  86

  Wandsworth

  142

  Westminster

  98

  London total

  4,809

  Patient Age Data
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to issue guidance within the NHS on the collection of data relating to the age of patients. [146389]

  Mr. Hutton
  National Health Service guidance already exists for collecting and recording the date of birth of NHS patients in hospital information systems. The age of a patient can subsequently be derived from this date of birth where appropriate.

  Patients registering with their general practitioner or calling NHS Direct for health advice are routinely asked to provide their date of birth. This information, where provided, is recorded in the appropriate information systems.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will provide answers to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam in respect of questions numbers 141561, 141498, 141506, 141501, 141508, 141500, 141507 and 141403. [146390]

  Ms Stuart
  The hon. Member has received replies to three of his outstanding questions today, at columns 430–31W. He will receive replies to the remaining questions as soon as possible.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Schools Funding (Essex)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much additional funding has been made available to schools in(a) Essex, (b) Thurrock and (c) the Basildon constituency (i) as a result of the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Statement and (ii) since 1997. [144148]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Most funding for schools is distributed via local education authorities. Listed are (i) additional DfEE funding made available to schools as a result of the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement, and (ii) the allocations for education in Essex local education
  437W
  authority since 1997 and Thurrock local education authority since 1998. Allocations for Thurrock for 1997–98 are included in the total for Essex, as Thurrock unitary authority was created in 1998. Allocations can be given only at local education authority level, not constituency level.

  Additional funding made available to schools as a result of the Chancellor's pre-budget statement (devolved formula capital for schools)

  £000

  Area

  Additional funding

  (i)

  Essex LEA

  4,206

  Thurrock LEA

  442

  Basildon constituency

  373

  £000

  Area

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  (ii)

  Education SSA

  Essex LEA

  571,800

  496,600

  524,100

  555,100

  Thurrock LEA

  —

  56,800

  60,500

  64,100

  Funding allocations

  Essex LEA

  32,148

  30.479

  50,334

  108,888

  Thurrock LEA

  —

  3.751

  6,588

  13,180

  The main elements of funding in 2000–01 are Schools Capital, Standards Fund, School Standards Grant, School Budgets Support Grant, Nursery Education Grant and Education Action Zones.

  There have also been a number of miscellaneous payments made to a small number of former Essex and Thurrock GM Schools in the form of Special Purpose Grant (VAT) payments, and to schools in Essex and Thurrock regarding the Graduate Teacher Programme and Registered Teacher Programme. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Under this Government, funding per pupil has already increased by over £300 in real terms, and it will increase by a further £150 per pupil for 2001–02. Under the last Government, funding per pupil fell by £60 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98. There will be further increases in funding following the year 2000 spending review: a further £370 per pupil over the three year period, taking the total increase to nearly £700 between 1997–98 and 2003–04.

  Education Budget (Lamcashire)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list each item and programme which make up his Department's payments to Lancashire County Council in order to fund their education budget; and which of these items are taken into account in determining the figure for calculating the local schools budget. [144427]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Listed are the Department's programmes & funding allocations made to Lancashire county council in 2000–01.
  438W

  £000

  Allocation

  SSA

  492,650

  Programme

  School Capital (including Specialist Capital)

  44,178

  Standards Fund

  27,463

  School Standards Grant

  7,563

  School Budget Support Grant

  1,208

  Grant towards cost of transitional funding for former GM schools

  1197

  Payments made under Schedule 32 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998

  35

  Nursery Education Grant (3 & 4 year olds)

  5,063

  Teachers' International Professional Development

  41

  1 Provisional

  In general, all non-capital expenditure by local education authorities in respect of primary and secondary education (including expenditure supported by specific or special grants) falls within the scope of the Local Schools Budget, together with certain expenditure on the strategic management of the education service as a whole. The main exceptions to this rule relate to inter-authority recoupment payments and expenditure on non-school and nursery school provision for pupils aged under five, which are excluded from the Local Schools Budget.

  Class Sizes (Yeovil)
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his estimate is of the average sizes of classes taught by one teacher in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in Yeovil constituency in each of the years 1994–95 to 2000–01. [144605]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: The available information for the parliamentary constituency of Yeovil on average class sizes collected in January is shown in the table. Information on class sizes by parliamentary constituency is not available prior to 1997.

  We have secured early delivery of our infant class size pledge in Yeovil. The most recent figures show that in September 2000 there were no infant classes in the constituency with more than 30 pupils.

  The size of the average secondary class nationally, at 22, is still five below the average primary class. Secondary headteachers are receiving up to £50,000 in direct grant to spend as they choose. If this were spent on recruiting teachers, the average secondary class size could be reduced by up to 0.8.

  Average class size: Classes taught by one teacher, 1995–2000 Position as at January

  Year

  Key stage 1 Average class size

  All primary Average class size

  All secondary Average class size

  Yeovil constituency

  2000

  26.4

  27.7

  24.8

  1999

  26.8

  27.8

  24.1

  1998

  26.6

  27.6

  24.2

  1997

  26.6

  27.0

  23.2

  1996

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1995

  1—

  1—

  1—

  439W

  Average class size: Classes taught by one teacher, 1995–2000 Position as at January

  Year

  Key stage 1 Average class size

  All primary Average class size

  All secondary Average class size

  Somerset LEA

  2000

  26.2

  27.6

  23.6

  1999

  26.8

  28.0

  23.9

  1998

  26.7

  27.8

  23.9

  1997

  26.7

  27.6

  23.2

  1996

  26.1

  27.3

  23.2

  1995

  1—

  27.0

  22.5

  1 Not available

  Public Private Partnerships
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many public private partnerships have been introduced into schools in England and Wales since 1 May 1997. [145312]

  Jacqui Smith
  Since 1 May 1997, 20 schools' projects have been awarded in England under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), 18 of which are for building projects covering 178 new, replacement or refurbished schools. The other two are local education authority-wide service contracts covering 194 schools. A further 32 projects covering 280 schools have been approved by the Treasury's Project Review Group.

  In total, £2.5 billion of PFI Credits have been provided for schools' projects in England from May 1997 up to 31 March 2004, over half of which have already been committed. This is in addition to over £10.7 billion provided for schools capital investment through other programmes over the same period.

  A further 25 Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) are currently being supported by £25 million of New Deal for Schools (NDS) grant.

  Public Private Partnerships in Wales are the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly.

  School Buildings (Lewes)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the total amount awarded to schools in the Lewes constituency to improve school buildings was in each year since 1992. [145454]

  Table B— all capital allocations to East Sussex Local Education Authority

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Basic Credit Approvals

  15,234

  11,939

  9,251

  5,067

  4,618

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  2,120

  2,835

  1,150

  2,357

  1,237

  Grant to Voluntary Aided Schools

  1,126

  727

  705

  786

  1,738

  Schools Renewal Challenge Fund

  1,555

  —

  —

  —

  —

  New Deal for Schools

  —

  1,815

  2,088

  1,663

  4,874

  School Security Grant

  —

  108

  135

  137

  138

  Removal of Outside Toilets

  —

  —

  205

  —

  —

  Energy Efficiency Initiative

  —

  —

  124

  —

  —

  Key Stage 1 Class Size Initiative

  —

  —

  547

  515

  97

  National Grid for Learning Grant

  —

  —

  783

  675

  1,397

  PFI Credits

  —

  —

  —

  19,000

  —

  440W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 16 January 2001]: Table A shows the schools in the Lewes constituency which have benefited from investment through the New Deal for Schools programme, which commenced in 1997–98. This is the only constituency level information which is readily available. These allocations formed part of the £9.861 million investment made so far in schools in East Sussex Local Education Authority under the New Deal for Schools programme.

  The New Deal for Schools was introduced as a new additional programme targeted specifically at addressing the backlog of urgent repairs in school buildings that had built up after 18 years of under funding under the previous Administration. It has been in addition to other capital funds made available to East Sussex Local Education Authority.

  In total, since 1996, East Sussex Local Education Authority has received some £100.381 million of funding for capital investment in school buildings as shown in Table B. Nationally, investment in school buildings has tripled from £683 million a year in 1996–97 to over £2 billion in 2000–01. It will be £3.2 billion in 2003–04, including grant, credit approvals and Private Finance Initiative credits. There will be central Government investment of £7.8 billion in school buildings in total from 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  Table A—New Deal for Schools— allocations to schools in the Lewes constituency

  Year/School

  Project details

  Grant awarded (£)

  1998–99

  17 schools

  Partial re-roofing

  1386,000

  19 schools

  Replacement of boilers and controls

  1625,000

  10 schools

  Repairs to timber framed buildings

  1307,000

  1999–2000

  Newick CE Primary

  First of three phases to replace school

  570,000

  16 schools

  Replace roofs

  1515,000

  14 Schools

  Electrical re-wiring

  1478,000

  2000–01

  Newick CE Primary

  Phases two and three to replace school

  1,265,824

  Rodmell CE Primary

  Replacement of defective hutted buildings

  278,400

  Parkmead Primary

  Replacement of temporary accommodation

  201,000

  St. Peter's Primary

  Provision of new hall

  380,000

  1 Denotes allocations made to package projects. East Sussex Local Education Authority will be able to advise whether any schools in the Lewes constituency benefited from these allocations.

  441W

  Table B—all capital allocations to East Sussex Local Education Authority

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  —

  58

  —

  Seed Challenge Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  252

  Formula Capital for Schools

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,970

  Renewal of School Laboratories

  —

  —

  —

  —

  245

  Provision of Secondary Learning Support Units

  —

  —

  —

  —

  94

  Schools Access Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16

  Total

  20,035

  17,424

  14,988

  30,258

  17,676

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many school playing fields have been sold in England in each of the last five years; [145605]

  (2) how many school playing fields have been sold in the constituency of Penrith and The Border in each of the last five years. [145606]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: Before October 1998, there was nothing to prevent a local authority selling a school playing field if it wanted to. An estimated 40 playing fields a month were sold in this way under the previous Government. Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was introduced, with effect from 1 October 1998, to stop the indiscriminate sale of school playing fields. Local authorities and governing bodies of all maintained schools are now required to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before disposing of playing fields, or any part of a playing field.

  Since October 1998, 82 applications from local authorities and governing bodies to sell areas equal to, or larger than, a sports pitch have been approved. As no national figures were collected before October 1998, these approved applications can be broken down for each year since the law was changed as follows:

  1998: 7

  1999: 44

  2000: 31.

  Applications to dispose, or change the use, of school playing fields are approved only where it is clear that any proceeds will be returned to education or used to improve or enhance sports provision. From this spring all applications will be scrutinised by a new panel that has been set up comprising representatives of the National Playing Fields Association, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, Learning through Landscapes, the National Association of Head Teachers and the Local Government Association.

  There have been no applications to sell school playing fields in the constituency of Penrith and The Border.

  Notes:

  1. All sale proceeds are used to provide new or improved sports or education facilities at maintained schools.

  2. 37 per cent. of approved applications were in respect of sports pitches at closed or closing schools.

  3. In 62 per cent. of cases at operating schools the sale proceeds have been used to provide new or enhanced sports facilities, including sports halls, all-weather pitches or improved grass sports pitches.
  442W
  4. "Sports pitch" means an area of open grassed land which is equal to, or larger than, the Football Association's recommended 2,000 sq. metres area for games played by under-10s and which has a configuration making it suitable for sports, whether laid out as a sports pitch or not.

  Schools Information and Communication Technology Funding
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each local education authority the amount(a) in total and (b) per pupil, that is spent an ICT, broken down into (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools. [146086]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: Details of NGfL funding allocations are available on an LEA-by-LEA basis on the Standards Fund website ("http://www.dfee.gov."uk/standardsfund/). However, expenditure on ICT may be supplemented at both LEA and school level and this information is not held centrally.

  Data on average expenditure on ICT per school and per pupil are collected annually as part of the DfEE survey of ICT in schools. Summary statistics from the April 2000 survey are provided as follows:

  There was no ICT survey in 1997. The following table shows changes since 1996. Funding on ICT by schools has doubled in the primary and special sectors since 1996, and has increased substantially in the secondary sector over this period.

  £

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Average expenditure on ICT per school in:

  1999–2000

  8,300

  50,100

  11,900

  1995–96

  3,250

  32,200

  6,050

  Average expenditure on ICT per pupil in:

  1999–2000

  37

  56

  154

  1995–96

  9

  28

  54

  Pupil Numbers (North Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children in(a) primary school and (b) secondary school education there were on (i) 1 January 1997, (ii) 1 January 2000 and (iii) 1 January 2001 in North Yorkshire. [146229]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information on children educated in maintained primary and maintained secondary schools in North Yorkshire is shown in the following table.
  443W

  Maintained primary1

  Maintained secondary1

  January 1997

  47,924

  37,039

  January 2000

  48,761

  39,349

  1 Headcount of pupils

  Information for January 2001 is currently being collected. Provisional estimates will be published later this year.

  "Teachers" Magazine
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the(a) circulation and (b) cost of production and distribution is of "Teachers" magazine. [146236]

  Mr. Wills
  Three hundred and sixty thousand copies of the magazine are published every two months, with six issues a year. "Teachers" replaced "Schools Update", a magazine for teachers which was published under the previous Administration, and which survey work commissioned by the last Administration found was not widely read. The average cost of Update was about 27p at today's prices. "Teachers" costs 31.5p per copy (including advertising revenue) and is much more widely read by teachers.

  School Week (Berkshire)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools in Berkshire are(a) working and (b) planning a four day week. [146360]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My Department is not aware of any schools in Berkshire that are either working or planning a four-day week.

  Teacher Recruitment (Housing Costs)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of housing costs on teacher recruitment. [146361]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A survey of head teachers, school governors and local education authorities in London, produced in autumn 2000 by the Office of Manpower Economics on behalf of the School Teachers' Review Body, identified housing costs as a factor affecting the recruitment of teachers. The Government announced in December 2000 the Starter Homes Initiative, which has earmarked £250 million over three years to help teachers and other key workers buy their first homes.

  Teachers (London Weighting)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to(a) increase and (b) widen the geographical area of payments of London weighting to teachers. [146368]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Teachers' pay arrangements, including London area allowances, are based on recommendations made by the independent School Teachers' Review Body. They are due to report at the end 444W
  of this month and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will conduct a statutory consultation before implementing any changes.

  Teacher Shortages
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many responses his Department has received from LEAs to the letter from the Director General for Schools to LEAs of 23 November regarding teacher shortages; and if he will place a copy of these responses in the Library. [146426]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Five local education authorities responded by letter, and a number of others by telephone. The responses were private and not intended for publication.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Local Authority Cultural Services
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he plans to take to enable local authorities to improve their cultural services. [144789]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I published "Creating Opportunities" Guidance for local authorities in England on Local Cultural Strategies in December. Strategies will cover the whole range of cultural services. They will show how these services can help tackle the wider objectives of regeneration, lifelong learning and healthier and safer communities. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Football Supporters
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to enable football supporters to play a greater part in the running of their clubs. [144790]

  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to enable football supporters to have a greater say in the running of their clubs. [144802]

  Kate Hoey
  Supporters Direct was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last November to assist groups of supporters wishing to become involved in the responsible running of clubs. It has already exceeded its first-year targets, helping to establish 12 supporters' trusts to date, plus a further nine trusts which are agreed in principle, and has assisted in the election of four supporter-directors. Supporters Direct has held discussions with groups representing supporters at a total of 100 football clubs.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the future of the millennium dome. [144791]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  On 20 November 2000, the Government announced that Legacy plc, the second placed bidder in the competition for the future use of the dome, had been made preferred bidder. The Competition
  445W
  Team is currently in negotiation with Legacy plc and, if negotiations go well, the Government hope to be in a position to exchange contracts in February.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his plans for the disposal of the millennium dome. [144798]

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had regarding the future of the millennium dome. [144804]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have had no recent discussions on the future use of the millennium dome. On 20 November 2000, the Government announced that Legacy plc, the second placed bidder in the competition for the future use of the dome, had been made preferred bidder. The Competition Team is currently in negotiation with Legacy plc and if negotiations go well, the Government hope to be in a position to exchange contracts in February.

  Athletics Facilities
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Government have to fund the creation of a major athletics facility in the UK. [144792]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government have been consistent in their desire for athletics to have a new national centre to enable it to build on its Olympic successes and to provide athletics with a long-term legacy for the 21st century. The new Lea Valley National Athletics centre is being developed in Edmonton to host the 2005 World Athletics Championships. Other athletics facilities are currently being developed, in Manchester, as part of the Sports City development for the Commonwealth Games, and to support the United Kingdom Sports Institute Centre on sites around the UK.

  Football Facilities
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to increase investment in grassroots football facilities. [144795]

  Kate Hoey
  The creation of the Football Foundation—a partnership between Government and football—will see a significant increase in investment in grass roots football in England. The Foundation has some £18 million to invest in grass roots football in 2000–01 and, although the funding arrangements for subsequent years are still under discussion, it is likely that the moneys available will more than treble from 2001–02 onwards.

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to improve the allocation of national lottery arts funding to areas which have hitherto received little funding. [144799]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The 1998 revision of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 demonstrates this Government's commitment to ensuring that Lottery distributors, including the Arts Council of England, have the power to encourage applications for funding in deprived areas.

  British Institute for Sport
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made on the development of the British Institute for Sport. [144800]

  Kate Hoey
  The United Kingdom Sports Institute (UKSI) is made up of a network of Institutes operated by the home country sports councils. Excellent progress is being made to establish facilities and services for the UKSI. In addition, Sports now have access to the technical, operational and programme support provided through the UKSI Central Services team.

  Free Television Licences (Battersea)
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many homes in the Battersea constituency will benefit from the introduction of free TV licences for over 75s. [144801]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  TV Licensing, which administers this concession for the BBC as Licensing Authority, is not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, estimates of the over-75 population based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 4,900 people aged 75 or over in the Battersea constituency.

  Cinema Sales
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received on the use of restrictive clauses by film distribution companies in the sale of cinemas. [144803]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting has responded to a letter from my hon. Friend. Although the use of restrictive covenants is a matter for commercial negotiation between purchasers and vendors, we would like to encourage the retention of town centre cinemas.

  British Museum
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his Department's role in the monitoring of contracts in relation to the south portico of the British Museum. [144805]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department was not involved in the monitoring of contracts in relation to the south portico of the British Museum as the contracts were between the museum and its supplier. The Heritage Lottery Fund also appointed monitors to oversee the approved purposes of the project as set out in their contract with the museum. Further details of the British Museum's monitoring of the contracts can be found in the PricewaterhouseCoopers Report on the South Portico, which was commissioned by the British Museum and published on 16 January 2001.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he last discussed with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment the amount of time allocated to physical education in the school curriculum. [144806]
  447W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has regular meetings with colleagues from the Department for Education and Employment, as do I, to discuss our objective for raising the quality and level of participation in PE and Sport in schools. Just recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I announced our intention to offer an entitlement to all children to two hours per week of high-quality school sport and recreation during and after the school day. We will consult with schools, professional associations and other interested parties to identify how best to make this happen.

  Coalfield Communities (National Lottery)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the distribution of national lottery grants to coalfield communities. [144807]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  National Lottery distributors are working closely with my Department to help coalfield communities, along with other areas of low take-up, receive more benefit from National Lottery money. We commissioned research into the impact of the Lottery on the coalfields, and I established a Coalfields Action Group in June 2000 to take forward the report's recommendations. These include actively encouraging applications from areas of low take-up, introducing more flexible matching fund requirements, making decision-making more transparent, and better co-ordination with other organisations responsible for regenerating coalfields and other low take-up areas. Our data show that the rate of awards to coalfields areas has increased since Government Lottery reforms came into force in August 1998.

  Football Transfer System
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he has taken to protect the interests of(a) smaller clubs and (b) youth development in discussions about the future of the football transfer system. [144793]

  Kate Hoey
  Any proposals for changes to the transfer system are for the football authorities to make. However, the Government believe that any changes following the European Commission's present review must take full account of the interests of smaller clubs and the need to encourage the development of young players. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made this clear in all our meetings with the football authorities.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he is taking to increase the provision of playing fields for inner-city schools. [144797]

  Kate Hoey
  We are making a considerable investment in the playing field infrastructure of this country. £750 million from the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) will bring about a step change in opportunities for young people to play sport through new and refurbished school sport facilities, including playing fields. Priority funding will be given to areas of urban and rural deprivation. NOF has recently selected Sport England as an Award Partner to deliver an additional £31 million of Lottery money to 448W
  projects throughout the country for the creation of playing fields and community areas, as part of its Green Spaces Initiative.

  Regional Cinema
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about the Government's plans to support independent regional cinema. [144794]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The new Government-funded body for film, the Film Council, recently launched a development strategy for film and the moving image in the English regions. It will provide funding of up to £6 million a year to facilitate the establishment of an integrated regional film agency in each region, with the capacity to determine its own industrial and cultural priorities for film. The funding provided will include a level of support for independent cinema exhibition. The Film Council is also due to launch a new strategy for cinema exhibition later this year.

  Commercial Radio (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many commercial radio stations there are covering the Greater London area. [146113]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  There are 15 London-wide analogue and eight local Independent Local Radio (ILR) services within the Greater London area. The two Greater London digital multiplexes carry 17 commercial services (some of which are simulcasts of analogue services). The third Greater London Multiplex, expected to be licensed in May, should enable an additional 10 services. In addition, the three national analogue stations and the Digital One national commercial multiplex (which carries 10 services) also cover Greater London.

  Digital Television
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure that new televisions which are described as digital can receive digital communications. [145077]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am concerned that consumers may not be being given sufficiently clear it information about what new televisions are, or are not, able to receive digital services. My Department is working with industry to develop a clear labelling system for digital televisions and is in touch with the Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards (LACOTS) about the nature and extent of consumer problems in this area.

  The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 already prohibits false or misleading descriptions of products. It would therefore be an offence to describe a television set falsely, and if there are instances where traders are misdescribing analogue sets as digital, I would urge consumers to bring them to the attention of their local authority trading standards department.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  M5 (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the cost of improving Junction 10 on the M5 to provide access to both north and southbound traffic; and if he will make a statement on the future of the junction. [145176]

  Mr. Hill
  The Highways Agency is proposing to implement a Route Management Strategy Study (RMS) over the length of M5 between Junctions 4a (M5/M42 junction south west of Birmingham) and 15 (M5/M4 junction north of Bristol) which will include an evaluation of Junction 10 near Uckington, in Gloucestershire. The study is expected to be commissioned around the turn of this year and will take approximately 12 months to complete.

  The purpose of the RMS study will be to consider the route in its regional context while also focusing on local needs and considering how we can best integrate roads planning with other transport and planning decisions. The Highways Agency will take a 10-year forward look covering the maintenance, operation and improvement projects for the route to ensure that it can sustain development growth. The views of local authorities, regional planning authorities, bus and lorry operators, the police and members of the public will all be sought and taken into account as part of the study.

  As part of the study, specific consideration will be given to the merits of modifying Junction 10 of M5 to provide for all traffic movements but until the study is completed it is not possible to provide an estimate of the potential costs.

  Vehicles (Crime)
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many owners of vehicles found in Lewisham were prosecuted by the DVLA, other than the Sidcup office, for(a) not registering their vehicle and (b) not taxing their vehicle in 2000. [144998]

  Mr. Hill
  All keepers of unlicensed vehicles found in Lewisham or those guilty of not registering their vehicle in their name are prosecuted by the Sidcup office. There were no prosecutions for these offences taken by any office other than Sidcup.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people were prosecuted as a result of activity by the DVLA Sidcup office in 2000 for(a) not registering their vehicle and (b) not taxing their vehicle. [144999]

  Mr. Hill
  During the period January-December 2000, 129 people were prosecuted by the Sidcup office for not registering their vehicle and 11,933 people were prosecuted for not taxing their vehicle.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the highest and lowest fines imposed on people for(a) not registering their vehicle and (b) not taxing their vehicle as
  450W
  a result of a successful prosecution by the DVLA Sidcup office in 2000. [145000]

  Mr. Hill
  Figures relating to individual levels of fines are not available without a separate exercise to extract this information. The maximum fine available to the courts for each of these offences however is £1,000 (or five times the annual rate of duty whichever is more).

  The average fine imposed in cases prosecuted by the Sidcup office during the year 2000 was around (a) £50 for not registering a vehicle and (b) £110 for not taxing a vehicle. In addition, offenders were ordered to pay an average of £65 in penalties relating to unpaid duty and £40 in costs.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many complaints were received in the DVLA Sidcup office in 2000 about untaxed vehicles(a) by telephone, (b) by letter and (c) by e-mail. [145001]

  Mr. Hill
  During the year 2000, the DVLA Sidcup office received 9,249 reports of unlicensed use from members of the public by telephone and 5,250 reports by letter. There are no facilities to receive e-mails direct at Sidcup and figures for reports received at DVLA Swansea (appropriate to Sidcup) by this method are counted in with those by letter.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many untaxed vehicles were identified and(a) clamped and (b) removed by the DVLA contractor Sureways in each of the London boroughs in 2000. [144996]

  Mr. Hill
  A total of 3,945 untaxed vehicles were wheel-clamped in London during the year 2000 with 1,705 removed and impounded. The breakdown for each London borough is as follows:

  London borough

  Vehicles clamped

  Vehicles removed

  Barnet

  34

  18

  Barking

  118

  53

  Bexley

  283

  120

  Brent

  92

  41

  Bromley

  80

  27

  Camden

  5

  1

  Croydon

  153

  23

  Ealing

  71

  38

  Enfield

  57

  30

  Greenwich

  576

  241

  Hackney

  104

  55

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  102

  32

  Haringey

  57

  20

  Harrow

  10

  4

  Havering

  0

  0

  Hounslow

  5

  0

  Islington

  46

  27

  Kensington and Chelsea

  57

  21

  Kingston

  13

  6

  Lambeth

  208

  104

  Lewisham

  333

  180

  Merton

  117

  56

  Newham

  175

  75

  Redbridge

  164

  66

  Richmond

  46

  8

  Southwark

  334

  151

  Sutton

  72

  22

  Tower Hamlets

  116

  30

  Waltham Forest

  191

  99

  Wandsworth

  209

  103

  Westminster

  117

  54

  Total

  3,945

  1,705

  451W
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many residents of Lewisham were prosecuted by the DVLA, other than the Sidcup office, for(a) not registering their vehicle and (b) not taxing their vehicle in 2000. [144997]

  Mr. Hill
  A Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) offence is prosecuted in the area in which it is detected. It is not possible to identify the place of residence of these offenders without a special exercise being carried out to extract this information.

  A registration offence is always prosecuted in the area in which the offender lives provided the last registration document was issued on or after 24 March 1997. No resident of Lewisham would be prosecuted for failing to register their vehicle by any office other than Sidcup in these circumstances.

  If the last registration document was issued before this date however and the offence also included a VED offence detected outside the Sidcup area, both offences would be prosecuted in the area they were detected. There are no figures available for these cases.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate the DVLA has made of the percentage of vehicles on the streets of each of the London boroughs which are(a) not registered to the current keeper and (b) not taxed. [144976]

  Mr. Hill
  The DVLA has no estimate of the percentage of vehicles in London which are not registered to the current keeper. As a result of the last roadside survey carried out in June 1999 the Agency estimates that 162,000 vehicles are not taxed within the London area. Figures for the individual boroughs are not available.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many calls the DVLA Sidcup office took about untaxed vehicles from members of the public in each of the last five years. [144993]

  Mr. Hill
  During the year 2000, a total of 9,249 telephone calls and 5,250 letters were received. For the period 1997–99, individual figures are not available but over the period, 40,253 telephone calls and 4,283 letters were received. Figures prior to 1997 are not available.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions for untaxed vehicles were discontinued because the information on the registered keeper was not kept up to date(a) in London and (b) nationally in 2000. [144994]

  Mr. Hill
  Cases which are discontinued because of outdated information are not identified separately. However, during the year 2000, 25,189 cases in London and 178,662 cases nationally, were closed as the Agency was unable to contact or confirm the offender. A number of these would relate to outdated keeper information being held on record.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many complaints were received by the DVLA Swansea about untaxed vehicles found in each of the London boroughs in 2000. [144995]
  452W
  Mr. Hill
  During the period January-December 2000, there was a total of 69 complaints about untaxed vehicles received by DVLA Swansea. Of these, 58 were referred to the Sidcup office, seven to Stanmore and one to Wimbledon. There is no breakdown of the originating borough.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions where the DVLA's roadside cameras for automatic photographing of tax discs and number plates will be piloted. [144977]

  Mr. Hill
  The camera systems for detecting untaxed vehicles through the reading of number plates will be piloted in the areas covered by the DVLA local offices in Swansea, Edinburgh, Luton and Shrewsbury.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many vehicles in London are exempt from registration for three months as a result of being sold into the motor trade. [144978]

  Mr. Hill
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) has responsibility for recording vehicle keepership changes on a national basis. Regional information cannot be provided without running a prohibitively expensive scan of the vehicle database.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the impact on the effectiveness of the DVLA plan to photograph tax discs and number plates automatically from roadside cameras on tracking down drivers of untaxed vehicles of registration details being out of date. [144975]

  Mr. Hill
  The effectiveness of the DVLA camera scheme for the enforcement of vehicle excise duty will be measured by the number of additional evaders successfully penalised, and by the number encouraged to relicense voluntarily when faced with the increased risk of being caught.

  Camera enforcement will still require the tracking down of those responsible for the offence where vehicle keepership details are not up to date. However, expected increase in compliance following the introduction of the cameras should improve the up-to-dateness of the DVLA record and reduce the incidence of out-of-date registration details.

  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements the DVLA has made to take details of untaxed vehicles from members of the public in Lewisham. [144987]

  Mr. Hill
  The DVLA Sidcup office currently has two members of staff employed fully on taking reports from the public by telephone or letter. All calls and letters are logged onto a computer database and referred to the Agency's Inquiry Officers for investigation. Members of the public are also advised that they can if they wish, complete witness statements themselves. The DVLA website contains information on how to report unlicensed vehicles with the facility to download and print the statement of witness form.
  453W
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions in England and Wales there were(a) for driving without a valid vehicle excise duty licence, (b) for driving without insurance and (c) for failing to complete and present a SORN for the most recent 12 month period for which figures are available; and what percentage in each category were successful. [144936]

  Mr. Hill
  (a) Prosecutions for using or keeping a vehicle on a public road, without a valid excise duty licence for England and Wales were

  2000

  Prosecutions: 217,217

  Success rate: 98.9 per cent.

  (b) Prosecutions in England and Wales for the offence of
  "using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks" are:

  1999

  Prosecutions: 387,419

  Conviction rate: 67 per cent.

  (c) Prosecutions in England and Wales for failing to complete and present a SORN declaration were:

  2000

  Prosecutions: 226

  Success rate: 99 per cent.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the latest estimate is of the number of unlicensed motor vehicles regularly used(a) on the highway, (b) off the highway with a valid SORN and (c) off the highway for more than one month without a valid SORN. [144938]

  Mr. Hill
  The results of the most recent roadside survey of vehicle excise duty (VED) evasion were published in 1999, when it was estimated there were some 1.5 million untaxed vehicles in use on the public road at any time.

  Enforcement action under SORN was deferred until May 2000 to give the public time to become familiar with the law. DVLA is developing a means of producing SORN information which should be available later in the year.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many without prejudice £25 fine notices were issued per month to vehicle owners who failed to provide information on unlicensed vehicles for which there is no SORN application over the last year. [144937]

  Mr. Hill
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  2000

  January

  2,745

  February

  7,787

  March

  3,288

  April

  4,312

  May

  14,506

  June

  14,423

  July

  15,989

  August

  18,227

  September

  20,960

  October

  26,103

  November

  32,391

  December

  29,375

  Noise Nuisance
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent guidance he has issued to local authorities concerning the implementation and policing of the legislation on noise nuisance. [145006]

  Mr. Hill
  We have not issued guidance to local authorities on this matter, recently. However, we have issued a consultation paper, following a review of the Noise Act 1996, setting out further options for local authorities to use in tackling noise nuisance. The closing date for comments is 31 March.

  Copies of the report and consultation paper are available in the House Library.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Central Line on the London Underground is fully Automatic Train Operation operational; and if he has received Her Majesty's Rail Inspectorate approval. [145354]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for London Underground which informs me that the Central Line is under full Automatic Train Operation (ATO) between Shepherds Bush and Gants Hill. LUL are still in discussion with the Railways Inspectorate prior to extending ATO throughout the remainder of the line.

  Urban and Rural Area Designation
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what areas are designated as urban and rural for determining financial allocations and other departmental purposes; and what changes have taken place in the areas so designated over the last 20 years. [145837]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Indices of Deprivation 2000 (ID 2000), which were published last August, provide tools to identify the most deprived areas in England which may be used in determining the allocation of funding of regeneration policies. The ID 2000 provide scores and ranks in terms of how deprived they are for all areas in England regardless of whether they are urban or rural. Previous indices were published in 1981, 1994 and 1998.

  Changes have occurred to the way the indices have been constructed over the years. This has included more direct ways of measuring deprivation rather than using proxy indicators and the move away from using census data that become quickly out of date. Also methodologies have been reviewed and changed so that they more fairly identify areas regardless of size which suffer from deprivation. Methodologies have also changed to ensure that no, or lack of, deprivation on some indicators is not completely cancelled out by high levels of deprivation on other indicators.

  The ID 2000 have identified several deprived areas which previous indices have failed to pick up on. Many districts in the former coalfield areas, old industrial areas and rural areas are now identified as suffering widespread deprivation. They reveal patterns of deprivation for every ward and local authority district in the country. There is no one method of distinguishing which areas should be eligible for funding against those that should not. In order

  455W
  to target resources on the most deprived areas, it is proposed that the ID 2000 are used. These have identified 88 areas which should be eligible for the new Neighbourhood Renewal Fund recently announced by the Government. Table 1 shows the areas and this has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  As part of the former Urban Programme, which was the core of the former Department of the Environment's programme to tackle urban deprivation and ran in the 1980s through to the mid 1990s, 57 Urban Priority Areas were designated. Table 2 shows the areas and again the list has been placed in the Libraries of the House. These areas were targeted for their particular problems mainly in terms of economic and environmental issues but also in terms of social and housing deprivation.

  Rural Development Areas, now known as Rural Priority Areas, were first designated in 1984. A comprehensive review was carried out by the Rural Development Commission before these areas were designated in 1994 but details of the previous areas are not held centrally. With minor exceptions, all Regional Development Agency rural development programme funding is spent in these areas. Those local authority districts containing wards which fall within Rural Priority Areas are at table 3 and has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Certain areas have also been designated as being rural for the purposes of the village shop rate relief scheme. The number of designated areas runs into several thousands. These areas can be found in the following Statutory Instruments:
  SI 1997 No. 620—The Housing (Right to Acquire or Enfranchise) (Designated Rural Areas in the West Midlands) Order 1997.
  SI 1997 No. 621—The Housing (Right to Acquire or Enfranchise) (Designated Rural Areas in the South West) Order 1997.
  SI 1997 No. 622—The Housing (Right to Acquire or Enfranchise) (Designated Rural Areas in the North West and Merseyside) Order 1997.
  SI 1997 No. 623—The Housing (Right to Acquire or Enfranchise) (Designated Rural Areas in the East) Order 1997.
  SI 1997 No. 624—The Housing (Right to Acquire or Enfranchise) (Designated Rural Areas in the North East) Order 1997.
  SI 1997 No. 625—The Housing (Right to Acquire or Enfranchise) (Designated Rural Areas in the South East) Order 1997.
  SI 1997 No. 2792—The Non-Domestic Rating (Rural Settlements) (England) Order 1997.
  SI 1998 No. 393—The Non-Domestic Rating (Rural Settlements) (England) Order 1998.
  SI 1998 No. 2836—The Non-Domestic Rating (Rural Settlements) (England) (No. 2) Order 1998.
  SI 1999 No. 3158—The Non-Domestic Rating (Rural Settlements) (England) Order 1999.

  In addition, Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs), which are the Government's method for allocating Revenue Support Grant, currently use three measures of population density and two of population sparsity based on the 1991 Census. These measures calculate density and levels of sparsity for all local authorities. No dividing line is set to indicate which authorities are rural and which urban, all authorities have a degree of both sparsity and density. The use of these indicators within the SSA formulae is complex and has changed several times since
  456W
  the inception of SSAs for financial year 1990–91. Details of their use can be found in the Local Government Finance Report for each year.

  A50 (Road Surfaces)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if resurfacing of the concrete sections of the A50 at Doveridge in Derbyshire will take place in the financial year beginning in 2002. [145446]

  Mr. Hill
  I am not in a position to give any dates for the start of works for resurfacing of stretches of concrete trunk roads beyond the end of next financial year. The Highways Agency is currently seeking the views of English local authorities on the prioritisation criteria for resurfacing of all concrete trunk roads within the next 10 years. An announcement on the criteria that the Agency will be adopting will be made in due course when the comments have been carefully considered. A copy of the consultation letter has also been placed in the Library of the House.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage integration and co-ordination between the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, energy efficiency commitment schemes and other sources of funding for domestic energy efficiency programmes. [145767]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) is managed on behalf of the Department by Eastern HEES Ltd. for the East of England and by the Eaga Partnership in the remainder of the country. Both scheme managers are contractually required to seek opportunities to integrate and co-ordinate efforts with other fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes such as those operated by public energy suppliers under the Energy Efficiency Standards of Performance.

  To date the largest such link-up has been with British Gas Trading which is supporting the installation of condensing gas boilers through HEES and the installation of cavity wall insulation. The total value of the link up is some £8 million.

  The HEES scheme managers have also formed links with some local authorities, integrating the scheme with the authorities' House Renovation and Home Repair Assistance programmes.

  We continue to seek further opportunities for co-ordinating HEES with other local programmes.

  As HEES is a devolved function, it is the responsibility for the respective Parliament and Assemblies to comment on the position with regard to the schemes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Bus Operators (South-East)
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of recruitment difficulties on bus operators in the south east of England. [146097]
  457W
  Mr. Hill
  My Department is aware of the difficulties being experienced by bus operators in recruiting and retaining bus drivers in some areas, including the south-east of England. We have been in regular contact with the bus industry to consider the extent of this problem. We are also undertaking research on the extent and impact of staff shortages in the industry and the industry's response.

  The responsibility for ensuring that they have sufficient drivers is primarily a matter for individual bus companies, and I am aware that operators have been taking steps to address the problem. In addition my Department and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and Driving Standards Agency (DSA) have been pursuing with the industry what steps can be taken to assist with the current problems. For example, a pilot procedure has recently been introduced by DVLA with one nominated operator on a trial basis, with the aim of providing a high speed response to bus driver licence applications.

  Road Accidents (Yeovil)
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his estimate is of the number of road accident(a) fatalities and (b) injuries within the Yeovil constituency for each year since 1971; and if he will make a statement. [144608]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: Road accident casualties are not recorded by the Department at constituency level, however the figures for South Somerset local authority area as a whole are available from 1979 onwards:

  Year

  Killed

  Injured

  1979

  21

  786

  1980

  21

  776

  1981

  33

  756

  1982

  15

  741

  1983

  16

  778

  1984

  15

  741

  1985

  17

  731

  1986

  17

  750

  1987

  15

  705

  1988

  18

  757

  1989

  16

  746

  1990

  21

  816

  1991

  34

  777

  1992

  17

  661

  1993

  10

  584

  1994

  14

  684

  1995

  18

  741

  1996

  23

  669

  1997

  9

  745

  1998

  17

  793

  1999

  12

  774

  Landfill
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent research the Government have(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated regarding the health effects of landfill sites; and if he will make a statement. [146160]
  458W
  Mr. Mullin
  In 1999 the Government commissioned the Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU) to conduct a broad-based study on health outcomes of people living near landfill sites. The study is designed to determine whether there is a statistical association between the location of landfill sites and the rates of certain adverse health effects in the nearby population. This report is now expected in summer 2001.

  In addition, in September 1999 the Government announced a programme of research to investigate the possible impacts on human health of landfill sites throughout the UK. The following studies have since been commissioned: a review of the potential teratogenicity of substances emanating from landfill sites; a review of the known causes of congenital malformations; and a study of the geographical variation in overall rates of congenital abnormalities and the rates of specific abnormalities.

  In 1998 the Government's independent expert committee, the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) reviewed the results of the EUROHAZCON study on the risk of congenital abnormalities near hazardous waste landfill sites in Europe (Dolk et al, 2000, The Lancet, volume 352, pp 423-427) and an assessment by Fielder et al of the impact on health of residents living near the Nant-y-Gwyddon landfill site in South Wales (subsequently published in the British Medical Journal, 2000, volume 320, pp 19-22). The COT agreed with the author of the EUROHAZCON study that there was a need for further investigation. The full assessment can be found in the COT' s Annual Report for 1998, available in the Library or on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/coc.htm#annual.

  Local and Unitary Development Plans
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if, further to the speech made by the Minister for Housing and Planning on 14 December 2000, he will list the local planning authorities which have no adopted development plan, the local planning authorities which have not placed a development plan on deposit, the local planning authorities which have not begun a public inquiry, the local planning authorities with a redevelopment plan that ends in 2001, and the local planning authorities which have no proposals for amending an existing development plan. [146079]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]: A report—"Progress on Adoption of Area Wide Local Plan and Unitary Development Plans"—which shows the position reached by each local authority in England by 31 December 2000 in adopting or reviewing its area-wide local plan or unitary development plan, will be placed on the Department's website shortly. I will also arrange for copies of the report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Stray Horses
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what powers local authorities have to impound stray horses on the highway; and if he will make a statement; [146099]

  (2) if he will assess the benefits of introducing legislation to allow local authorities and emergency services (a) to recover the cost of removing horses wandering on the highway and (b) to provide for fixed penalty fines to be paid on redemption of horses found wandering on the highway; and if he will make a statement. [146100]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]Section 155 of the Highways Act 1980 provides that if any horses, cattle, sheep, goats or swine are at any time found straying or lying on or at the side of a highway their keeper is guilty of an offence, for which the penalty is a fine of up to £1,000.

  A person found guilty is also liable to pay the expenses of any person, including a local authority, who removes an animal to a pound or returns it to the keeper and for the cost of looking after the animal until it is claimed. Enforcement is a matter for the police.

  This section does not apply in relation to a part of a highway passing over any common, waste, or unenclosed land.

  Private enterprise

  Registered social landlords

  Local authority

  Period

  Number

  Percentage of total

  Number

  Percentage of total

  Number

  Percentage of total

  Total

  1995

  294

  67

  143

  33

  0

  0

  437

  1996

  40

  85

  7

  15

  0

  0

  47

  1997

  98

  85

  17

  15

  0

  0

  115

  1998

  334

  84

  65

  16

  0

  0

  399

  1999

  425

  94

  27

  6

  0

  0

  452

  20001

  212

  92

  19

  8

  0

  0

  231

  1 To November

  The Department does not produce forecasts of the number of dwellings.

  English Cities Fund
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the basis is of the allocation of resources of the English Cities Fund between English regions and English cities; and if he expects to have allocations ready for the financial year 2001–02. [146393]

  Ms Armstrong
  The idea of an English Cities Fund is being developed by English Partnerships and its private sector partners. The Fund would attract long-term private finance to invest in urban regeneration schemes. It follows-up the recommendation of Lord Rogers' Urban Task Force that national public/private investment funds for regeneration should be established. Details of the Fund are currently being considered within Government and

  Repossessions (Chatham and Aylesford)
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many homes were repossessed between 1990 and 1997 within the area covered by the Chatham and Aylesford constituency. [146161]

  Mr. Mullin
  This information is not collected by my Department. Data are compiled by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, but only for the United Kingdom as a whole and not for individual regions of constituencies.

  Local Authorities (Political Structures)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list those local authorities which have not decided their future political structures under the Local Government Act 2000; [146163]

  (2) if he will list those local authorities which have not consulted their residents on new political structures. [146162]

  Ms Armstrong
  This information is not held centrally.

  New Homes (Islington)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of new homes(a) completed in Islington in the years 1995 to 2000 and (b) predicted for 2001–02; indicating the proportion built for the local authority and registered social landlords. [146127]

  Mr. Mullin
  The numbers reported by the local authority are as follows.

  with the European Commission. The Fund will operate at a national level in England investing in schemes on a commercial basis in priority areas identified by the Regional Development Agencies. Resources from the public and private sectors would be combined and invested in eligible schemes identified by the Fund. This will determine the regional allocation of expenditure. We hope to see the Fund launched in 2001–02.

  Albatrosses and Petrels
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he plans to make at the forthcoming international meeting to consider the conservation of albatrosses and petrels. [146977]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are currently severe threats to albatrosses and petrels in the southern hemisphere, and the need to counter them was highlighted in August by
  461W
  the launch of BirdLife International's "Save the Albatross Campaign". The UK is one of the three principal range states for these species, and takes its responsibilities very seriously. We played a very prominent role in the international meeting held in Hobart last July, which resulted in an advanced draft of a new Agreement on conservation action under the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals.

  South Africa will, with financial assistance from my Department, host a further meeting on the proposed Agreement at the end of January, and I hope that this will be able to resolve most outstanding points. The most important of these will be in relation to by-catch regulation, where we shall seek results that build effectively on FAO and CCAMLR initiatives, but are not so onerous as to discourage wide support of the Agreement. We shall also seek to promote the precautionary principle, and to secure effective dispute settlement procedures, a right of accession to the Agreement by the European Union, and fair and satisfactory arrangements for funding the Agreement's work.

