Sitting of 2 November 2001

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that the first Bill on the Order Paper, the Patents Act 1977 (Amendment) Bill, has been withdrawn. We shall therefore proceed to the second Bill.
Dr. Vincent Cable: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask both why this problem has arisen and two specific questions? First, why has the Bill been found to be defective only at this very late stage, whereas the defect might have been identified earlier? Secondly, why is it not possible to rescue this potentially useful Bill by amendment in Committee?
Mr. Speaker: I was concentrating on the hon. Gentleman's first point; could he repeat his second one?
Dr. Cable: Some hon. Members attending this debate were hoping that this useful Bill might be passed for further scrutiny and improvement by amendment in Committee. Why is it not possible to do that?
Mr. Speaker: It is entirely up to the hon. Member promoting a private Member's Bill, even when we have gathered in the Chamber to debate it, to decide whether
1114
he or she wishes to proceed with it. As I said, the Bill has been withdrawn. There can therefore be no other comment on the matter.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you not agree that it is a gross discourtesy to hon. Members when a Bill is withdrawn at such a late stage? I certainly spent some time yesterday afternoon preparing a speech for this debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—and I know that many other hon. Members have done the same. If notice of the Bill's withdrawal had been given earlier—yesterday morning, for instance—much of the time that has been spent by hon. Members could have been saved and diverted to other purposes. Did the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) give you a reason for withdrawing the Bill?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to express an opinion, but as he knows, I cannot do that. I am not entitled to an opinion so I cannot help him. However, I am sure that there will be an occasion when he can use his speech.
Ms Claire Ward: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Whilst not asking you to express an opinion, I wonder whether you think that it would have been appropriate for the hon. Member for Bridgwater to have an opportunity at least to express to hon. Members in the Chamber why he felt it was appropriate to withdraw the Bill.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bridgwater is guided by the same rules as guide all hon. Members: the rules of the House. He has exercised his right to withdraw the Bill and there is nothing more to be said about the matter.

Orders of the Day

  Food Labelling Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.37 am
  Mr. Eric Pickles: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I shall have slightly more time for this debate than I had anticipated, but I am sure, seeing the calibre of people on the other side of the Chamber, that Labour Members will have no trouble in adapting their speeches on the first Bill, if they want to make them, to this debate.
  For the past 10 years I have been faithfully applying for the ballot for private Members' Bills, and in each of those years I have failed. I have tried just about every imaginable method to win, including using various combinations of my telephone number and the dates of my wedding anniversary and birthday. At last, however, I have hit upon a way of winning, and I have no objection if other hon. Members copy it. I decided to use my house number. Next year I shall again use my house number, as I am convinced that it is a winning combination.
  My Food Labelling Bill owes very much to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien)—whom I am very pleased to see on the Opposition Front Bench—as it contains a great deal of his Food Labelling Bill. The inclusion is intentional both because his was an excellent Bill and because I wanted to build consensus based on known legislation. My Bill makes some minor amendments to the earlier Bill, to make it somewhat Euro-friendly, but I shall deal with those later.
  I am very grateful for the backing of hon. Members on both sides of the House. My Bill's supporters include the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson).
  Of course, hon. Members put their names to the Bill before the summer, and it has been a very exciting summer politically. Many of those who agreed to put their names to the Bill are unable to be here today because of their new appointments. In fact, it seems that I have been remarkably good at picking out the rising young turks on the Tory Benches—
  Mr. Eric Forth: Was my hon. Friend referring to me?
  Mr. Pickles: I was referring to the young and the young at heart. My right hon. Friend did not put his name to my Bill; nevertheless I feel graced by his presence today.
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does that not indicate, completely counterfactually, that the right hon. Gentleman has a heart?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Pickles: I am sure that we are all grateful that it is not likely to be put to the vote.
  Mr. Chris Bryant: He would have to be labelled.
  Mr. Pickles: I am not sure where we would put the label.
  Hon. Members should take heart, as some of the Bill's luck will probably reflect on them and when they rise to the dizzy heights of the Cabinet, perhaps they will owe it to their presence here today.
  The Bill is a modest measure which attempts to build an all-party consensus. I hope that hon. Members will not be disappointed to hear that I do intend not to be confrontational towards the Government, but to move the issue on and to get a decision or a promise without delay. Given the time, it is quite possible that we will have the opportunity to thrash out some of the issues today. I hope that the measure will be considered in Committee so that it can receive line-by-line scrutiny that will result in a solution. Perhaps I am slightly undermining my case by saying that I do not mind whether it is found through this legislation, but it is really important to have honest labelling of food products.
  My clear intention is the unambiguous, straightforward and, above all, honest labelling of food. Everyone agrees that there is a need for it—from the Prime Minister to past agriculture Ministers to the present Minister with responsibility for the food chain. Ministers have made speeches at National Farmers Union conferences and other gatherings saying that it is necessary because the United Kingdom has a higher standard of care of animals and we want to get on the side of our producers. Farmers, retailers and shoppers all want something better. This is an honest and straightforward attempt to achieve that.
  The Bill attempts to bring form and substance to the intention of Parliament when we passed measures to protect the welfare of animals. It is also an attempt to help the hard-pressed farming industry. Hon. Members will be aware that the first diagnosed case of foot and mouth disease was discovered in my constituency of Brentwood and Ongar in February. The outbreak was restricted to the abattoir and some surrounding farms. I saw at first hand the devastating effect of that terrible disease, not just on the farmers and the land, but on the wider rural economy. I readily concede that the effect on Brentwood and Ongar was little more than a pinprick compared with the suffering of farmers in Cumbria and Northumberland; nevertheless it is still felt today.
  Above all, the Bill attempts to empower consumers—to give them a ready avenue to make the choice that Parliament and the Government are so keen for them to exercise. I should stress that it is certainly not an attempt to restrict imports or ban methods of production that are perfectly legal throughout the EU. We took a conscious decision to apply different rules to animal husbandry in particular, and we did so for the very best of reasons. We wanted to reflect on how animals should be kept, to set clear standards in respect of how they should be reared and fed, and on movement. Of course, the methods that we used before the regulations were imposed and the law

  1117
  was changed are cheaper, and the methods that we have chosen for the United Kingdom are inevitably more expensive. Parliament laid down the standards and it is now up to us to ensure that the public have an opportunity to reflect those standards in their choice of purchase.
  We did not take decisions in a vacuum or lead the public; we followed public opinion, which has been very clear on this for a number of years. According to a recent survey by the Food Standards Agency, nearly 90 per cent. of consumers are concerned about the way in which animals are reared. I can think of no better way of expressing this than quoting the response by the National Pig Association to the policy commission on the future of farming. It is dated October 2001 and says:
  "Citizens expect to consume meat in this country which has been raised in high welfare and ethical standards. The Government responds to these expectations by setting standards of production, transport, welfare, etc which reflect the demands of society …
  At the point of sale the consumer is not provided with accurate labelling so that an informed choice can be made and full values, including welfare and ethical values, cannot be compared."
  What that means in practice is that when someone goes into a supermarket, they are not able to exercise that choice.
  Since the Bill was last presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, the famous red tractor scheme has been introduced. Last week I went into my local Tesco, where I have been shopping for about 10 years, and it was festooned with—
  Ms Candy Atherton: Did the hon. Gentleman have his reward card?
  Mr. Pickles: I did indeed. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister has some valueless card, but I carry this one and I am very pleased that it is blue.
  Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pickles: I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene with regard to my Tesco card; still, out of sheer curiosity I give way to him.
  Mr. Bryant: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is worried by reward cards and the fact that, generally, all supermarkets are fully aware of exactly what food he eats week by week?
  Mr. Pickles: I am sure that the nation is delighted to know about my consumption of baked beans and British sausages. I have to say that there is a tremor of excitement in the Pickles household when the little reward card comes and I can get 20p off a packet of crisps and maybe a jar of Bovril, but I lead a relatively quiet life. The hon. Gentleman would deprive me of such things. I am happy for people to know what I buy in return for the small gifts that I am pleased to receive.
  Anyway, I went towards the meat counter and saw that it was festooned with red tractor signs. There were pictures of benign looking farmers in their shirt sleeves smiling down at me, extolling the very best of British products. I receive all sorts of promotional material from Tesco and do not doubt its commitment to the scheme.
  1118
  The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) managed to get me to disclose that I am a regular customer and I receive correspondence not just on crisps and Bovril, but on British beef and British meat. I thought that it would be relatively easy for me to pick out a pack of British bacon, but it was not.
  An ordinary person, not someone involved in the regulations, would think that British bacon had been raised, slaughtered, cured and packed here. However, I had to spend a serious amount of time looking, almost to the point where I seemed to be loitering. I am sure that the security staff were starting to form a cordon around me because I was picking up pack upon pack. Although I managed to find local bacon close to the red tractor sign, it was surrounded by bacon from all over the world.
  I picked up a pack that I was certain was British bacon because it was described as Wiltshire cure. On closer examination, I became convinced that the unfortunate pig that supplied it had not so much as seen a postcard of Wiltshire, let alone visited that fine county.
  Tesco offers plenty of choice, but as a consumer I could not easily exercise it. I wanted to buy a product that was produced to a high standard of animal welfare. The lack of honest labelling prevented me from doing so.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Does my hon. Friend agree that the National Farmers Union sought to introduce and sponsor the red tractor logo because the Government had not given the previous Food Labelling Bill the opportunity to proceed? In the absence of that, a second-best—albeit welcome—scheme had to be introduced by the NFU that was to British farm standards. A product does not have to be British, but simply has to comply with those standards. That is very different from the opportunity presented by the Bill.
  Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is right. I am pleased that the NFU and the National Pig Association support my endeavour to introduce the Bill. I thank those organisations, FoodTrak and, in particular, the Food and Drink Federation for helping me to draft the Bill, including the changes that we have made to my hon. Friend's Bill.
  When we debated the previous Bill, we spent an inordinate amount of time discussing whether it was an anti-European Union measure. As my hon. Friend said at the time, that is absolutely not the case. The Bill has been carefully worded so that that will not happen. The EU law on labelling has a flexible interpretation. We have been offered guidance on that. We are not introducing covert protectionism or retaliation. Obviously, the European court will check whether it conforms with agreements.
  Since the previous debate, we have agreed that British beef should be labelled with its country of origin. The European Commission has ruled that that is legal under EU law. In France, the national pork federation and the federation of commerce and distribution have signed an agreement to allow the identification of the origins of pork sold through retail outlets in France. That reasonable measure is initially targeted at fresh meat, but more complex identification of processed products is expected to follow.

  1119
  In addition, a 3D label in Germany identifies the origin of domestically produced poultry meat, which has to meet detailed quality criteria and feed standards. A former Attorney-General has also given us the benefits of his views:
  "there is every reason to think that the Bill could be put into a form that would comply with EU law, even if it does not already."—[Official Report, 3 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 712.]
  It would not have been possible to attract support from hon. Members on both sides of the House if the Bill had been a bit of Euro-bashing. Frankly, I would not have supported it if it had been. I also doubt whether we would have obtained the support—
  Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman may want to hear what I am about to say before he goes on about cards again.
  We would not have obtained the support of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), who represents my neighbouring constituency and is, I think, a chairman of Labour's pro-European group.
  Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he would not want to present the Bill if it were just a means of Euro-bashing?
  Mr. Pickles: Because I am that kind of person.
  We want to build on EU law. We should take a lead and be not just at the heart of Europe, but at its cutting edge. That is not simply my view; it is also held by the noble Lord with responsibility for the food chain. Many hon. Members will have been glued to their television sets every night during the recess watching "Newsnight". There was a fascinating discussion on 28 August, and I have a transcript of that interview with Mr. Tim Bennett of the NFU and Lord Whiny. I shall not read out the whole interview because, although riveting at the time, it would be tedious now.
  In an exchange that reflected Lord Whitty's views, Mr. Tim Bennett said:
  "If we are going to produce better food quality, produced to these exacting standards and to compete with lower prices from around the world, we have to make sure the consumer is informed about how the product is produced. Because at the moment we don't get that."
  Kirsty Wark, a presenter on the programme, asked, "Why not?" Mr. Bennett replied:
  "it's a combination possible from the retailer and from the Government. If Government wants us to go down the lines of less intensive, they have to make sure the labelling laws in this country make sure the consumer is well informed about how our food is produced."
  Kirsty Wark then asked:
  "Lord Whitty, is that something you would be doing immediately?"
  He responded:
  "The laws are by and large EU",
  to which Ms Wark said:
  "There are ways you can build on EU laws? And that's exactly what they're asking for."
  1120
  Lord Whitty said:
  "I would agree. We need to make sure the consumer is aware of the way the product has been produced. Its origin. And the environmental standard which it has met."
  Lord Whitty wants legislation to make the consumer aware of how the product is produced, its origin and the environmental standard that it has met. The Bill seeks to do nothing less. It would put into legislative form what Lord Whitty wants. "Newsnight" is not an obscure programme on which to make such an announcement. I suspect, and it grieves me to say so, that it may have reached more people than this debate will.
  Mr. George Osborne: Shame.
  Mr. Pickles: It is indeed a shame, but no doubt the time will come when the reading of Hansard at the breakfast table will again be a common practice among the population.
  Mr. Bryant: When was it common practice?
  Mr. Pickles: In the Pickles household. After I have gone through communications from Tesco and various loyalty cards, the next filing I reach for is Hansard.
  Lord Whitty's assurance is sufficient in itself to get this measure into Committee.
  Ms Atherton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for us in Cornwall, food labelling is particularly important. Cornish clotted cream and Cornish pasties on any table in Cornish households are the subject of much debate. How would the Bill affect those households?
  Mr. Pickles: I am certain that Cornish householders keen to support local produce or higher animal welfare standards will be in a better position to do so as a result of the Bill. Various rules exist within the European Union with regard to regional identification. That is a building block that the Bill enhances. However, the Bill is specific about enhancing methods of production and environmental standards and about country of origin.
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: When the Cornish purchaser is buying clotted cream, what percentage of the milk in that cream will be from Cornwall? Perhaps the Bill would be a way of finding out whether the milk used is imported or from the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Pickles: That is a very good point. It marries my point and that of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) with an eloquence that I could not match.
  Ms Atherton: So smooth.
  Mr. Pickles: Well, I am in politics.
  A regulatory set-up in the EU covers whether a product is Cornish clotted cream or clotted cream produced by the Cornish method. My Bill would demonstrate to the Cornish purchaser—as the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury would have done—that the product was indeed a product of the United Kingdom, or at least of England and Wales.
  Mr. Gardiner: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that under the existing legislation and the EU legislation on

  1121
  food labelling, food is considered to have been manufactured or produced in the country in which it last underwent a treatment or process resulting in substantial change. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) queried whether Cornish clotted cream would have to contain Cornish milk to make it Cornish. Under the existing legislation it would be Cornish if it had undergone its last major substantial process in Cornwall.
  Mr. Pickles: That is right. The Brill would make things transparent. It is not about banning things or stopping them happening but about honesty in labelling.
  Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman has been extremely kind in giving way on many occasions this morning. Does he accept that many people find the Bill disappointing precisely because it does not seek to prescribe certain elements? It would not inform people about the problematic ingredients to which many people have allergic reactions, such as nuts. Many people thought that the Bill would provide that if food contained nuts, that would have to be specified on the label. It is a source of great disappointment that the Bill does not seek to tackle something that is a very real problem for many people in this country.
  Mr. Pickles: Those issues are covered by other labelling regulations, but I am not a proud man and if the hon. Gentleman wants to enhance my Bill, I will willingly accept his help. If he wants to help the Bill through the Committee, I will lobby the Labour Whips. I will have more to say about nuts and potato crisps shortly.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The critical question that was raised by the hon. Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) and for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) underpins the intent behind the Bill. As I understand it, the Bill is not just to do with the latest substantial-change treatment to the raw material—or to the material in the form in which it is received at the plant—as is the case under current legislation. It is to do with the overall content. We want consumers to be confident about what they are buying. Knowing the provenance of a product, as well as being aware of the standards of production that led to the last substantial change, gives consumers confidence. Knowing where the milk came from is as important, if one wants to be sure that it has been treated at the original source in a way that will give consumers confidence, as the latest substantial-change treatment. Hence, a main ingredient is defined as anything that is more than 25 per cent. of the content. I hope that helps to address the points that were raised.
  Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is quite right. During the last debate on this issue, we spent some considerable time on this almost de minimis point. My hon. Friend was quite keen to ensure that we do not become bogged down in clotted cream or shepherd's pie, as it were. He reminds me that I should have said that the remarks of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) came close to protectionism and the desire to ban imports. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention because it has taken a couple of pages off my speech. [Interruption.] He put it far better than I could.
  Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pickles: I do not think I will ever resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bryant: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I am a little frightened by that comment.
  Mr. Pickles: So you should be.
  Mr. Bryant: The point about 25 per cent. content is very significant. Let us consider lemon tart, or tarte au citron as they call it in other countries, not to mention Marks and Spencer and Sainsbury, although not in Tesco. Actually, to most of us in Wales, it is lemon meringue pie. Clearly, lemons never constitute 25 per cent. of a lemon meringue pie, however it is made. None the less, a lemon meringue pie without lemons, or without significant lemon taste, or when one cannot identify where the lemons come from, might be a lesser lemon tart.
  Mr. Pickles: I am not certain about most things in life, but I am certain that someone who wishes to sell a lemon tart—or even a tarte au citron—tends to put the description on the label. What we should be concerned about is making sure that what is on the label is honest. There is no reason why the label should not display the fact that the lemons are Israeli, or Palestinian, or come from Spain. That seems perfectly reasonable.
  I am beginning to develop the view that we should not get bogged down in clotted cream, shepherd's pie or tarte au citron.
  Mr. Bryant: It is a nice idea, though.
  Mr. Pickles: I suppose it is—but I have been on a diet, and I am a born-again muesli man myself. Let us move on.
  A number of things have happened since our last debate. We have had the voluntary code, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury has rightly pointed out, the farm assurance scheme. I think that that has been a success, to some degree, in attracting people's attention and increasing awareness of the quality of UK products. That is quite right. Indeed, it has been said from the Government Front Bench that British food remains the best in the world.
  However, confusion still exists. We have managed to increase awareness, but not the way in which consumers can act on that awareness. Consumer and farming organisations are still demanding a fairer labelling system, backed by the law.
  The second development is less welcome—the outbreaks of classical swine fever and foot and mouth disease. As I have said, although my constituency fortunately escaped classical swine fever, it did suffer from foot and mouth. That was an awful experience, devastating not only for the people directly involved but for the wider community.
  One of the features of previous agriculture debates in which I have participated has been the analysis of farm incomes published at this time of year by the accountants Deloitte & Touche. The October figures for this year have just been released, which is timely. It is shocking to hear that on a typical 500-acre family-run farm, annual profits

  1123
  have decreased from £80,000 to only £2,500 in five years. Deloitte & Touche estimates that in the year 2000, the average farmer's salary was only £8,000 a year.
  Total income from farming for the year 2000 has fallen by 27 per cent. in real terms to £1.88 billion—down by more than two thirds over the past five years. To give some kind of comparison, I must tell the House that in 1996 it was more than £5 billion. Bank borrowing by the agriculture industry continues to rise, amounting to some £10 billion, while investment levels on farms are the lowest since the early 1970s.
  Most shocking of all, the National Farmers Union estimates that about 47,400 farmers and farm workers have left the industry in England and Wales over the past two years. I know about that from my local farming sector. I met its representatives in early October and they talked about their sons' and daughters' reluctance to enter the farming industry. In my area, the tradition of farming continuing down the generations is, in some cases, about to end.
  The most dramatic effects have been on the pig industry. Over the past 10 years, the size of the UK herd has fallen sharply, and now stands at its lowest level for more than 50 years. Imports of pigmeat have consistently risen. Between 1994 and 1999, the UK was a net exporter of fresh pork in every year except one. Last year, the position was reversed and the home producers could not sustain their share of the market. In short, the retailer and the food service sector in general are importing food produced to a lower specification.
  I emphasise the fact that my Bill does not seek to outlaw that, but simply to ensure that the purchaser has a right to know which products conform to the standards that the British consumer has long come to expect.
  Angela Watkinson rose—
  Mr. Pickles: I give way to my hon. Friend and neighbour.
  Angela Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman and I do, indeed, share a constituency boundary. A farm in my constituency, only one mile from that boundary, was one of the earliest sufferers from foot and mouth disease. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Bill is non-discriminatory towards imports of products of any origin that find themselves in our shops? It is the honesty in labelling that will enable the customer to understand the variation in prices, which reflect the variation in standards of production. Production costs in this country are higher because of the high standards of animal husbandry. If customers know where the products come from, they will have an explanation as to why some imports are cheaper than some home-produced items. Customers will know that although they are paying a little more for a product, they are getting a higher-quality product. Is that not why honesty is so important?
  Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill is about quality and quality assurance. It is about ensuring that customers are not misled into purchasing what they think is local bacon, because it is called "Wiltshire cure", only to find that it is more likely to have come from
  1124
  Czechoslovakia or Poland. I am happy for people to purchase Czechoslovakian or Polish bacon; I have no problem with that—but I want people to be able to know that they are purchasing bacon that has been produced in conformity with the quality assurance and the standards of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pickles: Of course. The hon. Gentleman has a free pass, so far as I am concerned. Any time he wants to come in, he is most welcome.
  Mr. Bryant: The good thing about free passes is that as they are free, one does not feel one needs to use them all the time, just to get good value.
  I was just wondering whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that Czechoslovakia is now the Czech Republic. It is not one country any more.
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, most helpful—and absolutely right. I was not speaking in a strictly geographical sense. I am very much aware that there is the Czech Republic and the other part of what was Czechoslovakia, and all the other places in eastern Europe. The point that I was making is that the Bill is about ensuring that standards of husbandry can be assured.
  The figures that I read out from the Deloitte & Touche report do not entirely take into account the full effects of classical swine fever and foot and mouth. I am afraid that if we have a similar agriculture debate this time next year, the situation is likely to look even grimmer. I hope I have said enough to show that the estimated cumulative loss to the UK pig industry between 1998 and the end of 1999 was about £340 million.
  The importance of the pig industry should never be underestimated. As the distinguished journalist Digby Scott—the winner of this year's David Black award—said when receiving his award at an event on Wednesday attended by several hon. Members:
  "If you picture the countryside as an enormous inverted pyramid, then pig farming is that tiny pin prick at the very bottom—helping support the huge economic structure above of leisure, tourism, retailing, manufacturing and government."
  The effect of foot and mouth disease in my constituency completely convinced me of that. I was surprised that so many rural businesses and so much diversification of farmland depended ultimately on cattle and pig production.
  The foot and mouth restrictions did not only affect a tiny farming community: they went deep into the countryside and deep into the suburbs. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne and I attended a meeting about waterways where we were told about the effects of foot and mouth disease on our inland waterways and about the impact on tourism. We must not underestimate the importance of basic farming production for the infrastructure and social cohesion of the countryside and the general community.
  Although I have slightly more time than I anticipated as the first Bill we were to have debated was withdrawn, I think I am in danger of being rather self-indulgent in terms of time, so I shall turn quickly to the clauses. The

  1125
  purpose of clause 2 is to ensure that food labels carry particulars of the country or countries of origin of each of the major ingredients of the food.
  Clause 3 is concerned with production standards. The intention is that where food production standards are lower than those that apply in England and Wales reference must be made to that on the label.
  Clause 4 is similar to provisions in the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, but I draw hon. Members' attention to subsection (1) which sets out rules on packaging, and anticipates the growth of web-based and bar-code information systems. The hon. Member for Brent, North expressed deep concern about notes, and paragraph (e) would address that problem. It would ensure that consumers can obtain information on a specific product, either through the web or from bar codes. Hon. Members will be familiar with the little price guns that we see in Safeway, Waitrose or Sainsbury; they contain much more information than merely the price and the product name.
  The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) who was in his place, but is now on the Treasury Bench—
  Mr. David Drew: He is never still.
  Mr. Pickles: Indeed. The hon. Member for Hendon will like my next point. It is possible to take one of those guns, point it at a packet of Walkers crisps and find out which field the potatoes were picked from. That is obviously of some importance with regard to pesticide controls and the like. Within a very short time it will be possible for people to use such programmed systems, so that someone who has a nut allergy or does not want to buy products from a certain country or wants to obtain particular products will be able to use those guns in supermarkets. They will be an enormous help—
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien rose—
  Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is about to enlighten us. I cannot wait.
  Mr. O'Brien: The technology exists; indeed it existed 18 months ago. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has also done a great deal of work in this area, and he and I have talked to some of the corporate entities who are at the leading edge. There is already a link between everything in my hon. Friend's Bill, the animal welfare standards and the food safety regime: computer programmes can help to identify a product on the supermarket shelf—however it has been treated and presented—back to the field, the animal or the farm whence it came. For instance, Swedishtasty.com will explain exactly where a piece of beef came from— [Laughter.] Swedishtasty.com is a particularly good site—I recommend it strongly. It is a good example. I intervened because my hon. Friend is right and I endorse his point that the Bill offers an opportunity to enhance and bring together the various strands to deliver benefits to producers and consumers alike.
  Mr. Pickles: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I had heard that he was a great devotee of the website Swedishtasty.com—I was delighted to discover that it was about meatballs—[Laughter.] Perhaps we should gently draw a veil over that point.
  1126
  The proposals will bring honesty into labelling. They attempt to build on EU legislation, and will offer help to the farming industry without asking for subsidy or unfair advantage. The Bill will empower the consumer to make informed purchasing choices and gives strength to measures that the House has previously adopted with enthusiasm.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  10.27 am
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: I am delighted to speak on the Bill. I compliment the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on his tenacity in holding the House captivated for the past 50 minutes. I congratulate him on his good fortune in securing such a significant place in the private Members' ballot. I am glad that he has let the rest of the House into his secret. I shall make sure that I enter my house number in the ballot next year in order to secure similar good fortune.
  I begin by looking at the issue of nuts—a cause of great concern in relation to food labelling regulations. Nuts are the most prevalent of the allergens in food that can cause significant trauma to people. For many, many years a sizeable lobby has pressed for better legislation to ensure that the labelling of food products is simple and clear.
  I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks about transparency and honesty in labelling. That is of fundamental importance. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman had known of them, he would have been extremely supportive of the questions that I put earlier this year to the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food asking what steps he was taking to ensure standardisation of food labels so that universally recognised symbols could be adopted for descriptions of foods that, first, contain nuts; secondly, and equally important, do not contain nuts and verifiably have not done so in any part of their processing; and, thirdly, might contain traces of nuts. That is the clarity and honesty in food labelling for which many people have been calling.
  Earlier this year, I received from my constituents the Doran family correspondence that says:
  "I find it so frustrating that so many issues take top place on the agenda when so little people are actually affected, i.e.: beef labelling, GM foods. I am not minimising the anguish of those people who are affected by them but it feels that the issue of nut allergy is left on the shelf because the tide of public opinion hasn't yet knocked on its door.
  My son could die if he ate something with a trace of nut, or nut oil in it. He is four years old. We can't leave him with family and friends because it is too easy to forget that this simple food could kill him. But it would be far easier if we knew that anyone who was minding him could look at a product and know straight away if it had nuts or not—and if so, it should state if it is nut free."
  I could quote much more extensively from correspondence from the Dorans and others.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I am aware of that problem because my nephew, Adam, suffers from the same allergy. It is extremely difficult to buy Easter eggs, for example, because even when one thinks that one is buying pure chocolate it can contain a trace of nut that is often not put on the label. It is a difficult problem, especially for uncles trying to buy treats for their young nephews.
  Mr. Gardiner: That is yet another example of the importance of this matter. As my hon. Friend says, it is not just a social problem—uncles buying treats for their nephews—it can be critical for allergy sufferers.
  The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar was good enough to say that if improvements can be made to the Bill in Committee, he will be open to accepting them. If the Bill receives a fair wind and passage today, I hope that he will be true to his word.
  Mr. Pickles: I wish to be absolutely straight with the hon. Gentleman and confirm that point: yes, I would very much welcome his suggestion.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
  There is hope, even if the Bill were not to get a fair passage today, because I understand that the European Commission considered the matter recently. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), and other Ministers have been pressing the Commission to take action on this matter for some time and the Government have been most insistent on some exemptions to ingredients lists. In September, the Commission introduced a proposal to ensure that allergens were listed and, if the proposal is adopted, nuts and other such allergens will have to be listed wherever they are used. That will be a big step forward in improving transparency and honesty in labelling.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take note of what has been said in the Chamber this morning: that it is not good enough simply to note when a product contains nuts; it is equally important to say when it does not and when it might. The doubt that can arise from food labelling is extremely worrying to parents and other carers.
  Angela Watkinson: One of my grandchildren has a nut allergy and I am well trained in reading the information on sweet labels. Sometimes, however, the print is so small that I need a magnifying glass, which I do not happen to carry with me when I shop. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be much more useful to have the simple phrase "nut free" rather than having to trawl through a list of ingredients in search of the words:
  "May contain traces of nuts."
  Mr. Gardiner: I certainly agree with the hon. Lady in the case of products that can be certified nut free. I hope that she agrees that, in cases where there is no significant use of nuts in the production process, yet where one sector of the kitchen where it is produced makes food containing traces of nuts, it is important that the food product that officially contains no nuts should not state that it is nut free, because the dangers of cross-contamination in such a production process can prove fatal.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Has the hon. Gentleman compared the timetable of this Bill, if it is given a fair passage and is successful in entering our domestic law, with discussion of the matter within the EU, which has been rightly and fairly highlighted? Given the moving and important story of the four-year-old in his constituency, it would appear that time is of the essence and that we must
  1128
  look at the fastest track to ensure that safety for consumers, particularly those with allergies, is put on our statute book to instil the highest possible confidence.
  Mr. Gardiner: I have certainly considered the time scale in which the EU might be able to act. Discussions on country of origin labelling began in May of this year at a meeting of the CODEX committee on food labelling. They are expected to continue at the committee's meeting next year, but in the meantime the agency will review its guidance on country of origin labelling to ensure that it tackles that and other issues that concern consumers. The question is, what will that guidance be and how quickly can it be implemented? I understand that it will be implemented before the next meeting of the CODEX committee.
  Mr. O'Brien: Although guidance is important, the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments can be underpinned by the need for confidence. Above all, his arguments seemed to suggest that he supported the necessary statutory regime that could enforce that level of confidence. Guidance may be welcome, but I urge him to look carefully at the opportunity that the Bill presents to ensure that that is in place well before—given its track record on the issue—the EU's programme for determination of this subject.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Judging from the consensus that appears to exist in the Chamber this morning, the correct labelling of food products to denote potential allergens in them has all-party support. Actually, it has cross-party support—although we have not been joined by other Opposition parties this morning—and we would all like to see it put into legislation as fast as possible.
  I now come to the elements of the Bill addressed by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, particularly labelling with the country of origin. First, however, I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman why he adopted specific interpretations in clause 1. One of my questions arises from bitter personal experience. Clause 1 says:
  "'food' is to be interpreted in accordance with section 1 of the Food Safety Act 1990, but does not include … sea fish or shellfish listed in Schedule 1 to the Regulations".
  I proudly claim the distinction of being the only human being ever to be mugged by a clam in New York.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Was it the Ku-Klux Klam?
  Mr. Gardiner: No, I said clam. It occurred some years ago—[Interruption.] I know that the House will have some mirth at my expense this morning, but as John Bunyan would put it,
  "My marks and scars I carry with me to be a witness that I have fought His battles who will now be my rewarder."
  Some years ago in New York, I was invited to lunch by a client. Despite what happened, that client was and still is a very good friend. He asked me whether I liked clams and I said that I had never tried raw clams but that I had sampled clam chowder when I lived in Boston. He insisted that I have some clams and also asked whether I liked oysters. 1 said that I had never tried oysters so he

  1129
  ordered half a dozen clams and half a dozen oysters. We sat down and ate these things. I must say that I found them execrable.
  Ms Atherton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gardiner: Before I give way, I must say that they were not Cornish oysters.
  Ms Atherton: I assure my hon. Friend that I will deliver to him personally half a dozen Helford River oysters. I am sure that he will find them very enjoyable.
  Mr. Gardiner: I thank my hon. Friend for that offer. However, my experience that day left me resigned to never touching the things again.
  A few hours later when I was with another friend in New Jersey, I began to feel extremely sick. While retiring to the bathroom, as it was called, I passed out, knocked my head against a marble staircase, cracked open my skull and ended up spending the night undergoing CAT scans and goodness knows what else in a New Jersey hospital. I dread to think what the health care I received in America cost my travel insurers. The whole experience was extremely disconcerting.
  Mr. Dismore: In the light of my hon. Friend's experience, will he tell us whether he had been drinking spirits at the time? It is now a well known medical fact that drinking spirits with raw shellfish can cause a very bad reaction. Indeed, many good fish restaurants in London now say on the menu that one should not drink spirits if one is ordering raw shellfish
  Mr. Gardiner: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I have only two things to say to him. The first is that I was not drinking spirits at the time. The second is that, given the choice between eating shellfish and drinking spirits, I certainly know which course is distinctly preferable. I am a good Scotsman, so my hon. Friend need not ask any more.
  The fact that sea fish and shellfish are not considered to be food for the purposes of the Bill would cause many people concern. Perhaps the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar will consider that point.
  Mr. Pickles: I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman. A platter of fruits de mer in Rouen had a similar effect on me, so I sympathise with him.
  Although there is some farming of shellfish and fish, they are mostly collected by hunter-gatherers. That is why shellfish and sea fish are not covered by the Bill. The hon. Gentleman refers to safety and to the definition of ingredients but, as I said earlier, let us get the Bill into Committee. The Government no doubt have strong views on that point, so they might table an amendment to deal with it.
  Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman has been extremely gracious in accepting interventions and in recognising that other suggestions may be introduced into his Bill at later stages. The House is grateful to him for the open way in which he has dealt with these matters.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman has told us a shaggy clam story, but I hope that he will not recount
  1130
  too many similar experiences or long stories. If the Bill is to go into Committee, we need to make progress this morning.
  Mr. Gardiner: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is always my intention on a Friday morning to examine the Bill before us and to give it a fair degree of scrutiny. Instead of Members urging me or anyone else in the Chamber to clam up, I hope that they will look not at the clam but at the oyster and seek to find the pearls of wisdom therein.
  Another aspect of clause 1 concerns me. It relates to the interpretation of the term "major ingredient". It is a serious matter, because the clause states that
  "'major ingredient' means an ingredient which forms more than 25 per cent. by weight of a food".
  When I thought about the fact that a "major ingredient" had to form more than 25 per cent., I referred to "Dod's Parliamentary Companion 2002". I wanted to assure myself that the Conservative party formed a major ingredient of the House of Commons. I thought that it would be absolutely borderline but, on checking, I found that there were not 160 Conservative Members, as I had remembered, but 166. That means that, by a margin of two, they just form more than 25 per cent. of the House, so they can claim that they constitute a major ingredient.
  Had I any doubts on that point, I know from looking at the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar that I need not have worried. The definition refers not to forming more than 25 per cent. but to forming
  "more than 25 per cent. by weight of food".
  On that ground alone, the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members are easily able to satisfy the rubric. I am happy about that.
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman might have seen me pointing to him in a threatening manner. Considering the amount of weight I have lost, he should have offered me some encouragement instead of mocking my bulk. We make the tasty part of this particular meal.
  Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking my remarks in the good humour with which they were intended.
  Clause 3 is headed "Labelling: production standards". In it, the hon. Gentleman has hit on something that is of great concern to many of my constituents in Brent, North and, no doubt, to many of his. The point relates to the welfare of livestock and the treatment of animals. The British public are concerned that the standards of animal welfare that we wish to maintain in this country are not universally respected in the rest of the world or, indeed, in the rest of the European Community.
  The Government make representations in the European Union on issues of animal welfare, and I am sure that many of us share the concern that we have not yet established a regime throughout Europe that we would consider matches this country's welfare standards for animal husbandry. There is more that we could do even in this country and this clause identifies an important point. Consumers want to be happy with the standards for the treatment of animals in the rearing and husbandry process. That is a matter not of vegetarianism, simply of animal welfare. People who are rightly happy to eat meat want

  1131
  to know that the animals have been treated in a proper and humane way. I welcome that element of the hon. Gentleman's Bill.
  I have certain concerns about the Bill. Scope for such national action as the hon. Gentleman seeks to introduce is limited by European law. It constrains any restriction on trade within the single market under the interpretation from Europe. If the Bill were adopted, it would inevitably be overturned by the European Court and could result in the UK being obliged to pay substantial compensation to affected interests. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able satisfy the House that those criticisms of his Bill are not correct. I fear that he may not. I applaud the hon. Gentleman's willingness to consider other aspects that may be introduced into his Bill at a later stage and his desire to achieve open, honest and transparent labelling, especially on the welfare of livestock. Elements of the Bill are worthy, and I wish him well with it.
  10.51 am
  Mr. George Osborne: Icongratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). As the candidate for Tatton, I followed his general election campaign closely. We were pleased to see him returned on election night, and I am pleased that he won a high place in the ballot for private Members' Bills and chose to reintroduce this one, albeit altered to take into account the points raised by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), who is now leaving the Chamber, about its compatibility with European law. I am glad that my hon. Friend is continuing with the Bill that my neighbour and good Friend the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) introduced in the last Parliament.
  There is no doubt that the food labelling Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury introduced struck a chord with the farming community and Members of Parliament like me who represent rural communities. There is great anger in the farming community that many of the high animal welfare and hygiene standards to which they adhere are not adhered to in other EU countries, and that they are placed at a disadvantage in the marketplace.
  There is a sense among farmers that if consumers were given a real choice—if they could go into the supermarket and choose good-quality food produced from animals raised to a high standard of animal welfare—they would make that choice. The problem is that they do not have the information. That is why the Bill is so important.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar rehearsed many of the tragic statistics about the state of farming. I recently met farmers in Chelford, which is a large agricultural market in the south of my constituency. Anyone who meets farmers these days cannot doubt how desperate the situation is for them. The total income from farming has fallen by two thirds in the past five years. Deloitte and Touche estimates that the average annual salary for farmers is just £8,000 a year. Bank borrowing by agriculture amounts to £10 billion a year. Investment levels are at their lowest since the 1970s.
  The dire situation has been brought about by a number of factors. If we are honest, we should accept that we in the House have little control over some of them. One is the high value of the pound relative to the euro. There is
  1132
  not much that we can do about that, except perhaps to reduce the dependency in the long term of farming on subsidies from Europe and the green pound. The second such factor is the low value of commodity prices across the world—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Bill that we are discussing is about food labelling.
  Mr. Osborne: Factors that we cannot control have damaged our agriculture, but one thing that we could do is introduce this Bill, which would make a huge difference to the state of farming. The food labelling laws are a mess. If you went into a supermarket, Madam Deputy Speaker, and saw my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar loitering by the bacon counter, you would find what he finds. You could pick up a pound of bacon that says "British", but the pig may have been raised in Holland in a sow stall or with a tether, practices that this House banned a decade ago. It could have been slaughtered in another European country that does not have the same slaughtering regulations that the House has introduced. The pigmeat could have been brought to this country, seasoned or smoked and packaged and then labelled "British Bacon". That is absurd.
  When consumers come across my hon. Friend loitering by the bacon counter, like him, they are confused. They may want to buy bacon from pigs raised in humane conditions, but they cannot make that informed decision. They may want to buy bacon or other meat that has been slaughtered humanely, but they cannot make that informed decision. They may want to support British agriculture, but they cannot because the labelling laws cause confusion. The Bill would end that confusion.
  It is striking how broadly the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury and this one have been welcomed by both consumer and farming groups. It was my dubious pleasure to be a special adviser—now a dirty word—to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for several years under the previous Government. It was remarkable how infrequently consumer organisations and farming bodies agreed. The Bill has a broad measure of agreement.
  In the notes helpfully provided, at least for Conservative Members, it is clear that the Bill is supported by the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the National Pig Association, but also by the Consumers Association. The Consumers Association said:
  "This Bill is a step in the right direction.… Consumers need the ability to properly choose what they eat—that means country of origin being clearly labelled on food.… Country of origin labelling needs to be specific so that consumers can make effective choices about what they buy—and where it comes from. This means that any general 'EU' or 'non-EU' label would not go far enough. For example, such a label would not have enabled customers to choose whether or not to eat Belgian meat during the recent dioxin scare."
  The Bill thus has a broad measure of support from consumers and fanning organisations.
  One striking thing about the farming community, as those who represent it in the House know, is how well informed farmers are about decisions made by the House and the Government. That is partly because their income is hugely dependent on the decisions of the Government. They are a politically well-informed group in our society. They follow our proceedings. Not many people will be

  1133
  following them today, but the farming community will. What we say here will be circulated in agricultural markets, NFU newsletters and so on.
  Farmers were disappointed when, for reasons that they did not fully understand, the Government squashed the previous Bill in the last Parliament. They will be disappointed and will not understand if the Government squash this Bill in this Parliament. This is an important Bill. So many things that we do to help farming and for which the industry asks are expensive, involve billions of pounds of subsidies, and require complex European negotiations and difficult regulations. But this is simple to do, works with the grain of the market and consumer choice, is welcomed by consumers and would do a great deal for farmers. I hope that the Bill gets the support that it deserves.
  11 am
  Mr. David Drew: I apologise to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), as I was taken aback when I saw him on my screen launching his Bill. This follows yesterday evening, when some 400 hon. Members either tried to prevent my Adjournment debate or helped it to take place. Procedurally, it has been an interesting 24 hours, but I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing his initial pearls of wisdom.
  I am a sponsor of the Bill, and I make no apology for saying that I support it. The cause of food labelling needs to be advanced in this place. I was not as active as I should have been with the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), and I shall mention why that failed. However, the need for food labeling—in the form of this Bill, future legislation here or European activities—is proven and the rationale for bringing forward greater controls could not be shown more straightforwardly than by the recent crises in this country.
  The previous Bill failed because it was deemed to be in contravention of the treaty of Rome, principally articles 28 to 30. If that is the case, we need to talk to Europe about how we can improve its regulations and legislative powers, as well as what we choose to do here. We must also consider how easy it is to define how we wish to label items. It is accepted that consumers want as much information as they can handle. Even if they do not want to see it on the packaging, there will be occasions when they will want to get information on what is in their products and who produces them.
  Rather than getting into the obscurantism of defining exactly in law what needs to be done, we should accept the principle that it is good for the producer and the consumer that we label as effectively as we can and that the only thing that should limit us in doing that is the means by which we can communicate the information.
  Three questions must be asked about the proposal. First, can it be done, and, a related issue, why did the previous Bill fail? Secondly, what are the benefits of the Bill and who are the beneficiaries? Thirdly, what can we do in this place and elsewhere? I wish to address the third point.
  The hon. Member for Eddisbury has talked about those who stand to gain from their advancement of the software and their knowledge of IT, which could make it possible to label more effectively. He and I have met the company i-label. Previously, providing appropriate traceability from the raw to the finished product, whether it was
  1134
  animal, grain or whatever, was seen as difficult. Software and databases are now capable of handling such complex information, and that is why I am more than happy to support the Bill.
  The two parts of the Bill involve country of origin labelling and corporate standards. There will always be a debate about how much people want to know exactly what was produced in this country and not elsewhere. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) in the Chamber, as she agrees that people are more interested in the localisation of food rather than the nation state.
  I will not criticise farmers—many of whom I call friends—but one reason why our farming industry has not done as well as others is that it has not worked hard enough in marketing and producing locally through co-operatives to give local consumers what they seem to want: the knowledge that good-quality food has been produced locally. If we can pull those things together, British farming can go forward.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about branding and a sense of identity and confidence. Regionalisation and localisation of source and production must be the right way forward, and there is a derogation within EU law and our domestic food labelling regulations that enable that to take place here and in France where products can be described as coming from Perigord. Country of origin is important because it relates to the jurisdiction of law and regulation in terms of the standards of production. If someone knows that a chicken has come from Thailand, they will know that there have been stories that many hormones have been used there that would be banned in this country. It is right for consumers to have the right to know the country of origin and the EU aspect of regionalisation would not apply in those circumstances.
  Mr. Drew: I accept that, and some of us feel strongly that we need to sort out the import situation. I say that with the best of intentions; I do not think that what happened in the past was unacceptable. I attended a briefing at the Labour party conference organised by the National Farmers Union, at which the union's campaign on fair labelling was introduced. It was interesting to hear the different agencies describe honestly some of the problems that they have with searching and impounding. Sometimes, they cannot impound; there are checks and balances within the system, but there are also loopholes. The country of origin issue will not go away, because the import problem will not go away.
  Standards have been driven up throughout the EU, and that is a jolly good thing. However, imports from third countries can cause difficulties. We need standardisation but we cannot do that alone. We may be an island but, in some respects, that can lead to more difficulties because there are so many points of entry to this country. There will never be enough resources to constrain what we do not want to see.
  Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there is nothing in the Bill that prevents anything being imported from anywhere in the world? It is merely about honesty in labelling.
  Mr. Drew: That is absolutely right; I was merely making the point that the Bill should not be seen in

  1135
  isolation—nor should any legislation. The Bill must be part of a process of ensuring that people are buying what they think they are buying, and that what they eat is safe and of the quality that they expect. All such matters must come together.
  We on the Labour Benches can feel some pride in the fact that, through the work of the Food Standards Agency, matters outside this country are moving in our direction. I spoke a week last Thursday—I am not sure whether other Members present today also attended the debate—in the debate on the European Food Authority. Although I am not the greatest pro-European on the Labour Benches, I recognise that there is much to be said for standardisation of foodstuffs across the EU, and I take pride in supporting the establishment of the authority. Through the operation of the Food Standards Agency, this country is very much in the lead in that respect. As I said then, the agency plays a pro-active role, and I would like that to be extended.
  I have talked to representatives of the agency about labelling. Obviously, it must be careful, because it is an agency of Government. However, it is fair to say that it is fairly relaxed about the need to consider standardising produce. It has launched its own investigation into some of the assurance schemes to ensure that they are what they claim to be. Therefore, the agency is engaged in the area.
  We are a pioneer, if not the pioneer, of food standards agencies. People from all parts of Europe—indeed, the world—are calling in FSA representatives to find out exactly what we are doing and how we are doing it. If that can help us advance the way in which we consider foodstuffs in Europe, that can only be good. Such action will have to be taken through the route of the wonderfully named Codex Alimentaris. I know little more about it than what it seems to do, but it needs to be transparent and able to ensure that all of Europe moves in the same direction because what happens elsewhere has an impact on us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) had to leave the Chamber, but his comments on nutrition and why the Bill does not cater for it are worth bearing in mind. Having talked to the FSA, I know, as will my right hon. Friend the Minister, that the matter causes the Government some concern. More and more people are interested in driving up nutritional standards, but the way in which we do that is subject to some debate, both inside and outside the Government.
  When the chairman of the FSA, Sir John Krebs, recently addressed the all-party group on food and hygiene, he was honest enough to say that nutrition was one area in which the agency had made less progress than it had hoped to make, and certainly less than it wanted to make. We must learn from that that there are two extremes in the matter: the nanny state, in which everyone is told what they should or should not eat, and a state in which everyone can eat what they like and take the consequences of it. We have heard some amusing interludes on that point.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting and important point. One report produced by the Education and Employment Committee and the Education Sub-Committee, on which I served in the last
  1136
  Parliament, was on school meals. It centred on nutritional value and the information required to help not only teachers but, most importantly, parents to choose to encourage their children to eat certain food. That choice could be made as a result of labelling. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point on the culture of information on nutritional value, and labelling would go a long way to support that.
  Mr. Drew: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need to approach the matter from several angles; it concerns not just food but health, which is why I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, and education. The FSA is at the forefront of efforts in this area. If the Bill can in any way assist us in our relations in Europe, that can only be a good thing.
  I cannot do anything other than use this opportunity to talk about another issue raised by Sir John Krebs in response to questioning: genetically modified organisms. I have a long track record of being against GMOs, but taking an exact stance is becoming increasingly difficult as the world moves on.
  The issue is interesting because it concerns not just the product but labelling. The FSA has had some difficulty because it has stuck to the perceived line of 1 per cent. tolerance. Some people will know what I am talking about and some may not. Basically, if a food contains less than 1 per cent. of any GMO, it can be labelled GMO-free. That causes some of us difficulty, as such foods are patently not always GMO-free. Technology is not yet capable of assessing not only the traceability of GMOs but the process by which such organisms are created. That is a question of derivatives. I gather that tests are being undertaken, so the issue might become clearer. That shows the difficulty of labelling and where dividing lines should be drawn, but it is no excuse for not labelling.
  I know of very few consumers in Stroud who do not want to know whether products contain GMOs. Such knowledge might not make a difference to their consumption. I find it disappointing that people talk a lot about having the right to choose in the matter of animal welfare, but do not always choose the right way. I would like people to choose animal welfare-friendly foods, but all the surveys indicate that welfare is not always the determining factor. More often than not, price, accessibility and so on determine consumer choice, and we must recognise that. Nevertheless, there is no excuse for not labelling honestly and fairly so that we can ensure that the consumer is sovereign. That of course would help producers, too.
  Let us consider what will happen as a result of today's debate. As one of the Bill's sponsors, I would obviously like it to go into Committee and for us to be able to test whether Europe is capable of dealing with the issue. If Europe wants to consider legislation at European level, that is fine by me because, at the end of the day, consumers want such knowledge. We know that we have the technology to deliver information, although that may not always appear on a label. Consumers can ask about contents. That has been a key change over the past 18 months, and we know that it will improve.
  I can think of very few occasions on which consumers will not want to know exactly what is in their food. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North said, it is nothing less than a life-or-death issue for some people.

