Sitting of 16 March 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
BILL PRESENTED
  RATING (FORMER AGRICULTURAL PREMISES AND RURAL SHOPS)
  Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Nick Brown, Ms Hilary Armstrong, Mr. Michael Meacher and Ms Beverley Hughes, presented a Bill to make provision about non-domestic rating in respect of hereditaments including land or buildings which were formerly agricultural and in respect of food stores in rural settlements: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday next, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 68].
Orders of the Day

  Christmas Day (Trading) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.34 am
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  It is important to realise that the changes that have occurred within our lifetime have not always automatically improved the quality of our day-to-day existence. It is thought that assumptions such as the one that we have become a nation of people who want to shop until we drop are more important than considerations of either the quality of life that we create for ourselves and our families or the general standards that we set. Although my Bill is simple, it reflects the fact that, through the law of unintended consequences, we have unthinkingly changed something that was quite precious and the end result is to the advantage of no one.
  The Bill is necessary to correct an anomaly in the Sunday Trading Act 1994. That Act does not allow trading on Christmas day when it falls on a Sunday, but does allow trading when Christmas day falls on any other day of the week. Until the 1994 Act was passed, it had not been thought necessary to impose a restriction on Christmas day trading, because it was not considered likely that anyone would want to do it. Even in 1994, no one thought Christmas day trading would become commonplace. However, considerable changes have occurred in the past few years.
  First, to an increasing extent, small convenience stores began to open on Christmas day. Those were, in the main, corner shops staffed by their owners which offered a range of small facilities to a local neighbourhood. Then, a chain of stores began to open on Christmas day—Spar shops, selling mostly groceries, which believed that a number of their customers would benefit from the service. Unfortunately, that sort of example began to be followed by the larger chains. In 1999, for the first time, J. Sainsbury and Co-op shops opened on Christmas day, although in the case of Co-op, the shops that opened were the smaller ones, which were regarded as local stores. Last Christmas, more large chains opened on Christmas day: to J. Sainsbury and Co-op shops were added some Woolworths and Budgens stores. Various members of the shopworkers union USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—felt that they were being forced to work on Christmas day.
  Woolworths opening its stores should be examined quite carefully. It is not a food retailer, and certainly not a retailer of essential foods, so the argument that it was opening simply to provide the odd packet of turkey stuffing to those who had forgotten it did not really wash. I know that some Members of Parliament object to the Bill because they will not be able to rush out on Christmas day and buy batteries for the various toys that they have bought for their children, but in my view anyone who is sufficiently incompetent as to spend a large sum on a toy without realising that it needs batteries to work probably should not be a father and certainly should not be a Member of Parliament—although that might be a cruel and unnecessary judgment on my part.

  1295
  Once some of the chains begin to open, it becomes more difficult for all the chains not to open. We sometimes fail to realise that many large grocery stores compete for as little as 3 per cent. of the market. These days, so many superstores and hyperstores provide all the services that people need that their profit margins can be quite slender, so they argue not about the bulk of the goods that they sell, but about the tiny percentage that makes them different from the opposition. If that is to be the basis on which we decide when our entire trading system should operate, we have lost our sense of what is important.
  I do not think that large numbers of shopworkers will rush to their local churches on Christmas day, although I think that they would probably enjoy the experience and benefit from it. However, they should have the right to make that decision for themselves.
  Mr. Eric Forth: The hon. Lady mentioned trade unions in passing a short time ago, and she has now mentioned churches. Will she tell us a little more about the provenance of the Bill? Does it have a trade union input or fingerprint, or is it much more about church attendance, or something else? It would be helpful if we knew that.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I shall give the right hon. Gentleman a simple example. Of course the Bill has trade union fingerprints on it because I am a trade unionist, and have been since I was 16. However, I am not a member of the trade union to which he thinks he is referring.
  We must understand that trade unions represent people, and not only men but women. Many women are still among some of the lowest paid groups in the country. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that many of us still think that it is important that Christmas day should be observed as a Christian festival, and that people should have the right to go to churches, chapels or whatever form of religious observance they think important to celebrate one of the holiest and most important days of the Christian year.
  If the right hon. Gentleman regards the Bill as a deep plot on behalf of the trade union movement that is designed to influence the way in which large grocery chains operate, he is wide of the mark. Of course, those who represent shopworkers are concerned to ensure that they should not be forced to do things that they do not particularly want to do. Everyone who agrees to longer opening hours for shops must understand that that impinges upon the working conditions of those concerned. They want to know what Parliament has decided and the reasons that it has given for its decisions.
  I have been a shopper for as long as I can remember, and I am a bad shopper. I am busy and I have no brand loyalty. I rush into whatever shop—
  Mrs. Llin Golding: Moorcroft.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: My hon. Friend tempts me, because I have strong brand loyalties to certain porcelain and pottery works in her constituency, but their products are not my average buy of the weekend.
  1296
  It is important to realise that, over my lifetime, the trading pattern has changed. There was a time when we were forced to get into a shop before 5 or 5.30 pm. It is now possible to leave this building at an ungodly hour and find a shop somewhere in an urban area where we can buy whatever we like. However, that does not improve the profits of the chain concerned or the facilities that are available. I spend exactly the same amount. I may spend it at a different time of the day or night, but I do not spend more because shops are open for longer.
  Mr. Forth: Setting aside that the hon. Lady has admitted, with her usual charm and modesty, to a degree of shopping incompetence, for which she was criticising others, does she think that the judgment as to whether it is profitable for a shop to stay open is a matter for the shopkeeper or shop owner, and not for us?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: If the shopkeeper intends to open on his own, he has my blessing; I have no problem with that. Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Bill excludes shops with a floor space of less than 3,000 sq ft? If the shopkeeper wishes to open to greet joyously all his neighbours as they come in to spend their money on Christmas day, I see nothing wrong with that. I think that it is rather nice. One of my daughter's neighbours once said to her, "Support your Paki shop." When she pointed out that he was a Sikh, he said, "Support your Sikh-Paki shop." I have nothing against smaller shops opening if they so desire.
  The reality is that large chain stores dictate the conditions under which their workers operate. One large chain announced on Christmas eve that it wanted to open on Christmas day, and asked for volunteers. Many of these volunteers often feel that they are more pressed men and women than they are volunteers. It is no use saying that it is a matter for them.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I assure my hon. Friend of my support for the Bill. Is it not the reality that if Members had realised, when the Sunday Trading Bill was passing through the House in 1994, that they were creating an anomaly, they would almost certainly have filled the gap and we would not be discussing these matters now?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: That is right. I do not believe that the House intended that there should be protection for shopworkers when Christmas day fell on a Sunday, but not when it fell on any other day of the week. There is no logic in that. I believe that the House would not want shopworkers to work on Christmas day, and that is the essential point that lies behind the Bill.
  As someone who has always been involved with families who provided emergency cover over the Christmas period, I know that it takes a toll on family life. It is no use pretending that it does not. In many general practices, the trick is always to offer to work on Christmas day because people try not to disturb doctors on that day—but they cheerfully telephone their GP on Boxing day.
  It would be wrong if shopworkers felt they were under pressure, whether or not they wanted to be with their families, to turn in for work on Christmas day. However, that is happening more and more. To a large extent, Spar

  1297
  shops open on Christmas day. The midlands Co-op opened 14 stores in 1999, and 4,000 customers passed through the doors. It opened 15 stores last year. The Co-operative Wholesale Society opened 36 of its stores, Sainsbury opened three of its smaller stores, and Woolworths opened three of its stores for the first time in what it called areas of high ethnicity. I suspect that it then considered opening more stores the following year. The list includes Budgens, Tescos, McColl—that is the newsagents—and some Tate's stores. Their branches opened, and more and more firms are joining the list every year.
  I do not believe that major retailers are fighting to have Christmas day as one of their trading days. Most of them would prefer to remain closed, but nice competition is introduced, all the retailers feel that they must play the same game. If their competitors are opening in their areas, automatically they will do the same.
  What provisions in the Bill might concern some people? The House will be aware that 280 sq m is slightly larger than the area of a tennis court, and equivalent to 3,000 sq ft. That means that anyone who is running a small corner shop will not be caught by the Bill. Why do I think it is necessary to make the differentiation? I think that volunteers for Christmas day working feel that they cannot resist attempts to encourage them to work. Therefore, they frequently lose the advantages of being with their families on Christmas day.
  The House frequently gets its ideas in a muddle. There are some who suggest that the Bill should not go forward because there are non-Christian areas in the United Kingdom. It does not matter how many groups of people live in particular areas, we are still a Christian country. We must think seriously about Christmas being the one Christian festival of the year that the majority of the British people want to support.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I am keen that the Bill should receive its Second Reading and be considered in Committee, although I think that that consideration will be brief.
  I take up the point about the United Kingdom being a Christian country and workers being allowed to have Christmas day as a day off, whatever the composition of any community might be. In the 1960s, I worked for two years in Tanzania, which had a substantial Christian population and a substantial Muslim population. We took off both the Christian and the Muslim holidays, not that there were many during the year. It was as a matter of having respect for the religion of many people in the country in which I happened to work. We need to follow that practice here.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I know that people in some parts of the Commonwealth cheerfully support all the holidays connected with different religions. In areas such as Singapore, one can happily go from a Christian holiday to Muslim and other holidays throughout the trading year. That does not seem to cause undue pressure among the various groups.
  Christmas day is important, particularly for mothers. It is no use saying that they can combine work commitments with providing the same facilities for their families and children that they usually provide. Of course they can; they can delay Christmas lunch until 4 pm if necessary, rush in at the last minute and join in. Frankly, that is not a civilised way of proceeding.
  1298
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) feels that it is wrong to consider the needs of low-paid women working in a large industry. That is not my attitude. It is an anomaly which I believe the House of Commons did not intend in the first place. We should put it right because that is in the interests of those in the retail industry and also of the United Kingdom. If we consistently allow small but important cultural differences to be shaved away, we change the way that society lives, which would be a great loss.
  I hope that the House will allow the Bill to proceed. It is a little restitution of justice, which we ought to support. It is not a deep, dangerous or worrying piece of legislation. I believe that it will be in the interests of the many, not the few.
  9.52 am
  Mr. Roger Gale: I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on introducing a Bill which, as she said, sets out to correct an anomaly in the Sunday Trading Act 1994. Before we came into the Chamber, I told her that I was delighted to support her cause, and I repeat that now. Many of us opposed the 1994 Act and we are likely to reiterate some of our arguments this morning, which remain the same.
  If I take issue with any of the hon. Lady's opening remarks, it is with her statement that we are in danger of losing something quite precious. My only quarrel with her is that is not quite precious—it is very precious indeed. Some people may feel that the Bill does not go far enough. It does not bother me in the slightest that the Bill is marked by the fingerprints of USDAW or anybody else. For me, it is a matter of deeply held principle, for which I was prepared to vote in the 1990s and for which I shall go on voting for as long as I have the opportunity to do so. I was proud to be a Conservative Member whose name was on a list in the handbag of the then Prime Minister. If that lists still exists, I hope that it is framed and given a place of honour somewhere in the House.
  Members on both sides of the House who opposed the 1994 Act did so not simply because we were trade unionists and observers of the Lord's day, but because we believed that one day of the week should be set apart from the rest. It was argued then that the change would not make any difference—nobody would be forced to work, those who wanted to work could do so, and those who did not want to, would not have to. Shops that wanted to open could do so, and shops that did not want to open would not have to. Nobody would make anybody go shopping, but on a Sunday; people should have the right to buy batteries for toys, armchairs, carpets and all the other things that it is quite impossible to buy on the other six days of the week.
  All that is quite apart from the fact that, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich rightly said, every household budget is finite and there is only a certain amount of money to spend. If one cannot spend it between Monday and Saturday, I do not see why it should suddenly be possible to spend it—or an even greater sum—on Sunday. All those arguments were trundled out in the 1990s, and I suspect that some Members will tell us this morning that those dire predictions did not come true. However, we said that there would not be a big bang or a sudden collapse of society. I still believe that such things do not happen overnight; they are corrosive.

  1299
  Twenty or 30 years down the line, we will suddenly realise that we have lost something very precious. However, we cannot get it back because it is gone.
  Lord knows, the House has spent far too much time trying to mend things that are not broken under the guise of modernisation, although many of us do not believe it is modernisation at all. Much of what has been done is in a peculiar way—in some cases it has been very peculiar—very retrograde indeed. Some of us still feel strongly that if this place is about anything, it should be about democracy. We resent our traditions, customs and practices going out of the window. We do not regard that as modernisation; we regard it as vandalism. I apply the same train of thought to the way in which we live our lives in this country.
  The hon. Lady said that Britain is fundamentally a Christian country, and long may it remain so. Christmas day is the most precious day of the year for those of us who are proud to be Christians. Many other days are also precious, such as Easter day. Easter Sunday is especially important. However, there is an anomaly. Christmas day can fall on any day of the week, whereas Easter Sunday falls on a Sunday.
  Trade unionism has been mentioned, so I had better put my pedigree on the record. I am proud to be a paid-up member of three trade unions. I am a member of British Equity, the National Union of Journalists and the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union, which I still regard as the Association of Cinematograph and Television Technicians. Some members of those trade unions have to work on Christmas day because the nature of their trade and craft means that their services are required. Of course, those arguments were deployed in the 1990s, and I accept that many people, such as doctors, nurses, the police, train drivers, bus drivers and those who keep gas, telephones and so on working, have to work on Christmas day. However, I do not accept the gratuitous spread of something that is unnecessary and which is not, has not and does not need to be part of our lives.
  I had better conclude because there is little more for me to say. I very much hope that the House gives the hon. Lady's Bill a Second Reading this morning. We all know that this Parliament is running of time. I cannot tell any more than the hon. Lady whether an ungrateful electorate will allow her to sit on the Opposition Benches after the General election; neither do I know whether I shall be in the House. If, having given the Bill a Second Reading, the House cannot find time for its remaining stages in this Parliament, I hope that those of us who are still here will be able to pursue it in the next Parliament and make sure that that anomaly is corrected and an important part of our lives protected.
  I close by echoing a remark by the hon. Lady. She said that we have lost the sense of something that is very important. She is right. We have an opportunity this morning to regain a fraction of that sense. I hope that we take it.
  9.58 am
  Mr. Tom Cox: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on her success in the ballot and on the
  1300
  subject she has chosen. Those of us who know her well and admire her would also congratulate her on her presentation of an extremely important issue. I also warmly congratulate the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) on his clear commitment. Those of us who know and work with him on many issues have a high regard for the principles that he holds and freely expresses in the House.
  I am in no doubt that the principle underlying the Bill would be supported by the vast majority of people They would warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich on the presentation of her Bill, as I do. Like her, I recall the discussions that we had on Sunday trading. I certainly did not support the changes. Whatever our religious beliefs, many of us consider, as I do, that Sunday is a special day and a day of worship.
  There are certain days of the year that are special to the people of this country, and especially to families. Christmas day is undoubtedly one of the most special. Through her Bill, my hon. Friend seeks to ensure that on whatever day of the week Christmas day may fall, working people will have the legal right not to work. I, like her, belong to a trade union. Whether we are trade unionists or not, as Members of Parliament we have a right to seek to introduce legislation to protect working people on special occasions, such as Christmas day.
  As my hon. Friend rightly said, we live in a world that has changed greatly. I remember when Good Friday was a very special day. To many people it still is, but to others it has ceased to be special. Shops and businesses now open on Good Friday—once, we might have thought that that would never happen, but it now does. That would be the case, as my hon. Friend said, on Christmas day if the decision was left to companies, many of which now trade on Sundays. As I said, I am still opposed to shops being open on Sundays.
  The Bill would protect shopworkers who may have no wish to work on Christmas day. How many hon. Members would wish to work on Christmas day? Why should we not ensure that others in our communities are not put under pressure to work on Christmas day? We have a duty to ensure that workers are protected, which the Bill would do. I find it hard to believe that many companies would exert pressure on their work force to work on Christmas day, but there are such companies.
  My hon. Friend outlined the number of companies that have started to open on Christmas day. Major supermarkets open 24 hours a day, six days a week. No doubt some of them would like to trade seven days a week, and if they were allowed, to I am sure that some of them would open on Christmas day. That would put an intolerable pressure on workers and their families. If a worker said, "I am sorry, I am not willing to work and I will not volunteer," that could present problems as he or she continued to work in that job or profession.
  On Christmas day, there are two special aspects that people like to celebrate. There are the religious aspects, but equally important is being able to spend time with our families, our children, our loved ones and our friends. If people were forced to work on Christmas day, that would put increasing pressure on them.
  As I said, shops now open 24 hours a day. Many of us in the Chamber would have doubted that that would come about, but we see the trend growing month by month. With shops open so many hours a day, do customers

  1301
  really expect them to be open on Christmas day, so that they can slip out and get something that they had forgotten? I find it hard to believe that that is what the general public want.
  My hon. Friend and I, as well as many other hon. Members, have been in the House a long time. I was a Government Whip during the premiership of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan. I have seen some excellent private Members' Bills introduced in the House, irrespective of the party to which the hon. Member introducing the Bill belonged. I have seen such Bills killed off by the Government of the day. I have seen them killed off by other hon. Members who objected to those Bills. I hope that that will not happen to my hon. Friend's Bill.
  What is the Government's attitude to the Bill? I have no idea, and my hon. Friend made no mention of it. I shall be disappointed if we do not hear from the Minister full endorsement of and support for the Bill.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He knows as well as I do that on a Friday such as this, fortunately for all of us, it does not matter a toss what the Government think about a Bill. What matters is whether there is a sufficient number of Members of Parliament who care sufficiently about the issue to be in the House of Commons on the day to support the Bill. Is the hon. Gentleman reassured by that?
  Mr. Cox: I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman says, and he is right. I spoke in a debate about three weeks ago on the Road Transport Bill introduced by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I supported the Bill but, sadly, it was not carried because there were insufficient Members present when a vote was called.
  The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, but it is also true that if a Bill, regardless of the party of the hon. Member introducing it, has clear Government support, that will greatly help the Bill if it reaches Committee. Moreover, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the number of hon. Members who may be in the House at any one time is not determined by the number of hon. Members in the Chamber. Members may be in their offices. If a vote is called today. I shall certainly be in the Chamber to support my hon. Friend's Bill.
  Our Prime Minister has a clear commitment to family life, for which I applaud him. That suggests that the Government should support what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve through her Bill. I am proud to belong to the Labour party, because we now have a Government who are committed to working to introduce legislation for the benefit of the family. We saw that recently in the excellent Budget presented by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, which will be of enormous benefit to families throughout the country.
  My hon. Friend's Bill will provide similar benefit. I support it and I am sure that it will have widespread support in the House. If Second Reading is agreed to and it passes on to Committee, we will once again see Parliament at its best, as it will be introducing legislation for the benefit of all people who have to go to work. They will now have the right to spend Christmas day, a special day that occurs once a year, with their families and loved ones. I hope that the Bill is successful and that all hon. Members support it.
  10.10 am
  Mrs. Llin Golding: I, too, support the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
  I remember volunteering to work over Christmas when I was a student radiographer at Cardiff royal infirmary. People who volunteered for such work were usually on call from noon on Saturday until 9 o'clock on Monday morning, including all Sunday and Sunday night. They would have already worked every night from 5 pm until 9 am, from Monday to Friday. Only two students covered all the accident and emergency work for the hospital and the city during those hours—and people think that they work long hours in hospitals these days! We certainly did so then, but we recognised that the work had to be covered.
  The superintendent radiographer kindly agreed to stand in for me for a few hours on Christmas day while I went home to see my family. I remember to this day my feeling of absolute despair when I arrived at Cardiff station to realise that the only train of the day had gone, that I had missed it and that on Christmas day I was stuck in Cardiff with not a soul around. My large family had already gone to church and had started to celebrate Christmas without me. There was a happy ending, however, as my father drove down to Cardiff, picked me up and took me home, but I can still remember my feeling of emptiness and isolation as I stood outside Cardiff station thinking that I would have to spend Christmas without being with my family for any part of the day.
  I recognise that some people have to work on Christmas day, but they should not do so if their work is not necessary or if they have been forced into volunteering for work. In these days of fridges and freezers, it cannot be beyond the wit even of the most disorganised people, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, to manage for one day without having to shop.
  I remember when the Sunday Trading Bill came before Parliament. It was decided by a free vote. The organisers of the proposal to free Sunday trading refused to concede anything, as is usual with people who are obsessed with their aims. Those of us who were opposed to wholesale deregulation therefore tabled a series of amendments and forced all of them to Divisions. As so often happens with free votes, hon. Members went into the Lobby without reading every amendment.
  Mr. Forth: Oh!
  Mrs. Golding: Those Members merely voted against those tabling the amendments, as the right hon. Gentleman will recognise. That is how we ended up with Christmas day trading. Hon. Members who would never have dreamed of making people work on Christmas day voted for a measure that allowed that to happen, having seen opponents of Sunday trading standing in the Lobby.
  As we were so fed up with the lack of discussion on any form of compromise, we tabled an amendment to restrict garden centre trading on bank holidays. We did not want the amendment to be agreed, but hon. Members blindly entered the wrong Lobby when they saw us opposing our own amendment and so the proposal was included in the Bill. When hon. Members cannot buy things in garden centres on certain days of the year, they will know why.

  1303
  I support my hon. Friend's Bill, as I think that it is important for people to spend time with their families on this very special day of the year. They should be able to go to church if they wish to do so. They should especially be with the children, as it is their special day. When mothers or fathers are forced to work, it is the children who feel it most desperately. We need to be present to see the joy on children's faces and to be kind to all family members, whether we like them or not. Christmas day is a very special day for us all, so I hope that my hon. Friend's Bill is agreed to.
  10.15 am
  Ms Ann Coffey: I, too, would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on introducing her private Member's Bill, which deserves the support of the whole House. I am conscious of time, so I wish to make only a short contribution.
  Mr. Forth: Why? We have all day.
  Ms Coffey: My speech will be briefer than some of those made by the right hon. Gentleman.
  I am a member of USDAW. I should like to congratulate the union on its efforts on behalf of its members to keep Christmas day special. I believe that its campaign has wide public support, as most people want to ensure safeguards for family life. Every hon. Member knows the difficulty of balancing work and home, and our families sometimes have to be very understanding. I think, however, that I would have reached the limits of tolerance if I went home and announced that, unfortunately, I was cancelling Christmas because I was working. If the House does not introduce regulation now, shopworkers may face those exact circumstances in future. Other employees would also be affected if economic life took over every aspect and every day of our lives. I do not think that people want that to happen, so I believe that we must draw the line now.
  The larger stores' Christmas day opening pilots and experiments of last year, which they are reporting as a success, are worrying, because retail is a highly competitive market in which huge efforts are made to retain customer loyalty. Once one large retailing chain opens, competitors will also feel pressure to open. People might ask why that is bad. Retailers will argue that it is a matter of individual choice and that nobody is forced to open on Christmas day. They will also point out that some people may be happy to work on Christmas day and that some people already do. That is bad; I agree with the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) that it represents a slow eating away of the concept of national holidays as days of special celebration when there is a national break from economic activity.
  Ensuring shopworkers' rights is the basis of keeping a special national day that the rest of us enjoy, but the issue goes beyond that protection. There is a larger question: where it is right to draw a line under the economic life of the nation. We signify that line by having public holidays on special days when the nation takes a break.
  The debate in 1994 on Sunday trading focused on that exact question. It concentrated on how to preserve Sunday as a day of rest and a traditionally special day. The
  1304
  Sunday Trading Act 1994 reflected hon. Members' view that a balance would he achieved by restricting Sunday trading so as to recognise Sunday's specialness in terms of family activities. We also decided to preserve Easter day and Christmas day by not allowing trading on Sundays in respect of those days.
  I have revisited the debate on the Sunday Trading Bill. It was clear where the House wished to draw the line. I do not think that it occurred to any of us that we needed to protect Christmas day when it did not fall on a Sunday. It certainly did not occur to me. I voted for Sunday trading and for keeping Christmas day and Easter day special. We did not anticipate that the larger shops would open on Christmas day. Indeed, the House never intended to deregulate Christmas day. We assumed that the tradition would be kept and that it would be a special day that people could celebrate. Perhaps that reflected a naivety among some of us and an assumption that was clearly not shared by retailers who opened their shops on Christmas day last year.
  I share USDAW's concern about the consequences that will arise if Christmas day opening becomes more prevalent, and about the pressure that may be exerted on its members to work on a day that they want to spend with their families. It should be a concern for all of us who want to preserve special days as national holidays. I believe that we should draw a very firm line. If the big retailers cannot be trusted to keep special days special, we should regulate Clearly, voluntary regulation is not working. I believe that the majority of people want to keep Christmas day special. The big stores' actions are important because what the shopworkers do today, the rest of us do tomorrow.
  10.19 am
  Mr. John Heppell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on promoting the Bill, but for reasons different from those expressed by other hon. Members. I do not believe that the measure is as brilliant as others suggest, and I support it not on principle but because of what happens in practice.
  Others claim that the measure is a good idea for several reasons; I do not agree with most of them. I agree with only one reason that has been advanced. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not mind my describing her as a traditionalist in the Labour party and more generally. She would probably wear that badge with pride. However, there is a danger of viewing tradition through rose-coloured glasses.
  Hon. Members have given three main reasons for supporting the Bill family, religion and protection of employees. I find the family reason difficult to accept. I often had to work on Christmas day, Sundays and bank holidays. I did not mind too much because there were only eight hours in my working day, and I could always squeeze some time into the children's holiday. It was disruptive but possible. I also had the benefit of enhanced rates for working on those days. There was no shortage of people in the railway industry who were willing to work on Sundays or bank holidays if they knew that they would get double time and a day off in lieu.

  1305
  Many of the predictions that we made about Sunday trading have not been realised. Rates have certainly not been enhanced to encourage people to work on Sundays and bank holidays. People work Sundays for normal rates. The Sunday Trading Act 1994 introduced provisions to protect workers, but the brutal truth is that they are not working.
  I do not want to shop on Christmas day, but I do not want to stop others doing it. What is a family Christmas? My family Christmas is different from someone else's. Many families enjoy going shopping on Christmas day. I think it is mad to spend the day in do-it-yourself stores or wandering around shopping centres but people should have the right to do that if they wish. The family argument is therefore a little bogus.
  I am not a practising Christian; I do not go to church regularly. However, I do not want to prevent people from going to church on Sunday or on Christmas day. If the regulations were enforced to ensure that people had a choice, I would not worry about the matter. However, I am worried about giving preferential treatment to the established Church. We take pride in being a multicultural, multi-faith society. Why should Christmas or Easter be singled out instead of Eid or Diwali? The Government should make some bank holidays statutory holidays. People should have a right to those holidays; currently, they do not. Perhaps another measure would effect that.
  I support the Bill because of its provisions to protect workers. I have figures for those who have brought cases of unfair dismissal for refusing to work on Sundays. They are divided into categories of "main jurisdiction" and "secondary jurisdiction". I am not sure what that means, but in 1999-2000, there were six cases in the main jurisdiction category and five in the secondary jurisdiction category. At least half were resolved fairly easily by the current processes. However, I do not believe that only 11 people in this country have been intimidated into working on Sundays or dismissed for refusing to.
  The Government have increased the compensation for unfair dismissal to £50,000. However, in some cases, a tribunal instructs employers to take employees back. Some do not do that, while others take them back but make their lives such a misery that they pack in the job after a few months. The figures do not reflect those cases.
  Mr. Forth: If such cases were much more prevalent, would not a trade union have got hold of some lurid figures and primed the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to produce them? Is the trade union failing to fulfil its responsibilities? If not, perhaps the figures reflect reality.
  Mr. Heppell: The figures show the number of people who have gone to a tribunal, but many people do not believe that they will get protection it they do that. When I worked weekends, I knew that if I did not do the Sunday shift, a colleague would have to do it. People had a loyalty to those who worked with them, and did their share. However, there was some pressure to work Sundays. As I said earlier, people wanted to work because of the enhanced rate, but some pressure was exerted.
  I do not understand why people prefer to work Sundays without enhanced rates, unless they are put under some pressure. There are exceptions that prove the rule: for
  1306
  example, the Donald Dewars who say that Christmas is humbug. I am sure that Donald Dewar did not really believe that, but the last thing some people want is to spend Christmas day with their families. However, they are a minority.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Some people in essential services will always have to work on Christmas day. I have never had a Christmas without some members of my family working, because they all work in the national health service. However, there is a difference between providing an essential and an optional service. People do not have to shop on Sundays or Christmas day. That is a fundamental difference.
  Mr. Heppell: That is true, but I worry about the idea that I should decide when people do their shopping. I do not want to do that, and I honestly disagree with my hon. Friend on the matter. If people want to shop on Sundays, fine. I have no problem with small or even large shops opening, as long as there is adequate protection for workers. I do not believe that people are protected in practice, however.
  To answer the point of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the unions, they are not doing enough to educate the work force about what it should ask for. That is not always the union's fault. My union is the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers; it used to be the National Union of Railwaymen. It once had a policy of stopping all overtime. I supported that, because it meant that when we negotiated wage increases, they were based on a basic rate rather than average earnings. We could then show how low our wages were. It meant that, because overtime was not being worked, extra work would be available, creating extra jobs for people who were unemployed. The union pushed that policy hard, but it fell to bits on the first weekend it was supposed to have been implemented because none of the workers would agree to give up their Saturday or Sunday morning's work, since it meant extra money to them.
  In some respects, the same applies in these circumstances. USDAW needs to say loudly to its members, "Do not work Sundays unless you are getting decent, enhanced rates." Failing that, the market and the law of supply and demand will rule, and if people are willing to work, the shops will be willing to employ them.
  Helen Jones: Many shop workers, are not unionised. They are women working for low pay, who are totally dependent on what little they receive to keep their families going. They do not have equal economic bargaining power with their employers. We are concerned here with the exploitation of a work force who are not part of a strong, manual craft union, but consists largely of low-paid women workers.
  Mr. Heppell: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. In some respects, that is my point. We have a work force who can be exploited, are exploited and will continue to be exploited, unless we take some action. Perhaps there could have been a more suitable legislative vehicle to deal with the problem, but I do not have that option available to me at the moment. I shall therefore support the option proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich.
  10.31 am
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I had not intended to take part in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but as there is not a great array of colleagues on this side of the House anxious to catch your eye, I shall say a few words.
  The House owes a great deal to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She is an exemplary parliamentarian, who has done much in the struggle to preserve the reputation of Parliament when it has been under assault from many quarters. Of all the services that she has performed. I do not think that any would rank above this one. She is fighting to preserve something very precious to many people, and I give her my wholehearted support.
  Before I came into the Chamber, I was chatting to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). He and I agree on many things, and we disagree on one or two as well. He said to me that if this Bill does not pass, we shall soon have full-scale Sunday trading and total deregulation.
  Mr. Forth: Good.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: My right hon. and libertarian Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), with whom I could not disagree more, says "Good." However, I believe that it would be bad. It would be bad for Britain and bad for the people who work in shops, service industries and elsewhere.
  I was one of those who resolutely opposed Sunday trading but I did not do so for religious reasons. I happen to go to church on Sundays, but that was not the reason for my opposing Sunday trading. I opposed it because I believed it was right that there should be one day in seven that was special for most people, and one that people could keep special without being under great pressure.
  When we had those debates, I and many others said that if Sunday trading came about, Sundays would replicate Saturdays, and we should soon have the high street Sunday. Anyone who drives into London on a Sunday knows that that prophecy has come true. In many of our big towns and cities, there is no difference between the middle of the day on a Saturday and a Sunday. Indeed, I am told that, in some places, Sundays are even busier.
  I do not believe that Sunday trading has advanced the welfare of the people of this country, nor do I think that it has added anything to the cherished values of this country. Like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, I am an unashamed traditionalist, and I believe that one of the traditions worth fighting to keep was the special Sunday. That has gone, but we should, at the very least, attempt to keep certain days special.
  Easter day is always on a Sunday, and it is right that it should be special. Although the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) rather denigrated the Christian ingredient, this is still basically a Christian country. We do not need to make any apology for that. Christmas day, however, can fall on any day of the week, and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich is saying that we should keep that day—which is still, for most people, the family day above all others—special, too, and enshrine that speciality in legislation.
  Of course, some people, such as those in the emergency services, will have to work on Sundays. We all accept that. I have a son who was, for several years, the manager
  1308
  of a hotel. Of course, he worked on Christmas day. He knew that that was part of the job. It was the part that he most regretted, but, nevertheless, it was part of it. However, the vast majority of people do not have to work on Christmas day, but if the shops are open, the pressure is there for people to work.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, East that the cases that have come to court are the tip of the iceberg, and the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) was right to say that many people who are among the least protected and the poorest paid in our community need the money and feel under pressure to work. We ought to relieve them of that pressure on Christmas day, at least.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has performed a signal service in introducing the Bill. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government support the measure, and I hope that no one will be so curmudgeonly as to oppose it.
  10.36 am
  Helen Jones: I, too, support the Bill and congratulate to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on introducing it. It has the support of many shopworkers in my constituency, and also that of many people who are not shopworkers but who recognise the need to preserve Christmas day as a lay of family celebration, and to keep its traditional character.
  The Bill is necessary to stop the trend whereby large stores open on Christmas day and to prevent that from becoming a major problem and getting out of hand. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I was surprised to discover that legislation was necessary. It had for so long been the convention that large stores did not open on Christmas day that, when the Sunday Trading Act 1994 was passed, no one thought it necessary to deal with the question of Christmas day because they did not envisage that convention ever being broken. However, it has been broken, and it is now necessary to stop Christmas day opening creeping in because there is no protection for shopworkers unless Christmas day falls on a Sunday.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, there is now an increasing tendency for larger stores to try Christmas day opening. Sainsburys did it last year, and, according to her, Woolworths did it in what it called areas of high ethnicity—an argument that would carry more weight if it did not fail to recognise that there are large numbers of black Christians in this country. Furthermore, such stores also originally planned to open in places such as Kendal and Llandudno, which shoots holes in all their arguments.
  The Bill is modest in that it simply seeks to extend the restrictions that apply to large stores when Christmas day falls on a Sunday so that they apply when Christmas day falls on any other day of the week. It also retains the exemption in the Sunday Trading Act 1994, so it will not apply to small corner shops, for example, or to shops operated by those who profess the Jewish faith.
  It is necessary to preserve Christmas day as a family holiday, and to end the gradual erosion of that day as a special day in our calendar. The attitude of most large retailers is clear. They do not particularly want to open on Christmas day, but, if their rivals do so, it is such a cut-throat business that the others feel obliged to open to preserve their brand loyalty, and the whole thing will spiral upwards, as happened with Sunday trading.

  1309
  Over the years, there has been a significant erosion of the concept of public holidays. When I was a councillor in Chester, we had a long debate about whether we should allow the market to open on Good Friday. We did not do so at that time, but now Good Friday has become almost a normal trading day.
  When Sunday trading was introduced, we were told that no one would have to work on Sunday unless they wanted to and that those who did so would receive premium payments, yet within a year those payments started to go and few shopworkers still receive them. Shopworkers in my constituency feel under great pressure to work on a Sunday, otherwise they may not get a job or hold on to the job that they have. They are vulnerable, low-paid workers. We do not want the same to happen with Christmas day.
  I am not just making a religious point; we are a multi-faith, multi-ethnic society. Although many of our public holidays occur on Christian festivals, there is a strong argument for people to have days away from commercial pressures and days when families can be together without the pressure of one or other parent having to work.
  It is true that people in essential services and continuous processing plants work ever Christmas, and we are all extremely grateful to those who keep our emergency and other essential services going during that time. However, it has always been recognised, even within that sector, that if possible, people with families should be allowed to go home on Christmas day. My father worked in a steelworks that always ran during Christmas, but the agreement among, the men was that those without young children worked on Christmas day to allow fathers to go home to their families, and at new year it was the other way around. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) many not have minded working on Christmas day, but I suspect that he had a wife at home to do most of the organising for him. It is slightly different for women who have to work on Christmas day.
  The argument about essential services does not apply to large supermarkets. There has been no recorded instance of anyone starving to death because Sainsburys was not open for one day of the year. If I forget to buy the stuffing or the cranberry sauce, it is a minor inconvenience—people can eat something else. I do not see why the families of shopworkers should have to sacrifice their Christmas to avoid a minor inconvenience to someone like me. That is what the argument is about.
  As a society, do we want to pay the public price of Christmas day opening? As more and more shops open, more pressure will be put on public transport workers to work, we will require street cleaning because there will be more traffic on the roads, and we will need more emergency services because there are likely to be more accidents. We will all, as taxpayers, pay the cost of Christmas day opening.
  Moreover, Christmas day trading would mean an end to a day of peace and quiet for people who live in town centres or near major out-of-town retail stores. My constituents in Callands in Warrington already suffer greatly on a Sunday because of the traffic going to large stores in their area. Surely they should be allowed at least one day of peace and quiet on Christmas day.
  1310
  The trend towards a 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year society is fundamentally bad. We should not define ourselves by the way we shop. If we do, there is something wrong with our sense of values. There needs to be time away from the pressures of commerce, and time for families to be together. The Bill is a modest step towards preserving a special day. I hope that the House will allow it to go into Committee, and that the Government will support it.
  10.45 am
  Mr. Eric Forth: I oppose the Bill because it is yet another example of hon. Members taking it upon themselves to dictate the life style and behaviour of, and facilities available to, our citizenry. The arguments take a variety of forms, which is how it should be, but I disagree with almost all the arguments that have been advanced.
  The main argument is rather confusing, and the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) reflected that. Labour Members especially—I do not think that this applies so much to my colleagues—cannot decide whether this is, or they want it to be, a Christian society or a so-called multicultural society. That is not my problem—it is theirs—but in approaching such an issue, Labour Members should get their thoughts more in line.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow that it is possible to favour a multicultural society that respects each of the multifarious traditions within it, and that respect for Christmas day would be one way of respecting part of a multicultural society?
  Mr. Forth: Yes to the first bit and no to the second is my answer to the hon. Gentleman. I think there is confusion about the role of the established Church and whether we claim this to be a Christian society, and about the extent to which the fact that our people voluntarily attend church can be used as a rough measure of whether it is a Christian society. Most of the figures that I have seen suggest that fewer than 10 per cent. of our population are regular Sunday church attenders. That is not a bad measure of people's adherence to their Christianity or their chosen religion.
  We must pick our way through the confusion surrounding the role of the established Church and its relevance to Christmas day, and the extent to which people express their adherence to the Christian religion by their regular church attendance, and then factor in multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism, which Labour Members always want to speak about. That complicates the matter, because the question then is whether we think we have an obligation to legislate regarding Christmas day, which, whether we regret it or applaud it, may become less important to more and more members of our society.
  I am not sure that I can accept even the basic premise of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), which is based on the assumption that Christmas day is so special that it requires the law to single it out and impose that distinction on all members of society, whether they are occasional Christians, never go to church or are of a completely different faith so that Christmas day has no relevance. I am not sure that we have got that argument as clear as it should be.