  Road Accidents (Illegal Drugs)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in how many road accidents in each of the last three years subsequent analysis revealed that the driver had taken(a) cannabis and (b) other illegal drugs; how many of these accidents resulted in fatalities; and if he will make a statement. [146464]

  Mr. Hill
  The numbers of cases where samples are taken for analysis for the presence of drugs in drivers involved in road accidents are not recorded centrally.

  The Department has undertaken specific research into the incidence of drugs in road accident fatalities. This found that there was a presence of illegal drugs in some 18 per cent. of driver fatalitites of which cannabis accounted for about two thirds. However, traces of cannabis remain in the body for some time after any impairing effect, and in general the presence of drugs is not evidence of impairment or accident causation. The research also showed that about a fifth of drivers killed had a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

  Baldock Bypass
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has received the Inspector's report following the public inquiry held on 29 February 2000 in connection with the Baldock Bypass. [146171]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Inspector's report has been received following the public inquiry in connection with the Baldock Bypass and is under consideration.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in his consideration of the Inspector's report following the public inquiry held on 29 February 2000 in connection with the Baldock Bypass; and when he expects to make his decision. [146170]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The consideration of the Inspector's report into Baldock Bypass is nearly complete and it is hoped that a decision will be issued shortly.

  British Transport Police
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many transfer requests from London South Region have been approved by the British Transport Police in the past 12 months; what the average waiting time for them was; and how many of them were on urgent compassionate grounds; [145030]

  (2) how many outstanding requests for transfer are being processed by the British Transport Police; from and to which regions; and how many of them are on urgent compassionate grounds; [145031]

  (3) what the current waiting time is for a transfer within (a) the British Transport Police and (b) from London South Region to another region of the British Transport Police. [145032]

  Mr. Hill
  The Chief Constable is responsible for direction and control of the British Transport Police (BTP), including the deployment and transfer of police constables. As a national force with over 2,070 constables operating throughout Great Britain, the BTP handles a large number of requests each year for transfer between its eight areas. A high proportion of these are on compassionate grounds and of an urgent nature. The BTP have advised me that they do not collate specific details or statistics regarding transfers within the force, and that the figures requested could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what research his Department has undertaken into the impact on individuals of loss of sleep owing to aircraft noise in the vicinity of Heathrow; and if he will place a copy of the results in the Library; [146421]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the effect of the noise from aircraft approaching Heathrow to land between 11.30 pm and 6 am on residents in (a) London and (b) Berkshire. [146420]

  Mr. Mullin
  The former Department of Transport published, in December 1992, the "Report of a Field Study of Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance". This study, which was conducted by a consortium led by the CAA's Department of Safety, Environment and Engineering (now the Environment Research and Consultancy Department, ERCD), was and remains to date the largest survey of its kind in the UK. The survey sites were near Heathrow (Hounslow and Stanwell Moor), Gatwick, Manchester and Stansted airports. Sleep disturbances were detected using actimetry, the validity of which was corroborated using electro-encephalography (EEG). It was found that noise events below 90dBA SEL (equivalent to about 80dB A Lmax) were unlikely to affect average sleep disturbance rates, while events noisier than this gave a mean probability of disturbance of about one in 75, with a range of individual sensitivities around this average.

  Based upon these results, illustrative estimates of disturbances owing to aircraft noise events between 11.30 pm and 6.00 am were included at paragraphs 1.37–1.39 of the Department's Second Stage Consultation on the night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, dated

  463W
  November 1998. These broad estimates, and the assumptions on which they rely, are carefully explained in the consultation document.

  A limitation of the 1992 study, recognised at the time, was that it was unable thoroughly to examine disturbance at the onset of sleep and at final awakening. Also, the results provided
  no evidence to suggest that aircraft noise is likely to cause harmful after effects
  but the study could not explore this issue exhaustively. In 1998 we announced that we would commission a trial study of sleep disturbance to help inform a decision whether to proceed with a full scale study which would examine, "inter alia", the question of sleep loss and possible after-effects. In the light of advice from a steering group and technical group established to advise on this work, we also commissioned a social survey of attitudes towards aircraft noise at night. These studies have been conducted by consortiums led respectively by Dr. Ian Flindell of the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research and Prof Ian Diamond of the Department of Social Statistics, both at the University of Southampton. They will be published shortly and I shall ensure that copies are placed in the House Library.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has undertaken into the economic benefits of night flights landing at Heathrow during the period from 11.30 pm. to 6 am. [146422]

  Mr. Mullin
  The current night flying restrictions applying at Heathrow (and Gatwick and Stansted) were announced on 10 June 1999,Official Report, columns 378–80W, following extensive consultation. They came into effect on 31 October 1999. Consultation papers were issued on 27 February 1998 and on 17 November 1998. Copies of both were placed in the House Library. As stated in the second consultation paper,
  The Government has not attempted to quantify the aviation and economic benefits of night flights in monetary terms or to draw up a balance-sheet including the environmental disbenefits.

  The Government went on to explain, in paragraphs 1.48–1.57 of the paper, the advice given on this subject in a report submitted by the British Air Transport Association (BATA) in response to the first consultation, and the Government's own approach to the subject. The decision announced on 10 June 1999 reflected the reasoning set out in the second consultation paper and the responses to it.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives his Department will be taking as part of the Government's National Noise Strategy to reduce the impact of night flights by civil aviation on those living in rural areas under flight paths. [146425]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government intend to consult on a National Ambient Noise Strategy later this year, seeking views on how best to develop more effective and better integrated measures for tackling the impact of ambient noise from all the main sources. While the development of the Strategy is underway, we will continue to pursue policies at national and international level to reduce the impact of aircraft noise.

  Seafarers
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he plans to take to put into effect the recommendations of the report entitled 'British Shipping: Charting a New Course' to safeguard the employment of British seafarers employed on contracts which are based in a foreign country. [146333]

  Mr. Hill
  The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) has statutory responsibility to keep the workings of the Race Relations Act 1976 under review. The Government publicly consulted on the CRE's recommendations for strengthening the Act following its Third Review in 1998. The CRE did not recommend any changes to the Act with regard to protection afforded to seafarers employed by British companies. The Government responded to the CRE's proposals, following public consultation, on 14 July 1999. A copy of the response was placed in the Library of the House.

  The Government are alert to views that the exception for seafarers at section 9 of the Act should be repealed. `Charting a new course' sets out an integrated strategy for Britain's shipping industry. The Government are keeping in mind the views on Section 9 of the Act as part of their on-going programme of work.

  Heathrow Terminal 5
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the report and recommendations of the inspector who conducted the planning inquiry into the application to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow Airport. [146148]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Secretary of State plans to publish the Inspector's Report when the decision is issued, in accordance with usual practice.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Advertising Costs (Pension Saving)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of the advertising campaign to increase awareness of the need for pension saving; and by what criteria he will assess the effectiveness of that expenditure. [146317]

  Mr. Rooker
  This Department is running a £6.5 million pensions education marketing campaign. This figure covers a number of elements, including the cost of researching and developing the campaign concept, producing and featuring the adverts on TV, in the cinema, national press and magazines, as well as running a campaign leaflet orderline and producing and mailing the supporting campaign information materials.

  We are evaluating the campaign by conducting quantitative, tracking research to gauge people's awareness and understanding of the publicity. In addition, we are monitoring the numbers of orders placed for our information guides in response to the advertising campaign. We will also be consulting the pensions industry for their views.

  Date of Death Notifications
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many erroneous dates of death were broadcast by the departmental central index computer system to other benefit computer systems in March 2000. [145339]

  Mr. Rooker
  During the period 1 January 2000 to 21 March 2000, of the 1,666 date of death notifications made from Departmental Central Index to other benefit systems only four were known to be incorrect.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cause of erroneous dates of death being broadcast by the departmental central index computer system in March 2000 to other benefit systems; and what action was taken to prevent the problem recurring. [145340]

  Mr. Rooker
  A small number (there are four cases known) of incorrect dates of death were registered during the transfer of notifications from the Inland Revenue to the Departmental Central Index. Revised procedures are now in place to check the accuracy of this information.

  Minimum Income Guarantee (Lancaster and Wyre)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people from Lancaster and Wyre are claiming minimum income guarantee. [145614]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are around 2,500 recipients of the minimum income guarantee in the parliamentary constituency of Lancaster and Wyre.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Pensioners are defined as where the claimant, and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  4. Cases are allocated to each Parliamentary Constituency by matching the postcode against the 2000 version 1 ONS Postcode Directory.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 2000.

  Anti-fraud Hotline (Glasgow)
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the new combined anti-fraud hotline for his Department and Glasgow city council. [145910]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are working closely with local authorities to drive up performance standards and reduce losses owing to fraud and error. Glasgow city council is one of 11 local authorities (LAs) across the country which have volunteered to take part in trials with the Benefits Agency of a Shared Fraud Hotline.

  This project will trial the extension of the existing BA "Hotline" facility to LAs and determine whether this will lead to increased detection of Housing Benefit fraud and deter people from committing such fraud.

  The trials began on 8 January 2001 and are due to finish on 31 March 2001. An evaluation of the trials will take place between April and July with a report expected by August 2001.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall North of 5 December 2000 regarding a constituent. [146297]

  Mr. Rooker
  A reply was issued on Wednesday 17 January 2001.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 2001,Official Report, column 606W, on benefit payments, if he will estimate (a) the value and (b) the percentage of Housing Benefit payments that were found to be inaccurate in each local authority area for (i) 1996–97 and (ii) the most recent period for which figures are available. [146093]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is not available. The only measure of the level of Housing Benefit accuracy has been the National Housing Benefit accuracy reviews, the latest of which was carried out during 1997–98, and which are in the Library. However, under the arrangements for Best Value, local authorities are required, from 1 April 2000, to collect information on the percentage of cases for which the calculation of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit is correct.

  We are also continuing to work on introducing a consistent national measure for fraud and error in Housing Benefit in all local authorities for April 2001.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the proportion of Housing Benefit claims processed by local authorities within 14 days, for(a) the period immediately before and (b) the period since the implementation of the verification framework. [143523]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not available.

  This Department collects information from local authorities on the number of Housing Benefit claims determined within 14 days of receipt of all necessary information. However, this is not a measure of the time taken to process a claim and it should not be affected by the operation of the verification framework, which is concerned with the gathering of necessary information and evidence.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of people who have been waiting for more than three months to receive the Housing Benefit to which they are entitled; and if he will estimate the total value of those arrears. [146316]

  Angela Eagle
  No. Information about unprocessed cases is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefit Take-up Campaigns
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent by his Department on take-up campaigns in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [145202]
  467W
  Mr. Rooker
  No records are held of the cost of take-up activity prior to the current year as this activity was the responsibility of individual Benefits Agency districts.

  The Department's current campaign to increase the take-up of the minimum income guarantee (MIG), has cost approximately £9 million. The telephone claimline is not part of the take-up campaign—it is a permanent fixture—therefore these costs are not included.

  Income Support (Scotland)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents in(a) Inverclyde and (b) Scotland are in receipt of income support; and what the comparable figures were for (i) 1994 and (ii) 1997. [144501]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Income Support is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Mrs. Alexis Cleveland. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 18 January 2001:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many lone parents in (a) Inverclyde and (b) Scotland are in receipt of income support; and what the comparable figures were for (i) 1994 and (ii) 1997.
  The information available is in the table set out below.

  Lone Parents in receipt of Income Support in Scotland, and Inverclyde, August 1994, August 1997 and August 2000

  Number of claimants August 1994

  Number of claimants August 1997

  Number of claimants August 2000

  Scotland

  97,800

  95,000

  83,100

  Inverclyde Local Authority

  1—

  2,100

  1,700

  1 Not available.

  Notes:

  1. Based on 5 per cent. sample therefore subject to sampling error.

  2. Lone Parents are defined as single claimants with dependants not receiving the disability or pensioner premiums.

  3. Cases are allocated to each Local Authority/Government Office Region by matching the postcode against the appropriate version of the 1995 to 2000 Office for National Statistics (ONS) Directories.

  I hope this is helpful.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Repossessions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many mortgage repossession actions were(a) entered and (b) suspended in each quarter since 1 January 1999.[146397]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is as follows:

  All mortgage possession figures

  Mortgage possession figures

  Actions entered

  Suspended orders

  January-December 1999

  Quarters

  January-March

  22,525

  11,197

  April-June

  19,811

  9,484

  July-September

  19,478

  8,151

  October-December

  19,794

  7,816

  468W

  All mortgage possession figures

  Mortgage possession figures

  Actions entered

  Suspended orders

  January-December 2000

  January-March

  20,371

  7,267

  April-June

  17,343

  8,651

  July-September

  17,786

  8,128

  October-November1

  10,764

  4,765

  1 Figures for December 2000 are not currently available

  Courts and Legal Services Act 1990
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if it is his intention to implement section 18 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. [146396]

  Mr. Lock
  The comprehensive review of enforcement of civil court judgments, as announced by the Lord Chancellor on 25 March 1998, includes consideration of section 13. Proposals are being developed on this strand of the review and we shall consult on these in due course.

  County Court Judgments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to implement his report on the First Phase of the Enforcement Review relating to allowing charging orders for payment arrears on county court judgments. [146398]

  Mr. Lock
  Since publication of the Review I have had representations from the debt advice sector and some hon. Members raising new issues in regard to charging orders. Following these representations I will be looking at this proposal in more detail and will be consulting further before any changes come into effect.

  Criminal Justice Review (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland has met the leaders of political parties in Northern Ireland since the publication of the Criminal Justice Review; which leaders he has met; and what matters were discussed. [144924]

  Mr. Lock
  This is a matter for the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chancellor understands from him that he has not met any political leaders on the Criminal Justice Review or any other matter, and that he would not think it proper for him to discuss policy matters with political parties.

CABINET OFFICE

  Political Appointments
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many(a) special advisers, (b) political advisers and (c) political appointees were employed in each financial year since 1994–95; and what the cost was to public funds including recruitment costs, salaries, pensions, National Insurance contributions and support staff. [144115]
  469W
  Marjorie Mowlam
  There are currently 78 special advisers in post. The estimated paybill for special advisers in the financial year 2000–01 is £4.4 million. The numbers and pay costs of special advisers in earlier years is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Number of special advisers in post

  Cost1

  1994–95

  34

  1.5

  1995–96

  38

  1.5

  1996–97

  38

  1.8

  1997–98

  70

  2.6

  1998–99

  72

  3.5

  1999–2000

  79

  4.0

  1 Costs include pensions (from May 1997) and salaries. Special Advisers are not normally recruited through open competition. The only exception to this process was the post of UK anti-drugs co-ordinator which was advertised. Recruitment costs for the post of UK anti-drugs co-ordinator are included in cost for 1997–98.

  Government Annual Report
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many copies of the Government's annual report 1999–2000 have been(a) sold, (b) given away and (c) returned unsold; how many copies are held in stock; and what is the cost of the annual report. [144130]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Approximately 10,000 copies of the Government Annual Report 1999–2000 were sold; 4,000 were given away; and 7,000 were returned unsold from bookshops. (Those unwanted copies which were distributed via a magazine distribution company were not returned but recycled alongside other unsold magazines). Six thousand copies are currently held in stock. The cost of the Government Annual Report 1999–2000 was £125,000.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the Ministers with responsibility for deregulation in each Department. [146231]

  Mr. Stringer
  Here in the Cabinet Office, I am the Minister with lead responsibility for regulatory reform matters and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chairs the Panel for Regulatory Accountability. The Ministers responsible for Regulatory Reform in other Departments are as follows:

  Dawn Primarolo MP—HM Treasury

  Patricia Hewitt MP—DTI

  Lord Whitty—DETR

  Lord Hunt—DoH

  Mike O'Brien MP—HO

  Joyce Quin MP—MAFF

  Margaret Hodge MP—DfEE

  Janet Anderson MP—DCMS

  Hugh Bayley MP—DSS

  Jane Kennedy MP—LCD

  Dr. Lewis Moonie MP—MOD.

  Honours System
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the operation of the honours system. [145321]
  470W
  The Prime Minister
  I am answering this question as it relates to matters for which I am responsible.

  The honours lists which I recommend to the Queen include the names of around 1,000 people in all walks of life whose achievements deserve recognition.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Service (HIV-positive Employees)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policies are in place within the police service to ensure that employees with HIV are protected against discrimination. [146035]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The police service is committed to treating people fairly in all circumstances. The police code of conduct provides that officers should treat colleagues with courtesy and respect, avoiding abusive or deriding attitudes or behaviour. In particular, officers must avoid all forms of harassment, victimisation or unreasonable discrimination. An officer who breaches the code is liable to a range of sanctions, the most serious of which is dismissal.

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the projects undertaken for his Department by(a) outside consultants, (b) academic researchers and (c) university departments since 1 May 1997, giving the total expenditure incurred in each category. [144083]

  Mr. Straw
  The information required is not available in the format requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. In order to provide the hon. Member with as full an answer as possible I list details of projects undertaken by external consultants for which information is held.

  Task/project

  Value (£)

  Advice to PPD on Candidature for IiP

  2,000

  Advise Home Secretary on Police Training

  20,000

  To Complete work on thematic inspection

  10,400

  Quality awareness and IT training

  8,000

  Firearms Section Database

  26,000

  Race awareness training for staff

  5,000

  Advice on CJS IS strategy

  6,500

  Strategy—impact of PFI

  82,850

  Post implementation review

  27,650

  Study on internet technologies and Services

  19,875

  Researching technical problems

  8,970

  Developing Internal Communications in HO

  50,000

  To review and identify ways of improving practices in HO press office

  46,000

  To devise an external communications strategy

  14,000

  Specialist advice: Trusts

  2,500

  Specialist advice: banks, building societies

  5,000

  Specialist advice: investment and securities

  5,000

  Specialist advice: insurance and pensions

  5,500

  Review of broader relationships between Tote and private sector

  95,000

  Consultancy support to provide advice to the HO on the valuation of the Tote

  95,000

  Financial and business advice to the HO

  127,585

  Development of resource accounting

  48,000

  Fire service college

  80,000

  Mock IiP assessment

  2,000

  IT 2000

  851,646

  471W

  Task/project

  Value (£)

  Evaluation Pay and Grading

  1,350

  Interception of Communication Legislation

  10,000

  To participate in HMFSI's Culture and Organisational Review Project

  5,800

  Specialist advice for the first thematic review on aspects of racial equality

  12,500

  Assist the Inspectorate's Inspection Team

  5,000

  Control room amalgamation in emergency services

  10,000

  Post assessment centre feedback

  110

  Post assessment centre feedback

  388

  Development of specialised job simulation exercises

  2,800

  Development of specialised job simulation exercises

  840

  Development of specialised job simulation exercises

  840

  Development of specialised job simulation exercises

  426

  Development of specialised job simulation exercises

  355

  Development of specialised job simulation exercises

  426

  Business Recovery Strategy for IND

  35,500

  Cost and Size prospective asylum seekers support agency

  25,377

  Support and Specification Consultant

  10,000

  Assist and development system security

  10,000

  Report on the Channel Islands

  104,000

  CSR Review

  25,000

  Independent Advice to the CJS review

  50,000

  Review of National Police Training

  15,000

  Review of Planning and Finance Directorate

  30,000

  Review of the Senior Management Review

  49,000

  Specialist Financial Advice

  80,000

  Outplacement Consultancy

  132,280

  Project Planning Assistance

  19,625

  Business and Systems Analysis

  70,000

  Technical Construction

  50,000

  IIP

  26,195

  Studies associated with establishing the CRA

  35,805

  Police Gazette Survey

  21,095

  External training consultants brought in to provide IT Training and Quality Awareness

  3,775

  External training consultants brought in to provide IT Training and Quality Awareness

  3,188

  NVQ for the Police Service

  30,935

  Assessment of Marketing Procedure

  4,550

  Financial Advisers to NCIS

  8,000

  Writing services for Police Probationer training

  15,000

  Writing services for Police Probationer training

  18,000

  Writing services for Police Probationer training

  3,100

  Procurement Specialist for PRCD

  42,000

  Effects of burst interference on TETRA mobile receiver

  42,445

  Consultancy for the Study of Radio Network Resilience

  32,000

  Marketing Strategy for Bramshill NPT

  2,400

  Cost/benefit Economies of Scale analysis

  32,250

  Production of a training programme for Promoted Inspectors

  65,000

  Production of a training programme for Promoted Inspectors

  11,700

  Infrastructure Projects risk management

  7,000

  NSPIS risk management

  20,000

  Financial evaluations on the electronic monitoring programme

  550,000

  Legal Advice for electronic monitoring programme

  15,000

  Testing Advice and preparation of testing specification

  23,700

  Procurement Adviser electronic monitoring programme

  15,000

  Total

  3,429,232

  Note:

  These figures represent use of consultants from the period from 1 May 1997 to 31 March 1999

  I would also refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 6 April 1998, Official Report, columns 28–32W, and to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 19 June 2000, Official Report, columns 97–98W, for details of research projects undertaken by my Research Department and Statistics Directorate.
  472W
  The Research Development and Statistics Directorate research programme for 2000–01 is also available on the Home Office website: http://www.open.gov.uk/home_off/ rdshome.htm.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the incidence of crime was for each police authority in Wales; and what the percentage change was in each of the last 10 years; [145938]

  (2) how many violent crimes there were in each police authority in Wales; and what the percentage change year-on-year was in each of the last 10 years. [145939]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of recorded crimes in the year ending September 2000 are as follows (violent crime is composed of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery):

  Force

  Total recorded crime

  Total violent crime

  Dyfed-Powys

  23,050

  5,808

  Gwent

  56,940

  14,809

  North Wales

  45,783

  6,084

  South Wales

  113,281

  13,982

  The percentage changes for the last 10 years are given for financial years in the following table.

  All crime—percentage changes—years ending March, compared to the previous year

  Year

  Dyfed-Powys

  Gwent1

  North Wales

  South Wales1

  1991

  23

  27

  16

  19

  1992

  27

  20

  16

  13

  1993

  -5

  3

  9

  4

  1994

  -11

  -4

  -8

  -4

  1995

  -14

  -8

  -7

  -5

  1996

  -5

  -6

  -4

  0

  19971

  -4

  39

  1

  -13

  1998

  -4

  -1

  -8

  -4

  19992

  -1

  1

  -5

  -6

  2000

  -4

  2

  2

  -6

  Violent crime—percentage changes—years ending March, compared to the previous year

  Year

  Dyfed-Powys

  Gwent1

  North Wales

  South Wales1

  1991

  21

  3

  12

  0

  1992

  10

  5

  8

  15

  1993

  5

  —

  0

  11

  1994

  -4

  1

  17

  4

  1995

  -2

  1

  -17

  2

  1996

  -7

  5

  -7

  9

  19971

  10

  91

  11

  1

  1998

  3

  6

  8

  4

  19993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2000

  16

  21

  21

  11

  1 There was a boundary change between Gwent and South Wales in April 1996

  2 The change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998 has been taken into account in calculating these figures

  3 Owing to the change in counting rules, no figures are available

  Criminal Convictions
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there were per 100,000 population for(a) homicides, (b) violence against a person, (c) theft and handling, (d) robberies and (e) sexual offences for (i) England and (ii) Wales at the latest date for which figures are available. [145936]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Available information for 1999, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database showing the number of persons convicted at all courts for the relevant offences per 100,000 population for (i) England and (ii) Wales are given in the table.

  Offenders convicted per 100,000 population by given offence group, England and Wales, 1999

  England

  Wales

  England and Wales

  Violence against the person1

  75.7

  118.5

  78.1

  of which:

  Homicide2

  1.1

  0.8

  1.1

  Offence1 description

  Number of defendants prosecuted in 1999

  Weekly average

  Number of defendants prosecuted quarter 1, 20002

  Weekly average2

  (a) Speeding Speed limit offences

  144,062

  2,770

  30,511

  2,347

  (b) Burglary

  42,725

  822

  10,455

  504

  (c) Vandalism criminal damage offences3

  53,543

  1,030

  13,640

  1,049

  1 Based on principal offence.

  2 Provisional.

  3 There is no offence of vandalism: vandalism causing damage to property is charged under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and includes both indictable and summary offences of criminal damage.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of(a) reported motoring incidents and (b) burglaries result in a charge. [146330]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  7 per cent. of the 906,468 burglary offences recorded in England and Wales in 1999–2000 were cleared up by a charge or summons. Separate figures for charges only are not available centrally.

  Figures on reported motoring incidents are not available, nor is information on charges resulting: however, most motoring incidents are discovered by the police with the offender present and it is likely that a charge or summons will result in a significant proportion of such cases. It follows, therefore, that direct comparisons cannot be made with recorded burglary offences, which require investigation and proof before a charge or summons can result.

  22 per cent. of the 9.5 million motoring offences dealt with by official action in England and Wales in 1999 were dealt with by court proceedings.

  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the ratio was of notifiable offences to police officer numbers for each police force in England and Wales for the most recent year for which information is available. [144617]
  474W

  Offenders convicted per 100,000 population by given offence group, England and Wales, 1999

  England

  Wales

  England and Wales

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  285.9

  305.8

  287

  Robberies

  12.6

  7.1

  12.3

  Sexual offences

  9.2

  12.6

  9.4

  1 Includes homicide offences

  2 Includes murder, infanticide, manslaughter and manslaughter due to diminished responsibility

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in England are charged with(a) speeding, (b) burglary and (c) vandalism each week at the latest date for which figures are available. [146331]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information only on the number of persons charged is not available centrally.

  However prosecution data, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, are given in the table. It is important to note that these data relate only to defendants' appearing at court.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Offences per police officer, year ending 30 September 20001

  Police force area

  Offences per officer

  Avon and Somerset

  50

  Bedfordshire

  50

  Cambridgeshire

  54

  Cheshire

  32

  Cleveland

  46

  Cumbria

  32

  Derbyshire

  47

  Devon and Cornwall

  37

  Dorset

  40

  Durham

  30

  Essex2

  37

  Gloucestershire

  44

  Greater Manchester

  55

  Hampshire

  40

  Hertfordshire2

  30

  Humberside

  60

  Kent

  40

  Lancashire

  34

  Leicestershire

  46

  Lincolnshire

  40

  London, City of

  10

  Merseyside

  36

  Metropolitan Police2

  41

  Norfolk

  42

  Northamptonshire

  52

  Northumbria

  36

  North Yorkshire

  40

  475W

  Offences per police officer, year ending 30 September 20001

  Police force area

  Offences per officer

  Nottinghamshire

  63

  South Yorkshire

  40

  Staffordshire

  48

  Suffolk

  39

  Surrey2

  26

  Sussex

  49

  Thames Valley

  50

  Warwickshire

  40

  West Mercia

  42

  West Midlands

  51

  West Yorkshire

  54

  Wiltshire

  32

  Dyfed-Powys

  22

  Gwent

  45

  North Wales

  33

  South Wales

  39

  Total

  43

  1 Based on number of offences for year ended 30 September 2000, and numbers of police officers as at 31 March 2000.

  2 Based on estimated number of offences had pre-1 April 2000 boundaries been in effect.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what key institutions have been involved in the preparations for Holocaust Memorial Day; and if he will make a statement. [145918]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Four Government Departments— the Home Office, the Department for Education and Employment, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—have been involved in the preparations for the Holocaust Memorial Day. Local authorities and their representative bodies, the Local Government Association and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, as well as schools, have also been involved. Non-Government Organisations, particularly those with experience and expertise in Holocaust education and remembrance, including the Anne Frank Educational Trust, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Beth Shalom Memorial Centre, the Commission for Race Equality, the Disability Rights Commission, the '45 Aid Society, the Holocaust Educational Trust, the Imperial War Museum, the Inter Faith Network, the Local Government Association, the London Borough of Barnet, the London Jewish Cultural Centre, the Pink Triangle Coalition, Southampton University, Stonewall, the Trades Union Congress, and the Wiener Library have also been involved in the

  Table 1: Police service strength as at 30 September 1999

  Police force

  Total police officers1

  Total officers per 100,000 population2

  Total civilians1

  Total civilians per 100,000 population2

  Total specials3

  Total specials per 100,000 population2

  Avon and Somerset

  2,989

  200.8

  1,468

  98.6

  482

  32.4

  Bedfordshire

  1,048

  188.3

  491

  88.3

  148

  26.6

  Cambridgeshire

  1,272

  176.7

  594

  82.5

  293

  40.7

  Cheshire

  2,044

  207.6

  783

  79.6

  358

  36.4

  Cleveland

  1,373

  246.7

  529

  95.2

  108

  19.4

  Cumbria

  1,093

  221.7

  461

  93.6

  193

  39.2

  Derbyshire

  1,764

  181.8

  830

  85.6

  303

  31.2

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,861

  183.5

  1,254

  80.4

  908

  58.3

  Dorset

  1,276

  184.6

  812

  117.5

  287

  41.5

  Durham

  1,555

  255.8

  559

  92.0

  169

  27.8

  476W
  preparations. Community groups have also been involved through the National Association of Councils for Voluntary Service.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has made to trade unions about Holocaust Memorial Day; and if he will make a statement. [145915]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None directly because the Trades Union Congress are represented on the Steering Group planning Holocaust Memorial Day and have been promoting the day within the trade union movement.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prison officers served in the Metropolitan police force at the latest date for which figures are available. [146111]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prison officers serve at prisons in England and Wales; and how many served in each of the last three years. [146110]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is contained in the table. The figures refer to basic grade officers, senior officers and principal officers and are on a headcount basis.

  Female officers in post

  31 December 2000

  3,774

  31 December 1999

  3,536

  31 December 1998

  3,281

  31 December 1997

  2,821

  Police Manpower
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers, (b) civilian staff and (c) special constables there were (i) in total and (ii) per head of population in each police force in England and Wales, in (1) September 1999, (2) March 2000 and (3) September 2000; and if he will make a statement. [145946]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 18 January 2001]The requested details are given in the table.
  477W

  Table 1: Police service strength as at 30 September 1999

  Police force

  Total police officers1

  Total officers per 100,000 population2

  Total civilians1

  Total civilians per 100,000 population2

  Total specials3

  Total specials per 100,000 population2

  Essex4

  2,835

  184.9

  1,300

  84.8

  528

  34.4

  Gloucestershire

  1,098

  197.0

  490

  87.9

  221

  39.7

  Greater Manchester

  6,810

  264.2

  2,570

  99.7

  498

  19.3

  Hampshire

  3,411

  192.6

  1,403

  79.2

  720

  40.7

  Hertfordshire4

  1,760

  200.4

  821

  93.5

  232

  26.4

  Humberside

  1,926

  218.1

  959

  108.6

  263

  29.8

  Kent

  3,257

  206.8

  1,600

  101.6

  484

  30.7

  Lancashire

  3,221

  225.8

  1,216

  85.2

  397

  27.8

  Leicestershire

  1,998

  215.1

  776

  83.6

  303

  32.6

  Lincolnshire

  1,111

  178.3

  506

  81.2

  218

  35.0

  London, City of5

  745

  5—

  289

  5—

  66

  5—

  Merseyside

  4,071

  288.8

  1,446

  102.6

  467

  33.1

  Metropolitan police4,5,6

  25,884

  346.3

  10,935

  146.0

  1,173

  16.1

  Norfolk

  1,382

  174.8

  660

  83.5

  317

  40.1

  Northamptonshire

  1,130

  183.5

  601

  97.5

  210

  34.1

  Northumbria

  3,800

  266.6

  1,482

  103.9

  356

  25.0

  North Yorkshire

  1,294

  174.3

  527

  71.0

  245

  33.0

  Nottinghamshire

  2,227

  215.9

  1,027

  99.6

  405

  39.3

  South Yorkshire

  3,165

  242.7

  1,261

  96.7

  236

  18.1

  Staffordshire

  2,206

  207.9

  901

  84.9

  460

  43.3

  Suffolk

  1,160

  172.9

  593

  88.4

  420

  62.6

  Surrey4

  1,721

  218.8

  697

  88.6

  205

  26.1

  Sussex

  2,909

  194.1

  1,275

  85.0

  377

  25.1

  Thames Valley

  3,750

  178.7

  1,804

  85.9

  514

  24.5

  Warwickshire

  916

  180.7

  393

  77.6

  260

  51.3

  West Mercia

  1,979

  174.2

  964

  84.8

  512

  45.1

  West Midlands

  7,296

  277.6

  2,876

  109.4

  697

  26.5

  West Yorkshire

  4,873

  230.6

  2,252

  106.5

  572

  27.1

  Wiltshire

  1,150

  189.9

  558

  92.2

  182

  30.1

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,049

  218.7

  406

  84.7

  237

  49.4

  Gwent

  1,261

  226.4

  492

  88.4

  110

  19.7

  North Wales

  1,399

  212.8

  514

  78.2

  262

  39.9

  South Wales

  2,983

  240.7

  1,172

  94.6

  331

  26.7

  Total police service7

  125,394

  239.2

  53,254

  101.6

  15,725

  30.0

  Table 2: Police service strength as at 31 March 2000

  Police force

  Total police officers1

  Total officers per 100,000 population2

  Total civilians1

  Total civilians per 100,000 population2

  Total specials3

  Total specials per 100,000 population2

  Avon and Somerset

  2,934

  197.1

  1,436

  96.4

  459

  30.8

  Bedfordshire

  1,028

  184.7

  490

  88.0

  151

  27.1

  Cambridgeshire

  1,237

  171.8

  503

  69.9

  274

  38.1

  Cheshire

  2,011

  204.3

  823

  83.6

  350

  35.6

  Cleveland

  1,404

  252.3

  595

  107.0

  128

  23.0

  Cumbria

  1,084

  219.9

  469

  95.2

  176

  35.7

  Derbyshire

  1,777

  183.2

  826

  85.1

  282

  29.1

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,841

  182.3

  1,343

  86.1

  870

  55.8

  Dorset

  1,306

  188.9

  686

  99.3

  298

  43.1

  Durham

  1,558

  256.3

  590

  97.1

  157

  25.8

  Essex4

  2,806

  183.0

  1,348

  87.9

  483

  31.5

  Gloucestershire

  1,114

  199.9

  484

  86.9

  206

  37.0

  Greater Manchester

  6,795

  263.6

  2,822

  109.5

  457

  17.7

  Hampshire

  3,419

  193.1

  1,443

  81.5

  615

  34.7

  Hertfordshire4

  1,767

  201.1

  890

  101.3

  216

  24.6

  Humberside

  1,932

  218.8

  840

  95.2

  246

  27.9

  Kent

  3,204

  203.5

  1,647

  104.6

  436

  27.7

  Lancashire

  3,179

  222.8

  1,422

  99.6

  382

  26.8

  Leicestershire

  1,993

  214.6

  805

  86.6

  247

  26.6

  Lincolnshire

  1,115

  178.9

  516

  82.8

  195

  31.3

  London, City of5

  732

  5—

  285

  5—

  56

  5—

  Merseyside

  4,085

  289.8

  1,458

  103.5

  476

  33.8

  Metropolitan police4,5,6

  25,485

  341.0

  10,605

  141.6

  758

  10.6

  Norfolk

  1,381

  174.8

  655

  82.9

  285

  36.1

  Northamptonshire

  1,117

  181.4

  599

  97.3

  199

  32.3

  Northumbria

  3,788

  265.7

  1,417

  99.4

  332

  23.3

  North Yorkshire

  1,283

  172.9

  492

  66.3

  217

  29.2

  Nottinghamshire

  2,204

  213.7

  1,024

  99.3

  411

  39.8

  South Yorkshire

  3,163

  242.5

  1,391

  106.6

  205

  15.7

  478W 479W

  Table 2: Police service strength as at 31 March 2000

  Police force

  Total police officers1

  Total officers per 100,000 population2

  Total civilians1

  Total civilians per 100,000 population2

  Total specials3

  Total specials per 100,000 population2

  Staffordshire

  2,170

  204.4

  858

  80 8

  482

  45.4

  Suffolk

  1,145

  170.7

  600

  89.3

  391

  58.3

  Surrey4

  1,785

  226.9

  762

  96.8

  175

  22.2

  Sussex

  2,822

  188.3

  1,328

  88.6

  352

  23.5

  Thames Valley

  3,740

  178.2

  1,786

  85.1

  472

  22.5

  Warwickshire

  900

  177.5

  394

  77.8

  260

  51.3

  West Mercia

  1,887

  166.0

  1,043

  91.8

  476

  41.9

  West Midlands

  7,194

  273.7

  2,695

  102.6

  680

  25.9

  West Yorkshire

  4,822

  228.2

  2,199

  104.0

  484

  22.9

  Wiltshire

  1,118

  184.6

  563

  93.0

  173

  28.6

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,040

  216.9

  359

  74.9

  202

  42.1

  Gwent

  1,264

  226.8

  498

  89.3

  119

  21.4

  North Wales

  1,403

  213.4

  519

  78.9

  247

  37.6

  South Wales

  2,926

  236.1

  1,081

  87.2

  267

  21.5

  Total police service7

  124,170

  236.8

  53,227

  102

  14,347

  27.4

  1 Full-time equivalents.

  2 Office for National Statistics mid-year 1998 estimates.

  3 Actual number.

  4 Prior to 1 April 2000 the Metropolitan police district included areas of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. After that date the responsibility for policing these areas transferred to the county forces, to compensate for the additional area police officer resources were transferred from the Metropolitan police to the surrounding forces, more information is available in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 2/01. In tables 1 and 2 population estimates are based on the size of the police force areas, table 3 is based on the size of the county.

  5 Officers per 100,000 population for City of London and Metropolitan police are combined.

  6 Most of the change in number of special constables in the Metropolitan police between September 1999 and March 2000 is due to an update of the personnel records which removed constables who were no longer serving in the force.

  7 Total includes secondments to central services, inter-force units, NCS and NCIS.

  Table 3: Police service strength as at 30 September 2000

  Police force

  Total police officers1

  Total officers per 100,000 population2

  Total civilians1

  Total civilians per 100,000 population2

  Total specials3

  Total specials per 100,000 population2

  Avon and Somerset

  2,941

  195.9

  1,437

  95.8

  416

  27.7

  Bedfordshire

  1,006

  179.0

  493

  87.7

  134

  23.8

  Cambridgeshire

  1,266

  174.7

  543

  74.8

  214

  29.5

  Cheshire

  2,000

  203.6

  870

  88.5

  307

  31.2

  Cleveland

  1,421

  255.6

  598

  107.5

  122

  21.9

  Cumbria

  1,048

  213.0

  505

  102.6

  167

  34.0

  Derbyshire

  1,780

  182.8

  865

  88.8

  286

  29.4

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,873

  183.0

  1,391

  88.6

  836

  53.3

  Dorset

  1,299

  187.6

  681

  98.3

  278

  40.1

  Durham

  1,581

  260.6

  573

  94.5

  155

  25.5

  Essex4

  2,780

  171.8

  1,472

  91.0

  478

  29.5

  Gloucestershire

  1,142

  203.3

  498

  88.6

  197

  35.1

  Greater Manchester

  6,767

  262.6

  2,845

  110.4

  408

  15.8

  Hampshire

  3,435

  192.9

  1,462

  82.1

  541

  30.4

  Hertfordshire4

  1,961

  188.0

  948

  90.9

  214

  20.5

  Humberside

  1,905

  216.1

  783

  88.8

  198

  22.5

  Kent

  3,239

  204.1

  1,670

  105.2

  416

  26.2

  Lancashire

  3,215

  225.5

  1,351

  94.7

  362

  25.4

  Leicestershire

  2,010

  215.0

  808

  86.4

  202

  21.6

  Lincolnshire

  1,162

  184.8

  554

  88.1

  179

  28.5

  London, City of5

  720

  5—

  235

  5—

  46

  1—

  Merseyside

  4,081

  290.7

  1,437

  102.4

  452

  32.2

  Metropolitan police4, 5, 6

  24,695

  348.9

  10,147

  142.5

  754

  11.0

  Norfolk

  1,387

  174.1

  651

  81.7

  270

  33.9

  Northamptonshire

  1,166

  187.7

  3825

  132.8

  195

  31.4

  Northumbria

  3,885

  273.8

  1,413

  99.6

  323

  22.8

  North Yorkshire

  1,293

  173.0

  533

  71.3

  189

  25.3

  Nottinghamshire

  2,232

  216.1

  987

  95.6

  411

  39.8

  South Yorkshire

  3,184

  244.5

  1,399

  107.4

  193

  14.8

  Staffordshire

  2,157

  203.4

  897

  84.6

  461

  43.5

  Suffolk

  1,115

  165.2

  592

  87.8

  376

  55.7

  Surrey4

  2,113

  196.0

  865

  80.2

  168

  15.6

  Sussex

  2,812

  185.6

  1,405

  92.8

  317

  20.9

  Thames Valley

  3,748

  177.1

  1,890

  89.3

  463

  21.9

  Warwickshire

  912

  179.5

  388

  76.4

  260

  51.2

  West Mercia

  1,906

  167.1

  1,026

  90.0

  443

  38.8

  West Midlands

  7,350

  279.8

  2,821

  107.4

  662

  25.2

  480W 481W

  Table 3: Police service strength as at 30 September 2000

  Police force

  Total police officers1

  Total officers per 100,000 population2

  Total civilians1

  Total civilians per 100,000 population2

  Total specials3

  Total specials per 100,000 population2

  West Yorkshire

  4,806

  227.2

  2,208

  104.4

  452

  21.4

  Wiltshire

  1,099

  180.1

  574

  94.1

  172

  28.2

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,045

  217.4

  393

  81.7

  193

  40.2

  Gwent

  1,271

  228.3

  490

  88.0

  131

  23.5

  North Wales

  1,393

  211.8

  511

  77.7

  233

  35.4

  South Wales

  3,029

  243.9

  1,293

  104.1

  254

  20.5

  Total police service7

  124,614

  236.5

  54,032

  103

  13,528

  25.7

  1 Full-time equivalents.

  2 Office for National Statistics mid-year 1999 estimates.

  3 Actual number.

  4 Prior to 1 April 2000 the Metropolitan police district included areas of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. After that date the responsibility for policing these areas transferred to the county forces. To compensate for this additional area police officer resources were transferred from the Metropolitan police to the surrounding forces, more information is available in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 2/01. In tables 1 and 2 population estimates are based on the size of the police force areas, table 3 is based on the size of the county.

  5 Officers per 100,000 population for City of London and Metropolitan police are combined.

  6 Most of the change in number of special constables in the Metropolitan police between September 1999 and March 2000 is due to an update of the personnel records which removed constables who were no longer serving in the force.

  7 Total includes secondments to central services, inter-force units, NCS and NCIS.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) total wastage and (b) actual wastage in police numbers took place on a monthly basis in 2000 in respect of each police force. [145102]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The data requested are not available centrally on a monthly basis; six monthly information is contained in Home Office Statistical Bulletins 15/00 and 2/01.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) full-time equivalents and (b) officers available for duty there were in each police force area in (a) March 1997 and (b) September 2000; and if he will make a statement. [144967]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The requested details are given in the table. It is not possible from the available statistics to separate figures for officers available for duty. Officers may be moved between operational and operational support duties without notice.

  Police service strength as at 30 September 2000 and March 1997

  Police force

  1,2Total police officers September 2000

  1Total police officers March 1997

  Avon and Somerset

  2,941

  2,989

  Bedfordshire

  1,006

  1,094

  Cambridgeshire

  1,266

  1,302

  Cheshire

  2,000

  2,046

  Cleveland

  1,421

  1,459

  Cumbria

  1,048

  1,144

  Derbyshire

  1,780

  1,791

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,873

  2,865

  Dorset

  1,299

  1,284

  Durham

  1,581

  1,461

  Essex2

  2,780

  2,961

  Gloucestershire

  1,142

  1,133

  Greater Manchester

  6,767

  6,922

  Hampshire

  3,435

  3,452

  Hertfordshire2

  1,961

  1,759

  Humberside

  1,905

  2,045

  Kent

  3,239

  3,260

  Lancashire

  3,215

  3,247

  Leicestershire

  2,010

  1,949

  Lincolnshire

  1,162

  1,196

  482W

  Police service strength as at 30 September 2000 and March 1997

  Police force

  1, 2Total police officers September 2000

  1Total police officers March 1997

  London, City of

  720

  859

  Merseyside

  4,081

  4,230

  Metropolitan police2

  24,695

  26,677

  Norfolk

  1,387

  1,432

  Northamptonshire

  1,166

  1,177

  Northumbria

  3,885

  3,677

  North Yorkshire

  1,293

  1,338

  Nottinghamshire

  2,232

  2,323

  South Yorkshire

  3,184

  3,159

  Staffordshire

  2,157

  2,211

  Suffolk

  1,115

  1,180

  Surrey2

  2,113

  1,620

  Sussex

  2,812

  3,085

  Thames Valley

  3,748

  3,695

  Warwickshire

  912

  926

  West Mercia

  1,906

  2,040

  West Midlands

  7,350

  7,113

  West Yorkshire

  4,806

  5,209

  Wiltshire

  1,099

  1,154

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,045

  1,005

  Gwent

  1,271

  1,243

  North Wales

  1,393

  1,369

  South Wales

  3,029

  2,976

  Total police service3

  124,614

  125,051

  1 Full-time equivalents.

  2 Prior to 1 April 2000 the Metropolitan Police District included areas of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. After that date the responsibility for policing these areas transferred to the country forces. To compensate for the additional area police officer resources were transferred from the Metropolitan Police to the surrounding forces, more information is available in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 2/01.