  1137
  I therefore support the Bill. I hope that it will make progress not only in this place, but outside, so that the public know that we are addressing this as a serious issue. More particularly, I hope that Europe takes the matter up and does not get involved in turgid discussions that come up with an answer in five years, because we cannot act too soon. This is an important issue and will not go away. I am a sponsor of the Bill and give it my strong support.
  11.20 am
  Mr. Bill Wiggin: I am particularly keen to speak on the crucial issue of food labelling because of the many farmers in my constituency. Herefordshire beef is probably the finest beef in the world; in fact, it is definitely the finest beef. We also have Ryeland sheep, of which hon. Members may not be so well aware, but they are equally tasty. We farm chickens for the Sun Valley foods consortium.
  I visited a pig farm only the other day and was witness to the fact that the pig farmer was prepared to go the extra mile. That involved crawling into stalls—well, they are sheds more than anything—to change the straw twice a day throughout the winter, so that people could be confident that they were eating free-range piglets. We also produce dairy to such an extent that Cadbury's has situated its factory in my constituency to gather milk. The roads run red with the potato lifting that goes on, and we are famous for our cider apples. I also draw hon. Members' attention to Peter Davies of Claston farm, who has been pioneering the dwarf or hedgerow hop, which will, I hope, lead to at least 50 per cent. of all British hops being produced in Herefordshire.
  With that in mind, it is repulsive to the House that not a single Liberal Democrat has deemed it worth while to turn up. It is hard to tell whether it is more repulsive when they are here or when they are not. It is deeply offensive to the farming community.
  Mr. George Osborne: Is it not extraordinary, given the pontifications of the Liberal Democrat leader that he is in some sense an Opposition to the Government, that not a single member of his party is here, particularly as so many of them represent rural constituencies?
  Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. Perhaps we will all benefit when even fewer Liberal Democrats are able to take their seats.
  The Bill is crucial because it gives the wherewithal for shoppers to support the farmer if they so wish. No one has to buy British, but at least the consumer would be supported by the strength of the law.
  Information is helpful, not destructive. [Interruption.] A Liberal Democrat Member has now come into the Chamber, but it is too little, too late. Freedom of speech and information is helpful, not destructive. Indeed, a new Gallup survey suggested that animal welfare is now even more important to shoppers than it was before the foot and mouth epidemic—60 per cent. more important. Mike Sharpe, spokesman for the RSPCA's freedom food label, has said that consumers would be able to improve welfare conditions with their purchasing power and that
  "Farmers can't be expected to continue to invest in improving conditions if the public won't support them at point of purchase."
  Many Labour Members signed a recent early-day motion on fox hunting because they wrongly think it is cruel, yet this Bill will do more to prevent animal cruelty
  1138
  on an international basis—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) want to intervene?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Cleethorpes wishes to make a contribution, I am sure she knows how.
  Mr. Wiggin: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Every time we hear mention of animal cruelty, our conscience should remind us that if we do not support the Bill we will have done more to promote cruelty than any huntsman has throughout his entire life.
  On Tuesday we shall debate the movement of animals, with the humane idea of cutting the number of journeys that animals make. This Bill would do far more to cut the misery of animals abroad than anything proposed in that forthcoming Bill.
  The focus of previous opposition to this Bill has been removed by the re-wording. We are now looking to promote only the highest levels of animal welfare, which is surely best practice. Labelling clearly and accurately must surely be the priority of the Government, particularly after the mix-up of cow and sheep brains during the BSE-scrapie investigation. Perhaps Ministers will now have learned their lessons about labelling and will wish the Bill to be implemented swiftly.
  The Government propose to slaughter any sheep that is not scrapie resistant. They would have
  "powers to ensure that we can remove from the flock the genotypes of sheep susceptible to scrapie".
  That is a quote from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I guess from the opposition that we have heard that the Government do not care about the consumer, the sheep farmer or indeed the sheep themselves, and that they are using this proposal as another way of continuing the slaughter of the national flock. I hope that, by supporting the Bill, that will be curtailed.
  Eco-warriors—including a Liberal Democrat peer—destroy genetically modified maize. We want to know whether food is genetically modified or not. We also want the right to know that our meat has been reared under the best welfare conditions, and we need to know that in the shop, at the point of purchase.
  I live in the country and I am proud to be British. I have nothing against eating French golden delicious apples, or oranges from South Africa, so why will the Government not help me to buy pork chops from pigs that I know have been raised, slaughtered and packaged in the UK?
  Poultry farmers do not receive subsidies but their customers, the supermarkets, insist on assurance schemes and back them up with crates of paperwork. I have been shown a crate full of the paperwork required to produce just one turkey. Assured schemes insist on high welfare, so that, for example, pigs have straw to rootle in and do not lie in their own soil. Likewise, grain has to be stored in areas where rats and mice are poisoned, and farmers must have plastic light guards so that glass from broken light bulbs cannot get mixed into our food. Assurance schemes are paid for by farmers and are undermined by imports from abroad. We must help our farmers by ensuring that assured food is not compared with food of lower standards or even no standard at all.

  1139
  Cages for battery hens are to be made larger, allowing slightly more freedom of movement. How do our Government support our egg producers? They allow eggs to be imported from abroad where they have no control over the cage size. Germany is poised to outlaw battery cages in egg production, going beyond EU requirements. The new rules will ban conventional cages within five years and EU-approved "enriched cages" from 2012. Labelling will not change the size of the cage, but it could allow our shoppers to choose which eggs to buy. It will also give our producers a unique selling point.
  Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend has hit on the essence of the Bill. Nothing in it will outlaw any practice that is currently legal within the EU. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the importation of those products. What it does do is empower the purchaser to make a choice
  Mr. Wiggin: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
  We are trying to lift standards of poultry competitiveness, rather than punish the kind farmer. Young farmers could better see what customers want, and provide it, instead of watching as they are punished for their kindness by lower prices.
  Traceability is the new burden on farmers. Cruel ear tags hang from every cow and, soon, every sheep, so that we can trace any disease straight back to the farm. Why can we not do the same for our shopping?
  My constituency would benefit from being able to raise, slaughter and package all Herefordshire beef and lamb so that it could be marketed under the Marches meat label. We are technically able to do that already, but to ensure the same standards of traceability for food as we do for the live animal, it must be a legal requirement so that consumers have faith in the labelling.
  I have a little red tractor logo stuck to my fridge so that my family do not forget to check to ensure that we are buying British. It is not always easy to do so. Yesterday, in the Tea Room, a colleague who was about to eat a burger said that he hoped it was British, so even in the House we have lost our confidence in food labelling. That loss of confidence is due, perhaps, to the unscrupulous behaviour of some retailers. We need to know that the full force of the law will be used to ensure that we know what we are eating.
  I praise the Meat and Livestock Commission for its efforts to promote British meat, including the annual barbecue that it holds to ensure that Members are aware of the sheer excellence of British meat. Now is the time to use our shopping baskets to support its efforts.
  The Bill will not save anyone from buying cruelly produced meat, but it will ensure that, by reading the label, people are able to save themselves from doing so. This morning, as I had my breakfast, I read my Weetabix packet. The contents list stated that Weetabix contained folic acid, and told me how many vitamins it contained, but I could not tell where the wheat came from, which would have been useful because more than 25 per cent. of the product is wheat.
  Even beer and other types of alcohol are clearly labelled. I recommend the cider on sale in the House, as it is made in Much Marcle in my constituency and the
  1140
  apples are from the surrounding countryside. Hon. Members will find it absolutely delicious, but I am sure that there is room on the bottle for a little label confirming that all the apples are British.
  We must avoid the European plug syndrome, in which the highest standards are dumbed down to ensure European satisfaction. The electrical three-pronged plug used in this country is the safest in Europe because it is independently fused, but the rest of Europe has not adopted our high standards as it is too expensive to do so. We should not allow such an attitude to determine our diet. We must support the Bill as we would support our electrical plugs, because British is safer.
  We know that far more can be done to stop illegal meat imports. I could see no signs at Gatwick airport telling me not to bring in meat, or stating the legal limit for such imports. We must take action to prevent the smuggling in of food from abroad, and we must do everything that we can to stop the import of bush meat. We certainly do not want to import Afghan heroin, and perhaps the Government might apply some of their anti-Taliban sentiment to preventing the smuggling of all illegal imports into the UK.
  The foot and mouth crisis was certainly imported. The Bill would make it less worth while and more difficult for people to bring in diseased meat, and would provide for them to be prosecuted for doing so. That is the kind of action that we need to take.
  This is a great legislative opportunity to help British farmers, who have had a tough time. Indeed, a farmer whose claim form for the countryside stewardship scheme arrived at DEFRA's office in Bristol on 3 October had it returned with a letter dated 15 October saying that his claim could not be accepted before 1 October. As one might expect, he has little confidence in the Department. This is a chance to remove that sense of persecution.
  We know that the Government have given billions of pounds to farmers in foot and mouth compensation. We know that better labelling is wanted by the Prime Minister. We know that the Bill will help, and that it has been drafted to take into account the worries of Labour Members. We know also that the Government could put energy into finding a way round EU constraints, for the benefit of European animals if nothing else.
  We always buy dolphin-friendly tuna, so why should we not buy other friendly foods, such as pig-friendly pork and chicken-friendly eggs? The answer is that we do not know which foods are friendly, and we should know. The Bill is constructive and helpful, and we should all support it because it promotes freedom of choice, freedom of information and freedom from cruelty.
  11.33 am
  Ms Candy Atherton: I am pleased to speak in the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on his choice of Bill. I am sure that all hon. Members with an interest in agriculture and the rural economy are familiar with the issue of labelling.
  Labelling is a constant theme at my regular meetings with farmers in my constituency, who are justifiably proud of their produce and want its source to be known far and wide. I shall use our particular experience in Cornwall to illustrate the wider themes. As hon. Members

  1141
  will know, Cornwall has had significant economic problems in recent times, but one of our strengths has been our identity, both as a community and as a place that people know and love. It has long been the wish of our farmers and our tourism industry to make the most of that strong and instantly recognisable identity and, of course, of the Cornish brand. That applies to agriculture, tourism and a host of exports.
  With European support under the objective 5b programme, the Cornish King potato brand was successfully developed. We now see the emergence of Cornish Yarg cheese, which is, I am sure, to be found by hon. Members in supermarkets, specialist delis and, of course, in the Members' Dining Room. I hope that they choose to partake of it. I have a small Yarg factory in my constituency, which is a prime example of a small industry succeeding through the quality and reputation of the product.
  Just this week, we discovered that unemployment in my constituency has fallen by nearly 50 per cent. since 1997. I am delighted to say that the area has had the fifth highest fall in unemployment in the whole country during the past year. I have absolutely no doubt that the achievement is partly due to local small businesses, such as the Yarg factory that I have described. It is a precedent for a brighter future.
  Hon. Members know that the successful development of indigenous brands and marks of quality that can be promoted at home and abroad offers much to an economy such as that of Cornwall. The clear, reliable and wholly honest labelling that hon. Members have described is essential for that development. Failure to achieve that threatens to undermine confidence and the positive initiatives that I have described. Any sensible legislation to enable that labelling to develop, and to build on existing legislation, can only be a good thing.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar that better labelling is supported by consumers and producers alike. People like to know where their food comes from and what is in it. Some people can take that to extremes. The Cornish pasty was mentioned earlier. I have heard what may be an urban, or rather a rural, myth that someone has written a university thesis on the composition of the Cornish pasty.
  Mr. Drew: That is no surprise.
  Ms Atherton: No, it would not surprise me if it were true. The composition of the pasty is a debate that goes on in Cornish pubs night after night.
  Shona McIsaac: And in Devon.
  Ms Atherton: Indeed.
  Mr. Dismore: Perhaps my hon. Friend could give us her thesis on the proper ingredients for a Cornish pasty.
  Ms Atherton: I fear that if I did so we would be here for a long time, but if Madam Deputy Speaker will permit me, I can say that a good pasty needs high-quality Cornish beef, Cornish potato, onion and high-quality pastry.
  People like to buy local produce, if they can. We can see evidence of that trend in farmers markets and the sale of local produce in village shops. I have recently given
  1142
  my support to the introduction of milk in Cornish schools which I believe should be produced, and known to be produced, locally. A similar scheme in primary schools in my constituency gives each pupil a piece of fruit each day. I believe that the fruit should be locally produced, and that the young children should know that it may have been grown by their own parents. Not only does good labelling give consumers greater protection, but we see the relevance of the issue to the rural economy.
  Hon. Members have made it clear that they passionately support the Bill. There is a consensus on the Floor of the House that we need to take action on food labelling, and a willingness to do so. I hope that the Bill goes into Committee for further discussion. We have heard suggestions for amendments, and the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar has generously offered to consider improvements.
  I am sure that hon. Members may have noticed that I have not been very successful at dieting. That is in part my own fault, but it is partly the fault of the food industry and its labelling. I have discovered that there are more calories in most fat-free and diet products than in normal products on the supermarket shelves. That, I think, is why I have not been successful with different diets over the years. I would like the Committee to look into the scandal of the labelling on slimming products in this country.
  I am pleased that our debate has focused in part on Cornish clotted cream. We have done our bit for the Cornish brand this morning. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar once more on his Bill and thank him for his interest in a matter that is of great importance to the farmers and consumers of my Falmouth and Camborne constituency.
  11.40 am
  Andrew Selous: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. When I think of meetings that I have had with south Bedfordshire farmers last year and this, and when I think back to a farmer's wife who came to one of my mobile surgeries in the village of Heath and Reach in my constituency last year, I must say despair would not be too strong a word to express their feelings about their industry. When I raised with them the issues of food labelling, making sure that British farmers did not suffer prejudice as a result of the current situation, the action that we can take, and animal welfare, I received a warn response. They expressed a wish that the House should do something about those important issues.
  As Members on both sides of the House have said, the issue is clearly important to farmers; throughout the country, farmers will pay attention to our debate and, indeed, the progress of the Bill. As has been made clear, the measure does not just have the support of farmers and producers; it is supported wholeheartedly by consumers. As Members, we must represent 95,000 or so consumers who are keen to have information to enable them to shop intelligently and patriotically; they want to be able to make informed decisions about the food that they choose to buy.
  Because the issue is important, I hope that Ministers will take account of the need for speedy legislation. This morning, it has been said that perhaps the objectives could be achieved via the European route, but I very much hope that the Bill will go into Committee and proceed speedily

  1143
  through the House. As has been said, speed is of the essence, whether we are talking about people who suffer from nut allergy, the state of the farming industry, or indeed the wish of consumers to have proper information. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) said, it is a scandal that chickens from Thailand can come into this country containing hormones that are not legal here and, to boot, have a Union Jack stamped on the packaging if the final processing takes place in this country. That is a disgrace and should not be tolerated; legislation is urgently needed to do something about it.
  Similarly, with animal welfare, the British public rightly expect our farmers to adhere to the highest possible standards. I am proud that the House has seen fit to make sure that we have higher standards of animal welfare than many other countries. For example, the stall and tether method permitted in other countries is not allowed here. Again, that imposes an extra cost and, I submit, adds extra value to the quality of British produce. If British farmers have to endure that extra cost, they should receive the benefit of its being made clear on the labelling; when the produce of other countries does not come up to those exacting standards, that should also be made clear.
  Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman talked about the cost of cheaper imports and food labelling, a principle that I support. However, do people buy food because of the label or because of the cost of the product? Will the Bill provide all the answers that the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest it would? I suspect that if stall and tether methods are still used abroad, but the meat is cheaper, the majority of people will buy the cheaper product.
  Andrew Selous: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who raises the important issue of the cost of our food. We should all be conscious of the fact that people on low incomes have to watch their weekly shopping bill very closely indeed. The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point; it may be that some people simply cannot afford to indulge their consciences by buying the food made to high standards of animal welfare that they would like. However, the point still stands; information should be put in the public domain and included on the product so that people can make a choice. We would all understand if very poor people were unable to buy the more expensive product, but many people want to make sure that they shop with compassion and buy food that has been produced to the highest possible standards.
  In time, I hope that we can give a fair wind to local labelling, as has been discussed this morning. Totternhoe in my constituency gets a considerable number of eggs into the local shops, which are clearly labelled as coming from that village; indeed, the farm where those chickens live is well known, and I have been past it many times. Anything that we can do to restore the link between the consumer and the place of origin is very welcome.
  Shona McIsaac: On that point, farmers markets and the option of buying direct from the farm are becoming more popular in this country. The hon. Gentleman said that something should be done, but is it not up to the
  1144
  farmers to take that initiative? Certainly, as a consumer, I respond to those initiatives because I know the origin of the food—the farm or the place that it comes from.
  Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is quite right. I am pleased that she mentioned farmers markets. In my constituency, the market town of Dunstable has had a farmers market in the past; Leighton Buzzard also has one. I very much welcome that initiative, which restores the connection between the consumer and the place where food is produced, enabling local people to come face to face with the producers and have the opportunity to support local farmers. Like the hon. Lady, I believe that that initiative should be encouraged, and hope that we will see more farmers markets in future.
  In conclusion, I am pleased that we have had an opportunity to debate the Bill, an extremely important piece of legislation that has the support of the farming community and consumers. I very much hope that it will make fair progress in the House and that procedural or other means will not be found to kill it off.
  11.48 am
  Shona McIsaac: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on his speech. As the daughter of a chef, the grand-daughter of a cook and somebody who spent many years on magazines such as Woman, Bella and Chat, editing recipes and producing food writing, let me say that food is a passion is mine. Whether shopping for it, cooking or eating, it is very much the love of my life. When I shop I always look for the best-quality products that I can find. The information given to the shopper or consumer is vital, so I was pleased when I learned that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) was introducing a Bill on food labelling. However, I have one reservation, which relates to some of the points made by hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) about nutritional information, especially in relation to fat-free products. I believe that the hon. Gentleman should address that.
  I have another reason for thanking the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar. I decided to do some essential research for the debate, and delved into the nether regions of my larder and freezer to check the food labels. I wanted to see the countries of origin of the food in my larder and the type of information that was provided on labels.
  I am eternally grateful to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar for providing me with that opportunity. I realised that, because of my lifestyle as a Member of Parliament, there were far too many out-of-date products in my larder. They have now been consigned to the bin. The experience was also educational, as it was essentially a tour of the world. My larder contains Puy lentils, Camargue red rice, borlotti beans and cannellini beans, all of which will soon be out of date as I do not eat many of them; many varieties of pasta, tabbouleh, falafel, couscous and tahina mixes; and jars of cornichons—gherkins to most of us.
  Angela Watkinson: If I may lower the tone for a moment, I admit to being one who has recently had to resort to that wonderful invention—the ready meal that comes out of the freezer and goes into the microwave.
  Mr. Dismore: Disgrace.
  Angela Watkinson: I used to grow and cook my own vegetables. I have gone from one end of the culinary

  1145
  spectrum to the other because of my now busy life. Ready meals have multiple ingredients, thereby opening up a large aspect of the labelling issue. Does the hon. Lady agree that, in that particular type of product, because of the variety of ingredients in just one pack, the labelling issue is particularly important?
  Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. The issue is vital regardless of which product one is buying—whether it is a ready meal, a tinned meal or a frozen meal. The information on the label is also vital regardless of whether it concerns origin or nutritional value. Hon. Members have already mentioned the issue of food allergies, and that information, too, is vital.
  Despite the lifestyle that we lead as hon. Members, which seems to necessitate snatching food as we can, there are many very good recipes that we could make using natural ingredients. I could share some of those recipes with hon. Members later—[Interruption.] I could put them in the Library.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) made an interesting point in her intervention. One of the issues that arose when I was promoting my Food Labelling Bill, of which the current Bill is an amended version, was that main ingredients comprising at least 25 per cent. of the product should have label information on the country of origin and standards of production—which the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) omitted to mention when talking about nutritional value. Therefore, a ready-made shepherd's pie, for example, would have to have label information on country of origin and standards of production for the potato and the meat. If it were a Cornish pasty, there would have to be such information also for the carrot—which the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) failed to mention—but not necessarily for the spices. Those were some of the provisions. I hope that that helps the hon. Member for Cleethorpes.
  Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I appreciated the point about a major ingredient comprising 25 per cent. or more of the product. However, I hope to explain later why I am concerned about that aspect of this Bill.
  After I threw out all the food from the back of my larder that I should have thrown out years ago, and because the Bill deals particularly with meat products—as I think the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar would admit—I went to my freezer, which was slightly more horrific than my larder. Many of the meat products that were in my freezer have now also been consigned to the bin. All that seems to be left in my freezer now is something called "Phish Food", which, for those who are not in the know, has nothing to do with fish but is a variety of ice cream. It is delicious: chocolate, marshmallow, caramel. It is wonderful stuff. Food, as I said, is my passion, and I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if occasionally I get a little carried away about it.
  Ms Atherton: Is "Phish Food" a low-fat food, please?
  Shona McIsaac: "Phish Food" could in no way be described as low fat, but it is delicious and, as I have always said, one should be able to eat whatever one likes.
  1146
  The labelling on that ice cream, which was made in the USA—another flavour is "Cherry Garcia"; the company is quite good with its names—was far more extensive than that which I have seen on products made in the United Kingdom. I was gratified to see that amount of detail on nutritional information and welfare standards. The particular company is also very keen on obtaining its milk from cows that are raised with very high welfare standards.
  Like the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, I want to see honest and unambiguous labelling, and I have some worries about food labelling. Many people are trying to lose weight or diet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne said, but the nutritional information on labels is absolutely scandalous. Because of the way in which the information is calculated, the labelling is completely wrong and totally misleading to consumers.
  Products in supermarkets often proclaim that they are "lower fat" or "80 per cent. fat free", but water is often included in the calculations. Rather than working out the percentage of calories that is derived from fat, percentages are calculated on the basis of gross weight. Consequently, manufacturers will say that such products are 80 per cent. fat free, whereas in fact, based on dry ingredients alone, products such as "low-fat" mayonnaise are astonishingly high in fat. That may explain why my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne has discovered that many foods that are labelled as being healthier, good for dieting and lower in fat are far from it. Such labels are completely misleading. I am concerned about the provision specifying that major ingredients are those which constitute 25 per cent. of the product's weight because it does not get round the problem.
  Mr. Pickles: I apologise for intervening, as the hon. Lady is making a very interesting point. I suspect her concerns might more appropriately be dealt with by new regulations under the Food Safety Act 1990. Although we could examine the issue in Committee on my Bill, I suspect that we shall have to ask Ministers to introduce regulations. I believe that the Secretary of State already has the power to do precisely what the hon. Lady is suggesting.
  Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If the Bill is considered in Committee, I hope that that point is addressed. I was using the illustration of food such as lower-fat mayonnaise as an example of how the consumer can be hoodwinked by labelling. I would not want the hon. Gentleman to fall into that trap by specifying that labels would have to identify the country of origin of any ingredient representing 25 per cent. of a product by weight. I feel that it would have to specify dry weight, otherwise some producers would be able to avoid stating the country of origin of an ingredient by playing around with statistics.
  Mr. Pickles: I have no problem whatever with that suggestion and would look favourably on any amendment to that effect.
  Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that commitment. I know that he is particularly concerned about country of origin, but food labelling should provide more than that. Some people want to know that they are

  1147
  buying healthy food. If we are to be fair to the consumer, labelling has to reflect the complete picture and supply nutritional information, country of origin and as much detail as possible about the ingredients of a product, including welfare standards.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The principle behind the Bill is that labelling should include as much information as possible. However, consumers have to be able to manage that information, so it has to be user friendly. It was proposed that country of origin, which is easy to focus on, can be identified by means of a letter. That would have to be enforceable by law. Standards of production, nutritional value, whether a product is GM-free or contains allergens which need to be identified could be dealt with by means of certification for ease of reference, as was discussed on 3 March 2000 when I presented the original Bill. The subject could be explored in detail in Committee, particularly as responsibility for the Bill has now been transferred to the Department of Health, which would be anxious for accountability to be set out along those lines. I hope that my intervention, which was somewhat longer than usual, has helped the hon. Lady.
  Shona McIsaac: It is extremely helpful. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, information has to be presented in a way that consumers understand. Returning to my example of consumers being given misleading information about so-called healthy food, we must not allow that to happen in respect of country of origin. Food labels can provide quite a lot of information that is not necessarily misleading in a type size that is so tiny that it is virtually impossible to read and therefore meaningless. It is vital that food labels provide information that is set out clearly and is easy to understand.
  I now turn to an issue that was raised earlier, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne. I get the distinct feeling that people wish to buy British products which are of a high standard; local products are something of which people want more. My hon. Friend referred to Cornish pasties and clotted cream. My parents live in Devon, where we like our Devon pasties and Devon clotted cream which are also very high quality. The local element is important.
  Mr. Dismore: Do Devon pasties contain carrots? I do not think that Cornish pasties do.
  Shona McIsaac: When I visit my parents in Plymouth, I go to Ivor Dewdney's pasty shop. The pasties are delicious, but I do not think there are any carrots in them. I do not know whether they are sold in Cornwall.
  People want local food. I represent a Lincolnshire seat, and when I buy Lincolnshire pork sausages, I want to know whether the meat comes from Lincolnshire or whether it can be any pork. Perhaps the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar can tell me. Does the meat have to come from Lincolnshire or it is just the recipe that makes them Lincolnshire pork sausages? I know that the welfare standard for pigs in Lincolnshire is phenomenally high. The hon. Gentleman was at the pig breakfast the other morning and I am sure that he can help me.
  Mr. Pickles: The first point has already been covered. We are talking about existing welfare standards in the
  1148
  United Kingdom. On the specific point that the hon. Lady raised, I shall try to be helpful. I am embarrassed to say to a food expert that, as far as I know, Lincolnshire sausages are made to a specific recipe that includes leeks, just as Cumberland sausages are made to a specific recipe using peppers and spices. Hence the problem with Wiltshire cure. It is possible to produce something of that description many miles from Wiltshire. The Bill would ensure that the consumer who purchases Lincolnshire sausages is assured that the pig has been reared under a regime that the House has approved.
  Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. I am gratified to hear him confirm that it is the recipe that matters. However, many people believe—certainly in the region that I represent—that Lincolnshire pork sausages include pork from the farms in that area, but that cannot be guaranteed unless a customer visits a specialist local butcher who makes his own sausages.
  There is a passion for local food. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) mentioned cider. As secretary of the all-party cider group, I was pleased about that advertisement on its behalf. My passion for British food also applies to traditional British drinks.
  Angela Smith: In what quantity?
  Shona McIsaac: In moderation.
  Recipes that use British cider and beautiful outdoor reared British pork can be delightful. The Bill needs to cover local food.
  Richard Younger-Ross: I agree with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) that Lincolnshire sausage is a recipe. Most people know that. Any good country cook book—if the hon. Lady is a good cook, she will have one at home—will contain a recipe for Lincolnshire sausages. I have made them to such a recipe. Cumbrian sausages in local butchers will also be made to a recipe. The hon. Lady should not worry too much about confusing the origins of Lincolnshire sausages.
  Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
  Lincolnshire pork sausages, Cumberland ring sausages and other wonderful traditional British food need to promoted.
  Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend may be aware that I am a Yorkshireman, and I like to have Yorkshire pudding with my roast beef. Is she seriously suggesting that a Yorkshire pudding should comprise only flour, eggs and milk from Yorkshire?
  Shona McIsaac: Many of my Yorkshire friends have reliably informed me that that would be the crême de la crême of Yorkshire puddings.
  The quality of the product is important. Yorkshire pudding is another wonderful British food. Coupled with—
  Richard Younger-Ross: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Shona McIsaac: Oh dear. If the hon. Gentleman likes, I shall try to work my way through the best food products of the entire United Kingdom.
  Richard Younger-Ross: Yorkshire pudding comes from France. It was brought over during the Napoleonic wars.
  Shona McIsaac: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of causing hostilities to break out with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). However, if he wishes to get into that argument, many traditional British foods originated in other cuisines. For example, haggis, which is quintessentially Scottish, has its origins in France, and I probably risk getting hate mail from Scots for saying that. We cannot get away from those links.
  Country of origin labels need to be coupled with the promotion of British food, not just to people who live here, but to tourists as well. That would also help farmers. A few years ago the Scottish tourist board and other agencies produced an initiative called the taste of Scotland. It used the very best products and ingredients, whether from land or sea. It was promoted so that hotels, restaurants and pubs would get a Taste of Scotland award. It is now a phenomenally successful strategy which I should like to see extended to many other parts of the United Kingdom. I do not know whether the Cornwall tourist board has something similar.
  Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Bill applies to England and Wales, not to Scotland.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady will have heard that point.
  Shona McIsaac: I appreciate the consequences of having a Scottish Parliament but that does not dull my passion for the traditional foods of all these islands.
  I am concerned that although beef and lamb from Scotland can be labelled as Scottish beef and lamb, and sold as such, that does not mean that those animals were born in Scotland, merely that they were finished there for three months. The Bill wants to specify the country of origin, but it appears that imports could still come into this country for three or four months, after which time they would be slaughtered, and still be described as British. The Bill does not seem to cover that point.
  I should like food labelling to be a little more honest about mechanically recovered and reformed meat. I do not believe that products using such meat portray British food at its best, and the fact that meat is derived from such processes should be far more prominent on food labels. If it were, people might choose products of a higher standard and better flavour, even if they were more expensive. Ham sandwiches in the Tea Room here generally contain reformed or mechanically recovered ham. People would not pay the lower prices if they understood more about how that meat was obtained. That must be made clearer.
  I understand that because of EU regulations that have been in place since BSE and other issues, some of the measures that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar proposes are already in place. Will he confirm that? I understand that from 1 September this year, all beef sold
  1150
  in the EU must be labelled to show the EU country in which it is slaughtered and that from next year the country of origin will have to be on the label. Is that correct?
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. That clearly shows that this is not an EU-bashing Bill; it is within EU law. The hon. Lady makes her point excellently, and I thank her for making it.
  Shona McIsaac: My point is that the hon. Gentleman has introduced a private Member's Bill to deal with concerns that are already being addressed, particularly in relation to beef.
  I understand that most beef purchased in the UK is in the form of mince; people make shepherd's pies, cottage pies, pasta dishes and so on with it. Yet apparently, the new regulation will not cover mince products. If someone buys a steak, the information will be on the label, but if the steak is minced, the label will not have to show country of origin. I cannot understand that.
  Mr. Pickles: My eyesight is not good enough to see which document the hon. Lady is holding, but the Library has brought out a good briefing paper that goes into that in great detail. [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Lady for holding the document up for me to see; it is indeed the Library briefing, and the third or fourth page of it explains the details.
  My substantive point is that when my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) was trying to introduce his Bill, he was told by Ministers that what he wanted to do was not possible, because it was against EU regulations and law. The fact that we now have the scheme that the hon. Lady has just mentioned demonstrates beyond peradventure that that is not so.
  Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I have read the excellent Library briefing note, which, as he says, goes into the subject in great detail. However, it does say that there will be concerns about certain EU regulations. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is saying that his Bill is not EU-bashing, but even the Library note says that concern could be raised about some of the measures that he wants to introduce.
  Mr. Pickles: It is a matter of some regret that, because of other parliamentary business, I could not publish the Bill earlier.
  Shona McIsaac indicated assent.
  Mr. Pickles: Yes, I apologise. I am sure that hon. Members will understand that I was engaged on other matters of equal importance.
  Mr. Dismore: Oh.
  Mr. Pickles: I was trying to arrive at a consensus, and was meeting representatives of the food labelling industry so as to incorporate their amendments. I then amended my hon. Friend's definition, to avoid getting entangled in any possibility of infringing EU law. It is my fault that the Library staff had not caught up with the changes. When they spoke to me I said that my Bill would be

  1151
  largely the same as my hon. Friend's Bill, but then I made material changes, which is why the Library briefing is not as accurate as it would otherwise be. As I say, that is not the Library's fault but mine.
  Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation, and for being so open about what happened. When I saw that he was going to introduce a Bill on food labelling I went to ask for a copy. I realise that it was a little late in appearing, but now I understand what happened.
  Country of origin will have to be listed for major ingredients—that is, ingredients that constitute more than 25 per cent. of the product by weight. If the Bill gets into Committee I should like that definition to be 25 per cent. of dry weight; otherwise the largest ingredient may be water, and people will not get the information that many Members want to see on food labels.
  Mr. Dismore: What troubles me about that idea is: what happens when the product is supposed to be liquid, such as an alcoholic drink or soft beverage? How does one define the dry weight of a fizzy drink, beer or wine?
  Shona McIsaac: I must admit that that is a conundrum; I was thinking mainly of foods such as ready meals, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), who is no longer in her place. I was thinking in particular of ingredients in recipes for such foods, as opposed to fizzy drinks. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar is concerned mainly about meat products, so he is probably not very worried about the country of origin of the ingredients of fizzy drinks—most of which now seem to be created in chemical factories.
  Mr. Dismore: May I give my hon. Friend the specific example of wine? We have heard reports over the years of some real shenanigans in parts of the continent, with wines from two, three or four different countries being slung in a tank together and then rebottled. I would be very concerned if my hon. Friend's definition of dry weight did not catch such practices.
  Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend has certainly revealed something else that will have to be addressed in the Bill. Instead of merely specifying weight, perhaps we should specify dry weight for certain goods. We need to clarify that part of the Bill and expand it to take into account the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised.
  Mr. Bryant: What about Irn Bru? For many years, it was advertised as being built from girders. What are we to do about that?
  Shona McIsaac: All I say about Irn Bru is that we should drink vast amounts of it. I adore it. I am reliably informed that it is one of the best hangover cures. Perhaps we should stock a little more of it in the Members' Tea Room, as some Members may benefit from it at breakfast.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Rather than prying too deeply into hangover cures, I want to refer to the points made by the hon. Member for Hendon. They would make exceptionally good points for scrutiny in Committee.
  1152
  I hope that he was making them constructively because he wants the Bill to proceed and that he was not merely trying to find problems. There is enormous support for the measure, not only from both sides of the House but from a host of interest groups representing many millions of people who would like these provisions to come into force—and fast. They offer a better option for negotiation with the EU than the current arrangements. As the hon. Lady knows the hon. Member for Hendon better than I do, perhaps she can help me by confirming that he was being exceptionally constructive and suggesting points for Committee rather than trying to criticise the Bill as a whole.
  Shona McIsaac: I do not think that anybody has been particularly destructive today. We have all made valuable contributions to the debate. Indeed, what has come out of the debate is our genuine passion for food and for the wonderful products of our islands. We are all trying to be helpful. We may have some concerns about aspects of the Bill. For example, I am worried that food can be labelled as low fat when in fact it is not. Such things need to be addressed and unless I raise them now, they may not be dealt with in Committee. I am putting down my marker to say: "Somebody, look at these," so that if the Bill goes into Committee, those points will have to be addressed.
  On labelling, my final piece of research—apart from eating copious quantities of Phish Food from my freezer—
  Mr. Dismore: With a "ph"?
  Shona McIsaac: Yes. Phish with a "ph".
  Mr. Dismore: Or was it the freezer?
  Shona McIsaac: I doubt that my freezer has a "ph".
  Reading through the ingredients of the staple food product in my office, I found that they were wheat flour and milk chocolate—28 per cent.—so that could be the major ingredient. However, the label does not make it clear whether that 28 per cent. relates to the fact that the milk chocolate is 28 per cent. of the product or to the fact that the milk chocolate has only 28 per cent. cocoa solids. We can be misled even by something as innocent as a chocolate digestive biscuit. Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne may want to know that it contains 87 calories with 4.1 grammes of fat. That would work out as a fat content of about 33 per cent. so—
  Mr. Pickles: I must point out to the hon. Lady that in my experience there is nothing innocent about a chocolate biscuit. However, all these things can be dealt with in Committee.
  Shona McIsaac: In that case, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is taking note of the issues that I have raised this morning. When we consider the list of ingredients of a product, the major constituent is not always clear. Although ingredients are meant to be listed in order of quantity, in the case of chocolate digestives the 28 per cent. probably relates to the milk chocolate rather than the product's weight.

  1153
  I thank the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar again for his thoughtful speech and his generosity in allowing so many interventions. I am eternally grateful to him for causing me to clean out my larder of all the out-of-date food. He has done a service to the McIsaac household.
  Ultimately, all Members here today have a passion for food, especially British food, and we want to promote the very best products that this country produces. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has taken on board my concerns, particularly the way in which statistics are played with. Food labels must be clear, honest and completely unambiguous in relation not just to country of origin but to health and nutrition.
  12.26 pm
  Richard Younger-Ross: I have a great passion for food and I welcome the Bill. This is a timely debate. I came to the House today to discuss patents legislation, but something funny happened on the way to the forum.
  I am afraid that we might conclude from this debate that the Bill represents the solution to the plight of farmers. I have met farmers in my constituency and members of the National Farmers Union who are worried about the marketing of their produce and about mislabelling in supermarkets and shops. They have a passion for the Bill and want food produced in Britain to be clearly marked as such. In Committee, we shall have to discuss the problems that will arise in the process.
  There are problems with defining where a product comes from. For example, a pork product may have been bred in Shropshire, fattened in France, slaughtered in Holland, processed in Belgium and sold back to the UK. How would such a product be defined?
  Mr. Pickles: I am happy to explain that. Had the hon. Gentleman not missed the first two hours of the debate, he would have heard me deal with it earlier. We also heard an interesting speech by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who dealt precisely with that matter, so I suggest that the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard. Frankly, I am embarrassed to have to respond to somebody who did not turn up for the debate and who has not apologised to me or the House for missing it. Labour Members missed a few minutes of my speech because of the collapse of business and were profuse in their apologies. I very much regret the hon. Gentleman's discourtesy to both me and the House for going into matters about which, had he been more diligent in his duties, he would have known something.
  Richard Younger-Ross: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not being here earlier, but I was having to apologise to a constituent who came here from Devon to listen to the Patents Bill debate. He had been involved in talks with the promoter of that Bill.
  Mr. Dismore: I fully take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am surprised that the Liberal Democrat Benches have remained empty for most of the debate. Although I understand his reason for being absent, it would surely have been appropriate for a Liberal Democrat colleague to be present to tell him what went on.
  Richard Younger-Ross: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have been here for much of the
  1154
  debate, and I apologise for not being able to be here for its beginning. I have a passion for food and, despite the point scoring, the issues raised are pertinent. I will read Hansard with interest tomorrow to discover a few answers.
  It is important that we do not go away with the idea that labelling is the answer to all farmers' problems. If we do, we shall let the Government off the hook. Many issues relating to education and the cost of products must be resolved. We need a policy for the way in which supermarkets buy from farmers. Whether it is through the promotion of co-operatives or whatever, we should enable farmers to strengthen their arm when they deal with supermarkets. Despite the fact that I have heard people outside say that labelling can provide the solution, the answer is not as simple as they might think.
  Regional food is very important. When I was on holiday in Yorkshire, I was lucky enough to be able to go to a food festival in York. It was exceedingly good. There was a stand that sold bacon from Gloucestershire old spot pigs, and I had never had the opportunity to try it before. It was sweet, succulent and excellent. The fact that such products are being sold means that there is greater interest in food, by and large among the chattering classes.
  Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman has highlighted some of the problems with the Bill. He spoke about Gloucestershire old spot pigs, but were they raised in Yorkshire? If they were, would not the bacon have been York ham?
  Richard Younger-Ross: I did not have the opportunity to talk to the pig at the time, so I cannot say where it came from. It was not marked or labelled. Old spot is a breed, so it is misleading to go down that line. It was succulent bacon and the producers should be proud of the product. I hope that more people have an opportunity to diversify and sell quality products.
  I was also pleased that a company from my constituency, Roccombe Dairies, was represented at the festival. It makes excellent organic ice cream—it is better than Phish—and it has been very successful. It has been sold in the precincts of the Palace.
  The Bill and the extra interest in food will help us deal with some of the problems. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) that we will be able to consider the issues further in Committee and that that will have positive consequences. However, we should not claim that the Bill will be the answer. Hon. Members on both sides of the House need to put more pressure on the Government so that they deal with the problems of the costs that farmers face and consider other ways of aiding them. That will ensure that the food industry in this country is profitable and long standing.
  12.32 pm
  Mr. Chris Bryant: I apologise for not having been able to be here for the whole debate. I was chairing a fascinating debate among young people in Committee Room 10—almost on a par with the quality of debate in the Chamber. I am glad that some of those who debated so effectively upstairs are watching this debate and seeing what parliamentarians get up to on their behalf.