  1311
  We must consider the regional and local variations that come into play, and be careful about the excessively loose use of terms. Bandying about words such as "ethnicity" or "culture" is all very well, but we have to be careful. In this country, we now have communities consisting largely of different ethnic, cultural and religious groups that, one could argue, could be dealt with differently within a local authority context. I might have been more attracted by such a measure—I doubt it, but I might have been—if it had said that local authorities should have certain powers to delineate certain days of the year to reflect the nature of the communities that they serve.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I would be much less in favour of the Bill had such a provision been included. I am nervous about references to multi-faith societies and certainly would not want requests for Diwali to be recognised with a holiday. Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there is a secular acceptance of Christmas, whereby families come together for a public holiday irrespective of any religious belief that they might hold?
  Mr. Forth: That is the case, but whether we should use the law to back that up or impose it is the point at issue. I will not irritate my hon. Friend any more by pressing the point about local discretion. However, if one accepts the argument about multiculturalism, using a blanket, uniform approach becomes more dangerous and less relevant. Like him, I do not necessarily go a bundle on multiculturalism, but I am trying to tackle the argument of Labour Members. If they are serious about multiculturalism and all that it means, they must try to reflect it accurately in the measures that they propose to the House. I fear that the Bill fails that test.
  I am a great believer in choice, which is one of the things that underpins the essential freedoms of our society. Every time I see a Bill that seeks to limit choice based on what hon. Members think, it makes me nervous and suspicious. I was honoured when my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) referred to me as a libertarian. I try to be a good libertarian. I rarely succeed, but the fact that he has recognised my attempts is encouraging. I would rather take the risks involved in choice than have this House legislate for the imposition of what some of its Members think to be the appropriate behaviour.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: This is the greatest load of hogwash I have ever heard in my life, even from the right hon. Gentleman. He is suggesting that this is a great imposition from the House of Commons when in fact we are simply underlining what the House intended in the first place, as was clear from the original debate. It is nonsense to suggest that this is an enormous decision to impose Christian beliefs on vast numbers of people. Even he cannot pretend to believe that, although he pretends to believe all sorts of things.
  Mr. Forth: I sense that the hon. Lady is trying to charm me into supporting her Bill. She will have to try better because she has not quite succeeded yet. Of course I am not going to pretend or claim that this is a huge and heavy-handed measure. However, it seeks yet again
  1312
  to restrict choice and determine behaviour in a way that is not necessary and would cumulatively, with other measures, have the damaging effect that I fear. I see it as part of a pattern, although, in itself, it is perhaps not the ultimate threat to societal freedom.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I just wanted to clarify that I did mean it when I called my right hon. Friend a libertarian, but I certainly did not mean it as a compliment.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend obviously went to the same charm school as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. I feel swamped by seduction and persuasion.
  Ms Coffey rose—
  Mr. Forth: Perhaps the hon. Lady will add to it.
  Ms Coffey: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if one section of the population exercises its choice, it might have the consequence of taking choice away from another section? We all have a responsibility to balance that.
  Mr. Forth: That was exactly the point I was coming to next. I recognise that consumer choice has implications for other people. The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) said that schedule 4 to the 1994 Act was designed to provide protection for those who worked on Sundays. If that is not working adequately, I would be prepared to look at it again. If the much-vaunted trade unions—of which Labour Members still seem so fond—are not doing their job properly, that is a matter for them and their members. If allegedly low-paid—in spite of the minimum wage—and exploited women choose not to join a trade union, or if that union cannot give them adequate protection, that is a matter for them, also. It is not, I suggest, a matter for this or any other Bill. We may well have a role to play in reviewing existing legislation, but that in itself is not a reason for legislating in this way.
  There are a number of exemptions in the 1994 Act, which the Bill would not affect: farm shops, off-licences, shops selling vehicle or cycle supplies, pharmacies, shops situated in airports, railway stations and motorway service areas, petrol filling stations, exhibition stands and shops occupied by those who observe the Jewish religion. That is a substantial list and I am happy to see it. However, it puts in context the argument that we should have only a relatively limited number of shopping opportunities on Sundays and Christmas day. We have acknowledged in that comprehensive list not only that there is an important social function to be performed, but that a lot of people choose or wish to exercise their consumer choice by using such outlets. The argument that the purity of Sunday or of Christmas day is still important is undermined by the existence of that list in the 1994 Act.
  In passing, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich is confident that the fine proposed by clause 1(3) is sufficient. It is entirely possible that some shops affected by the Bill—large ones, by definition—might well choose to open on Christmas day because they do so well from the many people who have forgotten their batteries or cranberry sauce and flock to them to spend money. It might be worth paying a fine of only £50,000 to allow shopping on Christmas day. I may be arguing against myself here, but the point is relevant.

  1313
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and the hon. Member for Newcastle—under—Lyme (Mrs. Golding) argued that shopping on Christmas day was not necessary. That is their judgment. They are entitled to make some moral judgment about whether it is necessary to shop on Christmas Day. Why cannot people buy batteries for toys beforehand? If they know that they are going to have turkey, why cannot they obtain cranberry sauce beforehand? That may be all true, but why is it that hon. Members feel that they can impose such a judgment on people at large? The fact that it may not be necessary to shop on Christmas Day is a highly judgmental matter. Many people, whether they forget, are careless, stupid, immoral, lax or whatever, may still want to shop on Christmas day.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I apologise for not being here at the start of the right hon. Gentleman's speech and thank him for giving way. Is not the thrust of his argument that there should be total deregulation? He has already accepted that, in certain elements of the 1994 Act, it was acceptable to have some regulation. Surely the issue is that the public at large and shopworkers in particular would be very happy to have Christmas day as a day exempt from shopping, along the lines of the Bill.
  Mr. Forth: The direct answer to the hon. Gentleman, who has known me for longer than he would probably like to have, is that I am, by nature, as he would acknowledge, a deregulator. My ideal world would have no regulations. It would probably have no governance and it would certainly have no politicians. I constantly strive to work towards that, being only a reluctant participant, as he knows. I start from the point of view that, in an ideal world, the fewer regulations there are, the better.
  I would like responsible citizens to take responsibility, to make decisions for themselves and to get on with their lives, unencumbered by people such as us. That would be my starting point. Therefore, for me, the burden of proof is on those who wish to regulate. I do not start from the assumption that regulations are good and we should deregulate; I start from the other end of the argument.
  The other thing that the hon. Gentleman is assuming is that no one wants to work on Christmas day. I do not know that that is true; I suspect that it probably is not. Some people might for various reasons want to work on Christmas day: they may find it mind-blowingly boring; they may find the celebration of Christmas has become trite, trivial and over-indulgent; or they may want to earn some extra money. There could be a variety of reasons why people might not want Christmas day to be denied to them as a working day, so, again, it is properly a matter of choice. The hon. Gentleman makes his judgment. He may not know lots of people who want to work on Christmas day.
  I wonder—it is a rather dangerous question for me to ask, but I will pose it nevertheless—how many individual constituents, unprompted by trade unions, have written to the hon. Gentleman in the past five or 10 years begging him to legislate in the way that the Bill does. None have written to me. I suspect that most right hon. and hon. Members here have had very few or no unprompted letters
  1314
  from constituents saying, "Please release me from the bondage of working on Christmas day." I suspect that genuine unprompted impetus for the Bill is limited.
  Mr. Gardiner: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that individual trade unionists who feel aggrieved about a particular practice in their workplace make representations through their trade union? Far from being a bad way for it to be brought to the attention of the House, it is an extremely effective way.
  Mr. Forth: I am not sure that I agree, but, even if that were true, fortunately in this country, trade union membership is still very much a minority thing among working people because many sensible people choose not to be members of trade unions. I would be much more impressed if ordinary, responsible, or even low-paid and exploited people chose to approach their Members of Parliament individually to express their views. All I am saying is that I suspect that very few people have chosen to do so.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: How many unsolicited letters did the right hon. Gentleman receive before the last general election demanding the fragmentation, sale and privatisation of British Rail?
  Mr. Forth: I recall getting very few indeed. At the time, I was a member of Her Majesty's then Government. It may be that constituents take a somewhat different view, depending on whether one is in government. The Minister might have interesting observations to make on that, if you allowed him to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not want to be unduly diverted. I am making a simple point. Although I concede that we should be careful about judging things on the basis of our postbag, I am putting it the other way around—I am challenging whether there is a groundswell of opinion in favour of, or a demand for, the Bill.
  We have had one or two references already to what happened this most recent Christmas past. It is relevant to the argument that was advanced by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, which has been echoed by others. She suggested that if one store opens, others feel obliged to do the same because of competitive pressure. I do not think that that has ever been the case. I lived and was brought up in Scotland, where Sunday trading has always been possible. By choice, relatively few shops opened on Sunday in Scotland. It was one of the things that I had in mind when I voted enthusiastically for the liberalisation of Sunday trading in England.
  On the same basis, as my brief tells me, on Christmas day just gone, Sainsburys and Woolworths had three stores open, and Co-op and Budgens opened several stores nationwide. Woolworths commercial marketing director said:
  "Our decision to open three stores in is recognition that we live in an increasingly multi-cultural society",
  which goes back to the point that I made earlier. He continues:
  "The stores that are opening serve a diverse local community—all colleagues who are working in these stores are volunteers."
  That wraps up a number of different points, including those relating to stores seeking to serve the community in which they are located and the fact that employees are

  1315
  volunteers. If anyone is going to challenge that and say that those working on Christmas day in those stores were being strongarmed, exploited or worse—
  Helen Jones: It is very easy to say that all people are volunteers while ignoring the pressures on them to volunteer. If the House were to sit on Christmas day, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would probably like because he does not appear to have a home to go to, would he believe that all of us here had volunteered for the task?
  Mr. Forth: Since very few people volunteer for the task now, I can imagine that even fewer will do so on Christmas day. I invite the hon. Lady to look around the Chamber and see how many volunteers there are on a non-Christmas day, so my optimism about hon. Members being here on Christmas day is limited, although I would be prepared to contemplate the possibility. If the House were sitting on Christmas day, I would want the people of Bromley and Chislehurst to be properly represented. I would want to do my best on their behalf.
  A spokeswoman for Sainsburys said that it was opening only three small outlets on petrol forecourts as "an experiment". Referring to a prior Christmas opening experiment, she said:
  "There are many people who do not celebrate Christmas or recognise Sunday and the staff we had on Christmas Day said they were happy to get away from the chaos at home."
  Those are not my words, I hasten to add, but Sainsburys' words. It reflects another of the aspects of the matter that we ignore at our peril. It is not for us to judge individual family circumstances, what people want or do not want to do, or how they view Christmas day. We may have our view, but I resist the attempt to put in statute the attitude that people should take to something, albeit something as important to many people as Christmas day.
  By contrast, a spokesperson for Asda—so we have had a spokesman, a spokeswoman and a spokesperson; it is all very inclusive—emphasised that the company had no plans to open stores on Christmas day:
  "It is a very important time for families and for friends—our staff work tremendously hard and we give them at least two days off',
  so there is an encouraging spectrum of opinion from responsible, large retail store managements.
  I have tried to explain why I find the Bill unsatisfactory. I do not agree with the analysis that underpins it. With all respect to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, it is flawed and inadequate. I do not agree with its principal thrust, because I am opposed to further regulation. If existing provisions are not adequate to protect employees, we should focus on that. The role of the trade unions is, quite properly, to protect and promote the well-being of their members and those whom they seek to attract as members, but my suspicion that the Bill is the creature of one or more trade unions does not recommend it to me.
  For all those reasons, I hope that the Bill will not make any further progress.
  11.10 am
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: They say that Christmas comes earlier each year, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich
  1316
  (Mrs. Dunwoody) must hold the record, for introducing it to the public consciousness on 16 March. I congratulate her on her success in the ballot and on introducing the Bill, which I support.
  Ten years ago, I was invited to give a lecture to a group of civil servants in Moscow. I was talking about product liability insurance and used the example of a problem that had recently been reported in the Moscow press: exploding televisions and the fires that they caused in apartment blocks throughout the city. I said that product liability and product liability insurance would be extremely effective in controlling such problems. An angry civil servant rose to inform me that all Russian citizens had a right under their legal code to have televisions that worked perfectly, so there was no need for product liability insurance. I said that to have a right without having any means of enforcing it is to have no right at all.
  That is precisely what undergirds the Bill: there are workers in large retail companies who may have a right, but we all know how difficult it can be to exercise it on certain occasions. We all know of the trade-off between workers and management and how hard it can be to refuse a manager who has been co-operative and helpful on other occasions and is having problems filling the roster for a particular day.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), for whom I have great respect, talked about how choice underpins our fundamental freedoms, which is true, but we should always ask whose choice. The choice of shopworkers is sacrificed to give the wider public the choice to which he referred.
  Christmas day trading can be seen as part of an on-going process, going back many years, starting with Sunday opening and going on to bank holiday opening, 24-hour opening and Sunday browsing time. The Bill would prevent the continuation of that process. That is not to say that all those measures have been detrimental. I agree with Lord Bassam of Brighton when he says that, on the whole, the nature of Sundays has not changed greatly since Sunday opening was introduced in 1994, but I believe that the nature of Christmas day would be changed fundamentally by trading on 25 December. The burdens on those who would inevitably be forced to work would not be outweighed by the benefits to the wider public.
  Christmas day is special because it is about gift, not about consumer consumption. That is precious, and we should preserve it. In the run-up to Christmas, the stores market toys and consumer goods with vigour—it is their most profitable time of the year—on the basis that Christmas day is special. They try to maximise sales by persuading us that our families' Christmas will be special and memorable because we have bought their product, but they undermine the logic of their own position by then saying that Christmas day should be just a normal trading day like any other. We are reflecting that internal inconsistency in our support for the Bill.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that we do not reed any more regulation. Indeed, he is a keen deregulator and would like all regulation to be abolished. I always respect what he says, and his position is consistent and rigorous, but the same rigour and consistency were shown by the Jesuits in the Spanish inquisition, often leading to a false conclusion.

  1317
  It is true that the retail industry can regulate itself and that one can point to pilot schemes for Christmas day trading that have shown higher-than-expected sales, but I do not share the view that such trading is something for the future. The research, too, shows an internal inconsistency. As any good researcher knows, the first question to ask is not what conclusions are reached but who is doing the research. When the stores say that they have had great success trading on Christmas day and how wonderful it would be if they could do it every year, one has to exercise a little scepticism.
  Mr. Forth: Presumably, the hon. Gentleman would apply the same principle to the Bill, in so far as it is the creature of a trade union.
  Mr. Gardiner: I would apply the principle universally, because we must consider any argument on its merits and be sceptical about the motives of anyone who advances it. That is the only way of arriving at a clear view.
  By its nature, a Christmas day trading experiment is an isolated instance. Hon. Members have shown that there have been very few such instances—enough to prompt concern in the House, but none the less very few. That they should have been claimed as a success is therefore hardly surprising. The law of supply and demand applies, and if only one or two major retailers are open on a particular day, everyone who wants to shop on that day will end up shopping in those stores. However, that is not to say that if all the stores were open on Christmas day they would achieve the same success. Therefore, it is a false argument to use such experiments as an illustration of why Christmas trading should be allowed.
  I welcome the fact that the present Government have introduced a great deal of legislation affecting the retail trade. It includes that on the national minimum wage, the working time directive, holidays and maternity and paternity leave. I acknowledge that it has necessitated a degree of administrative work for many retailers. Retailers have complained that it has caused their attention to be distracted from the real business of serving their customers, so I am delighted that the proposed Bill, which would limit trading on Christmas day, would not create more administrative work for the retail trade.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst expressed his willingness to work on Christmas day, if the House were open. That is commendable, but I wonder whether the managers, the directors, and in particular the finance directors of the major trading companies and retailers, would be as willing to use Christmas day as a day of normal trading were they also required to be in their offices.
  Mr. Forth: I shall write and ask them.
  Mr. Gardiner: That is a valuable intervention. I would be interested to see the responses that the right hon. Gentleman gets.
  I believe that it is the Government's duty to serve all the people and to balance the choices that are available within society because some of those choices conflict. If employers begrudge employees the better rights that they have achieved under this Government, I am pleased to say
  1318
  that they will have to grin and bear it. I am pleased that employees are happy about what we have done. The basis of the legislation was to formalise working practices in this country and to eradicate the bad working practices that existed in some industries. The Bill is an honourable contribution to that process.
  It is certainly true that Christmas has changed for a large number of the British public and although many would subscribe to the traditional Christmas day, the universally shared experience that I remember as a child no longer applies. I remember Christmas from a very particular perspective because, like the right hon. Gentleman, I was fortunate enough to grow up in Scotland. When I was a child, my mother, who was a doctor, never spent a single Christmas day with us. She was not a general practitioner, but a doctor in public health in Paisley. I remember, year after year, my mother never being present on Christmas day. We moved to England when my mother changed jobs and worked in public health in Hertfordshire. I remember the change in our household when, for the first time, my mother was able to join us on Christmas day and we celebrated a family Christmas. We did not have that option in Scotland, where the law allowed Sunday working. Indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, the only public holiday was new year's day. That is one import from Scotland into England that I am very pleased about and I am sure that the English are extremely grateful. It used to be the case that in Scotland, new year's day was a public holiday, but Christmas day was not; in England, the opposite was the case.
  I am delighted that the Bill will give other families the opportunity to have a shared Christmas experience. Although something of the nature of Christmas day has changed and its importance for the vast majority of people may no longer be one of religious significance, that does not mean that they do not want to preserve something special about Christmas day. I have only one thing to say to the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else who does not—bah humbug!
  Mr. Swayne: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a supporter of the Bill, but we should not get carried away by our own rhetoric with respect to the shared collective experience of a Christmas day of yore. Pendulums always swing. He will recall that Scrooge would have been unable to have the prize goose delivered to Tiny Tim and his family had the butcher not been open on that day.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes his point in his usual elaborate and flamboyant fashion. It has already been said this morning that essential services continue on Christmas day. The Bill seeks to give workers providing non-essential services the right to the protection that the House took for granted in previous legislation.
  Rather than making the case for Christmas day opening, the arguments that we have heard about pilot schemes and so on have underlined the need for legislation to prevent Christmas day trading. We are well aware of the highly competitive nature of the retail trade, especially the supermarket trade, which is the focus of the Bill. Whenever one store decides to try a pilot scheme, its competitors will always reciprocate and the practice will mushroom. Christmas day trading will certainly slip in through the back door and I believe that it needs to be

  1319
  checked. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich has introduced an eminently worthy Bill and I am delighted to support it.
  11.28 am
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I have one or two points to raise in the context of the speech by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). First, I got the impression that while he is in favour of deregulation, he accepts that in practical terms there needs to be some regulation. Indeed, he supported the Sunday Trading Act 1994, which allowed for a certain amount of regulation. He appeared to be praising that in his speech earlier this morning. Given that he appreciates the need for some regulation, I should have thought that he would have wanted the Bill to be examined in more detail, unless of course he is in principle against giving anyone the choice of staying closed on Christmas day. The pressures of the market will push towards Christmas day opening.
  The right hon. Gentleman implied that, just because one or more trade unions support the Bill, it must be wrong and bad. I cannot believe that he is so unintelligent as to believe that no trade union can ever say anything responsible or helpful. If he did believe that, he would hold the sort of view that leads to the polarisation of states and their becoming fascist or communist. If we are to discover the reasonable points on which agreement can be reached, we must be able to hold debate with those with whom we would normally disagree.
  Mr. Forth: I know the hon. Gentleman to be a kindly and tolerant man, but is he suggesting that if I express doubts about the views or the role of trade unions, I must be something called a fascist? What happened to a free, open society in which people like me can express our views about trade unions without being abused by the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Griffiths: I did not mean that at all. The right hon. Gentleman has obviously misunderstood me. I said that to be against trade unions per se, and to believe that a trade union could never say anything reasonable—which seemed to be the implication of his speech—would be to take the road towards a polarisation of society. I do not believe that he is totally convinced that a trade unionist can never say anything reasonable. He has many trade unionists in his constituency, and I am sure that he does not mean to condemn them all to perdition.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: There are even some Conservative trade unionists.
  Mr. Griffiths: Indeed, there is even an organisation of Conservative trade unionists, so even the Conservative party cannot be all bad.
  Mr. Steve McCabe: Come off it.
  Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that I was a tolerant man, but I may be being too generous on that point.
  1320
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about public demand and how those who work in shops might feel about the Bill. We have not had an overwhelming response to the Bill, though he himself said that we should not let the size of our mailbags persuade us to vote one way or another on any issue. The point is that the Bill will deal with a situation that could become difficult in future. I happen to do the weekly shop for my family, and I always do it at the Co-operative superstore in Pyle, which used to be known as Leo's and is still popularly known by that name. I shall make it my business tomorrow afternoon to conduct a little poll of the workers there to find out whether they would prefer to have the opportunity to work on Christmas day or a statutory right to a holiday.
  Given the right hon. Gentleman's apparent keenness to know how people feel about the Bill, it would be useful to have an opportunity to debate it in Committee. The wider public could then give their views and, though it stretches my tolerance a bit, I should be happy to join him in drawing up a questionnaire for shopworkers and the public on what they feel about Christmas day shopping.
  Mr. Forth: The first test of opinion occurs in the House of Commons on Second Reading, a simple procedure that we all know well. If, as has been claimed, the Bill is supported by Members of Parliament, we shall soon know it. I assume that many Members will have been approached by their constituents, who will know that the Bill was on the Order Paper today. We can judge the amount of support for the Bill by the number of Members who are here to support it on Second Reading. If it achieves support, we can consider it in detail in Committee.
  Mr. Griffiths: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think about how the process should work. The Bill should be given an opportunity to test his feelings about Sunday trading.
  I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for bringing before us a Bill to correct an important anomaly in the 1994 Act. I look forward to its progress in Committee.
  11.35 am
  Mr. Steve McCabe: I support the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on introducing it. The main reason for supporting it is that it addresses an oversight. Had Parliament realised that when it drew up provisions for exemptions in the Sunday Trading Act 1994, it would have dealt with the oversight. It is unfortunate that it has taken another seven years for us to do so, but better late than never.
  That said, the more I have thought and read about the Bill, the more I have realised that it throws up as many difficulties as it resolves. I do not know whether I may be talking myself into a place on the Committee by saying that, but there are a few difficulties.
  First, I have concerns about the original definitions of large and small stores. It strikes me that more and more stores may simply reconfigure their space or open smaller branches to get around the law. Research has told us about several stores that already open—Budgens is cited—as small convenience stores. Big supermarkets, such as Sainsbury, now distinguish between large out-of-town

  1321
  shopping centres and strategically placed convenience stores on high streets. Stores might try to get around the Bill by opening more outlets of that type. The Bill would do nothing to prevent that, so perhaps we should turn our attention to that point.
  Secondly, I fear that the Bill may contain a restrictive, anti-competitive element. I cannot see why a small store should have privileges that a larger store must be denied. I am not sure that that is fair.
  Thirdly, as far as I understand it, the 280 sq m specified in legislation relates to floor space where products are on sale. Could a larger supermarket simply section off areas to get around the intention of the Bill?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: In drawing up the Bill, I have followed the original Act. That is why 3,000 sq ft—I still use that measure—is the cut-off point in my Bill. Anything smaller would be a family shop and anything larger a chain or bigger store. The figure used is nothing new; it simply follows the 1994 legislation.
  Mr. McCabe: I appreciate that, but my point is that although there has as yet been no challenge of this sort, it seems possible that a big store could simply section off some areas.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: That is not the main issue.
  Mr. McCabe: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but it could be tested. Supermarkets are different from how they used to be. At one time, they used floor space in a predictable way, but great advances in technology mean that they know exactly what sort of thing people might want to buy on Christmas day. It is possible to reconfigure a store with greater ease. I simply make that point because I wonder whether people will try to get around the provision. I hope that they will not.
  We should congratulate ourselves on what we are trying to do here. I have to say in passing that my hon. Friends may have missed a trick. If I was them, I would have written to the 4,000 shopworkers in Bromley and Chislehurst and made sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was clear about the strength of his argument. Perhaps it is not too late for them to organise that. Perhaps he would then give greater support to the Bill.
  Mr. Gardiner: Is my hon. Friend aware that USDAW has 310,000 members? On the most recent figures to have been produced by the Conservative party, that is 10,000 more than it has.
  Mr. McCabe: I am sure that that would not be difficult. I take the point.
  What USDAW is trying to do is right, but we should be careful about what we are saying. I do not know why we find it so easy to make a case for protecting shopworkers while we forget about the other people whom we oblige to work on Christmas day. The notion of our family Christmas forces people to work. We seem to think that no one can have a family Christmas now without access to all those wonderful television
  1322
  programmes that require umpteen people to work when they do not really need to. Those programmes are hardly essential. Many extra people have to work to provide all the electricity that we use on the day, which is not essential.
  Perhaps we should look at the matter more broadly and ask why we are confining ourselves to shopworkers. Perhaps we should make it easier for people not to work on Christmas day, and then concentrate on what the exemptions should be. That would make me a lot happier.
  There is a danger that we are creating an exception for Christmas because we have a nostalgic and rosy view of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich described it as a chance to escape completely from the daily grind. I am not sure that too many women would regard Christmas day that way. Most of my female relatives tell me that it is a day that they approach with trepidation and that by the end of it, they feel that they have been completely through the daily grind. I am not sure that Christmas is quite the relaxed, wonderful time that we are inclined to make out.
  I am intrigued about the things that we regard as essential exceptions. Why is it that shops that sell intoxicating liquor are exempted? There is nothing vital or essential about them. I am not sure either why anyone desperately needs cycling supplies or accessories on Christmas day. I also have difficulty with the idea that service station shops, which seem to be able to sell almost anything these days, should be exempted. I find it difficult to see exactly what we are achieving in that. One of the weird consequences of the Bill is that we will require local authority inspectors to work on Christmas day. In protecting one group of workers, we put additional pressure on another.
  As I said to my hon. Friend, I intend to support the Bill because it corrects an oversight, but we should look more carefully at what we are trying to say about Christmas day. It would be much better if we designated it a public holiday and gave people a statutory right not to work. That would affect the vast majority of workers and we could then deal only with the exemptions—emergency and essential services, and other people who need to work. That would be a fairer approach and more consistent with the idea of Christmas day as a special family day. It would be a more logical way to proceed.
  Much as I am prepared to support the Bill because it corrects an oversight, to single out shop workers and say that there is something special about their rights as opposed to other workers does not make a great deal of sense. If I find myself on the Committee, I shall argue that we should try to strengthen the provisions to include other workers. That is my fundamental doubt about the Bill. It corrects the oversight in the 1994 legislation, but recognises only the interests of shop workers on a day that we argue is a special event and a tradition that should be protected. If we are right about that, we should think about all the other people who find themselves forced to work on Christmas day. Otherwise, Christmas day will end up not being a holiday for the vast majority, but by some weird quirk of Parliament we shall have singled out a section of the work force and protected their rights without concerning ourselves with everyone else.

  1323
  That problem highlights an obvious inconsistency in our thinking. I would prefer to see that inconsistency dealt with, but as we are not there yet, I am happy to accept the limited provisions that the Bill offers because it corrects an oversight in the 1994 legislation.
  11.46 am
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on winning a high place in the ballot and introducing the Bill. Whether it will be successful, time will tell, but it has produced an interesting and timely debate, and good points have been made by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and of the argument.
  When Sainsburys and the other shops opened on Christmas day, it came as a shock to me and many other people who thought that it was illegal for them to do so. I voted for liberalisation in 1994, and I thought at the time that we were protecting Easter Sunday and Christmas day. It is manifest that we did not, and that has raised considerable concerns.
  At the heart of the issue is an argument about whether we should be free to go out and buy things on Christmas day and whether shop owners should be free to meet that demand, or whether by allowing that freedom we destroy something that the majority of people value—a peaceful family Christmas and a day that is special.
  The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who is no longer in his place, mentioned Good Friday and how it had changed over the years. Like him, I am old enough to remember what Good Friday used to be like. I was working in London at the time and I had to work some of the Easter holiday so I could not go away for Easter. Good Friday was a nightmare because nothing happened. Even the pubs did not open. They used to open at lunchtime on Christmas day, but they did not open on Good Friday. For most of us, the liberalisation of Good Friday came as a welcome relief. We liked to be able to go and do things on Good Friday and attend football matches or other events. It could be argued that with the changes came the danger of Good Friday becoming a normal working day—indeed, some offices open on Good Friday, preferring to give their staff an extra day at the other end of the Easter holiday. Perhaps the changes have gone too far.
  The Opposition understand the concerns about widespread Christmas day opening, especially the concerns of those who want to keep Christmas day special and fear that the expansion of Christmas day trading would spoil it. However, official Opposition Members have a free vote, as the subject gives rise to many difficult ethical and religious issues. We shall not oppose Second Reading—indeed, I hope that the Bill goes into Committee. As one who, with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, has been a member of the Chairmen's Panel for some time, I look forward to her being in Committee on the other side of the dais. She is a firm and robust Committee Chairman, so I hope that when she is a member of the Committee, the Chair will have an equally firm and robust occupant.
  That is the view of the official Opposition. I now ask the House's indulgence as I make my personal views known. In part, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), in that
  1324
  I do not think that it is for Parliament to tell people how to live their lives. My lines have been stolen by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), for I, too, am reminded of Charles Dickens's Scrooge going out on Christmas morning to buy a large turkey to give to Tiny Tim and his family—[HON. MEMBERS: "Goose."] Obviously, Charles Dickens never cooked a turkey, but I have. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) mentioned the problems that women face on Christmas day, but I always cook the turkey so I know that had I purchased a large turkey at 10 o'clock on Christmas morning, Tiny Tim would have been long in bed by the time it was cooked.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The point that is being made firmly by those sitting in this corner is that the bird in question was, of course, a goose.
  Mr. Atkinson: I am not sure that the hon. Lady is right about that, but I shall go and look it up and apologise if I am wrong.
  The problem identified by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) is that Christmas has changed. For many people these days, it is a holiday: they go abroad or go ski-ing, and instead of sitting around the log fire at home, they go out for their Christmas meal in a hotel or restaurant. Things are changing and we have to accept that change.
  Last Christmas day, shop openings were on a minor scale: only Sainsburys, Woolworths and one or two others opened their stores. I am sure that the supermarket companies are sufficiently aware of public opinion to realise that widespread Christmas opening would be both inappropriate and deeply unpopular. However, there may be merit in shops opening in areas in which there is clearly demand. In our inner cities and city centres in places such as London, there are many people who live on their own and do not have families to go to; they might welcome the opportunity to go out and do something on Christmas day.
  I do not think that we should tell people what they should do. If there were a growing problem and legislation were to become necessary, I think that it should take the form of giving local authorities the power to make the decision and should tot involve central Government. That is my personal view: the official Opposition's view is that the matter is one that should be decided by a free vote.
  11.52 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department(Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on her success in the private Members' ballot. It is clear that her Bill has touched a nerve.
  Christmas day is important to most of us, and there are real fears that it might be eroded by commercial pressures. Last year, USDAW mounted a vigorous campaign to protect Christmas day, and I have discussed the issues with the union. In addition, the hon. Member for Mid—Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and some of his constituents have met me to spell out their concerns. It is right that Parliament should now have the opportunity to debate the issues.
  The Government are neutral on the Bill. We believe that it is a matter for Parliament to decide and we are content for the Bill to go into Standing Committee if that

  1325
  is what the House decides. However, my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) and for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) have raised some important issues that require detailed debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich has acknowledged that the purpose of the Bill is not to remedy any serious current problem that has arisen from the Christmas day opening of shops. It is intended more as a pre-emptive strike against any widespread opening of large shops in future. The protection of shopworkers and the preservation of the significance of Christmas day are laudable aims.
  Christmas day has a special role in the life of this country: it is important for both religious and family reasons, and it is often valued by people of other religions or even by those of no faith. The Government want Christmas day's unique place in our lives to be preserved, but the House should think carefully about whether legislating to prevent some shops from opening is the right way to achieve that aim.
  Oliver Cromwell did his best to put a stop to Christmas day. Not only did he ban mince pies, but he declared that Christmas day must be a working day. Thankfully, Christmas day survived Oliver Cromwell.
  Mrs. Dunwoody:My hon. Friend might like also to observe that Oliver Cromwell was not too keen on Parliament, a view that has been held from time to time by others, but not one that we normally support.
  Mr. O'Brien: At one point Cromwell was in favour of Parliament, and at another point he was against it. That is almost like Conservative tax guarantees these days. There is a policy one day, which is given up the next.
  It seems that Christmas day has long been accepted as a holiday. Even Scrooge, who has featured in the debate, relented on this point. Obviously no everyone has been able to take advantage of a Christmas day holiday. Boxing day is believed to have developed in the middle ages to allow people who had to work on Christmas day to take the next day off. Today some people inevitably have to work—most obviously medical staff and those in essential services.
  If we look back a few decades other groups also worked on Christmas day. For example, people were needed to run some public transport services. If we go back a bit further, the country was even blessed with postal deliveries on Christmas day. Interestingly, in those days church attendance and religious observance were much greater than now. The suggestion that the religious significance of Christmas day is undermined by work is therefore one that cannot be taken at face value.
  I recognise that there are concerns about shops and stores being open for business on Christmas day. The retail sector is one of the most important sectors in the UK, comprising more than 300,000 outlets. It employs about 2.5 million, about 10 per cert. of the work force. Like it or not, nowhere is the importance of the retail sector more apparent than in the run-up to Christmas. Last year, £26 billion was spent in the shops during December. That was 13 per cent. of the total spend for the year.
  The spectre of the mass opening of large shops on 25 December does not, in this context, seem realistic. Whether or not people engage in religious celebration,
  1326
  Christmas day remains the focus for all the pre-Christmas shopping activity. People overwhelmingly want to enjoy the day in the traditional way with their families. Most will not have the energy, time, money or inclination for yet another major round of shopping. It seems that there is little serious evidence of large-scale demand for Christmas day shopping in large stores.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) suggested that the Bill is to some extent the residue of the Sunday Trading Act 1994, and that the issue of Christmas day shopping should have been dealt with in that measure. Indeed, that view has been expressed by several Members.
  The absence of any law governing the opening of shops on Christmas day is not a recent development. It is not something that arose out of the 1994 Act or other legislation. It has simply not featured previously in a serious way in shops legislation.
  It has always been recognised that some shops need to open on Christmas day. Most of us have had to make that last-minute dash for something that we desperately need. We might need batteries for toys that were bought sometimes not by the parents but by relatives or friends who may have forgotten to buy batteries, perhaps assuming that the family had them.
  I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich was unkind to those Members who might have recollections of having to buy batteries for their children on Christmas day, irrespective of whether or not they bought the battery-operated toy. We should not put undue restrictions on children enjoying their Christmas by my hon. Friend seeking to restrict their access to batteries. Shortage of milk and disasters with the turkey can drive us reluctantly to the shops.
  Customer demand and the wishes of staff, who are usually volunteers, dictate how long shops may stay open. With the growth in the number of convenience stores, especially those run by non-Christians, the number of small shops open on Christmas day has undoubtedly increased in recent years.
  However, at the moment there is little evidence that the larger supermarkets are picking up the baton. In fact, the information suggests that there has not been a great deal of movement. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) talked of a trend to open on Christmas day, but the evidence for that is unconvincing. Asda says that it opened none of its stores last year. Sainsburys opened none of its large stores—those over 3,000 sq ft—but it opened three smaller stores, which is fewer than in 1999.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I have a slight problem, as I am not sure whether the Minister is for or against the Bill. Is he seriously suggesting that stores excluded from it should be treated differently? I am sad that the Government are not protecting low-paid women workers, but that is a matter for them. They should be more enthusiastic. However, is he genuinely saying that because only half a dozen large stores opened last time, we should assume that no more will open this time?
  Mr. O'Brien: The Government take a neutral position on the Bill. My hon. Friend, although normally persuasive, has left me unconvinced about the Bill at the moment. She will have to exercise her persuasive powers to a much greater extent if she is to convince me that