  3 Includes secondments to central services, inter-force units, NCS and NCIS.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total number of(a) police officers and (b) special constables was and what the number of police officers per head of population was per police force and in total in (i) September 2000 and (ii) March 2000. [145709]
  483W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Table 1: Police service strength as at 31 March 2000

  Police force

  Total police officers1

  Total officers per 100,000 population2

  Total specials3

  Avon and Somerset

  2,934

  197.1

  459

  Bedfordshire

  1,028

  184.7

  151

  Cambridgeshire

  1,237

  171.8

  274

  Cheshire

  2,011

  204.3

  350

  Cleveland

  1,404

  252.3

  128

  Cumbria

  1,084

  219.9

  176

  Derbyshire

  1,777

  183.2

  282

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,841

  182.3

  870

  Dorset

  1,306

  188.9

  298

  Durham

  1,558

  256.3

  157

  Essex4

  2,806

  183.0

  483

  Gloucestershire

  1,114

  199.9

  206

  Greater Manchester

  6,795

  263.6

  457

  Hampshire

  3,419

  193.1

  615

  Hertfordshire4

  1,767

  201.1

  216

  Humberside

  1,932

  218.8

  246

  Kent

  3,204

  203.5

  436

  Lancashire

  3,179

  222.8

  382

  Leicestershire

  1,993

  214.6

  247

  Lincolnshire

  1,115

  178.9

  195

  London, City of5

  732

  —

  56

  Merseyside

  4,085

  289.8

  476

  Metropolitan police4, 5, 6

  25,485

  341.0

  758

  Norfolk

  1,381

  174.8

  285

  Northamptonshire

  1,117

  181.4

  199

  Northumbria

  3,788

  265.7

  332

  North Yorkshire

  1,283

  172.9

  217

  Nottinghamshire

  2,204

  213.7

  411

  South Yorkshire

  3,163

  242.5

  205

  Staffordshire

  2,170

  204.4

  482

  Suffolk

  1,145

  170.7

  391

  Surrey4

  1,785

  226.9

  175

  Sussex

  2,822

  188.3

  352

  Thames Valley

  3,740

  178.2

  472

  Warwickshire

  900

  177.5

  260

  West Mercia

  1,887

  166.0

  476

  West Midlands

  7,194

  273.7

  680

  West Yorkshire

  4,822

  228.2

  484

  Wiltshire

  1,118

  184.6

  173

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,040

  216.9

  202

  Gwent

  1,264

  226.8

  119

  North Wales

  1,403

  213.4

  247

  South Wales

  2,926

  236.1

  267

  Total police service2

  124,170

  236.8

  14,347

  1 Full-time equivalents

  2 Office for National Statistics mid-year 1998 estimates

  3 Actual number

  4 Prior to 1 April 2000 the Metropolitan police district included areas of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. After that date the responsibility for policing these areas transferred to the county forces. To compensate for the additional area police officer resources were transferred from the Metropolitan police to the surrounding forces, more information is available in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 2/01. In table 1 population estimates are based on the size of the police force areas. Table 2 is based on the size of the county.

  5 Officers per 100,000 population for City of London and Metropolitan police are combined.

  6 Most of the change in number of special constables in the Metropolitan police between September 1999 and March 2000 is due to an update of the personnel records which removed constables who were no longer serving in the force.

  7 Total includes secondments to central services, inter-force units, NCS and NCIS.

  484W

  Table 2: Police service strength as at 30 September 2000

  Police force

  Total police officers1

  Total officers per 100,000 population2

  Total specials3

  Avon and Somerset

  2,941

  195.9

  416

  Bedfordshire

  1,006

  179.0

  134

  Cambridgeshire

  1,266

  174.7

  214

  Cheshire

  2,000

  203.6

  307

  Cleveland

  1,421

  255.6

  122

  Cumbria

  1,048

  213.0

  167

  Derbyshire

  1,780

  182.8

  286

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,873

  183.0

  836

  Dorset

  1,299

  187.6

  278

  Durham

  1,581

  260.6

  155

  Essex4

  2,780

  171.8

  478

  Gloucestershire

  1,142

  203.3

  197

  Greater Manchester

  6,767

  262.6

  408

  Hampshire

  3,435

  192.9

  541

  Hertfordshire4

  1,961

  188.0

  214

  Humberside

  1,905

  216.1

  198

  Kent

  3,239

  204.1

  416

  Lancashire

  3,215

  225.5

  362

  Leicestershire

  2,010

  215.0

  202

  Lincolnshire

  1,162

  184.8

  179

  London, City of5

  720

  —

  46

  Merseyside

  4,081

  290.7

  452

  Metropolitan police4,5,6

  24,695

  348.9

  754

  Norfolk

  1,387

  174.1

  270

  Northamptonshire

  1,166

  187.7

  195

  Northumbria

  3,885

  273.8

  323

  North Yorkshire

  1,293

  173.0

  189

  Nottinghamshire

  2,232

  216.1

  411

  South Yorkshire

  3,184

  244.5

  193

  Staffordshire

  2,157

  203.4

  461

  Suffolk

  1,115

  165.2

  376

  Surrey4

  2,113

  196.0

  168

  Sussex

  2,812

  185.6

  317

  Thames Valley

  3,748

  177.1

  463

  Warwickshire

  912

  179.5

  260

  West Mercia

  1,906

  167.1

  443

  West Midlands

  7,350

  279.8

  662

  West Yorkshire

  4,806

  227.2

  452

  Wiltshire

  1,099

  180.1

  172

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,045

  217.4

  193

  Gwent

  1,271

  228.3

  131

  North Wales

  1,393

  211.8

  233

  South Wales

  3,029

  243.9

  254

  Total police service7

  124,614

  236.5

  13,528

  1 Full-time equivalents

  2 Office for National Statistics mid-year 1998 estimates

  3 Actual number

  4 Prior to 1 April 2000 the Metropolitan police district included areas of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. After that date the responsibility for policing these areas transferred to the county forces. To compensate for the additional area police officer resources were transferred from the Metropolitan police to the surrounding forces, more information is available in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 2/01. In table 1 population estimates are based on the size of the police force areas, table 2 is based on the size of the county.

  5 Officers per 100,000 population for City of London and Metropolitan police are combined.

  6 Most of the change in number of special constables in the Metropolitan police between September 1999 and March 2000 is due to an update of the personnel records which removed constables who were no longer serving in the force.

  7 Total includes secondments to central services, inter-force units, NCS and NCIS.

  Street Robberies (Mobile Phones)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of street robberies in the Metropolitan police area were robberies of mobile phones in(a) each of the last four calendar years for which figures are available and (b) the period since the end of the last calendar year for which figures are available. [145345]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 January 2001]: The information requested has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and is shown in the table.

  Offences of street crime where telephone equipment was stolen

  Year

  Total

  Percentage of all robberies

  1997

  3,484

  11

  1998

  4,538

  15

  1999

  8,805

  23

  2000

  19,302

  39

  It is thought that most of the offences given above relate to mobile telephones. No figures are yet available for 2001. From 1 January this year, figures will be available specifically for mobile telephones, as opposed to telephone equipment.

  Urban and Rural Area Designation
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what areas are currently designated as urban and rural for determining financial allocations and other departmental purposes; and what changes in designation have taken place, in the areas so designated over the last 20 years. [145838]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office does not generally designate areas as urban or rural, either for the purpose of financial allocation or for other purposes. However, the relative sparsity, or otherwise, of the population of each police area is one of the factors taken into account in determining the allocation of police grant to police authorities. From 2001–02, police forces with relatively sparse populations will also be eligible for the new rural policing grant. Entitlement to this grant will be determined on the basis of population density information. Payment of £30 million a year will be made in this way, £15 million has been similarly made available for 2000–01.

  Custodial Assault
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigation he has carried out into the claims that a young person in custody whose name has been supplied to him, assaulted a fellow inmate; what account was taken of this allegation in decisions relating to the continued custody of the person carrying out the alleged assault; and if he will make a statement. [146415]

  Mr. Boateng
  The local authority establishment concerned has been asked to provide reports on the alleged incident. Any report confirming that an assault took place will be submitted to the Parole Board whose responsibility it is to decide on the release of young offenders of this sort.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 23 November 2000 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Aras Saleh. [145720]

  (2) when he intends to reply to the letter sent to him dated 14 November 2000 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. K. M. Khan. [145721]

  Mr. Straw
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 19 January 2001.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to answer the letter from the hon. Member for Northavon, acknowledged on 18 August 2000 (Ref. 162520) regarding travellers. [146109]

  Mr. Straw
  I apologies to the hon. Member for Northavon for the unacceptable delay in replying to his letter dated 16 August 2000, the receipt of which was acknowledged on 18 August 2000.

  The questions raised in the letter were more properly matters for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) than for the Home Office and arrangements were therefore made for the letter to be transferred to that Department for reply.

  I regret to say that owing to a failure of our normal procedures, the transfer did not take place and the hon. Member's letter was mislaid in the Home Office.

  A second copy of the hon. Member's letter of 16 August has now been received. It was sent on 17 January 2001 to the DETR who have undertaken to reply to him as quickly as possible.

  Robert Thompson and Jon Venables
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he will use in setting a release date for Robert Thompson and Jon Venables; and if he will make a statement. [146416]

  Mr. Boateng
  The decision whether to release those detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, once tariff has expired, is a matter for the independent Parole Board following a hearing of the case by a panel of three members of the Board. The timing of the hearing is for the Board to decide.

  Before directing release, the Board must be satisfied, in accordance with section 28(6)(b) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public for the detainee to continue to be confined.

  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that neither Robert Thompson nor Jon Venables will be relocated in Suffolk or neighbouring counties. [146417]

  Mr. Boateng
  No decisions have been taken about the release arrangements for these two detainees. The details of any such arrangements will be covered by a High Court injunction made on 9 January 2001, and will not be disclosable.

  Fraud and Forgery
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences in the broad categories of fraud and forgery were committed in each of the last five years for which statistics are available, together with the clear-up rate. [146394]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Fraud and forgery is a main offence category in itself in recorded crime statistics. The recorded crime figures for this category in England and Wales for the last five years are as follows.

  Year

  Number of offences

  Clear-up rate (percentage)

  1995

  133,016

  50

  1996

  136,225

  49

  1997

  134,398

  48

  1998–991

  279,503

  36

  1999–20001,2

  334,773

  30

  1 Years ending March. Numbers of offences recorded under the new counting rules for recorded crime, which were introduced on 1 April 1998. These new rules particularly impacted on the fraud and forgery category, and were estimated to have increased the number of offences counted by 61 per cent. Clear-up rates before and after this date are not directly comparable.

  2 New counting rules for clear-ups were introduced on 1 April 1999. Clear-up rates before and after this date are not directly comparable.

  Police Wastage
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the expected wastage from each police force in England and Wales for(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [146293]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 17 January 2001,Official Report, columns 275–76W, for the years 2001–02 and 2002–03. Forces have not been asked to forecast wastage for 2003–04.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the monthly wastage from each police force in England and Wales in 2000–01 to date, and the expected wastage in the remainder of 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [146292]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information about wastage is not collected centrally on a monthly basis; information about wastage for the six months to 30 September 2000 is contained in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 2/01, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  No separate forecast has been made of wastage from each force for the remainder of 2000–01, but I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 17 January 2001, Official Report, columns 275–76W, for a forecast for the whole of 2000–01.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons have been released on the home detention curfew scheme to date before serving the requisite period; what offences they committed; what(a) the sentence served and (b) the requisite period was
  488W
  in each case; how many were recalled to prison to serve the remainder of the requisite period; and if he will make a statement; [146288]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the home detention curfew scheme on public confidence in (a) the sentencing process and (b) the criminal justice system; [146283]

  (3) if it is his policy to inform victims when an offender is released on the home detention curfew scheme; and if he will make a statement. [146282]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not a requirement that victims are informed when placing a prisoner on Home Detention Curfew (HDC). In some cases victims will be consulted as part of the risk assessment process which all eligible prisoners have to undergo before being placed on the scheme, and in consequence may become aware of the release of a prisoner.

  Although no formal assessment has been made, there is no reason to believe that HDC has adversely affected public confidence in the sentencing process or the wider criminal justice system. The HDC scheme received the unanimous support of the all-party Home Affairs Committee, and its report, Alternatives to Custody Cm 4174 (1998), was signed by several Opposition Members. The HDC scheme itself received the support of Parliament, including Opposition Members. The HDC scheme protects the public by providing selected short term prisoners with a monitored return to the community, helping them to re-integrate into the wider community of which they are members.

  I will write further to the hon. Member about prisoners released before serving the requisite period.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to require sentencers to explain the effect on release dates of the home detention curfew scheme when passing sentence; and if he will make a statement. [146284]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are committed to ensuring that the implications of sentencing are explained in open court, but believe that this is best achieved through the issue of practice directions from the Lord Chief Justice. The then Lord Chief Justice issued a practice direction in January 1998 requiring a court imposing a custodial sentence to explain the practical effect of that sentence for the benefit of the defendant, any victim and members of the public. Although the practice direction was issued before home detention curfew became available, it specifically states that if the statutory provisions governing early release are materially amended, then the model statements annexed to the direction will require modification. Courts are therefore already expected to explain the possible effect of home detention curfew on the offender.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the planned police recruitment intakes in England and Wales for(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04, broken down by force, differentiating recruits under the Crime Fighting Fund initiative and those who would otherwise be recruited. [146291]
  489W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Forces have not been asked to provide a forecast of recruitment for each intake in the years 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  In their bids for a share of the recruitment scheme of the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF), made in January 2000, forces provided information on their projected recruitment over the following three years. The Metropolitan police service (MPS) has subsequently provided revised figures for total recruitment, but not for appointments on transfer.

  Part (a) of the table shows the estimates forces have given for recruitment in terms of appointments on probation and projected transfers (i.e. transfers into each force from another) for 2000–01 and 2001–02. No projections have been sought for 2003–04.

  In addition to the previously planned recruitment, forces have been allocated recruits from the CFF. Part (b) of the table shows current force allocations from the Crime Fighting Fund for 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  Force

  2001–02

  2002–03

  (a) Total; projected appointments on probation plus transfers in

  Avon and Somerset

  105

  105

  Bedfordshire

  54

  54

  Cambridgeshire

  67

  62

  Cheshire

  86

  83

  City of London

  52

  52

  Cleveland

  64

  59

  Cumbria

  60

  60

  Derbyshire

  76

  59

  Devon and Cornwall

  68

  90

  Dorset

  72

  61

  Durham

  61

  59

  Dyfed-Powys

  46

  44

  Essex

  123

  125

  Gloucestershire

  75

  75

  Greater Manchester

  289

  267

  Gwent

  82

  57

  Hampshire

  167

  185

  Hertfordshire

  142

  130

  Humberside

  0

  0

  Kent

  75

  154

  Lancashire

  86

  86

  Leicestershire

  92

  103

  Lincolnshire

  66

  55

  Merseyside

  50

  50

  Metropolitan

  1,661

  2,003

  Norfolk

  43

  41

  North Wales

  62

  62

  North Yorkshire

  73

  75

  Northamptonshire

  43

  47

  Northumbria

  137

  134

  Nottinghamshire

  84

  84

  South Wales

  174

  174

  South Yorkshire

  92

  92

  Staffordshire

  39

  78

  Suffolk

  40

  59

  Surrey

  262

  130

  Sussex

  175

  175

  Thames Valley

  180

  171

  Warwickshire

  48

  48

  West Mercia

  60

  100

  West Midlands

  350

  350

  West Yorkshire

  115

  115

  Wiltshire

  35

  39

  Total

  5,731

  6,052

  490W

  Force

  2001–02

  2002–03

  (b) Allocation of recruits from the Crime Fighting Fund1

  Avon and Somerset

  51

  77

  Bedfordshire

  31

  31

  Cambridgeshire

  34

  24

  Cheshire

  69

  50

  City of London

  23

  15

  Cleveland

  27

  27

  Cumbria

  23

  26

  Derbyshire

  39

  54

  Devon and Cornwall

  79

  79

  Dorset

  9

  30

  Durham

  27

  38

  Dyfed-Powys

  38

  16

  Essex

  132

  65

  Gloucestershire

  35

  22

  Greater Manchester

  256

  201

  Gwent

  3

  32

  Hampshire

  139

  84

  Hertfordshire

  70

  37

  Humberside

  41

  49

  Kent

  62

  76

  Lancashire

  69

  74

  Leicestershire

  56

  38

  Lincolnshire

  18

  29

  Merseyside

  93

  114

  Metropolitan

  814

  682

  Norfolk

  41

  31

  North Wales

  32

  38

  North Yorkshire

  23

  25

  Northamptonshire

  0

  26

  Northumbria

  101

  82

  Nottinghamshire

  53

  52

  South Wales

  49

  50

  South Yorkshire

  61

  69

  Staffordshire

  51

  46

  Suffolk

  21

  31

  Surrey

  0

  40

  Sussex

  82

  73

  Thames Valley

  177

  106

  Warwickshire

  0

  24

  West Mercia

  39

  43

  West Midlands

  130

  171

  West Yorkshire

  91

  94

  Wiltshire

  21

  29

  Total

  3,210

  3,000

  1 Allocations may differ from previously published figures, as they include agreed acceleration or deferral of CFF recruits between 2000–01 and 2001–02. In the case of the Metropolitan police agreement has been given to defer up to 155 CFF recruits from 2000–01 into 2001–02, but the force now expects to defer only 115.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recruits in each police force area under the Crime Fighting Fund initiative had previously made application to join the police service and been rejected. [146295]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information is not collected centrally on whether recruits to the police service have previously made an application to join the police service and been rejected.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions(a) the trial judge and (b) the Court of Appeal has exercised the discretion

  491W
  not to impose the prescribed custodial sentence under (i) section 110 and (ii) section 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000; what the reasons in each case were; what sentence was imposed in each case; and if he will make a statement. [146286]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Currently maintained statistics do not allow the identification of the occasions where the trial judge decided not to impose the prescribed custodial sentences under sections 110 and 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (formerly sections 3 and 4 of Crime (Sentences) Act 1997) or where the Court of Appeal either upheld such a decision or allowed an appeal against the imposition of such a sentence.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions(a) the trial judge and (b) the Court of Appeal has exercised the discretion not to impose a life sentence under section 109 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000; what the reasons were in each case; what sentence was imposed in each case; and if he will make a statement. [146285]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Currently maintained statistics do not allow the identification of the occasions where the trial judge decided not to impose an automatic life sentence under section 109 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (formerly section 2 Crime (Sentences) Act 1997) or where the Court of Appeal either upheld such a decision or allowed an appeal against the imposition of such a sentence.

  For the hon. Member's information, however, the Court of Appeal gave judgment in the cases of Matthew Offen, Peter McGilliard, Darren McKeown, Christova Okwuegbunam and Stephen Saunders on 9 November 2000. In all the cases challenges were made to the imposition of an automatic life sentence under section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. The court upheld Offen and McKeown's appeals, substituting determinate terms of three years in place of a life sentence. Section 109 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 provides that if the conditions of the section are fulfilled an offender should receive a life sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances relating to either the offences or to the offender which would justify his not doing so. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal there were exceptional circumstances in both cases that made the imposition of an automatic sentence unjustified.

  Internal Communications Advisers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many internal communications advisers are employed by his Department; how many are to be recruited in the current recruitment process; and what the cost to public funds is. [146294]

  Mr. Straw
  There are currently eight internal communications advisers in the Home Office. A further three advisers are being sought in the current recruitment process. The cost of this recruitment is £32,732.

  Stop and Search
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many stops and searches were conducted 492W
  in each police force area in England and Wales in each month of the last five years for which figures are available, broken down by ethnic origin of the person stopped; how many resulted in an arrest; and if he will make a statement. [146287]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on stops and searches is not collected centrally on a monthly basis, and information on the ethnicity of those persons stopped and searched has only been collected since 1 April 1997.

  Annual figures for each police force are contained in "Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System", 1998, 1999 and 2000, Home Office publications under section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, copies of which are in the Library. A quarterly breakdown of these figures is not possible without disproportionate cost.

  Police Performance
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the performance measures, indicators, targets and milestones that have been established for the police since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [145716]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In April 2000, Best Value was introduced for police authorities. Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) have replaced all previous performance indicators for the police. For 2000–01, there are 37 BVPIs. For 2001–02, there will be 32, although three of these will not be reported on until 2002–03. The BVPIs are specified under section 4 of the Local Government Act 1999 and are published jointly by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), Home Office and Audit Commission. They are available in the Library and on the DETR website (www.detr.gov.uk). There are also two Ministerial Priorities, although there are no separate Performance Indicators attached to these. These are:to reduce crime and disorder in partnership with local authorities, other local agencies and the public; and
  to increase trust and confidence in policing among minority ethnic communities.

  Under Best Value, all police authorities were required to set five-year reduction on targets for domestic burglary and vehicle crime (BVPIs 126 and 128). Five metropolitan police authorities (Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Metropolitan, West Midlands and West Yorkshire) were required to set five-year reduction targets for robbery (BVPI 127). We do not set milestones, although police authorities may choose to do so. They may also choose to set local indicators and targets.

  Crime Victims
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date it is planned to implement measures to ensure victims of crime are kept informed by the Crown Prosecution Service of the progress of their case; and if he will make a statement. [145705]
  493W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  From 1 April 2001, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will begin the phased implementation of a system to ensure that victims are informed of decisions, or given explanations for decisions, for which the CPS has responsibility. The police will continue to have responsibility for informing victims about other significant developments in their case.

  Community Sentences
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders completed accredited programmes in the community in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [145717]

  Mr. Boateng
  The only programme to be accredited before September 2000 was the Think First General Offending Programme; since its accreditation there have been an estimated 80 completions in Devon and Teesside (both Pathfinder areas). Those programmes accredited at the Joint Accreditation Panel in September 2000 have only been run in pilot/pre-accredited form. A small number of offenders will have completed the programme during the pathfinder development stages, but no figures are available.

  Released Offenders (Drugs)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what proportion of offenders on post release supervision were referred to drug treatment in the last two years; and if he will make a statement. [145707]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Police Expenditure
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the change was in expenditure on policing in total and in real terms in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [145708]

  Mr. Clarke
  The information is set out in the table.

  Escapes from establishments by category of prisoner

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  Category A

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Category B

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Category C

  23

  14

  14

  12

  2

  Category D

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Females—non-Category A

  —

  1

  1

  4

  —

  Young offenders—closed

  —

  —

  2

  3

  —

  Unsentenced male remand

  3

  2

  4

  4

  —

  Not categorised sentenced male

  7

  4

  7

  7

  4

  Totals

  33

  23

  28

  30

  7

  1 Up to 31 December 2000

  494W

  Police authority net expenditure 1990–91 to 1999–2000

  £000

  Percentage change in real terms

  1990–91

  4,575,781

  2.4

  1991–92

  5,180,381

  6.7

  1992–93

  5,594,472

  4.6

  1993–94

  5,882,228

  2.4

  1994–95

  6,152,155

  3.1

  1995–96

  6,309,059

  0.3

  1996–97

  6,619,778

  1.7

  1997–98

  6,870,093

  0.9

  1998–99

  7,070,687

  0.1

  1999–2000

  7,450,358

  2.9

  Source:

  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police statistics (Actuals)

  Percentage changes have been calculated in real terms at 1999–2000 prices using Gross Domestic Product deflator as at December 2000.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total expenditure on advertising to recruit special constables was in the last five years; what the total number of new recruits was during the same period; what the net change in the number of specials over the period was; and if he will make a statement. [145710]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The total expenditure on special constable recruitment advertising is assessed at the end of each financial year in March. The total expenditure for the five years, from March 1995 to March 2000 was £5,595,000.

  The total number of special constables recruited in the five years 1995–1996 to 1999–2000 was 17,817.

  There has been a net loss of 2,137 special constables during the period 1995 to 2000.

  Prison Escapes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many escapes there have been from(a) all Prison Service establishments, per category and in total and (b) Prison Service escorts, including contracted out escorts, in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [145706]

  Mr. Boateng
  The table gives the information requested by prisoner category.
  495W

  Escapes from escort (both prison service and contracted out areas)

  Year

  Number

  1996–97

  98

  1997–98

  82

  1998–99

  62

  1999–2000

  67

  2000–011

  53

  1 Up to 31 December 2000

  Prisons (Education)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoners discharged in each of the last three years were at level 1 or below in literacy and numeracy skills; and if he will make a statement. [145718]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information is not available in the form requested. Data on the results of Basic Skills Agency screening tests taken by prisoners while in custody in the last two years are set out in the table. Data are not available for years before 1998.

  Year

  Competence

  Numbers tested

  Percentage below Level 1

  Percentage at Level 1

  1998

  Reading

  47,298

  26.8

  25.3

  1998

  Writing

  46,032

  39

  33.7

  1998

  Numeracy

  59.440

  34.7

  34.8

  1999–2000

  Reading

  89,623

  30.5

  19.3

  1999–2000

  Writing

  97,681

  47.3

  33.7

  1999–2000

  Numeracy

  89,572

  37.6

  29

  Note:

  Data in 1998 collected by calendar year to match education contract.

  Antisocial Behaviour (High Energy Drinks)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on possible links between the use of high energy drinks and anti-social behaviour; and if he will make a statement. [145952]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have not received any representations on links between the use of high energy drinks and anti-social behaviour.

  Intelligence Services Act
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions since May 1997 a warrant has been issued under the provision of section 6(1) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994; and if he will make a statement; [146136]

  (2) on how many occasions since May 1997 he has exercised his powers under section 7(1) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994; and if he will make a statement; [146132]

  (3) how many warrants he has issued for interference with (a) property and (b) wireless telegraphy under section 5(1) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 since May 1997; and if he will make a statement; [146144]

  (4) on how many occasions he has exercised his power under section 6(3) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994; and if he will make a statement; [146134]
  496W
  (5) on how many occasions he has received an application from the Security Service in accordance with provisions of section 5(4) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994; and if he will make a statement; [146137]

  (6) on how many occasions he has cancelled a warrant in accordance with section 6(4) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994; [146133]

  (7) how many warrants he has issued in accordance with section 5(3) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 for the purpose of the taking of action in support of the prevention or detection of serious crime outside of the British Islands; and if he will make a statement. [146135]

  Mr. Straw
  It is not the Government's practice to publish information about warrants under the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The exercise of the Secretary of State's powers under the Act is overseen by the Commissioner appointed under the Act, who reports annually to the Prime Minister who has a duty under the legislation to lay the report before each House of Parliament. The last annual report, for 1999, was laid before the House in July 2000 (CM4779). The Commissioner explained, as in previous reports, that he had not disclosed the numbers of warrants issued and renewed in the course of the year because particulars of the actual numbers would assist the operation of those hostile to the state.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the members of the tribunal constituted under the provision of Schedule 2 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. [146130]

  Mr. Straw
  The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 consolidated the tribunals previously provided under Intelligence Services Act 1994, the Security Service Act 1989, and the Interception of Communications Act 1985 into a single tribunal. As regards its members, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on 1 November 2000,Official Report, columns 517–18W.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions since May 1997 the tribunal under the provisions of section 6(1) of Schedule 1 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 has determined that(a) the Intelligence Service and (b) GCHQ did not have reasonable grounds for their actions; and if he will make a statement; [146138]

  (2) on how many occasions the Commissioner has considered a reference under paragraphs 2 and 4 of Schedule 1 to the Intelligence Services Act 1994; on how many occasions he has deemed that the Secretary of State has acted improperly in (a) issuing a warrant and (b) renewing a warrant; and if he will make a statement; [146146]

  (3) how many complaints the tribunal provided under section 9(1) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 has received since May 1997; and how many complaints it has determined; [146131]

  (4) what remedies have been awarded since May 1997 under the provisions of section 8(1) of Schedule 1 to the Intelligence Services Act 1994; and if he will make a statement. [146139]
  497W
  Mr. Straw
  The information sought is contained in the annual reports of the Commissioner appointed under the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The last annual report was the one for 1999 laid before the House in July 2000 (Cm 4777).

  For convenience, a summary of the available figures since 1997 is as follows: the Tribunal has received and determined 20 complaints; on no occasion did the Tribunal, or Commissioner, uphold a compliant; therefore no remedies have been awarded; and of the 12 occasions that the Commissioner considered referrals under paragraphs 2 and 4 of Schedule 1 to the Act on no occasion did he find that I had acted improperly.

  The Commissioner's report gives figures for calendar years, so the figures included for 1997 covers the whole year.

  Richard Watson
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will request a report from the Chief Constable of Sussex Police on the action it proposes to take following the Police Complaints Authority investigation into matters arising from the murder of Richard Watson. [146123]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am advised by the Chief Constable of the Sussex Police that a second investigation into the murder of Richard Watson is under way but that he cannot comment on it at this stage as it might interfere with progress. I am assured that lessons from the first investigation will be learned and that new processes and procedures will be followed in the new investigation.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the findings of the Police Complaints Authority investigation into the complaint made by Linda Watson and Amanda Lord-Williams. [146126]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan police carried out an investigation in to the complaint made by Linda Watson and Amanda London-Williams; the investigation 498W
  was supervised by the Police Complaints Authority. I am satisfied that the investigation was thorough and that it identified properly the systemic failures which led to the shortfalls and errors in the original murder investigation. The main responsibility for the failures rested with the senior investigating officer who was found to be guilty of neglect of duty. He cannot be subject to disciplinary proceedings as he retired from the Sussex police.

  Crime Clear-up Rates
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the clear-up rate for recorded crime in England on the latest date for which figures are available. [146332]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Clear-up rates are assessed for financial years. The clear-up rate for all recorded crime in England for the year ending 31 March 2000 was 24 per cent.

  Police Time
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of police time is estimated to be spent on(a) motoring offences and (b) vandalism in the latest year for which figures are available. [146328]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Communications Data
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to publish the document, "Clarity Communication Data Retention Law" by Roger Gaspar. [146169]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office has received representations from National Criminal Intelligence Service on behalf of the law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies underlining the importance of communications data to their investigations.

  We have no plans to publish this document.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

UK Pensioners Overseas: Payments
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have taken advice on whether the freezing of the state retirement pension for pensioners resident overseas is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the European Commission of Human Rights has said that freezing the state retirement pension for pensioners resident overseas does not breach the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, does she not consider that matters have moved on a great deal since 1983? Does the noble Baroness accept that there is a good deal of case law of the European Commission which indicates that contributors to pension schemes may acquire rights in those schemes that are protected by Article 1 of the first protocol to the convention? Does the noble Baroness also accept that excluding some pensioners from uprating on the grounds of their country of residence seems plainly to be discrimination within Article 14 of the convention? Will she further accept that there are no grounds whatever for discriminating against those who are resident outside the United Kingdom?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. We can only abide by the 1983 judgment
2
as it currently stands. Of course matters have moved on, but the case law has not been tested on the issue since 1983. As regards the noble Lord's point about there being no grounds for us to freeze pensions of those pensioners living overseas, I must remind the noble Lord of our commitment to pensioners living in this country. They are our priority. The Government have taken a number of steps to improve the living conditions for pensioners in this country.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, in view of the fact that those with frozen pensions in, say, Australia or Canada feel that they are being unjustly treated when compared with those in the European Union, can the Minister say what the Government's policy is with regard to pensioners in countries applying for membership of the European Union; in other words, will they get full uprating when enlargement proceeds?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the position with respect to the candidate countries applying to join the EU is that once they are members of the European Union they will become part of the process, which will enable their pensioners to receive uprated pensions.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, leaving aside whether or not this contradicts the convention and human rights Acts, and so on, it surely contradicts a sense of fairness. We are talking about people who have worked sufficiently in the United Kingdom to enable them to contribute to, and earn, a retirement pension. Now they have chosen to live, often with relatives, in places like Australia, Canada and New Zealand and, indeed, elsewhere in the European Union. However, some of them receive uprated pensions, while others do not. It may not be wholly the fault of, as it were, the British side, but I should have thought that we had an obligation to our fellow citizens who are approaching retirement or are already retired to open negotiations on the issue, especially with our friends in the Commonwealth where so many of these people are now residing. Should we not deal with this issue as a matter of honour?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I may remind my noble friend that a number of those people claiming pensions overseas went abroad during their working lives and contributed for many years to the economies of those countries. I repeat: it is the Government's policy to provide real help for pensioners in the United Kingdom. We have done this through our increases in the basic pension and in the winter fuel payment, and by way of free television licences and the minimum income guarantee.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is this not another example of the problem with the fiction that we have a funded national insurance scheme? Does the Minister agree that the state pension in this country is not paid from a funded scheme; it is paid from taxpayers' contributions? That being so, it follows logically—albeit rather sadly—that it requires people who are still paying taxes.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. Our scheme is a pay-as-you-go scheme.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the situation in Australia has changed in that, in the past, that country used to top up pensions but no longer does so? Can the noble Baroness say whether that applies only to those who went overseas after retirement? Alternatively, do those who went overseas before retirement and, as has been said, worked abroad for many years still receive their pensions in full from the country that they chose to live in?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have an agreement with Australia that will expire at the end of February of this year. In order for UK pensioners in Australia to qualify for an Australian pension they have to be resident in that country for 10 years and pass a means test. If they have been resident for less than 10 years, then, under the agreement, the contributions they have made in the UK could be used and counted as a contribution towards the Australian pension. That situation will soon cease, but the position for pensioners currently receiving pensions under that agreement will remain the same. The situation will change from April this year.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, my noble friend referred to those people who during their working lives lived abroad and contributed to the economies of countries abroad. How does that sit alongside those ex-servicemen who decided to live in Canada following retirement after paying fully into the contributory scheme in this country? I refer to people who flew side by side with their Canadian comrades in the war. Will my noble friend please comment on those people who went to live with former comrades in Commonwealth countries?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, some people went to other countries during their working lives and some went as pensioners. However, we should remember
4
that the total cost of uprating all frozen UK basic state pensions paid overseas would be £300 million a year. It is the Government's view that that is money we should use to assist pensioners in the UK to ensure that their lives are improved.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, following the previous question, does not the Minister agree that we owe some debt to British pensioners wherever they may be? The Government have recently done a great deal to help pensioners who do not have enough income to enable them to live decently in this country. The matter we are discussing is in a way a long-running sore. As the Minister said, the cost of doing something about it would run into millions rather than billions. It is a blot on our relations with many Commonwealth partners and one which somehow reflects on the treatment of British pensioners.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I repeat that it has been the policy of successive governments to honour the reciprocal agreements we have with a variety of countries. It has been this Government's policy to focus in particular on the position of pensioners in the UK. I accept that concern is felt with regard to this matter in all parts of the House. It has been raised not only in Starred Questions but also in debates on a number of pieces of social security legislation. However, it remains this Government's policy and priority to concentrate on poor pensioners living in the UK.

Korea: Untraced UK Prisoners of War
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many British servicemen, believed to have become prisoners of war in the Korean war 1950–53, have not yet been accounted for.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, there were 82 British servicemen believed to have been prisoners of war but not repatriated following the armistice in July 1953. Eyewitness accounts from British or American personnel confirm that of these, 71 had died prior to July 1953. In a further nine cases, there is evidence to indicate that the individuals had also died but this has not been confirmed by such eyewitnesses. In the cases of the two remaining individuals, no report of death has been established but they are presumed dead.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. While it must be expected in war that a number of casualties will be missing, believed dead, will the Government make use of the new diplomatic relations with North Korea to pursue inquiries about those still unaccounted for who

5
were believed to be prisoners of war, including, if possible, those who were captured by the Chinese forces?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are, sadly, in war always a number of individuals who go missing and of whom there is no account. We understand and have enormous sympathy with the anguish of families who go through that dreadful experience. We have in the past approached both the North Koreans and the Chinese in regard to what happened to such individuals. They may not necessarily have been prisoners of war; they may have been lost in action. It is indeed the Government's intention, following the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, to make a fresh approach on these issues.

Equitable Life: Financial Services Authority Review
2.47 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I must declare an interest, albeit a rather painful one, in common with many former Members of the other place.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to review the effectiveness of the Financial Services Authority following the judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Equitable Life.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Steel, I declare an interest in this issue as an Equitable Life policyholder through my additional voluntary contributions to the parliamentary pension scheme.
As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury announced during a debate in Westminster Hall on 19th December last year, the Financial Services Authority intends to prepare a report on the events that led to Equitable Life's decision to close to new business. The report will cover both the FSA's role as a prudential regulator and its exercise of its functions under the Financial Services Act 1986, including the Personal Investment Authority's responsibility for conduct of business regulation of long-term investment-linked life insurance. The report is likely to take some months and will be published.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I am most grateful for that reply, but does the Minister accept that many people believe that an internal inquiry by the FSA is simply not good enough in the circumstances? Surely there was a failure of oversight as indicated by failing to follow up the Treasury memo of 1998. Even before the FSA came into being, were there not eight years of surveillance by the DTI during
6
which Equitable Life entered into unhedged and open-ended liabilities on the false assumption of continuing high inflation? In those circumstances, do not Her Majesty's Government have a moral obligation to inquire fully into what went wrong?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I confirm that in the period between the late 1950s and 1988 Equitable Life offered guaranteed annuities which relied to some extent on higher levels of inflation than have since been the case. However, I challenge the noble Lord's assertion that this is purely an internal inquiry. After all, the Financial Services Authority, as set up under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, has 11 non-executive directors as compared with three executive directors. Ronnie Baird, the director of internal audit, who is responsible for the inquiry, reports not to any of the executive directors but to the board as a whole. I think noble Lords will agree that that gives a good deal of assurance that the inquiry will indeed be independent.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, two parties stand accused of a failure of supervision in this case: the Treasury and the regulator. Do the Government think it appropriate to order an investigation in which one of the accused is asked to investigate the other?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government did not order an investigation. The Financial Services Authority undertook to carry out such an investigation.
It is true that until 5th January 1998 these matters were the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry; and previously the Board of Trade. From 5th January 1998 to 31st December 1998 they were the responsibility of the Treasury. Since 1st January 1999 they have been the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority under contract to the Treasury.
I do not think that it does any good to do anything at present other than to ensure that the inquiry which takes place is independent, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and covers the whole history of the affair. With hindsight all of us could imagine that an open-ended commitment to give guaranteed annuities might be unwise. If we had realised that that was available, some of us might have taken advantage of it. But we do not all have that hindsight. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, does not have it and neither do I.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister noted that a number of policyholders have cashed in their policies with a penalty of 10 per cent? How many policyholders would have to take that step to enable the remainder of the policyholders to receive the full amount of their annuities?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that approximately 3,500 policyholders have cashed in their policies. Even if a large number of policyholders cashed in their policies, I do not think that it is plausible that Equitable Life would become

7
insolvent. Equitable Life is not insolvent; its customers' policies remain valid; and it is capable of meeting its contractual obligations under any reasonable actuarial assumptions.

Police Recruitment
2.52 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the present level of recruitment and retention of police officers, particularly in areas of high housing cost.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, most forces are recruiting successfully, helped by the national recruitment advertising campaign. Even in the Met, which has had severe problems, numbers of recruits are rising. By the end of September 2000, total police strength was up 444 on the March 2000 figure and will increase further as the impact of the Crime Fighting Fund increases. Wastage in the police service is very low at 4.7 per cent in the year 1999–2000.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As I have previously declared in the House, I am a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority. Despite the intensive and quite expensive advertising campaign, we have recruited an additional 45 officers this year; and 44 officers have left the force to transfer to other authorities. In view of the recruitment difficulties experienced around London, will the Government give urgent consideration to the payment of part-time police officers in the same way that payments are made to people serving in the Territorial Army and the retained fire service? If the Government are unwilling to go along that route, do they have any other answers to the problems facing the police authorities around London?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we give active consideration to all useful ideas and contributions to the debate. One or two useful ideas came from the Liberal Democrat Benches and elsewhere following the Question posed last week in another place. We shall consider carefully that proposition.
I am pleased to hear that Thames Valley Police Authority is beginning to increase the number of recruits. The facts are plain. The figure for recruitment in the year 1999–2000 was 190. For the first six months of last year there were 126 recruits. If those figures can be reasonably extrapolated, they suggest that in the full year there will be in the region of 250 new recruits. The wastage rate runs at a lower level, so the Thames Valley Police Authority will increase its numbers. That is to be welcomed.
Numbers are now going in the right direction. The service should be congratulated on that. The Government should be congratulated, too, on having the courage to launch a national recruitment
8
campaign. We are sensitive to all those concerns, in particular as regards the police force areas surrounding London where there have been some additional problems.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that low police morale—the chairman of the Police Federation wrote about it recently in the House Magazine—is indicated by the 60 per cent increase in police resignations over the past four years?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is difficult to speculate on an accurate measure of changes in levels of morale in the police service. I well remember the fall-out from the Sheehy report in the early 1990s. As a consequence of the implementation of that report, there was a massive loss of morale in the police service.
I believe that wastage rates are relevant in this debate. The wastage rate in the police force nationally stands at 4.7 per cent—exactly the same as in 1997 when the administration of which the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, was a member left government.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister care to give the figures—I am sure they are engraved on his mind—of the number of police officers in service when the Government were elected and the number in service today?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am happy to provide the noble Lord with those figures. They may not be engraved perfectly on my mind but I am sure that they exist. In March 1997 there were 127,158 police officers. The strength at the end of March 1999 was 126,096 officers. There has been a further decline since then. Those figures are a matter of public record.
However, the fact is that police numbers are again rising. Those figures are true. In two-thirds of police forces in England and Wales police numbers are rising because of the active approach we have adopted to recruitment. We expect that police numbers will continue to rise until 2003. That is our objective. I believe that all sides of the House should congratulate the Government on ensuring that we keep police numbers high because we believe that that is the way to retain public confidence.
Lord Carver: My Lords, do the Government approve of the action of the police at East Molesey in encouraging a group of old age pensioners to man the police station because there are not enough police to do so?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is a new one on me! I am told that it was reported on the radio this morning. If that is considered helpful and appropriate, no doubt it is.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister believe that individual police forces are making sufficient effort to recruit from our ethnic minorities? It is over 20 years since I raised in another place the deplorable

9
level of recruitment from ethnic minorities in our major police forces. One still gains the impression that, although the low numbers are explained away extremely glibly, there is no real effort to find recruits from an age group in which our ethnic minorities are particularly strong. That is an opportunity missed.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord has an honourable record in promoting ethnic recruitment and supporting those initiatives. It is an initiative which the Government have taken very seriously. As the noble Lord knows, the Home Secretary has set targets for each police force area. In most of those areas, we are satisfied that progress is being made. The national recruitment campaign has made a feature of promoting the desirability of ethnic minority recruits joining the police service. We believe that it is an excellent profession that is widely supported and that it should have more ethnic minority officers. That would be for the good of ethnic minority communities and society as a whole.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I do not know whether I heard the Minister correctly, but I think he said that the Government should be congratulated on having had the courage to launch a police recruitment campaign. On reflection, does he not think that that was a rather strange thing to say? The Government would have been entitled to a great deal of blame if they had not done something that was so obviously necessary.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall take that as a note of congratulation. For most of the years of Mr Major's Conservative Government there was a decline in police numbers. That government failed to launch a national recruitment campaign. We have had the courage to do so because we believe that it is right.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in not particularly expensive outer London boroughs, newly appointed police constables depend on housing benefit? Will he confirm that that situation is not the fault of the social security system? What plans do the Government have to do something about it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have heard those comments elsewhere and I am concerned about them. That is why we decided last year to put back an element for housing into the pay of police officers serving in London, not as a housing allowance but as a top-up for London weighting. The housing allowance had been taken away by the previous government when implementing the Sheehy report. That is the sort of measure that led to the recruitment difficulties that the previous government suffered and that we have suffered in our early years. It was a grave mistake. Members of the previous government should regret it and apologise for it. We have put that situation right.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a more constructive proposal to deal with the serious problem of the cost of housing in certain
10
areas for police recruits would be the promotion of the shared equity housing scheme? Will the Government look with the police authorities to see how that can be done?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that helpful suggestion. The Government are on the case. In December last year we announced the starter homes initiatives that will help 10,000 key workers to buy their own homes in high demand areas. We introduced that proposal because of the problems that have been referred to this afternoon. It will make £250 million available over the next three years. We have made it clear that the fund will be targeted at police, teachers and nurses. We are looking forward to the relevant agencies bringing forward proposals so that we can put extra money into helping recruits and those already in the services. The initiative that the noble Earl referred to is precisely the sort that we would endorse.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I welcome any increase in the number of police officers, but does the Minister accept that the morale of the police is at a very low ebb? Does he agree that, given that neither House has a regular major debate on policing issues but instead deals with them piecemeal, it is about time that a Royal Commission was established to look into issues of pay, conditions, recruitment, retention and morale in the police? Would not that be helpful?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is an interesting idea, but, although Royal Commissions are easily set up, they have a habit of taking a long time to deliberate. We need to keep the issues constantly under discussion. Your Lordships' House is a good vehicle for that, as are the Home Affairs Select Committee and another place. We have had many important debates on those issues and I am sure that we shall continue to do so. The Police Negotiating Board is the appropriate vehicle and forum for discussions about pay and conditions. We receive many representations about police-related issues. They are part of an important national debate. I fear that a Royal Commission would be a way of kicking things into the long grass. We need to give them vigilant attention.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what are the perceived dangers for which the Government would need courage to run a recruiting campaign for policemen?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is a fatuous question. The noble Baroness is rather expert at those, of course. We should encourage people to join the police service. The Government have that duty. The noble Baroness was a member of a government that presided over a decline in police numbers. I hope that she will have the courage to join the government Benches in endorsing our recruitment campaign and encouraging all those who feel public spirited enough to join the police service, because we need people to join the service and we need them now.