  1155
  I have a series of problems with the Bill, not least because it does not address the real issues. Food labelling is a problem and there is not enough information on the foodstuffs that one comes across. Like the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), I shop in Tesco. In the Rhondda, we do not have any other major supermarket chains apart from the Pioneer stores in Treorchy and Porth. They are not open at 11 pm, which is when I tend to get home on Thursday evenings and do my shopping. However, this weekend, I obviously wanted to stay here for this important debate, so I do not know when I will get to the supermarket. On the whole, it is Tesco for me.
  I am troubled by the amount of information that supermarkets can garner about the shopping, eating and even clothing habits of their customers through the reward card system. There is an issue of civil liberties there, but I do not want to stray into a matter that is of no relevance to the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been circling the Bill. It would be to the advantage of the House if he would now home in on it.
  Mr. Bryant: Thank you for your invitation to attack the Bill in a more vulture-like way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I shall now seek to do.
  The information that my constituents look for when they buy food is, first, the sell-by date. A few days before the general election, I visited a shop just outside my constituency. I was taken to the front and shown a large display that boldly announced, "Out of date crisps—22p". Why a shop should boldly declare that the crisps were out of date, I do not know. There is still a market in food that has passed its sell-by date, and the Government need to look into it. Everyone has welcomed the advent of marking products with sell-by dates, but we need to look into it more closely. I have regularly seen in supermarkets in south Wales products that have had their sell-by date deleted and another put on top.
  My constituents also want to know, as the Bill acknowledges, what is inside the products that they buy. However, I do not think that their primary interest is where the eggs, butter, flour and salt in their tarte au citron comes from. They do not want someone in an obscure bureaucratic office to analyse whether the lemon tart is made according to Jamie Oliver's recipe, which requires 18 lemons, constituting 25 per cent. by weight of the tart, or to that of the two fat ladies—who are now singular—which involves only eight lemons, constituting less than 25 per cent. by weight. [Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh, but the issue of the major ingredient is a significant problem.
  Mr. George Osborne: The reason why we were chuckling is that the hon. Gentleman said that the two fat ladies were now singular. That is because one of them has died, I believe.
  Mr. Bryant: I did not know that Opposition Members could be so cavalier as to laugh at the death of one of the two fat ladies. I was thoroughly aware that one of them had died. That still sounds cavalier, but the point is made.
  1156
  An issue that is significant to my constituents is the nationality of the food that they buy. At least one other hon. Member in the Chamber will have been delighted to notice that in recent years there has been a resurgence of Welsh produce across the whole country. Indeed, on a recent visit to Madrid, I was delighted to see products on which a little red dragon showed that kettle chips, lamb or other produce were from Wales, and that they were marketed as such. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar want me to give way?
  Mr. Pickles: No, I am just gesticulating.
  Mr. Bryant: I am glad that it is just gesticulation. The marketing of Welsh produce is of significant benefit to Welsh farmers and businesses.
  Shona McIsaac: I am intrigued by what my hon. Friend says about finding Welsh products in Spain. However, could not British products such as Welsh lamb be exported to other European countries, slaughtered and then labelled Spanish, French or whatever?
  Mr. Bryant: That is an important point. The Bill will make it more difficult for my constituents involved in livestock or packaged products to sell their produce elsewhere in the EU. The pop factory in Porth once used to produce Corona. Hon. Members may remember the slogan—
  Shona McIsaac: "It's frothy man."
  Mr. Bryant: No, that was for another product. The slogan was, "Every bubble's passed its fizzical." Unfortunately, the pop factory has gone the way of all mortal flesh, although it has been replaced by an extremely successful television studio. However, we still have one of the most successful ice cream manufacturers in the country, Mr. Creamy, in Tonypandy.
  Mr. Pickles: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman has Mr. Creamy in his constituency but—forgive me—what does this have to do with the Bill?
  Mr. Bryant: I am talking about clause 2(1)(b) which refers to
  "where the food has more than one ingredient, particulars of the country or countries of origin of each major ingredient."
  I do not want to bore hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too late."] I did not want to bore them, and I do not want to bore them any further by reciting a lengthy list of all the Mr. Creamy products that are available. Under the Bill, I do not know how one will be able to analyse and package Mr. Creamy's products in a way that would not make it impossible for consumers to have a genuine understanding. Many Opposition Members attack the EU for ludicrously excessive bureaucracy, yet this is a classic instance of it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker, I see that you are frowning. You may be concerned that I am circling the Bill, but I am trying to make a specific point about the 25 per cent. clause.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not attempt to second-guess the

  1157
  expressions that flit across my face when I am listening, absorbed, to a debate. I suggest that he sticks closely to the terms of the Bill.
  Mr. Bryant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will try my best. One of the problems that the Bill tries to rectify is that of misleading information on packaging and goods, suggesting that a piece of meat is Welsh when, in fact, it turns out to be from Germany, France, the Czech Republic, Poland or Hungary. That is not as important as the fact that most packaging is almost unintelligible, containing lengthy recitations of different elements inside a product, leaving one none the wiser. I am hesitant about the Bill because of the temptation to create an overly bureaucratic system.
  The Bill misses the point because we genuinely need a fully European answer to the question of food labelling. We do not just need a one-country answer. The matter is important to my constituents who are trying to sell their products elsewhere in Europe. We must consider not only whether the Bill would achieve anything legally—I understand that it is in contravention of several articles of the treaty of Rome, as amended by the treaty of Amsterdam—but whether we are doing our best for our constituents who have businesses to run. I am confident that the Government are moving towards a fully European answer and are pushing, through the EU, to ensure that we have a system that gives everybody the full information that people need when shopping in Tesco, Sainsbury, or wherever.
  We need a robust legal answer to those points, but I do not think that the Bill is legally robust. It is not robust when one considers the treaty of Rome or the definition in clause 2 of "each major ingredient".
  Mr. Pickles: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell us which articles of the treaty he feels the Bill infringes?
  Mr. Bryant: Articles 226 and 227 would be problems. The hon. Gentleman is frowning; if he wants a copy of the treaty, I have it with me. We note that he is merely frowning.
  The idea that we should institute our own specific understanding of what counts as sufficient and sensible labelling, as opposed to that elsewhere in the EU, is flawed.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Given the hon. Gentleman's important point that he believes the Bill to be legally flawed, I should be grateful if he told us about his background. Perhaps he is qualified in the law. I am unaware of the authority with which he makes the assertion.
  Mr. Bryant: I did not know that it was customary in the House to ask about hon. Members' backgrounds. However, I was head of European affairs for the BBC, so I have some passing acquaintance with the legislation to which we are referring.
  Clause 4 defines the method of marking or labelling. It states:
  "Subject to subsection (2), the information required by this Act shall be provided—

  (a) on the food's packaging;

  (b) on a label attached to the food's packaging;"

  1158
  and so on. There is a genuine problem about the recycling of packaging. I bought a half leg of Welsh lamb in Tesco the other day, and delicious it was, but it came in a package of enormous proportions, which when chucked away took up half the bin. There is a problem with the amount of information that we as legislators decide must be on packaging. It is one of the issues that we need to address because a landfill site in my constituency is full of packaging. Conservative Members, via the Bill, want to increase the amount of packaging.
  I conclude by making a plea to Conservative Members on behalf of those in my constituency who make and produce foodstuffs in all their various forms—whether it is Mr. Creamy or anyone else.
  Mr. Pickles: I have enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's speech and he has been most courteous in giving way, but I am still bemused. I think that he referred to article 217; I may have misheard. I do not understand the point that he is making on that article. My understanding is that the articles of concern to the Government are 28, 29 and 30 and—I think—36. As he may be making an important point about article 217, I would be grateful if he clarified it.
  Mr. Bryant: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to clarify the position. It is article 226. That article would mean that the European Commission could rule against the UK on the matter, and article 227 would mean that other member states could bring a complaint against the UK.
  Mr. Pickles: This is clearly an important point. That was precisely the article under which the Commission acted with regard to British beef, poultry in Germany and French pigs, so I think that the hon. Gentleman has rather undermined his case. We are clearly within article 226—that is why I was looking bemused. Now I am beginning to feel more confident that we are within articles 28, 29, 30 and 36.
  Mr. Bryant: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. If the Bill were to become an Act, it would be open to challenge by the European Commission under article 226 and by other member states under article 227. As I am sure he knows, the numbers of all the articles change, so he may have confused himself a little.
  Mr. Pickles: The articles do not change up in the 200s from the 20s.
  Mr. Bryant: They do change up in the 200s—75 became 92 and so on—but we are now straying into articles and numbering.
  Mr. Pickles: I hardly think that I would get confused by a change in numbering from the low 20s to the upper 200s, but the hon. Gentleman has undermined his case. I reiterate: the Commission acts according to precedent and it has created a clear precedent with British beef, French pork and German poultry. I am confident that the measure can get through.[Interruption.]It is no use the Minister shaking his head because the Government were wrong last time on British beef. He got the same advice last time. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. They should give the Bill a chance for the sake of British farmers.
  Mr. Bryant: The difficulty that the hon. Gentleman is having is over the difference between article 28, which

  1159
  explicitly prohibits quantitative restrictions on trade between member states and measures of equivalent effect, and the later articles in the treaty of Rome—226 and 227—which give either the Commission or member states the opportunity to challenge in relation to article 28.
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman would be right if article 28 referred to quantitative restrictions, but it refers to quantitative restrictions on imports, and there are no quantitative restrictions on imports in the Bill.
  Mr. Bryant: The point is that the article is not just on imports, but on trade. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is. It is about restrictions on trade between member states—clearly, imports are a form of trade between member states—and measures of equivalent effect. If we change the labelling that has to be used in this country, we are by definition affecting the trading relations with other countries in the European Union. That is what then becomes subject to potential challenge under articles 226 or 227.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: It was after all the hon. Gentleman who introduced this line of argument, so it is proper that we seek to pursue it. As he interprets the article, how does that leave the position that has now been created by precedent in relation to France and beef imports, and the analysis that he is trying to project of the Bill?
  Mr. Bryant: I would have to leave that to lawyers with greater capacity than I, but the Bill is at least in danger of falling foul of the EU legislation and at worst does not deal with the real problems that constituents face. It does not provide what is truly necessary, which is a fully European answer to the issues of food labelling.
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman is being most courteous and this is proving to be an interesting exchange. I note that he is retreating from his earlier position, and I am grateful for that. We know how the Bill will be affected by the article to which he has referred: it will be examined on two issues, covert protectionism and retaliation, and it is clean on both charges.
  Mr. Bryant: I disagree. I do not know whether Conservative Members have a copy of the treaty, but I should be happy to lend them one. Article 28 says that any autonomous alteration or suspension of duties in the common customs tariff shall be decided by the Council acting by a qualified majority on the proposal from the Commission. That has regularly been interpreted as referring not only to specific changes to tariffs and duties but to anything that materially or directly affects the free movement of goods in the European Union. Article 226 says that the Commission has a right to challenge, and article 227 gives other member states the same right.
  The hon. Gentleman's simple assertion that his Bill is clean does not mean that it is clean. I am not the only person who has contested this point; other hon. Members have done so. I oppose the Bill not only on that point but because I want a genuinely European solution to the problem of food labelling. The Bill would inevitably queer the pitch for any future proposals by the
  1160
  Government for action through the European Union. That would be a mistake, and that is why I wholeheartedly, rather than slightly, oppose the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman said earlier that points made by other hon. Members were sensible and could be dealt with in Committee, so they should vote for the Bill's Second Reading, but I want to do more than tinker with its clauses. My objection is more substantial; it strikes at the heart of the Bill. On behalf on Mr. Creamy, Welsh kettle chips and Welsh lamb, I want to see, a genuinely European solution to the problem of food labelling.
  Mr. Pickles: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to spoil an otherwise absorbing speech by mocking those of his colleagues who made legitimate points. My point, which I want to make forcefully, is that if other European Union countries such as Germany and France are prepared to give a lead, why cannot we simply follow them? Why do we not do something for our farmers? Mr. Whippy and Welsh lamb would be better served by the Bill than by waiting for pan-European promises of legislation. We have heard those promises before, and they have not been fulfilled.
  Mr. Bryant: I am slightly confused by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He seems to be accusing me of demeaning the comments made by other hon. Members. I am not doing so. As I said, I have not been here for the whole debate, but I agree with many of the objections that I have heard. The hon. Gentlemans response to some of the objections made by my hon. Friends was that they could be dealt with in Committee, so they should vote to give the Bill a Second Reading. I do not disagree with those objections; I believe that they show that the Bill is fatally flawed and should be rejected.
  Conservative Members have rejected entire Bills, as a matter of course, despite maintaining in public that they object only to elements of them. They have often voted against a programme motion as a means of objecting to a Bill. I am therefore arguing that the Bill is fundamentally flawed, so it should not make any progress after today.
  I should correct the hon. Gentleman about Mr. Whippy. I do not know where Mr. Whippy is based, but it is certainly not in the Rhondda. Mr. Creamy has a virtual monopoly in my constituency, it is very fine ice cream, and I recommend it to the House. Perhaps we should make sure that Mr. Creamy's ice cream is available in the House.
  Clause 4, which deals with packaging, is as flawed as clause 2. We are in danger of creating a situation that is unsustainable for those who produce foodstuffs in this country; it is also unsustainable for supermarkets and those who have to dispose of household waste. That may seem relatively minor, but I believe that it is significant. This country already finds it difficult to match the aspirations of other European countries on recycling. I shop in Tesco, where I buy tomatoes, bananas, potatoes and so on, all of which are packaged, as they have to state which country they come from. I have to dispose of all the packaging—yet another little plastic tray, wrapped in yet another piece of printed cardboard. Invariably, I end up with more packaging than foodstuffs.
  The Bill is fatally flawed and misses the point. It will not achieve its objectives because it is likely to fall at the first, second, third, fourth and fifth legal hurdle in Europe.

  1161
  Producers in other countries, and, indeed, some in our own country, will probably say that the legislation should not be introduced because it is unfair and disadvantages countries other than Britain. I am sure that later we will hear about important advances that the Government want to make in food labelling across the whole of Europe.
  I know that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar will deny this, but underlying the Bill is an anti-European sentiment—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are mildly fulminating, but only recently the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar raised the matter of what the Germans and the French are doing. If we wait for Europe, he suggested, nothing will ever happen.
  Mr. Pickles: My credentials on supporting matters relating to Europe are pretty good, as are those of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), who is sponsoring the Bill. We want a Europe of equal partners where, perhaps, we take the lead; we do not want a Europe where we are the slowest member. The Europe of bureaucracy and sloth is not the modern Europe that most people in this country want.
  Mr. Bryant: I know that sometimes hon. Members have to pretend to be shocked and surprised, but I am genuinely shocked and surprised by the hon. Gentleman's argument. Indeed we should have a less bureaucratic system in Europe, but he has introduced a Bill that is the height of bureaucracy. It is likely to make it far more difficult for producers in this country to sell their goods in the rest of Europe; it would create unnecessary bureaucracy. The hon. Gentleman compounded his error by trying to suggest that, as he has good European credentials, he could not possibly advocate anything other than a system of equal partners. If we are going to be equal partners, why should we introduce unequal legislation?
  Mr. Pickles: Has the hon. Gentleman paid the slightest attention to this debate? He has been an assiduous attender, but does he understand that the French are right to introduce legislation on labelling? Does he understand that it is reasonable for the Germans, and for us, to introduce such legislation? I hope that the Bill will be a platform for pan-European legislation, which I believe would be a good thing. We have to start somewhere, however, and my Bill is a good start.
  Mr. Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman really wanted this Bill or similar provisions to be the platform for pan-European legislation, he could have introduced them by means of Conservative Members of the European Parliament. There is now a perfectly decent method whereby the legislative process can be started in the European Parliament. However, the Bill's underlying tenor is precisely as I have suggested.
  Mr. Pickles: That is an outrage—
  Mr. Bryant: Sorry?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Pickles: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard myself speaking and realised that it was my voice. I am so sorry.
  Mr. Bryant: I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said, so I cannot get too excited about it.
  1162
  As I said, my main concern is to speak on behalf of United Kingdom consumers and as a Welsh patriot who wants Welsh products to be available both elsewhere in the United Kingdom—so that it is a delight to walk into Sainsbury's in Islington and see Welsh products proudly displayed with a nice little Welsh dragon—and beyond.
  Mr. Wiggin: How can the hon. Gentleman be sure without a Bill such as this one that the little Welsh dragon that he sees in Islington is labelling a genuinely Welsh product?
  Mr. Bryant: The hon. Gentleman makes a point, but it is not the point of the Bill.
  Mr. Wiggin: Yes, it is.
  Mr. Bryant: The Bill will make no difference. Not only is it likely to fall at every legal hurdle it encounters, it does not explain how legislation introduced solely in the United Kingdom will affect the sale of Welsh dragons in Catalonia, Torino and other parts of Europe. I am trying to make that point. Those who think only about whether Welsh products will be sold only in the United Kingdom have small minds that need to be enlarged.
  Mr. Wiggin indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bryant: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to intervene?
  Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. I am in despair listening to the hon. Gentleman. So far today there has been some consensus in the Chamber that British consumers should have the opportunity to know what they are buying when they go shopping. The Bill seeks to achieve that objective. By going down a Europhobic, Eurosceptic route, the hon. Gentleman has completely lost the consensus and—
  Mr. Pickles: The plot.
  Mr. Wiggin: Indeed. I despair for those in my constituency who farm. They, above all, want the opportunity for shoppers and consumers to know what they are buying.
  Mr. Bryant: I do not question the hon. Gentleman's sincerity in wanting to achieve a laudable and honourable objective—ensuring that everyone has genuine information on the food that they eat; I think that every hon. Member agrees that that is a laudable and commendable objective—but the Bill will not achieve that objective because it does not stand up legally within the European Union.
  Moreover, I think that the Bill prevents us from achieving a bigger objective: the creation of a Europe-wide labelling system that enables Welsh dragons to appear in shops in Madrid, as they do already, and elsewhere across Europe, giving people some confidence about what they are buying. I do not think that the Bill will achieve that objective.
  One tiny issue—I apologise to the House if it has already been raised today—is how Scotland is treated. Scotland is not included in the Bill.
  Mr. Pickles: It has a devolved Parliament.
  Mr. Bryant: I understand that it has devolved powers. However, that only underlines the point that we should

  1163
  not be creating separate legislation in England and Wales, but seeking a Europe-wide settlement of the issue. That is why I would push my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues to work towards a better Europe-wide resolution.
  Mr. Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bryant: No. I have given way plenty of times and I am about to conclude.
  I believe that the Bill is flawed, and not in a way that could be rectified, improved, ameliorated or tidied up in Committee. I believe that it is so fatally flawed and so potentially dangerous to the business and farming interests of people in this country that we should throw it out, not just lock, but lock, stock and barrel.
  1.10 pm
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on achieving such a high position in the private Members' Bill ballot and selecting this Bill. As is well known, it deals with a topic that is close to my heart and affects the interests of those who operate in the rural economy, and everyone who lives, works and shops in towns and villages in my constituency and up and down the land. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should congratulate my hon. Friend on raising a key issue for the confidence of consumers and the need to rebuild confidence in the rural economy which sustains the livelihoods of so many people—particularly in the light of recent events, not least the foot and mouth crisis. I was enormously impressed by my hon. Friend's straightforward analysis in introducing the Bill.
  I know that it is not usual to criticise the preceding speaker, but the comments by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) were a departure from the broadly constructive tone of all the other speeches today. I hope that I will be able to address some of his points in detail. He was certainly flailing around with a number of issues in an attempt to claim that the Bill was flawed ab initio, although it was difficult to see how he could substantiate the serious points that he raised.
  In general, we have had an enjoyable and important debate, not least because it gave rise to a degree of levity. We discovered that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) certainly has a passion for food and was able to describe all sorts of recipes. We were all struggling to find which part of the Bill they related to, but we got there in the end.
  The debate identified the enormous importance that the Bill gives to the tied interests between producers and consumers. As is well known by all who have taken the time to study this topic, our food labelling and food standards regulations are second to none by comparison with any country in the world, and that is absolutely right. That enormous body of regulation goes hand in hand with the quality and standards of production that our farmers are able to maintain. As I said in 2000 when I introduced the Second Reading of my Bill, which was subsequently amended by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, it is clear that the insistence upon identifying country of origin and standards of production is needed
  1164
  by consumers and producers in order to give people confidence in our products. What has changed is the departmental responsibility for the Bill. It has moved from what was the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—now the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—to the Department of Health, which is why the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), is present.
  Although I understand the thinking behind that—not least with the introduction of the Food Standards Act 1999—there is a residual concern that the necessary value chain between producers and consumers has been divided, whereas in the past there was an attempt to ensure that it was brought together. That is important in the context of the Bill, because much of the presentation has depended on looking at the problem purely from a farmer's point of view. Of course it is important for all hon. Members who represent rural constituencies to consider what opportunities there are to support farmers and all those who produce from the land, be that cereal or meat. However, their support will be effective only if it coincides with the interests of consumers.
  Although I welcome the Minister's presence, there is concern that food safety issues, on which the Department of Health naturally has an angle, have been over-emphasised and that we should instead be examining the total value chain from producers to consumers. I do not think that accountability is necessarily an issue, but farmers and all those who are engaged in the rural economy have recognised the shift which occurred between Second Reading of the original Bill on 3 March 2000, and now. It will be interesting to hear what different arguments the Minister will make. The subject was constructively discussed on 3 March last year.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. I understood that the official Opposition supported the split between DEFRA, which remains responsible for the food industry, and the Department of Health, which is responsible for food safety. Is that no longer their view?
  Mr. O'Brien: The support was genuinely given and that remains our position. The Bill does not merely cover food safety. It relates to consumer confidence, choice and rights to information so that people get what they think they are buying. Many people want to support the British rural economy, and farmers markets are doing an effective job in that regard. Food labelling has a double accountability, both for safety and for the broader sector.
  Mr. Hutton: Just so that no one is in any doubt, the views that I give will not be just those of the Department of Health. My concerns are also held by DEFRA.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that he will represent the Government view. I am not so reassured by his expression of concern. However, I am sure that we will be able to address that either today or in Committee.
  When the former Agriculture Minister responded in the previous debate, she highlighted the Government's belief that the existing law was sufficient to deal with misleading, inaccurate or insufficient labelling. In addition, she feared that the Bill might not comply with the relevant provisions of EU law.

  1165
  On the first point, it became apparent that the issues surrounding food labelling under regulation are encapsulated by guidance notes given to trading standards officers. They are not enforceable by way of law, but they do govern the expectations as to how trading standards officers should perform their duties. It is not even a statutory code in the same sense as the highway code, a point I made in our previous debate on the issue.
  There have been a few moves since we last debated this about 18 months ago. However, there are still many instances of insufficient information on food packaging. Survey after survey shows a large body of opinion and evidence that consumers do not trust food labels. Not only do they find it difficult to find or understand the information contained on certain labelling—they may have to search long and hard to find a very small letter representing the country of origin, for example—but the information is often encapsulated in great wodges of complex, detailed, small-print material, which creates difficulties for people whose lives are busy.
  It is of course important to have such information there, not least on nutritional content, but there has been a proposal, which the Bill would facilitate, to consider a certification procedure for the country of origin. Perhaps holograms could be used, but whatever the method, it would be convincing. It would enhance consumer confidence if the labelling contained a kite-mark, certification or accreditation that encapsulated, providing that it was properly publicised, the nutritional, vitamin and GMO content as well as contents and production standards information. I think that that should be considered in Committee because it would help address the very serious points of the hon. Members for Cleethorpes and for Falmouth and Cambourne (Candy Atherton). The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) also raised the very important subject of the allergen content. There is the 1 per cent. rule, but even below a content of 1 per cent. there can be a real risk for young children in particular and anybody who suffers that level of sensitivity.
  Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) referred to nut allergies. How will the Bill relate to restaurant food? Growing numbers of people eat out and as far as I can see there is no way that the Bill would give consumers in restaurants any information. The restaurateur would have to choose to say where the food on a menu came from.
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Lady is right. Clause 4(2) states:
  "Where food is sold otherwise than to the ultimate consumer, the information required by this Act may appear on commercial documents relating to the food, provided that it also appears on the outermost packaging of the food."
  Let us take the example of buying a steak in a pub restaurant. How do we know that it comes from Scotland, even though its description on the menu as Aberdeen Angus might be intended to imply that, and not Botswana or Paraguay? Although food regulations govern information provided on the outermost packaging, the difficulty is with the menu. The information necessary to help the consumer choose should be given at the point of consumption and choice.
  At the bottom of the menu—not necessarily by every item—there should be a small indication that, for example, the food was not all from the United Kingdom.
  1166
  Then people who were concerned about that would be able to inquire further. If the restaurateur chose, he could say precisely where each ingredient came from—but of course we must recognise that that could be burdensome, given that food is often sourced from different countries.
  That was a long answer to the hon. Lady's intervention. I thought that the Minister was intending to say something about it, too—but perhaps he feels that I have covered the ground sufficiently, and it does not need any further explanation. [Interruption.] The Minister says that I have muddied the water sufficiently. I thank him; I regard that as a badge of honour.
  Shona McIsaac: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the commercial document is the menu?
  Mr. O'Brien: If a menu is not a commercial document, what is? Patently, it is an invitation to treat, which I think would be regarded as a commercial document according to most tests, because one cannot treat unless one is intending to undertake, or is in the course of, a commercial transaction. Treating implies consideration under the law. I do not know whether the hon. Lady wishes to pursue the point, but I am dredging into a deep and distant solicitor's background; I gave up practising 13 years ago, so I hope that I attended the right lectures to give her that answer.
  Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the provision can apply only when the commercial documents mentioned in clause 4(3)
  "accompany the food to which they relate at all times"?
  Would the menu have to accompany the food at all times? I am confused by that part of the Bill.
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Lady makes a fair interpretational criticism. The meaning is indeed intended and fairly clear—but I hope that she will agree that it would be appropriate for discussion in Committee. I do not think that it represents a fundamental flaw.
  Mr. Bryant rose—
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall move on, because I want to ensure that I give the Minister sufficient time to discuss all the points that have been raised, and I hope that the Bill will find favour with him.
  We have discussed ministerial accountability, and the value chain between consumers and producers, which we recognise is particularly important to our hard-pressed rural economy—represented not least in the constituency of Eddisbury. If I combine my constituency with that of my hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), the total represents the largest milk field in Europe by a wide margin, in terms of both quality and value. These considerations are of intense importance to all our constituents.
  My hon. Friend's Bill contains amendments that address the Government's fundamental criticisms of my Bill, and it is notable that both that Bill, 18 months ago, and the present Bill, have attracted not only the support of the National Farmers Union and the National Pig Association, but the repeated support of the Consumers Association, which has continually said that country of

  1167
  origin labelling needs to be put in place. That is why it is important to make these points about the need for producer and consumer interests to be tied together.
  Notably, my hon. Friend has also enlisted the support of the Food and Drink Federation. That endorsement is a very significant aspect of the presentation of his Bill.
  Mr. Bryant: Returning to the issue of menus in restaurants, we might all accept that it is nice to know whether a piece of beef comes from Argentina, Scotland or elsewhere, but I am not sure whether the Bill would mean that the country of origin of not only the steak but the peas, the chips and the onion rings would have to be listed, too.
  Mr. O'Brien: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concede that the issue relates to consumer confidence; that would be the focus, especially as regards meat products. The wording of the subsection—like that of all Bills—is sufficiently general to ensure that, in this case, the detail could cover aspects of normal commercial life. That could include menus as well as other things. The hon. Gentleman's point would be a proper one for Committee. I hope he will agree that it would not form part of his criticism that the Bill was fundamentally flawed and should not proceed. I do not agree with those points and do not think that he substantiated them.
  The measure presents the Government with a genuine and easy opportunity to further a matter of deep interest to the constituent interests that I listed earlier. The Bill has been sufficiently well thought through. Clauses 3(1) and 4(1)(e) incorporate changes which address the main concerns articulated by the then Minister of State at MAFF when we debated my Bill.
  When the Minister of State, Department of Health responds, it is important for us to understand whether he has genuine concerns about the underlying concepts of the Bill. In the debate on my Bill, the Government expressed sympathy but then went on to explain why they would not support it. That caused much consternation to many of those constituent interests throughout the country and there was a great deal of publicity about it. The matter will not go unnoticed; it is of deep concern to many people.
  The issues that lie behind the Bill are of sufficient moment for us to have held a serious debate today. We have to decide how quickly we want to make these improvements: either by means of a Bill or by continuing ministerial negotiations in Europe on various delegated aspects of authority and regulation. Despite numerous warm words—I do not deny their warmth—progress has been marginal and action has been limited. I do not doubt that although the negotiations in the halls of the European Union may look serene on the surface, frantic pedalling goes on below; but for those who are not involved, it is the outcomes that matter. There is no sense that real progress has been made in the various negotiating forums of the EU. It seems that we are being forced to go at the slowest pace—that of those in the EU who have interests to protect.
  The UK has some of the best and most developed food labelling and food standards regulation and authorities. It will be a bit of a disappointment and certainly a surprise if the Minister does not want to take this opportunity to
  1168
  make progress. The Government often want to take the lead: the Bill would give them the chance to lead in Europe and to demonstrate that our country can add value to the standards regime throughout Europe. We should do that, because we all want to raise standards. We want to celebrate not only the regional diversity of foods—that could be continued under the existing regulations—but also the countries of origin, so that there will no longer be confusion as to the interpretation of current EU law. We could thus avoid disparity, for example, between the actions taken by France in relation to our beef and our actions on other matters. We can show real leadership, and the Bill offers the Government and the Minister a genuine opportunity to do so.
  It is difficult to resist asking: why not try to introduce this legislation; why not send it to Committee; why not let it be the vehicle to explore these issues and ensure that the EU can learn from these debates rather than going through the existing labyrinthine procedures?
  One important aspect that has been overlooked so far—it is the only point that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar did not make in his opening remarks—is that the Bill has a huge advantage which all Governments look for: it does not represent a burden on the taxpayer. To the extent that labels will have to be changed, there is a cost implication for the commercial interests affected, but given the already large number of packaging and labelling regulations, the Bill merely represents an adjustment. There is unlikely to be a cost burden on businesses.
  I therefore recommend that the Minister look favourably on the Bill. In pure policy terms, the Conservative party would like to keep this attractive policy for itself because it would cost taxpayers nothing. Surely that must be of interest to the Minister.
  Shona McIsaac: If the Bill becomes law and businesses are required to state the country of origin on food labels, how would infringements be dealt with? How does the hon. Gentleman envisage enforcing the Bill? If it is through trading standards officers, that would represent a cost to council tax payers and other UK taxpayers.
  Mr. O'Brien: The Government would have to ensure that they were happy with any enforcement regime. One would expect them to give a steer. I hesitate to be presumptuous, but in terms of enforcement, it would be up to trading standards officers using guidelines that would flow from future legislation—
  Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend is right that I did not raise the matter in my opening remarks, for some of the reasons that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes mentioned. The Bill would not create a special category of enforcement officer; enforcement would fall naturally within the existing regime and would fit the job of existing trading standards officers. Admittedly, they would have more to do, but that would represent a de minimis rather than a substantial burden on the public purse, either nationally or locally. It would certainly pale into insignificance compared with the cavalier way in which the Government place new obligations on local authorities.
  Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Moreover, without the Bill, trading standards officers, for

  1169
  instance, will continue to have to operate under guidelines that are difficult to interpret because the body of regulation and law that sits behind them is vast, complex and detailed. If existing guidelines are to be properly adhered to and well policed, either the number of trading standards officers will have to be increased to instil the confidence that consumers seek, or this country will have to accept that we cannot deliver for consumers and that existing labelling is sufficiently robust to provide confidence.
  If the Bill were enacted, accountability would be in place. Trading standards officers exist in any event and they would simply have a new regime to enforce. I therefore see no serious cost implications.
  Mr. Hutton: I thank the hon. Gentleman again for allowing me to intervene. In my experience as a Minister, there is no such thing as a cost-free solution to these problems. I ask the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar to reflect on two matters. I assume that, if the Bill is enacted, there will be a risk of more prosecutions. Can the hon. Gentlemen explain the position of an English retailer who tries to sell on products supplied by a European Union country when the retailer's advice is that the legislation is ineffective at a European level? Does that not expose the English retailer to the risk of prosecution on a matter that is entirely outwith his or her control? Is that not unfair?
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall not pretend that I am able to give a knee-jerk response to that point. Serious legal advice will need to be considered. On the point about cross-border infringement and domestic law interacting with EU and international law, I recognise that the point about conflict of law might need to be addressed. More importantly, however, the liability issue affecting the retailer could be excluded by contract, and there may need to representation by a supplier in another country. That is a matter of contract terms, so it would not be covered on the face of the Bill.
  Mr. Pickles: It might be helpful if the Minister could arrange for the legal advice on the labelling of British beef, French pork and German poultry to be placed in the Library.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am sure that the Minister will intervene immediately if he wishes to accept that offer.
  Mr. Hutton: I shall duck that invitation now, but I shall come to it in my remarks.
  I am intrigued by the line of argument of the hon. Member for Eddisbury. He seems to be suggesting that the law of contract would supersede the Bill. That is the first time I have heard that argument. Is that how he and the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar envisage the legislation working in practice?
  Mr. O'Brien: I will attempt to answer that point. However, I do not want to go too far down that track, because it is highly presumptuous to debate a legal argument on the Floor of the House when we cannot have the benefit of receiving expert legal advice. It would be very helpful if the advice given to Ministers were placed in the Library. In fact, a former Attorney-General, Lord Lyell, has suggested that the legal advice on which
  1170
  Ministers were acting may have been flawed and that their concerns about not complying with EU law should and could be overcome.
  Contract terms can apply only within the privity of contract between the supplier and the customer—the retailer in the Minister's example—but general law relates to who would suffer damage. Ultimately, the consumer is damaged if he purchases something that has a false, misleading or insufficient label, but the extent of that damage will always have to be shown.
  Penalties relate to the regime of trading standards and to the commercial expectations that will be set up as a result of the Bill's becoming law. The Government will obviously wish to explore that point in Committee, and I welcome that.
  Will the EU negotiations or a Bill of this nature be the first to produce the outcomes and results for which consumers and farmers are clamouring? It is clear from the track record to date that the answer is a Bill of this nature. If EU negotiations, however, produced something quicker than this Bill, that would be to the advantage of all European states. It would demonstrate that we have shown the leadership that the Government claim. Parliamentarians in this country have greater expertise, experience and knowledge of food labelling than those in EU member states and we have a responsibility to bring them to bear for the benefit of all member states. That is the nature of partnership. We should show our leadership.
  The hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Brent, North made positive, helpful and committed contributions. The technology is rapidly developing to enable the provisions in the Bill to become effective and practicable. I was particularly taken by the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), for Tatton and for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). They spoke passionately about the interests of their farmers and constituents. The hon. Members for Falmouth and Camborne and for Cleethorpes also made helpful contributions that should be taken into account when the Bill is considered in Committee.
  I urge the Minister to look favourably on the Bill. It is not for any party political or simple knockabout reasons that it has merited being introduced a second time. Many personal experiences have been related today. Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that their constituents are anxious about their ability to have confidence in labels and the information that they are given about food when, almost daily in our newspapers, so much of the news throws doubt on the safety and integrity of the food that we eat.
  Producers and farmers in Britain are committed to the highest food production standards, especially compared with their competitors in Europe and the world. Pig producers, for example, have had to invest heavily to take pigs out of stalls and tethers while other EU member states manage to get a derogation. We vigilantly police the regulations, which are applied at great cost to a depressed sector of the market that does not receive subsidy from the EU. Its largest competitor, Denmark, has now obtained a further derogation for seven years, to 2014.
  There is a deep imbalance in the marketplace. The Bill will go a long way to help redress that by empowering consumers. That is better than imposing measures from

  1171
  the top down. Consumers tell us that they want to support our farmers and our rural economy in these exceptionally tough times. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton demonstrated how much farmers' incomes had collapsed. There is great pressure on the farmgate price. The power of distribution and supermarket chains in the marketplace has left farmers and those who use land to produce added value for us at a disadvantage. They need the fairness, honesty, clarity and simplicity that the Bill would provide to label their products in such a way as to give British consumers the chance to make a confident choice. I again urge the Minister to look favourably on the Bill.
  1.47 pm
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on introducing the Bill, which raises some important issues. I apologise for having missed part of his speech. I came prepared to speak on a different subject. I am afraid that I always follow my old sea scout motto "Be prepared." I had a speech ready to make on the Bill, which I had to go and fetch, and I am concerned there may be insufficient time before 2.30 pm for me to make all the points that I worked up last night.
  It is rather apposite—third time lucky, perhaps—that I have been called to speak this afternoon. Last week I came prepared to speak on the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill and never got my chance because we ran out of time. It is interesting that we have moved from Barney the lobster's reprieve to shellfish and crustaceans, which are referred to in the Bill.
  My starting point is to pick up from the last intervention made by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). He said that enforcement was a de minimis matter for trading standards officers. If it is, why is the Bill being introduced? I should have thought that ensuring that the legislation was properly policed would require considerable extra resources on the part of trading standards officers, which would undoubtedly have an impact on the cost to local authorities and, indirectly, on the council tax payer and the Government.
  I was interested to hear about the family background of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). She and I have something in common. My father was a chef, and I grew up in the hotel and catering trade, so I also have an interest in matters culinary. Perhaps we could swap some recipes later. I certainly do not intend to test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by going through some of the issues that we talked about earlier in that respect.
  One of my concerns about the Bill is that it does not deal with the dreaded issue of E numbers. We have talked a lot today about the extent to which consumers scrutinise labels on packages. I am less concerned about where food comes from than about what chemicals are in it. We have not addressed that today.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) referred to the Bill's relationship to Scotland. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar said, Scotland is excluded from the Bill. It would be peculiar if we did not look at the impact of the Bill within the UK, let alone worldwide, as it is not confined to the EU. It would also be peculiar if people were able to sell things in Scotland
  1172
  that they were unable to sell in England and Wales. We could have dumping arrangements, with dodgy products being shipped north over the border to unsuspecting Scots. Do Conservative Members of the Scottish Parliament intend to propose a similar Bill for Scotland?
  Mr. Pickles: That is the beauty of devolution. They are masters of their own destiny, as we are in this Chamber.
  Mr. Dismore: I can only assume from that that there is no intention on the part of the Conservative party to propose such a Bill in Scotland. Why should the Scots lose out? Are they to have less protection than those of us in England and Wales?
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Last year, a Member of the Scottish Parliament proposed a similar Bill relating only to meat products. It was discussed at length and has made rather better progress than the original Bill has done here. I hope that, today, we can redress that imbalance with cross-border uniform regulation.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification, as it would be nonsense if we had different provisions in different parts of the United Kingdom. In that context, I include Northern Ireland.
  Much has been said about the legality of the Bill in the context of the EU. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda explained the issue fully. As a lawyer, I am aware that my hon. Friend made some important points. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar said that the Bill would comply with European legislation. He may be right, or my hon. Friend may be right. However, I am absolutely certain that the Bill in its current form will provide a recipe for making a lot of fat-cat lawyers a lot fatter in the law courts. It does not really matter who is right, because I can see that there will be a feeding frenzy for lawyers interpreting the Bill, both here and in the European Court of Justice. I will leave the detailed analysis of that to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda.
  In terms of our international trading obligations, I wish to refer to the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the relationship between ourselves and the rest of the world. My constituency is multicultural. People who live in Hendon have come from all over the world. We have food shops selling produce from all over the world that my constituents require for their recipes and cultural requirements. I ask the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar to consider the implications of the Bill for people using food products from the Indian subcontinent, for example, who may find great difficulty in complying with requirements.
  I do not know whether the Bill will comply with GATT. We have had the analysis of EU law, but article 22 of the 1947 treaty says:
  "Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing…shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures:

  (a) necessary to protect public morals;

  (b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health".

  I am not sure whether what is proposed by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar falls within that general exception. If it does not, we could fall foul of much wider international obligations—going way beyond the EU.