  1327
  there is a problem that requires the sort of legislation that she is seeking to introduce. I did not vote for maintaining the restrictions on Sunday opening. I believe that, by and large, shops should be able to decide when they wish to open. Sunday trading has largely benefited our economy and families. I therefore believe that I took the right approach in voting to allow Sunday trading. Most families who shop on Sunday—about 56 per cent.—find it a benefit and they would not like it to be taken away.
  There is little evidence that large stores are seeking to open as my hon. Friend fears. Safeways, which has 480 retail outlets, says that it opened no large stores. Only 50 small shops attached to petrol stations were open. Budgens opened 91 of its 207 stores, but all were under 3,000 sq ft. The Co-op opened 85 of its 4,653 stores, three of which were over 3,000 sq ft. No doubt, my hon. Friend will wish to take up with the Co-op any concerns that she may have.
  Ms Coffey: The Minister is producing evidence which, he says, shows that there is little inclination among large shops to open on Christmas day. Should that trend increase and more shops open on Christmas day, what would be his view?
  Mr. O'Brien: To some extent, the stores would have to determine whether they wanted to open. In a moment, I shall come to the area about which I have concerns, which were reflected in a number of contributions to the debate. Forcing workers to work on Sunday is a significant concern, which was reflected in the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Hall Green and for Nottingham, East and other hon. Members.
  I want to inform the House of the approach of some stores and the evidence about whether the trend is truly significant. At the moment, although there is a little movement, I do not believe that the trend is significant. We need not fear the spectre raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport. According to the evidence, the sort of move that she fears is not taking place. The spectre is imaginary, so the question is whether we should follow the route suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. Should we block the risk before it increases or should we wait and see?
  I have been asked what I would advise hon. Members to do. The Government are neutral. We are happy for the Bill to go into Committee, where we can debate the issues. Hon. Members will have to decide whether to pass legislation to prevent something that may or may not happen. It is a matter for hon. Members to decide.
  One company that has decided to open on Christmas day is Woolworths, which for the first time opened three stores. It is significant that those were in Southall, Balham and Slough. All were over 3,000 sq ft. The list that I have given is not exhaustive, but it is clear that only a tiny proportion of the shops that were open last year were large shops. The others were overwhelmingly smaller convenience stores. It remains to be seen whether retailers will find Christmas day opening of large stores financially viable, given the attachment of most people to their traditional Christmas.
  Some retailers, like Woolworths, have targeted the opening of shops in specific areas where they believe that that is welcome, given the local religious and ethnic mix,
  1328
  particularly in non-Christian communities. Britain is still a predominantly Christian country and it is right that, to some extent, the law reflects Christian traditions. However, we must also recognise that an increasing number of our citizens have different faiths and that they wish to express those faiths in different ways. We need to be conscious that we live in a multicultural society.
  Recent estimates suggest that there may be up to 3 million members of non-Christian communities in the United Kingdom. There is also a sizeable number of people who say that they are of no faith at all. The Government have made it clear that we wish to promote respect for and understanding of religious belief, including, obviously, Christian religious belief. We are working with faith communities on ways to tackle and overcome all kinds of religious discrimination. The Home Office recently published two reports dealing with these issues. We are also planning to introduce a new law to combat religious discrimination in employment and training.
  It is for Members of Parliament to decide whether we should pass new legislation that would require observance of religious festivals in which not everyone can share. The unintended consequence of the Bill would be to close those large stores which last year could serve minority communities. Those communities may well want to participate in celebrating Christmas day in this country, and of course that would be a matter for them, but they may take a different view. The question is whether that should also be a matter for them, or a matter for the law.
  Small corner shops would be unaffected by the changes proposed, and most of the stores that are open on Christmas day are convenience stores. The House must consider the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and decide whether there is a need for her limited proposal in respect of large stores, or whether we should say that the case is not yet proven and await developments before proceeding.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: That is the greatest load of muddled nonsense that I have heard in my life. Unless my hon. Friend can produce to the House specific statistics showing that only large numbers of members of non-Christian communities were using the stores that opened on Christmas day, his argument is dodgy. I should have thought that he would have had enough common sense to strike out that part of his speech. We need a clear answer from him. The Bill protects women workers, predominantly, from being forced to work on Christmas day. Does he accept that principle? A simple yes or no will suffice. I understand that perfectly.
  Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend has already been commended for the charm with which she handles interventions, so I do not need to commend it again.
  The protection of women workers is extremely important. As a result of Sunday trading—this argument would not necessarily apply to Christmas—some women can work at weekends, which for various reasons is much more convenient for them than working during the week. We are also aware that students and younger people might benefit from working on Sunday. My hon. Friend asked

  1329
  me whether it is right that we should protect women. The deregulation of Sunday trading has brought added benefits to some women workers.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: What about this Bill?
  Mr. O'Brien: As has been pointed out, the rosy spectacle that she presents of a Christmas for women at home is not always as pleasant as she might want it to be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green said, people sometimes find that they have to work very hard to prepare the Christmas meal. I am not necessarily speaking about women; as he told us, men also find that they have to work hard. I have done the same job, so I sympathise with him and with women who work very hard throughout Christmas, even if they do not choose to work in a shop or elsewhere.
  The issue is one of choice. Should we prevent women from choosing, for whatever reason, to work on Christmas day? My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that there was an argument for doing so in particular circumstances, but she presents the matter in a limited way. The restriction would apply only to shops that are more than 3,000 sq ft in size. I think that there is an argument for such proposals, which is why I advance my arguments in an entirely neutral way, as I hope that she will appreciate.
  Introducing legislation to regulate the times when shops can open is never a simple matter. The debate on opening hours raises issues relating to individual freedom, the role of religion, protection of employees an I respect for family life. Those are legitimate interests, but they sometimes conflict. Numerous attempts were made over the years to change the Shops Act 1950, but they all came to nothing. Everyone agreed that something should be done, but they did not agree on what. The provisions in the 1950 Act that prescribed how long shops could stay open during the week and dealt with half-day closing were finally repealed in 1994.
  Only Sunday shopping, which was always the most controversial aspect of that Act, has remained subject to restrictions, which are now contained in the Sunday Trading Act 1994. Many hon. Members will remember the discussions about that Act, which was fiercely debated, as there were strongly held views on all sides of the argument. The Sunday trading provisions of the 1950 Act had become badly outdated. Anomalous rules on the legality or otherwise of selling tea as opposed to beer, fresh rather than dried milk, or tripe instead of steak, had brought the law into disrepute. The restrictions were increasingly ignored.
  In reforming the law, Parliament chose to adopt the approach of partial deregulation. It sought to allow people greater freedom to shop while ensuring that Sunday remained different from other days. The 1994 Act contains no restrictions on shops whose size is 280 sq m or less. Shops of more than 280 sq m in size may open for six continuous hours between 10 am and 6 pm, and are required to close completely on Easter Sunday and on Christmas day when it falls on a Sunday. That requirement was the result of an amendment tabled by Lord Alton. During the passage of that Bill, it was pointed out that Easter is the most important date in the Christian calender. Hon. Members felt it appropriate to acknowledge that in legislation. When the restriction was
  1330
  extended to Christmas day, it was understood that it would not be affected when it did not fall on a Sunday. That is more restrictive than any provision in the Shops Act 1950, which did not subject Easter Sunday and Christmas day to specific controls.
  Some anxiety was expressed that the 1994 Act might prove unworkable. Broadly speaking, that has not been the case. Shops have generally abided by the Act, and there have been relatively few complaints.
  A survey by Healey and Baker in 1999 showed that 56 per cent. of people shopped at some time on a Sunday. The average increase in sales was only 3.4 per cent. and profitability increased by 0.6 per cent. That suggests that, for most people, Sunday shopping remains primarily a matter of convenience. Hon. Members must consider whether they believe that shops should open on Christmas day because that fulfils a need or whether the Bill should receive a Second Reading.
  Helen Jones: As north-west women Members of Parliament are renowned for their charm, I want to ask my hon. Friend a question. If he believes that it is acceptable to restrict trading when Christmas day falls on a Sunday, why is not it acceptable to do that when Christmas day falls on another day of the week?
  Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I have simply set out the argument that was deployed when we considered the Bill that became the 1994 Act. When hon. Members considered that measure, they took the view that they did not wish to restrict shopping on Christmas days that fell on week days. My hon. Friend may wish to ascertain why hon. Members took that view then. I cannot recollect all the details of the arguments that were deployed, but the 1994 Act specifically provides for Christmas days that fall on a Sunday. Hon. Members believed that trading should be restricted in those circumstances, but not when Christmas days fell on week days.
  Ms Coffey: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I give way to my hon. Friend, who was active in the debate.
  Ms Coffey: I did not participate in that debate, although I voted for restricted Sunday trading. However, I remember the debate, and I do not believe that my hon. Friend gave a proper summary of the view of the House. Hon. Members did not consider restricting trading on Christmas days that fell on a week day because that was not in the Bill's remit. If Christmas had been debated, it would not have been logical for the House to ban the larger shops from trading on a Christmas day that fell on a Sunday and not consider doing that for week-day Christmases. However, the subject was not considered in the context of the Sunday Trading Bill.
  Mr. O'Brien: Doubtless hon. Members would be happy to read the debates in Hansard and ascertain the reasons for the House's view at that time. It took a clear view, and there are restrictions on trading on Christmas days that fall on a Sunday, but not on those that fall on week days. Perhaps there were procedural reasons for that, concerning the long title of the Bill.

  1331
  Let us consider an important issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East and other hon. Members mentioned. My hon. Friend made the most telling speech of the debate. He expressed strongly his anxiety about the Sunday trading laws, which sought to protect people from being forced to work on a Sunday but are not always effective. I share many of his anxieties about workers being forced to work on Christmas day or Sundays.
  I also share my hon. Friend's scepticism about some of the other arguments that were deployed about the Bill. In a multicultural society, in which freedom and free trade should not be unnecessarily restrained, some of the arguments were unconvincing. He made strong arguments about employment rights, and we should consider them with great care.
  USDAW and other trade unions have been worried about protection. The 1994 Act included protections for employees. Shopworkers have the right to refuse to work on Sundays, or to opt out even if contracted to do so. They are protected from detriment and from dismissal. It has been claimed that, in spite of this, many shopworkers now feel pressurised into working on Sundays. I think that there is some truth to that, and that is a matter of concern. The rights afforded by the legislation are meant to be comprehensive. However, the number of complaints made to industrial tribunals has been relatively small: 15 during the year 1999–2000.
  Christmas day working, and working on any bank holiday, is a matter for negotiation between employers and employees. Employees who do not wish to work on Sundays may be able to take action against their employers if their contracts are varied without their consent. That might apply, for example, if an employee was required to work on Christmas day and that had not previously been the case. The terms of a contract might have been explicitly agreed or incorporated by custom and practice. An employee who was dismissed for refusing a contractual variation to work on Christmas day might well be entitled to complain of unfair dismissal to an employment tribunal.
  The point has been raised by my hon. Friends that if a right is not accessible, it is tantamount to not having that right at all. There is a great deal of truth in that. It is important that we ensure that we protect our workers from being obliged to do anything that is against their conscience in certain circumstances. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that schedule 4 of the Sunday Trading Act 1994 was meant to protect workers and that if it failed to do so, there could be grounds for revisiting that part of the legislation, rather than banning trade altogether. I think that he made a strong point.
  That point was reinforced to some extent by my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green who said that an alternative to a complete ban on opening might be a stronger ban on forcing workers to work on Christmas day. That might be a more family friendly approach than a complete ban, because some people might want to volunteer to work on Christmas day. The House will want to consider those issues in its own time, and, no doubt, in Committee.
  Mr. Gardiner: What is my hon. Friend's view of those retail companies that, subsequent to the 1994 Act,
  1332
  changed their employment contracts so that the question of choice does not arise when someone is doing a job, but predates the commencement of employment? In such circumstances, a person would have the choice between signing a contract that committed them to working on a Sunday, or not signing a contract at all. That would mean either taking the job and agreeing to work on Sundays, or not taking the job. That would mean having absolutely no choice once one had started working. The Minister should consider that issue.
  Mr. O'Brien: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I have had a constituent complain to me about precisely that point; it was a matter of concern to me and I took up my constituent's case. However, the Government do not have any plans to introduce legislation at this time that would prevent employers and employees from entering into employment agreements, which they are entitled to do under the free process of entering into jobs.
  The Government want to ensure a proper balance. We need to ensure a level of employment protection that gives workers reasonable rights, but we also recognise that over-regulation is damaging to business and to the economy, and that is not something that we want to introduce. Getting the balance right is an important part of our strategy, and we intend to ensure that we do not over-regulate the business community, while ensuring that we give basic protection to workers. The legislation that the Government have introduced since the 1997 election shows that we an achieving that balance between the proper deregulation of business and the proper protection of workers' rights, including the protection of the rights of women workers.
  The Bill would enshrine in law the right of one sector of the work force not to have to work on a particular public holiday. I ask whether that would be an entirely satisfactory arrangement. Members will have to decide for themselves whether there is a case for treating Christmas day differently. Other days, such as Good Friday, may be thought to have equal or better claims, in Christian terms, than Christmas day. However, I do not want to deter people from supporting the Bill. The Government are neutral on this issue and we want the Bill to proceed into Committee.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I have been on my feet for quite a long time and I have taken many interventions, but I have not yet given way to my hon. Friend, so I shall do so now.
  Mr. Griffiths: The Minister mentioned the relative merits of Good Friday and Christmas day, but theologically they are indivisible.
  Mr. O'Brien: I defer to my hon. Friend's greater theological knowledge, and I take his point.
  I understand the concern that staff may feel obliged to work on Christmas day. If that became a reality, it would clearly not be to the benefit of individuals or their family life. Given the public's attitude towards Christmas day, the likely pattern of shop opening and general employment law, it seems unlikely that major stores would readily adopt such a policy. As trading on Christmas day is unlikely to happen on a large scale, do we want to legislate to prevent it now? That is the fundamental issue before us.

  1333
  The Government have sympathy with the concerns that have prompted the Bill, but as I have made clear, we also have some reservations. There is so far only limited evidence that the Bill is necessary.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: No. I am sorry, but I will not give way as I am concluding my remarks.
  The widespread opening of large shops seems unlikely, but Members will have to decide whether they want to prevent it in anticipation of some future change in practice. The Bill would create new regulation where none previously existed. That is not wholly consistent with the Government's policy of reducing regulatory burdens. It would also have the effect of prohibiting something that is currently permitted.
  Mr. David Maclean: Like hunting.
  Mr. O'Brien: If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not get involved in the hunting debate.
  The Bill would inhibit the freedom of business to some extent, and Members will have to consider whether that is necessary. The Government have sympathy with the Churches and others who are alarmed at the possible incursion of commercialism into Christmas day. Family life is important, and undermining Christmas day is undesirable. The Government hope that the House will give careful thought to these issues when considering the Bill. I hope that the House will allow it to go into Committee so that we can debate in detail not only the strong arguments for the Bill, but the strong reservations about some parts of it.
  12.29 pm
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am speechless For once in my life, I am deprived of the power of speech. I have never heard such an extraordinary speech. That may be a slight exaggeration, as I have heard some very extraordinary speeches from Front-Bench Members.
  The Bill would correct an anomaly that the House of Commons, in the original debate, did not realise would arise. I would be delighted if the Bill were proposing some marvellous charter to protect the rights of poorly paid women across the United Kingdom, but that is not so. It would merely rectify something that is wrong. It is
  1334
  not a complicated argument about a multi-faith society versus a Christian society. It is not about people who want to buy themselves three-piece suites versus people who want to buy batteries. It is straightforward and uncomplicated.
  Frankly, I am disappointed—I am being tolerant—at the attitude of Ministers, who seem to think that it is all right to protect the rights of rich women, but not those of poor women. To say at the end of the speech, as my hon. Friend the Minister did, that the Government hoped that the Bill went forward was, frankly, sailing pretty close to a charge of disingenuousness.
  The Bill ought to have been thought of and was not. The House got it wrong; the House can put it right.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 0.

  NOES

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Mr. Edward Leigh.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Transplant of Human Organs Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
12.40 pm
Mr. Kenneth Clark: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Official statistics show that, over the five years from 1995 to 1999, about 1,000 patients died in this country while on the waiting list for an organ transplant. The British Medical Association, to which I am indebted for its support and advice on this matter, would go beyond that and say that the figure understates the number of people who died for lack of an organ transplant operation. More people died who were not yet on the waiting list, and one must also consider the thousands of people who die because dialysis facilities are not available.
The Bill addresses a serious health problem. In the House, we more often debate matters of organisation and money, but this is a straightforward human problem of being unable to provide in our health service the facilities for medical treatment that could save life and dramatically improve quality of life.
The situation has not been getting better for some years. The general tendency is for the list of those waiting for organ transplants to get longer, while the number of operations being carried out has tended to drop and is currently lower than it was 10 years ago. The Bill is designed to minimise the waste of human life involved in the failure to get treatment for those who need it.
The problems that lie behind the stark statistics and the needless deaths go much wider than the law. Everyone knows that we need to campaign to get more people to volunteer to be donors if they should fall victim to a tragic accident or disease, but the number of people carrying donor cards or on the register is not the most important factor. My only mild criticism of the Government on the subject is that, at their recent organ summit—which was a welcome step that they took to ensure that no one misunderstood the implications of the Alder Hey tragedy and discouraged the transplant programme, which is an entirely different issue—they concentrated too much on imploring people to carry donor cards or put their names on the register.
I, too, want to encourage people to carry cards and put their names on the register—the vast majority are in fact willing to be donors, but only a minority get around to carrying the card—but the problems go way beyond that and turn on a whole range of issues, including medical procedures and arrangements for using the register, that lie outside the scope of the Bill. The Government, especially following the recent summit, are addressing those issues and reviewing both the law and the practice on the subject. I hope that that leads to some clarity about the role of transplant co-ordinators and provides some assistance to hard-pressed staff in intensive care units and elsewhere by putting in place facilities to enable those who are in possession of a body of someone who has tragically died and who has suitable organs for donation to get in contact with surgeons who have patients and facilities waiting for organs to become available.
1336
The scale of the changes required could be considerable. I would commend to the Government the recommendations of the Royal College of Surgeons, which include
"the establishment of a National Transplant Service for the UK in order to ensure that organ donation and transplantation is viewed as a national service rather than being governed and operated at a local level … the new service … would take over the existing work of the UK Transplant Support Service Authority and … would take on responsibility for: a national strategy for delivery of transplant services; designation of transplant units; evaluation and maintenance of standards; organisation of multi-organ retrieval; recruitment, training and administration of donor transplant co-ordinators; development of initiatives to increase cadaveric donors; development of patient protocols; encouragement and facilitation of multi-centre trials; independent audit and determination of policies concerning practice; co-ordination of education and publicity; and national representation."
I broadly support those recommendations which indicate that the Government should undertake a major review of the field and come up with some substantial and worthwhile proposals to make sure that the provision of organs and the carrying out of operations match the considerable humanitarian demand.
Let me make it clear that the Bill addresses a small part of the process because the legal problems involved are quite tiny. There are however, legal doubts surrounding the issue because the legal position is based on the Human Tissue Act 1961 and from time to time doubts have been raised about the ability of health authorities, trusts, doctors and others carrying out surgical procedures to be absolutely certain that they are within the law.
There has been no legal challenge so far, but as we live in an increasingly litigious age we all understand why absolutely everyone in any of the clinical professions is more aware now of the risk of someone, however cranky, bringing a legal action against them in certain circumstances. Any doubts about their legal position will create further doubts, delays and hesitation. Therefore, having found myself in the ballot for private Members' Bills, I wished to draw the House's attention to the issue as many right hon. and hon. Members feel strongly about it, but the one matter that I could address was the comparative footnote of sorting out some minor problems in the law to make sure that no risk of litigation will arise in future.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Let me emphasise what my right hon. and learned Friend has said and put it to him that were there to be challenge, there would almost certainly be an absolute stop to transplants until the law was clarified. Even if that took only a month, the chaos that would be caused for people looking for a kidney transplant, eye grafts or other transplantation would be horrendous That is why he is absolutely right to try to sort out this minor problem as well as getting across the more general point that the gift relationship of giving consent to organ transplants is vital.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sure that he is right. In the present circumstances, there has to be only a hint of a possible legal problem and the slight possibility of litigation in this highly sensitive area for everyone to be seriously deterred from carrying out transplants.
As I am tackling a very small difficulty, the Bill does not open up any of this wider issues that would arise from a thorough review of the subject. Big ethical issues

1337
surround organ transplantation, and I have no doubt that if the Government decide to change the law after their review, they will find themselves considering such difficult matters as the presumed consent of those who have died, so that organs may he taken unless there is evidence that consent has not been given. They will have to address the law on living donors— those who willingly donate a kidney to a relative or friend. When the Government finish their review, they will find themselves in a difficult position, and I trust that they will introduce legislation to advance on the provisions of the Human Tissue Act 1961. That will not be easy.
I took the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 through the House as Secretary of State for Health, and laws of that kind give rise to wide and far-ranging debate. They cut right across ordinary political divisions, giving rise to endless free votes and anxious discussion in the House. I have not addressed such wide issues in this Bill. It would have been reckless to do so, and the legal change that I propose falls strictly within the confines of present practice.
I emphasise that the Bill does not touch on present practice. No organ transplantation can take place from a cadaver unless those taking part are satisfied that the person who had died would have been willing for that to happen. No transplantation can take place unless reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that consent has been obtained from close relatives. That can be difficult and sensitive in itself, of course, as the relatives involved are normally at their most distressed and least clear-thinking at the time when a doctor, nurse or other member of hospital staff must explain matters to them.
The Bill addresses narrow points and does not change present practice at all. Clause 1 tries to address a slight doubt about the wording of the 1961 Act. The Act refers to what a "person lawfully in possession" of a body may do to facilitate transplantation. That has never been challenged in court, but continual doubts are raised about who the person lawfully in possession is. In practice, it is usually thought to be the health authority, until someone asks for the body to be placed in his or her custody as the closest relative. There is no reason for any doubt to exist. My Bill would substitute the words
"health authority or NHS trust"
for the uncertain concept of the person lawfully in possession of the body.
Clause 3 covers a similar point. The 1961 Act rightly says that reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that those who carry out the procedure have the consent of surviving relatives. In practice, that gives a surviving relative the legal right to stop the process going ahead. That sounds fine, until one realises, how wide the term "surviving relative" goes. Does it include uncles, aunts and cousins? Does it include relatives who fell out with the deceased some time ago and may have had no contact with him or her for many years? Does it include a relative who may have been antipathetic to the person who has died?
The point has not yet arisen, but it is possible that some unfortunate medical team will find themselves challenged by, say, a long-lost brother who had fallen out with the deceased but who may make his own ethical objection to the procedure being carried out. In theory, that brother could override the wishes of the deceased.
1338
Clause 3 makes a simple change by saying that consent should be sought from a co-habiting spouse or partner, or, in the absence of a spouse or partner, a parent or child of the deceased person. That does not mean that any other close relatives or friends must have their wishes ignored. There is nothing to stop any sensible medical team from listening carefully to the wishes and views of anyone who presents himself or herself. The law should specify the position of the surviving spouse or partner or, in the absence of any spouse or partner, the parent or child.
The one change that I seek to make in the law, although not necessarily in practice, is in clause 2. Otherwise, I regard the Bill as a clarification of the present position. Clause 2 deals with the position when a patient's heart is not beating. I will not go into the full medical details, but in practice nowadays, most donors whose organs are used are people who died when they were being ventilated in an intensive care unit. Relatives are faced with the distressing situation that the patient has been conclusively established to be brain dead, but the body is still breathing and warm in an intensive care unit. In such circumstances, once consent is properly obtained, organs are available that can be transplanted to a patient in need. In practice, due to the problems that I have described, even then only about a third of such cases lead to organ transplantation. That gives rise to the need for the wider review to which I have already referred.
One practice can sometimes be carried out on non-heart-beating patients, when someone suffers a cardiac arrest and dies. Although the heart ceases beating, the organs are perfectly usable. They need to be preserved in a usable condition while steps are taken to find out whether the person was a willing donor and whether the relatives are content for the operation to go ahead. A simple practice can be adopted in accident and emergency departments and elsewhere of inserting a catheter into the kidneys which cools them and preserves them for a sufficient period for them to remain usable. The time is needed to allow sensitive inquiries to be made about whether the dead person was a willing donor and whether the relatives will consent to the operation.
The practice is carried out in a few places in this country and it has been carried out overseas. A successful programme in Leicester near my constituency provides about 25 per cent. of the organs used for kidney transplant. Occasionally, legal doubts have been raised about the practice. Insertion of the catheter is a medical procedure that is not for the benefit of the patient who, alas, is by definition dead and not able to benefit from it. I regard that as a slightly fanciful legal argument. Given the fairly liberal view that the British courts take of these things, it would be unlikely to succeed if it were ever pressed. Yet doctors are deterred by the fact that someone with strange views may take legal action against them. Clause 2 deals with that possibility by allowing the preservation of organs at the appropriate stage to give time for consent to be obtained.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Precisely that argument was used by the Department to bring to an end the programme of elective ventilation that was undertaken by Professor Feest. It is not a fantasy of doctors' imaginations that that legal argument might be used against them; it has been used in the past.
Mr. Clarke: It has not been used in cases of catheter insertion, but my hon. Friend is right to say that the

1339
Department often takes an extraordinarily cautious view of the law on these matters. No doubt it would argue that it has to protect itself against a possible scandal in which it allowed procedures to go ahead about which someone chose to complain.
I have explained the purpose of the Bill. I have the support of the British Medical Association ethics committee. Everything that I have said is in line with the BMA's publications. I have discussed the Bill with the General Medical Council, which is extremely supportive. I am not aware of any opposition to my proposals. I have deliberately kept them exceedingly modest, which no doubt explains the lack of opposition to them. If one comes seventh in the private Members' Bill ballot in a Parliament that is not likely to last more than a few weeks longer, to be modest in one's ambitions is the only sensible way to proceed.
I am not sure whether the Government harbour the slightest objection to any of the changes I propose making; a meeting I had with one of the Minister's colleagues leads me to anticipate that they do not, but remain likely to hesitate about the Bill. If I may, I shall anticipate the argument that the Government are likely to advance. They are likely to say that they are reviewing the whole subject, including the 1961 Act, and that it would be premature to go ahead with any changes until the review is completed. That will not be the first time I have heard such a Government response to a modest private Member's Bill, but the argument has never struck me as sensible.
The fact is that when the Government have finished their review, they will produce a Bill for which they will have great difficulty finding parliamentary time. Whichever party is in power, the Leader of the House and the Whips Office will say that the Bill will take up weeks of parliamentary time and upset some hon. Members who have big issues about the subject. Once that Bill enters the parliamentary timetable, it will indeed take time, because Members of Parliament are greatly divided on the issue of presumed consent, for example, which has been raised in connection with previous private Members' Bills.
If the Minister rises to say that, although the Government are terribly sympathetic, they want to wait for the results of the review and for fresh legislation to be introduced in due course, my guess is that the whole process will take years. I will not regard that as a wholly satisfactory reply to a Bill that makes such tiny changes to the 1961 Act. It will certainly not be an adequate reply if no one has thought of any reason to oppose the changes and cannot find an opponent to any of my proposals.
I see that the Minister wishes to intervene. Although I look forward to hearing her speech soon, if she wants to intervene before I resume my seat, I am happy to give way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman concludes his speech, I should be grateful—the answer might help me to reply to the debate—if he clarified whether he is fully aware of the distinction between non-heart-beating donations, which, in the Leicester example, provide a broad window of 40 minutes in which kidneys can still be donated, and
1340
elective ventilation, whereby a body is simply ventilated for no purpose other than to use it for transplant operations. We draw a clear distinction between the two and we oppose the latter. It would be helpful if he stated whether he sees the clear distinction between them that we perceive.
Mr. Clarke: Personally, I do not draw that distinction and I am not sure why either procedure should he made wholly illegal. The circumstances in which either procedure is carried out should be carefully governed, but I should prefer that to be done by the ethical code of the profession and the guidance of the Department. If the Department in its wisdom chooses to continue to issue guidance stating that elective ventilation should not be carried out within the health service, so be it. Foremost in my mind was the insertion of catheters in non-heart-beating patients, but I am not sure that, in the right circumstances, I would oppose elective ventilation. Certainly, that point does not provide an adequate reason not to clarify the law on the circumstances in which it is right to preserve organs while consent is being sought.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Minister's question is helpful. Perhaps the Department's view is based on an interpretation of the law. I do not think that it should necessarily be a burden on the Department to decide on the ethics of the situation; that matter is better left to the medical profession in association with public opinion. My right hon. and learned Friend's response should allow the Department to accept the Bill and thereby allow the responsibility to pass to the GMC and doctors in general.
Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for that intervention. If a practice is excluded by law, I am not certain that that was intended by Parliament in 1961. When the 1961 legislation was being debated, medical science was less advanced and I suspect that it is mere accident that doubt now hangs over procedures that have been developed since that time which enable organs to be preserved in the way that is now possible.
That is the full scope of my Bill. I am astounded by the modesty of my ambitions. The Bill deals with only a small part of the subject, but I do not apologise for that. The subject is an extremely large one to which I hope the House will again turn its attention in the not-too-distant future and as frequently as possible thereafter. Needless deaths are occurring. The entire medical profession wants to do more and the public are highly supportive, so I hope that the House will take a small step in the right direction by giving my Bill a Second Reading today.
1.5 pm
Mr. John Heppell: I had not intended to speak, but I introduced the Human Organ Transplants (Amendment) Bill of 1993, which related to presumed consent. I fully appreciate why the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has introduced his Bill. We are faced with a growing problem. Donor numbers are gradually decreasing while waiting lists grow longer. No sensible Government can sit back and wring their hands in these circumstances. We must consider practical measures to try to improve the situation, and the Bill is an attempt to do just that.
I have one or two reservations, which I probably would not have had when I introduced my Bill. First, we make assumptions about the number of people who are willing

1341
to be donors, and I am not sure whether they are always correct. If my memory serves me correctly, the results of a survey in July 1999 seemed to show that more than 50 per cent. of the population were in favour of keeping the present system. If the results of a public opinion poll suggest that it is right not to change the system, that does not necessarily mean that that is the right approach. However, we must take into account the views of the general public.
Something even more significant has happened since the 1999 poll was conducted—I refer to the events at Alder Hey. I know that those events are not related to the Bill. Research undertaken by the national health service shows that the Alder Hey scandal has not significantly altered the amount of organ donation that is taking place.
I am happy to donate all my organs, if any of them are of use to anybody by the time I go. I am willing for my organs to be used for medical research or scientific research once I have gone. I take the view—I am sure that it is shared by many Christians and people of other religions—that the body is merely a container and that, when I am dead, it does not matter what happens to my organs. So long as those concerned make sure that I am dead, it does not really matter what happens to my body afterwards.
The Alder Hey events, among other things, have made me realise that other people do not take, my view, and that their views should be respected. I understand that NHS research shows that one in four families has a principled objection to transplants.
Mr. Eric Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept a reversal of the presumption? The Bill does not seek to do it, but I am following his argument. Would a reversal of the presumption of donation fulfil his requirements? If people who had an objection to donation carried a card saying, "Please do not use any of my organs", would that meet the problem that he is outlining?
Mr. Heppell: Not quite. I promise that I shall come on to that.
There are levels of revulsion about what is happening. I would have no problem with my body being used, but I have tried to put myself in the position of others. For example, if I knew that the organs of one of my children were being used for research, would I take the same view? I think that I would, but I think also that I would be the exception that proves the rule. I believe that most people would have some sort of revulsion about that. In some instances we are talking about natural, revulsion.
I shall not dwell on the tragedy of the Marchioness because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to deal with the matter. It was discovered that the hands of those who had died had been removed so that fingerprints could be taken to identify the bodies. I think that people have a natural revulsion to that, but I would not have it. I have learned that I need to be much more sensitive to the arguments about transplants than I have been in the past. I took the view that the presumption should be that people are willing to be donors. Even though there is a presumption that people are willing to donate, I would still like relatives to be consulted.
1342
That is not just because of the extra sensitivities, but because of the practicalities of organ donation. I am worried about the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe narrowing the definition of who can object to organ donation to someone's spouse, daughter, son or parents. In countries such as France, where organ donation went ahead despite the fact that people objected to it, that reduced organ donation. There was a groundswell of opinion. If someone objects and is not listened to, that can work against the number of donations. It is not just about being sensitive to people's wishes; it is also about the pure practicality of what increases the number of donors.
I am torn on whether to support the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I, too, am impressed by his modesty; indeed, I am impressed by his modesty about his modesty. The Minister will have to reassure me that the Government's plans on organ donation will improve the situation if I am to be persuaded not to support the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
1.11 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I want to say briefly how strongly I support the Bill of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I have only a couple of reservations. First, I should declare a kind of interest as, for most of my life, I have had only one kidney, so, possibly, I may stand to benefit more than most others from his proposals—although, fortunately, I have not yet had to.
Were I ever to come high in the ballot for private Members' Bills, this is exactly the sort of issue that I should seek to promote. I would probably make the mistake of going much further than my right hon. and learned Friend and, in my enthusiasm, jeopardise the chance of my Bill succeeding. I am sure that he is right to restrict the scope of his Bill to trying to ensure that, in a small but important way, any obstacles to organ donation are removed. That is one of the most important things that we can do, and is ideal territory for a private Member's Bill.
My right hon. and learned Friend has deliberately tried to ensure that his Bill is not controversial; even so, the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) challenged it. In the context of its subject area, it must be seen as extremely modest. I am sure that it is right at this stage to seek to minimise any possible objections but, at the same time, to promote the cause of the availability of organs for transport.
It has always struck me as a great tragedy that, although we now have the capability, techniques and technology to save and improve the quality of lives in many different ways, that process is unnecessarily inhibited by a combination of our laws, people's attitudes and, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, East eloquently said, people's frequent reaction to the subject. The difficulty is that, very often, those who, under the existing provisions, can prevent the use of an organ for transplant do so at a time when their emotions are heightened. The odds are that they will react against the possibility, rather than have a more favourable disposition.
Mr. Heppell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just reminded me of something that I meant to say. By all means, one should register for organ donation and

1343
carry a card. However, the crucial point is that one should discuss the matter with one's close relatives so that they understand one's wishes, should one die. I have made sure that my close relatives know what my wishes are; indeed, I know the wishes of my close relatives. If, heaven forbid, there was a tragic accident, I would know what they would like me to do. That cannot be drummed into people enough; they must have those discussions now.
Mr. Forth: I am sure that that is right. Research has shown that relatives who refused permission at the time, when asked some time later, say that, given their attitude in less stressful circumstances, they probably would have, and rather wish that they had, given permission. That factor must be borne in mind.
I shall not say more, as I do not want to jeopardise the progress of my right hon. and learned Friend's Bill. I wanted to record my enthusiastic support for it. Given the circumstances, the Bill is pitched at exactly the right level, which is no more than I would expect from him. I hope very much to see it make progress today.
1.15 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on introducing the Bill. Unusually, I find myself in total agreement with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I enthusiastically support the Bill and hope that, even though there may be a general election in the offing and the Bill may not make much more progress, the Government or another private Member's Bill immediately after the election will bring the proposal into law soon. It will save some people's lives.
I speak somewhat emotionally. A good friend of mine waited four years for a heart transplant that never happened, and he died waiting. Many other people in this country die because the rules governing consent are too restrictive and make it difficult for consent to be obtained, so that organs cannot be secured for transplant.
I strongly support this sensible measure. I would like it to go further, but the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe is right to draw it fairly tightly, so that it stands a chance of progress in anticipation of the wider review being undertaken by the Government. I hope that the Government will not follow the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and take the Bill in with the review, but will allow this measure to come into law soon.
I carry my donor card everywhere and try to persuade everyone else to do so. Many people have no objection to carrying a donor card; they just never get around to it because their lives are too busy. It is like filling in a tax form: we would not do it unless we were compelled to do so. Door-to-door canvassing might even persuade more people to sign up to donor cards. Even so, when someone dies, it is a difficult time to get the relatives' consent, and as a result others die or do not get their transplants because consent cannot be achieved.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak on other matters, but I wanted to express my strong support for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill, which I hope will soon become law.
1.17 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and his Bill. The question of the lawful possession of the body is vital, and if anyone doubted that, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) made it clear in his timely intervention.
As my right hon and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe pointed out, the background to our debate on the Bill is that the number of transplant operations being carried out presents a rather flat profile. Nevertheless, the list of those awaiting the procedure is growing and, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, that is an understated list. At the same time, a number of high-profile appeals, have been covered by the national newspapers recently", as the relatives go public in their search for an organ for a loved one, and the public wait for days afterwards to see whether an organ is forthcoming. In one, recent case, it was, and in another case, tragically, it was not.
The sadness, anger and frustration that that can occasion is a result of the fact that, at a time of rising demand for organs, so many useful organs are being buried in our churchyards or cremated in crematoriums. It is not a question only of high-profile cases. Thousands of people are dying. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) referred to his personal knowledge of that silent tragedy, which demands urgent action and a proper agenda.
We are indebted to the British Medical Association for its manifesto, which sets out demands of election candidates and political parties. All hon. Members have received copies of the document, which states:
"The BMA calls on the political parties to support a radical review of organ donation procedures to ensure that we have the most effective way of regulating and organising organ donation in this country."
My right hon. and I learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe has not waited for a review, and I congratulate him on taking effective action now. I assure him of Front-Bench support, but I shall not attempt to reiterate his arguments. He stated them effectively and, in the light of the strength with which he made his case, it would be impertinent of me to repeat them. However, I remind hon. Members that he pointed out that the agenda is wider than that which the Bill addresses. The Bill is narrow in scope, but wider issues must also be dealt with.
I have spoken of the anger, sadness and frustration that many people feel about organ donation. Their feelings arise from an impression of inactivity. I recently attended two all-party group meetings in which people made their cases about the legal and practical changes required to ensure a greater number of transplants. They stressed the urgent need for action, but when they turned to the parliamentarians at the meetings, we merely sat and looked at them. I suspect that their impression of inactivity is justified.
Hon. Members may recall a Westminster Hall debate on organ transplantation that was held on 14 December 1999. The discussion was a high-profile one for Westminster Hall, as it occurred immediately after the initial aftermath of the launch of the Alder Hey inquiry. It was attended by the Front-Bench spokesmen of the two Opposition parties—my hon. Friend the Member for