Human Rights: Joint Select Committee
3.6 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of 17th January be now considered, and that a Select Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons,
To consider and report on:

(a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);

(b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and

(c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order 73 (Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments);

To report to the House:

(a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or

(b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft order should be approved;

and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders; and
To report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether:

(a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or

(b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or

(c) that the order should not be approved,

and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee:

L. Carlisle of Bucklow

L. Goldsmith

L. Lester of Herne Hill

B. Perry of Southwark

B. Prashar

B. Whitaker;

That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, and to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed and delivered out;
And that the committee do meet with the committee appointed by the Commons on Wednesday 31st January at half-past five o'clock in Committee Room 4B.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, the Motion gives the committee the power to appoint specialist advisers. I wish to repeat the plea that I made in the House on 17th July last year at col. 586, when we were considering the Liaison Committee's third report, regarding a constitutional committee, which could also appoint specialist advisers. I asked the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees whether the same stage army of pressure groups that have done so much bouncing on constitutional reform would be involved. I ask for a similar assurance in this case. If specialist advisers are appointed, they should not be drawn from the cohorts of the chattering classes, such as Charter 88, the Constitution Unit and Liberty, whose zealots are already looking around for fresh targets, such as the monarchy. Taxpayers' money should not go into those organisations. May I have an assurance that that will not happen, because it would be a wrong use of public funds?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as I am sure that the noble Lord knows, Professor David Feldman will give legal advice to the committee. He is the former Dean of Law at Birmingham University and joined the staff last September as an Officer of both Houses. Any specialist advisers appointed under this power would be additional to Professor Feldman. It will be for the committee to decide, but I am sure that those in the House this afternoon will have heard the noble Lord's point loud and clear.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

13
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bach.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Extent of duty to fund advice and assistance]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert—
("(1) Subsection (1) of section 13 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (duty of Legal Services Commission to fund advice and assistance as part of Criminal Defence Service) shall be treated as having been enacted with the substitution of the following for paragraph (b) and the words after it—").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Taken together, the amendments would allow the Bill, on enactment, to have retrospective effect. Amendment No. 1 provides that the Access to Justice Act will be read as if it had always been amended by the Bill. Amendment No. 2 provides that secondary legislation made under the powers in Section 13(1) of the Access to Justice Act may also have retrospective effect. Amendment No. 3 changes the commencement date of the Bill. There is no longer any need for the Bill to commence on 2nd April. It will come into force on the day that it receives Royal Assent.
I am conscious that all sides of the House believed that there were unlikely to be amendments to this Bill. Although every effort was made at the end of last week to inform interested noble Lords of those amendments, it is right to say that little time has been allowed for reflection. Following any debate today, it is my intention to seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendments and to bring them back before the House on Report next Monday. I hope that the Committee will feel that the Government are behaving responsibly and correctly in doing just that.
I shall explain why the Bill now needs to have retrospective effect.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In view of the fact that he will re-table the amendments on Report, I believe that it is much better to discuss and debate them then and to leave the matter as it stands today. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will agree with the suggestion that I have made to the Minister.
Lord Bach: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. If the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, whose views on these matters the Committee and the House always take seriously, agrees, I shall be more than happy to withdraw Amendment No. 1 and not move the other amendments today. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. It seems to me that that is the right course and that any debate on this matter should take place on Report.
Lord Bach: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Short title and commencement]:
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
House resumed:Bill reported without amendment.

Business
3.13 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as there are three amendments on the Order Paper, it may be for the convenience of the House if I explain the procedure which we shall follow with regard to this afternoon's stem cell regulations. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath will open the debate and move the Motion to approve the regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, will speak next and move his amendment. The whole debate will then take place on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, as that will be the Question before the House.
At the end of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will wind up and, if he wishes to press his amendment, a vote will then take place. If the noble Lord wins, the other two amendments will fall and there will be no further Divisions. The original Motion will be agreed to as amended.
If the noble Lord, Lord Alton, does not win, the House will proceed to consider the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. At that moment, it will be open to her to move the amendment or not move it, as she wishes. If it is moved, we shall move immediately without debate to another vote. If the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, wins, there will no further votes.
However, if she loses, we shall then proceed to the third amendment. Again, it is open to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, to decide whether or not to move his amendment. If he moves it, there will be a third and final vote. I hope that that helps to make matters clear.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House and it may even be helpful to the noble Lord the Chief Whip to know that I shall not move my amendment today.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is extremely helpful. When we reach that point in the debate, the amendment will be called and the noble Baroness will state that she will not move it. On the assumption that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, loses his amendment, we shall then move to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Chief Whip for having explained the procedure for this afternoon. However, does he agree

15
that that demonstrates that secondary legislation is no substitute for primary legislation? Does he agree that this matter should have been brought forward by the Government, having been given proper consideration, before being presented to both Houses rather than obliging this House to deal with this secondary legislation?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will explain exactly why the House is following this procedure and why this subject has been in the public domain for, I believe, three years.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2000
3.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th December be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1999–2000].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity which allows us to debate today an issue of considerable importance. It is of importance to hundreds of thousands of people in this country who suffer from distressing and long-term illnesses, to those whose diseases and conditions often deny them a basic quality of life, and to those whose only hope for a cure lies in medical research and science.
However, our debate this afternoon goes further. Inevitably, it will touch on matters which go to the very core of our individual beliefs, principles and values. We shall hear from noble Lords who believe that research on embryos should not take place under any circumstances; from those who believe that research on embryos is ethically justified in the fight against serious diseases; from noble Lords who worry about the end point of so many scientific advances; and from those who rejoice at the opportunities which new medical discoveries bring to humankind.
I believe that it is to our country's credit that over the years we have been able to strike a balance between those different viewpoints and arrive at sensible conclusions. In respect of that sensible balance, I inform the House at the beginning of our debate that it is the Government's intention to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, which proposes that the order be approved with government support for the appointment of a Select Committee and for the Government to review the regulations following the report of that Select Committee.
I spoke about a sensible balance. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and the forerunner to that Act—the committee of inquiry set up under the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, to consider and make recommendations on recent and potential developments in science and medicine in relation to human fertilisation and embryology.
The noble Baroness's committee reviewed those areas comprehensively. That was followed by the enactment of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The 1990 Act was and is a model in its regulation of certain infertility treatments and embryo research. It reflected the need to provide a strict framework within which regulation could be conducted and to take account of the advances in medicine anticipated both by the Warnock committee and Parliament in 1990. It is surely a tribute to the noble Baroness and her committee, to the 1990 Parliament and to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the HFEA, which conducts its work in such an effective way, that the Act continues to provide such a framework.
In 1990 Parliament debated at length whether to allow embryo research and, should it be permitted, what safeguards would be required. Parliament agreed then that embryos may be used in this way and also agreed the strict safeguards that are now found in the Act. Those include that research on embryos may be conducted only until the first signs of neural development—that is, at the very latest after 14 days. The penalty for using an embryo after that time is severe: the 1990 Act makes it an offence, punishable by imprisonment for up to 10 years, or an unlimited fine or both.
The 1990 Act provides other safeguards. Most importantly—this is crucial to our later debate—the authority must be satisfied that the use of embryos is necessary for research and that research can be conducted only for specific purposes.
The authority takes its role seriously. Over the past 10 years, it received 130 applications to conduct research, and it rejected 17 of those—more than 10 per cent. The authority is not a rubber stamp. We should be proud of its work in putting into effect Parliament's intention to safeguard the use of embryos and in protecting the interests of patients.
Those safeguards in the 1990 Act mean that the regulations would not allow embryos to develop into foetuses from which organs may be harvested, and they do not allow reproductive cloning. I must emphasise that to the House. We are emphatically against those developments and will ensure that they continue to be banned in the UK. At the moment, reproductive cloning is banned because the authority said that it will not licence such research or treatment. Anyone who undertook that work without a licence would commit an offence under the Act and would be liable to imprisonment or a fine, or both.
Your Lordships will be aware that in their response to the Donaldson report, the Government gave a commitment to bring in, when the parliamentary timetable allows, a Bill explicitly to ban reproductive cloning. I am happy to repeat that commitment today. We will not permit reproductive cloning to take place in the UK, and a Bill will be introduced to that effect as soon as possible to put the matter absolutely beyond doubt.
The principles and law that were established in the 1990 Act are clear. Embryo research may be allowed now, but only for conditions such as infertility,

17
contraception and congenital disease, including cystic fibrosis and haemophilia. The question before the House today is whether those purposes should be extended to include serious diseases such as Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, cancer and diabetes—a provision anticipated and included as a regulating-making power in the 1990 Act.
That question arises because the late 1990s saw developments in cell nuclear replacement technology in animals and because of the announcement in the US of the extraction of stem cells from a human embryo. That was of huge potential. It suggested that it might be possible to apply the understanding gained from embryonic stem cell research to patients' own cells, so that they could be made to generate new cells and tissues. The embryonic stem cell, uniquely, has the potential to develop into almost any tissue in the body. The majority of the research work is likely to centre on the extraction of stem cells from embryos created from eggs and sperm, using spare embryos that are no longer required for infertility treatment. Such research will help techniques for extracting stem cells from embryos, growing them on in the laboratory, and learning how to make them differentiate into various types of tissue. That offers the potential to understand the way in which to treat a whole range of degenerative diseases, strokes, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, cancer, and so on.
Although much attention has focused on cell nuclear replacement, that will not necessarily be the main focus of the initial research effort. That, of course, is what research is about: to try to find out what is the best way forward, and which techniques show the greatest promise. Cell nuclear replacement is essentially the technique in which an adult cell nucleus is injected into an unfertilised egg that has had its nucleus removed. That induces the adult nucleus to act as if it had just been created, following the fertilisation of an egg. The adult nucleus retains the potential to go back to its original undifferentiated state, and the act of transferring it into the egg switches that back on.
The main aim of cell nuclear replacement research is to study the chemical process that controls that mechanism, and to learn how to turn the clock with regard to adult tissue cells. If we succeed in doing that, and learn how to make adult cells revert to the undifferentiated state, we could grow them into new forms of tissue to repair damaged organs, and so on, without having to use cell nuclear replacement. The tissue would not be rejected and would have the advantage of not involving the use of embryos at all.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee recognised in 1997 what it called the "profound implications" of the research conducted at the Roslin Institute into cell nuclear replacement. Those issues were taken up early in 1998 by a joint committee comprising the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which conducted a public consultation on them. In their response to that joint committee's report, the Government announced in June 1999 that they were setting up an expert advisory
18
group under the chairmanship of the Chief Medical Officer to consider the potential benefits for human health of such research.
The expert group included representatives from a range of interests, including ethicists, scientists, doctors and geneticists. They sought evidence both nationally and internationally on all of those matters.
So, the regulations that we are debating today are the result of a considerable amount of work, which was conducted for more than a year by the Chief Medical Officer's expert group. The group concluded by recommending that a further purpose should be added to the five currently allowed by the 1990 Act. That would allow research into serious disease and disorders and their cell-based treatments, but under the same strict conditions and time limits that I have already mentioned, and which apply to all embryo research under the 1990 Act.
After very careful deliberation, the group concluded that research on stem cells provides the possibility of exciting prospects for future therapies for a range of debilitating diseases. However, the group recognised that a great deal of research will be needed to realise such potential and that the answers are not going to be provided quickly. That point underlines the importance of our not delaying a decision today.
The regulations put into effect the recommendations in Professor Donaldson's report. What the regulations do not do is permit human embryos to be used in the treatment of such diseases; they do not permit the use of embryos to create stem cells to be used in treatment; and they do not permit human reproductive cloning.
I emphasise again that the regulations will not, and cannot, permit human reproductive cloning. We are talking in this context only about the basic research that is needed to find out how cells are involved in the disease and injury processes and their potential for use in treatment.
The regulations are divided into three parts, the first of which is to increase knowledge about the development of embryos. That is of critical importance. That research will tell us how embryos develop normally, and why they frequently do not. It will also tell us how stem cells may be developed and extracted, and whether embryos developed through the process of cell nuclear replacement will be able to produce viable stem cells.
The second part of the regulations provides for research to increase knowledge about serious disease. It will, of course, be a matter of judgment for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to decide what is meant by a "serious disease" when any particular application is made for a research licence under the new provisions. It is certainly likely to include as "serious" conditions such as juvenile and type-2 diabetes, paralysis from spinal cord injury, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. There are many others—the list is clearly not exclusive.
The third part of the regulations would allow the research that has been conducted under the previous two headings to be used in research to develop

19
treatments for disease. It is, once again, important to note that that provision will not allow embryos to be used in treatments; it will only allow the research to take place.
Given the stringent controls in the 1990 Act and the overwhelming potential for life-saving and life-changing treatments for people who suffer from chronic diseases, there is a strong ethical case for supporting the recommendations in the Donaldson report. The law as it stands permits research on embryos, subject to the safeguards in the 1990 Act. I have already mentioned some of the purposes for which embryos may be used in research. The principles underpinning the use of embryos in research, on which the 1990 Act is based, are that the embryo of human species has a special status, but not the same status as a living child or adult; that the human embryo is entitled to a measure of respect beyond that accorded to an embryo of other species; and that such respect is not absolute and may be weighed against the benefits arising from proposed research.
It is a matter of the balance that I talked about at the beginning of my speech. The question is whether the benefits to be gained by the research might outweigh the objections to using embryos in that way.
The Donaldson committee took the view that the reason which led in 1990 to embryos being permitted to be used in research, subject to strict conditions and only for particular purposes, must apply equally to research for the potential treatment of serious diseases being proposed now. The expert group concluded that the embryos should be recognised as having a special status as a potential human being but that it may be justified to use early embryos for serious research purposes which may benefit others.
The ethical issues raised by creating embryos by cell nuclear replacement was also considered. Again the group considered that that research is justified in the light of the likely transitional nature of the research, the considerable potential benefits it could bring and the range of safeguards in the 1990 Act. That, of course, is very much a matter of judgment for each and every Member of your Lordships' House.
An issue which has been touched upon in debates on this matter over the past few years is the view that we do not need to use stem cells derived from embryos at all because it is said that the same research can take place by using adult stem cells. I cannot emphasise enough that all the evidence points to that being an unsubstantiated claim. That is the continuing view of members of the Donaldson expert group who considered those matters very carefully; it is also the view of the overwhelming majority of members of the research community.
The Donaldson report recognised that other sources of stem cells were important to research. Those included some adult tissues, some fetal tissue and umbilical cord blood. It discussed that at length and concluded that embryonic stem cells have the potential to develop into a greater range of tissues than adult-derived stem cells.
As I mentioned, the Donaldson committee has continued to monitor the evidence about that. Its conclusion is firmly that while research involving adult-derived stem cells shows much potential, research involving embryo-derived stem cells remains by far the most promising if significant advances and greater benefits are to be made. That view is supported by the Association of Medical Research Charities, the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society, following a comprehensive review of the papers and by many researchers and scientists around the world.
Part of the problem of using adult-derived stem cells is that they are few in number and hard to find. We are not even sure whether there are specific stem cells for every type of cell in the body. The main difference is that embryonic stem cells are able to renew themselves and form many different cell types whereas the potential of adult stem cells is uncertain with research suggesting that they may be much more limited in the ability to form other cell types.
Those issues underline the importance of taking forward work on both embryo-derived and adult stem cells in order to provide the maximum benefit of this research. Without that knowledge, we are unlikely ever to be able to learn how to reprogramme our own cells, with the potential for treatments with compatible tissue for a wide range of diseases and injuries.
I turn to the process by which these regulations have reached this House. I shall pick up some of the issues implicit in the three amendments tabled on the Order Paper. There can be no question that the matters before us have not had extensive debate in the public domain. The House of Commons Select Committee examined cloning in 1997. It considered that discussions of the science today have been overly concerned with potential risks and have not considered properly the potential benefits. It recognised the potential uses of cell nuclear replacement in research into human diseases.
The Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority undertook extensive public consultation before reporting in December 1998 on cloning issues in reproduction, science and medicine. They concluded that the safeguards in relation to human productive cloning in the UK were wholly adequate. The report also drew specific attention to the potential beneficial therapeutic consequences from research using cell nuclear replacement. Indeed, they recommended the regulations with purposes we are currently debating.
The Donaldson expert committee discussed those issues, as I said, extensively over a year and sought views from experts worldwide. That report—it is on its recommendations that these regulations are based—is well-focused and authoritative.
The Royal Society, in its submission to Donaldson in February 2000, stressed the wide range of diseases and injuries which may be treatable through stem cell therapies. It stressed that research on human embryonic stem cells will be required because other cell types, such as adult stem cells, may not have the same breadth of application.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics spent months weighing the ethical implications. It concluded, as did Donaldson, that this research raised no new fundamental ethical issues.
As well as those reports, the Wellcome Trust, the British Heart Foundation, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and the Parkinson's Disease Society have all stressed the potential of that research. Certainly, the other place was impressed by that and on a free vote, by a very large majority, agreed to the regulations.
This, then, has not been a rushed process. It has been a long and thorough process. It is difficult to see on what basis it may be felt that there is insufficient evidence for your Lordships to make a judgment today on the regulations. It is certainly difficult to see a justification for rejecting the regulations and delaying a decision for many months while a Select Committee sits to consider the matter, thereby delaying for many months any possibility that applications to start research programmes in relation to serious diseases could be put forward.
Of course, Select Committees of the House undertake immensely valuable work and are listened to very carefully by the Government. It is in that regard that I suggest that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, provides us with an appropriate way forward. It allows for the regulations to be passed this evening but it also establishes a Select Committee. I assure the House that the Government will listen to the Select Committee's views and review the regulations in the light of its report.
In any case, any research proposal put to the authority would take some months to complete the process—perhaps nine months. But by agreeing the regulations today, your Lordships can ensure that the process of making research applications is not delayed.
The longer-term aim of the proposed research is to be able to apply the understanding gained to patients' own cells so that they can be made to generate new cells and tissues. It is hoped that we shall learn how adult cells may be reprogrammed. That is the really exciting potential of that research. If, by using embryos, we can learn how cells develop and work, we can look forward to a time when embryos are not needed at all for that research. We shall learn how to manipulate the cells from our own bodies to produce the tissues that we need, whether for our heart should we develop heart failure, or brain tissue for Parkinson's, or nervous tissue for our spines should we become paralysed in an accident. That is the ultimate aim for which the proposed embryo research is one temporary step along the journey.
I hope that your Lordships will agree with the report that the proposed extension to the current five purposes for which embryos may be used in research is justified, given the potential benefits in terms of alleviating and curing serious illnesses in so many people.
I doubt that there is a single person or family who has not been touched at some time by the distress that some of those diseases bring. It is said that more than half of the world's diseases have no effective treatment and that we are unable to develop drugs, or other treatments to cure or alleviate many of those conditions. In any case, drugs are not always the answer, and never will be. In these cases, the only treatment that is likely to offer chance of a real cure is one based on the person's own body, a treatment which is cell-based and individual.
In reaching conclusions on the Donaldson report, we must consider the importance to those people who shoulder the burden of these terrible diseases, their families and friends as well as the wider community. In addition to research into effective contraception and in addition to research into congenital diseases, your Lordships are asked to agree that embryos may be used in order to find treatments for serious and debilitating illnesses that affect literally millions of people.
We must decide on such a balance. It is clear that this research has the potential to provide the answers to these diseases. The human embryo has a special status and we owe a measure of respect to the embryo. We also owe a measure of respect to the millions of people living with such devastating illnesses and the millions who have yet to show signs of them. This matter is not taken lightly but such research provides the one real hope for those who wait on our decision today. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th December be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1999–2000].—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
3.41 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion to approve the draft regulations, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to approve the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th December until a Select Committee of the House of Lords has reported on the issues connected with human cloning and stem cell research".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the fact that more than 40 Members of your Lordships' House have sought to speak in today's debate underlines, as the Minister has said, the momentous and awesome nature of the decisions that we are invited to address. My principal concerns fall into four areas: constitutional, legal, scientific, and ethical.
Before turning to those concerns I want to speak about the amendment that is before the House. Over the weekend it has been suggested that it may not be legitimate to bring forward such an amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said in a debate on subordinate legislation that the House,
"has an unfettered right to vote on any subordinate legislation submitted for its consideration".—[Official Report, 2010/94; col. 364]

23
The amendments before us—in favour of a Select Committee report before we reach a decision on this matter or a retrospective Select Committee report—show that we have made some progress over the past seven days in our thinking on this important issue. At least there is now an acceptance that there should be a Select Committee to consider these matters. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said to the House today.
Before Christmas, when I tabled my amendment suggesting that such a Select Committee should meet, I discussed the matter with my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant—I always enjoy a conversation with him—who said that there is no need for a Select Committee and that we should agree with them forthwith. So I regard the fact that the Minister has said that the Government will accept the principle of a Select Committee as progress.
The next matter to decide is whether there should be a retrospective Select Committee. Imagine a court of law where the judge gave out the verdict and sentence before hearing the defence, the prosecution and the witnesses. Such a process would be held up to ridicule. I believe that if a Select Committee were to meet after we have agreed to these regulations, we should be in danger of dealing with such a momentous issue in quite the wrong way.
Another point on the amendments is that when the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, looked at the future of this House and its deliberations, he reported on the issue of statutory instruments. He envisaged the possibility of disagreement between this place and another place. In Chapter 7 of his report, on page 77, he said that where such a disagreement occurs, there should be a three-month period for reflection.
A Select Committee of your Lordships' House could be required to report within a three-month period. It could place its proposals before the House after which it would be perfectly possible for the Government to relay their regulations, possibly amended, to another place. All that would then be required would be a one-and-a-half-hour debate in a committee and not even on the Floor of the House. That is the point on the amendments before us today: whether to have a Select Committee now or after we have taken a decision on the regulations.
I turn to the common ground before I speak on the four areas that I have mentioned. It is worth stating that every noble Lord wants to see progress made in combating the degenerative diseases to which the Minister has referred. No one here is in favour of unnecessary pain or unnecessary suffering. Overwhelmingly, your Lordships will deplore anything that smacks of eugenics or of germ-line gene therapy. All noble Lords will want to see good science and good ethics marching hand in hand.
Observers of this House should note that this debate is being held with reference to our best traditions, with respect being shown for each other's deeply held beliefs and differences.
I have said that the arguments for prudence and caution fall into four categories: constitutional, legal, scientific and ethical. I shall speak to those subjects in turn. Over the life of this Parliament many of us have questioned the way in which the Government have dealt with legislation. This is another such instance. It is wholly inappropriate to use unamendable regulations to deal with an issue of this importance. The Government have indicated to us today, as they did in another place, that ultimately they will introduce a Bill to outlaw reproductive cloning. I welcome that. But why not wait to deal with therapeutic cloning at the same time in a Bill that will be open to amendments?
Under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government are required to produce a compatibility statement on the face of a Bill stating that there is no conflict with European law. If we were debating a Bill rather than regulations the Government simply would not be able to do that—certainly not if they are serious about our intentions to sign the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, which under Article 18.2 prohibits therapeutic cloning outright. Hence we have regulations rather than primary legislation.
In parenthesis, I add that this is a curiously convoluted world in which we can find parliamentary time for a Bill that protects foxes but we cannot find time for a Bill that will lead to the manufacture and elimination of countless human embryos.
Regulations of this kind also dispense with the dreary business of detailed scrutiny, transparency and proper parliamentary opposition. In another place Members were at least given the opportunity for two preliminary debates of five hours each before a vote was taken. Even that poor substitute for Committee and Report stages has not taken place in this House.
The danger of dispensing with due process is that democracy will be brought into disrepute and that public cynicism about our institutions will simply be deepened. That is why, along with noble Lords with whom I differ on the status of the human embryo, such as my noble friend Lady Warnock and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, we have offered an alternative today that will allow for sober reflection and for proper debate, being agreed that this issue should not be dealt with in this manner. Indeed, in a recent interview, my noble friend said that such matters should not be shovelled through Parliament. I agree with her.
In a landmark report to your Lordships' House, the Science and Technology Committee stated that post-BSE and after the saga of genetic crops, science is facing an emerging crisis of confidence in Britain. The committee said:
"many are deeply uneasy about the huge opportunities presented by areas of science including biotechnology and information technology, which seem to be advancing far ahead of their awareness and assent. In turn, public unease, mistrust and outright hostility are breeding a climate of deep anxiety among scientists themselves … Science's relationship with United Kingdom society is under strain".

25
It is hard to see how the use of unamendable regulations will lessen that strain or combat the hostility and mistrust identified by the Science and Technology Committee.
I have one other observation about the constitutional process. In this country there is a fine and honourable tradition of holding free votes on issues of conscience. Outsiders have an expectation that this House will examine issues in a less partisan and more reflective manner. During my 18 years in another place—many noble Lords have longer first-hand experience—I cannot recall such active involvement by a government department in lobbying on one side of the argument. For instance, when the Department of Health was asked to allow Professor Neil Scolding, Burden Professor of Clinical Neuroscience at Frenchay Hospital, Bristol, to speak at the meeting which the department organised in your Lordships' House, it declined to let him put the case against the use of embryonic stem cells or to accept any other opposing speaker. That does nothing for intelligent or tolerant debate and does nothing for free speech or for the handling of these conscience issues.
I would therefore put in a plea that beyond today's debate and the reasonable right of a Minister to come to your Lordships' House and address us in a forthright and lucid manner, as the noble Lord. Lord Hunt, has properly done today, departments should behave with impeccable neutrality in "free vote" matters.
So much for the constitutional issues at stake. As I said, there are legal issues, too, and the regulations raise important questions of law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, former Attorney-General, and the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, will address those matters in more detail. Suffice it to say, the High Court will receive an application for judicial review on Friday next seeking to test the Government's response to the Donaldson report. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has drawn attention to that in the amendment which she has tabled and she has kindly said that she will support my amendment tonight.
One of the issues addressed by that case is the potential for these regulations to pave the way for reproductive cloning, even if that may happen inadvertently. The Government say that they are opposed to that development and today the Minister said—I agree with him—that we should all feel a sense of repugnance about such a proposal. If that case is upheld, this debate is being considered on an entirely false premise.
In a parliamentary reply on 8th January, the Minister stated that on 13th December last the European Parliament voted to set up a temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine. The European Parliament, together with the Council of Europe, has already voted in favour of a total ban on all forms of therapeutic and reproductive cloning. Pushing through these regulations will make it far more difficult to enforce internationally accepted normsߞ
26
and we are all agreed that if others decide to break the law elsewhere these issues fall outside the remit of any individual parliament.
Noble Lords will have seen the impressive letter, signed by European parliamentarians drawn from all political traditions, urging us not to pass a precipitate and premature measure. Given the opposition from President Clinton's bioethics committee and President Bush's stated opposition, we are left extraordinarily isolated. Surely we would not want to become a safe haven for unscrupulous practice.
Throughout the world, civilised countries have banned techniques which allow germ-line gene therapy; that is, the manipulation of future generations. Inadvertently, these regulations may further isolate us from world opinion and practice. In the treatment of rare mitochondria' diseases, where disease originates from the cytoplasm of egg cells rather than from the nucleus, as mentioned in the Donaldson report, it is proposed that a mother's nucleus may be substituted before fertilisation and implantation into a donor's egg. That has been characterised as the two mother/one father treatment. At paragraph 23, the Donaldson report states:
"Given the genetic makeup of any child born as a result of this technique, it would not constitute reproductive cloning. The resulting child would not be genetically identical to anyone else. Nonetheless, concerns have been expressed that oocyte nucleus transfer represents a modification to the human genome"—
it represents a modification to the human genome—
"which can be passed to the next generation".
If regulations are made under the Act to permit research into possible treatments into disease, and that research successfully develops treatments for mitochondrial diseases, such treatments could be licensed by the HFEA and so a pregnancy could be created. If germ-line therapies are not to be permitted, how can we countenance such research? What is the point in initiating basic research if the process is not permitted? Are we truly confident that such awesome and momentous implications have been adequately ventilated?
Professor Donaldson, in his report, also stated:
"The use of CNR to produce human embryos may be said to create a new form of early embryo which is genetically identical to the donor of the cell nucleus. This prospect goes further than that contemplated by either the Warnock committee or Parliament when it debated these issues".
It is clearly wrong, then, as Ministers have done in another place, to state that,
"the regulations do not raise any new moral issues beyond those that have already been debated and discussed in passing the current law".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/12/00; col. 213.]
As the Minister told us, in addition to permitting new practices, these regulations also place a legal obligation on the HFEA to police the new arrangements and to establish that no other alternatives exist.
In another place, the Minister said that the HFEA,
"must satisfy itself that there is no other way of doing the research, avoiding embryo use".—[Official Report, Commons. 19/12/00; col. 214.]
I welcome that, but paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 2 to the Act goes further than the Minister indicated to the House today. It states that the HFEA must satisfy itself that research is necessary or desirable. That is a much less stringent requirement than we are being told.
In any case, how in law is such a Solomon's judgment to be arrived at? How will the law work? Will the HFEA hear evidence? Will any dissenting voices be appointed to the authority to put an alternative point of view? What right of appeal will exist?
The HFEA is already overstretched and unable to undertake its duties effectively. Many of your Lordships will have seen a report in the Sunday Times of 7th January that up to 500 human embryos will be destroyed at a clinic in Hampshire because administrators,
"have admitted that they may be unable to return any of them to the right parents".
The solicitor representing the distressed women involved said that the HFEA had,
"inspected the clinic just before all this came to light. There is concern that the rules allow for a situation like this to develop".
What business have we in imposing further onerous duties on a body which is clearly unable effectively to discharge its current duties and responsibilities?
If the constitutional issues and the law should cause us to pause, so should the scientific questions. None of us in this House is anti-science but nor should we be blinded or silenced by it. Last week at various briefing meetings, I heard eminent scientists state that the use of human embryos is wholly unnecessary in achieving cures for terrible degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.
Professor Neil Scolding, a specialist in multiple sclerosis, stated that,
"it is simply not accurate to say that embryonic stem cells have an immediate therapy potential. It is a significant exaggeration of the true position".
He points to new developments over the past six months, since Professor Donaldson and the Royal Society looked at these issues, stating that,
"evidence shows that there is an alternative".
He says that there are two fallacies: one is that cures from embryonic stem cells are imminent; and the other is that adult stem cells are unlikely to be as effective.
It is cruelly misleading to pretend that cures are around the corner or that embryonic stem cells offer the best hope of a breakthrough. Dr Philip Jones, a scientist working at Oxford University, spoke at a meeting in your Lordships' House on Monday last. He has researched stem cells for the past decade. He told us that adult stem cells offered far greater potential for cures than embryonic stem cells. He added,
"Because these cells come from the patient's own body there would be no problem with immune rejection".
President Clinton's bioethics committee reached the same conclusion, stating that adult stem cells hold none of the moral problems associated with embryonic stem cells.
Dr Michael Antoniou, head of the nuclear biology group at Guy's Hospital, said that,
"adult stem cells have as much if not more therapeutic potential than those derived from embryos".
It is often said that in some therapies only embryonic cells may be used. Dr Antoniou said that nothing had been achieved to date with embryonic stem cells that had not also been achieved with adult stem cells, and that,
"adult bone marrow derived cells can contribute to all neural cell types in animal model studies".
I draw your Lordships' attention to a letter which appeared this morning signed by 49 young medics at the University of Cambridge in which they say that both their training as medical students and current research indicate that adult stem cells have as much therapeutic potential as embryonic stem cells.
Some noble Lords will also have seen the report in The Times last week that in this country Dr Ilham Abuljadayel had claimed to have devised a process which created endless supplies of stem cells from adult stem cells simply by using a donor's blood. Clearly, that was not a matter which the Donaldson committee was able to consider before the regulations were formulated. If scientific opinion is so divided and is moving at such speed, should we with confidence proceed without properly scrutinising these claims and calling the scientists to whom I have referred before a committee of your Lordships' House so that they can give proper evidence?
I turn finally to the ethical issues. Your Lordships will have received a letter from 11 of our religious leaders, headed by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. They include the Chief Rabbi, the Cardinal Archbishop of Glasgow, the President of the Muslim College, the Director of the Sikh Network and other leaders of the Christian denominations. They have been joined by His Holiness the Dalai Lama in appealing to your Lordships to consider further both the scientific and the ethical questions posed by the use of embryonic stem cells before these regulations are passed. I believe that such a joint letter is without precedent. Are all of these appeals to reflect and deliberate further simply to be swept aside?
One does not have to believe in the sanctity of human life, or that life begins at fertilisation, to be concerned about the general commodification of life. Every generation is tempted by the seductive and tantalising prospect of universal happiness as a trump over all other values and principles, but human dignity must always be defended against the abuse of scientific techniques. It will not be lost on your Lordships that it was the Deputy Chairman of the Ethics Committee of the Reichstag, Hubert Hueppe, who said last month that it was cannibalistic to,
"breed a human being, only to kill it, disembowel it and impregnate something with it".
The language may be more strident than we are used to but the ethical issues that it raises cannot be lightly dismissed. Indeed, the Donaldson committee clearly stated:
"Although these embryos differ in the method of their creation, they are undoubtedly human embryonic life, which, given the right conditions, could develop into a human being".
The commodified view, which treats the human embryo as just another accessory to be created, bartered, frozen or destroyed, is not one that commends itself to me or many outside this House. When the Minister tells the House of Commons that a pre-l4-day-old embryo has the "power" to facilitate cures to mankind's misery, to me it simply underlines that, even at this early stage of development, we are not dealing with something that is inconsequential. There is nothing therapeutic in this procedure for the new human: once it has been used, it will be destroyed. There is no question here of donor rights or consent. Since 1990, when miracle cures were promised for 4,000 inherited diseases, between 300,000 and half a million human embryos have been destroyed or experimented upon. There have been no cures, but our willingness to walk this road has paved the way for more and more demands.
Dr John Wyatt, professor of neonatal paediatrics at the Royal Free, expresses the dilemma well:
"I and many of my fellow health professionals have a profound disquiet about the introduction of therapeutic cloning. Many of us are actively involved in research to find novel therapies for life threatening, disabling conditions. However, the creation and manipulation of living human embryos for the sole purpose of generating therapeutic tissue seems incompatible with respect for vulnerable human life. The redefinition of human embryos as mere biological material, as 'totipotent stem cells' in order to allay public concerns, smacks of semantic trickery rather than responsible debate".
The pressure to speak in today's debate underlines that these are not trivial questions which preoccupy a few moral theologians; they are at the heart of our humanity. What is clear is that we are inadequately prepared to vote on these regulations today, that the ethical and political process which we are using to decide these issues is inappropriate and inadequate, and that in agreeing to the amendment which I have laid before your Lordships' House we shall allow the exercise of prudence and caution. I am grateful to noble Lords for hearing me out. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to approve the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th December until a Select Committee of the House of Lords has reported on the issues connected with human cloning and stem cell research".—(Lord Alton of Liverpool.)
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have much pleasure in following the excellent and well argued case for the amendment put by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I declare an interest at the outset. I am a vice-president of the Alzheimer's Society but I speak today in a personal capacity and not as a representative of that body. We lost a son one month before his
30
15th birthday. He died from a relatively minor illness which was complicated by his diabetes. I am as anxious as anyone here to see progress made in relieving the symptoms of, and/or finding cures for, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and many others. However, in the interests of all who share those hopes it is essential that those who have the responsibility for making a decision to extend this area of science have the benefit of a report by a Select Committee.
The Minister said that the only hope for a cure was through medical research and science. That is true. But there is a great deal of scientific research being carried out, and much progress is being made. There are some recent exciting breakthroughs for those who suffer from Alzheimer's disease. But all we ask today is that more thought is given to an extension into stem cell research.
The Minister went on to tell the House—with what authority I know not—that the science was clear. Having listened to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and many experts over the past couple of weeks, I can only tell the Minister that the science is anything but clear. Although we are being invited by the Government to approve, without amendment, the draft regulations before the House today, the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Walton of Detchant, and the one which I shall not move, at least give the House the opportunity to consider an alternative way forward.
It is essential that the scientific, moral and ethical issues which arise from the proposals to allow cloning with the use of embryos should be considered more fully. The proposal that a Select Committee should consider the issues surrounding the extension of this science to include therapeutic cloning unites many people who hold different views about human cloning. There are those like the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, who believe that the science should be allowed to advance and see many benefits in its application; others are genuinely open-minded about the proposals but are in a real dilemma and believe that it would be helpful to be informed before taking a decision. There are those who on moral and ethical grounds have grave reservations about what is proposed in the regulations but nevertheless would like to see the matter referred to a Select Committee. This degree of anxiety and the desire for greater debate and exploration of the issues should be addressed. Therefore, the case for setting up a Select Committee with an obligation to report to Parliament is overwhelming.
Why are the Government in such a hurry, and why is a matter of such importance not being dealt with through primary legislation? The Government promised that a Bill would be brought forward to prohibit human reproductive cloning, but there was no mention of it in the recent gracious Speech. In the lengthy briefing letter from the Minister which advocated—perhaps it went further than that—support for the regulations, he wrote:
"These regulations will not permit reproductive cloning. That is illegal. It will stay illegal".

31
If that is the case, what is the purpose of the proposed new Bill? Whatever the answer to my question, if there is to be a new Bill dealing with human cloning why could it not wait for the Select Committee report and the outcome of the judicial review and subsume, if appropriate, the regulations before us today? That way we should all be better informed about the issues and public confidence in the parliamentary process would be restored.
There are so many questions to be addressed before Parliament should be asked to decide the matter. First, for example, there is a need to explore the balance of arguments between eminent scientists, some of whom believe that continued research using adult stem cells from both animals and humans should be pursued, and others, equally respected in the science field, who believe that the way forward is therapeutic cloning using human embryos. Secondly, there should be fuller consideration given to the limitations of such research. Thirdly, fuller consideration should be given to the moral and ethical dimensions of such a radical scientific advance.
There is much disquiet about the considerable financial and commercial interests of individuals and organisations in the passing of the regulations. Much of the mail that we have received recently is from people who have considerable vested interests. There is the vexed question of parliamentary process. To deal with all these issues in unamendable regulations is an affront to the democratic process.
The House of Lords has a distinguished record of Select Committee work on issues of major importance to the British people and, in the case of research on human embryos, to the whole of mankind. I cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who invites the House to agree the order and then set up a Select Committee. That would be locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. There would be no urgency or focus for the Select Committee once the science has been approved.
Moreover, from the intense lobbying that we have experienced from the Government pressing us all not to refer this matter to a Select Committee, I would have little confidence that the work of a Select Committee would be given any priority at all. Such is the pressure to approve the draft regulations that the Government would be anxious, if Parliament were to approve the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to appoint the committee members and to see its work completed without delay.
The Government argue that the 1990 Act pre-empted such a change and that, therefore, a mere statutory instrument, which cannot be amended, would suffice. I was present on the Front Bench in this House for the debate on the 1990 Act when changes were made to allow for research using human embryos in the context of fertility. But for the Minister to suggest that the issue of human cloning and the ethics surrounding cell nuclear replacement for the purposes of research and treatment was fully discussed is simply not true. We were assured by the then Secretary of
32
State that the 1990 Act specifically excluded cloning. He declared that this, along with "other science fiction", would be outlawed.
On 17th December 1989 the then Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said:
"There are some activities which I am sure we would all find unacceptable. The Bill prohibits the creation of hybrids using human gametes, the cloning of embryos by nucleus substitution to produce genetically identical individuals and genetic engineering to change the structure of the embryos".
There is sufficient doubt about what was or was not understood by the 1990 Act and about the legal interpretation by the Government of what was agreed by the Act, that to await the outcome of both the judicial review and the work of the Select Committee makes common sense.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, even Professor Donaldson in his report stated that:
"The use of cell nucleus replacement to produce human embryos may be said to create a new form of early embryo which is genetically identical to the donor of the cell nucleus. This prospect goes further than that contemplated by either the Warnock Committee or Parliament when it debated these issues".
That is unequivocal: Professor Donaldson said that this "goes further".
There is widespread concern about the Government's handling of what is a fundamental proposal on an issue of immense importance. In addition to hearing from experts on both sides of this issue, we have been lobbied by Ministers and the Chief Medical Officer to support the regulations. Yet this is supposed to be a free vote. At this point I must put on the record that there was no such pressure put on Members of this House, even those of us on the Front Bench, by the then government when the 1990 Act was passed. It was truly a free vote. Not for the first time are the Government abusing the procedures of the House. At last members of the public are taking notice.
We are told that we should not take a different view from the other place. Yet the Government have made available very little time for this issue. We are faced with unamendable regulations which come into force next week, whereas primary legislation would have given us time for proper parliamentary scrutiny through both Houses. This is being done in great haste and the wrong parliamentary procedure has been chosen for it.
Good science must always be carried out within moral and ethnical boundaries and, as far as possible, it should be underpinned by public confidence. This is a task for the wise counsel of a Select Committee with the power to interrogate experts and to explore the relevant issues. We should defer consideration of this matter until Parliament has considered its report.
I take great pleasure in supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
4.17 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, this is not a party political issue and I welcome the fact that we have a free vote on the matter. Nevertheless, in supporting the

33
regulations and the amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, I understand that I am in the majority on these Benches.
There are those in our party, as across the House, for whom no experimentation on embryonic cells is acceptable. Thus, they would not approve of the current legislation, nor of adding a further area of research under it. I understand and respect their position although I do not share it. There are others among us who, although they support the 1990 Act, nevertheless feel uneasy at the proposed new areas of research. Therefore, I welcome the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant.
A Select Committee reporting on the issues connected with human cloning and stem cell research and undertaking a review of the regulations in the light of that report will enable us to look further at the issues that cause disquiet.
Decisions in the Lords are always important, but today this is unusually so. Quite simply, the future of stem cell research and its therapeutic potential is in our hands. As The Times in its leader today puts it, our decision is,
"literally, a matter of life and death".
And The Times leader-writer has no doubt that we should vote for immediate change,
"so that lives can be saved and the scourge of disease lightened".
So what are the issues that we are debating today; and what questions stand out? The issues are threefold—scientific, ethical and supervisory. I turn first to the scientific issues. Does the science show potential? Is this research worth pursuing? Can it be done in some other way? Is it fundamentally new and different or is it essentially the same as that covered in the 1990 Act? Full investigation of this has already been made by the Donaldson report, the Royal Society, the British Medical Association and many others. They conclude that the potential is indeed there and that the benefits could be massive for all kinds of disorders. Few scientists doubt—and the Royal Society, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust all concur—that embryonic stem cells have far greater potential at the moment than do adult stem cells for helping to understand how tissues develop. As Sir Robert May, President of the Royal Society, put it in a letter to The Times today, Members of the House of Lords,
"should not be misled into believing that adult cells at present offer anything like the same prospects as embryonic stem cells for treating serious degenerative diseases".
The potential application of stem cell research is quite extraordinary, and, if that potential is realised, would represent a seismic shift such as was the case with the development of antisepsis or antibiotics. I have spent enough years as a historian of medicine to doubt many medical scientific claims and to know that research does not always proceed in the expected direction, but I am sufficiently convinced by the research that has already been done that this is an avenue with immense possibilities. It ranks with anything that has been developed in the lifetime of the NHS. But in terms of the research itself, it is not
34
different from that already allowed under the 1990 Act. The point is that this type of research could be given wider application.
Then there are the ethical issues. Does this research open up new areas which we should consider? As we have heard, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 allows for the use, under licence and after case-by-case approval, of embryonic cells up to 14 days old, before the cells have differentiated into particular tissue types. These can be used for research into five areas relating to reproduction and congenital disorders. The proposal here is that the same type of research should be permitted for the investigation of the treatment of disease more generally. Stem cell research and cell nuclear transfer are allowed under the 1990 Act, within a strictly regulated framework. This proposal is in keeping with the current Act, that research on embryos should be permitted before cell differentiation—that is, up to 14 days. Implantation of such embryos remains a criminal offence.
Wide consideration has been given to whether the expected increase in the use of cell nuclear transfer makes this a step change from the provisions of the 1990 Act. Particular investigation of this, has, for example, been made by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which concluded that there are,
"no grounds for making a moral distinction between research into diagnostic methods or reproduction"—
that is, that allowed by the 1990 Act—
"and research into potential therapies".
So is the key question the enforcement of the regulations? Is it a matter of policing? Yet our regulatory authority is widely admired. The HFEA held fast to the letter of the law in the Diane Blood case, in which she was refused permission, in the most desperate of circumstances, for IVF treatment, because her husband had been unable to give permission for his sperm to be used. The HFEA itself asked that consideration should be given to the application of existing research techniques beyond reproductive technologies to disease in general. That was followed by the thorough investigation by the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, and his expert committee, which included ethicists. Its recommendation and its re-emphasis on the regulatory framework under which additional research might he permitted were very clear.
We certainly do not want a two-tier system, as they have in the United States. It is all very well the US Government refusing to fund any research on embryonic cell clusters while turning a blind eye to research funded privately which can go much further than is the case in Britain. Surely it is far better for all research, as in Britain, to come under the umbrella of a tightly regulated system.
So if the science, ethics and supervision remain as they were, and this is a logical continuum of the provisions of the 1990 Act, and that Act commands wide public support, what issues remain? I would suggest here that it is not those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who would not, presumably, be a supporter of the 1990 Act, but those of public

35
awareness, trust and information. That is where the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is to be welcomed. If it would help the public debate to have the issues that have already been thoroughly explored gone over once again, perhaps in a more public forum, then here is the opportunity for that. But it can be done without delaying vital research and casting back into gloom those many patients who suffer from degenerative disorders.
For my part, these new regulations are in keeping with the HFE Act. In fact not only are they a logical extension of it; they offer far wider promise to many more people than did the original five areas of research. If it was ethically and morally acceptable to pass the 1990 Act, then to see that research potentially benefit a wider section of society is surely to be welcomed. We have well-developed mechanisms for scientific scrutiny, ethical review and supervision and a very recent and comprehensive expert report on this from Professor Donaldson. Delaying the decision as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and others is a layer of review too far. I for one shall vote to pass the regulations, and to promote public debate, I shall also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant.
4.27 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I wish to consider two issues before us today: first, the moral status of the pre-implantation embryo; and, secondly, the question as to whether research on stem cells derived from the pre-implantation embryo is the only way of understanding the process of cell development or whether it would be possible to carry out that research on adult cells.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception and that, from the first moment of existence, a human being must be recognised as having the rights of a person. I deeply respect that position and it is one which is certainly held by a number of your Lordships. However, I should like to suggest that it was only in the 19th century that that position became firmed up. Earlier Christian thought on this subject indicates an awareness of a developing reality, with developing rights as we would put it. According to Aristotle, or at least the view attributed to him, there is first a vegetable soul, then an animal soul and finally an intellectual soul, and it is only at the last point that there is, properly speaking, a human being. In the Aristotelian view, this animation, from the Latin word anima, meaning soul, occurs—some noble Lords will be sorry to hear this—40 days after conception in the case of a male and up to 90 days after conception for a female.
Taking up this approach, the Church's tradition acknowledged a similar process. Abortion, for example, was always regarded as gravely sinful. But there was a distinction in the gravity of the offence depending on whether it occurred before or after the
36
foetus was "formed". The distinction arose on the basis of the Septuagint translation of Exodus 21:22. That refers to a fight between two men, as a result of which a pregnant woman loses her child. If the child is in the early stages of embryonic development, then the penalty is a financial one. If it is in the later stages of pregnancy, then the penalty is death. The Greek word there literally means "not yet so formed as to be a copy or portrayal of the human form". The Septuagint version was most commonly used by the early fathers as well as by the New Testament writers, and this translation was followed in the old Latin versions.
A similar awareness of a developing reality, with different rights according to whether it is in the early or later stages of development, is maintained through the Christian tradition. St Gregory of Nyssa, for example, followed this distinction, maintaining about the unformed embryo that,
"so long as it is in this unformed state it is something other than a human being".
Similarly, St Augustine wrote:
"If what is brought forth is unformed but at this stage some sort of living, shapeless thing, then the law of homicide would not apply, for it could not be said that there was a living soul in that body, for it lacks all sense, if it be such as is not yet formed and therefore not yet endowed with its senses".
The Celtic penitential suggested extremely severe penalties for abortion, but once again it makes a distinction between,
"the liquid matter of the infant matter in the womb"—
the usual term then for the forming embryo—and,
"if the soul has entered it".
A similar distinction remained entrenched in canon law and the moral discipline of the Catholic west. It is also there in St Thomas Aquinas, who follows Aristotle closely, as well as the distinction in the Septuagint version of Exodus 21:22.
All this began to change in the 19th century when advances in medicine made abortion more possible and safer for women. As a result, the incidence of abortion rose, which was seen as a moral threat calling for dramatic and drastic remedies. Pius IX, therefore, in his Bull of 1869, declared excommunicate all who procured abortion, without any distinction as to whether the foetus was formed, animate or inanimate.
I suggest that there is an alternative western tradition. But this does not mean to say that the pre-implantation embryo has no moral status. On the contrary, it has a moral status. It has a special status, even if it is not an absolute one. This was the view put forward by the committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, in 1984, and it was enshrined in law in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. That Act states, as we know, that research may only be undertaken—and, at the moment, research only for issues connected with reproduction and fertility—if there is no other way of achieving what is required. The HFEA will license research only on this basis.