  1173
  The Government have worked hard to try to deal with the matter in the interim through the publication of guidance notes, a copy of which I have here and from which I was going to quote at rather more length than I have time for. Perhaps I can make the point by referring only to paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. I do not intend to go through the notes in detail, but the point that arises from them relates to our earlier argument:
  "The true place of origin of a food should always be given if the label as a whole would otherwise imply that the food comes from, or has been made in, a different place or area. Consumers are, however, unlikely to expect products such as Chelsea buns, York ham, Madras curry or Frankfurters to come from those areas in the absence of other material on the label suggesting that they do."
  I challenge the guidance with regard to York ham. The point that arises from the guidance is that we must adopt a common-sense approach to such issues. The notes go on to refer to the sort of things that might mislead people, such as flags on labelling.
  There is nothing to stop the voluntary labelling of products or to stop British producers putting a Union flag on British produce so that people can be assured that what they are buying is British. That is a far more sensible way of proceeding in the absence of international agreements. I have much sympathy with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar in promoting the Bill, but he needs to keep a sense of proportion in that respect.
  Brent Cross shopping centre, which is one of the country's largest premier shopping centres, is in my constituency. The British Retail Consortium has many members at Brent Cross and I consulted them on their views on the Bill, which were clear. They said:
  "There is already a very effective labelling system in place which people understand and is clear.
  There are universally set standards which everyone must adhere to … not different standards in different countries."
  They say that, because retailers apply universal standards regardless, people can have confidence in such standards. They consider that
  "Country of origin should not make a difference."
  They also make the important point that
  "All surveys show that top of the agenda for consumers is price".
  They say that better packaging, as sought by hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar,
  "would push up costs and would put consumers off. It is price over country of origin."
  They add:
  "'Buying British' slogans"—
  and, for that matter, packaging—
  "are a nice bonus if they work—but consumers are generally not taken in."
  The supermarkets are prepared to work when there are issues of public health, as their work on pigmeat and their co-operation on the little red tractor scheme, to which the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) referred, shows. I am not sure whether the little red dragon symbol is an attempt by the Welsh community to pass off goods as Welsh, or whether one can have a little red dragon riding a red tractor in order to make both points. The fact that the little red tractor scheme has been so successful is an indication of what can be done voluntarily.
  Mr. Pickles: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the National Farmers Union supports the Bill?
  Mr. Dismore: I have had no discussions with the NFU about the Bill, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The NFU is of course on the side of producers; I am on the side of consumer and I am making points on behalf of the retail trade, which has a more direct relationship with the consumer than the farmer.
  Mr. Pickles: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why the Consumers Association supports the Bill?
  Mr. Dismore: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the information that I have just cited from the retail trade. I do not have the time to go through many of the arguments. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I can have a discussion over a cup of English tea—which, presumably has come from India; I am not sure how it would be labelled—and I can go through the remainder of my evidence in more detail.
  The point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier about the schemes that have been set up overseas is important. I have quite a lot of information about the labelling systems for French pigmeat and German poultry. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but what is important is that those schemes have been able to be produced within the existing legal framework of the EU, and there is no reason why we cannot do the same. It is interesting that French production is covered by what is called the pigmeat identity guarantee—PIG for short. I am surprised that in such a francophone country, it is not called something that spells out as "COCHON", but there we have it.
  I challenge the hon. Gentleman on a major point on behalf of my Jewish constituents. They have raised a number of issues, including how kosher labelling would be affected by the Bill. This goes back to the 25 per cent. rule. The Federation of Synagogues, which is based in my constituency, has written to ask me to ensure that nothing in the Bill would in any way undermine the use of the word "kosher". It is concerned about the 25 per cent. threshold.
  This goes back to the discussion on nuts. Certain food products contain small amounts of ingredients—under 2 per cent.—that are not listed on the packaging. If those ingredients are non-kosher, they can render the entire product non-kosher and unsuitable for consumption by orthodox Jews. The federation would be interested in ensuring that food labelling lists all ingredients and their percentages.
  Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dismore: I am afraid that I have to make progress.
  The federation is also concerned about the potential impact of the parts of the Bill that relate to animal welfare standards on shechita, the method of slaughter of meat for the Jewish community. It says that there is often much misunderstanding about that. Conventional slaughter can often create far more problems for animal welfare than shechita, for which a Jewish slaughterer needs six years training. The federation is concerned that the Bill could undermine the whole market for shechita products.
  The most important issue that I raise on behalf of the Jewish community is the impact in relation to Israel. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware—if he has been studying Hansard, he will be, because the matter has

  1175
  been raised in the House on a number of occasions—that there is a live issue in relation to the labelling of produce from settlements on the West Bank. At the moment, those products are labelled as produce of Israel. That is a result of quite a lot of negotiation between the Israelis and the EU. A modus vivendi has been reached.
  According to the declaration of principles signed in 1993 by the Government of Israel and the Palestinian National Authority, and witnessed by the United States and the Russian Federation, the status of settlements is an issue that remains to be dealt with and considered in later negotiations. Until then, it was agreed by the EU directive of customs that goods produced there will be treated as all other Israeli goods.
  The issue of rules of origin for a narrow group of Israeli products manufactured in various parts of the country is under discussion continually between the EU, Israel and the Palestinian National Authority. Pending a restart of the status negotiations—obviously, one hopes that there will be a successful resolution—the Bill could open a major can of worms, in that there are elements within the Palestinian National Authority who would not like products to be labelled as produce of Israel, but who demand that they be labelled produce of the occupied territories.
  If the Bill were to go through, it could have a major impact on the situation in the middle east. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, has not thought through the implications of the measure. I think that he should reflect on the perhaps unintended, but worldwide implications of his proposals.
  I would like to raise a series of detailed questions. However, there is not time to do that in detail, although I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me know, perhaps afterwards, why the Bill does not apply to regulations 26, 27 and 28 of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996, nor to regulation 29, which deals with items from vending machines. It is probably more appropriate that it should apply to regulations 26, 27 and 28.
  The Bill would require labels to refer to production standards that are lower than those in this country. What is the position regarding production standards that are different from ours and in which some elements may be lower and others higher? Why is clause 4(1) conjunctive rather than disjunctive? To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, conforming with paragraphs (a) to (e) of that measure would necessitate so much labelling and packaging that it would undermine some food producers' financial viability. Clause 4(2) refers to commercial documents. Does that include those in electronic format? I ask because much trade is carried out using computers rather than paper transactions.
  I have a huge amount of information about the Bill and many questions to ask the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who has made some important points, but I know that the Minister wants to reply to the debate, so I hope that I will be able to put my points to the hon. Gentleman in more detail in Committee or on Report.
  2.6 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): One of the unfortunate consequences of being the Minister responding to a debate on a private
  1176
  Member's Bill on a Friday is that, because of the nature of the debate and the commitments of right hon. and hon. Members, most Members have gone by the time one gets to speak. That is unfortunate on this occasion because we have heard 12 good speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House: my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), for Stroud (Mr. Drew), for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), and the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) and, of course, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), the promoter of the Bill. He spoke very well and I will say a little more about his remarks in a moment.
  As we all know, this is the second time round for the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who spoke for the Opposition, so I assume that he needed less time to prepare for the debate than the rest of us, particularly myself. When the hon. Gentleman introduced his Bill, he spoke for an hour and 10 minutes, but today he managed to condense his remarks into a pithy 37 minutes. That was quite an achievement because, naturally, he and many other hon. Members feel very strongly about the subject.
  I was struck by the high quality of the contributions. There is obviously a great deal of expertise on the subject among hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, and that knowledge was on display. I was struck also by a fact that will determine my subsequent remarks, which is that it would be wrong to characterise the concerns about the Bill, particularly those expressed by Labour Members, as representing a lack of concern about animal welfare or consumer safety and choice.
  My hon. Friends have sought to emphasise the point that any disagreement is about means, not objectives. My concern about the Bill is not about its content, on which there is broad general agreement. We want to improve consumer choice, and I shall set out some of my arguments about that in a moment. However, we must try to achieve that aim within a framework that is compatible with our treaty obligations and the agreements that we have entered into with European Union member states. Most of the legislation that governs food safety, and food labelling in particular, was introduced by the Conservative party. In a nutshell, my concern about the hon. Gentleman's Bill—on which I shall expand, as he would expect me to—is that his proposal for dealing with genuine consumer concerns would take the United Kingdom outwith the framework of European obligations and legal requirements into which we have freely entered. Generally, that is a bad way to make policy.
  Mr. Pickles: The Minister ducked a question of mine earlier, but I shall put that to one side. He will recall that I said that I did not mind how the Bill's objectives were achieved. I am not suggesting that we break our treaty obligations. The Minister may surprise me and conclude his speech before 2.30 pm; the Bill will go into Committee and he can put his valuable expertise to good use. Alternatively, he can use his expertise to pursue the Bill's objectives via another route. I do not mind which route is taken; I just want the matter to be addressed.
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My preferred way, and certainly the Government's preferred

  1177
  way, of making progress on these issues is to do so within the framework of European law, as we are required to do. I shall deal later with the hon. Gentleman's challenge to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda about an hour ago, on the precise legal framework in which that debate needs to take place. However, his intervention is helpful and shows a generosity of spirit about the eventual fate of his Bill, which may not reach Committee. If he makes further interventions, it is unlikely to help his cause; he will be disappointed to learn that I am more than happy to give way if he wishes to make such observations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North told us about his encounter with a clam in New York and its unfortunate consequences for his stomach; I do not want to say anything more about that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud made an effective and well informed speech. I am glad to see that he is in Chamber; he speaks out consistently and effectively in the House on his constituents' behalf. The hon. Member for Tatton demonstrated his charming and urbane nature. If the new shadow Leader of the House has his way in relation to Back-Bench Conservative Members, particularly new Members, he will not have done himself any harm at all.
  In an otherwise good speech, the hon. Member for Leominster came close to spoiling what the hon. Members for Brentwood and Ongar and for Eddisbury described as a consensual attitude by questioning the values and assumptions of those of us who have reservations about the Bill. It is not because we have less enthusiasm or commitment to securing the principles of animal welfare and so on to which the hon. Member for Leominster alluded that we air those reservations. It is usually a bad idea for Members to claim a monopoly on concern or compassion in these issues; unwittingly, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman overstepped the line. However, I was glad to hear what he had for breakfast; I, too, am a Weetabix fan. From his remarks, and the frost with which he delivered them, he must have had three; I tend to stick to one.
  Mr. O'Brien: That might explain why he is not in his seat.
  Mr. Hutton: He is not in the Chamber now; perhaps it has something to do with the clams that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North talked about.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne spoke effectively on behalf of her constituents, as did the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes referred to her nether regions, which made me slightly anxious. However, she meant the nether regions of her fridge, which is an important clarification. Thanks to her, I know a great deal more about low-fat mayonnaise than I did at the start of our debate. Perhaps she will let me have some of her recipes at the end of our proceedings.
  The hon. Member for Teignbridge is not here now and was not here for most of our debate. It is appropriate that he made the shortest speech today—three minutes—as he was in the Chamber for the shortest period.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda spoke very well, and was the first Member to express concern about the Bill's legal basis. I thought that he struck the right balance between wanting to see improvements on the
  1178
  issue, as do we all, and finding the right legal vehicle to realise that ambition. For reasons that I shall explain in a moment, I tell the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar that his Bill is not the right legal vehicle to reach that goal.
  I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda for allowing the House to learn a little more about Mr. Creamy, whoever he is. I have not had any Mr. Creamy products, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will let me have some eventually.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon—as always the voice of common sense in our Friday debates—made one of his shortest ever Friday speeches, although it was not short on quality. He was certainly right to take us outside the narrow confines of Europe in our discussion of the Bill's legal basis. He also quite properly raised issues on the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the world trade rules. When he mentioned those issues, I frantically searched through my speaking notes to see whether there was some mention of them there. Sadly there was not. However, I am quite sure that, as a distinguished lawyer, my hon. Friend was probably right in what he said about them.
  I should like now to deal with the Bill itself and the Government's concerns about it. I very warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar not only on his success in the ballot—I thank him for sharing his tips on how to succeed in the ballot—but on the very thoughtful and dextrous way in which he presented his arguments. He has introduced his Bill very effectively indeed.
  The Bill certainly raises important issues of consumer choice and public information about the food that we choose to eat. Those are important matters to which all hon. Members rightly attach priority and concern on behalf of their constituents, as do the Government. We are all consumers and we expect clear, honest and accurate food labels so that we can make properly informed choices when we go shopping. The Government are committed to improving the accuracy and content of food labels so that they better meet consumers' needs. Consequently, we are not content with the current arrangements for food labelling, and we have submitted detailed proposals to the European Commission, to which I shall return shortly.
  The Government know, because we have asked for consumers' views and conducted consumer research, that consumers are concerned about origin labelling, which is largely the Bill's subject matter. Consumers do not trust some of the declarations that they see, and too often they cannot find origin information when they want it. That has certainly been my own experience.
  The Government therefore share the objectives that have prompted the Bill. My concern is not about the Bill's content or objectives but about its compatibility with the current legislation regulating food labelling requirements, and therefore about the very credibility, enforceability and reliability of the proposals. If passed, the Bill would conflict entirely and be inconsistent with European law. Without any doubt at all, the Bill would be successfully challenged in the courts both by companies and by member states of the European Union and leave the United Kingdom Government exposed to extensive claims for compensation. It would be a pointless act of law making that could not succeed in realising its noble ambitions.

  1179
  I should therefore like to do two things in my remarks: spell out in a little more detail why we have arrived at our view on the legal deficiencies that fatally scar the Bill; and set out the wider context in which we can take forward, and I believe will be taking forward, some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar.
  Parliament has rightly decided that responsibility for developing advice on food labelling should fall to the Food Standards Agency. In a moment, I shall describe the agency's strategy on origin labelling and its work on other labelling issues and what the Government are doing both within and beyond Europe to improve the effectiveness of food labelling arrangements.
  European Union and United Kingdom legislation already seek to provide general protection for consumers from false and misleading labels. The protection takes the form of a general requirement that the label must not mislead a purchaser on the characteristics of a food, such as its nature, identity, properties, composition, quantity, durability, origin or provenance, or method of manufacture or production. The protection applies also to the presentation of food, in particular its shape, appearance and packaging and the setting in which it is displayed.
  Additionally, there are extensive and detailed food labelling rules which are harmonised currently at European level. The current rules are in directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, consolidating the earlier food labelling directive 79/112/EEC. The clear objective of that legislation is to tackle differences between regimes in different member states to facilitate the necessary free circulation of products.
  Those EU rules specify the minimum amount of information required on food labels and prohibit misleading claims. EU food labelling rules already require food to have a name, carry an indication of its weight, a list of ingredients and so on. Particulars of the place of origin or provenance of a food must be given where failure to do so might mislead a purchaser to a material degree as to its true origin or provenance. These requirements are directly reflected in our own legislation, principally the Food Labelling Regulations 1996, as amended, which were introduced by the previous Conservative Administration.
  In addition to this horizontal legislation, there are specific EU rules on origin labelling for a number of commodities, including most fruit and vegetables. Of course, from next January there will be detailed origin information on beef.
  The food labelling directive severely restricts the scope of all member states for taking action to extend the rules already agreed, which the Bill would clearly do. It is not open to member states to take further action except in so far as it is authorised by the directive or other sector-specific EU legislation.
  There was a quite controversial debate about which provisions of the treaty of Rome were relevant. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda rightly identified, articles 226 and 227 are about enforcement procedures and become relevant where there is a breach of European
  1180
  law. I believe that the Bill would exceed the labelling directive. It would also breach article 10 of the treaty of Rome—the duty to ensure fulfilment of Community requirements—and article 28 on quantitative restrictions on imports. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar might be aware, although he did not refer to it in his speech—I should make it plain that I have only just become aware of this—that in 1985 the UK lost an origin labelling case under article 28. In a moment, I shall say a few words about the so-called Italian pasta case which is directly relevant to the legality of his proposals.
  We know from the jurisprudence from the European Court that labelling as proposed in the Bill is equivalent to a quantitative restriction on trade—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar does not like that, but it is the current legal advice that the Government have. On the French beef point, the Advocate General's opinion is that France is acting in contravention of EU law when banning imports of British beef. I know that it is not to the hon. Gentleman's liking, but the legal framework—
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: As the Minister is rightly placing a lot of reliance on the legal provisions, on behalf of my hon. Friend and myself, I repeat my request that the legal advice should be placed in the Library. Clearly, as so much of the Government's argument turns on that advice, it would be exceptionally helpful for us to have it.
  Mr. Hutton: I am happy to write to both hon. Gentlemen setting out the details of the legal argument that we have received, rather than depositing the legal opinion in the Library, as we do not usually do that. I know that the argument has rattled around today about whether the Bill is within or without the European Union legal requirements. We have clear legal advice, not only to my Department, but to the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that the proposed legislation would take us outwith those requirements.
  The Bill proposes that the present origin labelling requirement be replaced with more extensive labelling rules that would make country of origin labelling compulsory in all cases. Clause 1 would extend that requirement to apply to any ingredient that forms more than 25 per cent. by weight of a food. The country of origin, as well as the country of processing or packing, would be required to be given equal prominence, and food produced to less demanding production standards than those applicable in England would need to be appropriately identified. That, in summary, is the hon. Gentleman's proposal today.
  I believe that the measures introduced by the Bill on origin labelling of all food are in clear conflict with our Community obligations under directive 2000/13/EC and amount to measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on trade in breach of article 28 of the treaty.
  The measures are also in conflict with article 10 of the treaty, which requires every member state to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the treaty obligations and legislation made under the treaty, and to abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of the treaty. By virtue of section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972, the provisions of the EC treaty take precedence over incompatible domestic legislation.

  1181
  For all those reasons, if the Bill were to proceed, it would be unenforceable. It would be subject to successful legal challenge by the European Commission, member states, manufacturers, importers and exporters. It is likely that the UK Government would be liable to pay substantial damages to affected interests. There is an unfortunate precedent for that, and I am afraid that I have to remind Conservative Members of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. The Government found themselves in that situation and the taxpayer had to fund compensation for those basic and fundamental mistakes when the true extent of the treaty requirements was realised.
  Although the Government share the Bill's objectives, we recognise our responsibility to uphold the law as it underpins the European single market. We take that responsibility seriously, as I am sure hon. Members do. Although we agree with the Bill's broad intention to improve labelling, its proposal for unilateral action in England in breach of EU law cannot be countenanced.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Just in case the Minister does not reach his peroration, will he give an idea of how quickly our requirements can be achieved in Europe if the route outlined in the Bill cannot be followed?
  Mr. Hutton: I thought I had reached my peroration. I can place in the Library a copy of the detailed proposals that have been sent to the European Commission outlining how the Government want to improve the origin labelling requirements that we believe are not strong enough. I am not master of the timetable, but we are pursuing the proposals with vigour in the European Commission because we are not satisfied with the extent of consumer protection and how it supports consumer choice. If the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members want to see details of the proposals, I shall make them available to the House. Although I cannot be specific about the outcome in terms of changes to EU legislation, we are up for this challenge and going at it as quickly as possible.
  The advantage of acting at EU level is explicit. EU rules exist for good reasons. European laws avoid inconsistency and therefore consumer confusion. They ensure that consumers are provided with clear consistent information on labels about the foods that they find on shop shelves, wherever those foods come from. They also promote free trade, which benefits producers and manufacturers as well as consumers, and prevent other countries from applying national rules that might block our exports. It would not be a good idea to chuck out those benefits in haste because of a concern about the adequacy of food labelling requirements. We have much to lose if we take the advice of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar.
  It was argued that with revision the Bill might be legal and effective. I do not think that that is so. There is limited scope under the food labelling directive for national action
  1182
  to be taken to require additional labelling particulars that are not required by the directive. However, that is only for specified foods and not for foods generally. The Bill's measures would apply across the board to all foods and so are not allowed. Its thrust would be reduced if the proposed measures were revised to apply only in respect of specified products rather than foods generally.
  Moreover, it is necessary for proposed national measures to be notified and justified to the Commission and other member states in advance, and that simply has not happened. Such notification is required under the terms of the food labelling directive and technical standards directive 98/34/EC. The Commission and other members states then scrutinise national provisions to see whether they impede the free movement of goods in the single market. The process is likely to result at the very least in the inclusion of a mutual recognition clause allowing imports that do not comply.
  Revising the Bill's proposed measures to confine its application to home produce—the only way in which it would sustain or survive a legal challenge—would result in the loss of most of the benefits that the hon. Gentleman seeks to secure for British consumers, as well as unfairly placing a cost burden on our food processing and manufacturing industries alone.
  The European Court of Justice has ruled on national origin labelling provisions in case C32/90, the EC Commission v. Italy—the so-called Italian pasta case. Italian national legislation required manufacturers of extruded pasta products—I am not quite sure what those are—to state on the label the date of manufacture and the place of origin or provenance of the product. The European Court of Justice—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on Friday 15 March.

  Remaining Private Member's Bill

    FOOTBALL SPECTATORS BILL
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
    Mr. Roger Godsiff: Moved.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Not moved, actually.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) was not in his place and must accept my ruling that the Bill was not moved at the operative time.

  Policing (Hampshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Angela Smith.]
  2.30pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I am delighted to have secured this debate on policing in Hampshire. As is my custom in Adjournment debates, I have given the Minister a rough idea of the points that I intend to make. They are not partisan—indeed, the only party political references that I shall make are at the beginning.
  The Government's heart is in the right place on low-level community crime. The 1997 new Labour manifesto said:
  "We will tackle the unacceptable level of anti-social behaviour and crime on our streets. Our 'zero tolerance' approach will ensure that petty criminality among young offenders is seriously addressed."
  In 1998, the then Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), stated:
  "'Zero tolerance' policing is one of the tactics available to the police to tackle criminal activity … We have given our full support to such strategies, whether they operate under the term 'zero tolerance' or not."—[Official Report, 4 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 716W.]
  In 1999, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), declared:
  "We are insisting on … zero tolerance of anti-social behaviour."—[Official Report, 29 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 21.]
  In the 2001 Labour manifesto, however, there was no mention of zero tolerance. Perhaps the Government thought that the deed was done and that the problem had been solved. It was not, and it has not been.
  I refer to two very different stories from the national press. On 26 September this year, the Daily Mail ran an uplifting story entitled "Supercop" and described the
  "PC who slashed sink estate's crime rate by 80 per cent. in a year".
  Police constable Tony Sweeney took over the beat on a rundown estate. Within a year, he had slashed crime on the Lincoln Green estate in Leeds by a staggering 80 per cent., thanks to walking the beat and an old-fashioned approach to law and order. He said:
  "I contacted the local council and the other agencies because people who are prepared to break into cars and rob people are also generally the sort who are prepared to claim benefits when they are doing a bit of work on the side, or not pay their road tax.
  It was a question of looking for every avenue that allowed us to apply pressure to these people—to show them we meant business and that their anti-social behaviour would not be tolerated."
  He added:
  "It was high visibility policing. The idea was to reassure the community, the law-abiding people, that we were taking action.
  Around 30 people were arrested in the first week and nearly 100 vehicles found to have defects.
  It led to a great many prosecutions and many people's benefits being stopped where they were found to be cheating."
  So far, so good. The Government recognised Constable Sweeney's achievement. The article described how that week he was congratulated in person by the Prime Minister at a reception held at Downing street.
  1184
  Let us contrast that story, however, with "Tormented to Death", a story in the Daily Mail today:
  "Night after night, for seven years, the youths gathered on the playing fields behind Ronald Gale's house.
  They drank, shouted and screamed, and threw things about. Several times vandals damaged his fence.
  When the pensioner told them to go away and stop disturbing him and his wife, he was met by a volley of abuse … The final straw came when the fence was burned down for a second time. Three weeks later Mr. Gale hanged himself at home".
  His wife said:
  "Ninety-five per cent of the people living on the Nunsthorpe estate are honest and hard-working but it's just a small element who ruin it for everyone."
  The local inspector from Humberside police, in whose jurisdiction this took place,
  "denied that officers had failed to take anti-social behaviour seriously. He said: 'The problems on this estate are no worse than anywhere else in the country. We deal with problems of youth nuisance as they arise in a positive manner'".
  There is the nub of the problem: those two very different approaches to policing. There are the people who go out, are proactive and take firm steps against youngsters who are causing disruption and distress, and there are the people who wait for things to happen and then react as best they can, instead of deterring the menace in the first place.
  Let me move the debate into the context of my New Forest, East constituency, 80 per cent. of whose population live in the town of Totton or in the villages along the waterside. I have here a note written as an open letter to unknown parents by a waterside pensioner who lives in Hythe. She asks them:
  "Do you know where your child is at night or what he or she is doing. I know and I am going to tell you. A large group of youngsters gather outside 'Fairview Parade Shops'. They use the telephone booths as shelters, yelling and shouting all night long. They take over the pavements, kerbs etc. intimidating local people. As the evening progresses so does the noise as they get more and more high on drink and possibly drugs … your wonderful child or children, apart from all the noise and broken bottles … take a great delight in using my front garden as a toilet, quite openly, and the steps to the flats above the shops are used for free for all sex shows, urinating onto my kitchen window, banging and spitting onto my front windows, just making my life hell … The 'Police' do come when called but they say there is not much they can do."
  This is not a party political matter. The local Liberal Democrat district councillor for Hythe, Maureen McLean, has been quoted in the local press as saying:
  "There's a rather volatile situation at Hythe, where children aged between six and eleven are intimidating a lot of elderly neighbours".
  I have a file full of similar individual complaints, but lest what I say be dismissed as anecdotal, I shall refer to one or two of the letters that I have had from more organised sources. The Marchwood parish council deputy clerk, Mrs. Jane Kitcher, wrote to me as follows:
  "The members of Marchwood Parish Council are very concerned and frustrated regarding the constant vandal damage in Marchwood. Large groups of youths gather late at night at Lloyd Recreation Ground causing a long list of damage to the play area, football pitch, all-weather courts and sports pavilion and being generally abusive to the neighbours. Many phone calls have been made to the police but mostly no-one arrives. Neighbours fear that drug dealing takes place in the car park as a large number of youths gather around a vehicle many times a week."

  1185
  So it is hardly difficult to spot those people or take action, if one is so minded. The letter continues:
  "The Council has expressed its concern"—
  to the police at Hythe—
  "but there are never enough officers to cover this area".
  At the other end of the waterside is Fawley parish. In The Southern Daily Echo of 10 October, Eddie Holtham, an independent parish councillor, listed the events that take place in "A week in the parish of Fawley". Day by day he sets out the gangs, the troubles, and the ineffective response of police when summoned.
  The Totton and Eling Community Association has written to me saying:
  "At our executive meeting held last night the question of policing in Totton was discussed. We have only one community beat policeman (PC Derek Warwick) and he is excellent but with the best will in the world he is not able to be in all places at all times. We hear from our members quite frequently that a visible police presence on the beat is required and would make them feel safer".
  I shall pass over the other individual cases, but I assure the House that I have plenty more in that vein.
  I do not accept that the police cannot do more. There is a tendency towards centralisation. There is a tendency to see loutish behaviour as a relatively low priority, and to be reactive rather than proactive. That means that the trouble occurs before the police are seen, instead of visible policing deterring the troublemakers in the first place. The police cannot be on beat patrol everywhere all the time, but that does not mean that they should not be on beat patrol somewhere some of the time.
  A proactive strategy, involving selective strikes against known troublemakers and gangs, would pay dividends in terms of deterring crime and reassuring my long-suffering constituents.
  I accept that there cannot be much incentive for undermanned police units to take action against low-level community crime if the end result of all the preparatory paperwork that they have to undertake is an ineffective court punishment, laid down by people who have little direct experience of the misery caused to ordinary folk. If that were not enough, the judicial framework has so been twisted in recent years that if a policeman or teacher is accused of using even the most limited physical chastisement on a misbehaving child the result is likely to be suspension, prosecution and professional ruin.
  I know that the chief constable of Hampshire, Paul Kernaghan, is fighting hard to improve recruitment by stressing the inadequacy of the outer London allowance of £1,000 granted after the abolition of the rent allowance. House prices in Hampshire are high. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) has endorsed that view, pointing out that policemen are drawn either to London with full housing allowances or to areas such as the south-west where housing costs are lower than in Hampshire.
  I repeat that this is a cross-party issue. My near neighbour, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), does not dissent from my view that there is serious concern in the community about the adequacy of grass-roots policing. My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) tells me that only two policemen are responsible for 50,000 residents at night in the western half of the town. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) adds that police numbers in
  1186
  the Forest area have declined from 80 to 60 during the past four years and that the task of those remaining is not made easier by what he describes as
  "the Human Rights culture which constrains the ability of the Police to meet the legitimate expectations of the public".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) reports that the chief constable
  "is having great difficulty recruiting officers to the island"—
  and that—
  "burgeoning paperwork wastes the time on duty of those whom he can recruit and retain".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has had some success in addressing the problem in his constituency. Before I conclude and enable the House to have the benefit of his experience, I refer to one further matter of which I gave the Minister notice. It relates to the Netley Marsh steam and craft show, which is held annually and is one of the biggest voluntary events in my constituency. The show's chairman, Brian Shillabeer, and its secretary, Tony Greenham, raise more than £20,000 every year. The money is donated exclusively to local charities, sometimes including the police benevolent fund and the police sports and social fund.
  In 1996 and 1997, it cost only £840 a year to police the event. In 1998, the figure jumped to £1,536. In 2000, a further increase to £1,920 put a stop to the additional donations made to the police funds. This year, a massive £3,574 is being extracted. The rally organisers have been told to expect that ratchet to continue to tighten until the horrendous total of £12,000 a year is eventually required. That would remove between a third and a half of the money that is raised for charity by that event.
  I am unhappy that such events are, frankly, being over-policed, at a price that the organisers cannot afford, when constituents who are genuinely in fear for their safety are not getting the community policing service that they are entitled to expect. I hope that the Minister sympathises with what I have said, and that he can say something positive to reassure my long-suffering constituents.
  2.44 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for allowing me to intervene for a few moments to share with him and the House my own experience of spending time with the police constabulary in Gosport. I have always found the officers there extremely efficient and courteous. It is one of the more enjoyable and interesting aspects of the role of a Member of Parliament to spend time with such splendid men and women.
  I have found that when antisocial behaviour is drawn to the police's attention, they undertake a range of activities. Operating under the acronym SCARE, in the case of Hardway in my constituency they carried out a survey of 400 houses; put in a covert vehicle to film young people engaged in antisocial behaviour; and observed people glue sniffing. They took the issue up with the individuals concerned, their parents and teachers, and were able to win the support of parents and teachers in clamping down on that antisocial behaviour.
  I also have in my constituency the Hampshire constabulary aircraft, which is now a twin islander. My constituents will be pleased to hear that it is rather quieter than its predecessor aircraft. It can be extremely valuable in carrying out heat-seeking surveillance.

  1187
  I should like to pay tribute to the police. In Gosport, policemen Gary Boud and John Snow have set up six-a-side football teams. Two hundred teams take part and they operate a yellow and red card system. They deal with antisocial behaviour not on the football field but elsewhere, so that if a star player has one yellow card his mates will be anxious that he should not get another yellow card, which would mean getting a red card and being disqualified. The police also operate the so-called "Snap" discotheque for 11 to 16-year-olds. It is over-subscribed, with more than 400 people attending it.
  I pay tribute to the police for all that they do, but there is a very thin blue line. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the fact that the housing allowance in the Hampshire area is only £1,000, whereas in Surrey it is £2,000 and in the Metropolitan police area it is £6,000. We are losing policemen to those areas and to areas with cheaper housing, such as Norfolk and the west country.
  It would be so very good if the police could be made eligible for the Jubilee medal to pay respect for the work that they do in defending all of us—much in the same manner as the armed forces, who are eligible for the Jubilee medal.
  2.46 pm
  The Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform (Mr. Keith Bradley): I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on obtaining this debate on policing in Hampshire. It provides a useful opportunity to air some of the issues surrounding policing in Hampshire and discuss Government policies to reduce crime and make Hampshire a safer place in which to live. I also welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).
  Given the limited time available, I may not be able to cover all the points raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, East, but I shall write to him on any points that I cannot cover.
  Let me put the debate into an overall context. Police recorded crime in Hampshire fell by 1.2 per cent. in the 12 months to March 2001, according to the latest statistics published by the Home Office. Recorded crime in the south-east as a whole has fallen by 7.6 per cent. since 1997 and in Hampshire alone, recorded crime has fallen by 12.4 per cent. since 1995.
  The latest British crime survey shows that, in 1999 and 2000, an average of 11.7 per cent. of all vehicle-owning households across England and Wales were victims of vehicle-related theft. The south-east Government office region was well below that figure at 9.4 per cent., making it the second safest region for vehicle-related theft after East Anglia, at 9 per cent., in both 1999 and 2000. In the same survey, the south-east was also below the national average for burglary. In the 12 months to March 2001, Hampshire had the highest detection rate in the south-east.
  The Government are committed to raising police standards and believe that we must bring every police basic command unit up to the standards of the best. That is why the Home Secretary is setting up the new police standards unit, which will work closely with BCUs and local crime and disorder partnerships to identify and
  1188
  promulgate best practice, overcome obstacles to success and drive up performance throughout England and Wales. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is an all-party concern and there is all-party support for raising those standards.
  The Government are also continuing to make the biggest ever investment in crime reduction. The crime reduction director for the south-east tells me that £15.3 million has so far been allocated by the Home Office towards the capital costs of closed circuit television in 95 schemes across the south-east, including Hampshire. Moreover, £6.8 million has been allocated this financial year alone to local crime and disorder reduction partnerships across the south-east to disrupt drugs markets and tackle drug-related crime.
  The hon. Members for New Forest, East and for Gosport both referred to antisocial behaviour. I understand and share their concerns about it and other offending behaviour by young people. I listened with great interest and sympathy to the stories that they related. Every Member can give similar examples of such behaviour disrupting communities and causing misery to the people who live in them. We all want to tackle the problem in the most effective way possible.
  Responsibility for tackling antisocial behaviour on a day-to-day basis is an operational matter for chief officers of police. However, other agencies have a role to play as well. The most effective way to tackle problems is through co-ordinated preventive action at local level involving all the other relevant agencies—including local authorities, schools and local bodies—in addition to the police. Problems have to be identified locally and a plan of action drawn up with local needs in mind.
  The constabulary informs me that officers in the New Forest division have excellent working partnerships, including with the local district council, youth organisations, the Forestry Commission and many other diverse groups. They take a proactive stance in those partnerships.
  Antisocial behaviour is being tackled by Hampshire constabulary. For example, in the constituency of the hon. Member for New Forest, East, seven local youths have been identified as being responsible for causing general nuisance in and around the Netley View estate. All the youths have been visited by the police and are now the subject of acceptable behaviour contracts, which are voluntary agreements that aim to address their behaviour. That is part of the process towards their being made subject to antisocial behaviour order—ASBOs—if there is no improvement in their behaviour.
  We introduced ASBOs under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which was aimed specifically at preventing the persistent harassment and intimidation that can make people's lives a misery in the way that the hon. Gentleman identified. They prohibit individuals from specific antisocial actions and are available for any person over the age of 10 who has acted in an antisocial manner likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or who is likely to do so again. Three have been issued in Hampshire this year, and we are currently considering the operation of ASBOs to ensure that they are being used as effectively as possible.
  I urge the hon. Gentleman to visit officers in the New Forest division of Hampshire constabulary. I understand that they would be only too pleased to welcome him so

  1189
  that he can see the good work that they are doing in conjunction with local partnerships to tackle antisocial behaviour in his constituency.
  I wish to comment briefly on the work that the hon. Member for Gosport said was being carried out in his constituency. There have been some very successful Gosport police operations and I welcome his support and praise for the police in their work to tackle low-level crime in that area. The work is being carried out by Superintendent Baldry, the divisional commander for Gosport, and his team. The hon. Gentleman referred to the SCARE projects—an acronym for survey, collate, action, respond and evaluation—and they have been a particular success in his constituency.
  Gosport is also home to very successful working partnerships, with the police playing a highly proactive role in initiatives such as the "Townwatch" and "Pubwatch" schemes. We must learn the lessons from good practice and ensure that they are disseminated not only throughout Hampshire, but throughout the country. We must recognise the incredibly hard work that the police do to try to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour. We all welcome that.
  The hon. Member for New Forest, East also raised the issue of local police numbers and funding. The Government-supported funding for Hampshire police authority has consistently been above the average in England and Wales in recent years. In 2001–02, funding increased by £11.2 million to £213.9 million. That is a 5.5 per cent. increase in cash terms or 3 per cent. in real terms. The average cash increase in England and Wales was 4.9 per cent. By any standards, it can be recognised that Hampshire had a reasonably good settlement.
  In addition, Hampshire will receive this year around £1.7 million from the crime fighting fund and more than £220,000 from the rural policing fund. Hampshire police authority set a budget for 2001–02 of £216.2 million. This is an increase of £11.5 million, or 5.6 per cent. over previous years.
  Police numbers are also important as part of a comprehensive package of measures to ensure modern and efficient police services. The public rightly feel reassured by the visible presence of police officers on our streets. It helps to reduce the fear of crime. Hampshire had 3,485 police officers at the end of August 2001. That is 50 more than in March 2001 and 33 more than in March 1997.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: The problem is not lack of visible police numbers when it comes to policing the steam rally.
  1190
  The problem is whether the police are visible when people feel intimidated late at night in their local area. Is the visibility in the right places?
  Mr. Bradley: That is an important operational matter for the local police in Hampshire. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make that point directly on his next visit to them. We all know from our own communities that the fear of crime is as important as crime itself. The visibility of police on the streets is only one element, but it helps to overcome the problem.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned again the Netley steam rally, and in the short time that I have left, I should mention that event. The allocation of police resources to particular events is an operational matter for the chief constable to decide. He must determine within the overall policing priorities for the area and the needs of the particular event the level of resources that can be devoted to it. Where special police services are provided, the Police Act 1996 enables the police authority to make a charge for those services. The rationale for this is that the taxpayer should not be expected to pay for police services at private events or events that benefit only a small section of the community.
  However, I accept that Netley Marsh steam rally raises significant funds for charity. It is also a commercial opportunity for other organisations. At the same time, the police have to consider their own set-up costs, including adequate safety and security measures. The cost of policing the rally this year was £3,500. I understand that the local police have been meeting the rally organisers to help put strategies in place to reduce future policing costs for the event. Many useful suggestions have been made, including high-visibility stewarding, that have been favourably received by the organisers. Costs for next year have not yet been agreed and will depend on the outcome of the discussions with the police. I understand that a further meeting has been arranged for 8 November, where I hope that satisfactory arrangements can be agreed. This is clearly an important local event and the cost of policing should not impede its continuing. These are complicated matters, and we have to recognise that local arrangements and local operational needs should be the guiding principle.
  Policing throughout the country is a high priority for the Government. We are putting extra resources in and extra police on the street, but the important thing is that we all work closely together to ensure that in local partnerships between all the relevant agencies we have a common view about how we properly tackle the important issues that the hon. Gentleman raised today.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost to the police of applying for an antisocial behaviour order. [9480]

  Mr. Denham
  Based on a survey of 21 cases conducted in April this year, the average cost of an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO) was calculated to be £4,800. This is the cost to either the police or the local authority and includes the staff costs associated with evidence gathering, preparing the case and attending court. It does not include dealing with appeals and breaches. Fuller details will be included in the review of ASBOs which we are aiming to publish by the end of the year.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what reason no statement was made at Home Office questions on 22 October in respect of the under-reporting of antisocial behaviour orders; and when he plans to make a statement; [11794]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying the under-reporting of antisocial behaviour orders. [11793]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: In response to a written question on 22 October 2001, Official Report, column 71W, I did in fact state that there had been some under-reporting of antisocial behaviour orders, and that we would be undertaking a one-off reconciliation exercise to establish its extent. I intend to announce its results in due course.

  Police
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on plans to change the status of plain-clothed police officers to uniformed officers; and if he will make a statement. [5786]

  Mr. Denham
  We want to enhance the visibility of the police in a common-sense way as part of our programme for police reform. This means that, on some occasions, officers will be in plain clothes and, on others, in uniform. The decision on how this should be applied rests with local management.

  Officers in uniform and in plain clothes are equally important and valued in their different roles: uniformed duties should not be regarded as of lesser status.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have(a) retired and (b) joined since 1997 in (i) east Sussex and (ii) the Senlac division. [9864]
  862W
  Mr. Denham
  The Sussex police are unable to provide information on either recruitment or retirement at divisional level since 1997. East Sussex is an integral part of the Sussex police. Information on recruitment and retirements is therefore for the force area as a whole for the four years to March 2001.

  The table sets out recruitment and retirement figures for the Sussex police. Information on retirement and recruitment for the first six months of 2001–02 will be available in December.

  Year

  Recruitment

  Retirements

  1997–98

  135

  128

  1998–99

  109

  127

  1999–2000

  101

  107

  2000–01

  206

  106

  Islamic Fundamentalists
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the criminal law relating to common purpose with reference to the issues of(a) terrorism and (b) the activities of Islamic fundamentalist extremists; and if he will make a statement. [10084]

  Mr. Denham
  I have no such plans at present. I outlined the legislative steps necessary to counter the threat from terrorism in my statement to the House on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 923. However, the Law Commission is conducting a major review of the whole area of inchoate offences and secondary liability, which will include this area.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will outline the type approval process for speed cameras and publish the operational guidance he has given to the police to avoid motorists being punished for errors caused by camera malfunction. [11217]

  Mr. Denham
  Any manufacturer wishing to seek type approval for a new speed camera device may approach either the Home Office or the Association of Chief Police Officers. The device in question will need to meet an operational need and either represent a technical advance or introduce greater competition into the market.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers' Road Policing Enforcement Technology Committee considers representations from manufacturers seeking type approval. Where the Committee is satisfied that basic requirements are met, field tests are carried out and the Home Office, working with independent laboratories, conducts rigorous technical tests to ensure that the device is robust and reliable and that it can produce accurate readings or images under a variety of extreme conditions. The Home office has published handbooks for manufacturers about the procedures for type approval, outlining the requirements and specifications.

  The Home Office provides a type approval order for any device which fully meets the specifications, and the device is approved for police use from the date of the order.
  863W
  Operational guidance to the police concerning all road enforcement issues, including malfunctioning devices, is provided by the Road Policing Enforcement Technology Committee, and I am placing a copy in the Library. The Committee is reviewing the current guidance and will publish new Codes of Practice for forces towards the end of this year. Advice to police forces is that they should abandon any prosecution where there is doubt about the reliability of the device involved in providing the evidence.

  CCTV (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the impact of CCTV on the level of crime in Northampton. [11279]

  Mr. Denham
  Police operational experience and various research studies show that Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) has considerable crime reduction and detection potential, particularly when used as part of a wider strategy.

  The Home Office has made no formal evaluation of the effectiveness of CCTV in Northampton. However, the Northampton Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership consider that CCTV has contributed to the 5.9 per cent. overall fall in recorded crime in Northampton last year.

  Northampton's existing CCTV system was recently expanded, with £155,000 funding from the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV Initiative, to include Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology. According to figures provided by the Partnership, since the introduction of ANPR, vehicle-related crime in Northampton has decreased by 21.6 per cent. against the same period last year. The scheme has led to 346 arrests as well as the recovery of 31 stolen vehicles and property worth £150,000.

  In the first six months of the introduction of CCTV at Sixfields Leisure Park car park, Northampton, last year, there was a 40 per cent. reduction in theft of cars and a 50 per cent. reduction in theft from cars.

  Further funding of £148,000 to expand the Northampton CCTV system to cover three residential areas has recently been approved under Round 2 of the CCTV Initiative, to target burglary, vehicle crime, antisocial behaviour, drugs offences and youth crime.

  Car Phones
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been issued to police who stop people who are using a hand-held mobile phone when driving. [11787]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: There is no specific offence of using a hand-held mobile phone while driving, and accordingly no guidance has been issued. Existing legislation places the responsibility on drivers to have proper control of their vehicles at all times. Any motorist who fails to do so, for whatever reason, is liable to be prosecuted by the police. Drivers may be charged with failing to exercise proper control of a vehicle, careless and inconsiderate driving, or even dangerous driving, if using a mobile phone causes them to drive in such a manner.
  864W
  In line with the commitment given in the Road Safety Strategy we are keeping under review the case for specific legislation. At present, however, we share the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers what existing legislation provides sufficient powers to prosecute successfully any driving offences that may arise from the use of mobile phones. Our focus is therefore on raising awareness of road safety risks.

  Crime Targets
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the goal to increase by 100,000 the number of recorded crimes for which an offender is brought to justice has not been met; if he has plans to revise this target; and if he will make a statement. [11796]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: As the White Paper "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead" made clear, the criminal justice system-wide target to increase by 100,000 the number of recorded crimes ending in an offender being brought to justice has been set to be met by 2004.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make changes to the definition of "brought to justice" for the purposes of departmental targets; and what factors will be taken into account in his decision. [11795]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: I have no plans at present to change the definition of "brought to justice" used in the attrition target.

  Foreign Armed Forces (UK Citizens)
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what statutory powers govern the rights of UK citizens to serve with foreign armed forces; [11972]

  (2) what statutory powers he has to take action against British citizens serving with foreign armed forces. [11980]

  Mr. Denham
  There are a number of offences for which a person serving with a foreign armed force could be prosecuted. Whether an offence has been committed and a prosecution is justified in an individual case, and, if so, what the appropriate charge is, are matters for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide after a full police investigation.

  There are a number of protections under international instruments for those serving with armed forces, whether foreign or United Kingdom.

  Police Reform
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the level of support within ACPO for his police reform programme, with particular reference to proposals relating to the responsibility for charging suspects. [12002]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have regular discussions with members of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) on a variety of policing issues. It is evident from those meetings that there is broad support within the Association for the police reform programme.
  865W
  The proposal that responsibility for charging suspects should be transferred from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was made by Sir Robin Auld in his Review of Criminal Courts, the report of which is now out to consultation. The views of the ACPO on this and other recommendations in the report are awaited.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Commissioner for Standards
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission (1) when the Commission(a) decided and (b) announced that a Commissioner for Standards would not necessarily be invited to accept a first re-appointment without open competition; [11111]

  (2) when the conclusions of the studies of staff overloading in the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner were sent to the (a) Commission and (b) the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. [11109]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  On(a) I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 2 May 2001, Official Report, columns 640–41W. On (b) staffing issues are a matter for the House of Commons Commission: no official report on the staffing of the Commissioner's office has been made to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if the Commissioner will seek the views of the Commissioner for Public Appointments on the timing and substance of their decisions on open competition for the post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. [11112]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is not within the remit of the Commission for Public Appointments. However, the House of Commons Commission is applying the general principles set out by the Commission for Public Appointments, so far as they are applicable to the circumstances of this appointment.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, when the advertisement for the post of Commissioner for Standards will be published; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [11177]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The House of Commons Commission has agreed that an advertisement should appear in the national press on Sunday 4 November. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, when the Commission(a) decided and (b) told the Commissioner for Standards that she would be invited to re-apply for her post. [11110]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The matter was considered by the Commission on 15 October. The Commissioner was told of its decision the next day.
  866W
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, when, and by what means, the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was consulted about possible re-appointment; and what advice he was given about the nature of the competition. [11495]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The first Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Gordon Downey, indicated before the expiration of his term that he intended to retire. The matter did not therefore arise.

  House of Commons Commission
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make available to hon. Members the(a) agendas and (b) minutes of proceedings of the Commission. [11105]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission meetings are deliberative and its papers are not published. The Commission publishes considerable details about management and services in its annual report, the last of which was published on 18 July 2001. The Commission is at present considering what information it could usefully place on the parliamentary intranet.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Religious Broadcasting (Digital Licences)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his policy is on the renewal of Premier Christian Radio's analogue licence and its replacement by a digital licence. [1575]

  Dr. Howells
  Premier Christian Radio has now withdrawn its judicial review proceedings challenging the Radio Authority's decision that it is disqualified from holding a digital multiplex licence and/or a digital sound programme licence.

  The Radio Authority advertised Premier's local analogue licence on 18 September with a closing date for applications on 8 January. All MPs with constituencies in Greater London (111 of them) have been written to inviting their comments. The date of the award will depend on whether or not the Authority receives any competition for the licence, but will probably be in March or April.

  Under the current legislation, the Radio Authority is prevented from awarding religious bodies a local digital sound programme licence. The Government are committed to bringing forward legislation in the forthcoming Communications Bill which would remove this prohibition. The position in relation to local multiplex licences is still under consideration.

  Departmental Spending (Deprived Areas)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much of the expenditure by her Department in each of the years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000, (e) 2000–01, (f) 2001–02 and (g) 2002–03 (estimated) was allocated with reference to the Index of Multiple Deprivation; which expenditure

  867W
  programmes are allocated with respect to this Index and other measures of relative geographic deprivation; and if she will make a statement. [8937]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 October 2001]: There are two major schemes for which my Department has made expenditure allocations during the period with reference to the Index of Multiple Deprivation.

  The Department allocated £75 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund for Space for Sport and Arts. Expenditure will start this year and extend into 2003–04. This scheme, sponsored with the Department for Education and Skills, seeks to provide in the areas of greatest need around 300 new sports and arts facilities in primary schools for use by both pupils and the wider community. This funding is being supplemented by Lottery funding of £25 million from Sport England, £25 million from the New Opportunities Fund and £5 million from the Arts Council of England. The Department invited 65 local education authorities to participate in the scheme. These were selected using a number of indices of educational, socio-economic, sporting and cultural deprivation—including the DTLR's indices of deprivation 2000; meeting the criteria for other programmes such as Education Action Zones, Excellence in Cities, Sports Action Zones and Health Action Zones; nomination by Regional Arts Boards; and being within the Arts Council of England's priority regions.

  The Department has also allocated £40 million (£15 million in 2002–03 and £25 million in 2003–04) to the Arts Council of England for the establishment of 16 pilot Creative Partnerships in deprived areas to provide exciting and challenging opportunities for young people to experience, learn from and enjoy artistic and creative activities. The partnerships, which will be run by the Arts Council, will focus on bringing together schools, arts and other creative organisations and commercial creative industries to provide enhanced opportunities for every school child in the chosen areas of deprivation. DTLR's Index of Multiple Deprivation, was used in determining these areas. Other measures of economic and educational deprivation and an assessment of cultural deprivation were also taken into account. The Department also considered the capacity of the areas selected to deliver Creative Partnerships, the need for balanced geographical spread and the inclusion of rural and coastal areas as well as urban ones.

  In addition, many programmes and initiatives run by Lottery distributors are targeted at deprived areas, using the Index of Multiple Deprivation and a variety of other indicators.

  Energy Efficiency Week
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action her Department took in recognition of Energy Efficiency Week. [11510]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport did not take any specific actions for Energy Efficiency Week but continued with longer-term projects to meet, and exceed, the Government targets in respect of energy saving. Through the Royal Parks Agency projects to produce electricity through wind power, water power and solar energy are being planned at Bushey Park. Those projects, together with a combined heat and power project 868W
  using managed forestry and the produce from normal land management as fuel, will heat a swimming pool, supply electricity to some parts of the park and, possibly, export some power to the national grid.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many publications were issued by her Department in each of the last four years. [11839]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of publications issued by my Department in each of the last four years was:

  Year

  Number

  1997–98

  12

  1998–99

  18

  1999–2000

  31

  2000–01

  26

  To date, nine publications have been produced in the 2001–02 financial year.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with Fakhdar Brahimi, Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Afghanistan, regarding the involvement of women in the talks involving interested parties to a post-Taliban Government for Afghanistan. [11301]

  Clare Short
  I met Ambassador Brahimi on 9 October and reiterated our support for his efforts to develop a broad-based and representative Afghan Government. Ambassador Brahimi has demonstrated a commitment to addressing the human rights dimension of the governance of Afghanistan. The involvement of women in those discussions and the use of expertise on gender issues will help to ensure that the rights of the entire population of Afghanistan are protected and promoted, particularly recognising the complexity of gender issues in Afghanistan. We will continue to provide whatever assistance we can to Ambassador Brahimi and support the crucial role he plays in Afghanistan's future.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans the Government have to reduce third world debt; and what information she has collated on those of other European Union member states. [11776]

  Clare Short
  The Government have been at the forefront of global initiatives to tackle the unsustainable debt burden facing some developing countries, and led the way in securing the revision of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, which was agreed at the annual meetings of the World Bank and the IMF in September 1999. So far, 23 countries have qualified for this exceptional relief. More than $23 billion of debt relief has been agreed for those countries, which together owe $74 billion, so a major part of their debt has been written off.
  869W
  In December 2000, the Government announced that the UK would go further than is required under the HIPC initiative and would provide 100 per cent. bilateral debt relief to countries when they qualify for HIPC relief. We will hold all debt payments received from HIPC countries in trust and, at that point, will return these payments to them. In addition, the UK has pledged over $300 million to the HIPC trust fund to meet the costs to the multilateral development banks of delivering HIPC debt relief. This includes our share of $85 million in EC contribution. We have also provided $43 million to assist the IMF with their share of such costs.