1345
Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats. The debate covered a number of issues that have been mentioned today. The first item on the agenda was uncertainty in the law with regard to possession of the body and preservation of organs. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe has now taken action and that a measure has been proposed to address those issues.
Other important issues were raised in that debate, not least among which were novel ideas about raising the profile of donor cards and of registration on the national register of donors. It was suggested that annual electoral registration forms should contain boxes that people can tick to add their names to the register if donors. I am glad that my local authority, New Forest district council, has adopted that suggestion, and I hope that more authorities take the same action. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring called for a month of activity in which anyone who spoke to any health professional would be presented with the form needed to obtain an organ donor card. That useful suggestion could have been adopted.
The debate dealt also with the number of intensive care beds, and questions were asked about what could be done about that issue. There was also discussion of revisiting elective ventilation. Presumed consent was once again reviewed, and we spoke about possible improvements in the national register of donors and co-ordination of the business of transplants. That legitimately leads to questions about the purpose of those Adjournment debates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring said in that debate, we hold debates in Westminster Hall because we want to discuss what should be done and we legitimately expect consequent action.
More than a year later, we can legitimately ask what has happened in the meantime. What has arisen from the agenda that was brought to Ministers' attention in Westminster Hall? On 11 February 2000, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) presented a ten-minute Bill. Hon. Members voted by 113 to 23 to allow him to introduce a Bill on presumed consent. In June, the British Medical Association published a useful document entitled "Organ Donation in the 21st Century", to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe has already referred. One of the first items with which it deals is lawful possession of the body. My right hon. and learned Friend has addressed that matter.
What else has been done? Following the Alder Hey report, a summit comprising those involved in transplants was held on 27 February, in a climate of fear that a reduction in transplants would ensue. Mercifully, all the signs suggest that that will not be the consequence of the Alder Hey report. However, we now expect action. The national press reported that the summit issued several new targets for 2005 and 2010. They include doubling the number of those on the register of organ donors from 8 million now to 16 million by 2010; establishing a national service framework for those suffering from renal failure; doubling the number of kidney transplants by 2005, and increasing lung and heart transplants by 10 per cent. by 2005.
However, I am reminded of the words of Florence Nightingale—
Ms Stuart: Again?
Mr. Swayne: Indeed. Florence Nightingale pointed out that reports do not implement themselves. Action must arise from the summit. I ask the Minister to assure us that the national consultative body that will be set up as a result of the summit will have an agenda. I shall suggest some items for it.
The first item is how to increase the number of people who make their organs available for transplant. One method is to use the electoral registration process, which some local authorities are already doing successfully.
The consultative group will have to consider presumed consent. I am not an advocate of presumed consent, and many of my hon. Friends have grave reservations about it. I have a philosophical reservation, just as I had a reservation about the motion that we considered on Monday, when we "deemed" something to have occurred in a Standing Committee that clearly had not happened. I have reservations about presuming that something has been done, when it clearly has not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring pointed out that presumed consent may make matters worse. Let us imagine the case of a close relative who might legitimately have expected to be asked whether the donor would have had any objections. If the relative was not asked, and an issue was subsequently made of it, we can imagine the tabloid treatment of the case and the damage that it might cause the organ donation programme. There are, therefore, dangers in the process. However, the proposals about presumed consent with safeguards that the BMA has put forward in its document deserve close examination. Those proposals do not differ much from existing practice, and a debate on that issue is worth having because it would raise the profile of the issue and perhaps generate a great many more organ donors.
I would also like the consultative group to review the work on elective ventilation. I make no secret of the fact that I am an enthusiast for elective ventilation. The programme was highly successful: Professor Feest's work doubled the availability of organs available for transplant during the time that he carried out elective ventilation. There are difficulties associated with the practice, and they are covered in the BMA's work. However, the programme was effective, and it was stopped because of the doubts about its legal position, to which my right hon. and learned Friend has drawn attention. That doubt could be clarified by a change in the law, and if that does not happen, we may be passing over a very effective way of increasing the number of organs available for donation. I would certainly ask the consultative group to review that work.
I would also like the consultative group to review the co-ordination and organisation of the transplant infrastructure. Many health professionals believe that the Department of Health's review of the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority that took place in 1998 and 1999 was a missed opportunity. The Royal College of Surgeons has subsequently called for a national transplant service. We should like that case to be reviewed again.
In supporting this narrow but very important Bill, I also call for urgent action on the other fronts that I have mentioned. I remind the House that we have been waiting some time. At least in one respect we shall have to wait no longer, as a consequence of my right hon. and learned Friend's important Bill, which I commend to the House.
1.32 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I recall—indeed, I shall never forget—the occasion on which I went to record the death of the woman who had taken care of me for 20-odd years of my life. There was a question about my relationship to the deceased on the form that I had to fill in. In answering that question, I said that she had been my nanny. The registrar said, "I am terribly sorry. That is not a subsisting relationship. You will have to be the person who causes the body to be disposed of." I shall never forget that. All hon. Members, and all those who draw up official forms, would do well to remember that, in circumstances such as these, when we try to set up a procedure and put in place a form on which it is necessary to capture a relationship, it must be done with great sensitivity.
I do not believe that any hon. Member would say that the aims of the Bill introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) are not sound and good. The Bill aims to ensure that more organs are made available for donation and, therefore, that more lives will be saved. That is entirely commendable.
If I may be so audacious as to say so, I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has shown his great experience in the House by producing such a brief and short Bill, which has as few traps as possible. The older and the wiser the head, the more one is capable of putting a case with extreme brevity, and the Bill certainly has done that.
Doctors, health care trusts and medical professionals have a grave responsibility towards the relatives of patients who have been in their care and people, like me, who are not relatives. On occasions, most notably at Alder Hey recently, they have shown contempt and a complete disregard for the nature of those relationships. Clearly, medical professionals had forgotten that the patient was a person or a child, and not a specimen, a cadaver or a series of organs that had to be disconnected and taken elsewhere.
My reservation about the Bill, I put it no stronger than that, is that it would reduce the need to consult the people who are extremely close to the patient—they may not be blood relationships or marital relationships—and it would enable hospitals and medical professionals not actively to strive to get the consent of those people who are most concerned and closest to the deceased.
I do not want to detain the House, as it has other business to deal with; I simply want to express that reservation in the wider hope that the filling in of forms generally—not merely for organ transplants—may be made more human.
1.38 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) for putting these proposals before us today. He has explained that his intention is to clarify some aspects of the Human Tissue Act 1961, which he believes placed difficulties in the way of people who wanted to retrieve organs for transplantation. I congratulate him on drawing up a private Member's Bill which, unusually, even gained the support of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). That is rare. I was in the strange
1348
position of being in the House the second time that he has supported such a Bill. That is a recognition of the fact that it was narrowly drawn.
I should like to put the Bill in the context of the action that the Government are taking. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was rightly looking for action, and he again reminded us of Florence Nightingale—I hope that that was the last time, but perhaps I shall hear the same quote again in a few weeks.
The starting point must be the uniqueness of donation and transplantation, because a donation depends on the altruism of others. Repeated public surveys show that most people would be willing to donate organs. The number of available organs has decreased over the past 10 years, partly because of positive developments such as the reduction in the number of road traffic accidents and our increased ability to help people who suffer strokes in their 40s and 50s. All that has been very good. We need to improve people's understanding of the processes involved in asking about donation and what will be expected and accepted. People are facing bereavement; it is a stressful time. We need to educate the public so that Government campaigns or those supported by local organisations or national interest groups urge people to think about the issue before the event occurs. There is currently a great surge of interest and we expect to be able to double the number of names on the organ donor register before the end of the decade.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) made it clear that we have to take the public's views into account, as this is not entirely a rational argument. We now have a dedicated telephone line for registering organ donations and information is available on website.
We must make sure that no potential donation is lost because, for whatever reason, a family is not asked. There are pockets of resistance or squeamishness about donation within the health service that we need to overcome. We are putting in place a programme of training and support for those NHS staff who deal with bereaved parents. We shall also be making clear the importance of active support for donation throughout each trust and health authority, and that includes the wholehearted endorsement of management. This is known as the whole hospital approach. One of the first steps is a public commitment to donation by the whole organisation.
That has been taken up in my area of the west midlands, where all trust chief executives have agreed to implement a hospitalwide policy on organ donation. This means that hospitals in the west midlands have agreed to inform staff of the trust's policy and view of donation; to support staff when approaching relatives for donation; but also to challenge staff who are reluctant to approach the families concerned and to support transplant co-ordinators in their aim to promote a general hospitalwide consciousness regarding all issues in relation to organ and tissue donation. That is within the NHS.
On 27 February, the Government held an organ and tissue donation summit to consider all possible ways to increase organ and tissue donation, and to call on a wide range of organisations in the private and public sectors to help support donation. Examples include the national ITV companies running the "Year of the Promise". HTV and Meridian both adopted the NHS organ donor register as one of their "Promises". The Sun newspaper has twice run

1349
a major campaign promoting organ donation to its readers and encouraging them to join the NHS organ donor register.
There has also been less spectacular but consistent support from Sky, Littlewoods, the AA, the National Express Bus Company and Connex. In August, Boots, the high street chemist, started promoting organ donation via its in-store loyalty card, the Boots advantage card. Boots customers can now join the NHS organ donor register when applying for or renewing their advantage card. Similarly, the Goldfish credit card has offered its 1 million customers the opportunity, when applying for or renewing their credit card, simply to tick a box to join the NHS organ donor register. We have to admit that it is more likely that people will carry their credit cards than their organ donor cards, even if they have them. We have recognised the importance of increasing the number of people on the organ donor register, but we are also ensuring that the register is used. I hope that that satisfies hon. Members that the Government are proactive.
In many areas, there has been a debate on the draft consultation document. What are the Government doing as a result of that? We have made it clear that UK Transplant must lead the campaign to promote organ procurement throughout the NHS. We need to strengthen the transplant co-ordinators service. It has an important role, identifying likely donors, ensuring that consent is sought by the NHS trust and that, when organs are available, they go to the right people.
The Government are also committed to investing in innovative forms of organ donation, encouraging the development of non-heart-beating donation programmes and encouraging live donations. We have also promised to consider in the review of the Human Tissue Act 1961 how we might modernise the law on the process of gaining consent for organ and tissue donation.
Mr. Swayne: A point was put to me by Professor Engeset in Aberdeen. His contention is that we are missing a number of potential donors, whom we would have had in the past, because of the development of technology. He stated—it was subsequently confirmed to me by other members of the British Medical Association—that an accident or stroke victim might be scanned at a regional centre and the result of that scan sent down the telephone wire to the consultant at the other end, who might take one look and say, "There is no hope for that patient," so that patient would never make it to the ventilator, as he would have in the past. Hence, we will have lost a potential donor, whom we would otherwise have had. That matter needs to be looked at.
Ms Stuart: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is suggesting that we move away from a policy where an assessment is made of whether the patient will survive, a medical intervention is then made to save his life and, if that is unsuccessful, organ donation comes into play. He is suggesting that we should take action to prolong what appears to be life in the interests of securing an organ donation. France went down that road for a brief period and it was successfully challenged in the courts. For about four years, the number of donations dropped. It took France a long time to get the number back up. The public must have confidence that, within the NHS, everything is done to save a patient's life. If that is not possible, we make it possible for organs to be donated,
1350
but not before that. That would be a very dangerous step and I would be very wary of going down that road. I do not think that it is suggested in the Bill.
Mr. Swayne: The hon. Lady is right; it has nothing to do with what is proposed in this narrow Bill. However, she will know of my enthusiasm for elective ventilation. The procedure was successfully carried out in this country and withdrawn as a result of legal doubts, but those doubts can be addressed by a change in the law. It is a review of that—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to what is in the Bill.
Ms Stuart: I will return to that point in the context of the Bill.
We know from looking at what is effective abroad that altering the legislative framework will not solve the shortage of organs. That is important. It is not the legislative framework that is preventing us from having more organ donors. The real question is whether a change to presumed consent, which some hon. Members suggested, would change things. There is no evidence in other areas of the world that such a change has been successful.
Currently, we operate a system where specific consent, or at least a lack of objection by relatives, must be established prior to donation. It is an opt-in system. Opportunities are offered via donor cards and the organ donor register for those who would be willing to be donors to opt in and to record their wishes. Regardless of whether that has been done, those close to the deceased will be consulted. When the deceased's wishes are known, families will nearly always agree to allow donation to go ahead.
The opt-in system is widely supported. In a survey conducted in July 1999, 68 per cent. said that they would be willing to donate under the current system. Now an opt-out system is being advocated, whereby consent is presumed unless the deceased has recorded an objection. Spain has been cited as the country with the highest donation rate in Europe. It is true that it has an opt-out law, but it has never been used and consent is still sought there. In France, where the opt-out system was tried, there was a huge public backlash. The right way forward is to continue to seek informed consent from those closest to the deceased.
The expert committee's report was clear. It said:
"It is strongly advisable to ascertain the public's and health professionals' opinion about presumed or informed consent for organ donation before promoting legal changes that might be potentially detrimental."
Currently, most health professionals with experience in the donation and transplantation process, most notably the transplant co-ordinators, do not support a change to opt-out.
More importantly, the debate is now considered less relevant by most transplant organisations, because relatives or friends are asked as part of the screening process about the donor's recent medical history. If they object to donation, organs will not be retrieved, whatever the legal framework. Permission for donation for transplantation is always sought explicitly from those

1351
close to the potential donor. They are asked to agree that the organs may be used for medical or scientific research if they prove unsuitable for transplantation.
Organs taken for transplantation cannot be used for research without specific permission from the donor's family. Transplant co-ordinators who seek consent consider that keeping the family informed throughout and giving them feedback on the use of organs is fundamental to the process. We will seek to ensure that current good practice on gaining consent for donation for transplantation is applied to all aspects of organ and tissue donation and retention for other purposes, such as diagnosis research and medical education.
The Bill offers some apparently minor changes to the Human Tissue Act 1961 intended to clarify it and improve the supply of organs for transplantation. Of course, we all endorse that objective, but the 1961 Act provides the basis not only for organ transplantation but for hospital post mortems and the removal, retention and use of organs and tissue at post mortem for medical education and research purposes.
The interim report of the Bristol inquiry and the Alder Hey inquiry report have both demonstrated difficulties with the 1961 Act, which has been described as arcane and complex. It has also been suggested that practitioners working in the field have little knowledge or understanding of its provisions. The chief medical officer's advice to the Government recommended short-term changes to the Act to clarify that parental consent is needed, rather than lack of objection, for the removal, retention and use of human organs and tissue taken from a deceased child. It also recommended that, as part of an urgent reform of the law, an offence should be introduced for not complying with such provisions. We have accepted that recommendation. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his statement on 30 January, we intend to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendation as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.
The chief medical officer also recommended a more wide-ranging revision of the law on the taking, storage and use of tissue from the living and the dead for therapeutic purposes, for research and for education. The work to underpin that will be undertaken in the next six to 12 months in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. In both proposed reviews of the law, the intention is to address the main deficiencies of the Human Tissue Act 1961, to restore public confidence in the operation of that law and to ensure that organs and tissue are available for both transplantation and vital medical research, while ensuring that the wishes and feelings of families are respected. The specific changes before us today need to be considered as part of the major revision of the law that is needed to bring it into the 21st century.
Clause 3 proposes the inclusion of cohabiting partners and we agree with the intention behind the Bill's proposals to extend the categories of those who should be consulted about donation to the cohabiting partners of the deceased. I was extremely moved by the contribution of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who vividly illustrated that attempting to define relationships on forms is very difficult and can sometimes be extremely insensitive to people in distress. Currently, there is no provision for cohabiting partners to be consulted and this
1352
seems inappropriate when so many people are not married to their long-term partners. Surely those partners should be considered to be the equivalent of a spouse or close relative in this case. However, it is not a simple matter to alter—for example, there are questions of conflicts between partner and legal spouse or partner and parent. We plan to consider the categories of those to be consulted as part of the wider ranging consultation on the Human Tissue Act.
Clause 1 refers to those in lawful possession of the body. The right hon and learned Member for Rushcliffe proposes an immediate change to the definition of the person lawfully in possession of the body. In practice, the health authority or NHS trust is assumed to be in possession of the body, and its staff authorise the donation. However, the chief medical officer's report did not identify this phrase as causing any difficulty, and certainly it has not been presented as an issue that requires urgent action.
The proposal about the preservation of parts of the body is intended to facilitate the practice of non-heart-beating donation. I have a sense that hon. Members are not drawing a clear distinction between non-heart-beating donations and ventilation for the purpose of keeping a body alive. A debate on that would have to be wide-ranging and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, it would not divide down party lines as it touches on deep issues.
It is important to put on record that most organs for transplantation are taken from those who die while on life support—hence with still beating hearts—in an intensive care unit. It is important to understand that very few people die in such circumstances, and only a proportion of those, for medical reasons, will be suitable to be become donors. However, it is sometimes possible to accept kidneys from those whose hearts have stopped beating. There is a brief window of opportunity—during the first 40 minutes after the heart stops—when the kidneys can be retrieved and used for transplant. This so called non-heart-beating donation can go ahead if the organs are preserved by being cooled in the body once death is pronounced. The preservation process will continue until the family gives agreement and the organs are retrieved. It will cease when the time limit is reached and attempts to reach the family have failed or when the family decides that it does not want the donation to go ahead.
As part of the Government's plan to increase the availability of kidneys for transplantation, we have recently undertaken to support increased use of non-heart-beating donors. We are not ignoring that proposal, but looking to develop it in a more sensitive way. Three transplant units have successfully run non-heart-beating donation programmes for some years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the one in his part of the world. They have all done so after full and lengthy public consultation which made the process transparent and tested out its acceptability.
The British Transplant Society is currently drafting a protocol on non-heart-beating donation to present to the Department of Health for wide consultation. This is a sensitive and complex subject which will require negotiation with the coroners services, which is of course the responsibility of the Home Office, and careful

1353
consideration of how to maintain public confidence. It is not an area in which hasty action is likely to lead to progress; nor would legislation necessarily be helpful.
Anxieties were expressed in the media immediately after the Alder Hey report that publicity surrounding organ and tissue retention post mortem, without the express consent of patients and parents, would have a negative effect on our organ transplant programmes. The latest figures for UK transplants do not support that contention. The number of donors in February was exactly the same as in February 2000. There was, in addition, an encouraging difference over the period in that there was a huge increase in the number of people joining the organ donor register. Some 80,000 joined it in February.
There is no evidence of any negative impact from Alder Hey on organ donation for transplantation or on tissue donation for medical research. However, even if there is no additional crisis, there remains a chronic shortage of organs. Keeping public confidence in the donation system is vital to the transplantation service.
Improving donation is about changing attitudes and behaviour. I do not believe that that will best be done by legislation. However, I welcome the opportunity offered by today's debate to discuss an important issue and to inform the House of what is in train to improve organ donation. On balance, given what I have said, the Government are not minded to agree to the Bill.
2.3 pm
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to the Minister, to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and to others for what they have said. There is obviously no difference of purpose or intention in the House. We all realise that something must be done to meet the gap between the need for organ transplants and the present supply. I am reassured to hear that the Government are addressing the problem with some urgency. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West that we need in the near future—whichever party is in power 12 months from now—to see some progress. Everyone has identified a long list of problems, and we must tackle them.
My only difference with the very helpful Minister lay in her conclusion. I should have liked the Bill to go to
1354
Committee. I accept that it might be subsumed by the wide-ranging review that the Government are undertaking, but I cannot see that any of the changes that I propose could do any harm or be undesirable. In some areas, the Minister concedes that my proposals would improve matters, such as on the question of co-habiting partners. Nothing that I have proposed would conflict, as far as I can see, with her intention to explore such areas in the review on the preservation of organs. Simply making it lawful to preserve organs would not get in the way of further constructive discussion.
I shall press for a Second Reading, therefore, although I appreciate that the chances of an adequate number of Members being present in the House of Commons at this time on a Friday are slight. Having got so close, I prefer to put the matter to the chance, to see whether anything has held an unaccustomed number of our colleagues here. I shall not press a Division in a spirit of total dissatisfaction with or hostility to what the Minister has said, but there is a slight difference of opinion about how we can best proceed.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 0.

Division No. 157]

[2.3 pm

AYES

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Soley, Clive

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Spicer, Sir Michael

Golding, Mrs Llin

Swayne, Desmond

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Wilkinson, John

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Mackinlay, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Öpik, Lembit

Mr. Kelvin Hopkins and

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

NOES

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Barry Gardiner and

Mr. John Heppell.

It appearing on the report of the Division that 40 Members were not present, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.

Private Dental Practitioners Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
2.14 pm
Ann Clwyd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I was No. 13 in last year's ballot, and I am No. 8 this year. I am slowly climbing the ladder; I hope that by next year I shall be nearer the top three.
I am grateful for the opportunity at least to talk briefly about the Bill. Its purpose is to ensure that private dentists are brought into line with other private health services within the remit of the National Care Standards Commission. One in four adults have private treatment, either by choice or because they cannot find a national health service dentist. Often patients are unclear whether their treatment is NHS or private, and many have a mixture of the two.
It is therefore right that patients who use private dentists should expect protection similar to that enjoyed by patients who use other private medical services. At present, private patients may not even have access to a complaints procedure. Surgeries do not have to comply with formal standards.
Those who want to complain about work done privately have no recourse to an independent complaints procedure or other forms of statutory redress. As a result, many people who want to complain about their private dental treatment have found that the only formal options are either to complain to the General Dental Council, which deals only with cases of professional misconduct, or to sue the surgery or dentist concerned.
I shall refer briefly to two examples. Jonathan Cowie felt a sharp pain in one of his teeth the afternoon after he had had a dental check-up. He contacted his private dentist, who said that his teeth were probably still sensitive after being cleaned by the hygienist and that he should rub dentine on his gums. However, the following morning he was in severe pain, so he went back to the dentist, who took an X-ray of the tooth and told him not to worry and that it would settle down. The pain continued, so he made another appointment. This time, the dentist said that there was a crack in his tooth, which he filled. Three days later the filling started to come out.
Still in pain, Jonathan visited another dentist for a second opinion. He was told that the tooth had split from top to bottom and that the filling had pushed it apart, further exposing the nerve and allowing the tooth to become infected. It was removed and, two days later, the pain went.
Mr. Cowie complained to his health authority about his dentist's repeated misdiagnosis, but was told that there was no statutory complaints procedure for private dental treatment. He contacted the General Dental Council, which said that the allegation could not be described as serious professional misconduct, so the matter was outside its remit. Jonathan is still disputing the matter with the GDC. He feels that it is not following the Dentists Act 1984, which provides that the GDC should
"promote high standards of … professional conduct".
1356
Another case was that of Audrey Read, who last year was told by her dentist that she needed a bridge to replace a broken tooth, and that that had to be done privately at a cost of more than £500. The bridge was uncomfortable and looked horrible. A second bridge was fitted, but it was no better. She asked for her money back and the dentist refused.
As the work had not been done on the NHS, Audrey Read could not use the complaints system, even though the dentist also did NHS work. When the dentist would not agree to a refund, her only option was to sue. A dental negligence lawyer arranged for an independent dentist to inspect the work. He found that the tooth had not been properly pulled out and that 90 per cent. of the root was still present. Even if it had been properly extracted, the permanent bridge should not have been fitted for at least three months, to allow the gum to shrink. Finally—this happens in most cases but there are some where it does not—the dentist settled out of court and she received £6,500.
It is important that in the present climate patients should be reassured that the highest standards of care will apply to all areas of health care. The Bill would give greater legitimacy to the thousands of excellent private dentists who perform to high standards.
The Consumers Association brought the issue to my attention. For several years, it has campaigned for higher standards of private and NHS health care. The House may know that I have long campaigned for better regulation of all private health care services, including cosmetic surgery; it took me seven years before the new system was introduced. More people are using private dental services, not necessarily by choice, but I shall not go into that now. Dentistry is one area of private health care that must not be permitted to continue to operate without proper safeguards for patients.
The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), has told me that private dentistry has not been brought under the National Care Standards Commission from the outset because the General Dental Council is committed to introducing a scheme for the investigation and resolution of complaints about private dentistry. Frankly, I am unhappy about that because, as we have seen with doctors, professional self-regulation alone is not sufficient.
There is still a pressing requirement to pull private dentists under the provisions of the Care Standards Act 2000, to ensure that complaints procedures are in place and that private dentists work to certain standards and provide good quality and safe care. Patients are just as vulnerable in the dentist's chair as they are at their GP's surgery. It is widely accepted that there is a need to regulate private GP practices, so why not dentists, especially as more people have private dental care than private GP care?
I should like to say more, but I would like to hear what other Members have to say. I am grateful for the support of Members on both sides of the House for the Bill, which is an important step in safeguarding the interests of patients who use private dentists. I appreciate that parliamentary time may not be available this side of the general election, but I should like the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), to commit the next

1357
Labour Government to implementing measures similar to those in my Bill. That would protect patients, whether they are in a GP's surgery or a private dentist's chair.
2.22 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has clearly identified a problem for which a remedy is required. We understand why she has introduced the Bill and why it has the support of the Consumers Association. It is unacceptable that the only remedy open to private dental patients—and most adults, of necessity, have to become private dental patients—is recourse to law or, if there is a case of professional misconduct, the General Dental Council.
We therefore accept that a remedy is required. We support the creation of a formal complaints procedure for private patients. Indeed, the Health Act 1999 gives the Government the power to create one. The British Dental Association believes that that should be a Government priority, but we are still waiting for action on that front. I quite understand the frustration that led the hon. Member for Cynon Valley to introduce her Bill. Last September, the Government published "Modernising NHS Dentistry—Implementing the NHS Plan", which deals with quality issues. I should have thought that that provided an opportunity to widen the scope and address the issues facing private dental patients, given that so many of them—and increasingly so— are also NHS dental patients. We are interested to learn the Government's response to the Bill.
The National Care Standards Commission has the remit of regulating private dental treatment under general anaesthesia, but dental treatment of the sort described by the hon. Lady was specifically excluded. The Government are currently reviewing the NHS complaints system. Many of us who function as ordinary Members of Parliament with casework would say that that is long overdue.
Our approach to the Care Standards Act 2000, which would be amended by the Bill, was summed up in Standing Committee G by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond):
"The primary function of the Secretary of State for Health is to ensure a safe environment for all patients, irrespective of whether they choose to be treated privately or by the NHS, including those who are moved into privately provided facilities at the expense of the NHS—a practice that will become increasingly common. Patients are entitled to expect an equal standard of care. The Secretary of State, acting in the public interest, should ensure that a proper framework of safety measures is in place to regulate a patient's environment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 6 June 2000; c. 47.]
It follows from that that it would be preferable to have one set of regulatory and inspection criteria and a complaints procedure covering all provision of health care. Our difficulty with the Bill is that it perpetuates the system of two separate forms of inspection and regulation and complaints procedures for patients who move seamlessly between the NHS and the private sector, particularly in respect of dentistry.
The Bill will give rise to a practical problem, because the dentists who are to be regulated and inspected, and about whom complaints are to be investigated, carry out both NHS work and work in the private sector. They
1358
would consequently end up being subject to two different regimes. We are interested to hear the Minister's comments on the Bill.
2.27 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on introducing the Bill. I take note too of the remarks of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). He reminded me of the debates that we had in Committee on the Care Standards Bill. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) ended up saying that he would go home and wrap a cold towel round his head, as he could not follow the discussion. I hope that the hon. Member for New Forest, West does not have to do the same.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley has an honourable record. I am delighted that her determined campaign on cosmetic surgery was successful. I hope that in time she will look back and see that her present campaign was equally successful. There is no disagreement between us about the objective of her Bill. The matter for discussion is how that will be achieved.
People should expect to receive high quality health care, provided by doctors or dentists in whom they have complete confidence—practitioners who are well trained, up to date with good practice in their discipline, and mindful of the ethical standards set by their professional body. A constant theme of the Government's policies for improving the quality of health services has been the strengthening of the regulation of health care professionals.
In 1999 we secured enactment of the Health Bill, which included provision to amend, by order, the uni-disciplinary Acts governing the main health care professions—the Medical Act 1983, the Dentists Act 1984 and the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997. Last year we used that provision after the conviction of Harold Shipman for murder to amend the Medical Act to provide for the immediate suspension from the medical register of doctors charged with serious offences. We also gave the General Medical Council wider ranging investigatory powers where complaints have been made about a doctor's conduct.
During the current parliamentary Session we have sponsored a Health and Social Care Bill which provides health authorities with tight controls over the four independent contractor professions—general medical practitioners, general dental practitioners, pharmacists and opticians. When the Bill is passed, health authorities will be empowered to refuse to register practitioners whom they judge unsuitable, to suspend practitioners on their own authority, without having to apply to the NHS tribunal, and to place conditions on their registration, such as prohibiting dentists from treating patients under general anaesthetic. We are currently working on a second order, to be laid under section 60 of the Health Act 1999. The order will empower the General Dental Council to strengthen the regulation of dentistry. It has two main elements to do with the constitution of the council—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 23 March.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

  CROWN EMPLOYMENT (NATIONALITY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred until Friday 30 March.

RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred until Friday 23 March.

PENSION ANNUITIES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred until Friday 23 March.

VACCINATION OF CHILDREN (PARENTAL CHOICE) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred until Friday 23 March.

OUTWORKING BILL
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Not moved.

CLIMATE CHANGE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Second Reading deferred until Friday 23 March.

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

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

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

Secondary Education (West London)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
2.32 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: This is a timely opportunity to have the privilege of raising in the House the subject of secondary school education in west London. I have used the term "west London" advisedly in the title of the debate. Although the problems that I shall describe are especially serious for Ruislip-Northwood and the Hillingdon borough, they transcend borough boundaries and must, therefore, be set in their wider context.
My constituency has a range of excellent secondary schools. It contains the Bishop Ramsey Church of England school in Ruislip, Northwood school in Northwood Hills, Haydon school in Eastcote-Pinner, Queensmead school in South Ruislip and John Penrose school in Harefield. Dolay Martyrs school, Ickenham, is situated just outside my constituency, in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). It is a Roman Catholic Church school that receives a significant number of pupils from my area.
The problem that is currently of special concern to my constituents is their inability to secure places for their children in local secondary schools of their choice. The problem is especially prevalent in parts of Eastcote, Ruislip Gardens, Ruislip Manor and South Ruislip, where many people face significant problems unless they can claim priority for their children on medical or sibling grounds. Most usually, disappointed parents are offered places for their children in John Penrose school, which is located in Harefield. The school is a long way from Ruislip or Ruislip Manor and is fairly inaccessible. Other parents are offered places in Hayes Manor school, in the extreme south of the borough of Hillingdon.
I raised related issues when, some two and a half years ago, I took a deputation—my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge did the same—to see the Minister for School Standards about education problems in Hillingdon, especially in respect of secondary education.
We discussed at that time the possibility of constructing a new school in Ruislip, and Hillingdon borough council local education authority hoped that Her Majesty's Government could let us know by now whether the capital funding for the project was available. Local education authority officials have been in discussion with the Department for Education and Employment, and a site has been identified at Sidmouth drive, although planning permission has to be secured first. I hope that the Minister can deal with that point.
Parental feeling is strong. Indeed, several parents of pupils at Lady Banks primary school in Dawlish drive, Ruislip Manor have got together. Many have written to me to argue forcefully against the effects of the Greenwich judgment, which permits cross-borough migration of pupils to the school of the parents' choice, often to the detriment of the exercise of that same parental choice by those who live in the borough where the school is located.
In my area of west London, the difference between the sort of secondary schooling in Harrow borough and Hillingdon borough makes the problem especially acute.
1362
In Harrow borough, people feel strongly that the current system should be changed. The Minister may remember that sixth forms disappeared when the borough changed to comprehensive education in the early 1970s. Education to A-level was then provided by sixth form colleges, which have subsequently been replaced by tertiary colleges. The reputation of the tertiary colleges is good, but they are not popular with all parents, who may prefer a post-16 sixth form in a school environment, where children gain authority as prefects and in other positions of responsibility. Such opportunities are not available in tertiary colleges.
Parents therefore seek places at 11-plus schools in neighbouring boroughs, such as my borough of Hillingdon, where school education to sixth form level is available. That leads to unfilled places in middle schools in the Harrow borough and resentment from parents in Hillingdon who cannot, as a consequence of the migration of pupils from Harrow, secure a place for their children in the Hillingdon school of their choice.
Successive Governments have upheld the Greenwich judgment. It was passed in 1989 in the Court of Appeal, which upheld a High Court ruling that a local education authority could not lawfully pursue a schools admissions policy that preferred children living in its area to those outside. There is little information about the impact of the judgment on parental choice. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) tried to secure such clarification in a written question on 11 January. The Minister for School Standards replied:
"My Department does not collect detailed information on the provision of school places by local education authorities in England; education in Wales is matter for the Welsh Assembly.
It is for local education authorities to ensure sufficient school places to meet demand."—[Official Report, 11 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 630W.]
We understand that, and my local authority is doing its best, hence the dialogue with the Department for Education and Employment about a new school in Ruislip.
Even if the new school was authorised tomorrow—I hope that it is—that would not solve the immediate difficulty. Other west London boroughs have also identified a problem. I cite an Adjournment debate introduced by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 28 May 1998. He said that overcrowding in schools in Richmond upon Thames borough had been aggravated by the Greenwich judgment. In the same debate, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said:
"The Greenwich judgment has created an acute problem for some London boroughs, particularly Richmond"—
I would say, "especially Hillingdon"—
"and I urge the Minister to consider possible solutions. Within the borough, we have tried everything that we can possibly do. I myself have been a councillor in the borough and have struggled with the problem. Although we have tried, we simply do not know what to do, to be fair to our own children."—[Official Report, 20 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 925.]
The problem with the London borough of Richmond upon Thames is one that we share in Hillingdon: the schools are especially good in both boroughs. Children come flooding into Hillingdon, not only from Harrow but from Hertfordshire in the north and from the London borough of Ealing in the south-east. The then Minister in

1363
the Department for Education and Employment, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), said in his reply that
"the Greenwich judgment has opened up opportunities for parents and children."
That is a somewhat contentious remark. He went on to say:
"in some cases it means that children can go to more local schools, which just happen to be over the road in another LEA area."
The difficulty is that, for someone in Harrow, Northwood school or Queensmead school in my constituency could be "just over the road". However, children who live in my constituency in the same road as those schools could be denied a place in those schools. That is most unsatisfactory. The Minister concluded:
"Cross-border movement works both ways. Local education authorities import and export."—[Official Report, 20 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 927.]
In Hillingdon, we only import. I have no evidence of an exodus of pupils from Hillingdon to the neighbouring boroughs that I have mentioned, although one or two pupils go to grammar schools in Buckinghamshire and in Watford on the basis of competitive examination. However, they are special cases.
In short, there are widespread difficulties in secondary education in my borough. I took advice from the local education authority when trying to summarise what the difficulties were, in addition to the issue of parental choice. The advice that I received was this:
"The teacher shortage is very serious and set to get significantly worse at Easter. The pool of available supply teachers continues to shrink as these staff are appointed to cover vacancies … The teacher shortage is seriously affecting standards, directly and indirectly. The direct effects include the use of temporary (often overseas, inexperienced or non-specialist) supply staff for classes often already affected by rapid teacher turnover and lack of continuity … Added to this, we how have"—
the prospect of—
"the industrial action of the NUT and NAS/UWT … Hillingdon is very badly affected by the teacher shortage for a number of reasons. We fall outside the extra funding for inner London even though our house prices are"—
as high as those in many inner London boroughs, and, in some parts of Ruislip-Northwood, even higher. The local education authority went on:
"We do not score highly on the DfEE's indices of deprivation which do not recognise the significant pockets of socio-economic disadvantage"—
that exist in the borough—in Hayes and Yiewsley in the south, and in Harefield, parts of Northwood Hills and South Ruislip in my constituency.
The formula for applying for the education grant is subject to an extraordinary paradox that I find incomprehensible. According to the LEA, Hillingdon
"suffered a £1.9 million cut in DETR support … by the introduction in the ceiling on the increase in Revenue Support Grant for education which did not, therefore, match the 7.6 per cent. increase in Standard Spending Assessment which reflected growth in school rolls."
There is, therefore, a fundamental problem of funding, which I hope that the Minister will address.
1364
I took advice not only from the local education authority but from the schools themselves, in which there was a unanimity of view. The head teacher of one school said:
"I am sure you are aware of the serious impact of the recruitment problems which were fully aired at the meeting with the Director of Education and others."
So concerned was the local education authority that it called in my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), the director, the chairman of the education committee and the heads of all the schools to thrash out initiatives that could be taken. The head teacher said that although there are affluent areas in Hillingdon, the neighbouring boroughs of Ealing and Hounslow have excellence in cities additions to their funding that we do not enjoy in our borough.
Another head teacher cited the very high cost of housing in west London and the low level of the London weighting allowance. He said that for mortgage purposes and based on an income multiple of three times salary, the increase in the London weighting allowance would give an extra £6,000 on a mortgage, which was almost
"inconsequential in this part of London".
He also referred to low pay and the fact that particular specialisms, such as languages, maths and science, have recruitment problems.
Retention is always a difficult problem. The stress and strain of bureaucracy and form filling are acute, so people all too often leave the profession early.
A good summary of the situation was given by another head teacher. The aspects that caused him concern were a salary increase that in total adds up to about 6 per cent. while his likely budget increase is about 4.5 per cent.; the inequalities between our borough and Ealing and Hounslow, which enjoy excellence in cities funding, whereas we do not; the shortage of teachers; the long-term problems of teacher recruitment and retention; the painfully inadequate London allowance compared with house prices; and the need for affordable housing for young staff.
A catalogue of difficulties affects my borough of Hillingdon particularly severely. However, they are not just Hillingdon problems: they go wider than that and are made more acute by the difference in the education system between Harrow and Hillingdon, and the difference in treatment between Hounslow and Ealing and our borough of Hillingdon.
I hope that the Minister will address some of those issues, and give us hope about the new school in Ruislip.
2.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for raising an issue that is at the heart of the Government's agenda for education, and is important to all of us. We are committed to raising standards of education for all children. In west London, as elsewhere, we are taking action to drive up standards, and we support initiatives that underpin that commitment.
I know where the hon. Gentleman is coming from—I say that not colloquially, but geographically. In the early to mid-1970s, I lived in Hillingdon off Long lane. Our