37
Although the early embryo does not have an absolute status according to this understanding of the western tradition, it has nevertheless a special status. Research on it to produce stem cells could be justified morally only if this was the only way of obtaining the desired knowledge and if the knowledge was of such benefit that it outweighed that special status. I think all noble Lords agree on the importance of research on stem cells generally. That has been made quite clear today. The question is whether it is really necessary to do it on cells derived from embryos or whether the same results could not be achieved by work on adult cells.
The evidence so far presented—the research that has been printed and the weight of scientific evidence—suggests that research on stem cells derived from embryos is essential. Certainly, this was the answer that Professor Donaldson gave at the helpful briefing last week. Nevertheless, as we have heard today, there is a contrary argument. There is the work of Dr Ilham Abuljadayel, who claims to have created stem cells from adult cells in what she calls a process of retrodifferentiation. There were articles in Scientist at the end of last year which apparently point to the same possibility, and we have heard further evidence from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, today.
It was for this reason that I was willing to sign with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, a letter supporting the setting up of a Select Committee. Select Committees have a good reputation. They provide a context in which these complex scientific arguments, put forward on both sides by expert witnesses, can be dispassionately assessed. It is very good that we have these two amendments before us today.
As to the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, I should like to know the meaning of,
"undertake to review the regulations".
If a Select Committee came to the conclusion, contrary to the present weight of scientific evidence, that research on adult cells was as good as, if not better than, research on stem cells derived from embryos, would the Government refuse to authorise the latter?
I know that the HFEA, which would be charged with licensing research on embryos, is to do so only if it is shown that it is necessary. But it is under a great deal of pressure from research establishments and clear guidance from the Government would be necessary.
If we take a developmental view of the human person, as I believe the western tradition did until the 19th century, the early embryo has a special, though not an absolute, status. That special status needs to be protected by law. This means that research should be done on it if it only is truly necessary and that research cannot be done any other way. That is why I shall certainly be supporting one of the two amendments now before us. Which one will depend on the kind of assurances the Government may give about the strength of their resolve to reconsider that regulation if a Select Committee concluded that research on stem cells derived from embryos is not strictly necessary for the desired processes to be better understood.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, every half-century or so there are major medical breakthroughs—blood transfusion, antibiotics, anaesthesia—and those breakthroughs have made an enormous difference to the lives and well-being of thousands, if not millions, of people. I believe that the potential benefit of stem cell research is at least on a par with the benefits that have developed through the other medical breakthroughs I have mentioned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked why the Government are in such a hurry. On Thursday evening, in a meeting room in this House, I put that question to someone suffering from Parkinson's. Her answer was: "Because we have not got time to wait. Every day matters to us". For that reason she said, "Please, for Heaven's sake, pass these regulations when you debate them on Monday".
I would ask this question: if we do not pass these regulations today—if we delay them as suggested in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton—how do we say to sufferers of Parkinson's, cancer, diabetes, spinal cord injury, severe burns, Alzheimer's, MS and so on, "No. We did not have enough information. Despite the many reports and investigations that have taken place, we did not want to make a decision because we wanted more information"?
The search for more information can be either a genuine attempt to deal with sincerely held doubts or it can be an excuse to delay action. I fear that some of the voices that say, "Let us not do anything before the appointment of a Select Committee" are looking for an excuse to delay the decision.
Perhaps I may turn now to the question of a Select Committee. The House of Commons has had three debates; we have had the 1990 Act; we have had several significant reports, culminating in the one of the Donaldson committee. I find it hard to believe that a Select Committee established by this House would come to a different conclusion from that of Donaldson. Surely the witnesses will be the same. I do not believe that somehow the judgment of the Donaldson committee was flawed to the extent that a Select Committee of ours would come to a different conclusion. Yes, there is a need for assurances; yes, it is right and proper to keep this controversial process under review. That is why I am supportive of the amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Walton. But I do not believe that there is a case for saying that we should do nothing until we have more information.
I understand that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority will take nine to 12 months before it is able to approve the first research from the date when the regulations are approved by Parliament—which I hope will be today so that the first research can be approved on 1st January next year. That period would surely give the Select Committee that would be set up under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, a chance to consider the matter and to report. If its report suggests modification of the Government's approach, I am sure

39
that the Government will follow the committee's advice. After today's debate, I am sure that they could not do otherwise. But surely, given how long it will take for the HFEA to get this process under way, there is no argument for saying that we should take no action at all until we have had another Select Committee report. With an election coming, that could take quite a long time.
I respect Select Committees; I have served on many of them. I have never seen them as the holy writ that some speakers in this debate have described them to be. But I do not believe that a committee could properly work so quickly. If it rushed the matter, it would be accused of not having done a good job. My argument is that the time-scale of the HFEA is sufficient to encompass the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and still provide the assurances that we need.
There is an obvious conflict between biology and theology. It has been mentioned by every speaker. I understand the views of Members of this House who are opposed to in vitro fertilisation. But Parliament has approved in vitro fertilisation with many safeguards. I totally respect the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Alton; however, I ask him this. Were a Select Committee to endorse the Donaldson report, would he then vote for the regulations?
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is right in saying that I have consistently argued in favour of protection for the human embryo. However, as he will appreciate, I am not putting forward the proposals today. The regulations have been placed before the House by the Government. My case is that they have not been properly tested. We have not heard from the witnesses who say that another means of doing these things is available to us. If that solution, suggested by many in this House, is available, it will provide relief from the moral dilemma that I face, and which I suspect the noble Lord faces too.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I believe that if the Select Committee were to endorse the Donaldson report fully, the noble Lord would have difficulty in supporting the resulting regulations, given the consistency of the principled stand that he has taken. Therefore, in a way, the Select Committee is not the issue. Nevertheless, I respect the noble Lord's sincerity. I have known him for a long time. My point is simply that there is a real dilemma, a conflict between biology and theology, in the minds of some. It is a sincerely held dilemma. I hope that we can resolve the matter today and not ask a Select Committee to help us resolve it later.
We have heard a great deal about the word "cloning". It is most unfortunate that the word has been used precisely in this context. My understanding is that embryos can be obtained for this process either through IVF or through cell nuclear replacement—which involves putting a microscopic nucleus into another cell and developing it in that way. Given the
40
safeguards and controls that exist, I do not believe that that is anything like cloning. Of course the science of cloning is known; we cannot undo that knowledge. What we must do is ensure that we control it and use it only in the very limited way in which it is sensible for the benefit of human beings. The Minister has given the House an assurance regarding measures that the Government will take shortly giving legislative effect to the banning of some of these other measures.
Much mention has been made of adult cells. It has been said that they represent an alternative. I have had discussions recently with a number of scientists on this precise point. Every one of them assures me that, although adult cells may have some positive benefits, their use and application are much more limited, and that one of the arguments for doing the research that the regulations will permit is to enable us to test whether adult cells can be used further. But the general view is that it will not be done, although I know that there are other scientific voices. I do not think that a Select Committee would resolve that conflict. It would have to come to a view, as Donaldson did. However, I am assured that, although the use of adult cells may be helpful at the margin, they are simply not the way out.
This country is a world leader in this process. We have a noble and important scientific tradition. Yet, in recent months, an anti-scientific mood has crept into the debate. We see it in relation to a number of other issues which there is no time to develop now. I regret that mood. Scientists play an important part in economic development and, above all, in relation to the health and well-being of people in this country. They have an excellent reputation. I welcome the fact that in the recent past scientists have become involved in discussing the ethics of scientific developments, not merely the science itself. Perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the many scientists who have taken the trouble and who have had the patience to explain to me how these procedures work and to point out their strengths and weaknesses—and for doing so in such a way as to enable me to develop some understanding of what is going on.
This debate relates to the quality of life of sufferers from many dreadful diseases. It is not just a matter of quality of life; for some, we are talking about a question of life or death if a decision is delayed. When we vote, it will be on one of the crucial decisions that comes every so often before a House of Parliament. We are talking about the well-being, the health and the lives of the many sufferers who are paying great attention to this debate. Surely, in the scheme of things those people must matter. I believe that the best way forward is to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and to move forward, so that there is no undue delay in helping these people.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, despite all the rhetoric and fine words, it is a sad reflection on the Parliament of the United Kingdom—of which we should all be justly proud—that we are forced to consider matters of supreme importance in the context of a statutory instrument, which is unamendable. It is a

41
sad reflection when we read, as we have recently, other debates on trivialities and party-political matters. My noble friend Lord Alton mentioned the Bill on fox-hunting. Plenty of time has been allowed for the different stages of that Bill. But on a matter of such great importance as this, time is allowed only for debate on an order.
Whether one approves of, or opposes, the position on human embryos, none can underestimate its importance. Why is there such haste? Why not delay three months? The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, spoke about the sufferers from various diseases. I understand their feelings. But why is a matter of such importance, nationally and worldwide, being rushed through on this occasion? Why does the decision have to be taken at the end of the month? This hurry gives the impression that there is some power motoring behind it—perhaps the multi-million pound pharmaceutical or biotechnological industries and those interested in them. That may or may not be the case. I hope it is not.
However, it may be said that the reason behind the urgency is to relieve the sufferers. Many promises were made 10 years ago in 1990 when the Act was first debated. Some, but not a great many, advances have been made since then. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, I suppose that it depends upon which scientists you consult. Others believe that more resources should be devoted to the adult stem cell process where ethical concerns about the use of human embryos do not come into the equation.
There is another bombshell which I am not sure whether the Government have taken on board. They have decided to have this statutory instrument decided here today when, in four days' time, a case will be heard before the High Court of Justice—a judicial review concerning the Act. If that appears before the High Court and it decides as it could—I do not say that it will—it might mean that the Secretary of State will be unable to make orders, such as the regulations now before the House. He will not have the power; they will be ultra vires. That case is due to be heard in the High Court later this week, yet we are asked to make this decision today even before the court has heard the argument.
I know that the House finds it tedious when matters of law are discussed by a lawyer. But perhaps I may explain to your Lordships a little of what this judicial review is about. It relates to Sections 1 and 3 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. It is for the court to interpret—indeed, it is not a matter for this House, the Secretary of Secretary, the department's lawyers, or anyone else—whether the definition of "embryo" under Section 1 of the Act is correct. It states that,
"a live human embryo where fertilisation is complete and … [includes] an egg in the process of fertilisation".
"Fertilisation", as the argument goes, and according to the Encyclopaedia of Reproduction, is a precise scientific term that culminates in the union of one, and only one, sperm nucleus with the egg nucleus within the activated egg cytoplasm.
42
But, as we have heard, cell nuclear replacement involves placing an adult somatic cell into a female egg cell, which has had its nuclear material removed. Shortly, the submission of the applicants in this case is that that cannot possibly be a process of fertilisation. If so, then cell nuclear reproduction, cloned embryos, have not been—nor are being—fertilised. Therefore, they do not fall within Section 1 of the Act.
Further, the applicants go on to cite Section 3, where reference is made to the limit of time. There was a great debate about 10 years ago about the limits of time that one is entitled to retain an embryo—indeed, there was much debate—after what is called "the primitive streak" has been formed. "The primitive streak" is defined as being taken to be formed in an embryo not later than 14 days beginning on the day,
"when the gametes are mixed".
However, in cell nuclear reproduction there is present, at most, one gamete. Therefore, say the applicants, there cannot be a mixing of gametes because there is only one. So Section 3 seems to confirm what the applicants are asserting over Section 1; namely, that the cloning of embryos is not controlled by the Act itself. In other words, the Act is defective. If that is so, it is a very serious situation. It is not for me to say, but in the old days in another place one would send for a Law Officer and ask him to explain the law. One would demand his opinion because a Law Officer was, first, responsible to Parliament, then to the Crown and finally to the administration. He would be asked to say whether or not the argument was valid. But even if the Law Officer gave some advice, the first stages of a judicial review have been approved by the court and the High Court will hear the case on the 31st January. I give way.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I am increasingly puzzled by his argument and should like clarification in that respect. He said that "fertilisation" is defined as when one sperm enters the egg. Can the noble and learned Lord explain to me whether fertilisation has occurred if two sperms enter the egg and an embryo is formed? What happens in that case? Is that still an embryo? It is an important question. My point is that fertilisation is not necessarily a normal process and does not necessarily lead to the formation of human life.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, the noble Lord can make his speech later. I was explaining the argument being made by applicants who will appear before the High Court on Friday for a decision to be made on the matter. They say that there was no fertilisation and that, therefore, Section 1 of the 1990 does not apply. If that is right—some noble Lords may say that it is not; but I may say that it is—the court will decide. If it does so, I am afraid that it will put a bombshell under these regulations; namely, that the Secretary of State does not have the power to lay them.
Everyone wants the embryos to be controlled by the Act; indeed, everyone says that that must be so. This means that the Government will have to introduce

43
primary legislation in order to deal with the point that the High Court will decide. Clearly the advisers of the Secretary of State have told him that the court will decide the matter and take a broad interpretation of the narrow application suggested by the applicants. But department lawyers have been wrong. As we all know, they have been wrong many times. We have all sat on either side of the Chamber and heard wretched Ministers having thrown at them the fact that the court has decided that what they have done is illegal. That can happen. All I am saying is that it is remarkable behaviour to bring forward regulations when, in four days' time, the High Court may decide that the Secretary of State had no power to lay them.
That is one reason why it seems so strange for us to be proceeding today in this way. This is a matter of vital and enormous importance. I shall make my personal position on the matter clear. I support the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but I would go further than him and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Even if a Select Committee decided that Donaldson was correct, I would not support it.
4.59 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I am most grateful for the kind words spoken by the Minister at the beginning of the debate. I shall speak briefly. I personally—this is just my opinion—have been entirely convinced by the arguments put forward to justify the use of embryonic stem cells, at least in the first instance, as a part of research that will, as we have heard, probably lead to a revolution in medicine. Even if later the use of embryonic cells may become unnecessary, at present I am persuaded that it is essential.
Nevertheless, I have great sympathy with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Alton. It is true that the issues have been discussed in another place. It is also true to say that there has been a great deal of discussion and consultation among both scientists and ethicists over the past year. Yet I am acutely aware of the anxieties that remain among people who are neither scientists nor specialists in ethics or theology, as well as, as we have heard, among many Church leaders. The anxiety, partly at any rate, is that they suspect that the regulations have been introduced because of pressure brought to bear on government and on Parliament by scientists, by doctors and even by the pharmaceutical industry.
There is a belief among the general public that a huge moral step is being taken without the benefit of the normal parliamentary procedures. Once that first step has been taken, they fear that nameless horrors will follow. This is the well-known slippery slope argument which I believe has great power among many people.
I believe that my next point is perhaps not widely enough understood, although it has been mentioned several times today, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. There is an enormous degree of suspicion among the public—I fear that that
44
suspicion grows every year—as regards politicians and scientists which is reaching dangerous proportions. We are becoming a nation of cynics who cannot believe anything that they are told and who suspect the evidence and the motivation of the people who produce it. That is a situation that we ought to fear. We ought to take every step within our power to increase trust— which at the moment is at an extremely low ebb—between the non-scientific public and scientists and between the non-political public and politicians. That is the background against which the setting up of a Select Committee, whose evidence could be heard largely, perhaps entirely, in public, the membership of which would be known and the members of which therefore could be written to, lobbied and annoyed in every possible way by the general public, is an important consideration. It would do something to increase the trust of which I have spoken, which at the moment does not exist.
As we have heard, the suspicions with regard to the matter we are discussing are largely derived from the use of the expression "therapeutic cloning". If some other way of describing the procedure could honestly have been used, I believe that many of the difficulties in which we find ourselves would go away. Even with the qualification of the word "therapeutic", the word "cloning" sends shivers of horror down the spines of the British public and has done so ever since the days of Mary Shelley. That is understandable.
In 1990 a number of the issues that we are discussing had not been raised. The possibility of these kind of procedures was thought of by the forward looking scientific members of the committee that I had the honour to chair but the detailed work was not under discussion, neither was the sense that there was an imminent breakthrough and that some of the most dreaded diseases from which people suffer might in the foreseeable future be capable of being reversed. As we have heard, it is not just a case of treating diseases but of helping people who suffer from horrendous burns or spinal injuries as a result of accidents. They are equally likely—I think that one can now use the word "likely"—to benefit.
In 1990, as now, some people were wholly against embryonic research of any kind. It has to be said that the breach between those people and those of us who believe that embryonic research is necessary and entirely justifiable will probably never be healed, nor will the gap be bridged, unless a different theology and a different doctrine about the encellment of the embryo is introduced on either side. What is being discussed now makes no difference to that huge divide, which I take seriously. However, I am firmly on the development side that the right reverend Prelate explained to us.
As I say, that breach will not be healed but the other breach that can be healed if we really work at it is the fear that there will be no serious regulation or serious monitoring of the research that goes forward and that we shall rush down the slope to the cloning of whole human beings. I believe that those who have any influence in this matter have a duty to try to allay at least some of those fears. Some of those fears were

45
allayed in 1990 during the passage of the Act. That was partly because six years passed between the publication of my report and the passing of the legislation, which began in 1989 and was completed in 1990. Six years passed during which a number of us who had been members of the committee spent a great deal of time involved in journalism and in talking to people. I wrote a weekly column in a women's magazine and monthly columns in other women's magazines to try to explain the issues. I believe that to some extent—but only to some extent—we succeeded. However, the issues have changed. An enormous amount has happened since 1990. People are beginning—if they are not already there—to be in an even worse state of panic than they were when they did not understand about in vitro fertilisation.
I believe that there is a real need to set up a Select Committee and for its findings to be taken seriously into account in the regulation that will follow. The amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant provides a means to start to alleviate some of the fears I have mentioned. I deeply wish that there had been time to set up a Select Committee ahead of our having to agree to the regulations. That has been a mistake. We have been bullied and pushed to do things more quickly than we should, which I deplore. Nevertheless, as I have no moral scruples whatsoever about the proposed new research, and as the vote is meant to be a conscience vote, having consulted my conscience I am bound to vote for the amendment of my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant. It follows my reading of the moral obligation we have to society to follow every path that will alleviate suffering but at the same time to ensure that people who do not understand the issues, and, even more importantly, people who fear them, are given some hope that their fears may be listened to.
I shall support that amendment subject to a reiteration of the Minister's undertaking that the regulations will be reviewed when the report is published. Today I have been called very naïve to believe that that might happen. However, I have just enough trust in politicians to believe that. Therefore, as I say, I shall support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Walton.
5.9 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the way in which he has clearly set out the key issues associated with the draft regulations. I, like others, welcome this important debate. Just as the 20th century was dominated by huge advances in the physical sciences, with air and space travel, the invention of the telephone and television, communication technologies, the computer and the microchip, so, I believe, the 21st century will be dominated by advances in the life sciences. As other noble Lords have said, those will be revolutionary. The impact on life expectancy, healthcare and the combat of disease will be extraordinary. But with the excitement comes huge ethical and moral challenges.
46
I chair the Human Genetics Commission which advises Government on how new developments in human genetics will impact on people and healthcare. I emphasise that when speaking today about the draft regulations I do not speak on behalf of the commission, but we have an interest in the matter. Our predecessor, the Human Genetics Advisory Committee, was involved in preparing the report that forms the basis of the draft regulations. Two distinguished members of the current commission, whose knowledge and judgment I respect greatly, were members of the expert group which produced its report on stem cell research last year. Other learned bodies have exhaustively debated the issues. It is as a result of careful discussions, debate and reading that I have formed a personal view against the background of my own deeply-held beliefs about the importance of respect for human life.
The Human Genetics Commission was established a year ago with a particular focus on the social and ethical issues which arise from developments in the human genetic science. A strong remit was given to us to involve and consult the public and others and to encourage debate. We want to increase public knowledge and understanding of these great advances. We strive to work in an open and transparent way. The agenda and minutes of all our meetings are on the website. The majority of our meetings take place in public. We have already held public meetings in London and Newcastle, hugely attended. We have conducted polls; and we are currently conducting wide consultation with the general public. This is all part of a trend towards greater openness, consultation and public engagement which I am sure noble Lords will agree can only be good.
Perhaps I may reiterate what other noble Lords have said. There is considerable public concern that scientific advance is moving ahead with insufficient public debate. That is why so many people welcome this debate in this Chamber today. People welcome the incredible good for society which could come from such research but they worry about regulation.
The commission's remit is to work with but not to direct other relevant advisory and regulatory bodies. We already have a fruitful relationship with the HFEA. The chair of the authority is an ex officio member of the commission. We have established good links with the HFEA on issues of reproductive choice. We are committed to maintaining an overview of the relevant work of the HFEA as part of our strategic role. The authority is also accountable to Parliament and Parliament is also able to maintain tight control over this area of research. Despite the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the authority has, I believe, an excellent record in its regulatory role and we should have confidence that it would seek to fulfil any extended role with the same rigour and commitment.
The question which dominates any public consultation is this: can we be confident that reproductive cloning will not take place? Will the regulations be sufficient? Can the line be drawn and held? That is what we are discussing tonight—the firmness of that line in the sand. Transgression seems

47
so easy and perhaps tempting to the unscrupulous. I have my own deeply-held beliefs and I respect the views of those who will speak from conviction today about their concerns. We should listen carefully to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford with whom, fortunately, I have had the opportunity of discussions on several previous occasions.
We are talking about a cluster of cells. However, we are not talking about any cluster of cells but a cluster which has the potential to develop into human life. Most members of the public, whether they are religious or would describe themselves as humanist or secular, recognise the special and sacred nature of human life. They believe that there must be respect for that entity. The only circumstances in which research on this cluster of cells should be permissible is when a genuine greater good for society will be served.
It is for that reason that the general public want to see a regulatory framework put in place expeditiously. That is a regulatory framework which I believe that the HFEA has demonstrated it can monitor and maintain—that it is capable of holding the line.
If noble Lords are against these draft regulations, a decision will not stop research on stem cells from taking place elsewhere in the world. In many, if not most, overseas countries there is no effective regulatory system controlling embryonic research. I am extremely concerned that we shall be faced with pressure to import expensive stem cell therapies, possibly those developed in an ethically dubious and less well-regulated manner.
At the end of last year, the Human Genetics Commission conducted a survey of the People's Panel on matters of genetic information. That research was interesting. It showed that, while most people firmly believe in the potential benefits from genetic research, they did not have confidence that regulations everywhere were keeping pace with scientific development. They argued for precisely the measure that is before the House today. They wanted regulations which drew a distinction between therapeutic cloning and human cloning. The question is asked: why are the Government in such a hurry? From the polling exercise and the earliest returns on the consultation taking place, it became clear that people feel that science is moving fast. They are right; it is. There are concerns that frustrated geneticists in this country will move abroad. People want to see Britain maintaining its lead in this field. People want the benefits which could accrue to those who are suffering. The urgency is because people believe that this research will make a difference and save lives.
However, people want regulation. They want to be sure that that regulation will mean that any breach will involve serious repercussions. They want to hear reassurances from Government today that the regulations can be monitored in an appropriately strict way. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, raised this point. They want to be reassured that there will be a revisiting of the issue if further information is forthcoming which suggests that other methods might
48
be even more advantageous and would not pose the moral problems raised by embryonic stem cell research.
Like other noble Lords, I ask that this House supports either the regulations in their original form or the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton. The public see an urgency. They want this area of science to be regulated in the way that the regulations provide. Therefore, I ask all my noble colleagues to support the regulations so that life can be saved and the scourge of disease can be lightened.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, this has already been a very impressive debate. I recognise that there are men and women on both sides of the argument with a deep commitment to relieving the suffering and distress caused by medical and genetic conditions. Already, the House has distinguished itself by the objective, calm and deliberative nature of the debate so far.
I can go back even further than the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, because I was the Secretary of State for Education and Science who set up the so-called Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group, which produced its first report in May 1978. Even then, looking at recombinant DNA, it began to talk about the immense potential of genetics and all that was going to flow from it. I speak in awe, recognising the astonishing, exponential spreading out of the knowledge base from that time to this and the almost terrifying rate of acceleration of research.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, put it so well in his clear and lucid speech, nobody doubts the huge potential, particularly of cell therapy. Because of the nature of some of the cells that we are considering—the fact that they are pluripotent—there could be an immense extension of medical knowledge and the ability to help people who suffer from a range of diseases.
The problem in the debate and the reason that it runs so deep and demands so much thought, is that the up side and down side of the technology have such major implications. The up side presents the prospect of an astonishing scientific leap forward in relieving suffering and distress. The down side is that of using human beings as instruments—what the ethics committee of the European Commission described as the instrumentalisation of human beings. If we have any doubts about that danger, we need only consider the fact that human organs are being sold on the Internet for use as spare parts. Those who can afford it buy them for large sums of money from their unwilling donors, who are too poor to be able to finance their lives in any other way. We are looking at a great extension of seeing human beings as a commodity, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. That is the precise dilemma that we confront.
One problem is that, if the Donaldson committee's report is correct, the initial stages of research for embryonic stem cells and for cell nuclear replacement are the same for therapeutic and reproductive

49
purposes. The great split comes when one decides what that purpose is to be. That is why it is vital to be clear that cloning techniques for human beings are completely forbidden.
That brings me to my first worry. In another place, the Minister for Public Health, Ms Yvette Cooper, said:
"Like the 1990 Act, the regulations do not—and cannot—distinguish between one technique and another. They do not make cell nuclear replacement research legal because, strictly speaking, it is already legal. All they do is change the purposes for which cell nuclear replacement research can be carried out".
That was my understanding of the slight ambiguity of the 1990 Act. That ambiguity has not yet been successfully resolved, nor can it be resolved without Parliament passing primary legislation. That is why I am profoundly concerned that we are considering passing the regulations before such primary legislation is in place. Will it be put in place? Again, I quote from the Minister in the Commons, who said:
"We have made clear our commitment, and our intention, to embed the ban on human reproductive cloning in primary legislation. We will do so as parliamentary time allows and obviously subject to discussion with business managers".— [Official Report, Commons, 19/12/00; col. 220.]
That is not an adequate response. Both those answers have been used widely by governments of all colours to explain why, unfortunately, such vital legislation cannot be brought forward for months, or even years. I do not for a moment doubt the totally honourable intentions of the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for whom I have great respect. Having been in government for a long time, I am well aware how easy it is for legislation committees to find other priorities to override a particular department that says that an issue is of vital importance. It may be important, but will it attract as many votes as some other legislation? I should therefore like a solid commitment from the Minister that primary legislation will be brought forward as soon as possible after the general election. I am particularly worried by the phrase,
"in discussion with business managers".
Business managers should not determine whether legislation of such moral importance is brought forward at the earliest possible stage.
Secondly, I am concerned about the basis for international regulation. My noble friend Lady Northover rightly said in her excellent speech that one of the ambiguities of the American position is that, while the National Institutes of Health are very closely regulated, to the point that they may not currently undertake any research that requires the use of an embryo or any development of an embryo—one of the toughest regulations in the western world—that is coupled with the complete non-regulation of the private sector. That cannot make sense. Brilliant though the market is at distributing goods to consumers, it has no in-built moral sense. If somebody has the money to pay for a clone so that he can acquire spare parts from that clone for the rest of his life, I think that we are all aware that somewhere that consumer demand will probably be met, unless there is very powerful international regulation.
50
I fear that such international regulation will not come about unless our government and others are willing to press for a basis of consensus covering at least the European Union and the United States. Alongside the ambivalence of the United States is the disparate nature of rules in the European Union, ranging from the complete ban on embryo use or research in Germany—obviously flowing from the terrible historic experience of the misuse of eugenics during the Hitler regime—to the relatively more relaxed research structures of Scandinavia and the United Kingdom. I cannot say too strongly that it makes no sense in a global biological world to set up regulations in one country unless they can be the basis of regulations at least in the scientifically advanced industrial states; otherwise, those who seek to break those regulations will simply go round the back, or, perhaps more dangerously, bargain on a race to the bottom, where regulations are as weak as they can be.
In that context, it is interesting that the US National Bioethics Advisory Committee to President Clinton and the European Group of Ethics in Science and New Technologies called for a moratorium before regulations were laid down to enable debate to take place.
Finally, I turn to the issue which has arisen several times during the debate concerning the contrast between research into adult stem cells and research into embryo cells. Again, I pay tribute to the Minister for the very clear way in which he set that out. However, he went on to say that so far the great weight of scientific opinion in this country has supported embryonic research as opposed to adult cell research. It is interesting that most of the recent developments in this area have occurred not only since the Warnock report and the 1990 Act but even since the report of the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Liam Donaldson. Perhaps I may quote quickly three examples to the House. I have no wish to detain your Lordships for long in this debate.
First, I refer to an issue raised in the magazine, Science, on 25th February 2000. It was shown in a paper by Watt and Hogan that adult stem cells can differentiate into developmentally unrelated cell types. They can develop from blood cells into muscle cells and from brain cells into skin cells; in other words, the pluripotential nature of stem cells occurred in adult as well as in embryonic stem cells. But the argument put forward by the Minister—a valid argument until very recently—is that adult stem cells are hard to harvest. That has certainly been true.
However, then came the astonishing work claimed by Dr Abuljadayel, who researched from the University of Cambridge, subsequently in Saudi Arabia and then back in this country. She claimed that what she calls "retrodifferentiation" enables adult cells to be turned back in time to the point where they are no longer differentiated and where the problem of the multiplication of cells is overcome.
What worries me most about that is that two subsequent experiments both bear out what the doctor claims to be possible. The first experiment was carried

51
out by a private company, Covance; the second by a distinguished geneticist, Professor Adrian Newland of the Royal London Hospital Medical School. Both agreed that their own experiments replicated the outcome of the work done by Dr Abuljadayel. But, if The Times of 15th January is to be believed, and I say this with great deliberation, I am most troubled by the fact that Dr Abuljadayel could not get her findings printed in a substantial scientific journal of any kind in this country. I believe that one reason that that was so is because the scientific establishment has made up its mind that embryonic research is the way to go.
I have vast admiration for this country's scientists. I believe that many of our scientists—many in this House—are jewels in the crown of international science. However, having been a Minister for Science, I am not aware that there is such a thing as the scientific establishment. Therefore, when the Minister comes to reply, I should very much like to receive a commitment from him that adult stem cell research will be pursued with vigour at least equal to that applied in the past to embryonic stem cell research.
I should also like a commitment that those who wish to publish valid scientific papers will not find themselves excluded because their idea that there may be other approaches to this problem happens to be inconvenient or perhaps rather too radical. I say that with the deepest respect but also with a recognition that there is such a thing as the slippery slope. From the way in which much science has been abused and misused, I believe that evidence already indicates that we must be very careful to establish a balance between our knowledge and our values.
5.34 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I wanted to speak in this debate because, like other noble Lords, I am disturbed that major breakthroughs in medical research may be halted because of what I believe to be unwarranted fears and concerns. There is no doubt that all kinds of apocalyptic results have been predicted to emerge from this new area of research, particularly by the media. However, if we consider the facts and the hard evidence, it is quite clear that the research has enormous potential for good for the future treatment of hitherto incurable diseases.
As much of this research is carried out in universities, at this point I should declare an interest as the chief executive of Universities UK. However, I speak for myself in this debate.
I believe that the debate has been most balanced. Many noble Lords have ensured that it is rooted in the expert investigations which have produced the proposals for change.
It is difficult to be emotion-free about embryo research. The moral and ethical issues that surround it provoke intense passions. That was true in 1990 when the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, eventually resulted in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act—the Act that enabled the research into human embryos which has led to such progress in
52
infertility treatment. And it is certainly true today. Witness the scale of media coverage, as well as the huge amount of correspondence which, like me, I am sure that most other noble Lords have received on this issue.
It is clear that we are dealing with an issue which stirs heated emotions. However, I hope that we shall not lose sight of the purpose of the changes in the regulations proposed today. Huge potential benefits are to be derived from stem cell therapy, using embryonic cells in a way that could not have been envisaged in the earlier Act. The past 10 years have seen enormous progress in this area of research, with considerable benefits in terms of infertility and congenital diseases.
That research has now opened up the possibility of breakthroughs in life-saving therapies for serious degenerative diseases. Noble Lords have already mentioned Parkinson's disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and osteoporosis. I believe it to be a cruel irony that such work is currently excluded from development because of legislation.
Medical charities—the Wellcome Trust has been mentioned—overwhelmingly are in favour of this change. The Association of Medical Research Charities, which represents a large number of charities, has also stressed not only its support for the change but also the importance of strict and rigorous regulation—something which many noble Lords have echoed this evening. The association has also made clear that it takes very seriously the ethical issues involved and, in particular, that it is absolutely opposed to human reproductive cloning.
In all the discussions which I have had, cloning is one issue which always comes to the fore. Therefore, it is important to be clear that it is and will stay illegal. As the Minister said, the prohibition on human reproductive cloning built into the 1990 Act will remain.
Some letters which I have received—certainly, the point has been made today—have argued that there are other ways of obtaining stem cells which do not involve embryos. I can say only that I believe that the vast majority of scientific opinion takes the view that those other sources, although valuable—and it is important that they be explored—cannot replace the use of embryonic stem cells.
The Royal Society addresses that point directly. It says that at this stage only research on embryonic stem cells will realise fully the potential of stem cell therapies. Only embryonic stem cells have the versatility to produce reliably all the new cell types required to replace seriously damaged tissues. However, I believe that it is important to say that, in any case, that research is at a very early stage. It is one step on what will be a very long road.
At some point, research on embryonic cells may no longer offer advantages over work with stem calls from sources such as adult tissue. However, much more basic research is required, and the study of embryonic cells may help to take that forward.

53
Noble Lords who have argued for the amendment have said that time is needed to explore the complex moral and scientific issues involved and that we are not well enough informed to take a decision now. That suggests that the debate is only starting, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. In December 1998, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Genetics Advisory Commission recommended widening the Act to include research into the treatment of degenerative diseases. Last year, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics supported the same approach. An expert advisory group chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Donaldson, who has been much quoted this afternoon, was set up to investigate the recommendations and it fully endorsed the proposed changes to the 1990 Act.
The Medical Research Council supports the changes. It argues that, as more people live longer, ill health that is due to degenerative disease, ageing or injury will place an ever-increasing burden on the healthcare system. Finding new treatments—and eventually cures—for those conditions is therefore a priority.
Some noble Lords have expressed the concern that your Lordships' House is somehow being bounced into a decision. As many noble Lords have said, there has been a continuing debate on these issues and it difficult to see how much more information could help us to reach a decision. If we defer—this is one of the crucial issues that we must address—the issue could not be raised again for some considerable time. We face the prospect that that might not be possible for up to four years. That would be a blow to the hopes of the suffering thousands who could be helped. It would also mean that our scientists in universities and in industry would lose any hope of remaining at the cutting edge of the technology which involves a branch of science in which the UK is currently pre-eminent.
Clearly there are public concerns in this context—that has been expressed by many noble Lords today—and maximum effort should be put into allaying them. Whatever we decide to do today—I very much hope that we will agree to the proposed changes—the public will expect a clear statement of the safeguards and regulations that will circumscribe that research. It will need to be completely open and transparent, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will make a point of stressing that when he winds up. I would argue that the regulatory regime established by the 1990 Act has been successful, and I do not doubt that it will provide a robust basis with which to cope with the new research proposals.
Tens of thousands of people with cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease may be helped by stem cell research. The voices of the people who suffer from those devastating diseases must be heard.
Undertaking such research is the right thing to do. Failure to take it forward will set us back years in the UK. Of course, more work needs to be done. As I said earlier, this is one step on a long road. However, not to
54
take it, and to defer the possibility of helping the many sufferers who are looking to this House for help, is not something that I want on my conscience.
5.43 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, this House and, indeed, the nation, owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for the lead that he has given. He has provided the House with an opportunity to consider the appropriateness of referring the momentous issue before us to a forum in which it could receive the detailed scrutiny that it merits before unamendable regulations are agreed to. I wholeheartedly support the noble Lord's amendment for scientific, ethical and religious reasons.
Before offering a brief exposition of those reasons, I emphasise that I, along with every other Member of your Lordships' House, do not lack any concern or compassion for people suffering from tragic conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, parkinsonism or Alzheimer's disease. Indeed, I have nursed many of those people and know from intimate acquaintance just how horrendous those conditions are to those who are affected and their loved ones.
I have not been convinced that those people's suffering, terrible though it is, justifies the kind of research that is provided for in the regulations. If I were convinced by scientific arguments that such research would be the only—or even the best—way forward in preventing or alleviating such suffering, I, would not today so unreservedly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
Scientific arguments have been referred to. I shall not repeat evidence that has been cited by noble Lords with greater authority than I could ever attain. However, I can summarise in lay language the arguments that have convinced me.
First, there is the availability of effective alternatives, which do not involve the complex problems of human embryonic cloning. I refer in particular to very recent advances in the use of adult stem cells, including the very exciting prospect of their use in retro-differentiation. That suggests that they may be of equivalent or even greater therapeutic potential than the cloning alternative, and they may also have very significant practical advantages. Dr Michael Antoniou, head of the nuclear biology group at Guy's Hospital, summarised the issues. He said:
"The latest papers in the international journal 'Science' (December 2000) from 2 groups in the USA, clearly show that adult bone marrow derived stem cells can contribute to all neuronal cell types in animal model studies. Whatever has been achieved to date with embryonic stem cells has also been demonstrated with adult stem cells. If anything, adult stem cells appear to be somehow better primed than embryonic stem cells to participate in adult tissue regeneration. Adult stem cells also do not suffer from potential complications such as teratoma (tumour) formation."
By contrast, there has been a failure to date to achieve significant success in research that is based on embryonic cells. A leading writer in the stem cell field, Gretchen Vogel, wrote an extensive analysis in the

55
December issue of Science in which she argued that, in comparison with the work on adult stem cells, the human embryonic stem cells and foetal germ cells that made the headlines in 1998 have so far produced relatively modest results.
The lobby that is encouraging the Government to proceed with such haste with the regulations claims that failure to do so would mean that we would lose the biotechnology race. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. That lobby also argues that delay would defer development of treatment that will alleviate suffering. That point was made very emotionally by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and by other noble Lords. However, those are non sequiturs; indeed, the opposite may result. If the regulations are agreed to, and research is allowed to proceed on human embryos, that may well be achieved at the expense of investment in adult stem cell research, which has very recently produced very exciting results of enormous potential. Britain could fall behind, rather than being one of the leaders in the biotechnology race.
In response to the real fear that delay in the regulations would mean a delay in treatment, it must be emphasised that such treatments are not imminent. Professor Neil Scolding of the Institute of Clinical Neurosciences points out that claims that stem cell research involving therapeutic cloning is justified to improve patients' lives depend upon the assertion that embryonically derived stem cells are poised to offer imminent dramatic therapeutic advances. That is a significant and, I might say, rather cruel exaggeration of the true position. That technique may have great potential, but most clinical scientists would wish to see significant amounts of further basic biological investigation before concluding that it was appropriate to begin translating the work from the laboratory to the clinic, or holding out any immediate offer of hope to patients with those sad conditions.
Whatever the strength of the scientific argument on either side of this debate—we recognise, of course, that there are strong arguments on both sides—the fact that there are deep divisions within the medical scientific community constitutes a strong reason for deferring making a definitive, irreversible decision today.
In addition to the scientific issues, profound moral and religious considerations are involved. The journal Nature pointed out, in its issue of 16th November 2000, that Britain is already at the far end of the moral spectrum, being one of the very few countries in the world to authorise the utilitarian deliberate creation of embryos for research. That practice, we should remember, violates the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. As we have already heard, there is in the UK widespread public unease about the possibility of cloning human beings. The Government said that they intend to introduce a Bill to prohibit that, which we obviously welcome. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, robustly pointed out, no commitment has been given on timing. Surely this is putting the cart
56
before the horse in a totally immoral way. Given the momentous implications of the possibility of cloning human beings, it would surely be infinitely better to bring in national and international safeguards before the research proceeds, rather than doing that retrospectively and, possibly, too late.
That brings me to my final point; namely, the religious dimension. We have already heard of the widespread opposition to these regulations from many of the nation's spiritual leaders, including the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, leaders of other Churches and the Muslim and Sikh communities. They reflect the deep spiritual concerns as regards the extension of research into matters of such ultimate significance to human life and human identity.
A Parliament which ignores the concerns of those who represent the deeply-held convictions of such a wide range of its people is surely in danger of proving itself spiritually and intellectually arrogant and deeply flawed in its commitment to the principles of democracy. That is why I support unreservedly the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It will prevent Parliament from taking this scientifically, ethically and spiritually unacceptable step today and it will help to ensure that decisions on this matter, which are of such great importance, will not be taken in this rushed, cavalier and undemocratic way. Instead, it will provide time for adequate and up-to-date assessment of the evidence, which is developing rapidly and all the time, and its implications so that a decision can be made by a well-informed Parliament responsive to the sensitivities of all its citizens.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his clear presentation of all the issues relating to stem cell research and particularly for making it clear that the regulations proposed will make certain that the research which is allowed remains confined to defined areas.
I listened carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I respect his views but I do not agree with him in one or two areas, particularly those relating to the current state of stem cell research. I shall try to address that.
Those noble Lords who have already spoken have covered much of the ground and I shall, therefore, speak briefly on two points. Before I do so, I declare an interest. Currently, I am chairman of the Medical Research Council's Genetic Advisory Committee. Its role is to look at the potential implications to healthcare of the current genetic research supported by the Medical Research Council.
I am not a geneticist or a scientist working in the field of human embryo research; nor am I a clinician involved in treating patients using in vitro fertilisation techniques. But I am a doctor and I can see the potential that stem cell research has for helping millions of patients with degenerative diseases and those with tissue damage.