  Most of our partner states in the European Union have also made bilateral contributions to the trust fund, on top of their share of the EC contribution. In addition, those member states that are major creditors deliver bilateral debt relief through the Paris Club of Official Bilateral Creditors to countries that have qualified for HIPC relief, with the majority providing 100 per cent. debt relief on their remaining bilateral debts.

  Summer Recess (Departmental Publications)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) press notices and (b) consultation documents were issued by her Department during the summer recess. [9229]

  Clare Short
  My Department issued five press notices and no consultation documents during the summer recess.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Security Normalisation
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the direct costs are of the security normalisation measures he announced on 24 October. [11071]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  The normalisation measures announced on 24 October 2001 were the closure of two observation towers on Camlough and Sturgan mountains, the sangar at Newtownhamilton, and an Army base at Magherafelt.

  Initial demolition work at all four sites has commenced with Royal Engineer manpower and helicopter support using assets already available in Province. Additional costs of some £10,000 have been incurred to date covering the hire of additional equipment such as cranes and skips.

  Further work will be required at each of the sites, and in many cases this will be done by civilian contractors. The scope and cost of these contracts is still being assessed.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Drainage Systems
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the policy of the Duchy of Lancaster is towards drainage works on tenanted agricultural land 870W
  where those works are the responsibility of the landlord; and if he will make a statement. [11727]

  Mr. Leslie
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply.

  Responsibility for the drainage of tenanted agricultural land is laid down in farm tenancy agreements. The Duchy's policy is to abide by its contractual obligations under such agreements.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the budget of the Duchy of Lancaster is in respect of the maintenance, repair and replacement of drainage systems on Duchy agricultural land. [11728]

  Mr. Leslie
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply.

  The budget of the Duchy of Lancaster for the maintenance and repair of agricultural property for the year to March 2002 is £173,100 which is not allocated to specific types of repair.

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met the Chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force. [11830]

  Mr. Leslie
  My right hon. Friend Lord Macdonald is the Minister responsible for regulatory reform. He last met Lord Haskins, Chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force, on 23 October.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to(a) reduce and (b) limit the number of regulations affecting industry. [11828]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government are committed to minimising the burden of regulation on business.

  A Regulatory Impact Assessment is required for each new proposal for regulation affecting business to ensure it is necessary and that the benefits justify the costs. The Panel for Regulatory Accountability, now given Cabinet Committee status, meets regularly to discuss regulatory performance with departmental Ministers.

  The Regulatory Reform Act 2001 now provides a useful tool for reforming over-burdensome, over-complex and outdated primary legislation.

  A draft Regulatory Reform Order (relaxing licensing in pubs and clubs for the forthcoming new year's eve) has already been laid before Parliament for scrutiny, and consultation exercises on a further eight proposals have now finished. There is one consultation exercise on reform of credit unions currently under way.

  Cabinet Office Refurbishment
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the improvements being carried out to accommodate him at the Cabinet Office indicating the cost of each item of improvement; and when he expects the improvements to be completed. [12000]
  871W
  Mr. Leslie
  The office of the Deputy Prime Minister will move to the Ripley building when renovations are completed next summer. A very small number of modifications to the original plan will be made to accommodate ministerial offices (for example blocking off and opening up doorways).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  UK Gas Market
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent action the Government have taken to address concerns about the UK gas market; and if she will make a statement. [12658]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government are very aware of concerns about the operation of the GB gas market in the light of rising gas prices. While we remain convinced that the primary reason behind the increase is arbitrage across the interconnector with high oil related gas prices in the European market, we are aware of the need to consider the impact of the operation of the other parts of the gas chain on the downstream market. Indeed, this forms an integral part of our strategy to address gas prices.

  The Government have therefore today published a consultation document entitled "A Consultation On Concerns About Gas Prices And Possible Improvements To Market Efficiency", which considers the various concerns made about the gas market. The document also considers the wider benefits to the gas market of increased information flows between the onshore and the offshore. This builds on a joint workshop with the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association held on 10 September.

  The intention behind the document is to stimulate debate and to see if the concerns stand up to scrutiny. If we find any evidence of actual anti-competitive behaviour we shall bring it to the attention of the appropriate competition authority.

  Copies of the consultation document can be found on the Department of Trade and Industry's website at www.dti.gov.uk/energy

  Mineshafts
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Minister of State intends to meet with parliamentary colleagues to discuss the Government's response to the Herriot-Watt report on mineshafts. [9348]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: I am pleased to confirm that a meeting with parliamentary colleagues to discuss the Herriot-Watt University report on mineshafts has been arranged for 15 November.

  Microsoft
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to review the implications of(a) US and (b) EU competition policy rulings for Microsoft's operations in the UK, with particular reference to Microsoft's contracts with the Government and their agencies. [10453]
  872W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The implications of the US and EC competition inquiries for Government contracts with Microsoft are being carefully considered.

  Car Prices
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the cost of purchasing vehicles in(a) the UK and (b) the rest of Europe; what recent measures have been introduced to reduce the cost of cars in the UK; and what plans she has to take further measures. [10114]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: Both the Competition Commission, in its April 2000 monopoly report, and the European Commission, in its six-monthly surveys of prices, report prices in the UK to be significantly higher than in comparable countries in Europe.

  The Competition Commission blamed the high prices of cars in the UK on practices associated with the selective and exclusive distribution system used by manufacturers, and allowed under the EC block exemption on vehicle distribution.

  The Government's view is that competition is the best safeguard of consumer interests and that the current block exemption is not satisfactory.

  The block exemption is due to expire in September 2002 and the European Commission is expected to publish draft proposals for reform around the turn of the year.

  Sunset Clauses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is in respect of the use of sunset clauses in legislation. [11876]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's policy is always to consider whether sunset clauses ought to be included in legislation we bring forward.

  Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the estimated cost to British businesses is of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive; [11858]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the effects of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive. [11860]

  Mr. Wilson
  The directive is currently in draft form and a full assessment of the costs and effects will not be possible until it is published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  The Department of Trade and Industry submitted a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment on a previous draft of the proposal to the House on 2 October 2000. A copy of this was placed in the Library of the House.

  Ineos Chlor Chemicals
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received regarding the future of the Ineos Chlor Chemicals plant in Runcorn; and if she will make a statement. [11762]
  873W
  Ms Hewitt
  The Department is in discussion with Ineos Chlor about its plans for the future of the Runcorn plant and with other interested parties. I met representatives of Ineos Chlor on 30 October.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is towards granting Government assistance to the Ineos Chlor Chemicals group; and if she will make a statement. [11763]

  Ms Hewitt
  The primary mechanism for giving direct financial assistance to companies in the Assisted Areas is Regional Selective Assistance (RSA). Companies have to meet the criteria applicable to the scheme before an offer can be made.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information she has collated on the proportion of electricity supply met by(a) nuclear power, (b) coal-fired generation, (c) gas-fired generation, (d) oil-fired generation and (e) renewables for (i) each member country of the EU, (ii) the USA, (iii) Canada, (iv) Australia, (v) Russia, (vi) India and (vii) China. [11764]

  Ms Hewitt
  Available information gives the proportion of gross electricity production in each country met from each fuel source. Some of the electricity produced may be exported while some countries may import electricity. The data are the latest available and relate to 1999.

  Proportion of each country's gross electricity production met from each energy source

  Percentage

  Nuclear

  Coal1

  Gas2

  Oil

  Renewables3

  EU member stares

  Austria

  —

  9

  14

  5

  72

  Belgium

  58

  15

  23

  1

  3

  Denmark

  —

  52

  23

  13

  12

  Finland

  33

  21

  14

  1

  31

  France

  75

  6

  2

  2

  15

  Germany

  31

  51

  10

  1

  7

  Greece

  —

  65

  8

  17

  10

  Ireland

  —

  34

  32

  28

  6

  Italy

  —

  11

  33

  34

  22

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  20

  —

  80

  Netherlands

  4

  25

  57

  8

  6

  Portugal

  —

  35

  19

  25

  21

  Spain

  28

  36

  9

  12

  15

  Sweden

  47

  2

  —

  2

  49

  UK

  26

  29

  39

  1

  5

  USA

  20

  51

  16

  3

  10

  Canada

  13

  19

  4

  3

  61

  Australia

  —

  78

  11

  1

  10

  Russia

  14

  19

  43

  5

  19

  India

  2

  75

  6

  1

  16

  China

  1

  77

  1

  4

  17

  1 Includes hard coal, sub bituminous coal, lignite and peat.

  2 Includes natural gas and manufactured gases.

  3 Includes geothermal, solar, wind, tide, wave, ocean, hydro and combustible renewables.

  Sources

  EU, USA, Canada and Australia—"Electricity Information, 2001" published by the International Energy Agency (IEA). The information for Russia, India, China is taken from the IEA's database.

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met the chairman of the better regulation task force. [11829]

  Ms Hewitt
  I met Lord Haskins on 5 September.

  Parliamentary Questions
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the holding answer of 22 October, ref: 2001/664, when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a substantive reply to his question. [12096]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have answered my hon. Friend's question today, PQ No. 9348.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what checks are carried out by the Health and Safety Executive prior to the(a) registration and (b) licensing of premises for the storage of fireworks. [11506]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.

  HSE licenses all explosives factories and stores holding more than 7,200 kg of fireworks. Stores holding less than 7,200 kg must either be licensed by the local authority or, depending on the quantity held, registered with it.

  Where HSE is the licensing authority it considers a range of issues including the nature of the processes, the layout of the site and the construction of the buildings. In particular it will wish to ensure that adequate separation distances are maintained between explosives buildings and other buildings both on and off site. The draft licence is then submitted to the local authority for its assent. HSE will also make an inspection visit before operations start to ensure that the factory or store complies with the licence conditions.

  Where the local authority is granting a licence it will normally check on the construction of the store and whether the distance between it and neighbouring inhabited buildings meets the minimum requirements. Registered premises are also subject to legal requirements. However due to the relatively small quantities involved local authorities would not normally undertake checks prior to registration.

DEFENCE

  Defence Procurement Agency
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to merge the Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation; and if he will make a statement. [9394]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have no plans to merge the Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) and the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO). Both organisations are recently formed and have clear and distinct responsibilities, as set out in the Strategic Defence Review. The role of the DPA is to procure new equipment capability for the armed forces and to deliver this in accordance with agreed
  875W
  parameters for time, cost and performance. The DLO has been established to provide joint logistic support to the armed forces for training and operations, only one element of which is equipment support.

  Although I am not considering a merger of the two organisations, the Ministry of Defence continues to explore improvements to the way the DPA and DLO work together on the equipment programme. We are also introducing simpler, common processes and systems to improve interoperability. This is being pursued through a joint steering group set up to manage work under a number of approaches, key among which are finance management, human resources management, through-life management, e-business, key supplier management and common tools for integrated project teams.

  Missile Defence
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions the Government have undertaken with NATO member states about the integration of NATO missile defence research with US plans to deploy a missile defence system. [10967]

  Mr. Hoon
  No such discussions have taken place. The NATO feasibility studies for theatre missile defence, which started in July 2001 and will take 18 months to complete, are looking at options for protecting NATO forces. They are different from plans for a limited missile defence for the United States.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Government are intending to participate in the US's expressed plan to develop a missile defence to protect the US and its allies. [10965]

  Mr. Hoon
  The President of the United States has made clear that he wants the US's friends and allies to be protected against the potential ballistic missile threat. But no specific proposals have been made. We have a long-standing dialogue with the US on missile defence, and are ready to discuss any specific proposals they might make.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Government's policy is on the development of a ballistic missile defence shield. [11076]

  Mr. Hoon
  It remains premature to decide on acquiring a ballistic missile defence capability for the UK or our deployed forces. This is based on our current assessment of the threat, the rapidity with which defensive technologies are changing, and the need to address the threat through a range of measures. Our options for the future remain open.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what joint US-UK research projects are under development in support of the US missile defence plans; and if he will place an unclassified list of the projects in the Library. [10968]

  Mr. Hoon
  Joint US/UK research projects in support of missile defence are undertaken under the auspices of the 1985 UK-US Strategic Defence Initiative Memorandum of Understanding. A list of the projects concerned was given in the answer I gave on 26 March 2001,Official Report, column 526W, to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). No further agreements have been signed.
  876W
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether(a) US and (b) UK policy on missile defence has changed since 11 September. [11778]

  Mr. Hoon
  UK policy on missile defence is unchanged. The United States Administration has made it clear that it remains committed to the deployment of a limited missile defence system for the United States, but they have not yet decided exactly what sort of system they will seek to deploy.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many enemy lock-ons have been detected by British aircraft over Afghan airspace. [11015]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: None.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stocks of cluster bombs are held by UK armed forces in the Afghan theatre of conflict. [11434]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: There are currently a number of BL/RB 755 type cluster munitions on board RFA Fort Victoria, which is in the Afghan theatre of conflict. These weapons are for use by the GR7 Harrier aircraft, which is not deployed with the task force. There are, therefore, currently no plans for their use.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost is of Exercise Saif Sareea II; how much the Government have spent in total in its operations against Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden; and if he will make a statement. [11965]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our most recent estimate of the cost of Exercise Saif Sareea II is around £90 million. We are confident that when all bills are finally presented, the actual cost will be within that estimate. With respect to Operations in Afghanistan, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 114W.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy not(a) to authorise and (b) to condone the use of cluster bombs in Afghanistan. [12296]

  Mr. Hoon
  Cluster bombs are legitimate weapons that have not been prohibited by any Treaty or Convention. Those used in Afghanistan contain bomblets designed to detonate on impact and to destroy buildings and vehicles. They are not designed as anti-personnel weapons and do not contain any landmines. They are the most effective weapon against certain targets. The coalition will continue to use them, with discretion and proportionality, against legitimate and appropriate terrorist and military targets.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used to settle targets for bombing in Afghanistan; what definition of fixed military target is used; how many fixed military targets have been(a) identified and (b) attacked; how many such targets have been attacked more than once; and what assessment he has made of unintended damage to (i) property and (ii) people resulting from such attacks. [12245]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is not UK policy to comment in detail on targeting issues. Attacks are limited strictly to military objectives, including those objects which by their nature,
  877W
  location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralisation, in the circumstance ruling at the time, offer a definite military advantage. Every effort is made to avoid incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects when selecting targets for attack.

  As of 31 October, the total number of targets attacked is somewhat in excess of 100, of which around one half have been attacked more than once.

  Following an attack on a target, Battle Damage Assessment is conducted to establish the success of that attack. Although we investigate all claims carefully, it is impossible to make a precise assessment of exactly how many civilians may have been killed or injured as a result of coalition action. Painstaking efforts are taken to minimise any unintended injury or damage but, regrettably, on occasion mistakes will happen and where we know this has happened, the coalition has said so publicly. However, we are clear that Taliban reports of civilian casualties are grossly exaggerated.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what safeguards will be put in place to protect(a) UK and other military personnel and (b) civilians from hazardous residues from depleted uranium in the current conflict in Afghanistan. [12184]

  Mr. Hoon
  Depleted uranium-based ammunition has not been used in current operations in Afghanistan. We are not aware of any plans for it to be used in future.

  In the event that depleted uranium ammunition were to be used in Afghanistan and that UK service personnel might come into contact with it, appropriate guidelines would be issued to ensure that the already low risks to health were minimised.

  A great deal of information on depleted uranium has already been put into the public domain. Should the need arise, we would discuss with coalition partners and civil agencies what information needs to be made available to the Afghan civilian population. Regrettably, the activities of the Taliban authorities in restricting the flow of information into Afghanistan could make this unnecessarily difficult for UN and other agencies to achieve.

  US Domestic Preparedness Programme
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 October 2001,Official Report, column 242W, on the US Domestic Preparedness Programme, what aspects of US homeland security he plans to implement in the United Kingdom. [10964]

  Mr. Hoon
  Following the events of 11 September, the Government embarked on a wide ranging review of all their established contingency plans to counter terrorism and manage the circumstances in the UK and the threat to UK security. While elements of the US response to terrorism could be relevant to the UK, our domestic security posture reflects the geography of the UK and the threat of terrorism here which are different from those of the US.

  We are conducting work, as I informed the House on 4 October, to ensure that we have the right concepts, force structures and capabilities in place to deal with
  878W
  asymmetric threats. This work will look both at the defence of the UK and our ability to counter and deter terrorism abroad. It is too early to say what measures we will implement as a result of this work, though consultation with the US and other Allies will make an important contribution.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the overall expenditure by his Department in consultancy fees was in the financial years(a) 2000–01, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1997–98 and (e) 1996–97. [12166]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence's annual returns of expenditure on External Assistance, which include the payment of fees to consultants, for the years 1996–97 to 1999–2000, are available in the Library of the House.

  The expenditure return for 2000–01 is not yet available, but, in accordance with past practice, copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Tracer Programme
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on the Tracer programme to date; and what further expenditure is planned to the end of the programme. [11619]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: UK expenditure on the Tracer programme to 30 September 2001 is £108 million. A further £23 million has been committed for the planned completion of the current assessment phase in July 2002 when the collaborative programme will end.

  HMNB Clyde
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made on the contractorisation of his Department's civilians at HMNB Clyde; and what the time scale is for the change. [12174]

  Dr. Moonie
  Proposals have now been received from the Dockyard companies for partnering arrangements with the three Naval Bases at Portsmouth, Devonport and Clyde with the aim of modernising warship support. Alternative proposals have also been received from the joint Ministry of Defence Trades Unions and these are being assessed alongside the Company proposals. On current plans we would expect to announce the decision on the way ahead in the new year, with transition to any new arrangements anticipated to complete next summer.

  Challenger II
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the manufacture of ammunition for the Challenger II main battle tank. [11048]

  Dr. Moonie
  The final batch of the armour piercing round (CHARM 3) has recently been manufactured and this completes current plans for the procurement of Challenger II ammunition other than the Squash Head Practise training round.

  Disinfectants and Repellents
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if disinfectants and repellents for use by HM forces in hot climates are hazardous to health; and to what extent the instructions for their use are clear to users. [12183]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence uses a wide range of disinfectants and repellents, many of which are subject to the requirements of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH). These regulations require that an assessment of the risks to health and of the actions that need to be taken when using such a substance are carried out before it is used. Among other things, the assessment must consider the circumstances of use—for example whether it will be used in a hot or cold environment, in windy conditions, or in a confined space—and the information, instruction and training that must be provided for the eventual user, MOD and HM forces have management systems in place to ensure that such COSHH assessments are undertaken, that their conclusions are implemented and that, among other things, clear information, instruction and training is provided for and to the user.

  HMS Ocean
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Ocean came into service; how long her refit is scheduled to take; and when she will return to service. [12067]

  Dr. Moonie
  HMS Ocean was handed over to the Royal Navy in March 1999 and her first refit is not planned to take place until 2008. However, in order to enable her to continue to operate until then, she will require a routine docking period. It had been planned to begin this work in January 2002 at Portsmouth, but due to current operational circumstances it has been decided to postpone the docking period. Instead, some essential maintenance work will be undertaken at her base port, Devonport, when she returns from the Gulf in late November. This will enable Ocean to be made available for operational programming early in 2002 rather than in late spring, which would have been the case had her docking period proceeded as planned.

  Golden Jubilee
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans Her Majesty's Government have made for the armed forces to commemorate the Golden Jubilee of Her Majesty's reign; and if it is proposed to issue medals. [12299]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23 November 2000,Official Report, column 294W, to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), which detailed the plans for the Queen's Golden Jubilee. The then Home Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) announced on 15 February 2001 that there would be a Golden Jubilee Medal.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is to be the cost of issuing the Queen's Jubilee Medal to members of the armed forces with five years service; what the cost of issuing the medal to all members of the armed forces would have been; and if he will make a statement. [12161]
  880W
  Dr. Moonie
  The estimated cost of awarding the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal to all those members of the armed forces, volunteer reserve forces and the royal fleet auxiliary who will have completed five years' qualifying service on 6 February 2002, is £3.8 million. The funding that would be required to include all those who are serving on that date would be an additional £1.8 million.

  The potential cost of the medal was not a deciding factor in determining the qualifying criteria. The requirement for a minimum of five years' qualifying service gives due recognition to those who have committed themselves to and completed a significant period of service to the Crown.

  Scottish Regiments
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans exist to house Scottish regiments in Scotland; [12176]

  (2) where the Scottish regiments are stationed; and where their postings will be in the future. [12178]

  Dr. Moonie
  Scottish regiments are routinely based in Scotland. Currently, The Highlanders (Seaforth, Gordons and Camerons) are stationed at Redford Barracks, Edinburgh and The Royal Highland Fusiliers (Princess Margaret's Own Glasgow and Ayrshire Regiment) at Fort George, Inverness. Such deployments will continue in future, as part of the Army's Arms Plot.

  The current location of the other Scottish regiments of the Foot Guards, Scottish Division and Royal Armoured Corps are as follows: Wellington Barracks, London (Scots Guards); Somme Barracks, Catterick (The King's Own Scottish Borders); Ballykelly, Northern Ireland (The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment)); Belfast, Northern Ireland (The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's)); and Fallingbostel, Germany (The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) and The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys)).

  During the next 12 months, it is planned that The Royal Scots will be posted to Dreghorn Barracks, Edinburgh.

  Defence Contracts
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what defence contracts are placed in Scotland; what is their total value; with what firms they have been placed; what is the value to each firm; and what is the timescale over which each contract will be paid to the contractors. [12175]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information at the level of detail requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In addition, details of individual contracts and their values are withheld under Exemption 14 (Information given in confidence) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. However, in respect of contracts placed in Scotland. I draw the hon. Member's attention to the publication, "UK Defence Statistics 2001", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Table 1.9 contains information on defence expenditure on equipment in UK regions, including Scotland.

  Defence Agencies
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the defence agencies, the location of each of their headquarters, the staff totals of each, the numbers of each of their staffs in Scotland, their annual expenditure, and their annual expenditure in Scotland, in the last available year. [12179]

  Dr. Moonie
  Information about Defence Agencies, including the location of their headquarters, the number of staff employed and their annual expenditure, have been given in Annexe K of the Ministry of Defence Departmental Performance Report 1999–2000, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. I will write to the hon. Member about the other aspects of his question and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the defence agencies that have trading status. [12177]

  Dr. Moonie
  Currently, four defence agencies operate as Trading Funds. They are: the Meteorological Office, the UK Hydrographic Office, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, and the Defence Aviation Repair Agency.

  Vaccinations
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the vaccinations available to service personnel as protection against chemical and biological warfare have been(a) tested and (b) improved since the Gulf war; and if they are free from hazardous side effects. [12182]

  Dr. Moonie
  The only immunisation used to protect UK service personnel against the possible use of biological warfare agents during the Gulf conflict, which is still in use, is an anthrax vaccine. No significant alterations to this vaccine as used by the Ministry of Defence have been made since the Gulf conflict. No serious side effects have been reported. No immunisations were or are used to protect against chemical warfare agents.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if UK military personnel involved in the conflict in Afghanistan will be obliged to be vaccinated against exposure to chemical and biological warfare. [12181]

  Mr. Hoon
  We take all measures necessary to ensure that service personnel are afforded appropriate protection against chemical and biological warfare agents commensurate with the perceived threat. The only licensed vaccine currently used to protect UK service personnel against exposure to biological warfare agents is an anthrax vaccine. The vaccine is offered to specific units of our armed forces on the basis of an assessment of the threat they face, which in turn depends on their deployment role. We continually review whether it is appropriate to offer anthrax vaccine to personnel who may be involved in new deployments, as part of their wider package of protective measures against chemical or biological attack. Vaccination of UK service personnel is not obligatory but voluntary, and is given on the basis of informed consent.

  It is not possible to vaccinate against chemical warfare agents.

TREASURY

  Taxation
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of married or cohabiting couples with children where neither partner is a higher rate taxpayer whose combined taxable income exceeds the higher rate threshold by(a) less than £7,800 and (b) more than £7,800. [4075]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 July 2001]: The number of married or cohabiting couples with children where neither partner is a higher rate taxpayer whose combined taxable income exceeds the higher rate threshold by (a) less than £7,800 is estimated to be 500,000 and (b) more than £7,800 is estimated to be 900,000.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to improve the reliability of the conventions, assumptions and sampling methods used to calculate the(a) direct and (b) indirect tax burden on typical households; and if he will make a statement. [4634]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The conventions and assumptions used to calculate(a) the direct tax burden are reliable and are set out in the Tax and Benefit Reference Manual. On (b), as the Tax and Benefit Reference Manual has made clear, estimates on the indirect tax burden on typical households are not made because spending patterns vary considerably between households of the same type and income.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what considerations underlay the policy of the FSA and the Treasury on informing Equitable Life insurance policy holders on the sufficiency of funds within the with-profit fund to cover guaranteed annuity rate liabilities. [7315]

  Ruth Kelly
  Both Government and regulators are concerned to see that insurance and investment businesses comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements placed on them.

  Insurance companies are subject to statutory disclosure requirements under the Insurance Companies Act 1982 and the Companies Acts. Investment firms are also subject to prudential and conduct of business regulation.

  National Insurance Contribution Office
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average length of time taken by the contracted-out employment group of the National Insurance Contribution Office to provide figures for contracted out schemes to buy members back into the state system in the last five years; how many cases have taken longer than the average time; and what the length of period involved was. [10411]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The information requested is not available.

  Colorectal Cancers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths there were in(a) absolute numbers and

  883W
  (b) per capita of the whole population; and what the five year survival rate was of sufferers of colorectal cancers in each region and nation of the UK in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999 and (iii) 2000. [10938]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 31 October 2001 As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many deaths there were in (a) absolute numbers and (b) per capita of the whole population; and what the

  Number of deaths

  Rate1 per 100,000 population

  Country/region4

  1998

  1999

  2000

  1998

  1999

  2000

  England

  13,962

  13,613

  13,223

  20.4

  19.8

  19.0

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,860

  1,743

  1,815

  21.1

  19.8

  20.5

  Trent

  1,482

  1,497

  1,365

  20.5

  20.7

  18.5

  Eastern

  1,516

  1,443

  1,391

  19.8

  18.7

  17.6

  London

  1,554

  1,407

  1,408

  18.8

  17.0

  16.9

  South East

  2,468

  2,448

  2,327

  20.0

  19.5

  18.5

  South West

  1,549

  1,641

  1,556

  19.3

  20.3

  18.9

  West Midlands

  1,565

  1,542

  1,519

  21.7

  21.2

  20.4

  North West

  1,968

  1,892

  1,842

  22.0

  21.0

  20.5

  Wales

  994

  971

  990

  22.8

  21.9

  22.3

  Scotland

  1,660

  1,698

  1,616

  24.5

  24.8

  23.2

  Northern Ireland

  443

  410

  N/A

  22.9

  20.7

  N/A

  1 Age standardised using the European standard population

  2 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes 153 and 154, except for Scotland in 2000: International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes C18-C21

  3 Data for England and Wales based on deaths occurring each year, excluding non-residents. Data for Scotland and Northern Ireland based on deaths registered each year, including non-residents

  4 Boundaries as at 1 April 1999

  Sources:

  Office for National Statistics, General Register Office for Scotland, and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency

  Country/region5

  Cancer site6

  Sex6

  5 year relative survival (%)

  England

  Colon

  Male

  42.6

  Females

  42.1

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Colon

  Persons

  38.3

  Trent

  Colon

  Persons

  38.5

  Eastern

  Colon

  Persons

  42.7

  London

  Colon

  Persons

  41.2

  South East

  Colon

  Persons

  45.7

  South West

  Colon

  Persons

  46.6

  West Midlands

  Colon

  Persons

  42.9

  North West

  Colon

  Persons

  38.8

  Source:

  England: Office for National Statistics. Cancer survival 1992–1999. London: ONS, 31 January 2001

  Country/region5

  Cancer site6

  Sex6

  5 year relative survival (%)

  Wales

  Large bowel

  Males

  39

  Females

  42

  Source:

  Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit. Cancer Registration and Survival in Wales 1985–1994. Cardiff: WCISU, 1999
  884W
  five year survival rate was of sufferers of colorectal cancers in each region and nation of the UK in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999 and (iii) 2000. (10938).

  The latest available information on five year survival from colorectal cancer in the UK and the numbers and age-standards rates1 of deaths (person) from colorectal cancer2 for England and its constituent Health Regions, and the other countries of the UK in 1998. 1999 and 20003 are given in the attached tables.

  The results for England and its regions, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, are based on cases diagnosed during 1992–94, 1985–89, 1991–95, and 1993–96, respectively; and followed up to the end of 1999, 1994, 1998 and 1999, respectively.

  The figures for England and its regions are directly comparable, but because of the differences in coverage and end of follow up, and for other reasons, the figures for the separate countries of the UK are not, and they cannot be made so.

  Country/region5

  Cancer site6

  Sex6

  5 year relative survival (%)

  Scotland

  Colon

  Males

  45.0

  Females

  45.1

  Rectum

  Males

  42.8

  Females

  45.0

  Source

  Scottish Cancer Intelligence Unit. Trends in Cancer Survival in Scotland 1971–1995. Edinburgh: Information & Statistics Division NHS in Scotland. 2000

  Country/region5

  Cancer site6

  Sex6

  5 year relative survival (%)

  Northern Ireland

  Colon

  Males

  49

  Females

  51

  Rectum

  Males

  49

  Females

  48

  5 Boundaries as at 1st April 1999.

  6 Survival rates for cancers of the colon and rectum are closely similar. As survival rates from colorectal cancer for males and females are closely similar (see figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland) the more precise figures for all persons (males and females combined) are given for the regions of England

  Source:

  Fitzpatrick DA, Gavin AT. Survival of Cancer Patients in Northern Ireland 1993–1996. Belfast: Northern Ireland Cancer Registry. 2001

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proposed date for a referendum on euro entry. [11099]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's policy on the euro remains as set out by the Chancellor in his statement to Parliament in October 1997 and restated by the Prime Minister in February 1999. The Government have said they will complete an assessment of the five tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. Once the assessment has been completed, the Government will make a decision on UK membership of the single currency. If the Government recommend UK entry, it will be put to a vote in Parliament and then to a referendum of the British people.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to undertake a review of the operation of individual learning accounts to ensure that the introduction of the child trust fund or saving gateway does not give rise to fraud. [R] [11889]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government launched consultation on further proposals to encourage saving and asset-building, especially among households with low incomes, in "Saving and Assets for All" published by HM Treasury in April 2001. The consultation is focused on proposals for the child trust fund and the saving gateway. The Government intend to report back on the results from the consultation and on their further intentions for these initiatives around the time of the pre-Budget report in autumn 2001. The Government will continue to develop these proposals, including through consultation with interested parties such as financial services providers, to ensure that concerns, including the possibility of fraud, are properly addressed.

  Energy Efficiency Week
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action his Department took in recognition of Energy Efficiency Week. [11509]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 30 October 2001,Official Report, column 592W.

  HM Treasury is continually looking to introduce saving schemes to the Department. For example, we registered with the Watermark Project to reduce water consumption in the Parliament street building and have implemented all their recommendations and have taken advantage of a shared saving scheme.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many publications were issued by his Department in each of the last four years. [11821]
  886W
  Ruth Kelly
  Official documents produced since 1997 for external distribution by or on behalf of the Treasury are listed in the Department's annual report, "The Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments: The Government's Expenditure Plans 2001–03 to 2003–04 and Main Estimates 2001–02", published in April 2001 and on the Treasury's public website.

  Departmental Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish details of each Department's performance against its public service agreement targets. [11843]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 25 October 2001,Official Report, column 373W.

  Child Trust Funds
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) in the first year that child trust funds are available, if he will state his target for(a) the total number of people who will take advantage of a saving gateway scheme and (b) the total number of people who will take advantage of a saving gateway scheme with (i) no previous savings and (ii) a level of savings consistent with the lowest decile of average per head saving levels; [11897]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the calculation of the likely cost effectiveness of the child trust fund and saving gateway proposals; [11925]

  (3) what his target is for (a) the number of families which take advantage of a child trust fund and (b) the total number of families which take advantage of a child trust fund with (i) no previous savings and (ii) a level of savings consistent with the lowest decile of average per family saving levels, in the first year that child trust funds are available; [11892]

  (4) what his target is for the average percentage of the maximum available savings limit which he expects to be used up by people taking advantage of a saving gateway scheme in the first year of the scheme's availability; [11900]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the intended interaction of the saving gateway, stakeholder pension and the pension credit; [11895]

  (6) in the first three years of each scheme's operation, how many new savers he expects to be created by (a) the child trust fund and (b) the saving gateway; [11899]

  (7) what assessment he has made of the effect which the saving gateway will have on individuals intending to save into a stakeholder pension scheme; [11898]

  (8) if he plans to allow equity investments to be held in the saving gateway and child trust fund schemes; [11890]

  (9) if he has calculated the likely deadweight costs to the Exchequer in the first year of operation associated with the (a) savings gateway and (b) child trust fund. [11891]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 23 October 2001,Official Report, columns 207–08W.

  Special Advisers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there are members of the Council of Economic Advisers on contracts that are(a) permanent, (b) temporary and (c) secondments. [11608]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister on 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 467W.

  The Council of Economic Advisers are temporary civil servants appointed under Article 3 of the Civil Service Order in Council 1995 (as amended).

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the yield of inheritance tax in each of the last four years. [11853]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Figures on inheritance tax yield are contained in table 1.2 of Inland Revenue Statistics 2000, which is available, updated to 2001 on the Inland Revenue website: www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/menus/stats.htm.

  Deceased Persons (Estates)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases, in each of the last four years, the proceeds of the estates of deceased persons reverted to the Inland Revenue. [11852]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Where a deceased person dies intestate and without entitled blood relatives the estate falls to be dealt with by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the Crown. In each of the last four years an average of 1,700 estates have been referred to the Treasury Solicitor, but not all of these revert to the Crown as in about a third of cases a will or relatives are traced.

  Tax Credits
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Bassetlaw have received working families tax credit and child credit to date. [11585]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of families in each constituency receiving working families tax credit (WFTC) are shown in "The WFTC Quarterly Enquiries", copies of which are in the Library.

  Number of staff

  Dates

  Organisation

  Work area

  (a) Inland Revenue

  1

  13 March 2001 to 19 March 2003

  British Telecom

  Diversity & equality project

  1

  1 August 2001 to 31 July 2002

  Accenture

  Better quality services review project

  1

  24 September 2001 to 31 March 2002

  KMPG

  Policy adviser

  1

  1 June 2001 to 30 November 2001

  Mercers

  Defined benefit simplification project

  1

  1 June 2001 to 31 November 2001

  Slaughter & May

  Defined benefit simplification project

  1

  18 October 2001 to 18 October 2002

  Barclays Bank

  Joint voluntary arrangements service corporate insolvency support adviser

  1

  1 June 2001 to 30 November 2001

  Watson Wyatts

  Defined benefit simplification project

  1

  5 March 2001 to 28 February 2003

  Boots plc

  People programme: Diversity & equality project

  888W
  It is estimated that about 5 million families will benefit from the children's tax credit. Figures for each constituency are not available, but it is estimated that about 400,000 of these families are in the east midlands.

  Service Delivery Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to revise the targets contained in the service delivery agreements published in autumn 2000. [11827]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government will be reviewing Departments' service delivery agreements, as part of the 2002 spending review. Departments will publish new ones after the review.

  Civil Marriages
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to change the law relating to civil registration of marriages to permit reference to parents of the bride or groom to include mothers. [11587]

  Ruth Kelly
  In 1998, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury commissioned the Registrar General to carry out a fundamental review of the Civil Registration service in England and Wales. This was in recognition of the fact that much of the Civil Registration system is outdated and does not meet the needs of today's society.

  In September 1999, the Registrar General published a consultation paper, "Registration: Modernising a Vital Service". The consultation period ended on 6 December 1999. The responses have been used to set out options for the future development of the registration service, so that it can adapt to the changing needs and attitudes of a modern society.

  Many of the responses to the consultation document were in support of equality of treatment for men and women in the records of births, deaths and marriages. Proposals on how this could be achieved are now being formulated and the intention is to publish a policy paper in due course.

  Secondees
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list secondees in his Department from the private sector to(a) the Inland Revenue, (b) the Office of Government Commerce and (c) Customs and Excise. [11610]

  Ruth Kelly
  Details of the seconding private sector companies and the secondees' Departmental responsibilities are shown in the table:
  889W

  Number of staff

  Dates

  Organisation

  Work area

  (b) Office of Government Commerce

  1

  1 April 2000—under consideration

  Quality Business Management Ltd.

  Director of management policy practice and legal directorate measurement division

  1

  8 August 2000 to 8 August 2002

  BAA

  Construction director property and construction directorate

  1

  9 July 2001 to 8 January 2002

  Computer Science Corporation

  IT Directorate consultancy division

  1

  9 July 2001 to 8 July 2002

  Zurich Management Services

  Private finance adviser, policy practice and legal directorate

  (c) Customs & Excise

  1

  11 June 2001 lo 10 June 2002

  British Telecommunications plc

  Marketing a public sector benchmarking system

  Training Tax Credit
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a tax credit for training. [11971]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As set out in Budget 2001, the Government are willing to consider what else they can contribute to extending opportunity for all in work, particularly to obtain a qualification up to level 2. But Government action alone cannot bring about the change necessary to impact on the problem of low skills. It will be important that everyone—employers, individuals and Government—take seriously their responsibility to deliver a high skill, high productivity economy.

  Payroll Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the progress of the Carter report into payroll services; [12085]

  (2) what plans he has to reduce the costs to business associated with (a) current and (b) future payroll obligations. [12086]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Patrick Carter's review of payroll services has been completed and is currently under consideration.

  Offshore Rigs
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he intends to take following the ruling in the case of Joseph Lavery v. Ian MacLeod (HMIT) relating to the foreign earnings deduction status of offshore jack-up rigs; and if he will make a statement. [12192]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There has been a separate Court of Appeal hearing since the Special Commissioners case of Lavery v. MacLeod. The Court of Appeal held that a jack-up rig should be treated as a ship for the purposes of the foreign earnings deduction. The Inland Revenue is currently considering the actions that it needs to take as a consequence of the decisions in these cases.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which areas of new comparable expenditure have been applied to Scotland under the Barnett formula and when, since 1979; and what has been the annual impact of each of these spending lines on the Scottish budget allocation. [12191]
  890W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Information on extensions to the Scottish block was published in the Treasury Committee report (HC 341 of 1997–98) on the Barnett formula in December 1997. Since then, information on the Barnett comparability factors and the assigned budget has been published in the Statement of Funding Policy, updated in July 2000. The Scottish block is determined as a block and is not hypothecated to particular spending lines.

  Bio-fuel Incentives
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce fiscal incentives to encourage the use of bio-fuel to meet the EU target for 2005. [12004]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark) on 22 October 2001,Official Report, columns 61–62W.

  Graduate Incomes
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the average post-tax income of full-time employed(a) graduates and (b) non graduates aged (i) 18, (ii) 22, (iii) 30, (iv) 40, (v) 50 and (vi) 60 years in (a) 1960, (b) 1970, (c) 1980, (d) 1990 and (e) 2000, based on 2000 purchasing power; [12278]

  (2) what was the average earnings of full-time employed (a) graduates and (b) non graduates aged (i) 18, (ii) 22, (iii) 30, (iv) 40, (v) 50 and (vi) 60 years in (a) 1960, (b) 1970, (c) 1980, (d) 1990 and (e) 2000, based on 2000 purchasing power. [12277]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Andrew Turner, dated 31 October 2001 As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions about the average earnings and average post-tax income of graduates and non-graduates (12277, 12278).
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of average gross weekly earnings for graduates and non-graduates. However, it only collects information about qualifications from respondents of working age (men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59). Therefore, it does not provide estimates for female graduates and non-graduates aged 60 years or over.

  891W
  The LFS does not provide earnings estimates for 1990 or previous years as questions on earnings were first introduced in winter (December to February) 1992. Estimates for spring (March to May) 2000 are given in the table overleaf.
  The LFS does not collect information about post-tax income.

  Average gross weekly earnings of full-time1 employees by age and whether a graduate or non-graduate; United Kingdom; spring (March to May) 2000; not seasonally adjusted

  £

  All full-time employees of working age2,3

  Graduates

  Non-graduates

  All aged 18 years

  155

  5—

  155

  All aged 22 years

  250

  272

  244

  All aged 30 years

  382

  468

  351

  All aged 40 years

  448

  719

  391

  All aged 50 years

  436

  715

  382

  Men aged 60 years4

  431

  5—

  382

  1 The definition of full-time/part-time is based on respondents' self-assessment

  2 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59

  3 Includes people who did not state their qualifications

  4 Estimates for women aged 60 years are not available as the questions about qualifications only apply to people of working age

  5 Sample size too small for reliable estimate

HEALTH

  Regulation
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the priorities of the Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals relating to the harmonisation of regulatory systems across the professions. [11582]

  Mr. Hutton
  Following publication of the Kennedy report that the "regulatory bodies be brought under the overall leadership of one overarching body", a public consultation was held on the establishment of a new Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals which ended on 30 September. Legislation on establishing the new Council will be published shortly. We intend that the Council will be independent of the Government and it will be for the Council itself and not Ministers to take decisions on its priorities.

  Haemophilia
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to combact the shortage of recombinant clotting factors that are provided to haemophiliac patients. [9500]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is working with the professionals, organisations and industry to help ensure that the needs of haemophilia patients are met, and that those for whom recombinant coagulation factors are required are able to get them.

  Nursing and Residential Care
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing and residential care(a) homes and (b) beds have closed in South Tyneside in each year since 1997. [8828]
  892W
  Jacqui Smith
  The available information is in the table. No information is available on the number of beds affected through homes closing or opening.

  Number of care home establishments closures and new home registrations in Gateshead and South Tyneside

  Year ending 31 March

  Residential1

  Nursing2

  Establishment closures

  1999

  3

  1

  2000

  7

  5

  New registrations

  1999

  5

  0

  2000

  7

  3

  1 South Tyneside and Gateshead local authority areas

  2 Gateshead and South Tyneside health authority

  Source

  Registration and Inspection Survey

  Nuchal Translucency Scans
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of nuchal translucency scans. [9093]

  Jacqui Smith
  The advice of the United Kingdom National Screening Committee on Down's Syndrome screening is that all women should be offered second trimester serum screening to consist of at least a double test and a move towards triple or quadruple tests when possible. Other combinations of serum analytes and screening in the first trimester, including ultrasound scans, will be kept under review. Nuchal translucency scans are currently estimated to be available in about 8 per cent. of maternity units.

  Communicable Disease Control
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if consultants in communicable disease control will work for(a) primary care trusts and (b) strategic health authorities. [9056]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are currently considering in the light of "Shifting the Balance of Power" what arrangements for the employment of consultants in communicable disease control will be suitable in the future. Such arrangements will be aimed at ensuring a comprehensive health protection function at local level.

  Social Work Recruitment (Wales)
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Executive of the National Assembly for Wales regarding social worker recruitment and retention; and if he will make a statement on the results of these discussions. [9265]

  Jacqui Smith
  Officials of the Department have had extensive discussions with officials of the Executive of the National Assembly for Wales about social worker recruitment and retention. Ministers have been kept informed of these discussions. The result is an agreement that any Welsh people who contact the recruitment helpline recently launched in England, or request information via e-mail, will be given the information they require and will be directed to the Care Council for Wales for further information. The Department will continue to
  893W
  work closely with the National Assembly for Wales, and will share information and learning on the recruitment and retention of social workers.

  Bed Blocking
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 October 2001,Official Report, column 1122W, on bed blocking, how many NHS hospital beds were subject to bed blocking by patients of all ages, broken down by each hospital trust in England and Wales, shown in actual terms and as a percentage of beds in use. [11061]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 October 2001]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers health authorities have to ensure that payments to nursing home owners in respect of assessed nursing care needs are passed on in full to the relevant clients; and what monitoring of such payments he requires to be carried out. [10939]

  Jacqui Smith
  Guidance issued to the national health service makes clear that, from 1 October, those funding the full cost of their care in a nursing home from their own resources should not be charged for the cost of their care by a registered nurse as determined by an NHS nurse.

  Nursing homes will be receiving payments in respect of their clients' individual nursing needs from that date. This should be passed on to the individual through lower fees. The individual cannot be charged for services that the NHS is paying for and this will be reflected in the contracts between NHS bodies and nursing homes and between individuals and the home. NHS bodies will ensure that the contracts that they have with individual nursing homes are complied with and that any complaints relating to NHS funded nursing care are investigated.