1365
first child was born in Hillingdon hospital, so I have some understanding of the patch. I used to teach at Brunel university just down the road from the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Since we have been in government, we have made a clear commitment to raising standards. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 gave us the framework within which we could accelerate our drive to raise standards in all our schools. Our record since then shows consistent and effective action through all stages of the education process. We need to ensure that every child has the opportunity to reach his full potential.
We shall further reinforce that action. Last month, the Secretary of State published the Green Paper "Building on Success". The proposals in that paper will allow us to pursue the improvements we have already made.
With regard to secondary education, we have set out a challenging agenda. All schools are to have their own mission and ethos. Young people who want a career based on technical skills will be able to choose a predominantly vocational programme from age 14, where it suits them. More schools are to be provided by Churches, major faith groups and voluntary and community groups in response to local demand from parents and the community. There is to be greater autonomy for successful schools—including more flexibility over pay and conditions and the curriculum—and a new source of help for weak and failing schools. A centre for gifted and talented youth will promote provision for gifted children in schools and establish intensive summer schools for them. More attention will be paid to school ethos and education with character for secondary pupils in and outside school.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems experienced by parents and children in finding a local secondary school. Our actions and proposals will address those problems by raising standards and enabling new provision.
We are pursuing the development of city academies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced plans for two such academies in west London. In Brent, a city academy based on the Willesden high school site will have a sports specialism. In Hillingdon, a new city academy at Evelyns community school will have a technology specialism, with state-of-the-art computer facilities linked to high-tech business and to Brunel university.
Equally, we need to ensure that schools are supported by their local education authorities. LEAs have a duty to promote high standards. They must prepare education development plans, which set targets for pupils and for the quality of teaching, leadership and management in schools. Where an LEA cannot provide that support, the Secretary of State reserves the power to secure proper performance of the LEA's functions.
The hon. Gentleman made some valuable points about the availability of school places. I know that concerns have been raised by some parents who have been unable to get children into their first choice of school. I recognise that the position in west London is complicated by the movement of pupils between boroughs, which is in line with parental preference—something supported widely in the House. It would not be right to treat any parent expressing a preference less favourably simply because they live on one side of a local government boundary.
1366
It is a difficult issue, and I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. He thought that only a few parents in Hillingdon chose to send their children to schools in other LEA areas; knowing Hillingdon as I do, I wonder whether it is a few. However, parents would no doubt object to their freedom to do so being ended.
Mr. Wilkinson: The Minister and I have something in common: my son was born in Hillingdon hospital, too. If there are two applicants of equal merit for a school, should not preference be given to the one who lives in the same local authority area as the school?
Mr. Wicks: Our difficulty is that the Greenwich judgment has put the emphasis on parental choice. It would have to be a matter for the LEA and the school's policies. However, I recognise the difficulties.
Although the law gives parents the right to express a preference for the school at which they would wish their child to be educated, it has never guaranteed every parent a place for their child at the preferred school. I understand the frustration of parents whose application has been unsuccessful. We would like all parents to gain a place for their child in a school that is satisfactory to them.
In my constituency of Croydon, North, I find nothing more difficult than talking to parents who would dearly love their son or daughter to go to a certain school and having to explain to them that, because of the rules of arithmetic, it is not possible. After all, if a school has more applications than places, it cannot admit every applicant. In the circumstances, places have to be allocated among applicants according to the school's published oversubscription criteria.
Admission arrangements for all schools must be published annually by each local education authority in a combined booklet. Information on the number of places available and applications made for them in the previous year must also be shown to help parents assess their chances of obtaining a place at their preferred school.
Parents who are refused a place at a school have a right of appeal. That is important. Under the new admissions legislation introduced by the Government, appeal panels are completely independent of the admission authority that decided the application. Their decisions are binding on the admission authority and can be overturned only by the courts. That is a step in the right direction.
Some schools have always been more popular than others. Our view is that the only satisfactory way to meet parental preference is to raise standards in all schools, so that the choice that parents have to make is between equally good schools. Our policies are focused on achieving that aim. However, as the House will appreciate, that cannot happen overnight.
In west London as a whole, there are enough places to satisfy demand based on current patterns of pupil movement; LEA returns from west London as a whole show that that is the case. However, I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point that, in Hillingdon, numbers are increasing and the demand for secondary school places is expected to exceed supply in future years.
LEAs have a duty to provide sufficient school places for their area. The Government believe that decisions about the organisation and supply of school places are best taken locally—by the main partners in the provision of education. We have established a new framework for

1367
local decision making. The School Standards and Framework Act introduced a new framework for local decision making in school-place planning.
LEAs must prepare a school organisation plan covering a five-year rolling period. That sets out how the LEA proposes to deal with surpluses and deficits of school provision and what provision it intends to make for pupils with special educational needs. The plan sets the context for proposals to change school organisation in the area. Those might include proposals to enlarge or to establish schools.
A school organisation committee has been established for each LEA area. The role of the committee is to consider the plan and to take decisions about statutory proposals affecting the local organisation of school places.
In thanking the hon. Gentleman for raising this important subject, which has a resonance for all of us in London, I should refer to today's announcement by schools Ministers that LEAs have been given the green light to spend more than £650 million on school capital projects through the private finance initiative. The money, which includes an extra £200 million of PFI credits from the Budget last week, has been provisionally allocated to 21 local authorities to support public-private partnership projects due to reach contract signature in 2002–03. A total of 174 schools will benefit and there will be more than 20 new schools.
The increased amounts available for school projects are part of the total capital investment in our schools. The projects range from building completely new schools to
1368
sports and information and communications technology facilities to renovations in primary, secondary and special needs schools.
On the plan for a new school in Ruislip, the hon. Gentleman recognised that I might not be able to agree to the proposal tomorrow. That is the case. I can agree to it today. The projects include a brand new secondary school in Hillingdon, located in Ruislip. The scheme is for a five-form entry school to include adult education facilities and a dual-use library.
Mr. Wilkinson: May I express my thanks and appreciation on behalf of my constituents?
Mr. Wicks: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but, obviously, the agreement was made on the merits of the case, which was very good.
Hillingdon local education authority will be invited to develop an outline business case for submission to my Department and the Treasury later this year. Once they have approval, LEAs can start the necessary procurement.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the launch of the new PFI projects, including the one in Ruislip, is good news for local parents and, more importantly, local children in the Hillingdon area. The schemes, together with those already in place, demonstrate the benefits that PFI can bring to our schools.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate and the House for listening. I have been able to announce some good news, and we can all have a good weekend.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Air Pollution (Leeds)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his written answer of 5 March 2001,Official Report, column 53W, on air pollution in Leeds, if he will give comparable information for other monitoring stations located in the Leeds, Central constituency. [153232]

  Mr. Hill
  DETR has one monitoring station within the Leeds, Central constituency and data have been reported in the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions' written answer of 5 March 2001,Official Report, column 53W. The dates when levels of air pollution were recorded as High or Very High at the monitoring stations in the Leeds, Central constituency and operated by the city council are as follows:

  New Market St. (Corn Exchange)—permanent location from 23 September 1997 measuring carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and particles (PM10):

  1997

  29 October

  30 October

  31 October

  6 November

  13 November

  1 December

  2 December

  1998

  7 November

  17 November

  18 November

  19 November

  1 December

  7 December

  8 December

  1999

  Nil days

  2000

  Nil days

  'Mobile sites', measuring sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and particles (PM10) have been deployed as follows:

  1999

  Cross Green—30 April to 6 October—12 August

  York Road sitel—20 April to 7 July—nil days

  2000

  Elland Road—13 January to 27 April—nil days

  Shannon Street—27 April to 1 August—nil days

  York Road site2–3 August to 12 January 2001—nil days

  Note:
  With the exception of high sulphur dioxide at Cross Green on 12 August 1999, all other days reported were attributable to particles (PM10).

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes there have been in the membership of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment since June 1999. [153247]

  Mr. Meacher
  There have been no changes to the membership of ACRE from that agreed at the end of the appointment process in June 1999. The current membership of ACRE was announced on 18 June 1999. One member, Professor Philip Mullineaux, was abroad at the time and could not be contacted and was therefore appointed formally in September. The membership of ACRE, including Professor Mullineaux, was announced again at the time of the Committee's first meeting on 16 September 1999.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions at what level below 1990 levels are carbon dioxide emission levels. [153391]

  Mr. Meacher
  Emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, fell by 7 per cent. between 1990 and 1998. 1999 emissions of carbon dioxide are provisionally estimated to be 7.5 per cent. lower than in 1990. The 1999 UK air emission estimates for greenhouse gases and other pollutants are due to be published on 28 March 2001.

  Certification Fraud (Seamen)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what steps he is taking to prevent unqualified and fraudulently qualified seamen from sailing ships into UK waters; [153587]

  (2) what steps he has taken (a) to guarantee the proper official certification of serving officers on merchant ships using waters around the coast of the UK and (b) to prevent the sale or exchange of qualifications for seamen. [153589]

  Mr. Hill
  As a signatory to the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) inspects at least 25 per cent. of non-UK ships visiting our ports. An important part of any Port State Control inspection is the scrutiny of the qualifications of the ship's personnel to ensure that the qualifications are genuine and valid. Where there is any concern, the holder is questioned to determine the propriety of the qualification. Where appropriate, prosecutions for fraud have been pursued in close co-operation with the police. The MCA inspects UK ships in a similar manner as under Port State Control. No ship is permitted to sail from any UK port without correctly qualified seafarers.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what recent discussions he has had with(a) his counterparts in other maritime countries and (b) the International Maritime Organisation to prevent the practice of exchanging (i) qualifications and (ii) certification of seamen for money; [153588]
  745W
  (2) what discussions he has had with the International Transport Workers Federation and the Seafarers International Research Institute about certification fraud among senior officers of merchant shipping vessels; [153591]

  (3) what discussions he has had with the International Transport Workers Federation and the Seafarers International Research Institute about recent research on forged and fraudulently obtained seamen's certificates.[153590]

  Mr. Hill
  After discussions between my Officials, the International Transport Workers Federation and officials in other maritime administrations, the United Kingdom co-sponsored a paper concerning fraudulent certification that was discussed at the Maritime Safety Committee meeting of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in 1999. The IMO subsequently commissioned a Research Project by the Seafarers International Research Centre in Cardiff. The UK contributed £5,000 towards the project and participated in the research.

  The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions also contributed funding to the project. A summary Report will be put forward for consideration by the Maritime Safety Committee at its meeting in May 2001 and the full Report will be considered by an expert sub-committee in January 2002.

  Boating (Scotland)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Scottish Parliament and the Scotland Office over plans to increase access to water for non-powered craft in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [153684]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  I have seen the Scottish Executive's consultation paper on the draft Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and we will observe its progress with interest. So far as access to water for non-powered craft in England and Wales is concerned, my officials have held discussions with a number of interested parties following which we recently let a contract led by the University of Brighton to establish the facts about participation.

  Woodland
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to provide additional protection to sites of ancient woodland under the sites of special scientific interest system. [153679]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which give greater protection to sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) came into force on 30 January 2001. The Act gives English Nature power to tackle neglect of sites and to make management agreements to help fund positive management. It also introduced increased penalties and a general offence of damage to the features of an SSSI. English Nature is also considering whether further sites should be notified as SSSIs.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he has required the bidders for NATS to include in their plan for the New Scottish Centre the capability to run the total Scottish Flight Information Region and the Oceanic Centre operation; [153919]

  (2) when Phase 2 of the New Scottish Centre will go ahead in order to meet the 'O' date; [153918]

  (3) what criteria he will use to evaluate NATS' strategic partner's plan for the New Scottish Centre to determine whether it is satisfactory. [153917]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]: Bidders are required to submit plans covering all NATS' major capital projects in the most integrated and efficient manner. The NSC, as part of the two centre strategy endorsed by the Government, is expected to have the capacity to service the Scottish FIR, the Oceanic region and provide a significant contingency in the case of catastrophic failure of NERC/LATCC.

  The two phase strategy for the NSC was announced by the Minister for Transport in April 1999. Phase 1 included development of detailed design of the building and systems, as well as software development, with Phase 2 containing the implementation of these designs, and bringing the centre into operation. This strategy was modified in February 2000, following the signing of an agreement between the systems supplier Lockheed Martin and NATS, and the retendering of the building design and construction contracts. This approach is expected to save over £100 million in comparison with the original PFI proposals for the New Scottish Centre.

  Site preparation for the NSC has already started. Detailed design of the building is being carried out by Gibb Ltd., and NATS expects to appoint the main construction contractor by the end of 2001. On the systems side, software design is continuing.

  The operational date for the NSC is largely a matter for the Strategic Partner—it will be obliged under the Strategic Partnership to bring the NSC into service by a given date, but may choose to do so before then.

  The Government will be carefully scrutinising the bidder's complete investment plans as well as their proposals for the New Scottish Centre (NSC) in particular. This will involve a careful analysis of their strategies for safety management; procurement and financing; software integration; capacity planning; contingency capability for NERC; introduction of new controller tools; transition planning; and the overall impact on the mode of operations and controller interface and training.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to make an announcement about the preferred bidder for the NATS PPP. [153944]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]: An announcement will be made when we have completed our evaluation of the bids.

  Canals
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the closure of the British Waterways' canal network on the leisure boating and narrow boat rental sectors; and if he will make a statement. [153820]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]: British Waterways (BW) closed access to all its waterways located in affected and restricted areas from the beginning of the month to help limit the spread of foot and mouth disease. The closure applies where county councils have taken powers to close rights of way and prevents all non-essential use of the waterways concerned.

  The Government have established a task force chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to consider the implications of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease for the rural economy. The implications for the canal network (and other waterways) will be within the ambit of this group which will be considering whether and where it is safe to reopen rights of way, including waterways. The task force will also help those caught up in the crisis and measures to help the rural economy once the outbreak has been eradicated.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what progress has been made towards selling the dome; and if he will make a statement; [154236]

  (2) with how many organisations he is currently discussing the sale of the millennium dome. [154234]

  Ms Armstrong
  English Partnerships have received more than a hundred informal expressions of interest for the dome and the regeneration of the Greenwich Peninsula, which they are exploring through discussions. As announced on 15 February 2001,Official Report, column 221W, the Government want openly to test the market for future uses of the dome. As part of this, English Partnerships have been asked to consider all options and mechanisms for the future use of the dome. Further details of future arrangements for taking this process forward will be announced as soon as possible.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future role of the Strategic Rail Authority. [153907]

  Mr. Hill
  The purposes of the Strategic Rail Authority are set out in section 205 of the Transport Act 2000. The SRA published on 13 March its Strategic Plan which sets out how it will further these purposes. Copies have been placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the terms of appointment of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other board members of the Strategic Rail Authority. [153908]
  748W
  Mr. Hill
  I have placed copies of the terms of appointment of the Chairman and other members of the Strategic Rail Authority in the Libraries of the House.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress with regard to the awarding of new rail franchises and the role being played by OPRAF.[153909]

  Mr. Hill
  The Strategic Rail Authority has taken over the functions of OPRAF. Franchise replacement is taking longer than originally anticipated in some cases but remains a priority for the Government and the Authority. The replacement process remains essential to delivering service improvements to passengers and the potential benefits are already clear in the new proposals for the Chiltern and South Central franchises.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the applicants for the Wessex Rail franchise; and when a decision is expected on the successful bidder. [153910]

  Mr. Hill
  The Strategic Rail Authority announced on 2 March that Connex Transport UK Ltd., First Group Plc, GB Railways Group Plc, Group 4 Falck Global Solutions Ltd., National Express Group Plc, SBB Laing and Stagecoach Holdings Plc had prequalified to submit proposals for the Wessex franchise. There is no set timetable for awarding this new franchise.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the rates of recycling of household waste achieved by local authorities in England. [154211]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 1 March 2001,Official Report, columns 722–23W, in which we referred to the publication of the "Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies" containing household waste recycling rates for local authorities in England. Copies of the guidance have been deposited in the House of Commons Library and have been sent to all English local authorities.

  Telecommunication Masts
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking following responses to the consultation paper on telecommunications mast development; and if he will make a statement. [154519]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am today announcing a series of important changes to the planning system on the siting of mobile phone masts. We will:strengthen public consultation requirements on mast proposals of 15 metres and below so that they are exactly the same as applications for planning permission;
  increase the time for authorities to deal with prior approval applications to 56 days;
  increase application fees to enable local authorities to carry out full public consultation;
  underline that school governors must be consulted on all proposals for new masts on or near a school or college;
  maintain in full an authority's ability to reject applications on amenity grounds;
  749W
  A modem communications system brings massive benefits to people and businesses alike. Nearly 40 million people—60 per cent. of the UK population—use mobile phones. They enjoy the convenience and accessibility they provide. Parents and children feel more secure because of them. Mobile phones have saved lives—they allow the emergency services to be called immediately when they are needed. None of this could happen without the masts and other infrastructure which enable the service to be delivered.

  But people are concerned about where masts are located. It is vital that masts are designed and sited sensitively so that their environmental impact is kept to a minimum. Local people must have a better opportunity than now to have their say on proposals for mast development.

  We recognise too that there is public concern about the possibility of health effects associated with mobile phone masts. That is why the Government set up the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (chaired by Sir William Stewart) which published its report in May last year. The report suggested that the current planning requirements for masts of 15 metres and below did not allow adequate public consultation. It further suggested that lack of consultation was a major cause of grievance in people who suffer a loss of amenity when base stations are erected.

  We therefore intend to strengthen the current public consultation requirements for masts of 15 metres and under to incorporate exactly the same requirements as for masts over that size and for other development requiring applications for planning Permission.

  To give local planning authorities more time to consult local people we shall increase the amount of time they have to determine prior approval applications for ground-based masts and those on buildings from 42 and 28 days respectively to a uniform 56 days, In addition, we shall extend the prior approval arrangements to cover antennas on roofs where the height of the antenna (including any supporting structure) would exceed 4 metres.

  Under the new arrangements, local planning authorities will be expected to make their decisions within 56 days. Authorities will still be able to turn down mast applications where they do not consider amenity aspects have been adequately addressed. If they have not made a decision within 56 days, approval will be deemed to have been granted. This discipline is needed because many authorities are failing to meet their Best Value target to determine 80 per cent. of planning applications in eight weeks and delay cannot be justified.

  In recognition of the extra demands which improved consultation will make of authorities we propose to increase the fee payable by developers for prior approval applications from £35 to £190 so that authorities have more resources to handle them.

  These changes represent a considerable strengthening of the current arrangements. We shall introduce them, and revised national planning policy guidance, at the earliest opportunity. The guidance will underline our commitment to encouraging mast and site sharing, where that represents the best environmental solution, to minimise proliferation of masts. It will also emphasise the
  750W
  Government's view that telecommunications development must be taken forward through partnership between the operator, the local planning authority and the local community. The revised guidance will make it clear that governing bodies must be consulted on all proposals to site masts on or near schools and colleges.

  We welcome the commitments which the operators have made to develop, with other stakeholders, clear standards and procedures to deliver significantly improved consultation with local communities. For example, operators will initiate the process as early as possible by discussing optimum design and siting solutions even before applications for masts are submitted. We shall want to ensure that these commitments are implemented and followed in every case. We will underpin the arrangements with a new Code of Practice developed with the operators and representatives of local government. I intend to call in the operators shortly to discuss next steps.

  The Stewart Report concluded that
  "the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of the guidelines."

  Gaps in scientific knowledge led the Group to recommend a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies, comprising a series of specific measures, until more research findings become available. We agree with this approach.

  The Government have already taken forward a range of precautionary actions in response to the Group's Report. These include:
  ensuring that all mobile phones and base stations meet the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields. In relation to public exposure these are tougher than the guidelines issued by the National Radiological Protection Board by a factor of five. Mobile phone operators have agreed to ensure that all existing base stations meet these guidelines. In addition, the operators have agreed that all planning applications for new development will be accompanied by a certificate of compliance with ICNIRP guidelines;
  setting up, by the Radiocommunications Agency, a national database giving details of mobile phone base stations. It is planned that the map based facility will indicate the locations, height and maximum power outputs for each fixed transmitter. This is anticipated to be ready and on-line in the next three months;
  auditing mobile phone base stations and masts to assess emissions. The audit will focus on schools with base stations. Schools were asked to register if they wanted to he included. The audits have now begun and all schools registering within the deadline set will be included. The first 11 audits indicated maximum levels of exposure a tiny fraction of the ICNIRP guidelines (eg: the highest level was approximately 1–600 of the guideline levels). The database of results has been put on the Radiocommunications Agency website: www.radio.gov.uk; and
  launching a new joint Government/industry research programme, costing around £7 million and with an independent programme management committee led by Sir William Stewart. It will carry out research into the effects of mobile phone technology on health. This will ensure that this area is kept under review and that Government and the public are kept up to date with new research findings. The call for research proposals was issued on 9 February.
  751W
  In addition, the Department of Health has published leaflets on mobile phones, base stations and health to give people the latest information and advice. The Department for Education and Employment has also issued information to schools and local education authorities regarding mobile phones, base stations and schools. This has been published on their website: www.dfee.gov.uk/a-z/mobilephones.

  It is the Government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. It remains the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the appropriate mechanism for determining health safeguards. I have outlined the measures being taken on a precautionary basis. In the Government's view, if a proposed development meets the ICNIRP guidelines it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application, to consider the health aspects further. This view will be reiterated in our revised planning policy guidance.

  I believe that the improvements to the planning arrangements announced today meet the concerns of the Stewart Group and others about public consultation on masts and strike the right balance by giving people a better opportunity to voice their views without hindering unnecessarily the development of a modern telecommunications network. We shall continue to keep the whole area of mobile phone technologies under review in the light of further research.

  Neighbourhood Renewal
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the neighbourhood renewal funds. [154522]

  Ms Armstrong
  I am pleased to announce that I have laid before the House the Special Grant Report that sets out the allocations and conditions for receipt of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund.

  The NRF will provide £900 million to certain local authorities over the next three years to enable them to improve services in their most deprived areas, including contributing to the achievement of Government PSA targets to narrow the gap between deprived areas and the rest of the country. It is both acceptable, and strongly desirable where service quality is at risk or requires improvement, that NRF funding should be devoted to mainstream services, such as schools, provided that the funding benefits the most deprived areas. The grant can be used to support services provided not only by the local authority, but also by organisations that are members of the local strategic partnership (where one exists) and by others.

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made with the review of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee announced in July. [154636]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have published today the report of the first stage of the financial, management and policy of the JNCC, and have placed copies in the House Libraries. I am inviting interested parties, including the devolved 752W
  administrations and the respective country conservation agencies to offer their considered views on the report within three months.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action is being taken by(a) the regional development agencies and (b) the Countryside Agency to help combat foot and mouth disease. [154210]

  Mr. Meacher
  The primary responsibility for measures to combat foot and mouth disease rests with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The regional development agencies and the Countryside Agency, together with other organisations, have been developing their ideas for actions they can take to help to respond to the wider consequences. They are represented on and are contributing their ideas to the task force on the economic effects of the disease which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to chair.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Code of Conduct
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will amend the Ministerial Code of Conduct to cover the letting of rented accommodation to civil servants. [153783]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]: No. Paragraph 1 of the Ministerial Code makes it clear that Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests.

  The right hon. Member for Hartlepool
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason he accepted the resignation of the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. [153969]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on 24 January 2001,Official Report, column 915.

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his environmental speech presented to the WWF conference at Chatham House on 6 March; and what steps he is taking to allow the public access to the contents of his speech. [154192]

  The Prime Minister
  I have today placed a copy in the Library of the House. It is also available on the No.10 website.

  Parliamentary Pay and Allowances
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will publish the Review Body on Senior Salaries report on parliamentary pay and allowances. [154520]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are publishing the Review Body on Senior Salaries report of parliamentary pay and allowances today. I am grateful to Sir Michael Perry and members of the SSRB for their work and the Government have noted their recommendations.

  This will be a matter for decision by Parliament.

  Foot and Mouth Taskforce
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the(a) terms of reference and (b) membership and (c) programme of the taskforce set up to consider the impact of foot and mouth disease on rural areas; when the taskforce is to report; if he will publish the findings of the taskforce; and if he will make a statement. [154212]

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to chair a taskforce with the following terms of reference:To consider the implications of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease for the rural economy, both immediately and in the longer term and to report to the Prime Minster on appropriate measures.

  In particular to:

  (a) identify the problems that the FMD outbreak is causing for the wider rural economy;

  (b) draw up specific guidance for public and businesses in accordance with veterinary advice;

  (c) identify any initiatives—e.g. from the Rural White Paper—whose implementation might be brought forward to help those caught up in the crisis;

  (d) identify potential new actions which would help to kick-start the rural economy again once the outbreak had been eradicated.

  The taskforce include representatives (including Ministers) of the following organisations:

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Treasury

  No. 10

  English Tourism Council

  Countryside Agency

  British Hospitality Association

  National Trust

  Federation of Small Businesses

  National Farmers Union

  Country Landowners Association

  South West Regional Development Agency

  Newcastle University

  Local Government Association

  National Federation of Women's Institutes

  The Rural Group of the Bishops of the Church of England

  Countryside Alliance

  Scottish Executive

  The Wales Office

  Northern Ireland Executive

  Forestry Commission.

  754W
  The first meeting of the taskforce took place on Wednesday 14 March and it will meet again early next week. I have asked for the specific guidance to the public and businesses on access to the countryside to be prepared by the weekend, and for a report on immediate initiatives to help those caught up in the crisis as soon as possible next week. The task force will meet regularly.

DEFENCE

  Shoeburyness
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) munitions and (b) delivery systems associated with nuclear warfare have been demolished at (i) the Shoeburyness Sands and (ii) adjacent mud flats/sand banks. [149518]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 8 February 2001]: Rocket motors from the Polaris missile were destroyed at Shoeburyness Sands during the 1990s. Conventional high explosives from nuclear weapon systems have been and continue to be disposed of in the demilitarisation facilities of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency range at Shoeburyness. The level of radiation from the explosives disposed of in this fashion is minute and does not constitute a hazard to the environment or to public health.

  Type 45s
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria were used in deciding to accept BAE System's bid for the Type-45s. [150523]

  Mr. Hoon
  I assume that this question refers to the contract recently placed in keeping with the existing procurement strategy for the Demonstration and First of Class Manufacture (DFM) Phase of the Type 45.

  In November 1999, BAE Systems was nominated as the Prime Contractor for the Type 45 Programme following the end of the tri-national Horizon Programme. BAE Systems was nominated because of the previous involvement of GEC Marconi in the Horizon International Joint Venture Company, so it could make maximum re-use of the outputs of the Horizon definition work, and they demonstrated an ability to resource the programme to achieve the timeliness in partnership with the IPT. A competition to select the Type 45 Prime Contractor risked delaying the ISD by at least six months and probably longer.

  The criteria under which BAE Systems was contracted in December 2000 for the DFM Phase are to deliver the first three Type 45 Destroyers, on schedule and to time. The DFM contract has a successive incentive arrangement encompassing all Prime Contractor work, including the ship build elements, in accordance with the existing competitive Procurement Strategy.

  Pipework Insulation
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what standard of heat insulation is specified for pipework in PFI projects in his Department. [151658]
  755W
  Dr. Moonie
  In the Private Finance Initiative projects we set the services and performance levels we require. These requirements are recorded as the key outputs in PFI contracts. We deliberately avoid specifying how contractors should meet our requirements, or the nature of the assets they should use in doing so. Like other companies, PFI contractors do of course need to meet statutory requirements.

  Mines
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the anti-vehicle mines held by the UK, including mine type, the quantities of stocks held anti-handling devices and fuse types. [152600]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK currently holds five different types of anti-tank mines. These are:

  MK 7/4 and MK 7/7

  Barmine—L9s, L17s and L18s

  L3A1—Lightweight non-metallic

  L35A1—Shielder Vehicle Launched Scatterable Mine System

  AT2—Anti-Tank sub-munition delivered by Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS)

  Only the AT2 anti-tank mine has an anti-handling device.

  None of the anti-tank mines held in the UK stockpile contravene the Ottawa Convention.

  I am withholding the quantities of stocks held and fuse types in accordance with exemption 1, (a) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  RAF Northolt
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft movements there were in each of the last 10 years from RAF Northolt. [153568]

  Mr. Spellar
  A movement is defined as either a take-off or landing. According to available records, the number of aircraft movements, both military and civil, at RAF Northolt for the years in question are:

  Year

  Number of aircraft movements

  2000

  12,587

  1999

  13,476

  1998

  13,571

  1997

  15,181

  1996

  15,726

  1995

  14,467

  1994

  12,744

  1993

  12,960

  1992

  14,501

  1991

  13,800

  1990

  14,700

  Note:

  Figures prior to 1997 do not include flights for which landing fees were waived.

  International Criminal Court
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations from the armed forces he has had regarding the proposed International Criminal Court; if he will place in the Library reports setting these out; and if he will make a statement. [153845]
  756W
  Mr. Hoon
  None. The priority of the Ministry of Defence in the drafting of the International Criminal Court Bill and its passage through Parliament has been to ensure that members of the armed forces are fully protected from malicious or ill-founded prosecution by the ICC. The armed forces have been closely involved in the consultation process. I am confident that the Bill before Parliament provides all necessary protection.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what regulations govern the payment of council tax by members of HM Forces serving(a) at home and (b) overseas; and if he will place them in the Library. [154071]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) on 23 July 1999,Official Report, column 695W. I also refer the hon. Member to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (Chapter 14) and the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body Thirtieth Report 2001 (page 28), copies of which are available from the Library of the House.

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme and the Joint MOD/DSS Compensation Review. [154523]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am pleased to announce that the emerging findings of these reviews are being published today for public consultation. I appreciate that both reviews are taking longer than originally intended, but they have raised complicated issues and I am determined that we should find the right package of benefits appropriate for our Armed Forces in modern society.

  The review teams have carried out detailed analysis of the current arrangements and the options for modernisation. They have set out options in each area, working closely with the Services personnel staff. The next stage in the review process is to seek the views of individual Service personnel, ex-Service and Widows organisations and the general public. This will include wide circulation of material describing the proposed changes, both in hard copy and on a range of websites. We will also be going out to interested organisations to explain our proposals, answer any questions and seek views. Because of the complexity of the proposals I have allowed over four months for consultation. After this time we will publish a summary of the responses and consider how to take the package forward in the light of them.

  Copies of the consultation documents will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will also be available on the MOD website. The Joint Compensation Review consultation document will also be available on the DSS War Pensions Agency website.

  Offshore Patrol Vessels
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to replace the Island Class offshore patrol vessels. [154524]
  757W
  Dr. Moonie
  I am pleased to announce that following a thorough tender evaluation, Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd. have been selected as preferred bidder to provide an offshore patrol capability under a lease arrangement to replace the five existing Island Class Offshore Patrol Vessels employed on patrol and fishery protection duties on behalf of MAFF. Subject to satisfactory conclusion of negotiations, we plan to be able to place the associated contract with Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd. in April 2001.

  War Veterans
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the desirability and cost of introducing regular four yearly health checks on war veterans with war wounds, for the purpose of ensuring that they receive the correct pension entitlement. [153382]

  Mr. Bayley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The period for which a war disablement pension is awarded represents the length of time over which it is judged that the assessed level of service-related disablement will remain stable. Lengths of awards are based on individual case-specific facts, taking account of the nature and natural history of the disabling condition and any planned treatment.

  Regardless of the length of any award, if at any time the war pensioner believes that their pensioned condition has deteriorated, he or she may request a review of the award and the assessed level of their service-related disablement, by the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  These provisions are regarded as appropriate to ensure that war pensioners receive War Pensions at rates appropriate to their service-related disablements.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Vessel Licences
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to change the capacity penalty arrangements applying to the transfer and aggregation of fishing vessel licences; and if he will make a statement. [154475]

  Mr. Morley
  The operation of fishing vessel licensing arrangements has been recently reviewed by a joint industry/departmental working group and a copy of the group's report is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The working group has recommended that the existing capacity penalty arrangements should be maintained for the time being but that the penalty relating to the uprating of an existing engine, or to an increase in power following its replacement, should be based on the increase in the vessel's capacity rather than its overall capacity. The Fisheries Departments in the UK agree and arrangements are being made to notify the owners of licensed fishing vessels.

  As of today a 20 per cent. capacity penalty will operate for the uprating or replacement of an existing vessel engine provided the resulting increase in engine power does not exceed 35 per cent. This penalty will be reduced
  758W
  to 10 per cent. where an engine is uprated or replaced before 31 December 2001. However, except in the case of pelagic vessels, where vessel capacity units (VCUs) are taken from vessels under 18 metres in overall length and aggregated onto licensed vessels measuring 18 metres or more in overall length, the capacity penalty will be 30 per cent. Provision will also be made for the splitting of fishing vessel licences for the purpose of engine power adjustments.

  The Fisheries Departments, in conjunction with the European Commission, are also prepared to consider, on a case-by-case basis, waiving capacity penalties and compliance with tonnage rules for vessel improvements which relate exclusively to improved safety and which will not result in an increase in a vessel's fishing effort. Under EU legislation member states may apply for an increase in tonnage; objectives under their relevant Multi Annual Guidance Programme to take account of increases in vessel capacity resulting exclusively from safety improvements. Advantage is now being taken of that facility.

  In the longer term the Fisheries Departments in the UK wish to simplify the present capacity regime and, with the exception of engine power adjustments, plan to return to a situation where a single penalty applies. The present capacity penalties will therefore end on 31 March 2003 and be replaced on 1 April 2003 by a single penalty which will also apply to tonnage and engine power as well as vessel capacity units. Since two years' notice of these changes is being given, no provision will be made for so called pipeline cases. The views of the fishing industry and other interests are being sought on the level at which the capacity penalty should be fixed and whether this should apply to both licence transfers and aggregations or to aggregations alone.

HEALTH

  Prescriptions and Optical Vouchers
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase charges in the NHS and the value of optical vouchers; and if he will make a statement. [154513]

  Mr. Milburn
  We shall lay before the House regulations to increase National Health Service charges in England from 1 April 2001. There will be a cash increase in the charge of 10 pence (1.67 per cent.) from £6.00 to £6.10 for each quantity of a drug or appliance dispensed.

  The cost of prescription prepayment certificates will rise to £31.90 for a four month certificate and £87.60 for an annual certificate. These offer savings for those needing more than five items in four months or 14 in one year.

  Prescription charges are expected to raise some £414 million for the NHS in 2001–02.
  759W
  Charges for elastic stockings and tights, wigs and most fabric supports supplied through the Hospital Service will be increased similarly.

  The maximum patient charge for a single course of dental treatment begun on or after 1 April 2001 will increase from £354 to £360. Only about one in every 1,000 courses of treatment will attract the new maximum charge.

  We have restricted the prescription charge increase to the same cash amount as the previous two years and the other increases are in line with this percentage increase.

  Optical voucher values will increase overall by 2.5 per cent. to help children, people on low income and certain people with complex sight problems with the cost of spectacles or contact lenses.

  NHS Charges and optical voucher values in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are a matter for the Devolved Administrations.

  Details of the revised charges have been placed in the Library.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) red meat abattoirs and (b) poultry abattoirs were in operation on (i) 1 May 1997, (ii) 31 December 1998, (iii) 31 December 1999 and (iv) 31 December 2000; and how many were designated (A) small, (B) medium and (C) large on each date. [151816]

  Ms Stuart
  Abattoirs producing meat for sale for human consumption must be licensed in order to operate. They are classified as either full or low throughput. There is no separate classification for medium-sized abattoirs.

  Red meat abattoirs

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Year

  Licensed

  Revoked

  Licensed

  Revoked

  Licensed

  Revoked

  Licensed

  Revoked

  1991

  593

  1—

  49

  1—

  55

  1—

  16

  1—

  1992

  540

  1—

  53

  1—

  54

  1—

  15

  1—

  1993

  434

  1—

  53

  1—

  40

  1—

  15

  1—

  1994

  424

  1—

  48

  1—

  40

  1—

  15

  1—

  1995

  402

  21

  48

  1—

  36

  1—

  14

  1—

  1996

  384

  22

  49

  1—

  37

  1—

  14

  1—

  1997

  375

  16

  48

  1—

  35

  2

  14

  0

  1998

  360

  14

  43

  4

  34

  1

  14

  1

  1999

  339

  20

  44

  1

  34

  1

  15

  0

  2000

  316

  23

  44

  1

  35

  0

  16

  0

  Poultry meat abattoirs

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Year

  Licensed

  Revoked

  Licensed

  Revoked

  Licensed

  Revoked

  Licensed

  Revoked

  1991

  98

  1—

  7

  1—

  5

  1—

  9

  1—

  1992

  93

  1—

  8

  1—

  5

  1—

  11

  1—

  1993

  98

  1—

  9

  1—

  4

  1—

  9

  1—

  1994

  137

  1—

  8

  1—

  10

  1—

  9

  1—

  1995

  144

  1—

  8

  1—

  11

  1—

  10

  1—

  760W
  The table details the number of full and low throughput red meat and poultry meat abattoirs licensed on 1 May 1997, 31 December 1998, 31 December 1999 and 31 December 2000.

  Red meat abattoirs

  Poultry meat abattoirs

  Full throughput

  Low throughput

  Full throughput

  Low throughput

  1 May 1997

  England

  200

  181

  92

  51

  Scotland

  151

  19

  Wales

  137

  113

  Northern Ireland

  14

  0

  11

  4

  31 December 1998

  England

  198

  162

  83

  48

  Scotland

  37

  7

  7

  4

  Wales

  14

  20

  4

  9

  Northern Ireland

  14

  0

  11

  4

  31 December 1999

  England

  194

  145

  75

  44

  Scotland

  36

  8

  8

  3

  Wales

  15

  20

  4

  7

  Northern Ireland

  15

  0

  12

  3

  31 December 2000

  England

  186

  130

  70

  41

  Scotland

  36

  8

  7

  4

  Wales

  15

  20

  5

  5

  Northern Ireland

  15

  1

  10

  2

  1 As at 1 June 1997. Information on throughput category not readily available.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abattoirs there were, and how many closed, in each of the last 10 years. [151826]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 1 March 2001]: The tables give the number of licensed red meat and licensed poultry meat abattoirs in the United Kingdom from 1991 to 2000, and the number of licenses revoked in each year where this information is available.
  761W

  Poultry meat abattoirs

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Year

  Licensed

  Revoked

  Licensed

  Revoked

  Licensed

  Revoked

  Licensed

  Revoked

  1996

  144

  1—

  10

  1—

  13

  1—

  17

  1—

  1997

  131

  9

  10

  1—

  15

  0

  15

  2

  1998

  131

  6

  11

  2

  14

  2

  15

  0

  1999

  119

  8

  11

  1

  12

  2

  15

  0

  2000

  111

  4

  11

  1

  10

  2

  12

  3

  1 Information is not available for these years.

  Departmental Business (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many visits abroad have been made by him and his Ministers on departmental business(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the last 12 months. [149154]

  Ms Stuart
  Since 1 May 1997 there have been 49 visits abroad on departmental business made by the Secretary of State for Health or one of his Ministers. Of those 49 visits, 12 were made within the last 12 months.

  Christchurch Health Centre
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2001,Official Report, column 111W, on Christchurch Health Centre, on what date negotiations commenced for the release of the restrictions on the lease of the Christchurch Health Centre; what deadline has been set for the conclusion of these negotiations; and for what reason the responsibility for such negotiations is not being left to the assignee of the lease. [153551]

  Ms Stuart
  Negotiations for the release of the lease restrictions commenced in January of this year. No deadline has currently been set as the speed of progress on the negotiations will depend on the landlords.

  To enable the premises to be satisfactorily marketed competitively on the open market it is necessary for prospective purchasers to have certainty on the terms of the lease. It has been advised, therefore, that the terms for a release of the lease restrictions be agreed before remarketing commences.

  Aspartame
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the health effects of the use of aspartame in food; and if he will make a statement. [153905]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]: Neither the Food Standards Agency (FSA) nor the Department has commissioned research into the health effects of aspartame in food. Aspartame (E951) has been approved in the United Kingdom since 1983 and full independent reviews of its safety have been carried out by the European Commission Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) and in the UK the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT).