57
We are all familiar with much successful research that has helped to treat disease and alleviate suffering. In the context of today, if research into human in vitro fertilisation and subsequent implantation of the embryo was not permitted, hundreds of thousands of couples today would not be parents. That research was carried out in this country and Parliament was subsequently able to put in place an effective regulatory mechanism to regulate not only assisted conception but also research into human embryos. Today we have the same opportunity. It is hoped that we can allow, but also regulate, research that has the potential to help many others—those suffering from degenerative disease, diabetes, cardiac disease and those with injuries.
I should briefly like to address two issues: first, whether we need the research on human embryonic stem cells; and secondly, whether research on stem cells obtained following cell nuclear replacement is necessary.
From what I know and understand, I believe that the current state of stem cell research has reached a point where research on human embryonic stem cells is now necessary. While other sources of stem cells—for example, cord blood—are an excellent source of cells for the haemopoietic (blood) system, they do not seem to be good for developing any other cell type. Despite much research and thousands of publications, the evidence is lacking.
There is also the problem of host versus graft disease, even allowing for the more tolerant immune system of cord blood cells. Huge banks of stored frozen cord blood samples are not an alternative.
Adult stem cells theoretically hold out the greater potential for removing the need for using embryonic stem cells or cells obtained following cell nuclear replacement technique. But apart from a few exceptions—notably the haemopoietic stem cells and stem cells of the skin—we know so little about adult stem cells and their ability to give rise to other cell types. They are small in number and difficult to culture in any great numbers. Much of the recent work reported on adult stem cells being able to change their fate—for example, blood stem cells giving rise to brain cells—is not yet repeated and much of the work is done in vivo in animal models where it cannot be controlled or monitored.
The likelihood, in future, of being able to use adult stem cells or even adult cells for therapeutic purposes requires, initially, research on embryonic stem cells, cells that are pluripotent and capable of being precursors to a variety of human cell types and immortal—sustainable in cultures and reproducing themselves indefinitely. They are the cell lines that hold the greatest potential for the answers we seek: how to make somatic adult cells behave like embryonic stem cells?
Much has been learnt from work on animals, particularly mouse embryonic stem cells. But scientists now need to relate that work to human embryonic stem cells under defined conditions that are reproducible and will maintain human stem cell lines
58
in a way that could be useful for therapies. No human embryos need to be created solely to allow that research. Human embryonic stem cell research is necessary to learn how to direct the differentiations of stem cells to obtain therapeutically important cells for transplant. The first cell type so developed will probably be neural for Parkinson's disease, pancreatic islet cells for diabetes, and cardiac muscle cells for a variety of cardiac diseases.
Scientists know how to do much of that work with mouse embryonic stem cells but they do not know whether the same methods will work for those of humans. Defining the similarities and the differences will be important. Research on human embryonic cells is necessary to understand the nature of pluripotentiality and to compare that with mouse and adult human embryonic stem cells which have limited potential. That understanding holds the key to be able to direct adult cells into therapeutically useful cells without the use of embryonic cells or cells produced following the nuclear transfer technique.
The scientists working in this field in our country are at the forefront of that research. Not allowing them to do the work on human embryonic stem cells would hold them back and allow those in other countries which are less regulated and less ethically controlled to get ahead, and that would weaken our science base. Scientists to whom I have spoken would rather work in this country, in a system that is carefully regulated and concerned about ethical issues. They also believe that scientists from other countries would be attracted to work in such an environment.
I now turn to the second of my two points in relation to research on stem cells obtained following the nuclear transfer technique, which is often referred to as therapeutic cloning, and to whether such research is necessary. The points on research are the same: understanding how cell nuclear replacement into an unfertilised egg can reprogramme an adult cell nucleus and develop pluripotential stem cells. Cells can be programmed to develop into different cell types and can be used for transplant without the problems of host rejection. Again, initial work will be done in mouse models, but it will need to be confirmed in humans.
More importantly, that step is necessary if scientists are to learn how to deregulate adult cells—any adult cell—to become pluripotential stem cells. When they do, there will no longer be a need to use human embryonic stem cells or the cells obtained following nuclear transfer.
All that we know—and we know much—about the current state of research on stem cells from adult cells, cord blood, stem cells from blood, bone and so on, and from research on animals, particularly mouse embryonic stem cells, points to the need for research into understanding the behaviour of human embryonic stem cells to realise the promise that such research holds for helping millions of people who suffer from degenerative and other diseases. Nothing is to be gained by delaying putting in place the regulations to allow such research to go ahead.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the usual channels have placed me in the speakers' list directly after my noble and professional friend Lord Patel. That means that your Lordships will have two doses of science, one after the other. I apologise. I hope that my words will be sufficiently different from those of my noble friend and that my speech is not too boring.
I fully accept that a number of noble Lords have sincere ethical objections to any extension of the use of early human embryos for research beyond what is allowed in the Human Fertility and Embryology Act. The fact that until recently the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock (on whose committee that Act was based) supported the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, indicates that this is an extremely sensitive issue where we must tread with great care. The amendment tabled by my other professional and noble friend Lord Walton has taken that concern fully into account. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, will now support that amendment.
However, despite such ethical objections I believe that the ethical grounds for allowing research on stem cells derived from early human embryos to proceed are much stronger than those for disallowing it. The potential—I emphasise the word "potential"—benefits of such research to humanity are enormous and outweigh the possible risks. My noble friend Lady Kennedy spoke of "the greater good".
Perhaps it has not been made sufficiently clear that the embryos to be used will have been donated freely by the couples who will have produced them and who believe that by so doing they may indirectly contribute to the well-being of current and future generations. Embryos will not be taken from those who have any ethical or other doubts. The vast majority of the embryos will come from surplus fertilised ova from couples who have undergone IVF treatment, ova that would otherwise be destroyed. They will play a useful role instead of vanishing into thin air. Very few of them will have been specially created for research purposes.
The Association of Medical Research Charities reports in its briefing that, of the human embryos that have been used for the research that is currently permitted under the Human Fertility and Embryology Act, 48,000 have come from surplus fertilised ova from IVF treatment and only 118—that is 0.25 per cent—have been donated specifically for research purposes.
It is highly probable that after initial research the need for actual embryos will decrease as it is likely that techniques of stem cell culture will be developed so that banks of healthy living embryonic stem cells can be built up. A parallel process, but one which is more sombre, has led to the production of cultures of human cells that have undergone cancerous change. Those are now available and are vitally necessary for cancer research.
The most apparently plausible argument for opposing the order before us, mentioned by many noble Lords, is that promising developments in the use of stem cells derived from adult tissue are now taking place. Of course, that is to be welcomed. Eventually
60
the use of an adult's own stem cells, as my noble friend Lord Patel pointed out, to repair or replace defective or damaged tissue or organs would, if it became possible, have some advantages over stem cells derived from embryos that were genetically different.
However, there are also inherent disadvantages in using adult stem cells, one being that they will age more rapidly and may replicate less predictably. Despite some successes, such as the, as yet, not fully accepted work of Dr Abuljadayel, mentioned by a number of noble Lords, which has recently been in the news, there are many difficulties to be overcome in work with adult stem cells.
In this respect, it is worth quoting the words of Professor Sir Robert May, who is currently president of the Royal Society, in his first letter to The Times last week regarding the experiments by Dr Abuljadayel:
"As the Royal Society has emphasised in other contexts, until the work of researchers, such as Dr Abuljadayel and those individuals who claim to have replicated her results, have been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, rumours about its significance should be treated with the same healthy scepticism as, say, reports of successful cold fusion experiments".
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that the scientific establishment may have taken a rather rigid position; we certainly need to watch this space.
Work on embryonic stem cells will assist in developing parallel work with adult stem cells. The mechanisms by which a pluripotential embryonic cell gradually develops, while undergoing a series of cell divisions, into a more and more differentiated, specialised cell is still very imperfectly understood. That is one of the exciting avenues of discovery that embryonic stem cell research will allow. Knowledge of that process is much easier to acquire using early, undifferentiated embryonic stem cells than adult stem cells which have already acquired a degree of differentiation, as mentioned by a number of noble Lords.
However, acquisition of that knowledge—how cells are influenced to develop in different directions—may lead to methods by which adult stem cells from the bone marrow, for example, could be induced to regress to a more undifferentiated state. From that a different tissue could be formed, such as nervous tissue or cardiac muscle where stem cells are scarce or absent. Embryonic cell research is part and parcel of all such research. Without it, research on adult stem cells will move more slowly and may even grind to a halt.
I should like to quote from another distinguished scientist, Professor Richard Hynes, president of the American Society for Cell Biology. He said:
"We are dismayed that our research [into adult stem cells] is being used as a justification to hinder or prohibit research using embryonic stem cells. It is simply incorrect to use the future promise of adult stem cell research as an argument that embryonic stem cell research is not critical and essential".
This area of research is particularly important today, particularly in the developed world, because our main health problems are due to chronic disease in middle to late life. That is mainly due to the degeneration or malfunctioning of particular organ

61
systems—although that can also, but less commonly, occur at a young age; for instance, diabetes. The functioning of some of these damaged parts of our bodies can be assisted or replaced by pharmacological means or by replacement (spare part) surgery. But that is expensive and incomplete and the "cure" of conditions such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease or cardiovascular disease is not possible. Hence our proper concern with the prevention of such diseases. Here I will put in a plug for the Government in reintroducing standards for school meals and the school fruit scheme as well as the forthcoming Bill to ban the advertising of tobacco products. The Government are putting a new and welcome emphasis on preventive medicine.
I suggest that stem cell research—I am talking about embryonic and adult together—promises a possible way of replacing or strengthening worn out or defective organs with healthy tissue. However, I, too, emphasise that there is still a long way to go. There will be no instant solution. But we must not reject this opportunity. The sooner this research, using human cells for the benefit of human beings, gets the go ahead, the better. So I shall be voting to support the regulations. I shall also support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and I recommend all noble Lords to do likewise.
6.12 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the clarity of his opening speech. In this debate I find myself pushed to the very limits. I refer not to the limits of my understanding of science, but to the limits of my capacity to understand and comprehend the enormous ethical implications of the proposals. I suspect I am not alone in that.
As a contribution to this important debate, I want to draw a distinction between information and wisdom. I have read a number of the background papers and understand what is meant by, for example, "cell nuclear replacement". But there is a world of difference between understanding that discrete package of information and knowing, imaginatively, what its implications might be. I do not necessarily need more information; what I need, and what I believe the public needs, is more wisdom.
The problem is that wisdom is not a commodity nor is it easily or rapidly achieved. If I look at people I believe to be wise I think that they share certain salient characteristics: they seem to be able to integrate at a deep level experience, learning and reason; they are open-minded but bring to that open-mindedness a shrewd wit; their thinking is marked by an inherent and self-authenticated elegance; they are forgetful of self; they are measured. If you see yourself in that picture I should be glad to meet you afterwards!
If you observe people in an art gallery, you will see that they, too, move at a measured pace. An appreciation of beauty cannot be hurried; it requires humility, eyes cleansed by love and a willingness to be seriously patient. Therefore I am making a plea for wisdom to be given as much room as the excitement, verve and pace of scientific discovery.
62
I want to make two further brief points. I want to draw attention to the ways in which human beings learn. As human beings, we are changed by the choices we make and the actions we undertake. That is true of everything from going to the theatre, say, to being married. I believe that our collective and individual human self-understanding is bound to be significantly reshaped by the proposed developments in embryology. However, I see no mention in any of the supporting papers of what that shift in self-understanding might lead to either for good or ill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, rightly and precisely questioned whether the proposed regulations are a step-change. She came to the conclusion that they were not. However, I respectfully suggest that the change is a step-change because of its implications for our understanding of our human selves and our place and purpose in the universe.
Secondly, philosophically, the entire proposal seems to be predicated upon utilitarianism. There seems to be no room within it for a philosophical stance which might embrace, for example, any concept of truth which has "revelation" as one of its constituent parts; nor any concept of truth which sees human life as in some sense deriving from, or accountable to, the Almighty.
I fully recognise the exhilaration of the science and I am deeply sympathetic to those groups who believe that their devastating illnesses might be eased by research in this field. Nevertheless, I believe that other components need to be brought into the picture before we can arrive at a safe and just legislative conclusion. And legislation is a place where wisdom and information meet and are given a new and productive shape.
I believe that we need wisdom, which is a product not of speed but of patient attention, as when visiting an art gallery. I believe that we need an awareness of the fact that if we proceed down this route a radical reshaping of human self-understanding and purpose, for good and ill, will necessarily follow. I believe that the underlying philosophy needs to be carefully scrutinised. In my view, the philosophy implicit in the proposals is gravely deficient. In an issue of such moral profundity, I am sure that wisdom is of far greater importance than trying to meet the importunate demands of a parliamentary timetable.
I therefore support the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because I believe that it would be the wisest step for us all to take.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I too want to address the ethical issues. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I accept the scientific conclusions of the Donaldson Committee, which appear to be supported by the weight of scientific evidence. The noble Lord referred to all the supporters of that committee's report. It is not unusual in important scientific matters to hear dissenting voices. Sometimes we must make up our minds on the balance of the scientific evidence before us. For example, there are many who dispute that there

63
is climate change, but on balance scientific opinion accepts that there is a danger from greenhouse gases. At a certain stage we must act on the basis of the best opinion that we can form.
I address the ethical issues with some humility because I am not a theologian or philosopher. I may do so on a less lofty and spiritual plane than the speech just delivered by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. In my youth I studied philosophy. When I was a student on a debating tour of the United States I took part in a radio programme at Iowa State College in the Mid-West. When I was asked in what I had majored I thought that perhaps neither "literae humaniores" nor its popular version "Greats" was right for Iowa, so I oversimplified and said "classics" and was introduced as "Dick Taverne, who majored in plastics". Perhaps that would have been more practically useful.
The context of today's debate was set by the Warnock Committee. On its advice the law as it is adopts the so-called middle position. That was eloquently supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in his fascinating historical review. It means that for the purposes of this debate we start with the principle that the early embryo is a potential human being to be treated with respect, and that respect must increase as the embryo develops. We must strike a balance between that respect and the potential benefit of research.
One of the central questions is whether we shall cross new moral boundaries if we add to the purposes of research for which embryos can now be used; in particular, if we allow the creation of human embryonic cells using cell nuclear replacement techniques. I should like to take two issues separately. The first is: what is the new ethical problem if, as proposed, we allow embryonic cells to be used for research into non-congenital diseases?
I believe that the Donaldson Committee's case for allowing this is unanswerable. While we have to treat embryos with respect, in what way would we no longer be doing so? Some suggest that if the research is no longer concerned with fertility, for which the embryos were created, we are using them instrumentally as a convenient source of research material. That happens already. If embryos created by in vitro fertilisation are used for fertility research, as they are now, they cannot receive benefits themselves. Others—live human beings, not the cells—will potentially benefit. As the committee points out, in all types of embryo research the embryo is used instrumentally. This is inevitable for spare embryos which are no longer required for treatment.
In the test which the present law applies the respect due to the embryos is outweighed by the potential benefit and the balance is in favour of research. But if the Motion is passed as it stands the balance would be even more clearly in favour of research, because the potential benefits from the research which would be permitted would be even greater. Non-congenital
64
diseases, which are far more widespread than congenital diseases, include a number of terrible conditions that affect tens of thousands of people.
I turn to the second issue: cell nuclear replacement techniques or (as it is sometimes called) therapeutic cloning. What new moral boundary is being crossed here? At present, new embryos are created by fusing the nucleus from a sperm with an egg. It is now proposed that we should allow the creation of new embryonic cells by transferring a nucleus from another donor cell to the egg. In both cases new embryonic cells are created. To say one is moral and the other immoral is really an argument about angels dancing on the head of a pin. If the embryo was allowed to develop beyond the blastocyst stage it would create moral problems, but that is not permitted and will be strictly controlled. That would require primary legislation to change the law.
With the greatest respect, we do not have to be theologians, the Archbishop of Canterbury or professional moral philosophers to make a judgment on moral issues. It is, as it were, a question, not for the judge, but the jury—legislators and the public.
I put the issues as I see them in simple terms. Some people object because we are creating embryos. That is already done and accepted. I believe that to call those cells which are not to be implanted and come to term "embryos" is misleading. They will not become foetuses or human beings. It would be wiser to call them what they are, which is embryonic cells. Some object that we are using embryonic cells for research. That is already done and accepted. We now ask that they can be used for research into disease with much wider benefits. Why should it be accepted that unwanted cells for in vitro fertilisation can be disposed of and wasted, but not that they should be used to benefit people who suffer from terrible diseases? Why is the second regarded as creating a new moral issue? Indeed, what questions have to be resolved that the Donaldson Committee in its meticulously argued report has not considered?
The "slippery slope" argument does not hold because of the strict regulations that are in place. In any case, this is an argument that is often trotted out. It was trotted out when the first steps were taken in genetic engineering. It is applicable to research at any stage, and in different contexts it can be used to oppose every relaxation of the criminal law.
I believe that there is one overwhelming argument against the delay. That argument was put very well in the leader in The Times today by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and many others. It will be many years before the proposed research will lead to actual treatment. This means that, tragically, many tens of thousands who today suffer from Parkinson's disease and other terrible neurological conditions such as Alzheimer's disease will never benefit. But it is likely that in the future many other tens of thousands will. If we delay by setting up a new Select Committee, as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, suggests, there is likely to be a delay of at least a year. That means that huge numbers of sufferers who could

65
benefit will not. I realise that the supporters of the amendment moved by the noble Lord are as concerned about suffering as those who oppose it, but the likely result of delay remains that tens of thousands will be deprived of the possible help that research will ultimately provide. I believe that that is the real moral issue.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, my contribution to this debate will be very brief. The issues before the House today are momentous and touch on the very question of what is a human life. In this House we are fortunate in having heard the timely words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who introduced another dimension into the debate: the need for wisdom in dealing with this matter. Like many noble Lords, I have examined the draft regulations. It would be dishonest to pretend that a lay person such as myself can debate this subject with the eminent scientists and distinguished medical experts to be found in your Lordships' House.
My consideration of the proposal takes a very simplistic approach. Do I as an individual want to do all that is possible to relieve human suffering? The answer from all Members of this House would be, "Of course I do".
Anyone who has witnessed loved ones suffering from some of the diseases that have been mentioned in this House today and in the debate in the other place, will pray sincerely that the scientists and medical researchers are successful in their endeavours. Such a desire for success must be balanced against the need for the fullest possible examination of the proposals contained in the draft regulations before us today. A Select Committee of this House can provide that comprehensive examination. Away from the hothouse, the emotion and the sometimes misleading language, experts could, given the benefit of a report from a Select Committee, weigh up the possible benefits that may be obtained by the research currently being carried out using adult human stem cells.
I have already said that as a lay person I am not in a position to debate the issue from any depth of scientific knowledge. However, I am prepared to listen to those who have expertise in this field. Last Thursday evening, in company with other Members of your Lordships' House, I had the opportunity of listening to the views of Professor Neil Scolding, who was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in moving the amendment. He is actively engaged in medical research. Professor Scolding from the Institute of Clinical Neurosciences at the Frenchay Hospital in Bristol described, as he has done on a number of occasions, the current research into adult human cells. He said:
"Even more exciting is that it is now clear that stem cells capable of yielding neural progeny can also be obtained from adult human bone marrow samples".
In Professor Scolding's view this undermines the published comments of the Royal Society that it will take at least a decade and possibly a lot longer, if ever,
66
before scientists are able to overcome the hurdles blocking therapeutic use of adult as opposed to embryonic stem cells.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, dealt in some depth with the alternative that is available. We have heard that there is some difficulty with that research. That does not mean that scientists should not continue to press to get that research under way and developed.
It is the hope that there is an alternative to what is proposed in these regulations that leads me to conclude that the House should support the amendment that calls for a Select Committee to be set up to report to this House on the issues concerned.
Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Sainsbury for taking the time to discuss this matter with me. I am grateful to him for his patience. I have had several conversations with him. I am indebted to him for the way he has helped me through my problems. I wish I had the wisdom mentioned a few moments ago so that I could add more to the debate. But I urge the House to support the amendment.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, today we have heard many erudite, scientific and philosophical arguments. I shall not test your Lordships' patience by repeating them. I shall centre on the debate around the issue of expanding the purposes for which human embryos can be used for research under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Your Lordships will be aware that there are five purposes laid down in that Act. Today we are debating whether a sixth can be added, the purpose of which is to increase the understanding of human disease and disorders, and their treatment.
The list of appalling diseases which this research could benefit is long and impressive. We are aware that the extension of the Act is supported by many distinguished scientists in this country and many distinguished organisations such as the Royal Society, the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the Nuffield Foundation and others, all of which have delved deeply into the scientific aspects and indeed into the ethical aspects of this issue.
The most impressive support comes from the Association of Medical Research Charities which represents organisations and foundations concerned with many disorders and for which research with stem cells is likely to lead to important developments to improve the quality of life of those suffering from these chronic diseases—diabetes, cancer, stroke and Parkinson's disease, to mention but a few.
Anyone who has a friend or relative or who himself is suffering from, say, Parkinsonism, will be aware of the overwhelming case for this research to be permitted on human embryos, within, of course, all the constraints that would apply, and for the research to be commenced without delay.
In some of the speeches made today there was a suspicion that not much is known about embryonic stem cells of human origin. Much of the preliminary work on stem cells has already been done on mice, as

67
was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. But, clearly, one must transfer that knowledge to man. The availability of pluripotential stem cells of the target human species will provide important additional safeguards to their use, especially with regard to the additional therapeutic molecules that may be required in the treatment of chronic disorders.
Yet it is clear there is genuine concern that research may be moving too fast and going too far and that adequate attention has not been given to the use of other sources of stem cells, such as adult stem cells, and that any relaxation of the present regulations will lead to the cloning of humans. The latter can be dismissed since not only does the Act prohibit this, but in order further to develop stem cells into any human form the uterus of a surrogate mother would be required.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, provides many of the requirements on both sides of the debate: a start on much needed and wanted research and the facility of a Select Committee to examine the issue further. It is an acceptable compromise which I hope that noble Lords will support.
Mention has been made of respect for human life in regard to the use of embryos. I should like to note that there is respect also for those in need of medical help by research such as this. I believe that it would question our ethical stand if we were not to use our best endeavours to advance research for the benefits of those who suffer such debilitating and terrible diseases. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton. I certainly shall.
6.39 p.m.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I believe it is clear that this is not a debate about science versus ethics; this is a debate about ethics. I have learnt a great deal from many noble Lords, in particular from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in his reminders about the gradual development of the conception of the human individual. It is important for us to remember that we are not talking about research on human individuals. We are obliged to use the term embryo. If we did not I think we would be perhaps accused of verbal trickery.
But let us remember that the very early embryo about which we are talking in the debate is a group of undifferentiated cells. It lacks all internal structure. Indeed, if it had developed an internal structure, it would be inappropriate for this kind of research. It is precisely because there is no structure, because there is not even the beginnings of a glimmer of the human form, that the embryonic stem cell is important for this kind of research. It is because differentiation lies ahead.
In the normal course of events the cells of which this early stage embryo is composed have an open future. They may become part of a human foetus and thence possibly, if all goes well, at a later stage of a human individual; or, again, if much goes well, they become
68
part of a human placenta; or they may—this is often the case—be shed. So I believe that we are not talking about a human individual or a human foetus.
There are many who believe that any use of any cell which has the possibility of becoming part of a human individual is unacceptable and they will, I imagine, in all consistency wish to put a stop not only to embryo research but also to all IVF treatment, since that treatment unavoidably leads to the destruction of far more early embryos than have ever been used in research. I personally believe that the lives of the children born by IVF are not a morally trivial achievement and they are not ones that I would wish to put at risk. More generally, it does seem to me that we are engaged in a utilitarian calculus of benefit. That is certainly not my view of the matter. But I do believe that we have to heed our obligation to do what we can, often with imperfect knowledge, to work towards the relief of human suffering. That is a profound purpose and I agree with other noble Lords who have stressed its importance.
I do not think that we could take that purpose forward if we did not have in this country an effective system for regulating fertility and embryo research; but we do. Thanks to the report in the 1980s of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock—my friend and teacher in matters formal and informal—and thanks to the legislation passed by Parliament in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, we have the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. We should congratulate Mrs Ruth Deech, who chairs it, and the authority on their effectiveness in regulating these difficult areas and on their firmness in preventing unacceptable or marginal uses of new reproductive technologies. The UK is remarkably fortunate in having a tried and tested institution that has done so much to prevent, for example, sex selection for social reasons and human reproduction by cloning.
I have been interested to hear noble Lords compare the situation here with the situation in the US. The situation in the US is not better; it is much worse. What is forbidden is federal funds put to the purpose of this kind of research. The research itself goes on untrammelled by any serious regulation. That is why I would so much sooner see the research done in this country, where we know that both the scientific and the medical establishments accept the authority of the HFEA. We have good regulatory structures. Let us not undervalue them.
We come to the question of whether this extension of the purposes of the Act is a permissible one. As we have been reminded, Schedule 2 to the 1990 Act already allows the HFEA to permit research use of embryos for the purpose of investigating fertility problems, contraception and congenital diseases. Now we are being asked to consider the possibility of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority being allowed to give licences for comparable research use of embryos in investigating therapies for severe diseases, in particular degenerative diseases, that afflict many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in the UK. It is hard to explain why the investigation of acquired disease should be viewed as

69
morally less obligatory than the investigation of congenital disease. For those who suffer the diseases, their families and their carers, their disease and their suffering are no less serious.
It is suggested, nevertheless, that we should be careful and that we should delay. I have learnt from the many noble Lords who have pointed to some of the constitutional and legislative points. This is an area in which we have to think both about time and about trust. In this area I disagree in certain respects with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, but I hope not very much. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, suggests that we are moving too fast, that we should pause for reflection and that we should establish a Select Committee and postpone decision. I believe that we should not delay decision.
We have already had three public reports on the use of embryonic stem cells for research. The first was a joint report from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Genetics Advisory Commission, based on extensive public consultation. I declare an interest as I was at the time a member of the HGAC. The third was the report from the Chief Medical Officer's committee. In between them there was the report from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. But—and this is ultimately more important—we have also had unprecedented levels of public discussion. I am enormously impressed by the energy and concentration brought to bear by thousands of sufferers from degenerative diseases, their families and carers, their support groups and the medical research charities. We cannot regard this as a topic that has been sprung on the public when so many people for whom the concentration that is needed for these topics is a difficult matter have concentrated, have fought and have spoken.
There are many situations in which delay is a good idea, is the path of wisdom and has no costs. The morally responsible course is then to delay. But I do not believe that this is one of them. Paradoxically, small numbers are sometimes more impressive than large ones. I shall illustrate. Every day 27 more people are diagnosed as suffering from Parkinson's. Some of them are young. If one multiplies that number by a year and multiplies it for other degenerative diseases, one sees the true magnitude of the problem. Every day lives grow worse. If research is postponed, the fruits of research will be postponed, and it will be too late for many. Delay has moral costs in this case.
I have benefited over recent months from conversations with many sufferers. They are not naive; they know that research is not instantaneous and that it is not guaranteed to deliver results in time for them. Through their organisations, and with great personal effort, they are asking for the research to begin now, whether it benefits them or future sufferers.
It would be nice to think that there is an alternative. We have had a great deal of discussion about the possibility of research on adult stem cells. There are clearly diseases for which research on adult stem cells is full of hope and importance and should go on. But we have also had a great deal of evidence—there is a
70
great deal of evidence in the relevant reports—that that is not generally the case. We cannot assume that because in some cases adult stem cells and research on them may be a better prospect, that will be the case across the board. In fact, there is very good evidence that it is not the case. However, we do not need to worry that if we accept the proposed change in the regulations research on embryonic stem cells will go ahead when the same results could have been achieved by research on adult stem cells.
I say that for the straightforward reason that the 1990 Act forbids the HFEA from issuing a research licence forresearch on human embryos when research can be done without using human embryos. It follows that if it is the case that adult stem cell research can deliver what is needed, there will be no human embryonic stem cell research. That is a strong safeguard against the possibility of unnecessary use of human embryos.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I had prepared a long speech for the debate. However, your Lordships have already heard many speeches tonight and just as many noble Lords wish to speak later, so I shall be extremely brief.
I should like to make only three brief points. I speak as a diabetic who is desperate for a cure for my illness, but I am forced to oppose these regulations today on the basis of moral, ethical and spiritual values. Although my noble friend the Minister has given assurances that human reproductive cloning will not be allowed, I am not convinced. As a Muslim, I feel that this is a violation of human life and could lead to "designer" babies. No scientist should be given permission to play God. There is only one creator of life, and that is God Almighty.
As has been mentioned already, I understand that there are alternatives to using human embryos for therapeutic use—adults stem cells, for example. In any issue as important as this, there has to be a proper debate and a proper examination of the issues and the concerns that many members of the public and noble Lords have expressed. I believe that these regulations should not be rushed through at a nod. That is why I shall be supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
I have received many letters from individuals and religious groups actively opposing these proposals. Therefore, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would be prepared to withdraw these regulations today until a Select Committee has properly investigated the consequences of therapeutic cloning; otherwise I shall be forced to vote against the regulations.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, at this stage of a debate—even one as important as this—most of the arguments have been made. Indeed, they have been made more eloquently and persuasively than I could hope to do. I put down my name to speak in the debate

71
because in 1990, when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill was before your Lordships' House, I was the health Minister who stood in the place now occupied by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I was, of course, not alone. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, then the Lord Chancellor, led the arguments on the ethical issues.
The reason that that Bill became an Act and proceeded with comparative smoothness was in part due to my noble and learned friend's clear methods of dealing with the ethical issues. But also, from the date that the Warnock report was published to the production of the draft legislation that we considered, there had been an enormous amount of consideration and consultation; in other words, the process had not been rushed. Although there were arguments on both sides put very forcefully, it was generally agreed that the debate had been adequate. It is an example that I have frequently quoted in terms of getting legislation right. The argument applies just as much to secondary legislation as it does to primary legislation.
As others have said, we are in the hands of the experts and the scientists. The problem for a lay person is that there is no total consensus among the experts and scientists. I support very much the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans in his plea for more time to seek the wisdom to make the right decision.
Like others, I, too, have received many very sad and appealing letters on this subject. What worries me about those who write as sufferers from some of the diseases for which cures are being sought by this research is that their expectations may have been raised too high. On reading some of the opinions of the experts and the scientists, it seems to me that there is no guarantee of an instant, or even short-term, solution to the problems of these sufferers. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me to allow a little more time.
The international aspect of this issue was referred to in opening by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool—indeed, it has been mentioned by others—and I feel that as it has been adequately covered, there is no need for me to go into detail. I believe that the Council of Europe's convention for the protection of the human rights and dignity of the human being and the European Parliament's resolutions should be taken fully into account in our consideration of this issue.
It is for those reasons that I support the amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I, too, shall attempt to curtail what I might have said, having heard so many eloquent speeches today.
In speaking against the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I should perhaps express my interests. First, I have spent much of my life as an active physician, faced, day to day, with patients suffering from chronic diseases which might be cured,
72
possibly, by the fruits of this research. Perhaps more relevantly, I act as scientific adviser to the Association of Medical Research Charities. In that role, I hear first hand from many of our 100 or so medical research charities, the members and supporters of which are intensely interested in research which could alleviate the conditions which so many suffer, from diabetes to Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's to heart attacks, strokes to spinal cord injuries.
One could say that these charities have a vested interest—after all, they have been set up largely to support patients and their carers and to make every effort to search for cures for their suffering—but this is not a small minority of the population about which we are talking. We have heard mention of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands. In fact, when you add them all up, millions of people suffer from these diseases for which the charities have some concern.
I know that no one anywhere, let alone in your Lordships' House, argues against the need for research which has the potential to help these unfortunate patients. But the arguments here, as we have heard, rest not simply on the potential benefits but on the balance between those benefits and the anxieties expressed about the use of human embryos to achieve them.
Two kinds of disquiet seem to have been expressed. The first disquiet—which I fully respect—is that of those who feel strongly, for religious or moral convictions, that research with human embryos, at any stage, is morally wrong under any circumstance. I respect their views, but I cannot accept that black and white position for reasons that I will explain in a moment or two.
The other anxiety, which many of your Lordships have expressed, is the fear that the proposals being made will open Pandora's box and lead inevitably down the slippery slope to all kinds of repugnant outcomes; and, furthermore, that it is all being rushed through without adequate debate and discussion.
I believe that those fears are unfounded for several reasons. First, the idea that the natural progression of this research will lead to cloning of human beings is difficult to sustain because currently a licence to do so would not be granted by the HFEA; it would be a criminal act likely to lead to imprisonment and, furthermore, as we have heard, the Government are intent on putting this crime into primary legislation. The idea that some aberrant scientist in a basement laboratory or some multi-national industry would be able to take this on secretly outside the law seems intrinsically unlikely. If there were such people around intent on such villainy, they would not be waiting for your Lordships to decide whether to pass this legislation—they would be doing it now.
The fact that no one is doing such research now—nor would do in the future—is because research with human embryos is so circumscribed and regulated. The number of in vitro fertilisation laboratories in the UK that are capable of this type of stem cell research is unlikely to be more than five or six. The work requires

73
teams of doctors, scientists and technicians, as well as consenting women and men to donate eggs and sperm. It is not the kind of thing that can be done in secret. Furthermore, it is not in anyone's interest to carry out such activity in secret.
The question of whether adult stem cells could be used instead is clearly an important one. If stem cells derived from adults could be used, it would offer enormous advantages. It is an approach that is attracting a great deal of interest from scientists around the world. Others have spoken at length about the relative advantages of adult and embryonic stem cells and I shall avoid repeating those arguments. However, I should like to make the point that these are not mutually exclusive types of research; they are complementary. Embryonic stem cell research is an essential part of the wider stem cell research programme. It is clear, despite reports to the contrary, that adult stem cell research alone is a long way off from the holy grail.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about the question of whether adequate time has been allowed for full debate of the issues. First, it has been 10 years since the FIFE Act was passed which allowed research on human embryos. Then, two years ago, the HGAC and the HFEA published the results of their public consultation exercise on cloning. Over 1,000 bodies and individuals were approached directly by those groups and the questionnaire was sent out on their websites. They received a large number of responses from across a broad spectrum of people, and their measured resume was based on a thorough analysis of the responses and on their own views.
It is worth remembering that the membership of the HFEA included three lawyers, three broadcasters, a bishop, a professor of theology and a psychologist. I am not sure why the psychologist was there—probably for the members! The authority was not, and is not, loaded with scientists; and it is chaired by Ruth Deech, who commands such respect.
Then, last summer, the Donaldson report was published. That committee also sought views widely in formulating its report. It received over 1,000 responses to its consultation. Again, I remind the House, that it had among its membership a lawyer, an ethicist and a reverend gentleman. The Wellcome Trust commissioned a public consultation exercise; the Nuffield Council on Bioethics has produced some considered views; and, finally, the wide press coverage given to the Donaldson report was generally very supportive. It is difficult to know what further information or facts could emerge from yet another committee, even one as distinguished as a Select Committee of this House is likely to be.
Meanwhile, the patients who are suffering—the 27 new cases of Parkinson's disease diagnosed every day, the diabetics, the stroke patients and those with spinal cord injuries—are simply waiting for help. They know as much as anyone that there are no quick fixes and that the results of research done today may take years to produce practical benefits for them or for those who come after them. No one is under any illusion about
74
that. But they feel that a delay of a year or two is intolerable. I heard a patient with cystic fibrosis say recently that what research with this type of future potential gave him was hope, and hope now. I am sure that your Lordships would not wish to deny him that hope, and that you will agree to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, which would at least allow that precious time to be saved.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I come to this debate with deeply held convictions, but above all troubled and uncertain about the mix of science, ethics and politics involved in the decision that is before us. It is that mix, rather than the need for any specific information, which leads me to support quite strongly the setting up of a Select Committee. I belong to those who are basically in favour of trying every avenue of research which promises results that might help to improve the human condition. More than that, I believe that the presumption should always be in favour of promoting, rather than curbing, human inquiry.
At the same time, two issues give me pause. If and when research gives rise to grave doubts, because it involves pain—including pain to animals—or raises major ethical questions, I want to be sure that it is unavoidable for the declared purpose and that it is beyond the wits of scientists to devise alternative methods of reaching the same end. Secondly, if and when research might violate the most fundamental value of the dignity and integrity of human beings, I draw a line which should not be crossed.
That said, I am still not certain about the ramifications of the statutory instrument before us. On the substance of cell nuclear replacement research, there remains a question mark over the availability of viable alternative methods to therapeutic cloning of embryos.
On the ethical issues, there is still uncertainly about how the boundary between research into genetic disabilities and the use of human beings as commodities can be unambiguously drawn.
On the political aspects, there are not just the constitutional questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but also the questions about what will happen if we do not go along the route that is proposed, and how we can make sure that public trust in science and its necessary framework of rules can be maintained.
None of the earlier reports deals with all three aspects—notably not the Donaldson report, despite the fact that it had, as the Minister put it in his letter to us, some "ethicists" on it. I hope that I shall not be regarded as presumptuous if I say that this House is uniquely placed to deal with all dimensions of the question.
As I listened to the debate earlier, this kind of reasoning led me to believe that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was the answer. Now that it is clear that there will be a Select Committee, the option is a retrospective or a

75
prospective one—and thus, one of time and of the commitment of government. Apropos time, this is in part an issue because the Government have chosen this particular instrument—the statutory instrument—which, if not affirmed, will fall. I share the view of those who regret that choice.
More importantly, we should try to avoid introducing the suffering of humans as an argument in this debate. Those who vote for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will no more cast into gloom patients with degenerative disorders than those who vote for the Minister's Motion will mysteriously and instantaneously heal the sick.
I am more worried than the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, about premature promises. Some scientists have become like politicians; they are spinning their wares before they actually exist. It seems to me to be quite important that no false promises should be made about the success of research and, indeed, of the development process that follows—and thus the application in medication. It will take a long time. Therefore, setting back a particular research strategy by a limited number of months will not make much difference.
At this point in the debate when I know that I have to make up my mind on the issue, I find myself in much the same position as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. Which way we come down will depend as much on whether we trust the assurances of government, as on anything else. The "Walton Select Committee" may be acceptable if it is established soon; if it is given the kind of remit at which I have hinted, together with a clear timetable; and if it is quite clearly understood that the findings of the committee will be fed into the process of decision making, including the possibility that there will have to be a revision of the regulations that may or may not be voted in the affirmative this evening. I shall listen carefully to the remainder of the debate, but, like the right reverend Prelate, I am right on the fence at this particular moment.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, today's debate is partly about a conflict between science and ethics, which is compounded by differences in language and values between the protagonists, as well as by the fact that there are dissenters in both camps. The draft regulations before us come down firmly on the side of the scientists, as does the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, which seeks to open the stable door before considering the desirability of doing so.
On the scientific side there is some playing with words—or "spin" in the current jargon. Phrases such as "cell nuclear replacement", or "therapeutic cloning", cannot disguise the fact that we are really discussing regulations that would permit human cloning, in the manner of Dolly the sheep. That difficult technique would be further developed, but the final step to reproduction by implantation in the
76
womb would be forbidden. Just how such a prohibition could be effectively enforced is not clear to me, and the ethical considerations trouble many.
I much regret that some of the scientific protagonists have made claims for early therapeutic benefits of human embryonic research which are at best speculative and, even if successful, would require some decades to come to fruition. In doing so, they have sought to enlist the support of caring people for the humanitarian promise of their proposals. Some of your Lordships—perhaps all—will have received a letter from COED (the Campaign Opposing Exploitation of the Disabled), which I found a moving, dignified and thought-provoking rebuttal of many of those claims.
The letter addressed to your Lordships from 11 religious leaders in this country raises further ethical doubts and pleads for careful examination of the issues involved by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. This, together with the different attitudes of other European nations, must be taken very seriously.
As a number of speakers have said, science is moving very rapidly and the versatility of adult stem cells offers promise that would not have been predicted a year ago. Further progress in this field, together with work on mouse embryos, could obviate the need for the human cloning route.
Like all caring people, I want to see the benefits of stem cell technology developed as quickly as possible to relieve the suffering of many with a wide range of presently incurable conditions, or at least to give them hope. The prospect is real; the means are available. But the crucial questions are: first, whether human embryonic research is essential to that end—and, secondly, whether such a course could be ethically acceptable.
These are weighty considerations, which have not been properly addressed. Their resolution is of great importance not only to those afflicted people anxious for deliverance, but also to the questions of human dignity and morals which distinguish man from the animal kingdom and which lie at the very heart of society. I cannot see how it could be responsible to approve these regulations without careful consideration of those issues.
With some experience of Select Committees of this House, I have confidence in their ability to examine such complex topics in a thorough and balanced way. It is indeed a pity that the need for such an examination is only now being addressed, but the need is surely undeniable before the merits of the proposed regulation can be judged. For those reasons, I shall support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, like the previous speaker, who addressed the House most ably, I shall support the amendment. I would be inclined to support any amendment moved on this subject by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because I regard him as the

77
future hope of Christianity in this House. However, pulling aside that personal bias, like other noble Lords I have to try to make up my own mind. When we say that we have to make up our own minds, surely most of us feel the need for some kind of guidance. Most of us, although this is not true of everyone, do not regard ourselves as expert in such matters. Therefore, we look for some guidance while trying to reach the ultimate decision on how to cast our vote.
Many people here—and, indeed, elsewhere—will look to medical science to provide the ultimate guidance. In the end, they will say that whatever is right for medical research must be right for all of us. I do not agree with that conclusion. Some things are impermissible. That seems to be the view of the Government, of which I always remain a loyal and obsequious supporter. As I say, some people cannot believe that medical science could ever be mistaken. I do not agree; I believe that it can be. It can do things which are cruel and which can interfere with the sacredness of human life. The Government seem to take that view up to a point, because they have ruled out the cloning of human beings.
So where do I look for my own guidance? Those who know that I am a Roman Catholic will think that I automatically follow the teaching of the nearest priest. That is not quite true, although there is an element of truth there. I was a University of Oxford don before I became a Catholic and after I was a Catholic. I have never ceased to aim for what I like to think is an academic outlook—the search for the truth. But, when all is said and done, I draw great inspiration from my Church. If I may say so—and this is slight irrelevant—I cannot help saying how delighted I am that the head of my Church in this country, Archbishop Murphy-O'Connor, has become a cardinal. No one ever deserved it more! As I said, that is slightly irrelevant to today's topic.
However, it is not only the Catholic Church whose guidance I am following in this respect. The Churches of the world have come together in a most extraordinary way—that is, not only the Christian Churches but also many other Churches and religious bodies are all lined up in the same way. I cannot think of anything like it ever happening in my lifetime. So many religious bodies, each starting from different premises, have reached the same conclusion in this respect. I find it almost impossible to disagree, though I have disagreed with my own Church; for example, I did so continually through the debate about women priests. I am not just a slave of my Church, or even of religious bodies. Nevertheless, in the last resort, I would find it unbelievable that all these Churches could have got it wrong and the scientists had got it right. No, I am afraid that I shall not swallow that argument.
I have two further points to make. No one can fail to be moved by the appeal from one gentleman—I can think of a number of them—about Parkinson's disease. Of course, one would want to do anything in the world if one could, provided that it was morally legitimate, to help him. I shall leave others to discuss whether the suggestions embodied in the
78
Government's plan are necessary. But, leaving that aside, whatever help can be given, there are limits to what is permissible. As some poet once wrote:
"I trod the road to Hell But there were things I could have sold and did not sell".
That may apply to the matter we are discussing. There are some impermissible steps as regards helping human sufferers.
The sacredness of human life does not always provide a simple answer. I refer to the case of the two twins, one of whom had to die to enable the other to live. I am not sure what line my Church took on that matter but I rather think that I disagreed with the official line that was taken.
Dilemmas will arise but I do not find one here. I find it easy to go along as a foot soldier in the Christian army led by great religious leaders, including my own Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, it is impossible to spend most of a lifetime working with and for people with disabilities without having views on this issue. Those like myself who have views but do not have scientific expertise harbour the perhaps unrealistic hope that science will enable us to do good to people without undermining their dignity or the dignity of humanity in general and without falling foul of major ethical dilemmas.
To take a specific example, those who are parents of a son or daughter with Down's Syndrome, as I am, may well not want to see Down's Syndrome eliminated. But I guess that most of us would be very pleased if our children could be spared heart defects which make them breathless on the least exertion and spared the early onset of dementia just when new doors seemed to be opening for them.
Again as a non-scientist, I would be happier if the raw material for doing good to a human being were the product of a totally acceptable natural process and did not involve the action which gives rise to the emotive term "therapeutic cloning". But I am not saying "Leave it to nature". Had we been left to nature, most of us would be dead: certainly I would. While death may in its own way be a good thing, I, for one, am very much in favour of what medical science has done in co-operation with nature to help us live longer and live healthier. At the frontiers of science it is good that we pause and think carefully before we press forward. The dilemma—I do not pretend to be able to resolve it—is that if we do not do what we can to relieve the pain of, for example, dementia, we devalue those who suffer the disorder and perhaps suffer unnecessarily. But if we are too cavalier in how we seek to secure relief, we may devalue life itself.
Despite my reservations, I fear that I shall be unable to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool. Why is that? I have a daughter for whom the ageing process came depressingly early, including the loss of her sight; two dear friends who have Parkinson's Disease; yet a third with all the concomitant disabilities associated with diabetes and a