  NHS Staff (Pay)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the average rise in the pay of NHS staff for each year since 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [11038]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Year

  Percentage

  1997–98

  3.61

  1998–99

  4.02

  1999–2000

  4.0

  2000–01

  3.34

  2001–02

  3.75

  Notes

  This is an average of the general increases to national pay scales for all of the staff groups in NHS trusts and health authorities, weighted by the total salary bill of each group. It omits the value of increments and other changes in pay

  Sources

  Pay Advance letters, Department of Health's National Health Service August 2000 staff earnings survey

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland about the initiative to reduce waiting lists through the funding of operations for UK citizens in other European countries. [11661]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: Officials in the Department have had discussions with colleagues in Northern Ireland about the implications of recent European Court of Justice rulings on cross-border health treatment for treating United Kingdom patients abroad. However, the decision to commission treatment for patients from Northern Ireland elsewhere in the European Economic Area is a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  E112 Regulations
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has made to review the E112 regulations to ensure that they operate transparently and objectively. [11047]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: The Department is currently reviewing the E112 arrangements to ensure they comply with the judgments of the European Court of Justice in cases C 368/98 and C157/99.

  Treatment Abroad
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has made to monitor the quality of care for United Kingdom patients going abroad to receive NHS treatment; [11045]

  (2) how long it will take to put in place systems to guarantee patients high standards of care for treatments taking place abroad. [11043]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: Monitoring quality of care is primarily a matter for primary care trusts (PCTs), although we recognise that commissioning care overseas raises particular issues. To aid them in this task the Department will publish guidance for PCTs on commissioning treatment for National Health Service patients overseas based on the experience of the three test-bed sites which are currently working up plans to send patients to mainland Europe. The Department will also develop through an open tendering process a list of approved providers/intemediaries whom PCTs may approach when considering sending patients overseas. Finally, officials are considering what role the Commission for Health Improvement might play in monitoring standards of foreign providers.

  Primary care trusts will need to satisfy themselves through paper evidence, through clinicians visiting the relevant providers and through the contractual process that their patients will receive good clinical care. Although this process should be rigorous, it need not take many weeks. Our aim is that, if possible, the first patients travel to receive treatment in mainland Europe before the end of the year.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what definition he uses for an unreasonable period of delay for treatment within the NHS, as phrased in the European Court of Justice ruling on treatment of patients abroad. [11041]
  895W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: The European Court of Justice did not define what was meant by "undue delay", by implication leaving that a matter for determination by each member state. In England, if an application for treatment elsewhere in the European Union under the E112 scheme was made on grounds of delay, the Department would take account of the national targets for waiting times as published in the NHS Plan and of the individual patient's clinical need.

  Smallpox
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans have been made to vaccinate the United Kingdom population against smallpox; and if he will make a statement. [11160]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: There are no plans to vaccinate the United Kingdom population against smallpox. There is no specific threat to the UK population from this disease, which has been eradicated worldwide.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 30 October 2001,Official Report, column 619W, on individual learning accounts, when she first ordered (a) an audit and (b) an inspection into a complaint that learning providers were misusing the operation of the individual learning account scheme. [12288]

  John Healey
  The first audit was conducted in December 2000; and the first inspection in July 2001.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of specialist schools selected pupils by aptitude in each of the last five years. [12088]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not available for each of the last five years. In 1999–2000, when 403 specialist schools were operational, about 7 per cent. of the non-selective schools selected some of their pupils on the basis of aptitude in the specialisms. This information will be available annually in future, with information in relation to 2000–01 available in February 2002.

  Student Support
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what further response to the sixth report from the Select Committee on Education and Employment she plans to publish on the Government's commitment to a review of student support arrangements. [11040]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: The Government have responded to the Education and Employment Select Committee's sixth report on student retention and has since announced a review of student funding. Any reforms emerging for the review will build on the new arrangements for student support introduced by the Government in 1998. It will be conducted in the context of our goal to get 50 per cent. of people under 30
  896W
  into Higher Education by 2010, our ambition to expand access to HE from under-represented groups, and our continuing concern to deliver excellence in the HE system. We are, therefore, reviewing the balance between state funding and the contributions made by students and their families. A wide range of options is being considered and no decision is likely to be announced on the proposals until next year.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish the(a) terms of reference, (b) names of participating groups or individuals and (c) the time scale of the proposed review of student support arrangements; and if she will make a statement. [10954]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government are reviewing our student funding policy. Any reforms emerging from the review will build on the new arrangements for student support introduced by the Government in 1998. It will be conducted in the context of our goal to get 50 per cent. of people under 30 into Higher Education by 2010, our ambition to expand access to HE from under-represented groups, and our continuing concern to deliver excellence in the HE system. We are, therefore, reviewing the balance between state funding and the contributions made by students and their families. A wide range of options is being considered and no decision is likely to be announced on the proposals until next year. We have said that we plan to consult on any proposals for change that emerge from the review.

  AS-levels
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many AS-level exam scripts were not formally marked by the examining boards this year; what percentage this is of the total number of AS-level scripts; and if she will make a statement. [10741]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: It is not possible to give a percentage of the total number of AS-level scripts that were not formally marked in summer 2001, as the number of scripts per subject is variable.

  As at 16 August, when provisional results were announced by the Joint Council for General Qualifications, a total of 6,461 special awards were made for AS-level subjects as a result of exam scripts not having been formally marked by the examining boards in summer 2001. This is 0.84 per cent. of 768,630 requests for "cash-in" of AS subject qualifications in England this summer.

  Civil Defence Guidance
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what new civil defence guidance has been issued to schools since 11 September. [12087]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The further guidance referred to in my previous answer to the hon. Member on 17 October 2001,Official Report, column 1233W, was notified to local education authorities on 19 October for them to use in advising schools.

  Language Colleges
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what are the(a) name, (b) local education authority, (c) character, (d) date of designation, (e) agreed targets for each year within the period of

  897W
  designation and (f) unmet targets to date, of each designated language college in (i) south-east England, (ii) south-west England and (iii) London. [11918]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on the name, local education authority, character and date of designation of specialist language colleges currently operating in south-east England, south-west England and London is set out in the table.
  We do not publish targets for individual language colleges. Targets are agreed and reviewed annually with individual schools, and are subject to modification in the light of changing circumstances. However, all language college targets support the delivery of the main aims of the language college programme. These are:

  School name

  LEA

  Character

  Operational as from September

  Region

  1. Dartford Grammar School

  Kent

  Foundation

  1995

  South-east

  2. Hendon School

  Barnet, LB of

  Foundation

  1995

  London

  3. Bohunt School

  Hampshire

  Foundation

  1996

  South-east

  4. Bullers Wood School

  Bromley, LB of

  Foundation

  1996

  London

  5. Convent of Jesus and Mary High

  Brent, LB of

  Voluntary-Aided

  1996

  London

  6. Katharine Lady Berkeleys

  Gloucestershire

  Foundation

  1996

  South-west

  7. Millais School

  West Sussex

  Community

  1996

  South-east

  8. Royal Grammar School (The)

  Buckinghamshire

  Foundation

  1996

  South-east

  9. Sir Bernard Lovell School

  South Gloucestershire

  Community

  1996

  South-west

  10. Tavistock College

  Devon

  Community

  1996

  South-west

  11. Tomlinscote School

  Surrey

  Community

  1996

  South-east

  12. Torquay Boys' Grammar

  Torbay

  Foundation

  1996

  South-west

  13. Willink School (The)

  West Berkshire

  Community

  1996

  South-east

  14. Cranford Community High School

  Hounslow, LB of

  Community

  1997

  London

  15. Didcot Girls' High School

  Oxfordshire

  Community

  1997

  South-east

  16. Elliott School

  Wandsworth

  Foundation

  1997

  London

  17. Haydon School

  Hillingdon

  Foundation

  1997

  London

  18. Imberhorne School

  West Sussex

  Community

  1997

  South-east

  19. Penrice Community School

  Cornwall

  Community

  1997

  South-east

  20. St. John Baptist Catholic Comprehensive School

  Surrey

  Voluntary-Aided

  1997

  South-east

  21. William Ellis School

  Camden, LB of

  Voluntary-Aided

  1997

  London

  22. Ashcombe School

  Surrey

  Community

  1998

  South-east

  23. Lord Grey School

  Milton Keynes

  Foundation

  1998

  South-east

  24. Holt School (The)

  Wokingham

  Community

  1999

  South-east

  25. Our Lady's Convent High School

  Hackney, LB of

  Voluntary-Aided

  1999

  London

  26. Saint George's C of E School

  Kent

  Voluntary-Aided

  1999

  South-east

  27. Sir John Colfox School

  Dorset

  Community

  1999

  South-west

  28. Weald of Kent Grammar School

  Kent

  Community

  1999

  South-east

  29. Bournemouth School

  Bournemouth

  Foundation

  2000

  South-west

  30. Chatham Grammar School for Boys

  Medway

  Community

  2000

  South-east

  31. Clevedon Community School

  North Somerset

  Community

  2000

  South-west

  32. Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School

  Islington, LB of

  Community

  2000

  London

  33. Hele's School

  Plymouth, City of

  Community

  2000

  South-west

  34. Highcliffe School

  Dorset

  Foundation

  2000

  South-west

  35. John Bentley School (The)

  Wiltshire

  Foundation

  2000

  South-west

  36. Kingsmead Community School

  Somerset

  Community

  2000

  South-west

  37. Mountbatten School (The)

  Hampshire

  Community

  2000

  South-east

  38. Romsey School (The)

  Hampshire

  Community

  2000

  South-east

  39. Ryde High School

  Isle of Wight

  Community

  2000

  South-east

  40. Sir John Cass's Foundation Redcoat School (The)

  Tower Hamlets

  Voluntary-Aided

  2000

  London

  41. Sir Thomas Rich's School

  Gloucestershire

  Community

  2000

  South-west

  42. Woodbridge High School

  Redbridge

  Community

  2000

  London

  43. Aylesbury High School

  Buckinghamshire

  Community

  2001

  South-east

  44. Connaught School for Girls

  Waltham Forest, LB of

  Community

  2001

  London

  45. Greenford High School

  Ealing, LB of

  Foundation

  2001

  London

  46. Hayle Community School

  Cornwall

  Community

  2001

  South-west

  47. Henry Box School (The)

  Oxfordshire

  Community

  2001

  South-east

  48. Pate's Grammar School

  Gloucestershire

  Voluntary-Aided

  2001

  South-west

  49. Piggott School (The)

  Wokingham

  Voluntary-Aided

  2001

  South-east

  898W
  to raise standards of teaching and learning in Modern Foreign Languages (MFLs) and foster an international ethos and cultural awareness throughout a school;
  to ensure young people leave school with the knowledge and skills they and employers need by giving pupils an early understanding of the world of work, through the active participation of business community sponsors in school life, and thereby enhance pupils' understanding of applications of modern foreign languages;
  to encourage the dissemination of good practice and the sharing of resources through closer contacts between language colleges, other schools and the wider community.
  Individual targets and performance against those targets for each year of operation in the 49 language colleges included in the table could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Exclusion (Young People)
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made on implementing the recommendations of the social exclusion report on young people. [9300]

  Mr. Denham
  The recommendations of the Social Exclusion Unit's Policy Action Team (12) report on Young People centred around four themes; improving the way Government develop and implement policy and services for children and young people; a new focus on preventive services; improving individual services for children and young people; and designing policies around their needs, especially through involving children and young people in thinking about policies and services. Substantial progress has been made in all these areas.

  To improve the way the Government develop policy the Prime Minister has established a new cabinet committee on children and young people's services, created the interdepartmental ministerial post of Minister for Young People and established the interdepartmental Children and Young People's Unit to be responsible for this work.

  A new focus on preventive services and action to address the social exclusion of children and young people has been provided by the new Children's Fund. The Fund is worth £450 million over 2001–02 to 2003–04, of which £380 million is devoted to the development of preventive services by partnerships throughout England and £70 million is devoted to the Children's Fund Local Network making grants to voluntary organisations working on projects to tackle child poverty.

  Improving individual services for children and young people was a key theme of the Spending Review 2000, in particular through the introduction of the Connexions service for 13–19 year olds. The first Connexions Partnerships began to deliver services from April this year. £420 million is being invested in Connexions in 2002–03, rising to £455 million in 2003–04. To ensure that national health service provision is designed around children we have announced the establishment of a new NHS National Service Framework. Targeted programmes to support children and young people's individual education needs were set out in the White Paper, "Schools—achieving success" (Cmd 5230). This progress will be further promoted through the cross-cutting review on children at risk announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli, Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on 25 June 2001, Official Report, column 38W.

  In "Tomorrow's Future: Building a Strategy for Children and Young People", published on 22 March, the Government set out their commitment to developing an overarching strategy for Children and Young People to ensure that we designed policies around the needs and priorities of young people, including the encouragement of new approaches in Government to ensure effective involvement and participation of children. In the near future, I will be publishing a consultation document on the Government's new strategy for Children and Young People.

  School Organisation Committees
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the impact her proposal to extend the power of the learning and skills councils to put forward reorganisation proposals for 16 to 19 education provision will have on the role of local school organisation committees. [11534]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The proposal will enable learning and skills councils (LSCs) to take the lead in developing and implementing strategic plans for local 16–19 provision across the full range of 16–19 providers. School Organisation Committees (SOCs) will have the right to comment on LSC proposals which affect their area. The range and type of proposals that a School Organisation Committee may itself consider in relation to school organisation will be unaffected. Nor does the proposal affect the range of decisions that a SOC may make, except where a proposal it is considering clashes with one which the LSC has submitted to the Secretary of State, in which case consideration by the SOC would be delayed until a decision is made on the LSC proposal.

  Cost of Living (Students)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment she has made on the cost of living for students in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [11126]

  Margaret Hodge
  The most recent assessment made by my Department was in the Student Income and Expenditure Survey 1998–99, published in December 2000, which was the fourth survey since the series began in 1988–89. This showed that average spending on essential items such as food and accommodation had not risen in real terms since 1995–96 but average spending on clothes and discretionary items such as entertainment had gone up sharply. Student income from all sources had risen since 1995–96 by 12 per cent. in real terms, with greater commercial borrowings, earnings from employment and withdrawal from savings. Since 1998–99 the value of the student loan has continued to be increased annually in line with inflation.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her targets are for participation in(a) higher education and (b) first degree courses for each year to 2010. [11033]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 29 October 2001]: We have announced our plans up to 2003–04. We will fund 1,087,000 students (full-time equivalent) in 2001–02; 1,101,000 in 2003–04; and subject to any changes flowing from the current Spending Review, 1,115,000 in 2003–04. As part of the Spending Review we will be looking at our plans up to 2005–06 and beyond.

  Sure Start (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much Sure Start money has been allocated to the Northampton, South constituency. [11289]
  901W
  Jacqui Smith
  Northampton was invited to take part in the third wave of Sure Start, and local stakeholders were invited to choose the programme's catchment area. They decided to situate the programme in Spencer, Kings Heath and St. James, which are outside of the Northampton, South constituency. Northamptonshire has also been invited to develop a smaller scale Sure Start programme as part of the £22 million wave of programmes announced in July 2001, aimed at rural areas and small pockets of deprivation. Local stakeholders also decided to locate this programme outside of the Northampton, South constituency.

  The Government are committed to establishing 500 Sure Start programmes by March 2004. So far, 437 have been announced over five waves and a sixth wave will be announced next year. The next 63 programme areas are not yet decided, but the districts will be identified using similar criteria to those used previously, which is on the basis of level of need and deprivation.

  Special Measures (Schools)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools were put under special measures in each of the past five years; how many were put under special measures for longer than two years; what additional resources are allocated to such schools; and what plans she has for the direct funding of them. [10496]

  Mr. Timms
  The number of schools judged by Ofsted to require "special measures" in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Academic year

  Number

  1996–97

  326

  1997–98

  515

  1998–99

  442

  1999–2000

  396

  2000–01

  320

  The Government are committed to ensuring that the number of schools subject to special measures continues to decline year-on-year.

  £ million

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Nursery Education Grant

  —

  40

  100

  200

  238

  Neighbourhood Support Fund

  —

  —

  60

  60

  60

  Education Maintenance Allowances1

  —

  11

  78

  159

  192

  Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative2

  —

  —

  —

  46

  74

  Learning and Skills Council/Further Education—Widening Participation Initiative3,4

  22

  52

  66

  94

  n/a

  Sure Start5

  —

  7

  58

  184

  449

  1 The Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) pilot areas were selected using a number of indicators, one of which was the Index of Local Deprivation (1998). EMA pilots began in 15 areas in September 1999 and were expanded to a further 41 areas in September 2000.

  2 Funding allocated at the Spending Review 2000. Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative funding has been allocated using the 20 per cent. extent measure from the Index of Multiple Deprivation (2000). It identifies the number of wards within each LEA that fall within the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged in the country. Local education authorities received an allocation of funding according to the number of wards within their area that fall within the 20 per cent., weighted with the population of 0 to four-year-olds.

  3 From 1998–99, Further Education institutions could claim additional funding for students resident in deprived areas. This funding was extended in 1999–2000 to include other types of students.

  4 Widening Participation Initiative allocations for 2002–03 have not yet been finalised.

  5 The Sure Start programme is a cross-departmental programme but is also within the Department for Education and Skills' Departmental Expenditure Limit.

  902W
  Over the last five years, a total of 180 schools have been in special measures for more than two years, of which 135 subsequently improved and were taken out of special measures and 16 have now closed. The Government's policy is now that all schools in special measures should be turned round within two years or closed. The recent White Paper "Schools: Achieving Success" proposes further options to support more rapid improvement when schools fail.

  This year, local education authorities in England have been allocated £70,000 in school improvement grant for each secondary school in special measures and £25,000 for each equivalent primary school.

  The Government have no plans to introduce direct funding of schools in special measures.

  Departmental Spending (Deprived Areas)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much of the expenditure by her Department in each of the years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000, (e) 2000–01, (f) 2001–02 and (g) 2002–03 (estimated) was allocated with reference to the Index of Multiple Deprivation; which expenditure programmes are allocated with respect to this index and other measures of relative geographic deprivation; and if she will make a statement. [8932]

  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 25 October 2001]: Department for Education and Skills expenditure is allocated according to a variety of methods. Expenditure on the following programmes, none of which existed prior to 1998–99, which is allocated with reference to the Indices of Multiple Deprivation and the 1998 Index of Local Deprivation, is shown in the table.

  The vast majority of programmes targeted at schools serving deprived areas make use of recent data regarding numbers of children in receipt of free school meals. This is because these data are up to date and are at school-level. Figures for these programmes, other programmes allocated using different measures, and any relevant programmes that finished before the current financial year, have not been included in the table, because this information could have been obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sixth Forms
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what changes have been made to the funding of individual sixth forms by the Learning and Skills Council,(a) excluding pure indexation and (b) in absolute terms. [11130]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Learning and Skills Council will begin funding local education authorities for their school sixth-form provision from April 2002. Schools have been given a guarantee that their funding will not fall in real terms provided their pupil numbers have not fallen.

  Departmental Properties
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will estimate the total annual running costs for buildings used, owned or rented by her Department for each nation and region of the UK, and estimate the average cost per square metre for properties used by her Department as a whole, and by region and nation of the UK. [6861]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimated total running costs and average cost per square metre for buildings used, owned and rented by the Department are listed in the table.

  £

  Region

  Estimated total running costs

  Estimated cost per sq. metre

  London

  20,623,537

  513.00

  Yorks and Humber

  6,926,182

  233.00

  North West

  2,963,460

  140.00

  North East

  1,354,964

  192.00

  Total

  31,868,143

  325.00

WALES

  Education Policy
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of recent education policy changes in Wales relating to the publication of levels of attainment in schools. [12089]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None. This is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Jane Davidson, Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, announced in July that the National Assembly intended to remove the requirement for publication of Secondary School Performance Information in Wales.

  This decision does not mean that information on school results will not be available to parents or to the public. Schools will continue to publish their own results in the prospectuses and Governors' Annual Reports.

  The 2000–01 results for Wales and for each local education authority in Wales will be released on 12 November.

  Subsidies
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total value of(a) subsidies and (b) other
  904W
  payments made out of public funds was in each of the past five years to (i) farming and (ii) the steel industry in Wales. [12282]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The provision of state aid to the steel industry is governed by the Steel Aid Code of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty. This Code only permits aid, in limited circumstances, for Research and Development, environmental protection and the permanent closure (not rescue) of a steel company.

  Over the past five years no aid has been applied for and none granted under the terms of the Steel Aid Code.

  Subsidies from the Common Agricultural Programme, funded by the European Union, total around £200 million per annum. There has been no significant change in the last five years.

  Information about other payments is not held centrally in the format requested.

  Welsh Assembly
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister on devolving further powers to the Welsh Assembly. [12280]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The progress of devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland was discussed at the Cardiff meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee, which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 30 October.

  While the Welsh devolution settlement is kept under review, the Government have no plans to change the broad mix of Assembly responsibilities.

  St. David's Day
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to assist the declaration of St. David's Day as a public holiday in Wales. [12281]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As I told the House on 9 July 2001,Official Report, column 358W, the Assembly's request to declare a bank holiday on St. David's Day raises significant issues for business, industry and the public sector. I am continuing to discuss these matters with the First Minister.

  Departmental Promotions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spent on information literature, advertising and campaign material in the financial years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99, (e) 1999–2000 and (f) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [12258]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department runs no publicity campaigns and hence has spent nothing on advertising since its creation in July 1999. Its predecessor Department—the Welsh Office—spent £1,929,000 in 1995–96, £1,795,000 in 1996–97, £2,661,000 in 1997–98, and £2,685,000 in 1998–99. All the individual campaigns are evaluated separately taking into account effectiveness and value for money.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judicial Staff
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many and what percentage of(a) High Court judges, (b) district judges, (c) magistrates, (d) recorders and (e) adjudicators are (i) black and (ii) Asian. [11392]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The following tables give the recorded breakdown for judicial officers in post at each level of the judiciary requested on the dates indicated.

  Table 1: Judiciary as at 1 October 2001

  1 October 2001

  Total

  Black

  Asian

  High Court Judges

  105

  0

  0

  Percentage of total

  100

  0.0

  0.0

  Recorders

  1,322

  17

  15

  Percentage of total

  100

  1.3

  1.1

  District Judges (including Family Division)

  407

  0

  6

  Percentage of total

  100

  0.0

  1.5

  Deputy District Judges (including Family Division)

  802

  4

  6

  Percentage of total

  100

  0.5

  0.8

  District Judges (Magistrates' Court)1

  95

  0

  2

  Percentage of total

  100

  0.0

  2.1

  Deputy District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)1

  164

  3

  4

  Percentage of total

  100

  1.8

  2.4

  Immigration Adjudicators (Full time)

  72

  4

  5

  Percentage of total

  100

  5.6

  6.9

  Immigration Adjudicators (Part time)

  398

  13

  19

  Percentage of total

  100

  3.3

  4.8

  1 On 31 August 2000 Stipendiary Magistrates and Acting Stipendiary Magistrates were renamed District Judges (Magistrates' Courts) and Deputy District Judges (Magistrates' Courts) respectively.

  Tables 2 and 3: Lay Magistrates as at 1 April 2001

  1 April 2001

  Total

  Black

  Asian

  Lay Magistrates, England and Wales (excluding Duchy of Lancaster)

  24,771

  490

  598

  Percentage of total

  100

  2.0

  2.4

  Table 3

  1 April 2001

  Total

  Black

  Asian

  Lay Magistrates (Duchy of Lancaster)

  3,964

  52

  128

  Percentage of total

  100

  1.3

  3.2

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Hackney Council
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with Hackney borough council concerning the administrative failings of the council in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [9127]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department has been in close contact with members and officials at the London borough of Hackney over the last 12 months and prior to that on occasions.

  The council has well chronicled financial and governance problems that have contributed to failures in the delivery of key services. Following an inspection of
  906W
  the whole authority, the Audit Commission advised me in July of this year that the council was not complying with its statutory Best Value responsibilities. It recommended the use of intervention powers under Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1999.

  We consulted the council about the form of the Directions, as required by the statute. Their response was constructive and they have accepted the urgent need to improve their performance.

  On 12 October, I gave Hackney five Directions under these provisions. The Directions require the council to produce a strategy for bringing its budget back into balance; and to improve services such as financial management, education, social services, benefit administration and waste management.

  The purpose of the Directions is to restore financial accountability and control within the authority, and to protect and improve front-line services. The Directions set a clear timetable for improvements to be made and we expect the council to achieve these with tailored financial and other support. I have placed copies of the Directions in the Library of the House.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if the proposed cap on the Government loan facility to the company limited by guarantee proposed as a successor to Railtrack will be sufficient to cover Railtrack's published investment programme; [10444]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the amount of the cap on expenditure on the loan facility to the company limited by guarantee proposed as a successor to Railtrack. [10446]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 671W.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the minutes of the meeting between executives of Railtrack and his officials on 3 October. [11225]

  Mr. Spellar
  No.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when Ernst and Young LLP was given a letter of instruction from his Department about the prospective Railway Administration Order concerning Railtrack plc. [11227]

  Mr. Spellar
  No such letter has been sent.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the supporting evidence in relation to Railtrack's railway administration order required by rule 2.6 of the Railway Administration Order Rules 2001. [11222]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have placed a copy in the Library of the House.

  Airport Car Parks
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what
  907W
  regulatory approval has been sought by BAA to impose a public transport levy on users of car parks at its airports; [11240]

  (2) what regulations govern the car parking charges that BAA impose at their airports; [11242]

  (3) what future regulatory approval is required by the BAA to (a) vary a public transport levy on users of car parks at their airports and (b) ensure the money raised is invested in the most cost-effective way; [11238]

  (4) if the imposition of a public transport levy on people using car parks at BAA airports will be part of the regulatory review being undertaken by the CAA; [11228]

  (5) what regulatory requirements exist to ensure that there is competition among car park operators at airports owned by BAA; [11241]

  (6) what monitoring is conducted by (a) his Department and (b) the CAA to ensure that the revenue from the levy imposed on car park users at south-east airports benefits the users paying the charge. [11239]

  Mr. Spellar
  Car parking charges at BAA airports are a matter for the BAA and do not require any specific regulatory approval. They are, however, subject to general competition law and are open to investigation by the Office of Fair Trading under the Competition Act 1998. In addition, as part of its periodic review of the BAA London airports, the Competition Commission could investigate whether car parking charges levied by the airports give rise to public interest concerns.

  Rail Transport Meetings
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the(a) contracts and (b) meetings between Ernst and Young LLP and his Department in relation to rail transport in the last 12 months. [11224]

  Mr. Spellar
  Ernst and Young were engaged on 24 August to advise on possible options for Railtrack. In the course of that work, there were numerous meetings with the Department.

  Energy Efficiency Week
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action his Department took in recognition of Energy Efficiency Week. [11517]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 30 October 2001 Official Report, column 592W. Within DTLR we continue to take energy efficiency seriously through implementing our greening operations policy and monitoring and reporting progress against cross-government targets. We raise awareness of energy efficiency, and other greening operations issues, through regular advice and information for our staff. A recent example is the foyer displays of environmental performance at our headquarter buildings in London.

  TransPennine Franchise
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if the new TransPennine franchise will include investment in new trains. [11553]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The three short-listed counterparties have been invited to re-submit their proposals for the TransPennine Express franchise. The Strategic Rail Authority anticipates and will encourage investment in new rolling stock as part of these proposals.

  Bifuel Vehicles
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to reclassify bifuel vehicles representing a manufacturer's standard option, according to their carbon dioxide emissions, for road tax purposes. [11321]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: In the case of new private motor cars registered on or after 1 March this year, vehicles which, in the words of the relevant order are:
  "capable of being propelled by

  (i) petrol and road fuel gas, or

  (ii) electricity and either petrol or diesel",

  i.e. so called "bifuelled" cars, are now subject to Vehicle Excise Duty ("road tax") according to their carbon dioxide emissions. All new cars are now subject to VED according to their carbon dioxide emissions and bifuelled cars come into the lowest range of rates—that assigned to "Alternative Fuel Cars".

  Vehicle Safety
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what progress has been made in reducing the use of vehicles with non-flexible fronts. [12285]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The European Commission are proposing to make a negotiated agreement with car manufacturers, which will require new cars to have fronts which are less harmful to pedestrians. This proposal is due to be discussed by Ministers at the Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Tourism Council on 26 November.

  Jo Moore
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what records have been kept of conversations between Ministers and Ms Jo Moore since 11 September; [12237]

  (2) what meetings and telephone conversations he has had with Ms Jo Moore since 10 September; [12236]

  (3) if he will publish the departmental correspondence, including e-mails, leading to the announcements (a) on councillors' allowances and (b) on councillors' pensions on 12 September; [12235]

  (4) if, before administering a personal reprimand to Ms Jo Moore regarding her e-mail of 11 September, he received other e-mails sent by her after 11 September. [12234]
  909W
  Mr. Byers
  Under paragraph 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is not the practice to disclose details of internal communication.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who authorised the interview with Sky News given by Ms Jo Moore on 16 October. [12241]

  Mr. Byers
  The interview was given with my agreement.

  Special Advisers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will set out the process that would be followed in his Department if(a) a member of staff other than a special adviser and (b) a special adviser applied to leave their job through ill health. [12232]

  Mr. Byers
  For all staff in DTLR including special advisers, the process for retirement on grounds of ill-health is set out in the DTLR Staff Handbook.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if a personal reprimand from the Secretary of State is a formal part of the disciplinary procedure applying to special advisers in his Department; and if such a reprimand is included on the personnel record of these special advisers. [12231]

  Mr. Byers
  My personal reprimand was in addition to the formal disciplinary procedure.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what changes he has made to the selection criteria for special advisers in his Department since 9 October. [12233]

  Mr. Byers
  None.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  The Gambia
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the presidential election held in The Gambia on 18 October; and if he will make a statement on relations with The Gambia. [10978]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We consider the result of the presidential election of 18 October, in which the incumbent President Jammeh was re-elected with 52.9 per cent. of the vote, to have been a fair reflection of the views of the Gambian people on the day.

  The United Kingdom and The Gambia have a long standing relationship and there are close ties between us. While the unwarranted expulsion of the British Deputy High Commissioner in August has caused some tensions, the United Kingdom will continue to work closely with The Gambia to promote democracy, good governance and the rule of law.

  UK/China Human Rights Dialogue
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will make a statement regarding the objectives and criteria for evaluation of the UK/China human rights dialogue. [10763]
  910W
  Mr. MacShane
  The Government have identified a set of working objectives towards which we expect the dialogue process to work. They cover issues relating to the rule of law; engagement with UN mechanisms, political and religious rights; economic and social rights and the situation in Tibet.

  These objectives, and the achievements of the dialogue process over the past year, are set out in the FCO annual human rights report.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues the Government intends to raise with China regarding Tibet in the UK/China dialogue on 19 November. [10762]

  Mr. MacShane
  The 7th round of the UK/China human rights dialogue will take place in London from 19–21 November.

  The agenda for the dialogue has not yet been finalised. But we will express our concern over human rights conditions in Tibet and will continue to urge the chinese to open a dialogue with the Dalai Lama.

  I raised our concerns about human rights and the rule of law in China in discussions with the Chinese Government in Beijing in September and in London last month.

  Uranium
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been offered to the Republic of Georgia to further the inquiries into the enriched uranium seized by anti-terrorist police in Batumi, Georgia on 18 July; and if he will make a statement on the destination of the uranium. [11423]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Republic of Georgia has not requested any assistance from either the UK directly, or the International Atomic Energy Authority with respect to the seizure of 1.7 kg of low enriched uranium in Batumi in July. It is not usual for the UK to become involved in these matters unless there is such a request. There is no information available on the intended destination of the low enriched uranium.

  Immigration (Ministerial Intervention)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions Ministers have intervened in immigration cases to overturn a decision by an ECO; and at which posts. [11429]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer to the answer my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) on 22 March 2001,Official Report, columns 316–17W. Since then seven decisions to refuse entry clearance to the United Kingdom have been overturned following the exercise of ministerial discretion. The posts concerned were: Bombay (2), New Delhi (2), Islamabad (2) and Casablanca (1).

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens were living in Zimbabwe on 1 September. [12081]
  911W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  On 1 September 2001 there were 25,223 British nationals registered with the British High Commission in Harare.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make provision for Zimbabwean farmers who have had their land removed from them, and have been forced to leave their home country, to receive compensation for their loss. [12095]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government of Zimbabwe are responsible for land seizures in that country. They remain responsible for meeting their legal obligations in implementing land reform. In Abuja, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reaffirmed our willingness to make a significant contribution to a fair, effective and sustainable land reform programme on the basis of the UNDP proposals of December 2000. He made it clear that our support for land reform depended on action by the Government of Zimbabwe to implement the commitments it made in Abuja. We have so far seen little evidence of such implementation. We understand that UNDP have an assessment mission in Zimbabwe at the moment looking at the prospects for a credible land reform programme. We welcome this. But in the circumstances, it is too soon to speculate on a possible UK financial contribution and the possible arrangements for payment.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent changes have been made to export controls in place against the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. [12795]

  Mr. MacShane
  The EU arms embargo was lifted at the General Affairs Council on 8 October 2001 due to the improved security situation and on-going process of internal reforms undertaken by the FRY authorities. In light of this, the Government have decided to lift the controls imposed in 1996 on exports to the FRY of:All wheel drive vehicles capable of off-road use that have a ground clearance of greater than 175 millimetres;
  Heavy duty recovery vehicles capable of towing a suspended load of more than six tonnes or winching a load of more than 10 tonnes;
  Drop-sided trucks that have a load-carrying capacity of more than five tonnes.
  An amendment to the Export Control (Goods) Order will be made in due course.

  The Government have also decided to lift the policy, as announced to Parliament on 14 March 2000, of presumption of refusal for the export of dual use goods to the FRY which could benefit the armed forces, internal security forces or similar entities of the authorities in Belgrade. Again, with the change to a democratic government in the FRY and on-going improvements in the security structures there, we have no reason to continue doing so. This will bring our export control policy on the FRY in line with that on most other countries. All future applications for dual use goods to the FRY will be judged on a case-by-case basis, on their merits, against the consolidated EU and national export licensing criteria.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what access to consular services is available to British citizens serving with the Taliban. [11973]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The British Government have no consular representation in Afghanistan, and advise strongly against all travel to Afghanistan.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Flooding
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the recent flooding in mid and north Essex, indicating what help the Government propose to make available to help prevent future flooding in the area. [11770]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: The Government sympathises with all those who were affected by the recent flooding in Essex. This followed exceptional rainfall with up to 109 mm of rain falling in a 12 hour period on 21 October. While we can and do take action to reduce the risk of flooding it is not possible to remove that risk altogether when faced with extreme events of this type.

  The Government have substantially increased funding for flood and coastal defence in successive spending reviews and total annual expenditure in England now exceeds £400 million. DEFRA funding alone is set to increase from £66 million last year to £114 million in 2003–04.

  Flood defences are designed, built and operated by the Environment Agency and other operating authorities. The Agency will be undertaking a study of the flooding from the River Blackwater in the Bocking area of Braintree. Within Essex the Agency is currently undertaking a flood defence scheme at Chadwell Cross in Tilbury and works on two sections of the River Crouch near Battlebridge and at Hullbridge. Works are also planned next year on the River Roach.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on(a) flood defence in England and Wales and (b) how managed retreat will affect Somerset. [10767]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA has policy responsibility for flood and coastal defences in England, and the National Assembly for Wales has similar responsibilities for Wales. I plan to reduce the risk of flooding by investing in effective flood warning arrangements and in flood defences in the highest risk areas. Funding for the Department's programme is increasing from £66 million in 2000–01 to £114 million in 2003–04.

  This Department provides funding to the Environment Agency (EA), local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards for capital flood and coastal defence works that meet certain criteria. DEFRA encourages authorities to take a strategic approach to flood and coastal defences and to draw up shoreline management plans. These consider natural processes; planning pressures; current and future land use; flood and coastal defence needs; and

  913W
  environmental needs. The Shoreline Management Plan covering Bridgwater Bay to Bideford Bay was produced for a consortium of the EA and local authorities, each of whom have coastal defence responsibilities. It considered a range of options and identified one for each management unit along the coast from Brean Down, Somerset to Hartland Point in Devon. I understand that managed retreat was the preferred strategic option for the shingle ridge at Porlock. For the lengths between Stolford and Fanning Island, and along the west bank of the River Parrett to Combwich, an observe and monitor strategy was proposed, while consideration is given to managed retreat on undeveloped frontages to promote saltmarsh growth for nature conservation and coastal defence purposes.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total expenditure in England and Wales on flood defence has been for each financial year since 1990; and what the projected expenditure on flood defence is for each of the next five years. [11006]

  Mr. Morley
  Flood defence is a fully devolved function with this Department having policy responsibility for England only. The following table therefore shows expenditure by the Environment Agency in England and by English local authorities. Figures for 1990–91 and 1991–02 are not available separately for English local authorities.

  Flood defence is also provided by internal drainage boards but comprehensive information on their expenditure over this period is not available. However, in 1999–2000 expenditure by boards in England was £40.7 million and this is likely to have grown by modest annual amounts over the period.

  £ million

  Year

  Environment Agency (National Rivers Authority until 1995–96)

  Local authorities

  Total

  1990–91

  194.3

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  217.3

  n/a

  n/a

  1992–93

  218.3

  12.3

  230.6

  1993–94

  221.4

  12.1

  233.5

  1994–95

  232.7

  11.4

  244.1

  1995–96

  245.7

  13.1

  258.8

  1996–97

  254.2

  12.2

  266.4

  1997–98

  255.2

  13.0

  268.2

  1998–99

  247.2

  15.0

  262.2

  1999–2000

  260.3

  15.4

  275.7

  2000–01

  270.4

  120.1

  1290.5

  1 Provisional

  Expenditure beyond this period depends on a number of factors including the balance between expenditure on flood defence and coast protection and the availability of funding from sources other than Government. However, the total Government provision for flood defence and coast protection in England is set to increase by some £45 million in 2001–02, a further £16 million in 2002–03 and a further £20 million in 2003–04. Flood defence funding beyond that period will be determined by the Spending Review due to be conducted in 2002.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact the catchment abstraction management strategy proposed by the Environment Agency will have on seasonal flooding. [10734]
  914W
  Mr. Morley
  Catchment abstraction management strategies are the vehicle for ensuring long-term sustainable water abstraction management. As such they will have no direct impact on seasonal flooding.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the implications for council tax payers in north Yorkshire of proposed Government expenditure in 2000–03 on flood defences. [11185]

  Mr. Morley
  No such assessment is possible at this stage. The Environment Agency is currently considering the proposed flood defence budget for the Yorkshire region for 2002–03 and this will inform consideration of the levy which the Yorkshire Regional Flood Defence Committee will set in January 2002. It will then be for the local authorities to consider how the levy should be funded taking account of the provision made available to them through revenue support grant.

  The Yorkshire Regional Flood Defence Committee will also take account of my recent announcement that we will increase DEFRA grant to support capital works undertaken in their area in 2002–03. The figures stands to rise from some £8 million this year to nearly £13 million for 2002–03 and reflects in large measure the need for new capital works in areas affected by the autumn 2000 floods as well as the Humber Estuary.

  It is also the case that Yorkshire has been a major beneficiary of DEFRA's special funding of emergency costs and repairs from last year's severe flooding and of design and feasibility costs for accelerated river defences and associated strategies, receiving some £8.5 million.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the economic and flood defence benefits of sustainable urban drainage. [11009]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department contributed to the research carried out for the Construction Industry Research and Information Association that produced design manuals for England and Wales and for Scotland and Northern Ireland (both published in 2000) and a best practice manual on sustainable urban drainage systems (published in 2001). These were based on demonstration projects that clearly showed both the benefits in flood defence, water quality and local amenity.

  No formal assessment of the benefits has been made on a national scale since these depend on the local intensity of rainfall for which individual sustainable drainage systems are designed. Such systems can assist in reducing the impact of intense rainfall and they can be as economical as conventional drainage systems. The use of sustainable urban drainage systems is generally encouraged in the new Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 issued in July 2001 but decisions by developers to install them must be based on site-specific assessments of the loads they would need to deal with.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many DEFRA personnel(a) are working for all or most of the time in south Cumbria and (b) are based there. [7527]
  915W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: There are currently 64 DEFRA staff based at the south Cumbria forward station at Milnthorpe consisting of TVIs, lay blood samplers and administrative staff. In addition, there are 12 field staff assigned to a forward station in Appleby. Both the Milnthorpe and Appleby staff work exclusively in south Cumbria.

  Other veterinary surgeons and specialist staff are based at Carlisle. They carry out the risk assessments relating to animal movements within the Restricted Infected Area or within 3 km Protection Zones. They are also assigned to other tasks on a daily basis depending on where, in the county, there is a demand for specialist input.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will review the case for sending only locally based DEFRA personnel and vehicles to farms in south Cumbria; and if she will make a statement. [7526]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 October 2001]: Staff involved in the collection of samples that are needed to facilitate movements of sheep in south Cumbria are based at a work allocation station in Milnthorpe. Other specialist work, such as the risk assessment of animal movements, within the Penrith Restricted Infected Area, is carried out by specialists based in Carlisle.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many contractors have waited in excess of three months for payments due to them for work carried out on foot and mouth eradication. [9193]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 October 2001]: Between 1 April and 30 September 2001, the Department made payments to 7,257 suppliers of foot and mouth related services, in respect of 91,418 invoices. During this time, 214 suppliers had to wait more than 90 days in respect of 916 invoices. 82 per cent. of all payments were made within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will grant greater autonomy to DEBRA officials dealing with foot and mouth outbreaks and livestock movements in south Cumbria in order to speed up decisions; and if she will make a statement. [7518]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 October 2001]: National and European Community law requires that certain decisions relating to foot and mouth disease must be taken by the Chief Veterinary Officer and, in light of this accountability, it is not possible to delegate all the decision making entirely to the regions.

  However, when implementing national and EU policy, full account is taken, where possible, of local circumstances.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since 7 June how many holdings in Cumbria have had animals slaughtered because of foot and mouth disease, broken down by(a) IPs, (c) DCs and (c) other. [5242]

  Mr. Morley
  Between 7 June and 31 October, animals were slaughtered on 546 premises in Cumbria as a result of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. This figure may be broken down as follows.916W

  Number

  Infected Premises (IPs)

  164

  Dangerous Contacts (DCs)

  374

  Other (Slaughter on suspicion)

  8

  Total

  546

  Source

  These data were extracted from DEFRA's disease control system (DCS) database on 31 October 2001 at 15.45. The figures may be subject to some change as quality assurance of data on DCS is carried out

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department is putting in place to promote energy efficiency. [9561]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]The Department is taking the lead on a range of measures to promote energy efficiency including:

  We are consulting on the Energy Efficiency Commitment for 2002–05, which will place an obligation on gas and electricity suppliers to make energy efficiency improvements, through measures provided to their domestic consumers.

  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme, a programme costing over £150 million in 2001–02, is targeted on fuel poverty and is designed to improve the energy efficiency of 800,000 homes by 2004.

  The Department provides the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust with over £65 million of funding in 2001–02, to support their work of promoting energy efficiency in the domestic and non-domestic sectors of the economy.

  The Market Transformation Programme, worth £545,000 in 2001–02, encourages the deployment and take-up of energy efficient domestic appliances.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the joint public statement made on 30 July by the French and German Agriculture Ministers on the future direction of the Common Agricultural Policy; and if she will place an English version of the statement in the Library. [10772]

  Mr. Morley
  On 30 July, French and German media published an article reporting an agreed statement by the French and German Governments on the Common Agricultural Policy. This is an interesting document which recognises the need for further reform and in many ways covers similar themes to those put forward by the United Kingdom Government. We continue to work closely with the French and German Governments and with other member states in developing ideas for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

  I have placed an English translation of this statement in the Library of the House. However as the French and German language texts differ it is not possible to produce a single simple translation.

  European Water Framework Directive
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the implications in England and Wales of the European Water Framework Directive; and if she will make a statement. [11008]

  Mr. Meacher
  The implications of the directive are set out in the regulatory impact assessment (RIA) included in the "First Consultation Paper on the Implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)", which was published jointly by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the National Assembly for Wales in March this year. A copy of the consultation paper is in the House of Commons Library.

  Dogs (Byelaw Applications)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to allow local authorities to determine byelaws banning dogs from public places without reference to her Department; and if she will make a statement. [9669]

  Mr. Meacher
  Local authorities have to apply to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who determines byelaws on the grounds of whether they are reasonable, both to members of the public and to dog owners. A byelaw is a local law, which is made by a statutory body, such as a local authority, under an enabling power established by Act of Parliament. Byelaws create criminal offences and cannot come into effect unless they have been confirmed by a Secretary of State. There are no plans to change this policy.

  Biomass Energy
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assistance and opportunities exist for farmers to diversify their land use towards growing crops for the production of energy from biomass. [9252]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Energy Crops Scheme, part of the England Rural Development Programme, makes £29 million of assistance available to farmers over seven years. This includes establishment grants for short rotation coppice and miscanthus and up to 50 per cent. of set-up costs for short rotation coppice growers forming producer groups. In addition, farmers may benefit from planting grants under the Woodland Grant Scheme and the Farm Woodlands Premium Scheme, and woodland maintenance grants under the WGS. We are working closely with Government Departments and other bodies to develop market opportunities for biomass in power generation, combined heat and power and heat applications.