  The Food Advisory Committee—one of the independent expert committees which advises the FSA—recently discussed aspartame in view of the concerns expressed by some consumers about its safety. The Committee noted that many papers on aspartame have
  762W
  been published in the scientific literature since the last full reviews. It asked the FSA to assess this additional literature and decide whether further detailed evaluation was warranted. If so, the SCF should be asked to conduct a formal review of the new data. The FSA is completing its assessment and will be writing shortly to the SCF.

  NHS Appointments Commission
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the independent appointments commission for NHS boards will(a) be established and (b) take responsibility for appointments. [154161]

  Ms Stuart
  Regulations for the National Health Service Appointments Commission have been laid before Parliament and will come into force on 1 April 2001. The Commission will be operational from that date and will be responsible for all chair and non-executive appointments to NHS trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts.

  Avon Ambulance Service
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the most recent statistical evidence on the response times of the Avon Ambulance Service; and if he will provide corresponding information for(a) one year and (b) two years ago. [154215]

  Ms Stuart
  The quality of service standards for the Avon Ambulance National Health Service Trust from 1997–98 to 30 September 1999 was to respond to 50 per cent. of emergency calls within eight minutes and to 95 per cent. within 14 minutes. For urgent patient journeys the ambulance should arrive not more than 15 minutes after the agreed time in 95 per cent. of cases. The following table contains information about the percentage of responses against these targets for Avon Ambulance NHS Trust from 1997–98 to 30 September 1999.

  Percentage

  Emergency call response

  Urgent patient journeys

  Year

  Within eight minutes1

  Within 14 minutes2

  Arrival not more than 15 minutes late3

  1997–98

  54.2

  90.6

  73.0

  1998–99

  53.5

  92.2

  71.7

  1999 to 30 September

  53.6

  90.9

  466.9

  1 Target 50 per cent.

  2 Target 95 per cent.

  3 Target 95 per cent.

  4 For full year

  Source:

  Form KA34

  Department of Health, Statistics Division SD2B
  763W
  Following a review of standards in 1996 ambulance services were required to introduce systems to prioritise emergency calls. The new prioritisation procedures require that all emergency calls are classified as either immediately life threatening, Category A, or other emergency calls, Category B/C. A new standard was introduced which requires that, by the year 2001, ambulance services reach 75 per cent. of Category A calls within eight minutes. For Category B/C calls and urgent patient journeys the previous standards continue to apply. Avon Ambulance NHS Trust moved to the new system from 1 October 1999 and the following table contains information about the percentage of responses against these targets from 1 October 1999 to 31 March 2000.

  Percentage

  1 October 1999 to 31 March 2000

  Category A emergency calls response.

  Within eight minutes1

  51.3

  Within 14 minutes2

  88.3

  Category B/C emergency call response

  Within eight minutes3

  51.4

  Within 14 minute4

  88.0

  Urgent patient journeys

  Arrival not more than 15 minutes late5

  666.9

  1 Target 75 per cent.

  2 Target 50 per cent.

  3 Target 50 per cent.

  4 Target 95 per cent.

  5 Target 95 per cent.

  6 For full year

  Source:

  Form KA34

  Department of Health, Statistics Division SD2B

  Further details about the performance of Avon Ambulance NHS Trust and all other ambulance trusts are contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 1999–2000". A copy is available in the Library and also available at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0014.htm.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Pensions
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Council when the SSRB report on parliamentary pensions is to be published; and if she will make a statement. [154518]

  Mrs. Beckett
  As decided in the last Parliament, the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) now carries out regular reviews of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF), generally timed to coincide with the triennial valuations of the PCPF by the Government Actuary. The SSRB has published its report today, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Copies are also available in the Vote Office. I am most grateful to the Review Body for their thoughtful and thorough report.
  764W
  The SSRB has made eight recommendations:
  (1) that the lump sum death in service payment be increased from three times annual basic salary to four times annual basic salary and that the increased cost of around 0.4 per cent. be borne by the Exchequer;
  (2) that the rules should be amended to remove the provision for curtailing the pension of a widow/widower of a deceased Member on remarriage or cohabitation. Any consequential increase in the contribution rate should be borne by the Exchequer;
  (3) that the service in the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, other than such service concurrent with service at Westminster, should count towards the qualifying period for an early retirement pension;
  (4) that the Trustees of the PCPF should explore with the managers of the MEPs' pension scheme and the Trustees of the pension schemes for Members of the devolved assemblies the merits of establishing a Parliamentary Transfer Club;
  (5) that the rules of the scheme should be revised in respect of benefits for children to ensure that all dependent children receive equality of treatment;
  (6) equality proofing of the PCPF rules to ensure that there is no systemic discrimination;
  (7) that an exception to the abatement rules should be made for former Members of the House of Commons in receipt of a pension as an MP who become paid office holders in the House of Lords. This exception to abatement should not extend to any part of the pension earned as a paid office holder in the Commons.
  (8) that the Trustees should canvas the views of Members of the PCPF on the issue of survivor pensions for unmarried partners.

  As required by section 2 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987 I shall consult about the changes to the scheme with the Trustees of the PCPF and with other interested parties. As is customary, the Government will hold a debate on an amendable motion. This will give the House a chance to consider this report and the draft regulations implementing the SSRB recommendations, also the associated report of the Government Actuary, which will, I understand, be published shortly.

  It will be helpful for the House to know that the Government are proposing to accept all these recommendations except for recommendation 2. The cessation of widow(er) pension on remarriage or cohabitation is a common provision of public service pension schemes and is a provision which is generally only removed at member cost.

  In relation to recommendation 8, the Government would expect the costs associated with any extension of survivor pensions to unmarried partners to be borne by the members of the PCPF, and not by the Exchequer.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  People's Peerages
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council how many(a) applicants for a people's peerage and (b) candidates invited for interview were formerly hereditary peers sitting in the House of Lords. [151661]

  Mrs. Beckett
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost and in breach of the Appointments Commission's undertakings to treat all personal information in individual applications in strict confidence.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Metropolitan Police Force
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the Mayor of London about the recruitment of police officers for the Metropolitan Police Force. [152683]

  Mr. Straw
  I met the Mayor of London on 4 October and 13 December 2000. Recruitment to the Metropolitan Police Service was among the matters discussed on each occasion, and it has been on a number of less formal occasions when I have met the Mayor.

  Royal Parks Police
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to take the Royal Parks Police into the Metropolitan Police Service; and if he will make a statement. [153460]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Royal Parks Constabulary is a non-Home Office police force; the sponsor Department with responsibility for this Constabulary is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The recent review of the Royal Parks Constabulary recommended that the Constabulary should either become a ring-fenced division of the Metropolitan Police Service or that funds should be provided to allow proper management, accountability and policing by the Royal Parks Constabulary. The recommendation is currently being considered at official level with the Royal Parks Agency and the DCMS.

  Lancashire Police Force
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the latest data available to his Department in relation to the Lancashire police force on the numbers of police officers who(a) are on the establishment of the force, (b) are on sick leave, (c) are undertaking light duties and (d) represent a full complement of officers for the force. [153711]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Chief Constable that Lancashire Constabulary does not maintain a target establishment of officers for the force. I am told that on 13 March, 153 officers were on sick leave. On 28 February, the latest date for which information is available from the force, 158 officers were on restricted/recuperative duties. These figures are for actual persons and are not full-time equivalent numbers.

  I also understand that on 13 March Lancashire Constabulary had 3,261 full-time equivalent police officers.

  Policy Pay
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in respect of police constables(a) average earnings on 1 April 1997, (b) average earnings on 1 April 2001, (c) the percentage annual pay increase for each of the last five years and (d) the percentage pay increase between 1 April 1997 and 1 April 2001. [153199]
  766W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 14 March 2001]: The Survey of Pay, Hours and Length of Service, conducted annually by statisticians from the Office of Manpower Economics for the Police Negotiating Board (PNB), provides figures on the average earnings of police constables, including pay, allowances and overtime. The November 1997 survey showed that the average earnings of a police constable in the United Kingdom were £516.28 per week (or £26,933 per annum). The most recent data available are from the PNB survey undertaken in November 1999 and this showed that the average earnings of a police constable were £550.03 per week (equivalent to £28,693 per annum).

  The PNB makes recommendations to the Home Secretary on all matters concerning police pay and allowances. Police pay is increased every September through a pay award based on the median percentage of the Manpower Index for non-manual workers, a formula introduced in 1994. In 1996 and 1997 the increase was 3.5 per cent; in 1998, 4.0 per cent; in 1999, 3.6 per cent. and in 2000, 3.0 per cent. The pay scale for constables at 1 April 1997, the current pay scale and the percentage increases are detailed in the table (the length of the pay scale was reduced in September 1997).

  Annual salary (£) from:

  Pay point

  1 September 1996

  1 September 2000

  Percentage pay increase

  Constable:

  On commencing service

  1

  14,916

  17,133

  14.86

  2

  16,197

  19,170

  18.36

  On completion of initial training

  3

  17,295

  20,304

  17.40

  On completion of two years" satisfactory service

  4

  17,679

  20,841

  17.89

  5

  18,147

  21,567

  18.85

  6

  18,777

  22,257

  18.53

  7

  19,380

  22,983

  18.59

  8

  20,013

  23,649

  18.17

  9

  20,589

  24,246

  17.76

  10

  21,111

  25,035

  18.59

  11

  21,795

  25,953

  19.08

  12

  22,593

  27,114

  20.01

  13

  23,607

  —

  —

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of detaining all new asylum applicants in secure conditions for(a) the period covering initial decisions and appeals and (b) the period following refusal of asylum and removal in the current financial year; [153823]

  (2) how many additional places in secure conditions he estimates would be needed to detain all new asylum applicants awaiting initial decisions and appeals. [153824]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]: The answer to these questions depends on a number of variables, in particular the number of asylum applicants and the length of time taken to complete the process to removal. Based on forecast asylum intakes, and detention

  767W
  of up to six months, the cost could be more than £2 billion in start-up costs and annual running costs of over £1 billion. It is estimated that a further 32,000 detention spaces would be required. This would equate to a further 64 detention centres each with 500 beds. None of the costs quoted take account of the management overheads of running this size of detention estate. No estimate has been made of the cost of detaining asylum applicants in the period between refusal of asylum and removal.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the practical difficulties of returning failed asylum seekers to(a) Iran, (b) Iraq, (c) Somalia, (d) Sri Lanka and (e) Afghanistan. [153829]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 15 March 2001]: For all nationalities there are the practical difficulties of locating those who have absconded.

  There are also the practical difficulties of arranging flights, the handling of last minute representations and legal challenges.

  Many asylum seekers arrive without a valid passport. In order to effect their return it is necessary to obtain a passport or other travel document from their national authorities. This can be a lengthy and difficult process as it is often necessary to provide detailed evidence of the applicant's identity and nationality before a travel document can be issued.

  We are not currently seeking to return failed asylum seekers where country conditions are not conducive. In addition returns to three of these countries (Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan) are complicated by the absence of direct international flights from the United Kingdom to those countries. Thus removals to those countries require the agreement of third party states to enable transit through their territory. We are currently investigating the potential for reaching such agreements with appropriate states. For some nationalities we are unable to effect removals without having first obtained a travel document from that country's Embassy or High Commission.

  Hunting Bill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy that members of the Government should not brief in favour of particular options within the Hunting Bill. [154241]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government are neutral on the issue of hunting with dogs. Individual members of the Government are free to express their own views on the three options in the Hunting Bill.

  Bajram Zeqiri
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implications for Government policy of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Bajram Zeqiri. [153993]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Court of Appeal allowed this appeal challenging the Government's decision to maintain the certificates issued under Section 2 of the Asylum and 768W
  Immigration Act 1996 to return Kosovar Albanian asylum applicants to Germany under the Dublin Convention. The appeal was allowed on the basis of an assertion by the Court that the applicants had formed a legitimate expectation that their claims for asylum would be substantively determined in the United Kingdom. The Government are considering whether to petition the House of Lords for leave to appeal against the judgment.

  The Court of Appeal found in favour of the Government regarding their powers to review and maintain such certification decisions. It also found that the Dublin Convention conferred rights upon member states' rather than upon individuals. This case related to decisions made before 25 March 1999 under provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 which have subsequently been repealed. Its effect is limited to a small number of cases. For these reasons the judgment does not affect the general policy of the Government regarding the transfer of asylum seekers to safe third countries under the Dublin Convention; nor does the judgment affect the operation of Section 11 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

  Immigration (Carrier Penalties)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 2001,Official Report, column 37W, under which circumstances the civil penalty provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 are pursued against the operator of a hired vehicle used by persons seeking to enter the United Kingdom clandestinely. [154244]

  Mrs. Roche
  The civil penalty provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (the 1999 Act) are pursued against the operators of hired vehicles, be they the owners, hirers or drivers of vehicles found to have carried clandestine entrants if the operators fail to establish a defence as set out in Section 34 of the 1999 Act. Section 34 (2) of the 1999 Act allows for a defence of duress and Section 34 (3) provides for a defence that the operator did not know or suspect the carriage of a clandestine entrant, had an effective system for preventing the carriage of clandestine entrants (having regard to the code of practice issued in accordance with Section 33 of the legislation) and that on the occasion in question the effective system was operated properly.

  Working Group on Football Disorder
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Working Group on Football Disorder will submit its findings and recommendations. [154521]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have today published the Working Group's report and a copy has been placed in the Library. It contains over 50 recommendations aimed at improving the image of English football, the behaviour of its followers and the role of football in promoting social inclusion. A targeted action plan is included. The report stresses that the need to improve communication and develop productive partnerships will be crucial to enhancing the game's reputation and maximising its vast potential to help deliver an inclusive and tolerant society.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Factortame Litigation
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the role of the Treasury Solicitor's Department in the Factortame litigation. [154271]

  The Solicitor-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 March 2001, c. 705W]: Further to the figures quoted, I can confirm that the total sum of damages for the two trials concerned was £54.9 million of which £24.7 million was interest.

  Operation Care
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many of the cases referred to the CPS as part of Operation Care were(a) accepted and (b) refused; and what the main reasons for refusal were. [151613]

  The Solicitor-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 March 2001, c.47W]: A fuller breakdown of cases is as follows:

  Since April 1996 when Operation Care commenced. Merseyside police have submitted cases relating to 181 suspects to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The CPS advised prosecution of 59 suspects; of whom 42 have been finalised, 20 pleaded guilty, seven were convicted after trial, three were acquitted, three were stayed, three were discontinued, one was cautioned, one was abandoned and four died before the proceedings were concluded. Of the remaining 17 to be finalised, 16 are pending and one is awaiting committal.

  The CPS advised police not to proceed with cases against a further 101 suspects, 90 because of insufficient evidence and 11 because the public interest was not satisfied. The police are carrying out further inquiries into another 21 cases.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made with the proposed reforms to the workings of the Public Trust Office. [154037]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) on 21 December 2000,Official Report, column 272W.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations are being undertaken on reforms of the Public Trust Office. [154038]

  Jane Kennedy
  Since the publication of the Quinquennial Review of the Public Trust Office in November 1999 there has been extensive consultation with staff, stakeholders and clients on reform of the Office. We will continue to consult on the way that the Public Guardianship Office provides services to clients when it takes over the mental health functions from the Public Trust Office on 1 April.

  Electronic Conveyancing
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will publish proposals for the introduction of electronic conveyancing. [154637]

  Mr. Lock
  My Department has today published a consultation paper "Electronic Conveyancing: A draft order under section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000". This consultation paper has been produced in association with HM Land Registry and the Law Commission. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial Visits (Peterborough)
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the Cabinet Office Ministers in her Department who visited any of the constituencies which are in the Peterborough Unitary authority area between 1 January 2000 and 14 February 2001, indicating in each case(a)the date of the visit, (b) the constituencies included in the visit and (c) if the local hon. Member met the Minister. [151036]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  No Cabinet Office Ministers visited the constituencies in the Peterborough Unitary area between 1 January 2000 and 14 February 2001.

  Departmental IT Projects
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list (1) the IT projects currently undertaken in her Department; and if she will state the(a) expected completion date and (b) cost of each project; [151504]

  (2) the IT projects her Department plans to undertake in the next year; and if she will state in each case the (a) expected date of commencement and completion and (b) cost. [151468]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 February 2001, c. 495-96W]: IT projects currently being undertaken by the Cabinet Office are as follows:

  Ukonline.gov.uk citizen portal
  In July 2000 the Cabinet Office awarded a contract to BT (British Telecommunications plc) to build and operate the Ukonline.gov.uk citizen portal, for one year (until July 2001). This initial development phase is expected to cost around £10 million, of which around £4 million has been spent so far. We are currently considering the longer-term arrangements for operating the site.

  Government Gateway
  In October 2000 the Cabinet Office began working with a group of suppliers including Microsoft and Cable and Wireless to deliver the initial phase of the Government Gateway. The initial phase of delivery will be complete by June 2001 and will have cost around £18 million.

  Knowledge Network
  The cost to the Government of the new Knowledge Network system has been £3.6 million (GRP) to date.

  The initial development phase of both the ukonline.gov.uk citizen portal and the Government Gateway projects will continue into the next financial

  771W
  year, ending in July and June 2001 respectively. Both projects are part of the long-term strategy for delivering electronic government, and the Cabinet Office has applied for CMF funding to enable both projects to continue beyond these dates. The value of this work will depend upon which aspects of each project are selected for development during the next phase.

  The Knowledge Network project, which is expected to be completed in August 2002, is expected to cost up to £15 million.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Oftel
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects Oftel to publish its review on the pricing of conditional access; and if he will make a statement. [154242]

  Ms Hewitt
  I expect Oftel to announce shortly publication of its review of the conditional access pricing guidelines with respect to public service broadcasters.

  Japanese Overseas Reprocessing Committee
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what communications he has received from the Japanese Overseas Reprocessing Committee since the beginning of November 2000; and if he will place copies in the Library. [153198]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 14 March 2001]: No such communications have been received.

  Hinduja Brothers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) on what date his Department was informed of intelligence reports relating to the Hinduja brothers referred to in paragraph 8.4 of the report of the Hammond Inquiry; [154232]

  (2) on what date intelligence briefings relating to the Hinduja brothers were first made available to him. [153437]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 12 March 2001]: It is not the practice, and has not been the practice of successive Governments, to comment on intelligence matters.

  Hyundai
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with Hyundai representatives on the market prospects for semi-conductor manufacturing. [153614]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 March 2001]: The Government are in regular contact with Hyundai on a range of issues, including the market prospects for semi-conductor manufacturing.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the television, newspaper and radio advertising and other promotional campaigns conducted by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and
  772W
  (c) its departmental public bodies, in each of the past five years, showing for each the expenditure incurred by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [153413]

  Mr. Byers
  [pursuant to the reply, 13 March 2001, c. 544–46W]:

  The following information was omitted from the answer.

  Radiocommunications Authority promotional campaigns were as follows:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  184,380.62

  1997–98

  361,358.70

  1998–99

  545,719.32

  1999–2000

  486,761.36

  2000–01

  493,312.62

TREASURY

  Deaths Abroad
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many British people died each year abroad in each of the past 10 years. [153796]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Frank Field, dated 16 March 2001:

  As Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of deaths of British subjects abroad in each of the past ten years (153796).

  This infomation is not available. Some deaths of British subjects abroad are registered at Consulates or High Commissions or by HM Forces. Returns of these events are made to the Registrar General for England and Wales. In other cases, deaths are registered in the country where they occurred, where that is a legal duty, and there is no legal obligation to notify Registration Services in England and Wales.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter dated 7 February from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding his constituent Mr. R. Foreman. [154240]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have already done so.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the technical notes underpinning the public service agreements will be published. [154635]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  All main Departments have published technical notes on their websites. A link to all the sites can be found at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sr2000/psa/technote.html. I am placing a copy of all the technical notes in the Libraries of both Houses.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Earnings Disregards
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will review the rates of earnings disregard for(a) Income Support and (b) Housing Benefit. [152953]

  Mr. Bayley
  The existing £15 a week higher earnings disregard in Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit will be increased to £20 a week from 9 April 2001.

  Income Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2001,Official Report, column 168W, on Income Support, if he will estimate (a) the number of children in all families, (b) the number of lone parent families and (c) the number of children in lone parent families on Income Support for one year or more. [154231]

  Mr. Bayley
  As at November 2000 it is estimated that there were 1.67 million children living in households which had been in receipt of Income Support for one year or more, of which 1.26 million were children of lone parents. At this date it is estimated that there were 687,800 lone parent households which had been on Income Support for one year or more.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will reply to the letter dated 29 December 2000 from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding his constituent Mrs. M. Innes. [154239]

  Angela Eagle
  A reply has been issued today.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sierra Leone (Select Committee Report)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what time and on what date the deputy head of the Foreign Office's news department first saw a version of the draft Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone supplied by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). [154128]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The then Deputy Head of the FCO News Department answered this question two years ago in his evidence to the Committee on Standards and Privileges (Eighth Report of Session 1998–99).

  The allegations recently published by Mr. Nicholas Jones contradict nothing that was said at the time. From my first answer on this issue, on 23 February 1999, Official Report, column 259W, I made it clear that we had responded to leaks by others to the press, that the FCO had received a copy of the final Report at 0800 on 9 February, and that subsequently the press were briefed orally on my initial reaction. There is therefore nothing to add to the evidence provided to the Standards and Privileges Committee or to my answers to Parliamentary Questions at the time.
  774W
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) at what time on what date(a) the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, (b) the head of the Foreign Office's news department and (c) the head of the Foreign Office's Africa department (Equatorial) were first briefed on the contents of the draft Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone supplied by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross); [154129]

  (2) what duties he was carrying out, and where, at 8 am on 9 February 1999; and where he took the telephone call from BBC journalist, Nicholas Jones, that morning; [154002]

  (3) if (a) his special advisers and (b) John Williams spoke to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) concerning the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone in the week prior to 9 February 1999; [153998]

  (4) when his office first prepared a briefing on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on Sierra Leone published on 9 February 1999; who was involved in writing the briefing; and if he will place a copy in the Library; [154027]

  (5) what telephone conversations (a) he and (b) his Office had with journalists (i) before and (ii) after 10 am on 9 February 1999; [154000]

  (6) if he saw a Foreign Office summary briefing on the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone before 8 am on 9 February 1999; [154028]

  (7) from where and at what time he placed the telephone call on 9 February 1999 to the BBC journalist, Nick Jones, asking him to return his call; [154001]

  (8) at what time on 9 February 1999 (a) he, (b) his special advisers, (c) the Permanent Secretary, (d) the head of the news department and (e) the deputy head of the news department received a copy of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone; [153997]

  (9) if lines for use for briefing the press regarding the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone were prepared before 8 am on 9 February 1999; [154025]

  (10) if a draft press statement was prepared before 8 am on 9 February 1999 based on the content of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone; [153999]

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he instructed the Foreign Office spokesman on his Department's response to The Guardian prior to its report of 12 March concerning his statements to Parliament relating to his Department's advance knowledge of Select Committee reports; [153957]

  (2) at what time and on what date he spoke to Nicholas Jones about the Foreign Affairs Committee's Second report of Session 1998–99 on Sierra Leone. [153956]

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if a spokesman from his Department telephoned Mr. Nicholas Jones of the BBC shortly after 6.30 am on 9 February 1999 to discuss the Foreign Affairs Committee's Second report of Session 1998–99 on Sierra Leone; [153955]
  775W
  (2) at what time he telephoned Mr. Nicholas Jones of the BBC on 9 February 1999 to discuss the Foreign Affairs Committee's Second report of Session 1998–99 on Sierra Leone; [153958]

  (3) when he first read the Foreign Affairs Committee's Second report of Session 1998–99 on Sierra Leone. [153968]

  (4) when John Williams of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office first read the Foreign Affairs Committee's Second report of Session 1998–99 on Sierra Leone. [153959]

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the statements by the BBC's lobby correspondent concerning his use of a leaked draft of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone. [154148]

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) to whom his officials spoke about the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone before 10 am on 9 February 1999; [153986]

  (2) if he will publish a list of Ministers and officials who spoke to Mr. Nicholas Jones of the BBC before 10 am on 9 February 1999; [153990]

  (3) on what date and at what time he first (a) received and (b) read a copy of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone; [153988]

  (4) to whom he spoke on the telephone between 6 am and 10 am on 9 February 1999; [153987]

  (5) if he will publish a list of Ministers and officials who saw leaked documents relating to the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry into Sierra Leone in 1998–99; [153991]

  (6) how many copies of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on Sierra Leone were collected by his officials on 9 February 1999, at what time and from where. [153989]
  776W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer right hon. and hon. Members to my reply to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on 16 March 2001,Official Report, column 773W.

  President Mugabe
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has discussed the visit of President Mugabe to France with the French Ambassador. [154016]

  Mr. Wilson
  No, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not spoken to the French Ambassador. The French Government are well aware of our deep concerns at the situation in Zimbabwe.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whom the Minister of State met and what was discussed during his recent visit to Zimbabwe. [154015]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have not visited Zimbabwe since my appointment as Minister of State.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding President Mbeki's policy towards Zimbabwe. [154017]

  Mr. Wilson
  I discussed our concerns over Zimbabwe with South Africa's Deputy Foreign Minister on 6 March. We welcome President Mbeki's expressed intention to meet President Mugabe soon to discuss the situation in Zimbabwe.

  The hon. Member for Leicester, East
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the hon. Member for Leicester, East on the contents of the report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges relating to his conduct. [154070]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I first saw the report when it was published on 12 March. I first discussed it with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on the latter's return from Cyprus late on 14 March.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 27th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak also to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) Order 2001 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001.
Those of us who carry the campaign medals from the Financial Services and Markets Bill 2000 will recall that, complicated though the primary legislation was, the regulations which were to follow the primary legislation threatened to be even more complicated. We now come to Parliament with the secondary legislation under the Financial Services and Markets Act.
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 provides a far-reaching overhaul of financial services regulation. It establishes the Financial Services Authority as a single statutory regulator of UK financial services. In place of nine regulators, there will be one. In place of eight dispute procedures, there will be one ombudsman. In place of five compensation schemes, there will be one. That will benefit both practitioners and consumers. The Financial Services and Markets Act was subject to a great deal of consultation and scrutiny both within Parliament and outside. I do not need to detain your Lordships with the history of that.
We are making good progress on the implementation of the Act. We are seeking Parliament's approval, including through this debate, of seven statutory instruments—the orders before the House are the first three—which will set the boundaries of the new framework for financial regulation. The instruments will, between them, define the extent of FSA regulation, the framework for the marketing of financial services and the provision of financial services by professional firms. We also expect to seek shortly Parliament's approval of a number of other statutory instruments. Those will complete legislation under the Act on market abuse, recognition requirements for clearing houses and investment exchanges and appointed representatives of authorised persons.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury was able to announce on Wednesday the latest date on which the main provisions of the Act will come into force, a date
1102
known in financial services jargon as N2. In doing so, she took into account the need for firms and consumers to enjoy the benefits of the regulatory framework as soon as practicable, balanced against the need to give financial services firms a reasonable time to prepare between announcing a firm date and N2. She announced our aim that N2 be no later 'than the end of November this year. As soon as she is in a position to announce the actual day of N2, she will do so. I should make clear that this is not an aspiration or a working assumption. Firms should prepare for N2 on that basis.
The legislation for which we are seeking parliamentary approval will enable the FSA to finalise many of its rules and give financial services firms greater certainty about how the Financial Services and Markets Act will affect them. On the basis of our continuing to make progress, I understand that the FSA expects to be in a position to make the key provisions of its rule book no later than the end of July. I should add that while the target for N2 means that the main provisions of the Act will come into force no later than the end of November, there will he some variations to that.
In respect of mortgages, given that this is an activity which has not hitherto been subject to regulation., it is appropriate to give the FSA and mortgage lenders more time to prepare for regulation. We intend regulation of mortgages to begin nine months after N2. In respect of funeral plan contracts, we intend the relevant provisions to come into force on 1st January 2002. Deposit taking by credit unions will also be regulated for the first time under the Financial Services and Markets Act. That will take place from 1st July 2002.
Finally, on implementation, a number of the provisions of the Act will need to be commenced prior to N2. For example, the FSA itself will have to be established in order to make its rules. The Financial Services and Markets Act 'Tribunal will also need to be established in order to begin its work of determining cases arising, for example, from certain applications before N2 for authorisation after N2. The provisions to be commenced early will be set out in commencement orders in the usual way. Some provisions—the powers to make statutory instruments and interpretative provisions—have already been brought into force by the first commencement order.
I now turn to the orders which are the subject of this debate. It is no exaggeration to say that the regulated activities order is the most important piece of secondary legislation under the Financial Services and Markets Act. It defines the scope of what is to be regulated by the FSA. The regulated activities order was issued twice for public consultation: once in February 1999 and then again in October last year. The order sets out the activities and investments which will be subject to regulation by the FSA, and which are, under existing legislation, contained in different financial services, banking and insurance legislation. Having all the regulated activities specified in a single order will be one of the key benefits of the new

1103
framework and will be appreciated, in particular, by the estimated 665 firms which are currently subject to authorisation by more than one regulator.
The boundaries of FSA regulation are to be set by Treasury Ministers accountable to this House. The Act provides various accountability mechanisms for the FSA itself. But we should be clear that the scope of what the FSA regulates is a matter firmly reserved for Ministers. Moreover, if Ministers wish to extend the scope of FSA regulation where it had not hitherto applied, that requires, as with this debate, an affirmative resolution process with a debate and vote in both Houses of Parliament.
I turn now to the scope of regulation set out in the regulated activities order. It is fair to say that in nearly all cases the order brings about only small changes to the existing scope of regulation. Thus, for example, Article 25(2) of the order states:
"Making arrangements with a view to a person who participates in the arrangement buying, selling, or underwriting investments … (whether as principal or agent) is also a specified kind of activity".
This provision is substantially derived from paragraph 13(b) of Schedule 1 to the Financial Services Act 1986. But we have introduced a new exclusion for arranging deals in investments, where the arrangements merely provide the means where one party to a transaction is able to communicate with other such parties. This change, although highly technical and specific, is designed to ensure that information transmitters, such as telecommunications companies and Internet service providers will not be regarded wholly as arranging deals in investments. This change is not untypical of the adjustments we have made to many of the provisions of the regulated activities order compared with existing legislation.
Perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to areas of significant change in the regulated activities order. The order brings into the scope of FSA regulations for the first time mortgages, pre-paid funeral plans, stakeholder pension schemes and aspects of Lloyd's insurance. The grounds for bringing these activities into regulation vary for each activity, but in all cases it will, if necessary, enable a different balance between the interests of firms and consumers to be struck compared with the absence of regulation. And, if redress is necessary, regulation will provide easier means of redress for consumers.
We have also introduced a new risk management exclusion which is designed to replace the permitted person regime in the Financial Services Act. These new areas of regulation were of course subject to consultation with those affected. The regulated activities order will reduce the scope of regulation in other cases. These are in relation to, first, the issue of debt securities, where we have excluded from the scope of deposit taking sums received in consideration for the issue of debt securities over one year; where the securities have a maturity of less than one year, we have excluded from the scope of deposit taking such sums only where the securities are offered to professional investors and have a minimum denomination of £100,000.
1104
Secondly, the order will reduce the scope of the activity of arranging deals in investments, for the reasons that I have given previously. Thirdly, we have also reduced the scope of regulation in relation to vehicle breakdown insurance, where we have removed the requirement that such insurance be normally available throughout the mainland of Great Britain, for the exclusion from the activity of effecting and carrying out contracts of insurance to apply. We are satisfied that in those areas where the scope of regulation is being reduced, consumer protection will not be prejudiced.
I shall turn more briefly to the exemption order and the business order. In my view, the provisions of the regulated activities order, and of the business order and the exemption order, are compatible with the convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998. The exemption order, as its name suggests, exempts from the requirement for FSA authorisation, named persons in respect of classes of regulated activity or, in some cases, particular regulated activities. There are bodies for which authorisation by the FSA would be either inappropriate or unnecessary. In almost all cases, these are bodies which are carrying out some kind of public policy function such as the Bank of England or a tourist board. Alternative mechanisms exist, therefore, of ensuring that they undertake regulated activities in a way which does not damage the interests of consumers. Moreover, as public policy bodies, potential competition concerns from their exemption from FSA authorisation do not arise.
Our intention under the exemption order has been broadly to ensure that those persons who were exempt under previous legislation do not need to seek FSA authorisation. In a number of cases, however, it has not been necessary to provide a specific exemption where one had been provided previously. That is, first, because the test for whether a person is carrying on regulated activities in the first place, and hence might conceivably need an exemption, is that they do the activities by way of business. We have concluded that in a number of cases, for example, Church bodies, this is not the case.
Secondly, it makes no sense under a single regulator of financial services for persons to be authorised in respect of some activities and exempt in others. Under the new regime, a person's Part IV permission can simply be extended to take account of activities for which they were previously exempt. Having said that, we do not wish the provisions of the Act to apply to the activities of persons who will be authorised under the new regime, but who had an exemption for certain activities under previous legislation. This has been achieved via an exclusion in the regulated activities order.
Thirdly, some exemptions have been removed because they are no longer necessary. An example is that for nationalised industries accepting deposits from other nationalised industries. Lastly, some exemptions have been updated to reflect wider developments; for example, developments in the gas and electricity markets.
Finally, I turn to the business order. As I have already said, a person is carrying on regulated activities only if he does so by way of business. That term is not further defined in the Act and will have its usual meaning. But there are circumstances where, although a person might otherwise be regarded as carrying on activities by way of business for the purposes of FSA regulation, we wish to deem him not to be doing so. The converse also applies: there are circumstances in which somebody would usually be regarded as not carrying out an activity by way of business, but we wish to regard him as in fact doing so.
Existing legislation on banking, insurance and investment services each has slightly different business tests. We have therefore used the business order to, in effect, retain the business tests for predecessor legislation. This will make easier the transition to the new framework for all financial services firms as the business tests with which they are familiar will continue to apply.
I have been informed that the City Liaison Group has asked the Treasury to clarify a few technical points on the regulated activities order, and I shall ask Treasury officials to clarify those points in due course.
Finally, I should draw the attention of the House to one section of the business order which implements one of the recommendations by Paul Myners in his report to the Chancellor on institutional investment. The change will enable the trustees of an occupational pension scheme to invest in an authorised fund which invests in private equity without the trustees themselves having to be authorised. This change is fully in line with the Government's objective of encouraging greater investment in private equity. I commend the change, the business order, the regulated activities order and the exemption order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 27th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey. )
Lord Newby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed explanation of the orders. Those of us who sat through the long discussions on the Bill find it fascinating to return to these issues.
I have only one substantive point to make on the orders. It relates to the question of mortgage intermediaries and mortgage advice. Noble Lords may recall that there was much discussion when the Bill was passing through the House about the whole question of bringing mortgages within the scope of the Bill and about the point at which that activity should be regulated. The problem at the moment is that neither mortgage intermediaries nor those giving advice on mortgages are to be regulated. We are in the interesting situation where the industry wants more rather than less regulation in this area; it wants these two categories of people to be brought within the scope of the legislation.
So far as concerns mortgage intermediaries, about half of all borrowers seek advice from intermediaries before approaching a particular lender. My
1106
understanding is that the FSA has suggested that one way forward would be to make a rule requiring lenders to take responsibility for ensuring that mortgage intermediaries comply with the FSA's rules for lenders on providing borrowers with pre-sale information. However, this proposal has met with widespread opposition from lenders and intermediaries alike, because it is really regulation by the back door. It would be costly and wasteful. The FSA believes that if there should be control over what information intermediaries provide, it should be in a position to regulate that process by authorising intermediaries directly.
The second, broader, issue concerns the fact that there is no provision for the regulation of mortgage advice. Again, the consultation has suggested fairly unanimously that this should be brought within the scope of the Act. My recollection is that when we were looking at these two different areas when the Bill was passing through the House, the strong advice that we had from the Treasury and the FSA in relation to mortgage advice was that it should not be brought into the scope of the Bill at that stage because it would place a considerable additional burden on the FSA in terms of the range of businesses that were being regulated and that the matter should be left for the time being and looked at later.
In view of the preponderance of advice and opinion within the mortgage industry that mortgage advice and mortgage intermediaries should be brought formally within the firm regulatory framework of the FSA, can the Minister say where discussions have got to on these issues and, secondly, whether, in the tight of the consultation, there will be a serious look at bringing these two areas of activity within the scope of the regulations?
11.15 a.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, yesterday, in the 10th Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in another place, a very full debate took place on these three orders between my honourable friend Mr Howard Flight and the Minister, Miss Melanie Johnson. In those circumstances, nothing would be gained by rehearsing what was said in every detail. That is, of course, on the assumption that the Minister's responses today will reflect those of his honourable friend in another place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has that assurance.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I had hoped that it was not an unreasonable assumption as only 24 hours have passed.
The Minister was kind enough to see me, together with Mr Charles Abrams, the distinguished financial securities lawyer, to discuss these orders some weeks ago. Although we were not as successful as we had hoped, I should like to thank the Minister and his officials for all the time that they took over our concerns.