79
fourth with inoperable familial cancer. Research may be too late for all these good folk but for millions of mankind yet to come I shall support my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant, whose amendment seems to encompass both progress and regulation. If I may echo my noble friend Lord Patel and other noble Lords, delay is simply not an option.
7.24 p.m.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, I speak in favour of giving approval to the regulations, to support the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and to oppose the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool.
I do not come to the debate with any of the great scientific, medical or perhaps philosophical expertise of so many noble Lords who have spoken or will speak today. Such knowledge as I have in these matters is derived from my days in nursing practice as well as the interest of any concerned citizen in medical advance and research.
One cannot separate medical research from ethical issues any more than one can separate the practice of medicine or nursing from ethics. So I say straight away that I fully appreciate and understand the worries of many who are concerned about the pushing out of scientific boundaries in stem cell research, particularly where the use of embryos is concerned. I understand why it is argued from an ethical standpoint that research should be confined solely to the use of the adult stem cell. I understand that but I have given the matter most careful consideration and I cannot agree with it.
I recall two memories from a long time ago which help me in making up my mind on how to vote this evening. First, like most people of the world, as a young man I was fascinated by the work of the pioneering transplant surgeons, perhaps in particular that of the South African surgeon, Dr Christiaan Barnard. Most of us will remember the publicity indeed, the furore—that surrounded the first cardiac transplants. But that research and eventual surgery were not universally applauded. Understandably in such a groundbreaking area there was a great deal of uneasiness. Of course there was a valid ethical issue to be discussed. For some, including one or two ministers of religion of my acquaintance, the concept of putting the heart of a deceased person into a living human being was contrary to the will of God. There was a tabloid view, as it were, that Professor Barnard was a charlatan and that he and other pioneers were doing the work of the Devil. Only a few would hold that view today. Cardiac transplantation is relatively commonplace and not too technically difficult although, as we know, it is expensive. The transplantation of other organs and tissues is similarly almost routine.
But there are never enough organs and tissues available to meet the needs of the population. For that reason, and for the many other diseases where organ
80
transplantation is not, and never can be, a solution, we need to look to a new agenda. It is necessary to do that because most specialised cells in the human body cannot be replicated or repaired if diseased or traumatised. It is clear that research in the past decade has at least opened a window of opportunity which may allow at some time in the future the treatment of a range of genetic diseases as well as, possibly, of certain traumas and cancers.
The second matter from my younger days upon which I draw this evening does not arise from my work as a nurse specialising in operating theatres or trauma intensive care. While I never practised in the field after qualification, I also trained as a psychiatric nurse. It was during that period that I nursed patients who had Huntingdon's Disease, a particularly nasty single gene disease.
Most of us come across something in life's experiences that leaves an indelible impression. Few things have seared my memory as much—I try not to overstate this, but I think that it is right to mention it—as the sheer unremitting horror of the physical and mental deterioration of patients with Huntingdon's syndrome. If that is the effect on a nurse who has come across most illnesses and injuries affecting perhaps every age group, what is the effect on the patient with Huntingdon's, on their loved ones and on their friends?
So I cannot readily recall these images tonight on the one hand and not go into the Lobby in support of research which may give prospects for the treatment of many of these genetic disorders, even if that prospect may be some distance away.
Given the large number of voluntarily donated embryos already unused in research, the safeguards in this country against mischief in the laboratory and the absolute promise of primary legislation to reinforce the criminality of any attempt to implant a cloned embryo into a uterus, there is no way that I can regard it as unethical to extend the parameters of research as set out in the draft regulations.
How can it be right to use embryos for research into better contraception but to deny research using embryos into Huntington's and other genetic diseases? If today we do not support the regulations, or vote for delay, we shall put scientific and medical advance into the metaphoric long grass where proper respect for the embryo—that embryo being a blastocyst before the development of any neural tissue—is held to be on a higher ethical plane than proper, authorised regulated research into the possibilities of treatment which may alleviate huge suffering for present and future human beings, their families and their carers.
I support the regulations. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton; and I oppose the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
7.30 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, it is a daunting prospect to seek to add to the arguments heard today. I speak as someone who operates very much at the blunt end of propagation and procreation after

81
40 years as a livestock farmer. We have heard from a number of noble Lords who work at the sharp end—no one more so than the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein—attending the sick, isolating genes, dissecting embryos and unravelling the science that underlies the issue.
We have all received many learned briefing papers. Men who are experts at seeing and understanding scientific proof are asked to put aside their normal caution and speculate as to where their science will take us. We need these men to speculate. However, all too recently we have seen the difficulty we present to them when we ask for an opinion that goes beyond current scientific knowledge. This is where my worry begins.
I refer to the statements made in the early days of the BSE outbreak. The statements were coloured by what everyone, but in particular those involved, wished to be the outcome. The effect on the public's perception of science and scientific opinions was put clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. Once again we are moving into the realm of scientific prediction and one cannot help noticing the frequency of phrases such as "scientist believe that", or "we expect that" the other thing will happen.
I listened with great interest to the explanation of the thinking behind the proposed legislation given by the Government Chief Medical Officer last Thursday. Perhaps I gained some inkling of the anticipation of scientists involved in this work. It appeared that under the present legislation they can already isolate embryonic stem cells from a pre-14 day embryo, multiply them in the laboratory and keep them for many months as isolated stem cells. They can even obtain them from abroad. But at present they can apply them only to research in the limited categories licensed under the Act.
If there are cases where scientists have gone beyond this boundary, as seemed to be suggested when referring to Parkinson's Disease in The Times today, that would surely be important evidence for the Minister to put before us both to give us an idea of the effectiveness of the enforcement of the current legislation and a clear picture of how far down the road of effective cures we have reached.
Many tales of experiment and potential are being bandied about. In an effort to find the surest way of treating numerous horrifying diseases two routes seem to have opened up. They were explained in vivid detail by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. One route is using embryo stem cells to develop repairing tissues. The cells are readily available. But it seems that officially no one knows whether the science requiredߞto make them compatible with the patient or to programme them to produce only the tissue that would be appropriate in the case for which they are being used—might impair their ability to reproduce at the speed necessary for them to be effective. The other route is the use of adult stem cells. The problem is how to extract them successfully. Unless we know that one of those routes is currently effective, it must come into the realm of the bookmaker's art to guess which will produce the earliest results.
82
I have listened with respect to those noble Lords who participated in the drafting of the 1990 Act. The aspect that interests me is that a line was drawn limiting scientific research on embryos to areas specifically to do with procreation. We are left to tease out the import of the phrase from the Warnock Committee's report that,
"an embryo has a special status and is deserving of respect".
At that time the cells were described as a pre-embryo. If that meant that the subject was less than a being and that the limits for research laid down in that legislation were acceptable only because of that status, why was the legislative framework not phrased to include all types of research? If scientists are merely being asked to investigate a cell structure, it does not matter too much what they do with it: they have investigated and dissected numerous cell structures. However, these strict limits were set as though this type of research required special consideration.
It seems strange that as we push at the frontiers of this science, all we are asked to do is to pass a vote on a statutory instrument. It is an area that required a great deal of careful thought when the Act was drawn up. It would seem worthy of further thought in the light of where we find ourselves today.
The puzzle for me is that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, can call only for the setting up of a committee by the Government and (if I understood the phraseology of the Minister) it does not seem possible for the Government to give that commitment at this time. For that reason I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, the recent history of genetic science and biotechnology is truly astounding. An American author has said of this history that it puts us on the brink of the eighth day of creation. For those present who treat stem cell research as a means to cure terrible illness such a description is apposite. To those who find through religious and ethical belief that this is a step too far, it is also apposite. However, the debate illustrates the vitally important stage we are at in the history of biotechnology.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, was entirely right: the public will treat this as a huge moral step. In debating whether that step should be taken now everyone involved in the debate must acknowledge the important, vital medical need to cure serious illness. Equally, we should surely acknowledge that we are here debating the very form of human beings. What will we become with this technology? I must say that as a very young parliamentarian of this House I was taken aback to find that matters of such immense moment would be dealt with by such a slight legislative vehicle as an amendment to a statutory instrument. But so be it.
If that is the vehicle, I ask four questions about embryonic stem cell research. First, does the science require or justify immediate legislative action? Secondly, how will we control the technology that might subsequently be created? Thirdly, is there a clear

83
legal framework within which this science can be shown to be lawful and over which control can be exercised? Lastly, and not the least important, while we debate the nature of humankind in this era of biotechnology, those outside will expect us to reflect their concerns, not just ours.
I shall deal with those four questions in turn. I have five points to make about science. First, there is no imminent cure for any serious illness likely to arise from embryonic stem cell research. In the words of the Donaldson report, such work will require,
"many years of basic research",
and before any use of stem cell research can be made,
"fundamental problems will need to be resolved".
Those suffering from serious illness, many of whom have written to us before the debate, are understandably concerned. They are enthusiastic for immediate action and deserve our sympathy, but in view of the conclusions of the Donaldson report, such action is neither justified nor necessary. In my humble view, it would be wrong—I underline that word—for the House, by this debate, to lead such people to think that a cure was imminent, either as to its nature or as to its timing.
Secondly, the Helsinki declaration of 1964 set out the principles on which scientists and doctors should conduct medical research. One critical principle is that the purpose of the research should be to have a fruitful result for the good of society not procurable by any other means. Research is not at large. The question arises: are there other means? Adult stem cell research is an alternative, not only in the science of cell development but in its use. Adult cells have been used in many recent treatments, much of the commentary post-dating Donaldson. I am ready to be guided by science and medicine, but not directed by them. There is a reasoned balance to be assessed between this form of research and the other.
Thirdly, again referring to the Helsinki declaration, the essential means by which the safety of medical products should be determined is through animal experiment. What is the state of animal experiment in embryonic stem cell research? What is the result of the research on animals as to tissue rejection, the effect on the immune system, the tumorigenic possibilities or even the basic question of controlling the proliferation of the cells? We need to know what the science is before we turn to the investigation of human embryonic stem cells.
I have two further points about science, one of which has not yet been mentioned. Oocyte nucleus transfer, which is mentioned in Donaldson, may result in treatment of mitochondrial disease through the control of the genetic system involving DNA. That modification would be passed on to the next generation. That has not been mentioned so far in the debate, but it amounts to the genetic alteration of our species. I have chosen those words carefully.
My other point about science, which has already been mentioned, is the concern about whether we are talking about therapeutic cloning alone and treating
84
reproductive cloning as something different. We are, but the science that produces each starts the same way. It is not without significance that last summer in the Independent a range of eminent scientists, including some noble contributors to this debate, when asked what would happen if such science came in, mostly said that it would lead to debate about the introduction of reproductive cloning. That comes from scientists.
In conclusion on science, before I quickly turn to technology and the law, surely it is reasonable to say that the science is not clear. It may persuade but it does not convince that the legislation must be passed now.
My second topic is technology, which has been ignored so far in the debate. Paragraph 3.20 of the Donaldson report says:
"The 1990 Act would not apply to subsequent research projects using cultured stem cells originally extracted from an embryo".
Who is to control the technology using stem cell research? The medical-political complex is enormous, with the pharmaceutical manufacturers, the medical profession, the Government and the consumers all vying to know what to do next. The variety and soaring cost of high-tech medicine excites—I use that word deliberately—insatiable public demand. If the doctors say it, it must be done. Are we to permit research to begin without considering the social use to which it will be put if it proves successful? Who is to own the patent? Are we to devote the product of human beings to the control of a large pharmaceutical company? Those questions deserve an answer. If we open a door to such research, let us consider the path down which it will lead us. Society expects that if the research succeeds, society will feel the benefit.
My third point relates to the law. There is an established convention that the Government do not reveal the legal advice on which they rely. Such discretion is understandable on this occasion. It would take a lawyer with the utmost confidence in the quality of his opinions to ignore the legal problems. Is it clear under the 1990 Act that cell nuclear replacement and oocyte nucleus transfer are within the regulatory control? The noble Lord, Lord Rawlinson, touched on that briefly. The Act presupposes embryonic activity as part of fertilisation. Cell nuclear replacement and oocyte nucleus transfer are not part of a fertilisation process. That is the very point which the court will consider on Friday next. If people do not conduct themselves properly within the framework of this Act, how is the research properly to be regulated as tightly as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, expects?
Secondly, by Article 18.2, the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine expressly prohibits the creation of human embryos for research purposes. Article 13 prohibits research using as an objective the modification of the human genome in descendants. Surely we cannot allow that state of legal confusion within our law—and, without it, in Europe—to be left unresolved if we pass this legislation.

85
Lastly, I turn to the question of public trust in this legislation. That very same convention on human rights and biomedicine—there are such concepts; it is about people—states in Article 28 under the major rubric, "Public Debate":
"Parties to this convention shall see to it that the fundamental questions raised by our developments of biology and medicine are the subject of appropriate public discussion in the light, in particular, of relevant"—
please note—
"medical, social, economic, ethical and legal implications, and that their possible application is made the subject of appropriate consultation".
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, that exhaustive public consideration has been given to this subject. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, was right: it has not. Donaldson is the beginning, not the end, of the debate. As we sit here listening to informed scientists, lawyers, doctors and politicians speak, how can we conclude conscientiously that this debate is the end of the matter?
I conclude by making a declaration of interest. I am a practising Roman Catholic and I have strong beliefs about embryonic research. That does not deprive me of the capacity of intellectual analysis. So far, I have sought without reference to religion or ethics to answer the question: is this legislation necessary now? Science is unclear; the technology and its control unknown; the law is indefinite; and the public have yet to be informed. Policy and legislation made with inadequate consideration and undue haste become either poor policy or flawed legislation. Let this not be the occasion for that. I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and commend it to your Lordships' House.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly, not as a scientist but as someone who has been involved for some time in some aspects at least of these issues. I speak also as someone who has attended several working meetings, workshops, conferences, and so on, on these issues, including one organised recently by the OECD in Japan which considered the global implications of this research, both on policy and on practice.
Together with many other noble Lords—perhaps most of us—as an individual I have known many people who have suffered from terrible degenerative diseases. Many such diseases have been mentioned: Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and diabetes, which, through pursuing its relentless progress, often brings with it terrible complications. However, perhaps more importantly for today's debate, through my work over the past 25 years I have come to know many more people who either suffer themselves or care for people who suffer from the tragic progress, development and consequences of such afflictions. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, mentioned, I also learned earlier today that in this country every day 27 people are diagnosed as suffering from Parkinson's Disease alone.
86
Contrary to much that has been suggested, a great deal of careful consideration—perhaps not as exhaustive as it will be in the future, as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, suggested—has been given to these issues not only by the scientific community but also by ethicists, lawyers and others with highly relevant experience, knowledge and, perhaps I may also suggest, wisdom. I, too, believe in the importance and dignity of human life. But we must also take into consideration that out there millions of people—human beings—depend on us today not to take away something which is most important to them—that is, their hope for a more dignified, happier and healthier future.
That hope is becoming more realistic now. Dignity is important and it extends to many people who live with the results of horrific accidents, burns and acute illnesses, as well as degenerative diseases. They want to be free from the pain and suffering brought about by the diseases which have attacked them. Their dignity is important, too, and is often hard to retain when in the grip of many of those conditions.
With the greatest respect—I do respect the deeply held views of many in this House—the millions of people out there—many of them elderly with no time to lose—will not forgive us or understand us and, in my view, will be right not to do so if we delay agreement to the regulations, as amended by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, which give them hope. Hope is the not the same as false promises—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She may not have been in receipt of a letter from people who suffer from many of the diseases which she mentioned. In their letter they say that they are,
"disabled or have a degenerative disease. We object strongly to the propaganda that is being used to claim that virtually our only hope of cures lies in the use of human embryonic stem cells. This, of course, is not only totally untrue, but it is an extremely cruel method of gaining support. It amounts to blackmail—exploitation of the very worst kind—of disabled and sick people, some of whom are in extremely difficult situations".
That was written by people who have Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and many other similar diseases.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I received that letter—and many more which urged me to vote for progress with regard to the regulations so that the research might go ahead.
I was saying that hope is not the same as false promises. However, these regulations provide the opportunity for research to proceed. I want to stress that the research will proceed in this country only under closely regulated conditions which are unparalleled elsewhere in the world.
At the beginning of the debate, the Minister assured us that research which uses embryonic stem cells will continue only while it is absolutely necessary and only while adult stem cells cannot replace them according to the best evidence that we can obtain. In my view, we have a clear duty to those who suffer. We need to discharge that duty and we need to do so now.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot speak with the eloquence or the knowledge of many noble Lords in this House. My reason for adding my name to the speakers' list lies in my own experience. In my late teens and early twenties I watched my mother die of Parkinson's Disease. It was not a good death. The moment when she and I felt that death was preferable has stayed with me. I know that other noble Lords have had similar experiences, some in more tragic circumstances. I claim nothing from that, other than knowing how the many thousands of families who live with this nightmare and whose faces are turned towards your Lordships' House for some hope are feeling. Listening to the Chief Medical Officer last week, the prospect that the research holds out to families of the future who will be in that position is nothing less than fantastic.
I am grateful to the men and women and scientists and doctors, some of whom are represented in your Lordships' House, who have chosen to devote their incredible talents to the search for cures and treatments for those terrible diseases and illnesses. In a world in which we sometimes value rather bizarre attributes, they are truly among the heroes and heroines of our generation. However, research at any cost would not be acceptable to them or to the sufferers and their families. That is why the scrutiny of the HFEA is so important and to be welcomed. As I understand it, it would licence research into embryos only when other methods were not appropriate. That would include adult stem cell research.
Noble Lords will take differing views about whether there is, in addition, a need for a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. Whatever the view, it is important that the decision to allow the research to go ahead is taken today. No one yet knows if or when the research will bear fruit and whether help could be given, but if we do not start now, treatment—like justice—delayed will be for some treatment denied.
Those noble Lords who have already decided to vote against extending the regulations, or perhaps to vote for a Select Committee and later to vote against them, have already made their choice, and I respect them. I just ask them, please, to be sure.
I hope that those noble Lords who will vote for the regulations will, like me, feel a sense of joy at the prospects for many people, especially children and young people, who may be helped.
I ask those noble Lords who are undecided to vote for the Select Committee but not to delay the provision of help to people for whom the words, "chance of a cure", mean the chance of a life.
The decision on such research lies with us. Those who are suffering can only stand by and watch us decide. When my mother died, I felt helpless. Tonight, I am at least not helpless. I could not save my mum but tonight I can try to help to save someone else's.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, when it was first mooted that there should be an extension of the
88
purposes for which the regulations might be used we were debating the 50th anniversary of the National Health Service. The word "cloning" was used, and my antennae immediately started wobbling. I am among those who have been rather appalled at the implications of Dolly the sheep. I find that that view is widely held by the public. Surveys, some of which were recorded in the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology entitled Science and Society, show that of all the scientific advances in recent years the cloning of Dolly arouses the strongest apprehensions among the people.
When the joint proposals of the HFEA and the HGAC—the advisory commission—finally came forward in December, my reaction was immediately to say, "Look, hold on". As with the Warnock report, I said, "The proposal must be given enough time to allow people to understand what it is about". We have referred to the years that elapsed between the publication of the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and the introduction of the relevant legislation by the previous government. I took part in that process, as a humble Back-Bencher. In the end, I supported the proposal. I believe that we were right and that the regulatory system has worked well.
However, my immediate reaction to the proposal to extend the provisions to include the new purposes was one of caution. My colleagues on the Science and Technology Committee will remember that when we interviewed the Minister from another place, I made my view perfectly clear. I thought that the Government were absolutely right to have referred the matter for further study. The result, of course, was the Donaldson report. As several noble Lords have said, the intervening time has been used for others to weigh in.
A huge amount of material has been produced during the past 18 months or more. That is not as long as the period associated with the Warnock report. However, a huge amount of material had to be compressed into a shorter time. I thought of bringing my file with me into this debate—I have a very fat file—but I cannibalised it and brought along simply a few of the key documents.. There have been many conferences and a variety of reports.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is no longer in his place. I found myself more in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill of Bengarve, than with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, when she suggested that there has been an unprecedented—I believe that that is the word that she used—amount of public discussion on this issue. The correspondence that noble Lords will have received from many sources—during the past few days, an endless stream of e-mails arrived in my inbox—demonstrates that there is a wide appreciation of what is involved. One is impressed by the quality of the material and by the fact that the public have thoroughly understood what it is all about.
The question, therefore, is about whether we should delay. That was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. When he and I discussed this

89
matter last week—no secrets will be disclosed—the point was made that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, was one of those who had joined the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in suggesting that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee. Debates such as this have the capacity to change minds. I believe that I understood the noble Baroness correctly when she said that she would settle for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. She appeared to suggest that, provided there was a thorough and effective review by a Select Committee of the workings of the regulations, she would support that amendment. To me, that was a very important point because I wondered whether, if the noble Baroness were against doing this without the involvement of a Select Committee beforehand, it was right for me to change my mind. She has greatly reassured me.
We would be wrong to delay the proposal. We have known all along that statutory instruments would be used. When the Minister came before the Select Committee, I asked her about that. There is nothing new in the suggestion. One might feel that the proposal should have had more debate. At one point, there was a suggestion of a general debate but, as we know, time is at a premium.
Where do we go? The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred briefly in the course of his persuasive speech—although I am not persuaded—to the report, Science and Society. That report was produced by the sub-committee of the Science and Technology Committee which I had the honour to chair. He did not refer to the paragraph over which my colleagues and I perhaps wrestled longer than with any other. That paragraph comes at the end of the substantial passage that we wrote about values. I refer to paragraph 2.65, which states:
"In our view knowledge obtained through scientific investigation does not in itself have a moral dimension; but the ways in which it is pursued, and the applications to which it may be put, inevitably engage with morality. Science is conducted and applied by individuals; as individuals and as a collection of professions, scientists must have morality and values, and must be allowed and indeed expected to apply them to their work and its applications. By declaring openly the values which underpin their work, and by engaging with the values and attitudes of the public, they are far more likely to command public support".
That is absolutely right. I am not totally convinced that it has happened in this context, because people are having to learn new ways.
The report Science and Society has had a considerable influence on the thinking of bodies such as the Royal Society, the British association, the Royal Institution and a number of others. I have been in touch with some of the work that is now going on. The only body that has not yet had an opportunity to debate the report—and I say this to the Government Front Bench—is the House of Lords. I hope that we shall have a debate on that report fairly soon.
There is now a much greater understanding on the part of scientists, not least those engaged in the biological sciences and biotechnology, that the public must be listened to. There must be a dialogue. There
90
must be an exchange of views. In that way, some of the difficulties which have arisen in the past may be avoided. That is the central message of the report.
There is one other message which we had from Professor Worcester who gave evidence about the survey work which had been done. Talking about people's views, he said that they come in three forms. He said that they were perhaps rather too poetical for scholarly adoption but that he defined them as,
"opinions: the ripples on the surface of the public's consciousness, shallow, and easily changed; attitudes: the currents below the surface, deeper and stronger; and values: the deep tides of public mood, slow to change, but powerful?.
That applies to individuals as well. Perhaps I may return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the question which he asked of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. If there were a Select Committee and the Select Committee then recommended that the regulations should be supported and reintroduced, would the noble Lord support them? He has given the answer once already. I found it rather fuzzy. He may like to have another go. My guess is that he has deep values which will not be changed by further argument and I believe that that is the position of a number of those who have spoken in the debate.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I should not wish ever to be accused of being fuzzy on this question. He knows that I believe that we should provide protection for the human embryo. It is as simple as that. But he knows also that currently the status quo is the position which he advocates. Half a million human embryos have been used in research since the 1990 legislation was approved. They have been experimented on and destroyed in the process.
The advances for which the noble Lord has argued have not been made during that period. I have argued today, as have others in this House, that alternatives exist using adult stem cells rather than embryonic stem cells. It is that issue to which a Select Committee would have to apply its mind because as the regulations say, if alternatives exist, the human embryo should not be used. My attempt is to try to change the thinking that currently applies.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I respect entirely the views which the noble Lord holds and which he has expressed. He wants to change people's minds so that human embryos should not be used as they have been over the past 10 years under the 1990 Act. But many of those who support his amendment would not support any of this research at all. For that reason, it is a tactic. It may be a perfectly legitimate tactic, but it is a tactic and it should be recognised as such.
I find that I am greatly reassured by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. That is the right way forward. Therefore, I hope that we shall not accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We should accept the regulations, subject to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, I should declare a special interest in this debate in view of my responsibility for advising on and monitoring all matters relating to xenotransplantation, of which tissue and cell replacement is, at present, the main focus of interest.
In the light of that experience, I see stem cell technology as offering a very promising alternative. It could eliminate the two major problems inherent in using animal tissues; namely, infection and immunological rejection. Whether it would eventually be possible to grow organs rather than cells and tissues from stem cells is at present an open question for the long-term future. Meanwhile, wearing that particular hat, I welcome these developments although, having seen a little of what goes on at first hand, I must confess a certain scepticism about the optimistic views of what more embryo research may produce.
On the whole, medicine advances by rather ad hoc means, making use of fundamental research but not very often growing directly out of it. Perhaps I may give an example. At present in the United States, one of the most interesting new treatments for Parkinson's Disease has nothing whatever to do with embryo or genetic research or anything like it. It consists of simply sticking pig fetal cells into human brains and watching what happens. The answer is that there is a modest improvement.
But wearing another hat, a moral and theological hat, I am aware, as we are all aware, of very considerable problems. I do not believe that the objections to using embryos for research should outweigh all other considerations, particularly if the research is seen as an interim measure until satisfactory ways have been found to derive stem cells from adult human cells.
I agree with those who say that there is no essentially moral difference between this proposed use and that under the present legislation provided that—and it is an important proviso—the aim of embryo research is to develop techniques which will make the further use of embryos less necessary.
When the Warnock report was being debated, the main aim of the legislation, in my own mind, was the improvement which was suggested in the techniques of in vitro fertilisation. We were debating in a situation in which in vitro fertilisation was already happening. Louise Brown had been born. We were thus presented with a fait accompli and we had to decide how best to monitor and control that.
It seemed to me that there was a moral imperative to improve the techniques which were clearly working but not working very well. It seemed to me then that if one does not believe, as I do not believe, that embryos have full moral status as persons, then the respect that we owe them does not necessitate absolute protection and can be satisfied by a strictly controlled use of them.
As I see it, the particular aim of embryo research should be to learn enough so that the further need for it becomes self-limiting. What I am not happy with is
92
the idea of embarking on a unending research programme, further and further removed from its original moral justification.
I hope that noble Lords will take very seriously the extremely important speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. It seemed to me that he spoke to the heart of the moral issues. In particular I want to take up his phrase about the over-use of embryos, or almost casual use of embryos, that is beginning to change our concept of what it is to be a human person and of what is human life.
I believe that we need to be careful in defining where the limits of embryo research should lie, all the more so because the present fears surrounding it centre mainly on questions about where such research may lead us in the long-term. Therefore, I want to suggest four areas in which such limits should apply.
First, in the Donaldson report it is claimed that all necessary research could be done on spare embryos without the need for embryos to be created specifically for the purpose of research. If we take that at its face value it seems that there would be no harm in stating clearly that that would be so and that embryos should not be created specifically for such research.
Secondly, it seems to me that any further move in the direction of further embryo research should be seen strictly as an interim measure. In the first instance that could be done by setting a time limit of, say, five years. To set such a time limit would help to concentrate attention on the primary objective of using adult rather than embryonic cells.
Thirdly, I must confess that I had not seen the precise regulations suggested by the Government until I came to the House this afternoon. Quite honestly, when I read them I was shocked. They state:
"A licence may be issued for the purposes of—

(a) increasing knowledge about the development of embryos;

(b) increasing knowledge about serious disease; or

(c) enabling any such knowledge to be applied in developing treatments for serious disease".

That could legitimate almost anything. Anything one could think of could come under those headings.
I know that the HFEA is a sensible authority that will not let researchers go too far. However, the members of the HFEA are human and if they are under enormous pressure and there is no statutory backing that allows them to set limits on research, they will find themselves in an increasingly difficult situation. I am afraid that I simply cannot accept those regulations.
Fourthly, two speeches have mentioned the recommendation concerning oocyte nuclear transfer. It seems to me that, although the research may be permissible, the practical consequences of that could be highly contentious. It takes us a long way beyond the present Act. The basis of the present Act is that no embryo that has been subject to genetic manipulation should be allowed to develop beyond 14 days. The transfer of a whole nucleus entails genetic manipulation of the most radical kind, and the research envisaged under that heading must inevitably

93
look forward to the creation of individuals who have been subject to manipulation, thus breaking the 14-day rule. That would be germ-line therapy by the backdoor and I do not believe that it should ever be allowed.
Those are four controversial points. It does not matter whether noble Lords agree with them, but I hope that noble Lords will agree that they require further discussion. I repeat, I welcome the proposals and I do not want to inhibit progress in stem cell research. However, I am convinced that this progress must be carefully and independently monitored and that further restrictions and safeguards of the kind that I have suggested should be built into the whole process.
For that reason I am minded to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, sorry though I am to disappoint my noble friend Lord Walton. Only a "W" separates them. In my own mind the "W" has been wobbling backwards and forwards all afternoon. I have to confess that I am mainly convinced that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is right by basely political considerations. It seems almost certain that there will be a general election this spring. If we pass these regulations and then have a general election, no matter what a Select Committee may say, who knows that will happen? I prefer belt and braces; I would prefer there to be a postponement, followed by a Select Committee and then a clear decision with proper safeguards built in when we know exactly what we want to do.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, the regulations before us permitting stem cell research with embryonic cells concern both the vital public issue of regulation of medical research and deep beliefs about the sanctity of life, religion and the development of science. I am honoured to follow the excellent speeches of other noble Lords that, as always, were very revealing on every possible aspect. They have spoken with great authority. I speak as a physical scientist and as someone whose life was saved by pioneering medical research 50 years ago. I hope that I am sensible of the way in which religious beliefs inspire and comfort people and also guide our ethical principles.
As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the use of embryos for medical research has been the subject of ethical investigation for more than 20 years, during which time the research has moved forward. The landmark Warnock report of 1984 concluded in paragraph 5:
"that people generally want some principles or other to govern the development and use of the new techniques. There must be some barriers that are not to be crossed, some limits fixed, beyond which people must not be allowed to go. Nor is such a wish for containment a mere whim or fancy. The very existence of morality depends on it. A society which had no inhibiting limits, especially in the areas with which we have been concerned, questions of birth and death, of the setting up of families, and the valuing of human life, would be a society without moral scruples. And this nobody wants".
Amen.
94
As the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, reminded the House, the report led to a framework Act and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, an organisation that is well trusted in the UK and admired abroad, as it was in a recent Le Monde editorial. Because of that trusted framework new legislation is not needed but simply agreement to the regulations to proceed with the new research with embryos.
The regulations are supported by the authoritative O'Neill report of the HFEA and a totally open report of the Chief Medical Officer. That report emphasises the potential medical benefits of stem cell research, some of which needs to be done with embryos and some with adult cells. The members of the committee were not only distinguished medical researchers but also those who have considered the wider ethical and social issues. The report was published in June last year. There have been two major debates in the House of Commons and several meetings in and around Westminster with different interest groups well represented. So it is hard to say that there has not been time to hear about the information and to debate the wider implications. I cannot accept such criticism of the process by my noble friend Lord Brennan.
If the delaying amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is passed, researchers are likely to leave the UK and to continue the work abroad. All scientists know that the application of research, including medical research, is most immediate and effective when it is done alongside the fundamental research. So the expertise in the application of medical research in the UK will therefore be less than in countries where the research is taking place. Is that really the aim of those supporting the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton?
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that international regulation might be possible. Having worked with the United Nations system as the UK representative, I understand its limitations as well as its strengths. I believe that neither the World Health Organisation nor any other body will ever be able to control completely so marketable an area as research and treatment. However, there is a chance that some international regulation will be possible if the UK adopts policies which are likely to be a compromise between the total openness of the United States and the rigid position of many, but not all, European countries.
A crucial aspect of the debate has centred on definitions of life and the discrimination between embryonic cells and embryos. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans called the proposals a great step-change, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, argued that we are discussing incremental steps. If biological research has shown us anything, it has shown us not only that life is marvellously complex but that there are several distinct steps of cell division and differentiation. That is why under the proposed regulations the 14-day rule remains inviolate and that should give us confidence in the administration of the regulations.

95
In the past, religions have had doubts about the development of science, perhaps because religion comes out of every-day observation as well as the teachings of great leaders. But surely those great teachers inspire us with awe about the world in which we live and fill us with the desire to help the suffering. In the past, there were religious doubts even about life insurance and weather forecasts—that is still the case in some countries—so I can only marvel at the difficulty today for religious leaders to accept and explain these new developments.
I hope that the important common beliefs of all mankind will enable religion and science to understand each other and work together in this great human endeavour. Since urgent action is needed, and since after passing the regulations explanation will be essential from a Select Committee, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said, in popular magazines, I urge your Lordships to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
8.33 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, human fertilisation and embryology is an unusual subject for me, as I know it is for many participants in the debate. Usually we in this House stick to where our experience and expertise may enable us to make a contribution to debates. But this debate has been notable for the fact that so many of us are deeply concerned because we believe that we have an obligation to understand what we are being asked to do. We have had a huge amount of information, numerous meetings and passionate pleas from many in the world outside this Chamber. But all of this has been only within the past week.
My main concerns are four in number and I shall deal briefly with them in turn. First, has the Donaldson report been overtaken by developments in stem cell research since its publication? The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, dealt with that issue admirably, making the point about the development of adult stem cell research and retro-differentiation, both of which were subsequent to the Donaldson report.
Secondly, is it valid to state, as does the letter from the Department of Health dated 11th January, that embryo stem cell research is perhaps the "only hope" for a cure for sufferers of Parkinson's Disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, strokes and so forth?
Thirdly, as there is such concern from a moral and ethical viewpoint, is it right that the issue should be dealt with by an affirmative order rather than a statutory Bill?
Fourthly, by pushing the order through are the Government raising false hopes among the current sufferers of degenerative and debilitating conditions that a cure is imminent?
I shall deal with those concerns in turn. My first concern is the Donaldson report. The meetings I have attended all concentrated on the Donaldson report, which is of some 12 months' standing. There have been many developments since then in the area of adult stem
96
technology, which would not require the destruction of the human embryo. Not only that, it appears that the likelihood of success is greater with the use of adult stem technology than is currently being achieved—not in this country, of course—with embryo stem technology.
The confusion about all of this must be solved. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, quoted a letter in The Times today, in effect stating that adult stem cells cannot be as good as embryonic stem cells. The Daily Telegraph takes the completely opposite view. Who and what are we to believe? We need to know. We need that Select Committee now.
I do not want to put the clock back on any research, but before the Government go headlong into permitting embryo stem cell research and human cloning we should ask the following questions. Why will the US Government not fund such research? Why is the UK the only member of the EU which wishes to permit such research? In view of the long-term nature of such research, why do the Government not want to see a Select Committee established now, to be made up of all the differing views, to allay the fears of a great number of people both in your Lordships' House and in the country at large?
My second concern relates to the letter dated 11th January from the Department of Health. That letter, signed by the Minister, states that the,
"vast majority of scientific opinion supports the Donaldson Committee's continuing view that research using stem cells derived from non-embryonic sources are not an alternative to embryo research".
Judging by the mail I have received both by post and e-mail, there appears to be a great deal of scientific opinion "out there" which would take issue with that statement. Why not give it a chance to air and discuss its views in a Select Committee? The letter signed by the Minister is, uncharacteristically, one-sided and does nothing to calm my unease that the issue could go by default.
My third concern is the decision to have an affirmative order rather than a Bill. I really cannot understand what one might charitably call the "indecent haste" epitomised by the manner in which this legislation is being introduced. Less charitably, it could be described as "railroading". There is genuine concern among many groups of people about this issue. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, there is real suspicion about scientists and politicians, which does not help the Government's stance.
In addition, the heads of the major faiths supported in this country are deeply concerned and do not want the regulations to go through today. After church yesterday, a sad priest asked me why the Prime Minister has consistently refused to see the representatives of the major faiths on this moral, ethical and religious issue. Opponents of the proposals have been dismissed as irrelevant if they are Christians—or even more specifically Roman Catholics. That gives the impression, I hope

97
misleading, of deep hostility towards faith communities even when they include eminent scientists.
This Government have always claimed to be in favour of multiculturalism. For the first time, leaders of all faiths joined together to appeal to the Prime Minister, but on four separate occasions he refused to see them. Does the Prime Minister not realise that there are genuine fears that the cloning of embryos will result in the production of babies to parents' specification and the discarding of those which do not match up? Which of us would have been born under such tough requirements? As one of the many people who e-mailed me asked,
"How can any but rich nations use this technology—thus leading to a super-rich 'master race'?".
The Sunday Times of 10th December 2000 reported that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has patented a technique for genetically altering sperm to prevent children inheriting unwanted characteristics from their fathers. A co-worker of the noble Lord, Phillip Koeffler, admitted,
"This does provide the capability of making designer babies, and it will be up to society to do what it wants with it".
Parliament and Ministers have stressed their horror at the story of the Internet twins and the way that they were handled as commodities. But the other place voted for this measure, which could turn unborn children into commodities. Coming as it does hot on the heels of the Bill introduced into the other place to ban hunting with dogs, one cannot but reach the conclusion that animals get a Bill whereas humans merit an affirmative order. Is that really what the Government want?
My fourth and final concern is the emotional one of raising false hopes of immediate cures. On that issue I drew great comfort from the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. As the debate proceeded, I believed that those who were likely to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord, Alton, were regarded as being in the "uncaring" category. I regard that as utterly unacceptable. Sadly, I have 12 years' experience of people who suffer from degenerative diseases. On at least three occasions each week—usually four—I visit a medical nursing home. There are people in that home who clutch at any article published in any magazine or newspaper which holds out the slightest hope that a cure is just about to be theirs. When we had presentations last week I specifically asked about the likelihood of any current sufferer being cured if this embryonic research went ahead. The answer was that it was most unlikely that any cure would be forthcoming for about 10 years.
The Minister opened the debate with a passionate plea for hundreds of thousands of suffering people. To imply a dramatic, imminent therapeutic dividend is an unkind disservice to vulnerable patients. If we cannot expect any quick results, surely we should demand that all angles of this very difficult subject be investigated by a Select Committee, if necessary under a strict timetable. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, said that the committee could report in three months. That is not a long time to ensure that all possible knowledge can be
98
assessed. We have already heard this evening that there may be a delay of nine to 12 months before the committee proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, comes up with any suggestions.
The Government may face a major problem. If these regulations are passed today and licences are given and patents agreed, what would the Government do if the Select Committee for which the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, argues came down against research into embryonic stem cells? Would they withdraw the licences and compensate the scientists, researchers and companies for starting research and then stopping it? Surely it is better to wait. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, this is the sixth year of my membership of this House. I have experienced boredom, interest, excitement and a whole range of other emotions. However, having heard the speech just made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, I believe that this is almost the first occasion on which
have been ashamed to be a Member of this House. To raise the question of an apparent financial interest in such a way is outrageous. To set the record clear, I hold four patents, at least two of which concern adult stem cells. On the assumption that this Motion is rejected today, if anything my university, not I., stand to benefit from those patents. I shall not make any money whatever the result.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I did not for one moment suggest or imply that the noble Lord had any financial interest. I simply quoted an article in a December 2000 issue of the Sunday Times.
Lord Winston: My Lords, we both agree that the Sunday Times is not a completely accurate record of scientific matters.
This is probably the most important debate in which I have been involved. As I speak this evening I recognise that I have a great moral responsibility because I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who is involved in, and has an intimate understanding of, this research and is daily confronted with the issue of human experimentation. I also recognise that in truth I stand before my maker this evening in advising the House of the consequences of its vote in about an hour's time.
Essentially, the debate is about transplantation and regeneration. In order to be effective, stem cells need to be transplanted. Some noble Lords are also aware that there is a possibility that some tissues can regenerate by controlling the genetic influences. It is clear from every biological investigation that the only way to do that is to look at embryological knowledge, most of which can undoubtedly be derived from animals. Transplantation is not a new field. I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, who said that transplantation had gone on for some time. Blood was one of the first tissues to be transplanted in the 19th century. The problem of rejection does not much

99
matter in the case of blood; it lasts for about three weeks and so is not rejected. Paradoxically, bone marrow is rejected very vigorously because it goes right to the heart of the immune system, hence the terrible fate of people who have bone marrow disorders.
There are some other tissues in which the rejection phenomenon is somewhat equivocal; for example, the liver and brain. The noble Lord pointed out that experiments had been conducted in which cells had been injected into the brain, to which I shall turn later. We all hope that adult stem cells may be used in this research, but they are incredibly difficult to obtain. For example, they would require the biopsy of the brain in a Parkinson sufferer, which would be unthinkable and impossible. It has been known for some time that they change to different tissues in certain circumstances, and they are impossible to maintain and harvest at the moment.
One of the risks with adult stem cells which has not been mentioned so far is that they are likely to carry the very genetic defects which are programmed to cause the original disease from which the sufferer suffers. We require tissues which are totipotent rather than pluripotent; in other words, tissues that can develop in every different direction. For that reason, embryonic stem cells are remarkably attractive. There is an almost overwhelming agreement among biologists that this has been one of the most important areas of science for the past two decades. Next, these cells do not overcome rejection except probably in a very few cases. Finally, one of the most crushing arguments against adult stem cells is that when they change—for example, work by Professor Wright in my own unit shows that blood cells, not the liver, can change—they do not function normally, which is very telling. Adult stem cells have not been shown to function properly.
By the by, we have heard in this debate about redifferentiation and cells becoming youthful again, as if it is something entirely new; it is not. Sir John Gurdon, Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, described this in 1962. Since then biologists have been aware that signals may reprogramme the nucleus of cells.
Why do we need embryonic stem cells to understand the adult cells? First, we need them because of the chemical messages. At Imperial College where I work we now know that in the mouse certain chemicals can be applied as a result of using embryonic stem cells which will differentiate a tissue into bone, cartilage or heart muscle. Those substances are, unfortunately, sometimes specific to a species and are not necessarily the same in humans as in mice or other animals.
One of the reasons that we must turn to embryonic stem cells as soon as possible is to answer the question posed by my noble friend Lord Brennan who, sadly, is not in his place at the moment. He asked whether science required immediate action. The answer is that I believe it does, for the reason that this technology has already worked. I made reference to stem cells in five out of the six parts of the television programme "Superhuman". I apologise for plugging my own
100
programme. There was not a single public letter of objection to that. There were letters of objection about my views on evolution. There were one or two letters of objection about animal research. But none about the use of stem cells. That is the public disquiet about which we are talking this evening.
It has already worked. We saw on that programme a man who was so incapacitated he could not get out of bed. He was completely immobilised with Parkinson's disease. He was absolutely solid. After an injection of stem cells from a pig the programme shows him driving a sports car through Florida.
I have a friend who is a very distinguished author. He actually could not write. After he received an injection of foetal stem cells into his brain he recovered from his Parkinson's disease. I maintain that it would be far better to use embryonic stem cell tissue which is going to waste from IVF programmes than using aborted foetuses. I have a serious problem about using aborted foetuses. But I think that we could use embryonic stem cells. I must emphasise that we are not talking about creating embryos for research, we are talking about using material which is to be wasted. Twelve per cent of human embryos in an in vitro fertilisation programme implant. Something probably similar happens in nature. The human embryo is not actually inviolate. By nature's standards it is not sacrosanct. I say that with the grave responsibility of someone who, like so many of your Lordships, has deeply held religious principles.
What about cloning? Cloning requires a human egg. One cannot make an embryo without an egg because it is the cytoplasm, the substance of the egg itself, which re-programmes that nucleus in a way we do not understand. Whether we like it or not, there is not the slightest possibility of human clones. Why? There are all kinds of reasons. One is because human eggs are in incredibly short supply. At Hammersmith Hospital we have patients who wait for a donor egg for four or five years. That is common across the country. There is no possibility of using donor eggs. We would not only need the ethical approval from our local ethics committee and the HFEA's approval, but we would need the patient's signed consent. Patients quite rightly will not give that consent. Nor should they. There is no possibility in this country of making clones in the way that has been suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
One of the problems with the human embryo which remains, which is why it is so apparently unlikely to implant, is that it often carries a huge number of defects. Many of the cells in the human embryo have defects which are profound and which are chromosomal. It is very likely that this happens to a whole range of stem cells. One of the reasons for needing embryonic tissue is to understand the defects which occur during development which might give rise to these chromosomal disorders. The defects in the cells are specific to humans. They do not apply in the same way to mice; and they do not apply to other experimental animals that have been looked at. It would be unthinkable to transplant an embryonic or