  London Waste
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken to monitor the safety of waste disposed of by London Waste; and if she will make a statement on the toxicity of this waste. [9248]

  Mr. Meacher
  London Waste produces two ash streams from the Edmonton incinerator: bottom ash which is not classified as hazardous and air pollution control 918W
  (APC) residues which are classified as hazardous and are disposed of separately and safely to appropriately licensed landfill sites.

  The Environment Agency is responsible for the regulation of waste disposal operations, including those undertaken by London Waste, in order to safeguard human health and protect the environment.

  As a result of recent concerns about the use of ash from the Edmonton incinerator, the Environment Agency is carrying out a thorough investigation into the destinations of ash from all municipal waste incinerators, the environmental implications of its use and what steps may be needed in the light of these findings. The results of the Environment Agency's investigations will be made public.

  Incinerators
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to introduce tougher controls on emissions from existing municipal incinerators; and if she will make a statement. [7751]

  Mr. Meacher
  The recently adopted Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC sets minimum standards for a variety of plants that burn waste, including municipal solid waste incinerators (MSWIs). The UK Government are committed to transposing the EU Waste Incineration Directive, into UK law by 28 December 2002. Its provisions will apply to all new incinerators by this date, and to existing plant by 28 December 2005. This directive tightens dioxin limits to 0.1 ng/m3 (0.1 billionth of a gram). This standard will be the maximum amount of dioxin permitted to be emitted from MSWIs.

  There is no dioxin limit in the Municipal Waste Incineration Directives (89/429/EEC and 89/369/EEC). In 1996 the Environment Agency chose to implement a 1.0 ng/m3 emission limit as achievable using the best available technique not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC). In 2000 the Agency took a similar decision on BATNEEC and MSWIs were required to either (i) reduce dioxin limits to 0.1 ng/m3 (that is 10 times lower than the earlier limit); or (ii) on plant which could immediately achieve that level, to report on how they would achieve it. As a result, we estimate that dioxin emissions from incinerators in the UK have fallen several hundred-fold.

  The Environment Agency intends to review the performance of existing MSWIs before the Waste Incineration Directive applies.

  Scrapie
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate her Department has made of the total number of sheep in the national flock possessing the genotype susceptible to scrapie. [11213]

  Mr. Morley
  There is currently only very limited information available on the distribution in the national flock of the 15 known genotypes that determine levels of susceptibility and resistance to scrapie. It is not therefore possible at this stage to produce reliable estimates. However, the limited data available suggest that about one
  919W
  quarter of the breeding ram population may be resistant to scrapie, and about two thirds of the slaughter population may be at least semi-resistant. There will be significant variation between different sheep breeds. It should be possible to produce more reliable estimates as an increasing number of breeding sheep come to be genotyped under the national scrapie plan.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department is implementing to eradicate scrapie from the national sheep flock; and if she will list the number of livestock culled by county in each year since May 1997. [11212]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government launched a national scrapie plan for Great Britain in July. This will breed resistance to scrapie into the national flock.

  The plan has initially been targeted at producers of purebred, pedigree breeding sheep registered with a recognised breed society. We are currently consulting about rapid extension of the plan to the remainder of the pure breeding flock, including special action for scrapie-infected flocks. We are considering other ways of speeding up implementation of the plan and on 31 October we published a Bill that would allow the Government to take powers to remove from the breeding flock, on a compulsory basis, sheep with genotypes that make them susceptible to scrapie.

  We are also consulting on ways to encourage the reporting of scrapie when it occurs, and next year we will be undertaking a survey to gain more knowledge of the incidence of scrapie, using rapid testing methods.

  The figures for the number of confirmed scrapie cases by county in each year since May 1997 are presented in the table provided.

  Cases of scrapie confirmed in sheep, by county, since May 1997

  19971

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20012

  England

  Derbyshire

  0

  4

  13

  9

  0

  Leicestershire and Rutland

  3

  7

  17

  5

  1

  Lincolnshire excluding North

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Northamptonshire

  o

  5

  4

  1

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  2

  6

  3

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  o

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Essex

  0

  2

  3

  1

  3

  Norfolk

  7

  8

  16

  5

  0

  Suffolk

  5

  13

  6

  5

  1

  Cleveland and Darlington

  3

  23

  22

  8

  0

  Durham

  3

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Northumberland

  2

  2

  5

  9

  3

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  0

  35

  9

  Cumbria

  26

  39

  62

  40

  6

  Lancashire

  4

  13

  7

  3

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  9

  7

  6

  9

  7

  East Sussex

  0

  3

  4

  0

  1

  Hampshire

  7

  10

  0

  1

  0

  Isle of Wight

  8

  5

  1

  2

  2

  Kent

  4

  3

  2

  3

  0

  Oxfordshire

  58

  57

  30

  17

  8

  Surrey

  0

  1

  4

  3

  0

  West Sussex

  2

  4

  4

  2

  1

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  2

  6

  13

  23

  16

  Devon

  6

  18

  71

  67

  37

  Dorset

  1

  10

  4

  1

  1

  Gloucestershire excluding South

  0

  3

  3

  3

  0

  Northern Somerset and South Gloucestershire

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Somerset excluding North

  2

  23

  8

  12

  1

  Wiltshire

  7

  8

  13

  17

  3

  920W

  Cases of scrapie confirmed in sheep, by county, since May 1997

  19971

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20012

  Herefordshire

  3

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Shropshire

  2

  7

  7

  8

  1

  Staffordshire

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Warwickshire

  2

  10

  6

  15

  4

  Worcestershire

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  East Riding and Northern Lincoln

  0

  2

  1

  1

  0

  North Yorkshire

  15

  20

  36

  46

  12

  South Yorkshire

  0

  3

  1

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  186

  326

  380

  358

  123

  Scotland

  Clyde Valley

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dunfries and Galloway

  2

  8

  0

  2

  0

  Fife

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Highland

  0

  2

  1

  6

  6

  Lothian

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  North East Scotland

  1

  1

  3

  5

  2

  Orkney

  0

  3

  7

  2

  3

  Scottish borders

  0

  0

  7

  4

  0

  Shetland

  60

  90

  91

  64

  37

  Tayside

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  65

  105

  112

  85

  46

  Wales

  Carmarthenshire

  20

  28

  29

  40

  9

  Ceredigion

  2

  0

  1

  3

  0

  North East Wales

  11

  16

  33

  51

  11

  North West Wales

  1

  6

  26

  13

  2

  Pembrokeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Powys

  4

  17

  16

  17

  0

  South Wales

  3

  1

  0

  1

  0

  41

  68

  105

  125

  24

  Total

  292

  499

  597

  568

  195

  1 May to December

  2 January to September

  Notes

  Confirmation is by pathological tests (normally at least two types) Figures for 2001 exclude pending cases awaiting a test result, and will be lower for the same period in the previous year because of the foot and mouth outbreak

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken to establish a scheme for the valuation of sheep flocks and the payment of compensation for livestock to be destroyed under her proposed special measures for the elimination of scrapie from the national flock. [11214]

  Mr. Morley
  The Animal Health Bill was published on 31 October and includes an enabling power allowing Ministers to pay compensation for losses or costs incurred as a result of the provisions relating to scrapie in the Bill. If the scrapie provisions were activated, a decision would need to be taken at the time on whether compensation was appropriate. If a decision to pay compensation were taken, the details would be set out in supplementary regulations.

  Beef
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the potential for recovery in the beef export market; and if she will calculate the percentage take-up of British beef exports in individual(a) European Union countries and (b) countries outside the European Union. [11418]

  Mr. Morley
  It is not possible to make a realistic assessment because recovery of our beef exports to EU and other countries depends on many factors including the number of plants which seek approval to export under
  921W
  the Date-Based Export Scheme (DBES); the conditions of DBES; the results of our testing programme, access to markets in France and other countries which currently ban British beef; consumer confidence in target countries and currency values. The Government will continue to work closely with the industry and others to facilitate exports as far as possible.

  British Waterways
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers she has to remove the(a) Chief Executive and (b) Chair of the British Waterways Board from their positions. [11458]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 30 October 2001]: The Chairman of the British Waterways Board is appointed by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, after consultation with Scottish Ministers under section 1 of the Transport Act 1962. The appointment is subject to standard terms and conditions allowing the Secretary of State by written notice to terminate the appointment. The Chief Executive of the British Waterways Board is appointed by, and is responsible to, the Board.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Government will draw down the latest available amount of EU agrimonetary compensation for UK arable farmers. [12084]

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will claim the next available tranche of agrimonetary compensation by 31 October; and if she will make a statement. [11300]

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to apply by the end of October for agrimonetary compensation from the European Union to aid arable farmers. [10007]

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if it is the policy of her Department to claim the outstanding arable agrimonetary compensation from the European Commission; whether it is her policy to submit a formal request for such moneys before the end of October; and if she will make a statement. [9731]

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will apply for agrimonetary compensation for arable farmers before 31 October; and if she will make a statement; [9842]

  (2) what representations she has made to the EU to access agrimonetary compensation for arable farmers; when she made them; and with what results. [9844]

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government have taken to claim the outstanding arable agrimonetary compensation packages for which farmers are eligible before the closing date. [9798]

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what considerations the Government have given to claiming the money 922W
  available to UK cereal farmers from the EU agrimonetary compensation scheme by 31 October; and if she will make a statement. [7705]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 738W.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much CHP capacity has been put out of service since the new electricity trading arrangements commenced. [5768]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on 17 October 2001,Official Report, column 1250W.

  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the outcome of the Quinquennial and Better Quality Services Reviews of the Pesticides Safety Directorate. [12796]

  Margaret Beckett
  After having undertaken both a consultation exercise and detailed reviews of the functions, form and performance of the Pesticides Safety Directorate over the past five years, I have concluded that they should remain an executive agency for another term. The reviews established that the retention of agency status would be the most appropriate means of delivering high quality and cost effective services over the next five years.

  The Better Quality Services stage of the reviews has specifically identified measures to ensure continuous improvement in PSD's quality of service and cost effectiveness.

  New Forest
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she has to introduce legislation requiring the proposed New Forest National Park Authority to use its powers in respect of the commonable lands of the New Forest in consultation with the Verderers of the New Forest; and if she will make a statement. [11562]

  Alun Michael
  It is too early to make any statement about Government proposals to introduce legislation for a proposed New Forest National Park Authority. We are awaiting the Countryside Agency's recommendation on the designation of a New Forest National Park and expect this early in 2002. Should the Agency submit a designation order to my right hon. Friend (the Secretary of State) for confirmation, it will be accompanied by their advice on administrative arrangements.

  The Agency has recently completed a three-month public consultation period on the administrative arrangements for a proposed New Forest National Park, including the need for special guidance for a National Park Authority, the membership of the Authority and its relationship with the Verderers. They are currently considering the responses received.

  Urban Bus Challenge
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will announce the results of the Urban Bus Challenge Competition. [12794]

  Authority

  Title of bid approved

  Total cost (£)

  Blackpool

  Lifestyle line. Bus service for residents of two deprived wards to areas of employment and the hospital

  809,225

  Bristol

  Lawrence Weston Transport Group. Bus service for residents of deprived ward to shops, clinics and other local facilities

  63,000

  Essex

  Harlow Community Transport dial a ride scheme. Reduce social exclusion in deprived area

  146,000

  Greater Manchester

  Wythenshawe demand response service. Improved access to health and employment facilities

  682,000

  Call centre for demand responsive bus services. Co-ordination of demand response services

  70,000

  Oldham. Bus service access between residential area and employment area

  345,500

  Halton

  Daresbury Park. Provide bus service to areas of employment

  122,850

  Accessible Transport. Provide mini bus to employment and training opportunities for disabled people

  70,675

  Hampshire

  Leigh Park Links. Demand response service providing access to areas of employment, leisure and healthcare opportunities, particularly for unemployed young people

  460,700

  Hartlepool

  Improved transport and infrastructure services. Extended bus service to industrial estate and provision of evening and Sunday service

  185,650

  Lancashire

  Skelmersdale demand responsive transit project. Provide access links to areas of employment

  619,062

  Leicester

  Community service for Braunstone. Local estate access to employment an shopping facilities

  1,130,000

  Merseyside

  Atlantic Gateway demand response service. Provide deprived wards access to areas of employment

  624,000

  Huyton/Prescot demand response service. Provide access to areas of employment

  480,000

  Kirby/Gillmoss demand response service. Provide access to areas of employment

  624,000

  Norfolk

  Lowestoft corridor bus. Provide improved bus and evening taxi-bus service to areas of employment

  926,562

  Northumberland

  Connecting Blyth. Improved linkage of service to provide more direct links to employment opportunities

  1,074,000

  Nottinghamshire

  Mansfield. Provide deprived wards access to employment opportunities

  373,495

  Plymouth

  East/West corridor link. Provide connecting services to deprived residential areas at times required by shift patterns

  190,000

  South Yorkshire

  Parson Cross. Community bus service to stimulate community activity and new interchange facility

  335,000

  Stoke on Trent

  Health. Provide demand response service connecting three wards within Stoke to new healthcentre

  733,500

  Telford and Wrekin

  Integrated Taxi Network. Link residential area with centres of employment and bus interchange sites through provision of shuttle bus to three industrial estates

  615,013

  Thurrock

  Demand response service. Provide service from deprived urban community to integrate with existing community local bus service

  263,307

  Transport for London

  Hammersmith. Provide improved access for staff, patients and visitors to Hammersmith, Queens Charlotte and Charing Cross Hospitals

  425,000

  Tyne and Wear

  West Newcastle. Provide better access to employment opportunities to deprived areas of West Newcastle

  431,214

  Warwickshire

  Camp Hill. Address current shortfall in transport provision to employment opportunities

  561,088

  West Midlands

  Birchfield. Provision of community bus to provide regular day, evening and Sunday service

  296,236

  Community transport. Provide prison visitors easier access to prisons in West Midlands

  321,750

  Dudley. Provision of school mini bus service for children and particularly disabled children who use taxis

  232,104

  West Yorkshire

  East Leeds. Provide deprived wards access to employment opportunities

  633,000

  Leeds Buddying scheme. Provide personal assistance, support and training to elderly and disabled people to enable them to use public transport

  240,000

  Worcestershire

  Provide a new high frequency cross-city bus service and demand responsive orbital minibus to assist four deprived wards

  1,224,000

  Total

  15,307,931

  924W
  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have today announced the 32 projects that have been successful in this year's competition, totalling £15.3 million. The projects are as listed.

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

Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Amendment of Enactment) Order 2001
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order is a tidying provision which corrects a legislative oversight in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The order amends Section 6 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 which lists those bodies from which nominees to the Committee of the Regions can be drawn. The order adds the Northern Ireland Assembly to that list, thereby allowing Members of the Assembly to be nominated as members of the Committee of the Regions by the devolved administration. As such, the order brings Northern Ireland into line with the position in Scotland and Wales with regard to their respective legislatures.
The mandate of the current Committee of the Regions members and alternates is due to expire at the end of this year. Northern Ireland is allocated two members and two alternates. Following devolution, the Northern Ireland Executive is responsible for nominating members and alternates to the Foreign Secretary.
The order will increase the pool of potential nominees from which the Executive may draw. The pool will include both Members of the Assembly and district councillors. This order will not increase the number of seats allocated to Northern Ireland, nor will it affect the allocation of seats throughout the rest of the UK.
I understand that the Executive is currently in the process of determining the selection process it will adopt to select Northern Ireland's members and alternates. It is acutely aware of the sensitivity of the need for the selection process to be fair and open and for those who are nominated to represent both communities in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, mindful of the demands on the House today, I shall be brief.
I welcome the correction as regards the omission from the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It was one of the many flaws in the Act—due partly to haste in drafting it and perhaps mainly to the influence of those from foreign parts who were determined to restrict to a
1632
minimum all references to the integrity of the United Kingdom. For them, the order is something of a setback. But let us be assured that they will continue to chip away at the Union—and no doubt the Foreign Office will render them every assistance, as is common practice.
Will the Government give an assurance that they will adhere to the number of members nominated to the Committee of the Regions; namely, two members and two alternates?
There is a temptation on the part of some to plead for larger numbers on all such occasions. It was so when the Callaghan government granted Northern Ireland equal representation—equal in parity with, for example, Wales. In 1978, some fairly loud Ulster voices were raised in favour of increasing the number of seats from 17 to 22 in line with what they perceived to be the ratio for Scotland. I resisted that demand, knowing that, some day, the long-suffering English would press for a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs, thus linking Northern Ireland's quota and hurling it back into the melting-pot.
I hope that the Government will reject firmly all demands to increase the two-plus-two figures contained in the order. There are always great dangers in asking for more, as Oliver Twist discovered.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the order. I thank the Minister for her explanation.
The committee was created by the Maastricht Treaty in 1991. At the time there was a danger that the EU was steaming ahead, leaving the public very much behind. That is why it was decided to set up representation for local and regional committees.
I welcome the order as a positive step towards Northern Ireland playing a fuller role in Europe. Europe has greatly helped Northern Ireland 'with investment and grants, so it is important that Northern Ireland and its politicians should have the voice that goes with the significant role that Europe has played. That will be particularly important after 1st January, with the introduction of the euro in the Republic of Ireland and everything that goes with it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that we are aware of the sensitivities that would surround a change in the balance of seats in Northern Ireland. We have no plans to amend the current balance. Northern Ireland has two members to ensure balanced representation from the two communities. Any reduction in the number of seats allocated would jeopardise that balance.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his support for the order. Declaring a former interest as one of the original members of the Committee of the Regions, perhaps I may place it on record that the representatives from Northern Ireland play a full and good role in the Committee of the Regions, to the benefit of the people whom they represent. I commend the order the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) Order 2001
11.11 a.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 17th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced on 12th October that he was specifying the UDA, UFF and LVF by virtue of the powers conferred on him by the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. He immediately made this order under the urgency procedure provided by Section 19(3) of the Act and specification took effect from midnight that night.
The Secretary of State is obliged to review the list of specified organisations from time to time in case changes of circumstances require it to be amended. Over the previous weeks and months the Secretary of State had received briefings from the Chief Constable on the activities of all paramilitary organisations. Based on those briefings it was clear that the level and pattern of violence emanating from or inspired by the UDA/UFF merited a decision to specify. On 28th September the Secretary of State had decided to announce his decision to specify the UDA and UFF.
However, at the 11th hour it was communicated to him that the UDA had accepted the damage and violence it had been doing, both to individuals and to the general peace process. It had decided to bring the violence to an end. The Secretary of State made it plain that he was deeply sceptical of any words emanating from that organisation but even at the 11th hour he was prepared to put them to the test: not by words but by deeds.
That scepticism was to prove well founded. While there was an initial period of calm following the UDA's reprieve, on the night of 11th October serious rioting ensued on the Lower Shankill Road following a police house search and arrest operation. The search operation had revealed pipe bombs, pistols, ammunition and bomb-making equipment along with various items of paramilitary paraphernalia. Some 100 to 150 persons were involved in the orchestrated rioting which followed the search, with pipe bombs and petrol bombs being thrown at the police.
The next day, 12th October, on the clear advice from the Chief Constable that the UDA/UFF were responsible for the rioting, and in keeping with his previous warning, the Secretary of State announced his decision to specify those organisations. The decision was also announced to specify the LVF. This was taken on the basis of its actions over the recent period and, in particular, the murder of Martin O'Hagan, a local journalist, who was shot two weeks previously.
The activities of the UDA, UFF and LVF were incompatible with any claims to be on ceasefire and their actions cannot be tolerated by any civilised society. Such acts are morally indefensible and inexcusable. The result of their specification is that:
1634
early released prisoners associated with the UDA, UFF and LVF can now have their licences suspended and be returned to gaol if they are believed to continue to support their organisation; the provisions now embodied in the Terrorism Act 2000 relating to charges of membership introduced originally after the Omagh bombing in 1998 will also apply to all three organisations; and any UDA, UFF or LVF person found guilty of a scheduled offence that took place before the Good Friday agreement cannot qualify for early release provisions.
I am sure the whole House will agree that the decision to specify these organisations was absolutely the proper course, indeed the only course of action to take. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 17th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the order before the House. I have no quarrel with the Government's decision—which is the main thrust of the measure—to specify the organisations she has outlined. However, we are once again in the situation of which I spoke in your Lordships' House during the passage of the Terrorism Act 2000 and, I believe, during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act; namely, the creation of two classes of terrorism. There is terrorism and there is terrorism and there is terrorism. Both the Prime Minister and the President of the United States have said that a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist and that they will hunt them out.
There is absolutely no doubt in my opinion that those who perpetrate these awful acts all over Belfast and in other parts of Northern Ireland are still carrying out acts of terrorism and intimidation. They shoot young men in front of their girlfriends because they are doing something which a particular paramilitary organisation does not like. These are paramilitary organisations comprising terrorists. Unfortunately, the order, which I hope your Lordships will accept, has no teeth.
It is already some time ago since the Secretary of State made the decision to specify the organisations we are discussing. I ask the Minister how many past prisoners, thugs, have been arrested? What is so different about the awful deeds carried out by the UDA and the UVF in north Belfast as opposed to those which the IRA carries out in other parts of Belfast? There has been some disarmament and there is some agreement on the part of Sinn Fein/IRA to a ceasefire, but they are still terrorists and still harbour terrorists and they should be treated in the same light.
To continue the point about two classes of terrorism, when we passed the Terrorism Act 2000 I said in your Lordships' House that the proscription in Schedule 2 refers only to the IRA. In the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act, as I believe I pointed out at the time, the IRA organisations are broken down into many bits and pieces. Surely that creates a situation of two leagues—the A and the B Leagues of terrorism.

1635
My complaint is, first, that the measure has no teeth despite the efforts of my party in another place during the passage of the Act to give it teeth. However, the Government defeated the relevant amendments. Secondly, it perpetuates the concept of two classes of terrorism which I and my party totally reject.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I once again thank the Minister for the explanation she has offered. We appreciate that the purpose of the order is to specify organisations which do not maintain a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. Therefore, this is a good opportunity to condemn the recent spate of paramilitary violence both from republicans and loyalists. Although the Minister has our support, will she confirm that there will be no change in the status of the Continuity IRA, the Real IRA, the Red Hand Defenders and the Orange Volunteers, which have previously been specified?
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, the order should be seen as preparation for the overdue offensive against terrorist and paramilitary bodies generally. That offensive must be launched without delay if the people of Northern Ireland are to be rescued from the hideous imposition of intimidation, racketeering, drug trafficking and protection rackets. I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, on that.
The New York atrocity has, to a great extent, made old-style terrorism unfashionable and unprofitable, but all the terrorists groups derive great comfort from having at hand the activities that I have just listed. The order is a mere sideshow. It will do nothing to increase pressure on those organisations already switching to new-style terrorism.
If the Real IRA were to announce that it was prepared to consider putting beyond use some of its weapons, which were transferred from the Provisional IRA not so long ago, would the Real IRA be removed from the list that we are considering today? Secondly, at a time when terrorism is being unanimously condemned world-wide, is it prudent to ignore the activities of any terrorist body whose command and control structures remain intact? Finally, in relation to decisions that will be required of the Secretary of State in future, why do medium-ranked police officers seem required, or maybe compelled, to decide and announce that a given murder was not terrorist-related within a few hours of the crime? It seems passing strange that such hasty conclusions apparently have to be broadcast and announced in advance of any real investigation. If that practice could be discontinued, there might be wider public support for this and similar legislation.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as she has said, there continues to be a considerable amount of violence on the streets of Northern Ireland which is being conducted by paramilitaries who claim—or who have claimed in the past—to be protecting their community, but who are now, as we have discussed recently in the House, exiling them, brutally beating them and treating them
1636
with the utmost contempt and cruelty? Is there any reason that the Provisional IRA should not continue to be treated as the other organisations have been treated as long as its members behave like that? We know that it can turn off the tap if it wants to—it has done so before. Has it been asked to do so again? If it has been asked and it continues with what it is doing, should it not be considered seriously as the terrorist organisation that it still is?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, that the Secretary of State has looked at all terrorist organisations and will continue to keep them under review. The Chief Constable is currently reviewing the position of those involved with the UDA, UFF and LVF. In answer to the specific question from the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, 10 specified prisoners are currently being reviewed by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State has taken into account the actions of the UDA, UFF and LVF over many weeks, not just the past few days. He has concluded that the scale and level of the pattern are distinctly different from other organisations. However, I always agree with the noble Baroness that all violence is to be deplored.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I reiterate that the status of all ceasefires is kept under continuous review. The judgment is that the PIRA ceasefire has not broken down—quite the reverse. As confirmed by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, the IRA has started the process of putting arms beyond use. I assure noble Lords that we shall act if we have firm enough grounds for doing so. The decision not to specify is evidence of our determination to bear clown on terrorism, not the reverse.
Also in response to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, the Secretary of State is obliged under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 to keep the status of all paramilitary organisations under review. He needs to reach a judgment, taking account of the specific terms of the legislation and other relevant factors as to the status of any organisation's ceasefire. Whatever the public belief about the status of ceasefires, he needs to be assured that any decision that he takes meets the criteria that the courts would apply. The UDA and UFF were warned two weeks ago that the Secretary of State would specify them without further warning in the event of further violence.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, for his courtesy in giving me notice of the issues about which he was going to raise concerns. For any organisation to be despecified, it would need to demonstrate clearly by word and deed that it was maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. That is the judgment for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make, on advice from the Chief Constable. I cannot second-guess that process. Suffice to say that an act of putting arms beyond use would not of itself be sufficient.

1637
It would be imprudent to ignore any terrorist organisation, whether or not it was observing a ceasefire. All terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland are proscribed under the Terrorism Act and remain amenable to the court. Clearly, we want to work towards the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement and develop an inclusive society for all, but the safety and security of the ordinary citizen will not be placed in jeopardy in that process.
The final question from the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, related to the response of police officers to any given murder. As the noble Lord will appreciate, that is essentially an operational matter for the police. When a death is obviously not terrorist-related—such as a domestic incident—it is reasonable for the police to say so. Often, however, the police are responding to media questioning and they answer as they believe appropriate.
I hope that I have answered all the points that have been raised. If any noble Lord feels that I have not done so, I shall seek to reply in writing should they wish me to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization) Order 2001
11.29 a.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak also to the three related orders: the European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization) Order 2001, the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European School) Order 2001 and the European Communities (Privileges of the European School) Order 2001.
The four draft orders relate entirely to privileges and immunities which we are obliged internationally to give to the European School and to NASCO. They do not concern the conservation of salmon, the workings of the European Union or the operation of the European School. They deal only with the refund of small amounts of taxation.
The four orders were laid before the House on 15th October. As I said, they are all extremely similar. Therefore, I propose to take them together. They provide for refunds of insurance premium tax (IPT) and air passenger duty (APD) to the European School at Culham in Oxfordshire and the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO), which is based in Edinburgh.
Under legislation already passed, 34 international organisations have relief from IPT and APD. The European School and NASCO will bring the total to 36. Unlike the other 34 international organisations, in their case there were legal complexities which had first to be resolved.
As noble Lords will note, two of the draft orders are entitled "Definition of Treaties". Exchanges of Notes have been concluded by the Government and by the governors of the European School and NASCO in order to amend their existing agreements, the wording of which did not allow for refunds of IPT and APD. In accordance with the European Communities Act 1972, the Exchanges of Notes must be declared to be Community treaties, as defined in Section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, so that they provide for Community obligations. That means that implementing Orders in Council can be issued.
Refunds of IPT and APD are given to meet our international obligations. It is established international practice that a state should not tax other states through the intermediary of an international organisation and that the host state should not derive undue fiscal advantage from the presence on its soil of an international organisation.
I am satisfied that the orders are compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. In conclusion, these orders confer only the privileges and immunities which we are obliged to confer internationally. They will allow us to treat the European School and NASCO on the same basis as 34 similar organisations. I very much hope that your Lordships will approve them. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Carter.)
Lord Roper: My Lords, I am most grateful to, on this occasion, the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms for having explained so fairly to the House the reason for these four orders. Rather like the noble Baroness who spoke earlier, I have an expired interest in so far as I once worked for an international organisation outside this country and benefited from certain tax reliefs.
I believe that it is right that, when we grant tax reliefs in this way, these matters come before both Houses. It is important that tax concessions should be seen publicly rather than hidden away.
I shall not detain the House with a long discussion. However, I want, at least, to put on record that at some stage I believe that not only we but all member states of the European Union will need to consider whether the European organisations should be treated in the same way as international organisations at large. This is not a matter to be dealt with today, but it something to which we may need to return on a future occasion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Privileges of the European School) Order 2001
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move the next three orders standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 15th October be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater London Authority (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Order 2001
11.34 a.m.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th October be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order provides for incidental, consequential and supplementary provision for the purposes of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. The first amendment would enable the GLA to send a member of staff other than a qualified solicitor to prosecute or defend proceedings in a magistrates' court.
There are then three minor procedural amendments to the GLA 's powers to make enforced by-laws in relation to Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square Gardens. The first would enable by-laws to be made under the hand of the mayor rather than under seal. The second would confirm that, if the GLA needed to produce evidence of a by-law—for example, in a prosecution—it could provide a properly endorsed printed copy. The third would clarify that the GLA has power to enforce its by-laws.
The order would also amend the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 to make the mayor and elected members of the London Assembly potentially eligible for nomination to the European Union Committee of the Regions.
Finally, the Secretary of State has powers under Section 85(5) of the Environment Act 1995 to direct local authorities to take steps to achieve European Union air quality obligations. It was intended to transfer that power of direction in London from the Secretary of State to the mayor. Instead, the GLA Act simply took the power away from the Secretary of State and did not deliver it to the mayor. The amendment would deliver the original policy intention and complete the transfer by giving the power of direction to the mayor.
In my view, these provisions are compatible with the convention rights defined in Section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Noble Lords will note that this is a straightforward order designed to put right minor errors, omissions or unforeseen consequences of the Act and to deliver the original policy intention of the GLA Act. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th October be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committed.]—(Lord Filkin.)
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I have two small points to raise under this order. I am not sure whether the noble Lord has been given notice. If he has not, I shall be quite happy if he writes to me about them.
First, under paragraph 3, can he say under what circumstances it is foreseen that the mayor would make such by-laws, and how would that impinge upon local authority responsibility in London? Would a local authority, if necessary, be able to object to such a by-law if it wanted to do so?
Secondly, under paragraph 5, I see that the amendment ensures that a member of the GLA can become a member of the Committee of the Regions. That is fine. However, can the noble Lord confirm that it does not make it a requirement that the regional representatives for London should always be members of the GLA but could be elected from any local London authority; in other words, that it is not exclusive between the GLA and the Committee of the Regions? I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on those two points.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for explaining the order. I am delighted that in this House we have been able to spend less time on the matter than another place succeeded in doing. In describing the correction of the rather typical drafting error on air quality of taking power from the Secretary of State but failing to pass it on to the mayor, the Minister in another place said that this was the last missing brick. I believe that that was tempting providence. I am aware that work on the No. 3 order is well under way.
I declare an interest as a member, and currently chair, of the London Assembly. That position enabled me to discover, when I inquired about sealing documents, that the GLA has merely bought what was described to me as a "cheap company-type seal" to allow the by-laws to be sealed. Therefore, I am glad that neither the budget nor the precept have been too much affected and that, as from today, we shall have our first GLA historical artefact. I understand that the mayor grumbled at that and said that it would surely have been adequate simply to use an old GLC seal until the matter was sorted out.
Most of the measures are practical and uncontentious. I turn to the provision mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in relation to the Committee of the Regions, which occupied another place for a great deal of time. I want to take this

1641
opportunity to set the record straight in a minor way. The other place talked a great deal about the position of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, on the Committee of the Regions. As I understand it, he was always an alternate member and not a full member. My noble friend Lord Tope—he is a friend in another sense to many of your Lordships, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, in her position on the Committee of the Regions—has been a full member since 1994 and is now president of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Group, which has more than 50 members and is the third largest of the groups.
I know that discussions are pretty well complete between the Local Government Association and the mayor about nominations for the next mandate—I believe that that is the right term. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will comment on that.
I end with a serious political point. It is inevitable that we have this order and will have other corrigenda orders. That is because of the complexity of the Act, but not only because of that. The Act is complex because devolution is less complete and, if I may say so, a little more grudging than many of us would wish. We are delighted with what we have but we should have liked to have had even more.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments and their general support.
I shall deal first with the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I should like to write to him to explain the matter in more detail but, in essence, the GLA is in a unique position with regard to those two spaces in London—Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square Gardens. It is in relation to those areas and only in relation to them that it has powers to make by-laws. The provisions ensure beyond doubt that it has those powers and the powers of enforcement that it needs to do its duties in those areas. The noble Lord asked whether local authorities can raise objections. I should like to check and write to him.
The noble Lord is right in his assumption that while the mayor in consultation with the GLA will make nominations to the Local Government Association in the first instance for the one main and the one alternate space, it can be any elected member within the London area; it does not have to be solely from the GLA. We shall see what happens in practice.
I turn to the interesting points that were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She was right to say that the GLA will save considerable sums of money by not having to buy a fine and noble seal and by doing things underhand instead. She was also right to say that my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey was an alternate member. My notes suggest that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, was a full member. This House has been strongly and ably represented on the Committee of the Regions by all three parties; we have more than made our mark in that respect.
I believe that those are the only points that noble Lords raised. I note the point about whether half-completed devolution is involved. The novelty of the
1642
GLA Act is partly also a burden; nothing like this has been done before and it is almost inevitable that there will be a sequence of minor amendments, particularly because lawyers are anxious to ensure that matters are put beyond doubt. I shall not detain the House further. This is a straightforward order that is designed to put minor errors, omissions and unforeseen consequences beyond doubt and to deliver the original intentions of the Act. I ask the House to support the order.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I put on record that, as well as appreciating the contributions of those members who I mentioned on the Committee of the Regions, I forgot, because I did not look at my notes, to mention the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, who has, I understand, made a great contribution.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Baroness's comment matches my understanding; the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has made powerful and important contributions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce (Abolition) Regulations 2001
11.44 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee—].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in discussing the regulations I shall, with the leave of the House, also touch on the two subsequent orders—the draft National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001 and the draft Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001, which deal with consequential matters.
The purpose of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce (Abolition) Regulations 2001 is to abolish the intervention board and to transfer its properties, rights and liabilities. They will go mainly to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; others will be divided between the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales and the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland. As a consequence, the regulations will repeal Section 6(1) and (2) of the European Communities Act 1972, and amend Section 6(3), (4) and (5).
The regulations also provide powers and make consequential amendments to other primary and secondary legislation to ensure that we can continue to carry out the UK's obligations under the common agricultural policy, which were previously entrusted to the board. Other legislation and administrative action will ensure that the obligations are carried out by the RPA—the Rural Payments Agency.
The purpose of the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order is to transfer from the Secretary of State for Wales to the National Assembly all the non-statutory functions with which the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce was charged in relation to Wales prior to the abolition of that board. Those are mainly functions in relation to the CAP. Article 3 of the order provides for the exclusion from transfer of certain property that would otherwise transfer to the National Assembly.
My department has maintained close contact with the National Assembly throughout the process and it, like the other devolved administrations, is fully on board with regard to the proposals. The National Assembly welcomes the improved service that that reorganisation will bring to Welsh farmers and traders.
The purpose of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions) Order is, likewise, to transfer the relevant functions from the Secretary of State to the Northern Ireland Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, who will then delegate such functions as she considers appropriate to the Rural Payments Agency. She has already agreed to proceed in line with the other jurisdictions and welcomes the improvement in service that the reorganisation will bring to Northern Ireland.
All of the instruments are therefore part of the process that will set up the RPA and ensure that its customers see no break in the continuity of service. The creation of the RPA is a significant part of the Government's modernising agenda. It brings together the administration of CAP grants and subsidies schemes, which were previously divided between DEFRA—formerly MAFF—regional offices and the intervention board. It handles and accounts for £2 billion of CAP payments. The RPA is an executive agency of DEFRA. It will deliver customer services against a clear set of objectives and targets and it will demonstrate clear lines of accountability and responsibility. As an executive agency, DEFRA and the Secretary of State will ultimately be accountable for the RPA.
On 24th July 2000, my right honourable friend Nick Brown, who was then the Minister responsible for agriculture, announced that he intended to make a number of changes to the regional structure of the former MAFF, including the creation of a new paying agency. In that context, "paying agency" is a term of art for an organisation that pays and controls CAP expenditure in accordance with EU rules. He also wrote on the same day to all Members of Parliament whose constituencies included former MAFF regional service centres and to others who had previously written to let them know of the sites that had been selected for the new paying agency.
More recently, in September, I wrote to stakeholders outlining the new regional structures in DEFRA. Since then, more detailed information has been provided in a leaflet that was sent out and displayed in a dedicated website.
The 16th October was also the first day of the CAP financial year and was therefore the day that the RPA started to operate as an accredited EU paying agency. From that date, until this order comes into force, the agency has operated as a joint enterprise between the intervention board and DEFRA under a single management structure. The RPA has set out to modernise the way in which CAP payments are made by 2004. It will make major investment in new technology so that farmers and traders can submit claims electronically and the RPA, in turn, can provide advanced electronic processing capability. This is a direct response to concerns expressed by farmers and others about the bureaucracy required to access CAP funds. The work of creating the RPA has taken account of these views and will continue to do so in fine tuning the agency's procedures.
The RPA has embarked on a major programme of change. Risk management and the maintenance of the business community are the keys to its success as it restructures and moves on to new systems. The RPA is taking a staged approach over three years to safeguard the department's business interests and ensure minimum disruption for customers and staff. The RPA intends to provide a single point of contact and a dedicated customer service centre. Staff are looking at the options for the structure of this centre and at the technology it needs. Farmers and traders will also benefit from more efficient and rapid processing of payments with the achievement of a 95 per cent electronic delivery capability by 2004. The RPA does recognise that some customers will be unwilling or unable to use these electronic services and we shall work to ensure that we can address those barriers systematically. There will also be significant benefits for taxpayers with a 10 per cent cut by 2004 in unit costs of administering payments and further savings in subsequent years.
The RPA currently employs some 3,500 staff at 11 sites with its headquarters in Reading. Once the change programme has been completed, the number of RPA offices will have been reduced to five; Reading, Carlisle, Exeter, Newcastle and Northallerton. The department is committed to finding staff jobs and minimising the risks of redundancies. The other sites will not close. The creation of the RPA is only part of a programme of DEFRA regional restructuring and some sites will be used by other DEFRA staff, particularly in the new Rural Development Service. Some staff will transfer to Government Offices whose role in rural affairs has been enhanced following the recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit. Both the Rural Development Service and Government Offices have played an important role in the post-FMD recovery programme.
These instruments are an important part of a major restructuring in the way in which the Government deliver services to agricultural, rural and trading communities. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations order laid before the House on 16th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform the House of the extent to which the European Court of Auditors and our own Audit Office have been kept informed of these developments?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as far as the European Court of Auditors and the European Commission are concerned, the designation as a payment agency of the new RPA for European Union purposes has been cleared with all European institutions. As an agency for DEFRA, as far as national auditing arrangements are concerned, it is subject to the same provisions as any other part of a government department.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this instrument before the House today. He will not be surprised to hear me say that I welcome it. There is no doubt that the intervention board was a shambles and a seriously over-bureaucratic, incompetent organisation which had lost the confidence of the farming community and the industry as a whole. Good riddance to bad rubbish and a cautious welcome to the Rural Payments Agency. Cautious, because it is based on high technology. Your Lordships' House will remember the awful shambles created by the introduction of new technology in the Home Office's passport system and the Ministry of Defence's computer systems. Let us hope that the Government's consultants have got this right and that we shall see a seriously improved payments system. The RPA has a seriously uphill job to win back the confidence of the agricultural community. I wish those involved luck but they will need to perform extremely well from day one. In principle, we welcome the measure.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I also welcome the regulations from this side of the House. The other place identified a number of problems with the intervention board and I am not surprised at its abolition. I endorse what has been said. The farming industry will be delighted to see its abolition. Will the new arrangements that the Government are proposing perform more effectively and efficiently? We would wish to be assured that this is not simply a change in name but that real changes will be made in the way the new body carries out its duties.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my apologies for breach of procedure in responding immediately to my noble friend, Lord Bruce of Donington. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran for the regulations. The noble Lord is a little harsh on the intervention board but there were problems and we have moved on to a better system. This will allow not only for the introduction of new technology but also for the bringing together of things previously done by the department and by the intervention board so that there is one port of call for farmers. It will concentrate payment schemes in one place so various economies of scale can be achieved.
I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about the not entirely unblemished record of the introduction of computer systems into various parts of
1646
the public sector, but we do believe that this is a robust system. There will be parallel systems operating in the early days to ensure we do not run into problems. The only caveat I enter concerns the noble Lord's reference to "day one" which has just passed administratively and will today pass legally.
The staff of the intervention board and of DEFRA and now the staff of the RPA have suffered from diversion to foot and mouth activities over recent months and in many areas that has not yet ended. We are not therefore at optimum staffing levels. One hopes that that will be over within a reasonable period and staff can then concentrate on delivering this service to farmers and traders. I believe the objectives of improved efficiency to which both noble Lords referred will be achieved, but we have to allow a little time for the body to settle down. I am grateful for the support from all sides of the House for this structural change and for the support of the industry for what we are attempting to do.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001
11.57 a.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [H.L.]
11.58 a.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Many noble Lords have made the point that today prayers were said for the last time by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, known to many of us as Jim Thompson. On behalf of other noble Lords, I would like to wish him well on his retirement and hope that we shall continue to hear his voice on "Thought For The Day" in the future.
Following the Queen's Speech, there was enormous disappointment, both on these Benches and opposite, at the failure of the Government to include in the

1647
current programme a tobacco advertising and sponsorship Bill. I am the frail instrument by which we hope to reintroduce the Bill and ensure that the Government stick to their electoral promises. Clearly, there is strong approval for this action. Yesterday, the Minister answered a Written Question of mine showing the number of written communications received in support of the current Bill. There were 370 letters between July and October and some 498 preprinted postcards. This measure has considerable support. It is notable that no letters were received which did not support the introduction of the Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said at Second Reading on 28th March this year,
"Smoking is the greatest single cause of preventable illness and premature death in the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 28/03/01; col. 272.]
Smoking kills 120,000 people in this country every year. It costs the National Health Service an estimated £1.5 billion each year in England alone. It is quite unique in the dangers it poses for public health. As the Royal College of Physicians said in its report last year, Nicotine Addiction in Britain,
"Smoking is now recognised as the single largest avoidable cause of premature death and disability in Britain and in most other economically developed countries and probably the greatest avoidable threat to public health world-wide".
Smoking is a major factor in lung cancer, strokes, heart disease, diabetes and a variety of other conditions such as asthma. And now we hear it is also cited as a cause of infertility.
If we are to reduce the incidence of these conditions, we need to reduce smoking levels. There is clear evidence which suggests a link between a ban on advertising and reduced levels of tobacco consumption. There is a link between the promotion of cigarettes and the decisions of young people to start smoking. But research shows that for a tobacco-advertising ban to be effective, it must cover all media and forms of promotion. If it is only partial, then promotional budgets will shift from the banned to the unbanned media and methods of promotion.
Dr Clive Smee, Chief Economic Adviser to the Department of Health, published the most comprehensive study of the link between advertising and tobacco consumption in 1992. He reviewed 19 studies, mainly from the UK and the United States, correlating advertising spend and total tobacco consumption. Smee concluded:
"The balance of evidence thus supports the conclusion that advertising does have a positive effect on consumption".
Smee also reviewed the impact of advertising bans that had been introduced at the time. The most significant of those were Norway and Finland where bans had been in place for over a decade at the time of the report. He concluded,
"In each case the banning of advertising was followed by a fall in smoking on a scale which cannot reasonably be attributed to other factors".
1648
Other recent work has come to similar conclusions. In its publication, Curbing the epidemic: government and the economics of tobacco control, in 1999, the World Bank analysed the evidence and concluded that tobacco advertising causes tobacco consumption to increase and partial advertising bans are ineffective:
"Policymakers who are interested in controlling tobacco need to know whether cigarette advertising and promotion affect consumption. The answer is that they almost certainly do, although the data are not straightforward. The key conclusion is that bans on advertising and promotion prove effective, but only if they are comprehensive, covering all media and all uses of brand names and logos".
Other recent evidence comes from American researchers, Saffer and Chaloupka of the National Bureau of Economic Research in the US, who studied data from 22 countries, in their paper, "The effect of tobacco advertising bans on tobacco consumption". They concluded:
"tobacco advertising increases tobacco consumption. The empirical research also shows that comprehensive advertising bans can reduce tobacco consumption, but that a limited set of advertising bans will have little or no effect. A limited set of advertising bans will not reduce the total level of advertising expenditure but will simply result in substitution to the remaining non-banned media. When more of the remaining media are eliminated, the options for substitution are also eliminated".
As regards the effect of tobacco advertising on children, University of Manchester researchers in the mid-1990s found that,
"Awareness of certain brands of cigarette was linked to an increased risk of onset of smoking in 11–13 year olds, especially girls. Awareness of the most advertised brands was a strong predictor of smoking, while awareness of other brands, probably known from other sources, was a less likely predictor. Children appear to take in the messages of cigarette advertising and interpret them as generic to smoking rather than brand specific".
A study of adolescents in California between 1993 and 1996 found,
"clear evidence that tobacco industry advertising and promotional activities can influence non susceptible newer smokers to start the process of becoming addicted to cigarettes".
Following a detailed review of the evidence, the US Surgeon-General summarised the arguments relating to tobacco marketing and young people in 1994. His conclusions were that young people continue to be a strategically important market for the tobacco industry; young people are currently exposed to cigarette messages through print media and through promotional activities, such as sponsorship of sporting events and public entertainment, point of sale displays and distribution of speciality items. Cigarette advertising uses images rather than information to portray the attractiveness and function of smoking. Human models and cartoon characters in cigarette advertising convey independence, helpfulness, adventure seeking and youthful activities—themes correlated with psychosocial factors that appeal to young people.
Cigarette advertisements capitalise on the disparity between an ideal and self-image and imply that smoking may close the gap. Cigarette advertising appears to affect young people's perceptions of persuasiveness, image and function of smoking. Since misperceptions in those areas constitute psychological