1107
I should also like to pause here, if I may, to pay a tribute to Mr Charles Abrams, who does not, at the moment, enjoy the best of health. His remarkable grasp of the Act has played a major part in shaping the Opposition's approach to it throughout its long passage through another place and through your Lordships' House. But I know that the Minister will agree that Mr Abrams' contribution has transcended matters of party politics. It is no exaggeration to say that he has made a major contribution to everyone's approach to the Bill, whether in government or opposition, whether in the City or the professions; and, in doing so, he has performed a significant act of public service.
I cannot let the orders go without saying some things about them. It is a sadness that your Lordships' House is unable to amend orders, especially when such orders will play a leading role in the future activity of the most successful sector of our economic life in the United Kingdom.
I wish to refer to four matters which are raised by the first order; that is the regulated activities order. The first concerns arranging deals in investments falling under Article 25(2) of the Financial Services Act. That article covers all arrangements made in order to enable participants to buy or sell investments. The scope of the "arranging deals in investments" category of regulated activity should, in our view, be much more restricted. Were I able to amend the order, I would suggest the following amendment:
"Making arrangements with a view to inviting, influencing or persuading someone to enter into a transaction under which a person who participates in the arrangements will buy, sell, subscribe for or underwrite investments falling within paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) (whether as a principal or an agent)".
Secondly, I am still concerned with those parts of the order which deal with specific exemptions for professionals when providing professional services under Article 67. There is still no specific exemption for lawyers and accountants.
There is, indeed, now a more relaxed exemption than in the previous version of the order for "necessary activities", which applies if the activity is reasonably thought to be necessary. However, this still does not solve the problem where professional firms will not want to risk getting "reasonably thought to be necessary" wrong, and so commit a criminal offence. Moreover, the exemption is made worse because it applies only if no other activities carried on by the professional firm consist of other regulated activities; and this seemingly applies anywhere in the world, if my interpretation of Article 67(1)(a) is correct.
I therefore propose that Article 67(1) should be amended as follows:
"(1) There are excluded from Articles 21, 25(1) and (2) 40 and 53 any activity which
(a) is carried on in the course of carrying on any profession or business which does not otherwise consist of carrying on regulated activities in the United Kingdom; and
(b) either:
(i) may reasonably be regarded as a necessary or desirable part of other services provided in the course of that profession or business; or
1108
(ii) relates only to negotiating or the legal or commercial consequences of an investment transaction or an agreement therefor".
The exemption for arranging deals with or through FISMA-authorised firms may be helpful. However, in many other cases there will be no FISMA-authorised firm involved. This exemption cannot apply in these cases. It is therefore necessary to provide an exemption which is expressly directed to the position of professions.
The consultation document issued by the Treasury in February 1999, with the first draft of the regulated activities order, stated expressly in Section 3 that the Government wanted to avoid professionals seeking authorisation on a precautionary basis merely in order to ensure that, in advising their clients in a professional capacity, they did not commit a criminal offence. The Treasury indicated that the regulated activities order would therefore seek to define activities regulated under the Bill in a way which leaves as little room for doubt as possible, thereby minimising the number of firms which seek authorisation on a precautionary basis.
It is surely inappropriate, in any case, that firms which only provide legal or accountancy advice to corporations or private individuals, on transactions, or negotiations, should be regarded as providing a financial service. In our view, these are not investment activities at all; they are merely "professional activities connected with investments".
Thirdly, I turn to the signature of investment agreements. There should be an exemption from Article 21 (dealing with investments as agent) where a person merely signs an investment agreement on behalf of another person in circumstances where it is not itself a party and has no discretion as to the terms of that agreement. I am advised that the FSA regards this as constituting "dealing as an agent"; the person signing is binding the party to the agreement by signing for him and is, therefore, agreeing to do whatever it is that that party has to do "as agent". The person signing does not "agree to buy [or sell] as agent" anything; he merely agrees that the party to the agreement will buy or sell.
It would seem to us that the appropriate exemption in the order should read as follows:
"(1) There shall be excluded from Article 21 any transaction which is or is to be entered into by a person as agent only in that he signs or will sign an agreement for that transaction as signatory for one of the parties to that agreement at the direction of that party.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, a person signs an agreement at the direction of a party only if the party has approved that agreement or an agreement in substantially the same form as that agreement".
Fourthly, I turn to the definition of "shares". The definition in Article 76(1)(b) treats as "shares" interests in any unincorporated body constituted under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom. Accordingly, the Netherlands, Antilles or Cayman Islands or indeed Channel Islands limited partnership will be treated as a company as well as a collective investment scheme.

1109
When it comes to marketing, therefore, it will always be necessary to fall within exemptions from both the Public Offers of Securities Regulations 1995, which apply to "shares" within what would be Article 76(1)(b), and the restrictions on marketing collective investment schemes, under Section 238(1). As I understand it, this is because, if there is no exemption, both the Section 238 restrictions and the prospectus requirement under the POS regulations apply, whether or not the unincorporated body is open-ended. This contrasts with a corporate collective investment scheme—a body corporate is a collective investment scheme only if it is open-ended. If it is, the POS regulations do not apply to it. The definition should therefore be changed.
I should like to mention two further matters arising under this order, although I am still not quite sure, having read the proceedings in another place, what is the Government's position on them. The first of these concerns the definition of "close relatives" under Article 3(1).
The definition of "close relatives" in the exemptions ought to include trustees of trusts where the only beneficiaries are close relatives. This is especially important in relation to the exclusions for activities carried on in connection with a body corporate. Many family companies use trustees—for example, if a spouse is given only a life interest or any children are minors. Unless the definition of "close relatives" is extended in this way, the exclusions cannot be used.
The final area of uncertainty concerns the removal of the ISD passport for non-UK EEA banks. The regulations should reinstate the unilateral ISD passport which has been granted to non-UK EEA credit institutions—in other words, the passport similar to the passport granted by the investment services directive to non-bank investment firms which has been granted by the Treasury to credit institutions from the EEA which are not incorporated in the UK.
As I recall, when we asked for the reinstatement of the unilateral passport when the Bill was going through this House, the Government stated that the Treasury had never unilaterally granted any such passport. I have always been puzzled by that statement and respectfully disagree with it.
The Treasury has indeed granted this passport. The passport covers the ISD activities not covered by the second banking directive, especially arranging deals in the secondary market and receiving and transmitting orders. As I understand it, the FISMA does not continue this unilateral ISD passport and, consequently, will significantly prejudice incoming EEA banks. It will also be helpful to the United Kingdom to continue this passport because United Kingdom banks can similarly be benefited when they use their outgoing passport.
Finally—your Lordships will be relieved to hear—perhaps I may make one observation on the draft of the Carrying on Regulated Activities By Way of Business Order.
1110
We, of course, support the proposed exemption of pension fund trustees from the need to be FISMA-authorised which is imposed by Article 4(1). The exemption appears in Article 4(1)(b) and applies even if decisions to invest in private equity funds within paragraph (6) are not taken by FSIMA-authorised or exempted firms or overseas persons. This exception o the general rule that the exemption applies only if all decisions on investments are taken by firms falling within these permitted categories reflects an important recommendation in the Myners report, as it removes a regulatory obstacle to venture capital investment by pension funds.
However, in our view, the exemption does not go far enough. All that it achieves is to ensure that I he actual decision can be taken by the pension fund trustees. They still need to be advised by one of these permitted persons. This means that the trustees still have to find a permitted person who knows about venture capital, become its client and, at least in the case of FISMA-authorised firms, go through a "know your customer" inquiry. Indeed, if the FSA conduct of business rules reflect the existing IMRO requirements in this regard, the FISMA-authorised firm has to treat the pension fund as a private client and comply with the suitability requirement. In our view, this is both cumbersome and expensive and still represents a significant regulatory obstacle. We recommend that the requirement in paragraph (6)(b) should be deleted.
We also think that the definition of "relevant investment" in paragraph 7 should be restricted. This is because "shares" include interest in non-UK collective investment schemes. Otherwise, the two-tier fund (where the body corporate itself invests in relevant investments; for example, where the body corporate is an investment trust or venture capital trust) becomes a three-tier fund, where the fund in the second tier is not restricted to private equity. If this amendment is not accepted, it would surely be appropriate to allow for these three-tier funds to be established through UK collective investment schemes as well.
I would, without in any way embellishing upon them, like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, with respect to mortgage advisers and mortgage intermediaries.
11.45 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the care with which they have responded to these orders. I shall do my best to respond to the points that have been made.
I start with the issue of mortgage lenders. This was referred to mainly by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, but with the assent of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. The Treasury's consultation in 1999 showed that what prospective borrowers really need is clear and comparable information about the mortgages on offer. We decided that there was no need to regulate mortgage advice and that we did not need to regulate mortgage brokers, only mortgage lenders. Lenders should be more familiar with those who distribute

1111
their products. That has the advantage of reducing the work of the FSA to a reasonable level, allowing a slightly faster introduction than might otherwise be possible. Some 8,000 additional brokers would need to seek authorisation from the FSA as opposed to the 200 or so lenders.
The Government are committed to reviewing the operation of the Financial Services and Markets Act in the round two years after N2; that is, before the end of 2003, in response to the Cruickshank review. Experience in those two years could point to the need for less rather than more regulation in this area. However, I think it will be clear that we have not ruled out the possibility of extending regulation if that is necessary. We shall return to that issue in due course.
As to whether we should regulate advice, surely mortgages are not inherently complex. One borrows money against one's home and one pays off the loan over an agreed term. The original consultation showed that there was a lack of clarity and transparency over redemption penalties, for example. That was the main cause of consumer detriment. As regards mortgages, customers are not entrusting their own funds to financial firms; it is the other way round. We think that the review that I mentioned will deal with the issue which was raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made a number of points. I shall try to deal with them as best I can. He mentioned arranging deals in investments. It was proposed that we should include an exclusion from the activity of arranging deals in investments where the arrangements consist only of an activity which is not a regulated activity. But as the purpose of the regulated activities order is to specify regulated activities, it does not make sense to exclude activities which are not regulated activities. What we have done is to reduce the scope of the activity of arranging deals in investments by including a new exclusion from the activity where the arrangements merely provide the means by which one party to a transaction, or potential transaction, is able to communicate with other parties.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also referred to Article 67 on specific exclusions for professional firms. We have not included a specific exclusion from the activity of arranging deals in investments for professional firms because we doubt that merely preparing or negotiating legal documentation for a transaction would amount to arranging deals in investments. If the activities of a professional firm spill over to arranging deals in investments, the firm may be able to rely on the exclusion in Article 67 which will be available where, first, the activity is carried on in the course of a profession which does not otherwise consist of regulated activities and, secondly, may be reasonably regarded as a necessary part of other services provided in the course of that profession. In any case we have liberalised the exclusion in Article 67, which is based on paragraph 24 of Schedule 1 to the
1112
Financial Services Act 1986, by changing the wording from,
"is a necessary part of other services",
to,
"may reasonably be regarded as a necessary part",
to make it more useful to professional firms.
The fallback is that if a professional firm's activities do not fall within the exclusion in Article 67, it will be open to the firm to submit to the regime for professionals in Part XX of the Act. But, to give a specific exclusion for the activity of arranging deals in investments for professional firms would undermine the regime in Part XX without any of the checks and balances which are built into that regime.
I hope that my remarks will be less complex as regards signing an investment agreement. We do not agree that merely signing an agreement comprises dealing as an agent. We do not believe that that concern is well founded. I understand the concern about the definition of shares because of the scope of the Public Office of Securities Regulations of 1995. The right solution would seem to be to change the Public Office of Securities Regulations, not the regulated activities order. The definition of shares reflects that in the 1986 Financial Services Act, and the change proposed seems a rather odd way of dealing with the problem, if there is a problem, which could have a number of unintended consequences.
I turn to the definition of a close relative. We have already amended the exclusion in Article 70—articles carried on in connection with the sale of a body corporate—so that "close relative" includes trustees of trusts where beneficiaries are close relatives. It is not appropriate to amend the definition of close relative in the rest of the regulated activities order.
On the universal passport issue to cover ISD activities, this is a matter for regulations to be made under Schedule 3 to the Financial Services and Markets Act. I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about pension fund trustees. I referred to that in the closing minute of my introductory speech. It is a deliberate policy to require trustees to get advice from an authorised person. That in turn reflects requirements of the Pensions Act. Where there is more than one tier, each fund must have as its primary purpose investment in private equity. We have gone a long way in implementing Mr Myners' recommendations but we do not think that we should go the extra mile which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, proposes.
I hope that that deals with the issues raised in the debate. I commend the orders to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) Order 2001
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

1113
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved. [10th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved. [10th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Professions) (Non-Exempt Activities) Order 2001
11.52 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving that the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved, I shall speak also to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Designated Professional Bodies) Order 2001. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to the second order first because it sets the context.
Nearly 15,000 firms of solicitors, accountants and actuaries are currently authorised to carry on investment business by their professional bodies, which are known as recognised professional bodies, which are themselves recognised and supervised by the FSA under the Financial Services Act. Most of these firms do not carry on significant investment business but have sought precautionary authorisation to avoid committing a criminal offence under that Act. The Financial Services and Markets Act ends self-regulation as a route to authorisation and requires all firms carrying on mainstream regulated activities to be authorised and regulated by the FSA as the single statutory regulator.
However, we are keen to get the balance right between effective consumer protection and the level of regulation. We do not want professional firms to have to seek FSA authorisation on a precautionary basis,—the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred to that in the previous debate—if they are likely to carry on only a limited range of regulated activities, such as arranging or giving business advice, which arise out of or are complementary to their professional services.
Part XX of the Act therefore provides an exemption for professional firms which are not already authorised, or exempt persons, for certain regulated activities. Those are that the carrying on of these activities must be governed by rules made by a
1114
professional body designated under Section 326 of the Act (a designated professional body); the regulated activities must be carried out in a manner which is incidental to the provision of professional services; the regulated activities must not give rise to the receipt from any person other than the client of a pecuniary reward or other advantage for which the professional does not account to his client; and, finally. the regulated activities must not be excluded by an order made by the Treasury under Section 327(6), the nonexempt activities order.
The designation order specifies the eight professional bodies whose members will be able to carry on exempt regulated activities under Part XX. I am pleased to say that all the professional bodies which are currently recognised under the Financial Services Act have confirmed to us that they will be willing to be designated for the purposes of Part XX.
There are two conditions for designation under Section 326. The first is that the professional body must have rules which would govern the conduct of exempt regulated activities by its members. This is already met by the recognised professional bodies. Secondly, each profession must have some statutorily recognised basis such as regulation under or regulation in statute. This requirement is similar to that which currently applies under the Financial Services and Markets Act and is, again, met by all the existing recognised professional bodies.
Designating these bodies for the purposes of Part XX of the Act will allow the vast majority of professional firms carrying on regulated activities which arise out of or are complementary to their professional services to continue to be supervised and regulated by their professional body. But where professional firms are engaged in mainstream financial services, such as arranging life insurance, personal pensions or managing investment portfolios, they will need to be authorised by the FSA in order to ensure the appropriate level of consumer protection.
In my view the provisions of this order and of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Professions) (Non-Exempt Activities) Order 2001 are compatible with convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act.
I turn now to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Professions) (Non-Exempt Activities I Order 2001. Part XX of the Act provides an exemption in defined circumstances for certain incidental activities carried on by firms which are regulated by professional bodies. Those are that the activities must be governed by rules made by the firm's designated professional body; they must be provided in a manner which is incidental to the provision of professional services; and they must not give rise to the receipt from any person other than the client of a pecuniary reward or other advantage for which the professional does not account to his client.
However, we do not intend that professional firms should be able to use the Part)0(exemption to set themselves up as mainstream financial services providers such as banks, insurance companies,

1115
brokers or fund managers providing their own investment products to their clients, even in circumstances where they are able to show some connection between these products and their professional services. With these activities, there is a risk that the adoption of different tests for professional firms and other firms authorised by the FSA will prejudice the interests of consumers or affect the Government's ability to meet their international obligations. The non-exempt activities order, to be made under Section 327(6) of the Act, is intended to exclude these activities from the exemption under Part XX, and to require individual FSA authorisation for banking, insurance, broking or fund management activities.
The scope of the activities which any particular professional firm will be able to carry on under the Part XX exemption will be set primarily by the rules made by the relevant designated professional body and by the other constraints set out in Section 327 of the Act. The effect of this order is to identify activities which cannot be permitted by the rules of the professional body.
We consulted on the order in October 2000 along with the regulated activities order and received general support for this approach. However, we did receive a number of helpful suggestions, particularly from members of the professions, which we have accepted in this order. I shall deal with a few of them. There are currently arrangements for professional firms to be regulated and authorised to carry on investment business by a professional body recognised under the Financial Services Act. But there are no similar arrangements under the Banking Act or the Insurance Companies Act, and we do not believe that professional firms should be allowed to engage in these activities. In consultation, we received broad support for this policy.
Article 4 of the non-exempt activities order therefore specifies (a) accepting deposits, (b) effecting and carrying out contracts of insurance, and the related activities of (f) acting as a managing agent at Lloyd's, (g) entering a funeral plan contract as provider, and (h) mortgage lending. Many of the existing exemptions under the Banking Act will be replaced by exemptions specified in the exemption order or by exclusions in the regulated activities order. For example, Article 7 of the regulated activities order contains an express exclusion for accepting deposits in the course of a solicitor's profession.
The non-exempt activities order also specifies at Article 4(c) dealing in investments as principal, but not other related activities such as dealing as agent and arranging deals in investments. We are aware that many professional firms and others deal in investments in their capacity as trustees and in other fiduciary capacities. But the regulated activities order already contains appropriate exclusions in relation to persons acting as trustees or in other circumstances relevant to the legitimate commercial dealings of a non-financial services business or profession. We do not believe there is any need for a further exemption.
We recognise that professional firms are frequently asked to arrange deals or act as agent in connection with their professional services. We do not propose to specify those activities.
The main concern expressed in consultation was that insolvency practitioners might in some circumstances find themselves dealing as principals. However, we did not think it was appropriate to address that issue for professionals alone, as some insolvency practitioners will not be members of a designated professional body. We have therefore provided a separate exemption for insolvency practitioners in the exemption order.
Article 5 specifies managing investments, while paragraphs (d) and (e) of Article 4 specify the related activities of establishing a collective investment scheme and establishing a stakeholder pension scheme. The majority of professionals will merely be acting on instructions and so will not be managing their clients' investments. However, we recognise that some professional firms and others may be required to exercise discretion in their capacity as trustee or in another fiduciary capacity.
The regulated activities order already provides exclusions for investment management by attorneys, or when carried on by trustees or personal representatives, unless they hold themselves out as providing a service comprised in that activity or are remunerated separately in relation to that activity.
However, fund management is an area of significant risk for consumers. The exclusion in the regulated activities order does not extend to activities in relation to collective investment schemes or stakeholder pension funds, or to trustees of an occupational pension scheme who have not delegated routine decisions to an authorised person. We do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to give professional firms an additional exemption to carry on those activities under the Part XX arrangements.
In consultation, some commentators expressed concern about the position of professionals who act as receivers appointed by the Court of Protection in accordance with the advice of an authorised person. The position here is similar to that of attorneys, who will be able to manage assets without authorisation as long as they delegate decisions relating to key investments to an authorised fund manager. That harks back to the last issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
The activity that generated the largest number of comments in consultation was advice. Article 6 specifies advising on investments where the advice consists of a recommendation to buy or subscribe for a particular security or contractually based investment, or to dispose of a member's rights or interests under a personal pension scheme. Article 7 also specifies advising a person to become a member of a particular Lloyd's syndicate.
There is a risk to consumers whenever an adviser selects investments for his client, whether these are life assurance or pensions products, shares, including investment trusts, loan stock, including junk bonds,

1117
collective in vestment schemes or derivatives. We are conscious that professional firms provide an important safeguard for clients who might otherwise enter such transactions without proper advice. We believe that appropriate controls over such advice can be exercised by professional bodies, or, where necessary, by the FSA under Sections 328 or 329.
There are already a number of exclusions relevant to the activities of a professional person in the regulated activities order, which address many of those concerns, including advice that is a necessary part of his profession or is given in his capacity as a trustee or in connection with the sale of a body corporate. However, we did not want professional firms to be able to engage in selecting investments for their private clients under the Part XX exemption. We consulted on the basis that advice consisting of a recommendation to buy or subscribe for a security or contractually based investment such as a life assurance or pensions product should require authorisation. We did not propose to specify other advice, such as advice not to buy a particular investment or to dispose of an investment.
In consultation, there was general support for the proposition that professional firms should be able to advise on the merits of investment transactions under the Part XX exemption, but that they should not be able to give advice that amounted to selecting investments on behalf of their clients. Some additional concerns were raised, but I shall spare your Lordships those.
A professional firm will be carrying on the regulated activity of advising on investments only if he is advising his client in his capacity as an investor. That will often not be the case. Such advice would normally be regarded as a necessary part of the services provided by a solicitor or barrister. We do not want to create an exemption for solicitors that could not also be relied on by barristers giving advice in relation to the same matter. For the avoidance of doubt, we have also included a provision in Article 6 to make it clear that we are talking only about recommendations to buy investments from a person whose business is dealing in those investments, including a life insurance company, on a stock market, or in response to an invitation to subscribe for an investment that is, or is to be, traded on a stock market. Professional firms will not be prevented by the regulations from making recommendations in relation to private transactions between family members, between an employer and his employee or between the parties to a dispute.
The order strikes the right balance between allowing professional firms to carry on their professional activities without the need for authorisation by the FSA and ensuring that retail consumers receive a consistent standard of protection in relation to mainstream activities such as banking, insurance, fund management, and the selection of investments. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Designated Professional Bodies) Order 2001
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Open-Ended Investment Companies Regulations 2001
12.7 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th February be approved [10th Report. from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations set out the legal framework for the establishment, carrying on and regulation of open-ended investment companies—or OEICs, as they are more commonly known. By way of background, I should explain that an OEIC is a type of company whose business is investment in securities such as shares of other companies. It issues shares to its investors and its capital may go up or down as shares are issued or cancelled. Its investments are managed by a fund manager, who must be authorised by the FSA.
The assets of an OEIC—the investments that it owns—must be held by a depository, who must also be authorised by the FSA. The depository plays a key role, similar to that of the unit trust trustee, and must be legally independent of the directors of the OEIC. That independence requirement is an important feature of the robust framework of protection for investors within which OEICs operate. The investment assets of the OEIC must be well distributed to spread investment risk and the OEIC itself and the key players must be authorised.
Those principles were established in the existing regulations governing OEICs—the Open-Ended Investment Companies (Investment Companies with Variable Capital) Regulations 1996. The regulations before your Lordships today make no major changes. They rationalise and modernise the regulatory structure for OEICs. The provisions of the regulations also represent an important liberalisation. They will pave the way towards extending the range of authorised OEICs available for sale in the UK. It will be for the FSA to determine the categories of funds that may be established as OEICs. For the moment, only those that invest in transferable securities—that is, stocks and shares—can be marketed to the general public.
Providers of funds want to take advantage of the economic and marketing benefits of OEICs for a wider variety of funds—for example, money market funds, which can be used as a convenient and stable way of

1119
parking investment assets. The Government believe that fund providers should be able to offer as much variety of fund types as is prudent. Many in the investment funds industry are eagerly awaiting this extension in the range of OEICs available.
This is a win-win situation. By opening up the scope for fund providers to offer a wide variety of funds in OEIC form, the regulations will give fund providers an efficiency advantage and customers will have the advantage of more choice with no detriment to investor protection.
A further significant change introduced by the regulations is an extension in the role of the FSA to act as a single point of contact on OEICs. As well as regulating OEICs, it will also be responsible for registering OEICs and maintaining the register. Under existing regulations, the registration is undertaken at Companies House. That is a cumbersome and unnecessary split of responsibilities. The new provisions represent a significant rationalisation, which has been welcomed by the investment funds industry.
The regulations simplify matters by setting out that the provisions for OEICs are broadly the same as those for unit trusts, as set out in the Act. Therefore, there should be no significant divergence in the regulations which govern authorised unit trusts and OEICs. Such a divergence could have caused confusion and potential costs. In addition, a consistent approach by the FSA will benefit providers who choose to offer both unit trusts and OEICs.
To minimise disruption for providers, companies constituted under existing regulations will be treated as formed under these regulations. In recent years, extensive consultation has taken place on the regulation of OEICs, and we are grateful for the detailed work that the respondents have undertaken on these complex regulations.
The OEIC is a modern, flexible and transparent investment product. It has proved popular in the relatively brief period for which it has been available. These regulations will result in greater potential flexibility and choice for investors because of the range of OEICs available. They set a firm foundation from which OEICs can go from strength to strength. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) Order 2001
12.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important order and I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate it today. It covers three key areas of amendments to the existing 1975 exceptions order. It also represents an important milestone in the progress towards implementation of the Criminal Records Bureau.
First, I should place the order in the context of the policy on rehabilitation of offenders as a whole. It has long been accepted that it is important that those who offend should be able to reform, pick up their lives again after paying the penalty, and have a fresh start. The order does not seek to undermine the principle of punishment. However, if we are not to have an underclass of people who can never work again, some means must be put in place for rehabilitation.
However, it has also been accepted that the need for rehabilitation must be balanced against the risk from the ex-offender to society and, in particular, to its most vulnerable members. That is why, so long as the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act has been in place, there has also been a list of positions in relation to which the offender, even if his conviction under the Act is "spent", cannot escape his past. If asked an excepted question in respect of all past convictions by a person entitled to ask such a question, the offender must answer in respect of all past convictions and not merely in respect of those which are unspent.
It is crucial that that list of positions is compiled correctly. We must protect the vulnerable, and safeguards must be put in place for certain offices and certain aspects of life, such as national security. However, we must not make the list such that an offender who has put his past behind him is disadvantaged where that is not necessary due to the demands of the job.
I turn to the three areas of amendment covered by the present order. They are all amendments to categories which are included in the 1975 exceptions order but which need to be updated. The new provisions would replace those in the existing order in these areas.
The most complicated is that relating to working with children. The main effect of the order is to carry through the policy agreed on the definition of "working with children" contained in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. Such positions are regulated, as set out in Part II of the Act. We debated that definition in detail during the passage of the Bill last year.
The positions in question are those from which people who have been disqualified from working with children are banned. They include front-line carers, such as foster carers and teachers, those who supervise such workers, and, crucially, those with power to dismiss them. They also include all workers in certain areas of particular vulnerability, such as children's homes and schools. They include positions of influence, such as social services directors and the "great and the good" in organisations concerned with children, such as charitable trustees. All such positions need to be covered by the exceptions order so that full checks can be made.
This part of the Act came into force on 11th January. We need to bring the policy on the exceptions order into line with the new definition as soon as possible.
I now turn to the subject of healthcare workers—the second group covered by the order. The existing exception applies to all those who provide health services. That, of course, includes newly qualified general practitioners. Each health authority area maintains a list of GPs who are available for work. However, currently there is no provision for further criminal checks to take place when GPs move to a new health authority area and are put on a list for that area. The new order will allow such checks to take place.
The final group is justices' chief executives. Section 87 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 removed the requirement for justices' chief executives to be eligible as justices' clerks—a profession included in the order. Effectively, it removed the requirement for justices' chief executives to be legally qualified as barristers or solicitors—again, professions included in the exceptions order.
There is no reason why JCEs should not be subject to the same provisions as JCs—justices' clerks—and their assistants, who are required to disclose spent convictions. The amendment will ensure that all new appointees, some of whom will not be lawyers, are covered by the exceptions order.
Finally, I make a more general point relating to the order. Noble Lords will notice that for the amendment order we have adopted the wider definition of "work" used in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. That includes all work, whether paid or unpaid, in all sectors, including voluntary or volunteering work. I am sure that that is right. Where the nature of the work justifies it, we can no longer properly limit exceptions to areas of formal employment. The risks presented by certain positions are not affected by employment status; nor, therefore, should the exceptions order be so affected.
In conclusion, this is an important order and it represents an important milestone in our work to protect the vulnerable. Therefore, I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March. be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
12.17 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, we are entirely happy with the order as it is set out.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I want to raise one or two questions in connection with the order. Obviously, we, too, are entirely happy with the principles involved. However, as I see it, one or two issues need to be clarified.
First, it is plainly of the highest importance that full protection should be provided to prevent unsuitable
1122
people working with children. Article 4.2 of the order provides that there is an exemption for,
"any question asked by or on behalf of any person. in the course of the duties of his work, in order to assess the suitability of a person to work with children, where … the question relates to the person whose suitability is being assessed".
On that basis, it appears that the exemption from asking a question would apply to someone who was on the staff of an employment agency which was responsible for placing nannies with private families. However, the exemption 'would apply so that such a person could ask the question of a nanny, or a prospective nanny, who wanted to use the services of that agency.
On the other hand, it would not be possible for parents, when interviewing a nanny, to claim the benefit of any exemption from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and the nanny would not be required to disclose to the parents any spent convictions. That appears to be an irrational distinction. I wonder what the rationale behind it is and whether it has been considered. I also wonder whether, in those special circumstances, it would be appropriate to allow parents to ask for an exemption in order to enable them to ask questions of someone who is a prospective carer for their children in their own home. The problem is that, as matters now stand, the parents would not be acting in the course of their work in asking such questions.
The other issue relates to questions asked for the purpose of assessing the suitability of any person to adopt children in general or a child in particular where the question relates to a person aged over 18 living in the same household as the person whose suitability is being assessed. As I understand it, it would be possible for someone under the age of 18—a juvenile—to have a spent conviction. In such circumstances, it appears illogical not to allow questions to be asked relating to such convictions, especially as if that person were over 18 there would be an exemption.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, for his unequivocal support for the order, and I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for the careful way in which he read the order and the close attention that he gave to it. I am not sure that I can give him precise answers today, but I shall certainly inquire into the points that he raised.
I am advised that there is a real difficulty in allowing parents to ask excepted questions, as there is no means to control sensitive information in such circumstances. As a parent, I can understand why that may be the case; that is a real area of difficulty. It should. be understood that a parent can make other checks, such as the taking up of references, or may approach art agency to make such checks, so other safeguards may be in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked about adoption, and set out circumstances in which he felt that a juvenile might somehow escape the effect of the provision because the conviction had occurred before they reached the age of 18. 'That is simply because they

1123
are the only people that adoption agencies are required to check under the relevant legislation. However, the noble Lord makes an interesting point, on which I shall reflect and write to him, copying it to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham.
I am grateful for the general support that has been given to the order, and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary Elections (Franchise of Relevant Citizens of the Union) Regulations 2001
12.23 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will be pleased to know that I can be brief. These regulations are necessary to ensure that the United Kingdom continues to comply with its obligations under European Community Directive 93/109. That directive, with which I am certain your Lordships will be familiar, requires that each member state of the Union has in place provisions to allow resident European Union citizens to vote and stand as candidates in local and European parliamentary elections in their member state of residence.
The United Kingdom gives effect to that directive in relation to European elections by virtue of the European Parliamentary Elections (Changes to the Franchise and Qualifications of Representatives) Regulations 1994. Those regulations are based on an electoral registration system that uses an annual qualifying date. The effect of the Representation of the People Act 2000 is to remove that qualifying date and replace it with a registration system based on a rolling register.
As a result, the law as it stands means that citizens of other members states of the Union resident in the United Kingdom are effectively no longer eligible to register to vote at European parliamentary elections. The regulations before the House will rectify that position by replacing those parts of the 1994 regulations dealing with the franchise to bring them in line with the new registration provisions.
The regulations ensure that citizens of other European member states resident in this country are able to register to vote in European parliamentary elections in the same way as are other citizens. They ensure that we shall once again be fully compliant with our obligations under the relevant EC directive, and for those reasons I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in principle, we are entirely happy with the regulations, but there is one
1124
problem. I am aware that it is not possible for us to amend the regulations, only to vote them down, and with the packed Benches behind me that may not be so easy. However, I draw to the noble Lord's attention Regulation 3(2), which states:
"A person is not entitled to vote as an elector—
(a) more than once in the same electoral region at any European Parliamentary election, or
(b) in more than one electoral region at a European Parliamentary general election".
I feel that it would be better to change the "or" to "and not", as it would appear to be legal to vote twice and be covered by the "or", as one would not be contravening both. I am happy to let the regulations pass but at some time the noble Lord may want to consider an amendment to clear up the point I mentioned.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a slightly different question. Presumably, it is clear that British citizens who are working outside the United Kingdom but in the European Union have the right to vote. They would have to apply to be registered but they have the right to vote. Do British citizens working elsewhere in the world outside the European Union have a vote; and do they have the right to register?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the answer to both of those questions is yes. I do not have the answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, but I shall undertake a legislative spell-check or sense-check, as it were, to ensure that we have it absolutely right next time around.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Channel Tunnel (International Arrangements) (Amendment No. 3) Order 2001
12.27 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order permits the establishment of so-called juxtaposed immigration controls at railway stations in France and the United Kingdom served by Eurostar. It is a result of several years of careful negotiation with our French counterparts.
The idea of juxtaposed controls is not new; provision for such controls was made in the 1986 Treaty of Canterbury, which outlined the conditions for the operation of the Channel Tunnel. The treaty allowed for a supplementary protocol to be agreed that would make provision for juxtaposed controls. That occurred in 1991 when the Sangatte protocol was signed. The protocol provided for the establishment of control bureaux by France and the UK on territory of

1125
the other state. That led to the establishment by France of frontier controls at Cheriton in Kent and by the UK at Coquelles in France. The protocol also regulated the exercise of frontier controls on through trains between the UK and France.
The idea of extending juxtaposed controls to include stations served by the Eurostar emerged about three years ago in response to the growth in illegal immigration through the tunnel. For several years, people trying to enter our country without adequate documentation have been misusing the Eurostar service. In the second half of last year, almost 4,000 passengers arrived at Waterloo without the required documents; many claimed asylum upon arrival. That abuse has been encouraged by the fact that there is no liability under French law for SNCF, the French railway company, to check documents for the Paris to London Eurostar route.
The idea of juxtaposed controls at Eurostar stations was also a direct response to the possibility that carriers' liability charges might otherwise be imposed on train operators. Carriers' liability charges, consisting of a £2,000 penalty on the inbound carrier for every passenger without adequate documentation who is brought to the UK, originally did not include trains. In 1998 these provisions were extended to cover through trains. However, SNCF was excluded from the arrangements as it was not lawful in France for train operators to carry out documentation checks. But under this Government's Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, provisions are made to resolve legal barriers to the imposition of charges on the SNCF. With the present level of undocumented arrivals, SNCF could be faced with potential charges of £1 million every month.
There is provision in the Act for carriers' liability charges not to be applied to train operators. An order can be made under the Act exempting a train operator from carriers' liability charges if there is an agreement in place between the UK and the country concerned that provides for the operation of UK immigration control in that country or for the checking of passports and visas there. When the UK and France have introduced juxtaposed controls, such an agreement will be in place and SNCF may be exempted from carriers' liability penalties.
The implementation of the additional protocol to the Sangatte protocol will enable UK immigration officers to conduct immigration control at the Gare du Nord in Paris, and at other stations in France served by the Eurostar. Our immigration officers will be able to identify passengers without the correct documentation and refuse them leave to enter the UK before they board the train. This agreement has the potential to prevent all inadequately documented passengers from travelling on the Eurostar and abusing that method of entering the United Kingdom.
It is important to implement juxtaposed controls as soon as possible in order to close the loophole that the
1126
Eurostar currently represents in our immigration control. I am grateful to the House for its early consideration of this order. I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 28th February be approved.—[10th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I hope that this order will apply to travellers on the Eurostar and not under it. This is an uncontroversial order but it is extremely high profile. Therefore, I have just one question for the noble Lord which I hope he will be able to answer unequivocally. Does he believe that the order will help to ensure that unfounded asylum seekers are stopped by the French authorities on their side of the tunnel?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that to be the case and that it will be very effective in that regard.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we too are happy to support the order. However, I make only one comment: this order was included in the list of orders to be dealt with today only at very short notice, which made it difficult to give what is an important order the study it deserves.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, my memory is a bit hazy and I hope your Lordships will forgive me for that. When I chaired the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill 11 years ago we strongly recommended that British immigration officers should travel on the train. Has that been implemented? It would seem to be an economical way of dealing with the problem. If people are discovered between Paris and Sangatte, they can be decanted at Sangatte and not go through the rigmarole that is implicit in the order.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I apologise, first, to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for the way in which these matters had to be brought forward. They are widely recognised as being of crucial importance and there is urgency to this order. It follows swiftly on the discussions that took place at Cahors, which led to this happy situation in which the French will work much more closely with us to ensure that immigration control is not abused in the way it has been in the past, and in particular Eurostar itself is not abused.
In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, my understanding is that immigration officials can travel and work on the trains in the way in which the noble Lord suggests. But we need the arrangements under this order in place so that their work and efforts can be that much more effective. We believe that they will be effective and that some of the matters considered by the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, are now beginning to fall into place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Limited Liability Partnerships Regulations 2001
12.35 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th January be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should start by explaining why we are considering only one set of regulations today when an earlier Order Paper showed that we would also be looking at the fees regulations. Unfortunately there was an error in the regulations and they had to be withdrawn. A new set of regulations was laid on 14th March and will be considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments next week. I apologise for the confusion.
The Chancellor announced in his Pre-Budget Report that the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 will come into effect on 6th April. It will introduce for the first time in nearly a century a change to business entities in Great Britain. That is the result of over three years of consultation and debate with a wide variety of consultees. Detailed legislative proposals have been in the public domain since 1998, including a draft of what is now the LLP Act and these regulations. The Bill and the regulations were scrutinised shortly afterwards by the Trade and Industry Select Committee. The Bill also received close and thorough scrutiny in the other place and by Members of this House.
Firms that decide to become an LLP will enjoy the organisational flexibility and tax treatment of a partnership with the limited liability of a company. That means that the LLP will be a separate legal entity owned by its members. Therefore the LLP will be able to enter into contracts and hold property.
It is important to strike the right balance between the interests of those who want to carry on business as an LLP and those who will do business with them. I believe that the LLP Act, together with these regulations, achieves that objective. That is why it is important to apply very substantial parts of companies' legislation to LLPs with those modifications necessary to reflect the differences between a company and an LLP. The LLP does not provide a shield behind which the individual negligent professional can hide. Typically a client will have contracted with the LLP itself and will in the first instance therefore usually look to the LLP for redress under contract law. But this does not preclude action in tort against the negligent member who has assumed personal responsibility for his actions.
Let me comment on the legislative structure we have established for LLPs, including these regulations. The LLP Act provides a framework for setting up an LLP. It defines an LLP as a separate legal entity owned by its members; it sets out the mechanics and requirements for incorporation and establishes the relationship that exists between members, and between members and the LLP.
The Act also prescribes the scheme of taxation. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Competition and Consumer Affairs made a commitment during consideration of the LLP Bill in the other place to make clear the Government's approach to the taxation of LLPs and I will come back to that in a moment.
The aim of these regulations is to ensure that an LLP, as a body corporate, will be subject to similar requirements to those made of companies. But because the internal structure of an LLP is not prescribed like that of a company, it has been necessary to modify existing corporate legislation in its application to LLPs. The modifications we have made to companies legislation is only in relation to LLPs; it is not a fundamental change to company law. That must await the outcome of the independent Company Law Review, which will report to the Government in May.
I should comment on two issues relating to the structure of the legislation which were considered when the LLP Bill was before Parliament. The first is the extent to which it relies on the use of regulations. The worry, with which we disagreed, was that there was too great a reliance placed on secondary legislation. When we first decided on how we were going to regulate LLPs, we began from the principle that an LLP was a body corporate and that there should be an equivalent level of regulation applied to LLPs as there is to companies. That is part of the balance to which I referred earlier. What we have is a sensible structure. The essential characteristics, principles and rules for an LLP are set out in the LLP Act. The detail is left to regulation.
Most importantly, if we had done it any other way we would have had a structure which was unwieldy and difficult to adapt. The underlying requirements of company law, insolvency law and partnership law are all capable of change. I mentioned earlier the fundamental review of company law. At the appropriate time we shall need to adapt and apply many of the changes flowing from that process for LLPs. Also, the Law Commission has recently completed a consultation on a far-reaching reform of partnership law. We shall have to adapt that to LLPs in due course.
Insolvency law does not stand still. The new Insolvency Act 2000 modified the Insolvency Act 1986 and will be applied to LLPs as appropriate by statutory instrument once the secondary legislation has been made. In all three areas of the law, the changes will come before Parliament. Their subsequent application to LLPs then becomes largely a technical job, which is appropriate for secondary legislation.
The second point, which has been made on the structure of the regulations, is that legislation by reference is unhelpful to users. I sympathise with that argument. However, the alternative would have been to produce a set of regulations that run to hundreds of pages, much of which would reproduce existing law. That would have had the approach of completeness. However, the approach we followed highlights, for

1129
advisers who are familiar with company law, the differences in their application to LLPs. We understand that commercial publishers are likely to produce helpful consolidations of the law as it applies to LLPs.
I do not know how much of the detail your Lordships wish me to go into. Perhaps I may talk about three main strands in the regulations and then say a word about taxation. The first strand relates to accounts and audit. Part II of, and Schedule 1 to, the regulations apply Part VII of the Companies Act 1985 and set out the accounting and audit requirements for LLPs. These are broadly in line with the requirements placed on companies which ensure that LLPs have the same level of financial disclosure.
The second strand is contained in Part II of, and Schedule 2 to, the regulations, which apply the remaining sections of the Companies Act 1985 together with Part II of the Companies Act 1989 and the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 with appropriate modifications. That part of the regulations sets up a regime for the running of LLPs which is closely allied to that of a company.
The third strand is contained in Part IV of, and Schedule 3 to, the regulations and applies the first and third groups of parts of the Insolvency Act 1986 to LLPs. Those provide that LLPs are treated similarly to companies on insolvency issues, such as company voluntary arrangements, administration orders, receivership and winding up.
I shall pass over issues relating to financial services and LLPs and default provisions. I can comment on those if necessary. I stated that I would confirm the Government's approach to the taxation of LLPs; LLPs are a new business structure. Their tax treatment is an important factor for the businesses that are contemplating using them. There has been consultation over a long period to ensure that the tax treatment of LLPs balances the desires of business with the need to guard against tax loss. Most recently, in the Budget last week, the Inland Revenue published a Budget Note on the taxation of LLPs.
The LLP Act introduced new sections into tax legislation to the effect that an LLP carrying on a trade, profession or business with a view to profit will be taxed as a partnership. The LLP structure is available to all businesses, as we recognised that it could be attractive to others and not just professional firms. However, it has never been our intention to allow the formation of LLPs to be driven by their tax treatment, or to open up the likelihood of significant loss of tax revenue. The review of tax treatment that was announced during the passage of the LLP Bill identified that the use of LLPs as property investment vehicles opened up significant scope for tax loss. By "property investment", I refer to a business consisting wholly or mainly in the making of investments in land or buildings.
The tax loss would arise if tax-exempt bodies such as pension funds, the pension business of life insurance companies and tax-exempt business of friendly societies were to invest in property via LLPs, instead
1130
of through property investment companies. The proposals concerning property investment out lined in the Pre-Budget Report and confirmed in the Budget Note are to prevent that tax loss and to avoid creating distortions in the investment market. They do not restrict what businesses LLPs may choose to carry on and they will not be relevant to the vast majority of businesses contemplating using LLPs. They will not affect the current arrangements used by pension funds, so there is no question of tax proposals removing a tax break that is currently enjoyed. As primary tax legislation, they will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The regulations undoubtedly add a fair number of pages to the legislation on LLPs, but they follow closely from the drafts we exposed for consultation both before and during the passage of the Bill. They strike a balance between the interests of those wishing to form LLPs and those wishing to have dealings with LLPs. I believe that it is the right balance. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th January be approved [3rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
12.45 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. Earlier he seemed to be preening himself on the brevity of the regulations but at the end of his comments he seemed to admit that they are not so brief. I make that point because when the Bill, which was a mere 19 clauses, one schedule and 16 pages, left this House, it had several hours at Second Reading, three days in Committee and several more hours on Report and Third Reading in the other place. However, today this draft SI covers 57 pages, 10 regulations and six schedules. It covers the meat of the whole LLP regime, and a substantial part of the regulations which should have been incorporated into primary legislation.
The noble Lord listed the regulations which it is necessary to have at hand for a study of LLPs But it is worse than that. To determine the company law provisions that apply, one must refer not only to Schedules 1 and 2 to which provisions do and do not apply, and which provisions are amended and how, but to Regulation 3 of the regulations which we are discussing today. Regulation 3 states:
"references to other provisions of the 1985 Act and to provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 shall include references to those provisions as they apply to limited liability partnerships in accordance with Parts III and IV of these Regulations".
We are particularly concerned at the introduction of criminal sanctions in a matter involving commercial affairs by means of secondary legislation. We accept that as a matter of convenience sanctions imposed. by the Companies Act 1985 as amended, which was duly debated in both Houses, could conveniently be included in the regulations if they are merely producing identical provisions to the Companies Act and simply altering the terminology as appropriate. For instance, the word "members" could be substituted for "officers" or "directors".