101
adult stem cell with chromosomal abnormalities and risk a patient having a tumour. That is what would happen.
Clearly there needs to be further reflection on this area. I would argue with the eloquent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, when she said that the need for continuing surveillance of some kind is appropriate. I understand perhaps more than the noble Lord, Lord Alton, realises where he comes from. We differ because we have a different view of the beginnings of human life. I do not think we will ever agree about that. But I do not doubt for one moment that he is not acting in absolute good faith. I hope he will accept that I am also.
Before I sit down I say this to your Lordships—and I know that I am taking a grave moral responsibility—we need to face the fact that, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, there is no doubt that this work is essential now; the sooner it is done the better; and whether some people in the near future get a treatment which might save them from disease, or, even worse, death, depends on your Lordships' vote.
8.55 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, this has been a long and impressive debate. Therefore, your Lordships will be relieved to know that I intend briefly to add my voice to those who intend to support the regulations and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant.
I am convinced on both scientific and ethical grounds that this is the right way forward. The science is very powerful, but so is electricity and somehow we manage to control that. There are three particular groups of people looking to us today to return to the right verdict on the regulations laid before us. The first group comprises many of the infertile couples who are being helped by the current legislation and would like to be permitted by the new regulations to donate their surplus fertilised eggs to be used to help sick people.
Secondly, there are thousands of sufferers of the serious diseases for which the research permitted by this change of the law would provide hope—the diabetics, sufferers from Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's and the many others who have been listed today. Then there are the scientists, who would like to be able to widen the purposes already permitted for these delicate and difficult procedures to include not just the successful creation of human life, as now, but to improve the quality of life for thousands of people already alive and suffering.
I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf, who said that he thought it was inappropriate to talk about human suffering in the debate today. I think that is what this is all about. We owe it to all of these groups to make a decision on the matter now. We have been sent to this place with the duty, responsibility and privilege to decide on this and other difficult matters. We should do so now and not pass the buck to a Select Committee or anyone else.
I do not feel that I have been rushed into making up my mind on this matter. Over the past few months noble Lords have been bombarded with information,
102
opinion and, dare I say, wisdom from all sides of the argument and scientific information and ethical standpoints. There has been enormous consultation, as listed by the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, earlier in the debate. We have had numerous opportunities to hear from a great variety of experts. No Member of this House could possibly feel that we need to know more. Now is the time to decide. The negative consequences of not deciding now are many. Delay will mean that more people die without effective treatment. It will mean that researchers go abroad where there are fewer regulations. The system of controls we have in this country is strict and has many checks and balances. It is admired by many other countries. What is more, it is accepted by the community. If I thought this procedure was wrong, I would not support it being done here for fear of the work going abroad. However, I do not feel it is wrong. I believe the scientists who do this work will be doing a great service to humanity. But I would rather see it done here, where we have strict controls, than anywhere else in the world.
There has been talk of slippery slopes and cloning human beings. There is only one essential for cloning a human being. You need to implant a fertile modified egg into the womb of a human mother and grow it to maturity. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has stated firmly that under no circumstances would it allow this. The Government have promised primary legislation to make it illegal. I would echo the powerful plea of my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby to the Minister for him to reassure us on this and make a clear commitment to prompt action.
Where then is the slippery slope? Implantation is illegal and remains illegal under the regulations. There is no possibility of it being permitted.
On another point, many people feel that they would not object to stem cell research using cells from early undifferentiated embryos if it was the only way in which the therapies about which we have heard could be developed. I believe that is the case at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, has explained it very clearly. Although there are stem cells in adult tissues, they are rare and we do not yet know enough about them to be able to use them. The beauty o f the procedures we are discussing today is that they have the potential to make themselves redundant in the not too distant future. When the scientists have learnt enough from the cells from an embryo source, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that they may in future be able to use cells from the adult to be treated, which will have no likelihood of rejection. This use of adult stem cells will be an easier and cheaper alternative than using embryos. When this time comes, the authority will no longer permit work on embryos because its terms of reference say that it will grant licences only,
"when the work cannot be done any other way".
When it can be done another way, the authority will no longer grant licences. I believe that the work with adult stem cells will continue alongside the work on cells

103
from embryo sources—the two lines of research will help each other—so that the day when embryos will no longer be needed may not be too far away.
I support the regulations and the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, since the appointment of a Select Committee to review these issues can only help to reassure those members of the public who still have questions about these matters. I do not intend to detain your Lordships any longer by rehearsing again the arguments in favour of the regulations so cogently explained by my noble friend Lady Northover, with which I heartily concur. But nor do I feel that it is justified to delay the regulations so that a Select Committee can go over these issues from scratch. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as it stands, is well understood and supported by the country and there is no majority in favour of radically changing it or revisiting the issues that it raises. But there are many thousands of people who are looking to us to extend its provisions to allow for new therapies to be developed. Compassion and common sense dictate that we support the proposed regulations without delay.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in speaking in this debate, I must first declare an interest as I am the life president of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and I am patron or vice-patron of many other medical charities. I have in the past given limited advice on neuro-science to a pharmaceutical company but that company is not in any way involved in stem cell research or relevant issues.
I understand totally and respect absolutely the sincerity and integrity of my noble friend Lord Alton, with whom I have had many discussions on this topic. I am grateful for the fact that in his letter, which he sent with others to all the Members of the House, he referred with approval to the report of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics, which I had the privilege of chairing in 1993. One cornerstone of that report was a belief in the sanctity of human life, a belief to which I hold very firmly. It follows that human embryos must be respected and treated with sensitivity. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said originally in her report of 1994, that respect must be balanced against the potential huge benefit for human health that might be derived from research on such early connections of cells as we at that time in 1990 when the Bill was debated referred to as the pre-embryo or the conceptus.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of one or two important facts relating to human embryology. In the course of normal human conception it is common for several ova or eggs to be released from the female ovum at the time of ovulation into the uterus and often four or more of those are fertilised by the husband's or partner's sperm. Those form small collections of cells—eight or 16 cells, which are in fact early human embryos or pre-embryos—and float free in the uterus. By the fourth or fifth day after fertilisation the
104
formation of blastocysts begins. A blastocyst is a structure that is almost impossible to see with the naked eye, but it consists of a small group of cells from which the foetus will ultimately develop and an outer rim of cells which will go on to form the membranes and the placenta. It is not until about the fifth day after fertilisation that normally one blastocyst becomes attached to the uterine wall and later goes on to develop into a foetus. The others are discarded or shed, so that millions of fertilised embryos are regularly lost and discarded in the course of normal human conception.
I fully understand the sincerity of those like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, with his deep Christian, Roman Catholic faith, who believe that life begins at the moment of fertilisation when the sperm enters the egg. However, we had a fascinating historical commentary by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. He said that until the middle of the 19th century the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas was virtually that the foetus did not develop as an independent human being and that life did not begin until the foetus was capable of independent existence outside the womb. As the right reverend Prelate said, it was a Pope in 1869 who decreed that life began at the moment of fertilisation. I understand, though I do not share, that view.
When we debated the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in your Lordships' House in 1990, I referred to an article by a noted Roman Catholic Australian theologian, the reverend Professor Dr Norman Hunt, who said that in his view individuation of the human embryo did not begin until the primitive streak, a line of cells ultimately to develop the nervous system, developed at about the 14th day. It was on the basis of that and similar views expressed by many embryologists that the Bill agreed that under strict licensing conditions research on the human embryo could take place up to 14 days after fertilisation but not beyond.
I confess that I am distressed when I read statements in the public press by noted Roman Catholic clerics—I have said this to the noble Lord, Lord Alton—that discarding human embryos or allowing them to degenerate is tantamount to deliberate killing. I am a practising Christian—I am a member of the Methodist church—and that is totally contrary to my own personal faith.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Is he saying that the Christian Churches and the other Churches and religious leaders are all wrong?
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I was about to say that, while I read, of course, the circular from clerics of many Churches, there are still a great many noted theologians who take my view and not the view expressed in that letter.
We are not debating today the question of whether embryo research should be allowed. Parliament decided in 1990 under the Act that such research, under licence and under the very strict supervision of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority,

105
could be carried out. For that reason, I believe that it is important to consider the potentially massive benefits which could accrue from the orders and regulations we are debating today.
I do not propose to go into a great deal of detail, except to say why we wish to cultivate embryonic stem cells. May I remind the House that, under licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, at the moment it is possible to carry out work on human embryos, spare embryos which have been created in an in vitro fertilisation programme. More particularly, it is possible to carry out work on embryos which carry the risk of serious genetic disease. There is a technique called pre-implantation diagnosis. Under licence, it has been legal for the past 10 years to remove a single cell from such an early embryo, at the eight or 16 cell stage, and to determine whether the gene for a serious inherited disease such as cystic fibrosis or—not yet feasible but almost certainly coming—muscular dystrophy is present; and, if so, to allow that embryo to degenerate, as many do, as I have said, in the course of normal human conception; or, if it is not there, to implant the embryo and allow the mother to have a normal child.
But why is the culture and harvesting of embryonic stem cells so important? Many experiments have been carried out, with the full consent of patients, transplanting foetal nerve cells into the brains of patients with Parkinson's disease and Huntington's disease. But it takes about seven foetal brains to produce enough cells for one transplantation. It is simply not feasible. To grow cells derived from a human embryo in culture, having removed them from such an embryo at an early stage, brings up the possibility of those cells being subsequently influenced to change into brain cells, muscle cells, liver cells and kidney cells. Those cells at the embryonic stage are multi-potential; they have the potential to be influenced to develop into a whole range of different cells and tissues.
This does not mean, as many noble Lords have said today, that work on adult stem cells should not continue. There are adult stem cells in bone marrow, but they are difficult to harvest. There are some cells which can be derived from cord blood and from the placenta, but mostly the evidence is that they will be useful in the treatment of blood diseases and not of the wide range of conditions to which we have referred in the course of the debate. In some of my earlier research, I personally found it very difficult to grow adult muscle cells when I was doing research on muscular dystrophy, but embryonic muscle cells were very easy to grow, grew rapidly and were capable of being harvested in considerable quantities.
I do not believe that there is any reason to oppose research on adult cells—it is essential that it should take place—but all the scientists to whom I have spoken have made it clear that in their view it will take many years of fundamental research before those differentiated cells, which have been differentiated into adult tissue, can be persuaded to revert to an embryonic stage and therefore be used in these transplantation programmes.
106
I am not going to say anything in detail about nuclear replacement except in regard to—and here I part company with the noble Lords, Lord Brennan and Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Habgood—mitochondrial disease. I am sorry to delay your Lordships, but I must explain what this means. Every cell in the human body contains a nucleus; that nucleus is the repository of 99.5 per cent of the genetic material, the DNA; thousands of genes which convey inherited characteristics. But the nucleus is surrounded by cytoplasm, like a jelly, which in turn is confined by a nuclear membrane. Within that cytoplasm are tiny structures called mitochondria, which are responsible to a large extent for energy production in the cell. A very small proportion of the human genome, less than 0.5 per cent, resides in the mitochondria; and since mitochondria are present in the ovum (or egg) and not in the sperm, they are passed on purely through the female line.
No fewer than 50 mutations causing mitochondrial disease have been described. I have seen patients with mitochondrial disease. I have tried to do my best for them. These diseases cause progressive blindness, fits, strokes, progressive muscle wasting and paralysis and are inevitably fatal. Can noble Lords imagine the distress that is felt by women who know that they have passed on these diseases to their children?
What can we do about mitochondrial disease? It is possible to take an ovum from a woman who is carrying abnormal mitochondria, to remove the nucleus containing 99.5 per cent of her DNA and then—and despite what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, says, there are women who are prepared to volunteer to be ovum donors—to take out the nucleus from a donated ovum and put in the nucleus from the woman with the mitochondrial disease, who will then have her DNA in the nucleus but normal mitochondria in her cytoplasm. And, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, said, this is not germline research because this is not yet an embryo. One will then take that ovum and have it fertilised in vitro by the sperm of the woman's husband or partner and then implant the embryo.
This is not merely science fiction. My former colleague and friend, Professor Douglas Turnbull, a world expert on mitochondrial disease working in the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, tells me that this technique has been used with animals and he believes that the prospect of preventing mitochondrial disease in the offspring of these women will be feasible within the next two to three years. It is not a technique that is in the distant future; whereas it is true that work on stem cells for transplantation will take substantially longer.
I agree with those noble Lords who have said that a great deal of discussion on the various reports referred to has taken place. There has been a great deal of public consultation. I believe that if we were to reject these regulations we should send an unfortunate signal to patients, their families and their carers, to people suffering from a wide variety of degenerative diseases.

107
This type of research is a beacon of hope on the horizon. I fervently believe that we must not fail these people.
The research referred to is difficult. There are many hurdles and problems to be overcome. Approval of the regulations would enable researchers, funding organisations and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to begin considering programmes of research and to plan for the future. But it would take nine to 12 months for the authority to be able effectively to do that. I have every faith in the ability of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to see that the research which it in the end approves is necessary and essential; and that if embryo research is required, that is a matter that the authority will, after the most careful consideration, review.
It must be remembered that the centres involved in such work are inspected regularly by the authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said, there is no way in which a rogue scientist in a backroom could undertake such work and clone human beings. I agree that the whole idea of reproductive cloning is abhorrent and I am delighted that the Government propose to make any attempt to do that a criminal offence. Already, as has been said, the National Institute of Health in the United States is not allowed to put public money into such research. But there are a great many laboratories in the private sector working in this field.
Already, produced by stems cells, certain nerve cells have been transplanted into the brain of people with stroke, producing temporary benefit. This is early work, but I believe that the passage of these regulations would ultimately allow this country to be in the forefront of research into this very important field.
Why have I suggested the establishment of a Select Committee after approval of the regulations? The reason is simple. I have recognised and heard the concerns being expressed on all sides of the House suggesting that these regulations have been brought forward with indecent haste. I do not agree. There has been massive public consultation. But those concerns, sincerely held and lucidly expressed by so many Members, have persuaded me—in advance of this debate, because I have had a large number of informal discussions—that if the regulations are approved, bearing in mind the long time-scale that would result in relation to research programmes, it would be right and proper to appoint a Select Committee to review their implementation—with, I hope, full agreement over issues such as those referred to by my noble friend Lord Habgood over the use only of donated embryos. I should add that 48,000 donated embryos have been used in research since the Act was passed in 1990. Many public-spirited people will continue to donate them for this purpose. I believe that the Select Committee could define the limits and offer very much more precise advice to government—and, indeed, to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—than exists at present. For that reason, I
108
believe it would be right to reject the amendment of my noble friend Lord Alton. I hope that the House will approve my amendment for that purpose.
I end by quoting from a poem, because I heard what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said. Many years ago, William Cowper said:
"Knowledge and wisdom, far from being one, have oft times no connection,
Knowledge dwells
In heads replete with thoughts of other men:
Wisdom in minds attentive to their own.
Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much;
Wisdom is humble that he knows no more".
I believe that this House, in its wisdom, will support my amendment.
9.21 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I speak in the gap because my name was mysteriously transplanted from the Speakers' List—perhaps my colleagues were trying to tell me something. Those who do speak in the gap are obliged to do so briefly, which is just as well because most of what I planned to say has already been said.
I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans who spoke about the exhilaration of science and new techniques, especially in medicine. In the earlier days of transplantation, I remember, when undertaking my first kidney transplant some 30 years ago, how exciting it was, first, when connecting the vein and then the artery and, finally, seeing the cold, lifeless kidney springing to life and secreting urine immediately. It was the French kidneys that secreted urine immediately, the English ones were more sluggish. I was told that that was due to the wine, but I later discovered a rather different explanation.
Some years later we experimented with part of the human after-birth, called the amnion. We showed, first, that if we injected it into ourselves it was not rejected in the usual way. It is immunologically privileged tissue. Noble Lords will be glad to know that scientists try experiments on themselves first, before the patients. However, to be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that might prove more difficult for him. We then injected the amnion into young children who were dying of an enzyme-deficient disease. Noble Lords can imagine our joy when the children began to improve as the amnion that we had injected began to secrete the missing enzyme. Unfortunately, that improvement lasted only for a few months.
I know well the excitement of research and the eagerness to try new techniques and thereby find new treatments. But I should be most hesitant to proceed with any research that was opposed by a large section of the community, and especially opposed by the leaders of all the main religions in this country. I agree with all those who have drawn attention to the indecent haste of the Government. I especially agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, who said that there is no imminent cure for diseases such as

109
Alzheimer's disease and that, therefore, to raise false hopes among these patients and their relatives is really rather a sad deception.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans was absolutely right when he said that we need humility and wisdom in this field. Could it possibly be, by some quite unimaginable stretch of the imagination, that perhaps there are too many in this field whose motto in life seems to be, "I may not always be right but I am never in any doubt"?
The news that the Government are happy to establish a Select Committee was rather encouraging at first but to have it after these inadequate regulations are put in place is probably a waste of time because there will be no effective way of making the Government change their views. I therefore strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool.
9.25 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we have had a good and wide-ranging debate which has offered us a chance to hear a great many views from many different sides. My job is to begin the process of winding up the debate from these Benches.
We start with the fact that we are being asked to approve a regulation which would extend the current regulations on embryo research to allow research in three areas: first, to increase knowledge about the development of the embryos themselves; secondly, to increase knowledge about serious disease, and, thirdly, to enable such knowledge to be applied to the development of treatments for serious disease.
We have before us two amendments, one of which seeks to delay approval of the new regulations until after a Select Committee of the House has considered the issues involved in human cloning and stem cell research; the other seeks our immediate agreement to the regulations but promises that a Select Committee will be set up to report on these issues and then to reconsider the regulations in the light of that report. The key issue, therefore, is whether we approve the regulations now and then reflect on their appropriateness or whether we delay that decision until after a period of reflection.
There are those who have spoken who view any research on embryos as unacceptable. For these, any embryo, however young, should be viewed as a human being or a potential human life and is endowed with the sanctity of human life. It is, therefore, morally unacceptable to treat this young human being as an instrument of research, a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Such a view precludes any research that is not directed to the benefit of the embryo itself. The removal and cultivation of any cells from an embryo is, from this viewpoint, unacceptable, irrespective of the use to which those cells are put. This is, if I may say so, a "fundamentalist" point of view. Like others who have spoken, I respect it even if I do not agree with it.
The fundamentalist point of view was aired at length at the time of the debate in the 1980s and early 1990s on the Warnock report. But at that time, in passing the
110
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act in 1990, Parliament took a different view, implicitly that an embryo up to 14 days old and before cell differentiation had begun was not a human being, and accepted that embryo research was morally acceptable for specific purposes. It limited research to 14 days after fertilisation and also laid down that no embryo subject to such research procedures was to be reimplanted in the womb. The specific purposes included improving IVF treatment methods; the treatment of congenital disease; investigating the causes of miscarriage; research into contraception and into the pre-implantation of genetic disorders but it did not include research into serious diseases and possible therapies. The debate today is about extending the regulations to cover such research.
Why should there be any hesitation? Logically if you accept that some experimentation on embryos is acceptable and that the same constraints on research are maintained—constraints which have shown themselves to have been robust and effective over a 10-year period—why hesitate about this extension, which, as many speakers in the debate have argued, has enormous potential to do good?
There are three main reasons for hesitation that we have heard. The first concerns whether we need to use embryonic stem cells. Could we instead use adult stem cells or stem cells extracted from other sources such as umbilical cords or placentas? I do not wish to repeat any of the arguments that we have heard. However, in general the conclusion of the debate is that none of those other sources of stem cells is satisfactory. It is clearly research which may in the long run enable us to develop the use of adult stem cells directly and not to have to use embryonic stem cells. But we should also bear in mind that the 1998 Act specifically prohibits the use of embryonic research if other research avenues are possible.
The second reason for hesitation is the commodification of embryos. If stem cell research proves to be, as people suggest, a fruitful line of research, would we not quickly run out of the current supply of fertilised embryos which are unused in IVF treatment and find ourselves creating embryos specifically for research? Let us note, however, that the creation of embryos is specifically allowed under the 1990 Act if the project cannot be carried out on donated embryos. But it is clear that there is an adequate supply of fertilised embryos at present; and, furthermore, we are talking not so much about experimentation on those embryos as the extraction of stem cells from those embryos and the cultivation of lines of stem cells.
Nevertheless, there may be the danger in some people's minds that that will lead to a trade, with payment for those prepared to donate eggs and sperm for research. But that is illegal. The regulatory framework of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act prevents that in this country although it does and can occur abroad. One of the reasons for this research to be carried forward here is because in other countries the issue is unregulated. It is surely better that the research is carried forward

111
within a clearly regulated environment such as we have in this country. Ultimately we have to be prepared to trust that the regulatory framework will work. The aim to cultivate lines of stem cells in the laboratories means that the demand for embryonic stem cells may be limited.
The third and perhaps key reason for hesitation is that cell nuclear transfer involves transplanting into an unfertilised human egg the nucleus of foreign cells, the growing of a cluster of cells—what is called by some an embryo or even a pre-embryo—from the hybrid cell, the extraction of the stem cells from that cluster (as from the embryo in embryonic stem cell research) and the cultivation of that line of cells. It means that we are creating an embryo specifically for the purposes of research, with all the problems of commodification discussed previously. But it also poses the problem of cloning, because, essentially, this was the technology which has, in part at least, given us Dolly the sheep and Andi the monkey. Is it the thin edge of the wedge of human cloning? If it is, surely we need more time to think about it.
That is the crux of the arguments that we have heard. The answer given by those who support the passing of the regulations now is that the cell nuclear transfer creates, as the Donaldson report puts it,
"a new form of early embryo".
But this is far from being human reproductive cloning. First, as with embryonic stem cells, research would be allowed only for the first 14 days after fertilisation, after which the embryo is destroyed. Secondly, this research has to be undertaken under licence and closely monitored by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—a form of regulation which is now tried and tested and generally held up worldwide as exemplary.
Thirdly, the embryo could grow into a foetus only if it were implanted into the womb, a process which is illegal and a criminal act in the UK. In other words, there is a three-fold barrier which prevents any possibility of the technique being used in this country for human reproductive cloning. I strongly echo the words of my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby that such a regulatory framework does not exist in some other countries. We badly need to begin to talk about establishing a common regulatory framework worldwide.
The great advantage of using stem cells created by stem nuclear transfer is that growing stem cells that incorporate, for example, the DNA of an adult suffering from Parkinson's disease so that his body does not reject any therapeutic injection of the stem cells helps to overcome the rejection problem that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, talked about that might arise from using implants from other stem cells. The same is true of the use of adult stem cells. The hope is that, in the long run, research using embryonic and nuclear transfer stem cells will enable direct use to be made of adult cells, but such research is a long way down the road. For the moment, the trade-off is
112
between the risk of abuse of the research, despite the clear and proven existing regulatory framework, and the benefits in therapy that the research would bring.
After considering the issues, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics concluded:
"We consider the proposed creation of embryos using CNT for research into the derivation of stem cells offers such significant potential medical benefits that research for such purposes should be licensed".
The report goes on to point out that research involving "early embryos" derived from cell nuclear transfer has been legally permissible under the 1990 Act, provided that it was for the purposes of that Act. It recommends that those regulations,
"be amended to permit research involving embryos for the additional purpose of developing tissue therapies from the derived embryonic stem cells. If adopted, this recommendation would permit research on embryos derived by CNT to be licensed for that purpose as well".
In other words, if we have no objection to extending the regulations to include research on embryonic stem cells, we should be prepared to allow embryos developed through cell nuclear transfer to go ahead and we should have no objection to research proceeding on stem cells from those embryos.
The case for passing the regulations now is that they hold the potential for developing therapies for many chronic diseases of our age. We cannot know whether the potential will be realised unless we do the research. The sooner we do the research, the sooner we are likely to be able to explore that potential. Many people will benefit from it. The case for delay is that, particularly by permitting experimentation with embryos developed through cell nuclear transfer, we are experimenting with a technology that may be abused. That is true of many technologies. Electricity can be used to electrocute people and gas to poison people, but we have not stopped using either of them. Moreover, in this case we already have a good regulatory framework for control that has shown itself to be effective and is regarded as exemplary worldwide. If we do not do the research here, others will do it. Without the regulatory framework that we have, the risks of abuse will be far greater.
It has been argued that we have not considered carefully enough the full ethical implications of the research, yet the recommendations come after careful consideration in 1998 by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Genetics Advisory Commission—the two bodies that have been established as watchdogs and advisers for the Government on the subject. They suggested that their proposals be further examined by an expert group, including ethicists. That expert group was convened by the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson. It considered at length the scientific and moral issues involved. Its unanimous conclusion was that the regulations should be amended to allow embryonic stem cell research for the treatment of serious illness to proceed. It was backed by an expert committee convened by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
Let us by all means carry out our own inquiries and satisfy ourselves that we have the relevant regulations in place. Let us reinforce the regulations with a law

113
which explicitly prohibits human cloning. But let us now send out the right signals. We should support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, pass the regulations today and allow the thousands of people who are waiting on this research to begin know that we recognise their plight. The research will not bring quick or immediate remedies. The wait has been long enough. Let us not prolong it unnecessarily.
9.40 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is almost an anomaly to speak from the Front Bench at the end of a debate of this kind. The fact that I do so should not be misinterpreted. There is no Conservative Party position on the issue of stem cell research. There is nothing that even resembles a party position. That is deliberate and exactly as it should be. The issue is one for each of us to decide upon in a free vote according to our individual beliefs and consciences. Therefore, I begin by emphasising to all noble Lords, but perhaps particularly to my fellow Peers on this side of the Chamber, that the views that I am about to express are my own; they are in no sense to be taken as a signal of an official or corporately held opinion.
Indeed, if there is one attitude of mind appropriate to a topic such as this, it is surely an attitude of humility and mutual respect. The contributions to today's debate demonstrate amply what many of us must feel: that we are considering one of the most significant ethical issues to have come before the House in many years. I join other noble Lords in believing that the ethics of this issue must be our starting point.
We have all been lobbied by those who feel passionately that stem cell research should be legalised without hesitation because of the unrivalled opportunities that it offers to uncover treatments and cures for diseases which hitherto have proved untreatable and incurable. We can all understand why those individuals and patient groups are anxious for the research to be permitted without further ado. For myself, I need no convincing of its potential.
But the benefits, however big, cannot be a sufficient justification in themselves for a vote of "Content" on the affirmative order. It cannot be right to say that the end justifies the means. The means, as well as the ends, must be justified. And until we properly understand what the means amount to, we are in no position to make any kind of rounded moral assessment. Therefore, although it may sound a perverse thing to say to patients who currently suffer from serious illnesses and who regard their moral case as self-evident, I believe that there are other aspects of this question which we have a duty to confront first.
In 1990, Parliament approved the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act following many years of public debate on the issues. As we have heard today, the Act permits research to be carried out using early-stage human embryos under tightly controlled conditions and for a strictly limited number of purposes. Some Members of the House, like my noble
114
friend Lady Blatch, feel strongly that the proposals contained in the order before us are of such novelty and significance that they should have been made the subject of primary legislation.
Although I greatly respect that argument, I confess that I cannot agree with it. I shall speak in a moment about cell nuclear replacement. However, once the principle has been accepted by Parliament—as it was—that early-stage human embryos which are surplus to an IVF procedure may be used in certain types of medical research, I see nothing intrinsically inappropriate in the proposition that other, closely allied categories of research activity should be added to the list, as the Act specifically allows for.
Yet, there is another dimension to this matter. An order of this kind may well be legally permissible, but is it premature? The noble Lord, Lord Alton, my noble friend Lady Blatch and others, such as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, have spoken eloquently of their misgivings on that score. They feel acutely that there is a need for Parliament to reflect further before it acts.
For many of us, the 1990 Act, although certainly a helpful guide to our thinking, is not enough on its own to reassure us of the moral acceptability of the proposals before us. It is certainly not enough to reassure us of the acceptability of cell nuclear replacement. It is therefore appropriate and understandable that some noble Lords should now wish to revisit what one might call the ethical underpinning of the 1990 Act. As we have heard today, there is perhaps one issue that precedes all others; it is that no stem cell research using human embryonic tissue can be acceptable if there is an alternative, non-controversial means of meeting the same objectives.
I have listened to and read a very great deal about the possible use of so-called adult stem cells as a viable substitute procedure. I feel I must say to my noble friend Lady Blatch that this is one issue on which she need not worry as much as perhaps she does. It is true that, depending on to whom one talks, one gets a different slant on the question of adult-derived stem cells. I accept the advice of the Chief Medical Officer and other authorities that such techniques do not yet offer the prospect of a useful outcome and that therefore there is indeed no practical alternative to research using stem cells derived from blastocysts. That research is needed to inform our knowledge of adult stem cells.
Even if I am wrong in accepting that suggestion, and even if the science of adult stem cells is more advanced than I have been led to believe, there is a safeguard already in place, which will forestall the unnecessary use of embryos; that is, the HFEA. There is one big difference between now and 1990; it is that since 1990 the HFEA has had the opportunity to prove itself as a scrupulously thorough and conscientious body. I note the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but I believe that the HFEA has fulfilled its remit with the utmost professionalism. If the HFEA is presented with a proposal for a piece of research involving early stage

115
human embryos, it has a duty to satisfy itself that there is no viable alternative. If a viable alternative exists, it must not—indeed, it cannot by law—sanction the proposal. We have a tightly regulated system.
That said, there are clearly two decisions before us: one relating to the substance of the issue, and the other to the parliamentary process. On the substance of the issue, many who contemplate the idea of medical research using early stage human embryos believe that that involves a fundamental disrespect for human life. For many of those people neither the regulations nor the 1990 Act is likely to commend itself as being ethically acceptable. That is perhaps particularly true of Roman Catholics who believe that human life in its meaningful sense begins at fertilisation.
Personally, I am not of the Roman Catholic view. I accept the Anglican Church's thesis that the ethical status of personhood is something that develops with the increasing complexity of embryo growth. It seems to me that we can quite properly draw the distinction that was articulated by the Warnock committee between a blastocyst, which is defined as a collection of human cells up to 14 days old, and an embryo, which has been allowed to develop for longer than 14 days. To be respectful of human life is, to me, to be respectful of an individual or person. I follow the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, in believing that a collection of a very few human cells, which are so new and so few that they have not even differentiated themselves into cells that may develop into a placenta or an embryo, and which have no neural features whatever, certainly have a special moral status, but they cannot be accorded the status of a person. While I respect those who take a different view, I cannot go along with them.
What, then, of cell nuclear transfer or so-called "cloning"? I know of nobody in your Lordships' House who does not find the idea of reproductive cloning to be repugnant and utterly unacceptable. Today's regulations do not permit reproductive cloning. The issue is whether, for research into stem cells, it is permissible to create and use a blastocyst of no more than 14 days that is genetically identical to a living person. A blastocyst that is genetically identical to a living person seems to me to warrant exactly the same protection under the law as a blastocyst that is the product of a fertilised egg; no more, no less.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that what matters is the 14-day rule. It is difficult for me to find additional ethical difficulties in the proposition that a potential human being and a living person might share the same genetic make-up. If I were to worry myself about that, I should have to worry myself about the existence of identical twins.
The concern about cloning that I cannot fully resolve is the slippery slope argument. Reproductive cloning may remain illegal but to permit cell nuclear transfer for therapeutic ends could, it is said, pave the way for reproductive cloning.
116
But what does that mean? Like the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, I cannot envisage Parliament falling victim to the slippery slope by legalising reproductive cloning. It is a million miles away from doing such a thing. That means that the risk, in so far as it exists, lies with those who might seek to break the law and in so doing, escape the watchful gaze of the HFEA. That is certainly a risk, albeit, perhaps, a remote one.
But here is one issue where, for me, moral relativism of a sort has a role. If I am asked to choose which should count for more, the chance of bringing treatment and cures to many thousands of people who are seriously ill or the risk that there may be bad men or women who, at some point in the future, took the law into their own hands, I really do not believe that there can be any contest. Indeed, I believe that I have a clear moral duty to open the way to the alleviation of human suffering. For those reasons, if the House divides on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, I feel I must vote in favour of it.
That leaves unanswered the question posed in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, which, if carried, would defeat the order. I began my speech by emphasising the importance of mutual respect. Even though my mind may be made up on the substantive issues, I now urge my own advice on myself. When I receive, as I did, a letter signed by the leaders of this country's Churches and non-Christian faiths urging caution, when I listen to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, a proponent, as I understand it, of stem cell research, advocating a period of further reflection through a Select Committee, when I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, speaking so powerfully, I feel bound to sit up and take note.
There are public anxieties. That is why, when we come to vote on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, while I should not be true to myself to support him, I know that it would be equally wrong for me to stand in his way and I shall not do so.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have had a truly excellent debate—nearly seven hours, with 42 speakers—which has been of a high quality and wide ranging. We certainly explored the emotions, as my noble friend Lady Warwick said. But the debate has also been good-tempered, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for that, a person for whom I have great respect.
We have considered in a very sober way the complex, scientific and ethical issues involved. We have also perhaps had a little of the wisdom for which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans called.
The question before us is whether embryonic research may be extended to serious diseases like Parkinson's disease, cancer or Alzheimer's disease.

117
It has been suggested that the Government are seeking to force through this research because it is being introduced by way of a statutory instrument. But in 1990, Parliament clearly recognised, as did the Warnock committee in 1984, that scientific knowledge would advance. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, suggested, legislators in 1990 clearly anticipated that the live research purposes may be extended to cover human diseases because a regulation-making power was specifically provided for that purpose.
This is not a whim of the Government. It is the proper use of a power already provided by Parliament in primary legislation. Because of that, it means also that the regulations will be subject to the full panoply of safeguards built into that primary legislation.
Noble Lords who argue that point surely ignore two other important features. I refer first to the thoroughness of the work that has been undertaken by a number of important and reputable committees since 1997. There has been a long debate which has involved the public and I believe that it has explored all the issues.
The thought that there is a rush also ignores the robustness and vigour of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. During the time that it has been in existence it has received 130 research applications, all of which have been considered with great care. Seventeen were turned down. The authority has an international reputation. Surely we are fortunate in having a regulatory framework that is robust, that works, and that provides the safeguards required by many noble Lords.
Overriding much in this debate is what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, described as fear of the slippery slope. That is entirely understandable and should be set against the enormous potential of scientific developments. If I thought that we were embarking on a slippery slope tonight, I should not be standing at this Dispatch Box.
It is worth recalling that in the debates on the 1990 Act there was much discussion about the 14-day rule and fear that the slippery slope would lead to 18 days, 28 days and more. That has not happened. Those issues are quite properly controlled by Parliament through the 1990 Act and through the authority that regulates such activities and which is accountable to Parliament. The authority has said that it will not license reproductive cloning and the Government have announced that they will introduce primary legislation to put the matter of reproductive cloning beyond doubt.
I repeat that commitment tonight. There is no slippery slope here. The position is simple. Reproductive cloning will not take place in the UK and these regulations cannot in any way make it happen. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that legislation will be brought before the House as soon as possible. Of course, there are pressures on the parliamentary timetable, but this primary legislation is most certainly one of our priorities.
118
There have been some suggestions that undue influence has been brought—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. In his briefing to all noble Lords the Minister said that reproductive cloning was illegal and would remain illegal. What then is the purpose of the Bill to be brought before Parliament?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as I explained earlier, reproductive cloning cannot take place in this country because the authority has said that it would not, under any circumstances, license that. For any organisation or person to go ahead and attempt to do so would be in breach of the law that lays down those requirements. We have said that in order to back up that, and to make matters absolutely explicit, we shall introduce primary legislation.
Some suggestions have been made that undue influence has been brought to bear in order to bring these regulations to Parliament. Apparently, pharmacy companies and scientists have brought such pressure to bear. I make it plain that no such pressure has been brought to bear. The regulations mark the culmination of a considerable number of considerations by many committees, not least the Donaldson expert committee. Pressure has resulted from people being denied the results of research, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, so graphically put it. Appointments to the Donaldson expert group were made by the Chief Medical Officer in consultation with the Chief Scientific Adviser. They were made after consultation with the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Medicine. Members were chosen for their particular background, knowledge and expertise. As well as the expert group containing a wide range of opinions, members also considered submissions from a wide range of groups and individuals on all sides of the debate. I am satisfied that there were no significant conflicts of interest among the membership of the expert group.
A number of comments were made about the international dimension. The European Commission has already made clear that there are no plans for harmonisation or Community legislation in this area. The European Parliament has set up a temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine. While the committee will consider a range of bioethic issues, it will no doubt look closely at the issues we have been discussing today.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the outcome, expected in about a year's time, may well reflect the European consensus on the way forward. But it is worth making the point that our current legislation and the work of the authority is much admired worldwide.
The situation in the United States contrasts sharply with that in Europe. A substantial difference is the distinction between the public and private sectors. Thus the national institutes of health cannot carry out embryo research but it can be carried out freely in the private sector. There may well be some international

119
"coming together" but I suspect that that will take many years. Surely, in the meantime we should ensure that our regulatory system is as effective as possible.
I turn to the issue which many noble Lords discussed—the potential of adult stem cell research. I guess that scientists are a little like economists—not all agree with each other. I believe that the Donaldson committee succeeded in attempting to pull together the best available knowledge about the potential of adult stem cell research. Its view is not an isolated one; it is supported by the Association of Medical Research Charities, the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society following a comprehensive review of the papers. It is supported by many researchers and scientists around the world who are at the forefront of research in these areas.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, pointed out, the embryonic stem cell uniquely has the potential to develop into almost any tissue in the body. The majority of the research work is likely to centre on the extraction of stem cells from embryos created from eggs and sperm, using spare embryos no longer required for infertility treatment. This research will help to develop techniques for extracting stem cells from embryos, growing them in the laboratory and learning how to make them differentiate into various types of tissue. It is this which offers the potential to understand how to treat a whole range of degeneratory diseases.
The main difference is that embryonic stem cells are able to renew themselves and form many different cell types, whereas the potential of adult stem cells is uncertain, with research suggesting that they may be much more limited in the ability to form other cell types. As my noble friend Lord Winston pointed out, it takes a considerable time to grow and develop adult stem cells, whereas embryonic cells by their very nature are much more readily developed.
These problems underline the importance of taking forward work on both embryo-derived and adult stem cells in order to provide the maximum benefit from the research. A number of noble Lords referred to the research claim by Dr Ahuljadayel which was published in The Times last week and was the subject of a letter in today's Times from the president of the Royal Society. That letter from the president casts considerable doubts on the claims made, with scientists generally being agreed that such results are many years away.
As the Royal Society's letter points out, this work has not been published. Contrary to the claims made, is there any evidence of it being repeated? The work which was reportedly conducted two years ago may not have been published because no reputable publisher would accept it. In the light of the fact that 90 per cent of more than 4,000 scientific articles on this subject in the past year have focused on non-embryonic stem cell research, it is difficult to accept that this particular work was not accepted because of its subject matter.
120
I also point to the work of Angelo Vescovi, who leads an Italian team researching the potential of adult nerve stem cells to provide skeletal muscle. He is often quoted in support of the view that embryo stem cell research is not needed. However, in the journal Nature Neuroscience he is reported as saying that he "completely disagrees" with the interpretation of his findings that embryonic stem cell research is not necessary because all the benefits could be obtained by research on adult stem cells. He is also reported as having the view, which is held by an overwhelming majority of scientists working in this area, that both embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research should be pursued. As the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, suggested, the aim should be to regard embryonic stem cell research as interim in nature.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that adult stem cell research is important and should be pursued. I also confirm that the Donaldson expert group has been asked to continue to monitor developments in this area. The Donaldson report is only six months old. In any event, the 1990 Act already provides the answer to the question of what happens if and when research into adult cells overtakes research using embryos: embryonic research would have to stop because the use of embryos would no longer be necessary for that research.
I turn to the two amendments before us. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, wishes to defer the decision until a number of issues have been considered by a Select Committee of the House. The regulations are due to come into force on 31st January. If the noble Lord's Motion is accepted the regulations will be killed.
The Donaldson expert committee has produced an authoritative and comprehensive report which I believe provides a basis on which a decision can be made by your Lordships tonight. Surely, we have reached a point where the research should be permitted to go ahead in the light of the overwhelming evidence of its importance and potential in treating serious and debilitating diseases. But I also recognise the value that noble Lords place on the appointment of a Select Committee. Surely, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has found an acceptable way forward. In essence, it allows the research proposals to begin the formal process of application, which is likely to take at least nine months. At the same time, the Select Committee can be established by your Lordships' House. I hope that that can take place quickly, although that is a matter for the House authorities. The Government will fully support the setting up of the Select Committee. Like other noble Lords, I am sure that it will add to and inform public debate.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister. Since he refers to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, can he confirm that in the event that the report recommends certain changes the Government will not hesitate to table new or amended regulations?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that was the very point to which I was about to turn. If the Select Committee emerged with a very different view from that of the Donaldson expert committee—although I doubt it; but let us assume it concluded that embryonic stem cell research was unnecessary—the Government would be bound to take note of it because it would be a powerful argument to revisit and review the regulations. There is still the safeguard that the authority can authorise only necessary research.
In conclusion, there is no doubt that the regulations have the potential to lead to treatments for many people with severe, debilitating diseases. My noble friend Lord Brennan is correct; not overnight, but the sooner research starts the sooner we can hope to defeat these diseases. We already allow embryos to be used in research for infertility, for contraception and for research into congenital diseases. Without these regulations we shall not be able to use embryos in research leading to cures for serious diseases like Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. I find that very difficult to justify. I urge noble Lords to vote in favour of the regulations and for a Select Committee to consider the issues further as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant.
10.11 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, it is not the tradition of your Lordships' House for the mover of an amendment to delay the House unnecessarily at the end of a debate. I do not intend to trespass long on the time of the House at the end of what has been an agreeable debate in the sense of people expressing their views in a forthright manner, intelligently listening to one another's points of view and begging to differ.
At the heart of the amendments before us is the issue of how we should go about deciding public policy on these complex questions. Do we have a prospective or retrospective committee? That was the point made during the course of our debate by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. It is clear to your Lordships, as the Leader in the Daily Telegraph said this morning, that this is a momentous decision,
"not only for this country but also for the human race".
The issue then for us is whether or not non-amendable regulations—a statutory instrument—are the right way to deal with the matter and whether or not, in the circumstances which have applied today, we can properly test the conflicting scientific and ethical opinion. Many have argued that alternatives exist to the use of embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells. The noble Lord, Lord Habgood, said that this could lead to germ-line gene therapy. If that is true then noble Lords have a real duty to consider their consciences when deciding how to vote. I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): My Lords, the original Question was that the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th December be approved, since when an amendment has been moved to leave out
122
all the words after "that" and to insert the words set out on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool.
10.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 212.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Liverpool, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Longford, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lyell, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bell, L.

Mancroft, L.

Biffen, L.

Marlesford, L.

Blatch, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Blease, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Boardman, L.

Montrose, D.

Brennan, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Byford, B.

Northesk, E.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cox, B. [Teller]

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Cranborne, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Quinton, L.

Deedes, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Denham, L.

Rees, L.

Dixon, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

St Albans, Bp.

Eden of Winton, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Elles, B.

Seccombe, B.

Elton, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Fitt, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fookes, B.

Slim, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stewartby, L.

Geddes, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Strange, B.

Habgood, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hanham, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L

Harris of High Cross, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Tenby, V.

Henley, L.

Thatcher, B.

Higgins, L.

Tombs, L.

Hooper, B.

Vivian, L

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Waddington, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Wakeham, L.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hylton, L. [Teller]

Williams of Crosby, B.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Attlee, E.

Acton, L.

Avebury, L.

Addington, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Barker, B.

Alli, L.

Barnett, L.

Amos, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Berkeley, L.

Andrews, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Billingham, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Blackstone, B.

123

Blaker, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Boothroyd, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Borrie, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bowness, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Bragg, L.

Inge, L.

Briggs, L.

Inglewood, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Brookeborough, V.

Brookman, L.

Islwyn, L.

Burlison, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Burnham, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Burns, L.

Buscombe, B.

Jeger, B.

Butler of Brockwell, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Jopling, L.

Carter, L.

Jordan, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Chalfont, L.

Laird, L.

Chandos, V.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Cobbold, L.

Layard, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lipsey, L.

Crawley, B.

Listowel, E.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Lloyd-Webber, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Ludford, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Luke, L.

David, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Desai, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dholakia, L.

McNally, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Maddock, B.

Dubs, L. [Teller]

Mallalieu, B.

Eatwell, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Elder, L.

Marsh, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ezra, L.

Mitchell, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkland, V.

Moynihan, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicol, B.

Fellowes, L.

Noakes, B.

Filkin, L.

Northover, B. [Teller]

Flather, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Gale, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Gavron, L.

Onslow, E.

Geraint, L.

Owen, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Patel, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Goodhart, L.

Peston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Grabiner, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Greengross, B.

Plumb, L.

Grenfell, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Hamwee, B.

Prior, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Rea, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Reay, L.

Haskins, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hattersley, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hayman, B.

Rennard, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Hogg of Cunbernauld, L.

Rix, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hooson, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Roper, L.

124

Russell, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Turnberg, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Selborne, E.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Walmsley, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Walpole, L.

Simon, V.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Warnock, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stern, B.

Whitaker, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Wigoder, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Taverne, L.

Wilkins, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Thornson of Monifieth, L.

Winston, L.

Thornton, B.

Wolfson, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.27 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall not move my amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion to approve the draft regulations, at end to insert "and 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".—(Lord Walton of Detchant.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Medway Council Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that, pursuant to the resolution of Thursday 18th January, the Bill had been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declaration of the agent; the Bill was presented, read a first time, passed through all its remaining stages pro forma and sent to the Commons.

Kent County Council Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees acquainted the House that, pursuant to the resolution of Thursday 18th January, the Bill had been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declaration of the agent; the Bill was presented, read a first time, passed through all its remaining stages pro forma and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at half past ten o'clock.

  Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme
  Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme
  Illegally Obtained Assets Lodged in UK
  Illegally Obtained Assets Lodged in UK
  European Court of Human Rights: Appeals from UK Judgments
  European Court of Human Rights: Appeals from UK Judgments
  EU/NATO Security and Defence Policy
  EU/NATO Security and Defence Policy
  Gulf Veterans: Mortality Comparison
  Gulf Veterans: Mortality Comparison