1131
However, I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to page 23 and the reference to subsection (5) of Section 391A of the Companies Act. The regulation reads:
"For subsection (5) substitute:
`If a copy of the representations is not sent out as required by subsection (4), then unless subsection (6) applies, the limited liability partnership and any designated member in default commits an offence. A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3".
But subsection (5) of Section 319A merely provides:
"If a copy of any such representations is not sent out as required because it is received too late or because of the company's default, the auditor may (without prejudice to his right to be heard orally) require that the representations be read out at the meeting."
This is the introduction of a fine and a criminal record when no such sanction applies against company directors. When my honourable friend Nick Gibb raised the matter in another place, the Minister said that he understood that it was currently an offence under the Companies Act and that it was a proper function and a duty to make those representations as appropriate. He therefore did not see that it was a new crime, although it was a reference that was not included in earlier publications. So far as we can tell from the section of the Companies Act I have quoted, contrary to what the Minister said in the other place, it is not an offence under that Act.
I am relying on a copy of the relevant section which my noble friend Lady Miller obtained from the Library on Wednesday. Will the Minister explain the discrepancy before he asks us to approve this new criminal offence without primary legislation?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, these are massive regulations. They include great chunks from both the Companies Act 1985 and the Insolvency Act 1986. Clearly, a consolidated version of both Acts as they apply to LLPs will be required. I hope only that the Minister is right in saying that commercial organisations will produce them. That may well be the case, but in my experience consolidated versions take some months to appear. Therefore, for some time to come it will be necessary to rely on the terms of the regulations—that is, if the LLPs are to be brought into operation in the near future. I should be interested to know the timetable that the Minister has in mind for introducing a state under which the new LLPs can be set up.
I shall be interested to hear the Minister's answers to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and I want to raise a number of points of varying importance. I shall begin with the least important. The first, on which I may not have the support of my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, relates to the impact of the Business Names Act 1985.
An LLP trading under a name other than its corporate name gets the worst of both worlds. Like a company incorporated under the Companies Act, it must include the corporate name on its business stationery. That is fair enough. Like a partnership with
1132
fewer than 20 members, an LLP with fewer than 20 members must include on its stationery the names of those members. Therefore, the stationery must be changed every time a member leaves or joins the LLP. I wonder whether the corporate name would not be sufficient. That requirement hits small LLPs particularly hard and it seems to be raising an unnecessary element of bureaucracy.
Secondly, Sections 288 and 364 of the Companies Act 1985, as modified in relation to LLPs, require details of the usual residential addresses of members to be provided to the registrar. Recent events have shown that in some circumstances it is undesirable that the public should be made aware of home addresses. We have in mind what happened in respect of Huntingdon Life Sciences. A similar problem could arise in some LLPs, particularly solicitors and insolvency practitioners, both professions being likely to make use of LLPs and both often being involved in situations of personal conflict with bankrupts, unhappy opponents of clients or disappointed clients. Those conflict situations could lead to harassment or violence. I wonder therefore whether it would be possible to eliminate the need to deliver the home addresses to the registrar.
The third point relates to the default provisions in Part VI of the regulations. Those are generally welcome, but the list of default provisions does not include any duty on members of an LLP to act in good faith towards each other. It is true that the duty to act in good faith does not appear on the face of the Partnership Act 1890, but it is long established by decisions of the courts to be at the core of the partnership relationship. We believe that it should also be recognised as the core of the relationship between members of LLPs and that can be achieved only by including it in the list of default provisions.
The final and most important defect is complicated and needs some explanation. I raised the matter at the Third Reading of the Bill. Members of LLPs may cease to be members in a number of ways, in particular by death or retirement. When someone ceases to be a member, the question arises of what happens to their interest in the assets of the LLP. In a great majority of cases, that will in practice be covered by the terms of the agreement. But that will not always be the case; there will be some inadequately drafted agreements, informal agreements, which do not provide for that. The question is: what happens if the agreement does not provide for it?
The default provision in the case of partnerships is that the departure of a member causes a dissolution and that the outgoing member is thereupon entitled to his or her share of the assets of the dissolved partnership, leaving the other members of the partnership free to reform the partnership between themselves if they want to. The default provision in the case of a company with share capital is quite different. The member has share capital, remains a member as long as he or she holds those shares but can of course sell them.

1133
It is true that in some cases, particularly in small companies, the shares are in practice unsaleable and in that case the shareholder is locked in. However, if that shareholder is treated in an unprejudicial way, he or she can apply to the court for a remedy under Section 459 of the Companies Act 1985. Therefore, if the company is profitable but the directors distribute all the profits and pay no dividend on the shares, the shareholder can go to the court to ask for an order for his or her shares to be bought out.
However, there is no answer to the question of what happens to the proprietary rights of the outgoing member of an LLP. My view is that the property is the property of the LLP and must remain the property of the LLP after the retirement. In the absence of a right in the agreement to take out the retiring or deceased member's share of the assets, that member has no such right and loses his or her interest in the LLP without any compensation.
We welcome the fact that after some uncertainty about the matter, Section 459 is to be applied to LLPs by the regulations. But Section 459 can be relied on only by current members of an LLP and cannot be the basis of a claim by a former member that he is being treated unfairly by not being paid out any of his asset interests in the LLP.
It is difficult to know what the default provision ought to be. If there is a right to an immediate pay out in default, that may destroy a viable business. If the right to a pay out is deferred until the dissolution of the LLP, the outgoing member may be locked in and unable to get access to the assets for a very long time.
Plainly, the confiscation of a proprietary interest on retirement or death and its transfer to other members cannot be the right answer. The difficulty of finding the best answer does not excuse the Government's failure to provide an answer at all. We suggest that the best answer may be a default provision: first, that the departure from membership does not deprive the outgoing member of the right to his or her share in the assets of the LLP; secondly, that the payment of that share should be made on terms, and at a time, which is just and equitable; and, thirdly, that in the absence of agreement between the parties a county court should have power to decide what is just and equitable. I accept that that solution is itself not free from difficulty because it would mean uncertainty and perhaps an increased need to go to court. Nevertheless, it is plain that something needs to be done on this important issue and that no answer to this undoubtedly very difficult question is contained in the regulations as they now stand.
1 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I very much associate myself with the observations of both the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and my noble friend Lord Goodhart about the length and complexity of the regulations. They are five times as long as the principal Act and several times longer than the Partnership
1134
Act 1890. Having said that, it would be churlish of me to fail to commend those responsible for this monumental task of micro-surgery. However, I believe that, while logical in one way, the manner in which legislation is currently undertaken, with massive regulatory underpinning, encourages a complexity of law which in the wider cultural context becomes completely self-defeating.
I thank the Minister for complying with his undertaking to me in this House on 6th March by amending Section 351 of the Companies Act to require those LLPs which do not set out in their title the fact that they are limited liability partnerships to do so, albeit in smaller print on their notepaper and so on. Naturally, that leads me not to associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Goodhart. I understand the excesses of violence which disfigure our times, but I believe that to retreat behind a wall of anonymity—many large LLPs will be magnificently anonymous—is too high a price to pay for what is an extremely rare but real risk to operators of businesses.
I should like to make two points on Part VI which contains the default provisions that will apply to LLPs unless the members otherwise agree. My first point concerns paragraph 7(7) which governs the right of members to access the hooks and records of the limited liability partnership. That is a very important provision. I believe that the vast majority of LLPs will not have comprehensive agreements which cover these matters. There could be an ambiguity here. The first part of paragraph 7(7) states:
"The books and records … are to be made available for inspection at the registered office of the [LLP] or at such other place as the members think fit and every member of the limited liability partnership may when he thinks fit have access to and inspect and copy any of them".
It could be read as indicating that the only books and records to which members of an LLP have right of access to inspect and copy are those books deposited at the registered office. I believe the intent is that a member shall have right of access to inspect and copy partnership books and records wherever they are. If the Minister agrees with that, it would be helpful if he said so.
I turn to paragraph 7(9) which is really an anti-competition provision. Unless he has consent, a member cannot carry on any business which competes with that of the LLP. In normal legal circles the notion of carrying on a business carries a proprietorial connotation and does not cover a situation where one is an employee of a business. I believe that that leaves this provision rather lamely placed, because anyone can circumvent it simply by arranging for his wife or friend to set up a limited company of which he or she becomes an employee. In that way one simply bursts through the provision. That lends support to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Goodhart about the absence of any reference to good faith. I believe that a good faith provision would plug the hole that exists in the current wording of paragraph 7(9). If the Minister is minded to comment on that, I should be grateful.

1135
Finally, paragraph 10 of Part VII—miscellaneous—deals with subordinate legislation specified in Schedule 6. It stipulates that that schedule,
"shall apply as from time to time in force to limited liability partnerships".
Does the phrase "as from time to time in force" mean "as from time to time in force and as may have been amended"? If it is not too much to ask, clarification from across the Floor of the House would be of considerable help to all concerned.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for the care that they have taken to scrutinise these regulations and the detail in which they have responded to them. I accept that these are long regulations. I do not believe that I ever preened myself on their brevity, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, suggested. In my introduction I explained why the regulations had to be long. I said that since limited liability partnerships were being brought within the context of existing company and partnership law, without changing them more than absolutely essential for the purpose, it had to be done by reference to company and partnership law rather than by incorporating whole chunks of either, or indeed insolvency law, into the regulations.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, how soon it would be before we would have a consolidated document. I understand that Butterworths Tolley is well on the way to producing a limited liability partnership handbook which it hopes to publish in late April of this year. I hope that that will ease the problem for those who find this a difficult area. I acknowledge that there are elements of difficulty.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, was particularly concerned by the incorporation of criminal offences and penalties by secondary legislation. That was also of concern to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It is a fact that offences are covered in the regulations. We intend to apply to members of limited liability partnerships existing criminal offences which are punishable by imprisonment when applied to company directors. At this stage we do not intend to create any new offence for members of limited liability partnerships that do not already exist for officers of a company. The criminal offence created under Section 391A(5), to which the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, referred, is already an offence under the Companies Act. It is not a new crime, although it was not included in the earlier publications.
Many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, refer to matters that he disagreed with when we were dealing with the original legislation. Although I enjoyed listening to them again, it is a little abusive of our procedures when we are considering regulations. Of course he is still worried and he is entitled to be, but unless a change of policy is introduced by the regulations it is not entirely appropriate to go over the ground again.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. The noble Lord is being unfair. I
1136
acknowledge that I am raising issues that I raised when the Bill was being debated, but what we were talking about at Third Reading was what should go into the default provisions. Now that we have seen the default provisions and certain matters which we regard as omissions from them, it is perfectly legitimate to raise those issues again in this context.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is indeed. I did not mean that I was not going to respond to all of the noble Lord's points; I am simply saying that some of them are not to be found in the regulations. I cut out from my opening speech the page or two relating to default provisions. I shall now have to put them back in again.
Before I leave the issue of the new offence under Section 391A(5), perhaps I may say that we have had to make appropriate modifications to companies legislation in its application to LLPs. One of the occasions is Section 391A(5) which deals with effective circulation of an auditor's report on his removal from office. In these circumstances, it will be agreed that whether one is a company or an LLP it is desirable that the members receive a copy of the auditor's report.
Under the company structure, when the directors fail to circulate the report, there is provision for it to be read out at the meeting of the company which considers the removal of the auditor. But LLP legislation is silent on its internal structure, so it was not possible to have a comparable decision. Because it is important that the auditor's representations are made known to the members of the LLP, the regulations require the designated members to circulate the representations and impose an offence if they fail to do so.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I may give solace to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, on his point. The provision is a toothless tiger in any event because it makes liable to a prosecution only,
"any designated member in default".
Section 8 of the principal Act requires one of these LLPs to have only a single designated member. Indeed, the single designated member could be a limited liability company. Unless the single designated member is also "in default", there will be no one who can be prosecuted under the provisions. The same applies to a great many of the provisions of the Act.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot accept that. We had a great deal of discussion about a designated member when the Bill was passing through this House. We made very clear our reasons for saying that there must be at least one designated member, because there must be someone who can be held responsible for the formal procedures of the business and for making the returns necessary. So there will always be a designated member. That designated member can be pursued if, as I have just said, he is in

1137
default of, in particular, this obligation to circulate or make available the report of the auditor on his removal from office. That is adequate protection.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way again. The answer is whether or not the Minister is right in assuming that if an LLP has a single designated member and there is default in circulation of the auditor's report, that designated member will automatically, and in all circumstances, be deemed responsible under the amendment to Section 391A. I was rather thinking that where it says,
"any designated member in default",
that implied some personal responsibility on behalf of the designated member. If I am wrong, then the Minister is right. None the less, the point remains that only one member of a partnership of 500 could ever be responsible under these criminal provisions, and that member could be a limited company.
1.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the point is that it is not less than one person. It would be unenforceable if 500 members of a limited liability partnership were all jointly and severally responsible for any default. It must be necessary for there to be one identifiable person as the designated member. It applies to this obligation, as to all the other obligations as in the filing of returns of accounts and so on. It does not make any difference whether that person is a limited liability company or not. That person can still be pursued if' he does not do what is required.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the commencement of the regulations. I thought that I had made it clear in my opening speech that we have set out 6th April 2001 as being the commencement date. That date has been chosen to enable those wishing to take up LLP status to be aware of any amendments that may be made to the tax treatment of LLPs in the light of the tax review that was carried out last year by the Inland Revenue.
Ministers in another place gave a commitment not to commence the LLP legislation until the outcome of the review was known, so that anyone wishing to become an LLP would be certain of the tax treatment they could expect. That is what is secured by this commencement date.
There was some discussion on the issue of usual residential addresses. There is agreement in this matter between the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Phillips. I am not in a position to arbitrate on that matter, except to say that we intend in subsequent regulations to apply to LLPs the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill which relate to directors' home addresses, assuming that these are agreed by Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, again raised the issue of a duty of good faith. That issue is not particularly raised by the regulations rather than by the Bill. We considered carefully, and we have listened to all the arguments on this point, whether there should be a statutory duty of good faith between
1138
members. We sought views in our February 2000 consultation document. The responses were evenly divided, with comments for and against. We decided that there was no advantage in imposing a statutory duty.
The elements traditionally thought of as making up a duty of good faith include a duty of honesty and good faith owed to each partner; a requirement for openness; a duty to act in favour of the firm and not against it; the fair treatment by partners of a minority within a firm; and a duty not to compete with the firm or make a profit at the expense of other partners. That matter will be adequately catered for by the default provisions under regulations 7 and 8 and will offer a safety net where there is no agreement between members, either generally or on a specific issue. Even if there is no statutory requirement for a duty of good faith, that will not prevent. members of an LLP from agreeing to owe a duty of good faith to each other if they wish.
I know that will not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The noble Lord was not satisfied with it before, but it is the way the Bill has been constructed. The regulations simply follow on from that.
We argued at the time that there was no benefit in having the default provisions appearing on the face of the Act rather than in regulations. That would not have given them more certainty or made them more enforceable. The provisions will be variable by agreement between the members. They are not a rigid statutory requirement. If we had them in primary legislation, it would be difficult to amend them if they needed adjustment in circumstances which we did not anticipate. I shall not read out the two pages on default provisions from my original speech because I think that I have answered that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked what would happen if a person ceased to be a member. Any member's account balance will be repayable. That will be a matter for discussion between the personal representative of a deceased member and the limited liability partnership itself.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is that a reference to an account balance on dealings between the member and the LLP or is it an account balance in the sense of the proprietary interest of the member in the LLP itself? If the latter is the case, what provision would ensure payment of it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was just about to come on to that point. Property that is in the name of the LLP will remain the property of the LLP, although an outgoing member may have an equitable claim against the remaining members, depending on what contribution he has made to the LLP. My first answer is about the more limited case of the account balance with the LLP; my second answer is the wider definition.
Perhaps I may move on to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. He asked about the availability of the books and records of a limited

1139
liability partnership. I can confirm that Regulation 7(7) provides the default position that a member of an LLP may have access to the books and records of the LLP. But I can go further than that. Section 222(1) of the Companies Act 1985, which is applied to LLPs, permits the members of an LLP to have access to the accounting records of a company. That is a statutory, not a default, provision.
The noble Lord asked about regulation 7(9) on employees. Regulation 7(9) requires a member of an LLP to account to the LLP for profits made in carrying on any business "of the same nature" as the LLP if he does so without the consent of his fellow members. That would cover the situation where a member of an LLP sets up a competing business or consultancy. It is also arguable that it would cover the situation where a member's wife or husband sets up a company and the member works for it. However, if this issue proves to be a problem in practice, it could be looked at again in the future.
Regulation 7(9) is only a default provision. It derives from the Limited Liability Partnerships Act, which is the subject of the second review.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. His answer has not covered my point on the difference between someone with a proprietorial interest in a competing business and someone who is purely an employee of it. Regulation 7 does not cover that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, wishes to achieve. Is he afraid that employees are not covered, or does he wish to have them not covered?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I shall say what I would have preferred and what I think would have been more comprehensive. If a member of the limited liability partnership was competing with his partners, whether as a proprietor or as an employee of a competing business, that would be a default provision. The spirit of this point is that someone will not compete against his own partnership. This would be a way of doing that which would not be caught by regulation 7.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is why I made the point about a husband or wife setting up another business and the wife or husband working for it, presumably as an employee. Of course, this is part of partnership law, which is the subject of separate review. If any review of partnership law were required, it would be made in due course to apply also to limited liability partnerships. In any case, it is only a default provision, so an LLP can make sure that it covers the point of an employee if it were thought to be necessary.
The noble Lord's final point concerned regulation 10. He asked whether "shall apply as from time to time in force" includes "as and when amended". The answer is yes.
1140
Perhaps I may briefly return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the account balance. The answer to the first definition is that it is the balance between the member and the LLP and not the proprietary interest. I hope that I made that point clear.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, the suggestion that there should be some kind of unspecified equitable right on an outgoing member to recover the value of his property from the LLP is a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with this problem. It is not at all clear what the basis of that equity would be. I wonder whether, even at this late date, the Government would be prepared to consider introducing further regulations to clarify that point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, legislation inevitably relies on elements of the common law. I have already said that there is pursuit in tort for certain failings, if I may use a non-legal word. To introduce the common law of equity here would not be unreasonable. If it does not work, we may have to do something else about it. But that is why these are regulations and not primary legislation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2001
1.27 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the business managers for allowing two sets of regulations to be considered together. As it appears that the regulations are not matters of burning interest to Members of the House, that is very helpful.
The proposed regulations make necessary changes to the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 and the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2000. The first will make it easier for employers and workers involved in a dispute over the application of the part-time regulations to reach agreement without resorting to an employment tribunal. The second make a minor point of clarification on who is entitled to the national minimum wage.
If your Lordships are content, the regulations on part-time workers will apply to England, Scotland and Wales, with Northern Ireland introducing its own legislation along similar lines. The national minimum wage regulations apply to the whole of the UK. Both amendments will come into force on 1st May this year and be effective from that date.
Both sets of regulations will improve the operation of the original legislation. They will help to encourage a partnership approach from employers and workers in applying the part-time workers regulations and correct a potential anomaly in the national minimum wage regulations regarding the trainees' exemption.
I shall explain the need for the two sets of regulations. On the part-time workers amendment, the original regulations successfully implemented a European directive designed to end discrimination against part-time workers in their contractual terms and conditions. We implemented them using the Employment Relations Act 1999. The regulations have been broadly welcomed and are already having a positive impact. The amendment we are considering today will give parties involved in a dispute greater capacity to come together to settle their differences without having to go to a tribunal.
Provisions of this type are standard in employment law and apply to virtually all other employment rights, including the right to claim for unfair dismissal and the right to bring a claim for discrimination on the grounds of sex, race or disability. The regulations will increase the chances of settling a dispute in two ways.
First, they will amend Section 18(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 to increase the ability of ACAS to conciliate in claims brought under regulation 5(1) of the part-time workers regulations. Regulation 5(1) gives part-timers the right to equal treatment in their terms and conditions of employment when compared with similar full-timers. The amendment allows officers appointed by ACAS to conciliate between parties to reach a binding agreement before a claim reaches an employment tribunal. Any conciliation would be entered into on a voluntary basis and the proceedings are generally informal. There is no time limit attached to the conciliation process and no set format. Negotiations can he conducted over the phone or in face-to-face meetings with one or both of the parties. There is no need for either side to take formal legal advice and either party retains the right at all times to revert to a tribunal hearing.
The second element of the part-time amendment amends Section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to allow workers to contract out of their right to bring claims under the original regulations where an effective compromise agreement has been reached. For an agreement to be effective, the worker must have received advice from an independent adviser. This could be a qualified lawyer, a certified trades union official or an advice centre.
I shall turn now to the national minimum wage amendment. As noble Lords will recall, in July of last year, Parliament approved a number of regulatory changes to the minimum wage, including an increase to the main rate and an exemption for national trainees as recommended in the second report from the independent Low Pay Commission. However, during the debate, a minor technical difficulty with the part of those amending regulations dealing with national trainees came to our attention.
On 14th July 2000, I explained to the House the problem and announced our commitment to return with a slightly amended version of the relevant regulations as soon as possible to clarify the situation once and for all. This was accepted by noble Lords and this amendment to the principal regulations fulfils that commitment.
The detailed point at issue with the national minimum wage amendment is a particularly complex one which results from a potential mismatch between the wider definition of "worker", including "agency worker" used in the National Minimum Wage Act and a reference to a certain type of trainee known as a "national trainee" in the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which took effect on 1st October 2000.
The way in which the regulation is drafted means that there could be a situation where a young trainee not employed with a company might count as an agency worker because he had been supplied by a training provider. The provisions in the regulations exempting trainees would not apply, so this particular trainee would be entitled to the national minimum wage, unlike his fellow trainees employed directly by the company. However, I should stress that such a reading of the law would rest on a rather obscure legal technicality and be counter to a common-sense understanding of what the law intends. Since this point did not impinge on the main intention of the new regulations, noble Lords approved them in July of last year.
In summary, the two sets of regulations before the House will contribute to the ability of employers and workers in Great Britain to operate more effectively when dealing with matters of employment law. The part-time amendment gives employers and workers greater scope to settle disputes in a spirit of partnership. The national minimum wage amendment puts right a particularly tricky piece of legal drafting. I hope that my explanation of the need for and the effect of these changes has been helpful to noble Lords. I commend the two regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord Sainsbury of' Turville.)
1.34 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the House to present this "mish-mash" of regulations. I hope that the House will excuse me if I suddenly begin to refer to the Channel Tunnel and limited liability at an inappropriate moment. I notice that the Benches behind me are absolutely crowded!
I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of these two orders. We understand why Her Majesty's Government wish to exempt people on government training schemes. That is perfectly acceptable. However, there are one or two matters on the subject of part-time workers which, while being acceptable, need to be looked at.
I believe that this is a demonstration of the gold-plating of regulations to ensure that employers provide to part-time workers who believe that their pay and

1143
conditions do not match pro rata those offered to comparable full-time staff written statements outlining their reasons. The British Chamber of Commerce has warned that because,
"such statements would be admissible as evidence in any consequent litigation, employers would be forced to seek legal advice, even if they have grounds for justification".
Here again we are putting yet another burden on employers, in particular small employers. The requirement to provide statements will prove costly and time-consuming and is not a requirement of the European directive. It is a blunt instrument that could fall as heavily on firms that offer their part-time staff equal pay and conditions as on those more unscrupulous employers who do not.
Once again, the Government are guilty of gold-plating EU directives and imposing unnecessary burdens that small firms will find it difficult to shoulder. We do not believe that there is widespread unfavourable treatment of part-time workers. Job satisfaction among such workers is higher than among full-time workers. The 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey found that,
"part-time employees were much more likely to regard themselves as being fairly treated than were full-time employees—61 per cent compared with 45 per cent".
I appreciate that these may be only minor niggles to be set against the enormous amount of extra legislation and orders which are being imposed. However, having said that, we are happy with the regulations as they stand.
1.37 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I should like to make three brief comments from these Benches, which I notice are the most crowded. First, I wish to flag up a growing concern that the minimum wage might be extended to apply to people working, for example, as house sitters. They are not working as such, but are doing what they would do at home—watching television and walking the dog. In some cases, such people are glad to have a free roof over their head. They have minimal outgoings. They can bank virtually all the money they receive because their expenses will be limited to buying shampoo and such like. At the end of a week, they may well be able to save a great deal more money than a commuter in a proper job who has to meet the costs of the outgoings in a normal dwelling place.
I read somewhere that it has been proposed that house sitters should be paid the minimum wage for 24 hours a day because they are on site for that time. The wage of £4.10, paid for 24 hours a day over seven days would come to £98.40 a day, which would total a weekly wage of just under£700. That is absolutely ridiculous. Many people are grateful to secure such employment because they are not particularly qualified to do anything else and it is a pleasant existence. I have never employed a house sitter; nor do I intend to do so. I have no direct interest in the matter. However, I know some people who work as house sitters.
1144
There are similar occupations in which these circumstances apply. I refer to when a person is not undertaking a hard job of toil, but rather is sitting down and watching television. He or she is required simply to be present in the building. To apply the minimum wage to such people prices their services out of the market. It will remove a source of pocket money for a certain group.
In the name of common sense, we must retain exceptions for certain types of personal employment. If we do not do so, we shall simply increase the black economy. I appreciate that this point may not relate strictly to the regulations before us, but I wished to give voice to a matter that is of concern and affects many ordinary people. I do not expect a specific reply.
Secondly, we have encountered problems with the minimum wage. Our personal experience is that suddenly we have had to look at the effectiveness of our workers. Before, you could allow someone to potter around cleaning, not very effectively, or potter around the garden because they enjoyed doing it, and so on. Now, the minimum wage is inflating everything and we are having to look at restaffing because it is too expensive. We now need people who are effective, who know what they are doing, who have a proven track record and so on. I am afraid that that is the reality and that it will happen more and more. So, again, the regulations are removing some people who would love to have an occupation from a place where they could have an occupation.
Thirdly, in regard to part-time rights and all the business of going to tribunals and so on, we have already been done for this. We had someone who was disruptive working in the house. Matters eventually blew up into a major row. She had been switched from one task to another because she did not like carrying out the first, and in trying to accommodate her we ran over the one-year limit. She threatened to take us to the industrial tribunal, and the legal advice that we were given was that it would be cheaper to settle by paying her£3,000.
What will that do to the people who stay behind? They will look at the situation and realise that if they create trouble they will get a quick hand-out of three thousand quid when they leave. It is a quick way of stinging a small employer who cannot afford this kind of thing.
It is entirely unfair and ridiculous, and it is disruptive to the workers who stay behind. All it does is hand a licence to print money to people when they go. I know people who know that their current employees are deliberately doing this at the moment in order to wind them up to ensure that they get a handout when they leave. I know this has happened in other places. I wanted to make that comment about these gold-plated regulations, of which I disapprove.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I would not want to claim more for these regulations than they touch on. In the case of part-time workers, they simply enable ACAS to attempt conciliation in an informal way rather than going through an employment tribunal. I hope that the House will agree that arriving at an informal settlement is an excellent way of resolving disputes, regardless of how we feel about the part-time regulations. They seem to me to be very sensible; they have been handled well and have reduced the number of queries.
As to the national minimum wage, the regulations concern a specific technicality in regard to trainees. Whatever house sitters are, I do not believe that they come into the category of trainees. They are not even particularly affected by the changes to the national minimum wage that we have introduced; they simply come under the original legislation.
The debates that took place then were about whether or not a national minimum wage would lead to greater unemployment because some jobs would no longer be economic. The reality is that, since the legislation has come in, employment has increased; there is no evidence whatever that it has led to unemployment.
As to the effectiveness of workers, it is desirable that people should always look at the effectiveness of workers to ascertain whether they are being productive. I think that I have answered the questions. I commend the regulations to the House.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he could answer a personal query. I had extensive experience of ACAS and its conciliation methods—which were extremely helpful but never successful—in the 1980s. Does the Minister feel that these regulations add anything new to what we were doing then?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, they allow conciliation to take place. Above all, they now allow the worker involved to give up the rights that he has under this legislation. He previously did not have those rights, which made matters more difficult. The regulations will make a difference. The process involves ACAS—it is voluntary; no one has to follow it—and these regulations will be helpful to that process.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2001
1.43 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Offshore Combustion Installations (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Regulations 2001
1.43 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: The regulations before the House today apply the provisions of EC Directive 96/61 on integrated pollution prevention and control—commonly referred to as the IPPC directive—to offshore oil and gas combustion installations. These regulations follow on from similar regulations last year implementing the IPPC directive for onshore emission sources. Both sets of regulations are made under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999.
The purpose of the directive—and, consequently, of these regulations—is to enhance the protection of the environment as a whole by preventing or reducing emissions of pollutants to air, water and land. While the primary intention of the directive was to introduce controls on onshore sources, there are a number of large offshore oil and gas installations that require their own power generation plant in order to operate. These regulations therefore seek to introduce a similar level of environmental protection for offshore power production plant.
Unlike the onshore regulations, there is no existing system of permits on which to build. The regulations therefore set in place a new permitting system to meet the requirements of the directive. Under the regulations, operators of offshore combustion installations will require permits to be issued by the Secretary of State to cover the emissions from combustion installations; that is, gas turbines and diesels used for generating electricity or to power pumps and similar equipment.
The purpose of permits is to introduce controls that will prevent or reduce pollution to the air, water and land (which, in this case, is the seabed), but mainly to air. Operators will be required to apply the principle of best available techniques, which, of course, takes proper account of the need to make an appropriate assessment of the costs and environmental benefits of introducing such techniques.
In this respect, there are of course factors peculiar to the situation offshore that will have to be considered. not least the harsher operating conditions and the space restrictions on offshore platforms. There is also the fact that the quality of the fuel gas used can vary greatly as offshore platforms make use of the unprocessed gas produced as part of their operation. Such "raw" gas restricts the technology that can be applied to control emissions and the harsher environment and space limitations have an obvious effect on the cost implications for introducing such technology.
Initially, permits will be required only for new combustion installations exceeding a specified thermal threshold—which is 50 megawatts—or for existing combustion installations which undergo substantial change. Existing combustion installations which do not undergo substantial change will not need permits until late in 2007 in accordance with the provisions of the directive.
One of the main comments arising out of the consultations was what constitutes "substantial change". This is defined in the directive—and therefore in the regulations—as a change in operation which may have significant negative effects on human beings or the environment. In considering whether substantial change has taken place, it is necessary to review any changes to emission levels and their consequent impact on the environment. Where the impact is negligible or obviously minor, the substantial change provisions will not be invoked.
The cost of implementing the regulations has been extensively discussed with the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association and the regulatory impact assessment reflects the best assessment that the Government and the industry could jointly make.
We believe that the regulations, which are a product of extensive consultation, strike a proper balance between protecting the environment and ensuring that the legitimate concerns of the offshore oil and gas industry have been addressed. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. When these regulations were debated in another place, a number of queries were raised by my honourable friend Mr Gibb; however, I believe that the Minister, Mr Hain, gave entirely satisfactory answers. Therefore, I have nothing to add. I join the Government in commending the regulations.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, I owe an explanation to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and to your Lordships generally. My late arrival was occasioned by my having spent four hours this morning in a dialysis chair. None the less, I am pleased to have arrived in time to make a brief observation. I apologise for not giving notice of this to the Minister.
These provisions have been widely discussed within the industry by the offshore operators. To what extent have we kept in step with, and consulted, our partners in Norway—partners in the sense that they share in the offshore exploitation of the North Sea? Do they have broadly similar provisions, so that there is no question of there being a significant difference in the operating regimes in the North Sea between those countries that are members of the European Union and those that are not?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for raising that point. Norway, too, is concerned to reduce emissions and is pursuing that end through its own measures, independently of the European Union directive. Therefore, I do not see that these provisions will have any effect on competitiveness. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes before two o'clock.

  Balkans Theatre: Strike Aircraft Commitment
  Balkans Theatre: Strike Aircraft Commitment
  Fishery Protection Vessels: Replacement
  Fishery Protection Vessels: Replacement
  Fishing Vessel Licence Transfer and Aggregation Capacity Penalties
  Fishing Vessel Licence Transfer and Aggregation Capacity Penalties
  Miss Zainas Hussain Nazir Hammad
  Miss Zainas Hussain Nazir Hammad
  Prison Overcrowding
  Prison Overcrowding
  Freedom of Information Act 2000: Implementation
  Freedom of Information Act 2000: Implementation
  Football Disorder: Working Group Report
  Football Disorder: Working Group Report
  Electronic Conveyancing
  Electronic Conveyancing
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Millennium Dome: Sale of Contents
  Millennium Dome: Sale of Contents
  NMEC: Liquidation
  NMEC: Liquidation
  Parliamentary Pay and Allowances: Review Body Report
  Parliamentary Pay and Allowances: Review Body Report
  Broadband Services and Optical Wireless Technology
  Broadband Services and Optical Wireless Technology
  UK/Eurozone Trade
  UK/Eurozone Trade
  Anglo-Georgian Trade
  Anglo-Georgian Trade