1649
risk factors for the initiation of smoking, cigarette advertising appears to increase the risk of young peoples' risk of smoking.
All that is clear evidence of a link between tobacco consumption and advertising. Public health will benefit from the comprehensive ban outlined by the Bill. On these Benches we have long advocated the banning of cigarette advertising on public health grounds and fully supported the Government's original Bill. That Bill was supported by a huge range of organisations such as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians, Diabetes UK, the National Consumer Council, the British Lung Foundation, the British Heart Foundation and the Consumers' Association. The current Bill has similar support as your Lordships will see from the letter to The Times on Wednesday signed by Sir George Alberti and Sir Paul Nurse, the Nobel Prize winner, to name but two.
This Bill will make a significant contribution to reducing deaths from smoking, perhaps more than the 3,000 or 2.5 per cent estimated by the Department of Health. Estimates published by the World Bank suggest the reduction in consumption may be greater—7 per cent—almost three times as great and therefore potentially saving thousands more lives.
This Bill, which is identical to the Government's previous Bill, will ban, with limited exceptions, tobacco advertising in the press, on billboards and by electronic means such as faxes and through the Internet. It will ban mail shots advertising tobacco products, except where the customer has expressly requested information. It will ban free distributions of tobacco products and coupon schemes and it will bring to an end sponsorship agreements which promote tobacco products. It will give the Government power to regulate the advertising of tobacco products in places where they are sold and to control brand-sharing or brand-stretching, which is the use of non-tobacco products with a similar brand name to those of tobacco products.
It is of major importance that the Bill covers the whole of the United Kingdom, although it provides that certain regulation-making powers will be exercised by Ministers in the Scottish Executive. On these Benches we believe, as do the Government Benches, both here and in the Scottish Parliament and in the Welsh Assembly, that a single UK-wide Bill is the way forward.
Clause 1 of the Bill defines a tobacco advertisement as an advertisement whose purpose or effect is to promote a tobacco product. It also defines a tobacco product as a product consisting partly or wholly of tobacco and intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked or chewed. So general comment on smoking via a news story or feature can continue and only promotion or advertising of tobacco products is affected.
Clause 2 of the Bill makes it an offence to publish, print, devise or distribute a tobacco advertisement in the UK or to cause such an advertisement to be published, printed, devised or distributed. An offence
1650
under the Bill can be committed only where the activity takes place in the course of a business. There is an exception for a website containing a non-UK advertisement accessed in the UK of a non-UK business.
Clause 3 provides that where a tobacco advertisement appears in a newspaper or periodical, anyone in the chain of publication or distribution is potentially guilty of an offence, from the proprietor or editor of the newspaper through to the newsagent who sells it, but subject to the defences set out in Clause 5.
Clause 4 sets out the exceptions to the advertising ban. It makes it clear that communications between people in the tobacco trade which are not directed at the wider public are not caught. A further subsection excludes from the Bill any material sent in response to a request for information. But that does not mean that tobacco advertisements can be sent to all customers on a database. A further subsection exempts from the general ban publications whose principal market is not in the UK. It also provides an exclusion for the in-flight magazines on non-UK airlines. It gives Ministers powers to make regulations regarding tobacco advertisements in shops and other places, including the Internet, where tobacco products are offered for sale.
Clause 5 is an important clause. It specifies a number of defences. The essence of liability is that people should be liable only where they either know or should have known that they are involved in the publication or distribution of a tobacco advertisement. The defence available under Clause 5(7) makes it unnecessary for a newsagent to check through all his publications to see whether they contain a tobacco advertisement. If he did not know, or had no reason to suspect that a magazine contained a tobacco advertisement, he will not commit an offence.
Subsections (5) and (6) in Clause 5 provide for the position of Internet service providers and other intermediaries in electronic transactions. The Bill provides that they will not be liable when they are unaware that they are handling a tobacco advertisement. There is clearly a view among the Internet service providers that Clause 5(5) in particular contains dangers for Internet service providers, equating them as it does with publishers. I would be happy to initiate further discussions with the Government to explore that particular issue.
Clause 6 sets out the provisions applying to specialist tobacconists' shops, of which they are approximately 350 in the UK. Clause 7 gives the Secretary of State powers to amend any provisions of the Bill after it has become law if it becomes necessary to do so in consequence of any developments in technology relating to publishing or distribution by electronic means. As the Minister said at Second Reading of the Government's Bill in the last Session, the pace of technological change in this area makes it difficult to predict what new means of publishing or distributing may emerge. I agree that it is right to cater

1651
for potential developments in that way. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had no particular problems with that clause.
Clause 8 gives Ministers the power to make regulations concerning the way in which tobacco products are displayed in places where they are offered for sale. Clause 9 will prevent the free distribution of products and coupons which promote tobacco products. Clause 10 prohibits any participation in a sponsorship agreement if the purpose or effect of what is done as a result of the agreement is to promote a tobacco product. The policy and timetable on sponsorship was agreed with other EU member states in 1998 in the context of the annulled directive. Following the line of that directive and subject to consultation and any future European legislation, UK sports events will have until no later than October 2003 to find alternative sponsorship. Global events will be banned by the end of October 2006 at the latest. On these Benches we would have preferred an earlier date, but we have stuck to that in order to ensure that our Bill is entirely consistent with the previous government Bill.
Clause 11 allows so-called brand-stretching or brand-sharing to be tackled. It enables regulations to be made concerning the use by non-tobacco products of names, emblems and other features which are the same or similar to those used on tobacco products or vice versa. There are a series of other provisions in the Bill which I shall not go into at this stage. But that is broadly the shape of the Bill before us.
The idea—advanced by the tobacco industry—of a ban limited to advertising directed at young people is unworkable and ill conceived. It is impossible to draw a distinction between advertising that is directed at young people and that which is not. Furthermore, many adults struggle to overcome addiction to nicotine and there is every reason to reduce the pressure on adults.
Finally, when the Government are spending substantial sums of money on pro-health campaigns, it is a nonsense to allow millions of pounds of private expenditure to be devoted to achieving the opposite effect. To put that in context, the tobacco industry spends £130 million per year on advertising and promotion in the UK in contrast to the £13 million spent by the Government on anti-smoking advertising. A comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising is an essential public health safeguard. The Secretary of State, Alan Milburn, said not long ago that tobacco consumption is the biggest public health problem the country faces. I agree with him.
Perhaps I may say that it is a pleasure to see not only the current Health Minister in his place today but also to see two former health Ministers. I welcome their support for the Bill. I am not in the slightest abashed by the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in The Times yesterday about our Liberal Democrat credentials on these Benches. My colleagues are fully supportive of the Bill. I regret that the Bill is not an official government Bill. However, I hope that noble Lords will give it a fair wind as it passes through this House.
12.15 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest. I suffer from asthma contracted almost seven years ago, which is triggered by inhaling any form of tobacco smoke and, with cigar smoke, I become very ill within a few seconds of a single inhalation. I would therefore benefit personally from fewer people smoking. Let us make no mistake; that is what the effect of the Bill would be; fewer people smoking. Contrary to what the tobacco industry might say, echoed by their fellow addicts both in this House and another place, fewer people will smoke as a result of this legislation. In time, thousands fewer people will die as a result. It is for that reason that this House must support the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has explained why the Bill will be effective in cutting tobacco consumption and in saving lives. I should like to add another reason. We know that the Bill will achieve its objectives. If that were not the case, the tobacco industry would not be so vehemently opposed to it. The industry is terrified that it will lose the ability to advertise its products and with it the ability to recruit new smokers to replace the 120,000 people who die because of smoking every year.
If, as it claims, the Bill will be ineffective, the industry would be happy to let it pass into law. It would save all the money it currently spends on marketing and would not lose out on sales. But no, the Bill will work. It will cut consumption, disease and the number of deaths. The tobacco industry does not oppose the Bill because it is a staunch believer in free speech, nor because it fears that this will be the thin end of the wedge with bans on coffee and fatty foods to follow. It does not oppose it because it is worried that without sponsorship money, sport will suffer. It uses those arguments but they are not the real reason for tobacco industry opposition. It opposes the Bill because it is bad for the bottom line.
There is nothing inherently wrong with an industry opposing something which is bad for business. That is a natural reaction, although I wish it was more truthful about its real motives. It is the job of Parliament, however, to see the bigger picture, which includes the cost, both human and financial, of allowing the industry to continue to market its products.
It is perhaps not surprising that the tobacco industry is being somewhat economical with the truth about its opposition. In the parlance of television police drama, it has "previous". Perhaps your Lordships will remember the senior officers of the big tobacco companies holding up their right hands and swearing an oath that nicotine was not addictive. Presumably they had the fingers on the other hand crossed because, in a 1963 memo from inside Brown and Williamson, one of the companies whose chief executive officer took the oath, reported:
"Nicotine is addictive. We are, then, in the business of selling nicotine—an addictive drug effective in the release of stress mechanisms".
A quick trawl through the secret internal documents released as part of the Master Tobacco settlement in the USA shows other documents released in this

1653
country, which show the real intent behind tobacco advertising. No doubt encouraging smokers to switch brands is a big part of why tobacco companies want to advertise, but it is far from being the whole story. I do not propose to quote extensively from those documents, but a couple of quotations summarise nicely the tobacco industry's real thoughts on advertising.
First, it targets non-smokers. Documents from the advertising company managing Hamlet cigars in 1991 lamented changes of the law stopping the advertising of cigars on television, stating:
"with the lack of TV we haven't been able to keep up the interest in cigar smoking for potential recruits …much of Hamlet's success has been in getting people young".
In other words, they want non-smokers to become cigar smokers, and the younger the better.
Secondly, advertising gives the tobacco industry allies. A 1990 Philip Morris minute states:
"If one takes a pessimistic view of present trends, the tobacco industry could lose almost all of its political clout within two years. Overstated? Not really". If advertising sponsorship were taken away we would lose most, if not all, of our media and political allies".
Without their advertising muscle, why should newspaper proprietors and editors care what the tobacco industry thinks? Why should sporting organisations care about the fate of the tobacco industry if it did not provide sponsorship money?
These are the real reasons why the tobacco industry wants to keep advertising. It helps to increase the market and to replace the 120,000 smokers killed every year by their addiction. If the tobacco industry loses its advertising it will lose customers, and it does not like that. It will also save lives, and for that reason I shall support the Bill.
12.21 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his clear exposition of the background to his Bill. The House is grateful that the subject has attracted the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. We look forward to what she has to say based on her medical expertise in this area.
There is no doubt that smokers such as myself are the pariahs of modern society. I should declare an interest as a member of your Lordships' Pipe and Cigar Club. Any pressure, however draconian, is brought to bear by doctors, laymen and governments who would, I am sure, ban smoking if they thought they could get away with it politically—but they cannot. So slowly and surely they turn up the pressure, making it the mental equivalent of the medieval thumbscrews. To be fair, they have a point. There is no doubt—as the noble Lord, Lord Simon, has said—that tobacco is addictive, harmful to health and often ultimately kills. With a long list of speakers today, we must take this as read. I believe that this Bill will get its Second Reading today.
1654
It is not the health aspects of the Bill that cause me concern. I do not envy the self-appointed burden on the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, of reintroducing the Government's Bill lock, stock and barrel at a time when a new directive is being discussed in Europe which, I understand, differs in several respects from this Bill. I have not studied the comparison as well as I should, but I shall do so later. I do not believe that a Bill such as this is suitable for a private Member in your Lordships' House, however eminent. It is a very significant piece of legislation that imposes a comprehensive ban on tobacco promotion, advertising and sponsorship.
In order to achieve that, it has to cover a wide variety of subjects, including specialist tobacconists, advertising in newspapers and periodicals and their sale, television and radio broadcasting and the thorny subject of the world-wide web. It is the last on that list which interests me in particular.
The House will recall that the last time we discussed this Bill my noble friend Lord Northesk stated his belief that it comes within the remit of European law in general and, as regards the Internet provisions, the technical standards directive in particular. The Minister gave him what I can only describe as a sharp slap on the wrist and said "No, it is not necessary to inform the Commission".
Since March a significant event has happened. A similar Bill to this has been going through the parliament of Denmark. It was presented to that parliament on 13th December 2000 and sent to the Commission on 20th December. Not surprisingly, I asked why they bothered to do so, given the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. My informant in the Danish Ministry of Health has told me that since a judgment in the European Court, which so far I have not been able to track down, those in Denmark have been more disposed to notify Bills than they might have been earlier.
I have never read anything which suggests that the Danish Government are more attuned to be at the centre of Europe than the expressed wish and belief of our own Government. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that Clause 2(3) and the allied and open-ended Clause 7 are a technical regulation under paragraph 1.11 of the directive which reads:
"'technical regulation', technical specifications and other requirements or rules on services, including the relevant administrative provisions, the observance of which is compulsory, de jure or de facto",
which is obviously covered by this Bill,
"in the case of marketing, provision of a service, establishment of a service operator or use in a Member State or a major part thereof, as well as laws, regulations or administrative provisions of Member States…"
Those are notifiable.
My question to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is this. Will he join with me in persuading the Minister to notify the Bill? I understand that it will not do any harm. It will not even delay the Bill. It would be the proper procedure. Whatever the answer, I believe that there is a major Internet problem at the heart of this Bill. I believe that the Bill does not

1655
recognise sufficiently well that the Internet and the publication., distribution, transmission and the like of information by electronic means is of an entirely different nature from that of the conventional media of print or television advertising.
Between the two parties to the exchange of information via the Internet—that is the computers of the sender and the recipient which are either end of the transmission—there are numerous intermediaries who provide electronic links and services, most of whom are not known to and cannot be easily traced, if traced at all, by the originator of the information or the recipient.
It is not appropriate that provisions suitable to the printed media are simply applied to the media of electronics and the Internet, without proper regard to the terminology used, the way in which the world-wide web operates and the functions which the numerous intermediaries perform.
To obtain access to the Internet, an Internet service provider is required—we all know this. They are in a sense the gatekeepers to the Internet. Therefore, it is not surprising that questions concerning liablity for the publication of illegal material via the Internet concentrates upon them and the roles they play, for they may be multiple.
I believe that the Bill, in the provisions that it makes regarding the Internet, is both too simplistic and confusing. Clause 2 deals with the devising, publishing and distribution of advertising. It states that distributing includes transmitting in electronic form, participating in doing so and providing the means of transmission. It also talks about publishing or causing an advertisement to be published by means of a website. Clause 5 lays out the defences available to a person charged with an offence under Clause 2. This confuses me in its selective, but none the less significant use of the words "distributing" and "published".
Clauses 2 and 5 may be designed to produce what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wishes at the moment. We are in a very fast moving situation. What is appropriate for today may not be appropriate for tomorrow. Nor does it fully recognise the technology and software capability which already exists to filter websites and their contents.
I accept that under the e-Commerce Directive, Internet service providers cannot be required to monitor content. Given the advance of technology and particularly sophisticated software, perhaps there should be an urgent review of that directive. It may be that the fallout of events of 11th September will be a spur to this. Consideration of the provisions of the Bill, as they relate to the Internet, and the prohibitions and offences they create cannot be undertaken in isolation of other concerns and desires containing Internet content. Tobacco advertising may be the least of these concerns, but there needs to be an overall consistency of approach as to the liability of prohibited material via the Internet.
Control of Internet website content is a serious and growing issue. If the Internet provisions of the Bill are considered as if they were to be applied to
1656
pornography, offensive material or the incitement of racial or religious hatred rather than tobacco advertising, I believe they will be more clearly seen to be unsatisfactory.
The Minister, in winding up the Second Reading debate in March this year, said—and I paraphrase—that he would be happy to undertake consultations with the Association of Internet Service Providers (col. 340). We all know that the Government's Bill did not progress beyond Second Reading and therefore I would like to know whether any such discussions have been held. If not, are they still intended? If so, when? I noted the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in that regard and I was delighted to hear that he would be happy to join the Government in solving the problem—if, indeed, it is soluble.
We have a long List of Speakers today, so it would be unkind of me to voice my other concerns. The fact remains that this is a draconian measure banning the promotion in its widest sense of a perfectly legal product. I shall endeavour to place it under careful scrutiny in its remaining stages.
12.31 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward the measure. It is well overdue and has been talked about for a long time. I previously spoke about tobacco advertising about six years ago and I received many letters from advertising firms. I referred to an article in which an executive of one of the tobacco firms stated that the reason it spent money on advertising was because it worked; it did not waste its money. I could not track down the reference and was not very interested, so I ask the firm not to bother to get in touch with me again.
The idea that cigarettes are bad for people and are not acceptable has grown in society throughout my lifetime. When I was growing up, cigarettes were seen as an acceptable tool in social interaction. When meeting someone in a pub, for example, it was perfectly acceptable to hand them a cigarette; it was part of the interaction. I am a lifelong non-smoker, but I remember that such behaviour was so ingrained in me that on several occasions I ended up taking a cigarette. On one occasion, I even got round to having it lit for me before I suddenly realised that I did not like smoking and put it down.
We entered a culture in which the handing over of those small tubes—things you play with and interact with—became part of our society. It was a very good marketing strategy. The funny advertisements about happiness being a certain brand of cigar worked. The advertising worked. Creative energy went into the advertisements and they made you think that it was an acceptable way to behave.
The advertisements tell you to ingest into your lungs smoke that is laden with a killer chemical. Our lungs do not like smoke without chemicals, and with the chemicals we are taking in something which will certainly damage us and may well kill us. Looking at the issue in that context, it is almost absurd that we are having this debate at all.

1657
I shall not attempt to ban smoking because I accept that it is too ingrained in certain parts of our society. However, the fact that we can encourage people to damage their health, which may result in a slow suicide, seems absurd. And we can turn the issue around—up, down and sideways.
If the Bill is not perfect, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, suggested, I am sure that we will do our best to improve it. However, my noble friend assured me that the Government were bringing forward a similar measure, so this is one occasion on which I hope that the Government have done their homework. Furthermore, the Bill may not cover all conceivable future events, but Bills which to try deal with more than what is already in front of us are invariably great failures. One has a vision of a future which does not exist and we can deal only with what is in front of us. Therefore, I suggest that the Bill, or a similar measure, will be the way forward.
I have always believed that the suggestion that tobacco advertising and sponsorship are an important part of our society and are acceptable is absurd. It is ridiculous to suggest that elite athletes at the peak of their game would be enhanced by ingesting chemical-laden smoke. The fact that that has occurred in certain sports makes us cry, "Foul". However, certain sports have not done a bad job in replacing their sponsors and there has been considerable movement in that direction. One or two will be left behind, but if a few sportsmen and sporting structures—and I speak as one who holds a brief on sport—suffer a short or even a long-term inconvenience that is considerably outweighed by the decline in the damage to people's health.
The Bill should go forward in its entirety. It addresses an activity which we all know is wrong. In no other situation would we allow such a dangerous chemical on to the market or to be advertised for consumption. Let us finally close a chapter on our social history which says that ingesting this dangerous chemical is acceptable.
I shall now sit down because the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is about to speak and no doubt her comments will be more worth listening to than mine.
12.36 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, from my first visit here, it was evident that this is the very home of kindness, courtesy and true consideration. It is also the home of formidably intelligent and informed debate. I must particularly thank the staff, who have been very helpful and welcoming, and the noble Lords, Lord McColl and Lord Walton of Detchant who introduced me to the House and have been wonderfully supportive mentors from the time my peerage was announced.
It is an honour to be a "people's peer", as we were dubbed by the press. I was so surprised to be selected that I checked with the Commission Office on the day of the announcement to see whether it was really true.
1658
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships a little about my work and why I wanted to speak today. I have worked in hospice and palliative medicine for about 17 years and now, as a professor at University of Wales College of Medicine, I teach palliative medicine to doctors from all over the world.
I do not wish to be controversial. The Bill before us does not impede those of your Lordships or others who like to smoke. Nor does it prevent the sale of tobacco products. It simply protects the minors in our society from the tantalising ways that nicotine addiction is promoted for profit.
Perhaps I may take your Lordships through some of the evidence. Health promotion campaigns have successfully encouraged many smokers to give up, confirmed by Peto and colleagues, but these initiatives have not prevented youngsters from starting smoking. In Wales, about 23 per cent of boys and 29 per cent of girls aged 15 are smokers and alarmingly those figures continue to rise.
The tobacco industry journal in 1994 stated that the Formula One racing car is,
"the most powerful advertising space in the world".
Anne Charlton's group in Manchester confirmed that in a study of 22 secondary schools. The risk of boys becoming regular smokers was almost doubled among those whose favourite television sport was motor racing.
The attractive images from cigarette advertisements effectively reach children six years old. A plethora of studies, both from the UK and from the rest of the world, have demonstrated that advertising powerfully influences youth smoking. They start with any cigarettes that are available and affordable.
In Holland, advertising is the strongest and most consistent influence persuading 15 year-olds to start smoking; stronger than peer or home influence. And the Australians have shown that many features of adult-pattern cigarette use are established by the age of 15. In Norway and Finland, the number of young smokers has fallen by more than one third since their advertising bans.
Health promotion advertising does little to counteract the impact of tobacco advertising on the impressionable adolescent who thinks that smoking is "cool" and for whom middle age—excuse me while I look around the Chamber—seems an eternity away. The Australian experience has shown that health warnings are ineffective in this group of youngsters but warnings of the effects of smoking on skin ageing has some effect.
Please do not think that only lung cancer and heart disease are the consequences of smoking when young. Almost all head and neck cancers are directly tobacco-related and cause about as many deaths as do cancers of the cervix, a fifth of which are linked to smoking. How would your Lordships cope if your larynx or tongue had been removed? You could not answer the phone, call for help, debate in this House or even join the dinner table. But the Bill before us is about advertising and promoting tobacco.

1659
An analysis of Canadian tobacco industry documents was published in the Lancet earlier this year. Rapidly assimilated visual imagery, not detailed information, is the advertising method of influence to recruit "starters" and dissuade worried smokers from quitting.
Embassy Regal's withdrawn advertising campaign featuring "Reg" breached the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising. Hastings and colleagues at Strathclyde found Reg's flippant attitude appealed principally to children, whereas the campaign was not appreciated by the 30 to 55-year-olds that it purported to target.
Does it matter if young people are influenced to smoke if they can be persuaded to give up later? It certainly does. It seems that the young have a particularly rapid uptake of nicotine into the blood stream. Smokers' urine contains a 16-fold increase in carcinogens, accounting for their high incidence of bladder cancer. After quitting, the burden of DNA damaged by tobacco carcinogens remains much greater among those who started smoking when young.
I am lucky enough to live and work in Cardiff, a vibrant capital city with a population of almost 300,000. The toll of tobacco-related disease is great. It is the single largest cause of premature death and preventable ill-health in Wales. In Wales, there is at all times the equivalent of a whole district general hospital full of in-patients with irreversible, cigarette-induced, chronic respiratory disease. In Cardiff alone, at least two new smoking-related cancers are diagnosed every day. Every day of the year, five people under 65 have a heart attack, stroke or unstable angina, mostly tobacco-related.
Of those having a heart attack, half will die before reaching hospital. Those who survive often experience ongoing consequences. Their children witness the crushing pain of repeated attacks of angina, the panic of ever-increasing breathlessness, the depression, marital tension and financial strain. In the case of those who die outright—your Lordships may be forgiven for thinking that they had an easy exit—their children are left with the pain of bereavement and the sense of guilt that bereaved children experience, as they somehow feel culpable for the death. That experience is being replicated across Britain.
Today, in Cardiff alone, more than 350 people aged 18 to 65 and almost three times as many aged over 65 are living with tobacco-related cancers. They are all being treated, but the vast majority of them will be dead within three years. The Marie Curie hospice, which I established and where I have worked for 14 years, has 30 beds. In the past year, in that one hospice alone, where the average age of death is 65, 104 patients died of tobacco-related disease, leaving children and teenagers bereaved.
May I tell your Lordships about two patients for whom I cared recently? A young man with lung cancer, knowing that he would not see his children grow up, said with tears in his eyes:
"I don't deserve sympathy; it's my own fault—I have smoked since I was 14.''
1660
The other patient was a young woman. Her husband had dropped dead two years before outside their back door. Their two small children had witnessed his death and the failed attempts at resucitation. She now had a rapidly growing cancer of the stomach and lower oesophagus, which was inoperable. I had to tell her eight-year-old daughter that Mummy was dying. She looked down, as children do, asking who would look after her and her little brother. She said:
"Who will take us to school and make us our tea? Will Mummy die like Daddy did?"
When your Lordships think that tobacco advertising is about choice, I beg you not to be fooled. Please remember that every year in Britain hundreds of children who did not choose to be are orphaned by losing one, or worse, both parents from tobacco-related disease. The cost to those tobacco orphans and to our society is inestimable.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on her speech. I am even more pleased because it means that we have another Baroness from Wales in your Lordships' House.
Lady Finlay is a world expect on palliative medicine, and is a vice-dean of the college of medicine at the University of Wales. Since 1987, she has developed palliative care in Wales and contributed to strategic development in that field, of medicine in the United Kingdom and internationally, as well as performing her clinical work at Velindre cancer centre, Cardiff and with Marie Curie cancer care. She is President of the Medical Women's Federation, and between 1993 and 1997, she served on the expert advisory group on cancer, and subsequently as a member of the National Cancer Forum.
In 1996, she was awarded the title of Welsh Woman of the Year, having won her category in Women into Science and Technology. Anyone from Wales, and hopefully outside, will know that it is a great honour to be Welsh Woman of the Year; Baroness Finlay of Llandaff truly deserved that award.
I look forward to hearing her speeches in future, and know that she will make a great addition to your Lordships' House. I end by saying: llongyfrchiadau ar eich araith. Being, like me, a Welsh learner, she will understand exactly what I said.
Anything that can be done to prevent people becoming addicted to nicotine must be welcomed. Over the years, governments have introduced measures such as education campaigns to inform the public of the dangers of smoking, plus information and other services to help people to give up the habit. In March, the Government announced that aids to assist smokers to give up the habit, such as nicotine patches, would now be available on the National Health Service. Those measures are greatly welcomed. However, even more important are measures to prevent people starting smoking in the first place.

1661
This important Bill will be a great help in achieving that aim. It could mean a reduction in the total number of people becoming addicted to smoking. There is a cautious estimate that 3,000 lives would be saved in the UK in the longer term by banning tobacco advertising, although some believe that that figure could be even higher. The NHS could also save up to £40 million a year on treating smoking-related diseases.
I am worried about the effects of tobacco advertising, especially on young people. Most adult smokers start the habit when young—some as young as 10 years of age. If you can get through your teenage years without smoking—as I was fortunate enough to do—there is a good chance that you will not take up the habit as an adult.
To ensure that they maintain their sales, the tobacco companies must target their advertising on the youth market; otherwise, their business will decline. This is where a ban on tobacco advertising is so important. It is a matter of great concern that so many children smoke. Children will experience greater health problems when they achieve adulthood if they continue to smoke. A worrying trend is that there are now more girls than boys taking up smoking. For example, 14 year-old girls are twice as likely to smoke as boys of the same age. This is a disturbing trend, as the dangers to a girl's future health will be different from a boy's. Young girls who smoke will, when they are older, experience greater difficulty than nonsmokers if they want to become pregnant.
The most recent report on this subject was published in the media this week. A study carried out by the Institute of Health Sciences at the University of Oxford confirms the view that smoking increases the time it takes to conceive. The report states that,
"The results presented…provide further support for the previously reported relationship between cigarette smoking and time to conception".
The report goes on to say that,
"this study provides further support for the view that smoking in women is associated with sub-fertility".
The report ends by saying:
"The growing body of evidence that continuing to smoke while attempting to become pregnant may increase time to conception suggests that greater emphasis on this public health message is warranted".
This report reinforces the dangers to women of child bearing age who continue to smoke while trying to conceive. Greater public information is needed, but it would be even better to deal with the problem earlier by using all means to help young people not to start smoking, which is the value of this Bill.
In addition to the problems of conception, women who smoke face a greater danger of miscarriage. Perinatal mortality is increased by about one-third in babies of smokers. That is equivalent to approximately 420 deaths per year in England and Wales. Research has shown that smoking may contribute to inadequate breast milk production. Infants of parents who smoke are twice as likely to suffer serious respiratory infection as the children of non-smokers.
1662
Despite all this evidence, approximately one quarter of pregnant women in the UK smoke. That is an amazing figure. Women should know the dangers of smoking while pregnant, but despite that knowledge they continue to smoke because they are unable to give up. This clearly indicates how addictive is nicotine. I am sure that these women realise that smoking is harming their babies but they cannot give it up. Studies have shown that the risk of developing cervical cancer is four times higher in women who smoke than in nonsmokers, and that risk increases with the duration of smoking.
The natural menopause occurs up to two years earlier in smokers. The likelihood of an earlier menopause is related to the number of cigarettes smoked, with those smoking more than 10 cigarettes a day having an increased risk of an earlier menopause. Therefore, the dangers to women smokers of all ages are great. It is highly likely that they started to smoke when they were young. It is appalling that tobacco companies often target their advertising towards young women.
What more can be done to prevent young people and children from smoking? If we look at what is being done in this field, since the 1970s health education, including information about the effects of smoking on health, has been included in the curricula of most primary and secondary schools in Great Britain. Research suggests that knowledge about smoking is a necessary component of anti-smoking campaigns, but by itself it does not affect smoking rates. It may, however, result in a postponement of initiation.
Since 1908, and currently under the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991, it has been illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 16. However, there are not many prosecutions a year under that Act. For example, during 1999 there were 136 prosecutions in England and Wales for underage tobacco sales, with 97 defendants being convicted and fined. Fines ranged from less than £50 to over £2,500. It is strange that there are so few convictions when recent research shows that 3 per cent of 12 year-olds, 12 per cent of 14 year-olds and 23 per cent of 15 year-olds are regular smokers. It poses the question: from where do all these children get their cigarettes? The Act is not working too well if the intention is to prevent young people from obtaining cigarettes.
One hopes that the Bill before us today will go some way to help with the problem of underage smoking. Children may not be so tempted to start smoking if they do not see seductive tobacco advertising. I believe that this Bill, should it become an Act of Parliament, as a liberating measure will be part of a package to help prevent people from starting to smoke. It will liberate all those who might have started to smoke but did not and so free them from smoke-related ill health and premature death. It will help them to have a better life than they would have had if they had started to smoke. Many benefits will accrue not only to them but to all those who suffer from passive smoking, including their own children. Further, many savings will be made to the National Health Service which has to care for those

1663
who suffer ill health due to smoking-related illness. There will be fewer patients to treat, freeing up precious medical resources to deal with illnesses that are not preventable, unlike smoking-related illnesses.
I believe that this Bill is an excellent measure and I am very pleased to support it today.
12.57 p.m.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I am a non-smoker. I have never had any financial interest of any kind in the tobacco world. Frankly, I do not particularly like to have cigarette smoke around me. Before I went into politics I spent 20 years in advertising, and during those years I learnt what advertising could and could not do. If society, the Government, or the Liberal Democrat Benches, are so concerned about the effect of smoking on people's health they should be strong enough to ban it and not play around at the edges. But we know that society is not that strong. The Government themselves put the ban on advertising in their manifesto and then took £1 million from Formula 1.
In recent weeks we have heard that there is to be some relaxation of the law relating to cannabis and even ecstasy. As far as I understand it—I am not an expert on this matter—both substances are extremely harmful to health, particularly young people's, and are possibly addictive. On the basis of recent evidence, there is no doubt that they lead to loss of life. There appears to be some inconsistency here.
In introducing the Bill the noble Lord said that, following his three month campaign, 370 people had written to support the Bill. I suggest that that is not exactly a tidal wave of support. I would have hoped to do rather better than that in my former constituency if I had been promoting a Private Bill.
After the Second Reading of the previous almost identical Bill a significant number of amendments were tabled in this House. This Bill, with 21 clauses, is not a particularly long one, but because the Bill is draconian—the word "prohibition" features throughout the Bill—and unprecedented in its scale of interference in a legitimate commercial cause, I believe that this time there will be at least as many, if not a good deal more, amendments.
This House must face up to the fact that it is not against the law to manufacture or import tobacco products. It is not against the law to sell tobacco products, except to children. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in making her maiden speech and the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, made the point that the sale of tobacco products to children under 16 is banned. Maybe it should be 18. But the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, asked the right question: how is it that young people obtain supplies of tobacco? Maybe the Act that is already on the statute book should be enforced more rigorously rather than trying to add one that will not work.
This Bill seeks to ban all possible means of bringing a tobacco product to the attention of the public. That is what is draconian and unprecedented. In my experience, as someone who used to be in the communications industry, it will not work.
1664
I am aware that Action on Smoking and Health, commonly known as ASH, will not be in agreement with what I have just said. I think that it is wrong. It arrogantly wrote to me to tell me—at this time when most of us in this country are thinking about the problems of terrorism and the need to get on the statute book an Act to deal with that particular challenge—that in their judgment,
"It is difficult to think of any other legislation which can do so much good at so little cost at this time".
ASH, in its evidence, refers not just to cigarettes, but uses as an analogy guns and pharmaceuticals—or over-the-counter (OTC) medicines—in its assertion that this measure is not unprecedented. I suggest that the facts speak otherwise. The ownership of handguns is prohibited, although it is suggested that the actual number of handguns in ownership has not decreased. Leaving that aside, it is not illegal to advertise other guns, providing that advertising is done by a dealer or an individual holding an appropriate firearms licence. So there is no prohibition there.
It is also not illegal to advertise pharmaceuticals, or over-the-counter medicines, as the Minister of Health knows as well as I do, when they are available for retail sale without a prescription. Indeed, the Government are pushing more and more medicines into the OTC category almost every week. Those can be advertised. If some of those products are abused and not properly used they could be lethal. The Minister knows that as well as I do.
We must be quite clear that the Bill is not so much about regulating tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship but about banning it altogether. The Bill does not just ban advertising that is public, such as in the press, on billboards and in certain areas which are already subject to a ban, such as TV; it bans advertising even when it is communicated privately to an individual smoker, say by means of personalised correspondence. Even when the smoker has indicated that he wants to hear from his supplier, the Bill bans so-called indirect advertising—what they call brand stritching—where a brand name, or the like, is used for both a tobacco and a non-tobacco product.
The Bill does not go quite as far—it seems to me that its promoters have missed an opportunity here and I imagine that they will want to amend the Bill—as banning a corporate name. Therefore, presumably one can have Gallaher cigarettes, but one cannot have Silk Cut in some other form. I am not sure what happens to Virgin and other brand substances. Presumably they are banned from ever even entering the market at all.
The brief from ASH suggests that there will be exemptions, but says that they will have to be very tightly drawn to avoid unnecessary loopholes.
My noble friend on the Front Bench raised the question of websites; therefore, I do not need to cover that aspect. However I have questions regarding point of sale. I think that I could have been really creative with regard to point of sale. I could have produced a pack that was every bit as strong as a piece of printed material. Or am I to be told that the colour of brand

1665
packs is to be controlled, or that the size or particular typeface is to be controlled? Because if they are not controlled they become an advertisement. So I suggest to your Lordships that it has to go much deeper than what is suggested in the Bill at the moment.
The Bill bans the giving away of tobacco products, even at a private event and even when all those present are all smokers, if it is considered that in the process tobacco products will be promoted.
I have no doubt that such provisions amount to a gross infringement of some of our fundamental freedoms, such as the right to freedom of expression and to impart and receive information, the right to privacy of correspondence and the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These are all vital and important rights in a free and democratic society. I re-emphasise that I am a non-smoker.
I accept, as all noble Lords will, that no freedoms or rights are inalienable. None the less, before we severely restrict or remove any such freedoms as the Bill seeks, we need overpowering and convincing reasons for so doing. The end must justify the means. I therefore believe that the provisions of the Bill need to be subjected to scrutiny as rigorous as that afforded to any other piece of highly intrusive legislation.
For some people tobacco and smoking are emotive subjects. But we should not allow our emotions, obsessions or prejudices to take over, simply because we are dealing with tobacco. We must examine what freedoms are at stake and determine whether the infringements of those freedoms that the Bill contains are justified.
I shall cite one example. Others will doubtless will be pursued in Committee or indeed mentioned today. Irrespective of the statement on the convention rights that accompanied the previous Bill, I believe that this Bill violates Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 8. I remind your Lordships that Article 10 states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers".
It is well-established that this freedom includes commercial free speech. The commercial world is not excluded from the convention. It is irrelevant if the aim pursued is profit making from, for example, an advertisement.
The same philosophical considerations which support freedom of expression in politics, religion and the arts support freedom of commercial expression. They are not two categorically different things, subject to different standards and having different justifications. They are exactly the same freedoms exercised in different contexts with the same justifications.
In the Recess I read a book about the Third Reich. I quoted from that book when we were recalled. If one looks at the restrictions on commercial expression that took place in the 1930s under the National Socialist
1666
Party one asks oneself the question: do we have to keep relearning that which has been taught us to be so adverse to freedom?
Article 10.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights allows for the restriction of the right of expression if necessary in a democratic society, in pursuit of one of a number of legitimate aims, including the protection of health. However, the need for any such restriction must be "convincingly established" and, in particular, must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. I do not believe that either of those requirements are met by what has been said in support of the Bill. There is no certainty whatever that the Bill will have the effect that its promoters intend or anticipate. The intention behind the Bill is to reduce tobacco consumption and, in particular, the taking up of smoking by young children.
The effect of the Bill anticipated by the promoters was stated most recently by the Minister in his Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who promotes the Bill today.
"The likely eventual net effect of measures such as those contained in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill would be to decrease tobacco consumption, and the size of the decrease could lie in a range of up to about 5 per cent. It is reasonable to use the mid-point of this range (2.5 per cent) to indicate the likely effects of a ban".—(Official Report, 14/9/01; cols. WA33–34).
I put it to noble Lords that that is not a particularly confident statement of the likely effect. It could be 5 per cent or it could be nothing at all, so a decision is made to take the mid-point. However, a range of that kind is unconvincing. Furthermore, the 1992 Smee report, which has been referred to today and is often quoted, made no estimate of the likely effect on consumption of a total ban on tobacco advertising in the UK. That fact was subsequently confirmed by the author.
Even given the range speculated, one must ask why the mid-point should be taken. The outcome could lie anywhere across the range. Personally, I believe that the effect would be zero.
I suggest that we should be provided with something much more substantial than pure speculation in justification of the Bill. That is particularly important, given that there are people—including people outside the tobacco industry—who believe that the effect could equally well be an increase in tobacco consumption and the take-up of smoking. Indeed, when one looks at the evidence of the experience of earlier bans on alcohol in the United States and in certain Canadian provinces, one soon begins to believe that the effect may be exactly the opposite to the one sought.
Nonetheless, if there is still insistence on proceeding with the Bill, then I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be prepared to accept the inclusion in the Bill of some form of "sunset clause". As legislators we should all consider that proposal. Otherwise, how would he propose to deal with outcomes from the Bill which are entirely contrary to his expectations? That is because we would be entering uncharted waters.

1667
I conclude by saying that it is obvious, I trust, that I do not believe in the need to remove so many individual and commercial freedoms as are proposed in the Bill before us. I hope very much that, in directing my remarks towards the important issue of freedom—in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones and his colleagues—I have been for the most part preaching to the converted.
I have always understood freedom to be a cornerstone of Liberal Democratic philosophy, and I quote:
"People arc most free when government does not interfere in their private lives, and when it doesn't pass moral diktats. That depends on strong civil liberties legislation. At the heart of our agenda is one theme, freedom".
Those are not my words, but the words of the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party.
1.13 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I envy my noble friend Lady Gale for having the good fortune to follow one of the most astonishing maiden speeches that I have ever heard in this House. The contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, was quite outstanding. We usually say that we look forward to hearing from noble Lords in the future; my goodness, we certainly look forward to hearing again from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and in particular on this Bill. She brings to the debate a degree of knowledge and understanding of the issues which is, I believe, probably not equalled by any other Member of the House. I add my warmest congratulations to those so ably expressed by my noble friend a few moments ago.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his tenacity and tactical skills. By introducing a Private Member's Bill in identical terms to the Government's measure of the last Session, he gives those noble Lords who were enthusiastic supporters of that legislation no choice but to support him today and to do our best to see that the Bill goes through all its stages in this House.
I do not wish to go over the same ground as I covered in my contribution to the debate on Second Reading of the previous Bill held on 28th March this year; therefore I shall be brief. I shall address two questions. I hope that, in a sense, the first of those two questions will provide a response to the comments macle by the noble Lord. Lord Naseby. First, is the Bill a worthwhile contribution to public health or—to answer the noble Lord's question—will it work? Secondly, can the tobacco industry be trusted to regulate itself in the public interest and eliminate the need for the legislation at all? The answer in the first instance is "yes"; in the second, quite definitely "no".
As we have heard, the Government's own estimate is that banning tobacco advertising and sponsorship will reduce consumption by 2.5 per cent. Other estimates are rather higher. For example, the World Bank stated that if the European Union Directive 98/43/EC on which the government Bill and this Bill have been
1668
based had been implemented across the Union, cigarette consumption within the EU would have fallen by 7 per cent.
Advertising bans in Norway, Finland. New Zealand and France have led to substantial reductions in the per capita consumption of cigarettes, ranging from 34 per cent in Finland, where a ban was introduced in 1978, to 15 per cent in France, where a ban has been in force for eight years. In Norway, the percentage of the entire adult population who reportedly smoked regularly was reduced from approximately 45 per cent in 1954 and 40 per cent in 1975, the year when the ban on tobacco advertising was introduced, to around 32 per cent in 1999. I am indebted to officials at the Norwegian embassy who, in a note accompanying the figures, told me:
"The ban on tobacco advertising in 1975 contributed significantly to a subsequent decrease in smoking",
The lesson to be drawn is that the longer a ban has been in force, the greater the reduction in consumption. That is because the ban helps to reduce the number of new consumers among the young as the older smokers die off.
The Government state that by reducing tobacco consumption, an advertising and promotion ban will cut the number of people dying from smoking-related diseases by at least 3,000 per year. That is almost as many as the number of people who die annually on our roads. In a briefing note which I imagine a number of noble Lords have received, the BMA states:
"It has been estimated that annually around 284,000 admissions to NHS hospitals, 8 million GP consultations and 7 million prescriptions are the result of a smoking-related illness".
The other valuable effect of the Bill would be to make a significant change in the culture surrounding cigarette smoking. By breaking the link with glamour, speed, sport, recreation and sex, which the promotion of tobacco has sought to hang on to with its sponsorship of Formula 1 motor racing, cricket, Rugby League and snooker, and advertising campaigns which appeal to young people, there is a chance that children, teenagers and young adults will be less pressured by their peers to start smoking.
We know very well that the tobacco industry would eventually die out along with its consumers if it was not constantly able to replace older smokers with youngsters starting the habit. Very few people take up smoking as adults but, according to the BMA, 450 children start smoking every day.
In many areas of our lives, smoking is no longer acceptable or permitted. The smoke-free workplace is becoming increasingly common. I personally regret that the Government still have not brought forward the Approved Code of Practice and Guidance on Passive Smoking at Work, based on the excellent draft produced by the Health and Safety Executive. We have a duty to protect employees from other people's tobacco smoke.
Another area in which greater government help is needed is that of lung cancer research. So far as I know, only one organisation is dedicated to research and awareness-raising into the issue of lung cancer: the

1669
Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. I am proud to declare an interest as a patron of that charity. It is terrible to speak of fashionable and unfashionable cancers, but it cannot be denied that lung cancer will never become a fashionable cancer because it is seen as being self-inflicted. More women die of lung cancer than breast cancer, yet far more money goes into breast cancer research. The increased survival rate for breast cancer was attributed by Sir Richard Peto to better treatment and earlier diagnosis of the disease through screening. The same could be achieved with lung cancer if research were given a higher priority.
Furthermore, unlike other cancers, lung cancer is largely preventable. Hence the need for better support for research and for measures such as this Bill aimed at reducing tobacco consumption.
The pressure group FOREST makes a great issue of people's right to choose whether to smoke or not, but the choice that people should be offered is the choice not to breathe other people's spoke and not to have one's clothes impregnated with the stench of other's tobacco smoke.
But why can we not rely on the tobacco industry to behave responsibly and regulate itself? Here I move on to the second of the questions I posed at the beginning. The truth, as my noble friend Lord Simon said, is that the tobacco industry cannot be trusted.
In the debate on 28th March, I referred to the astonishing evidence unearthed by the Health Select Committee in another place while carrying out its investigation into the UK tobacco industry. This included the internal working papers of the five advertising agencies retained by the tobacco companies. These made no attempt to disguise the fact that their advertising campaigns were aimed at encouraging people—particularly youngsters—to start, and then continue, smoking.
When children start smoking, they do so out of a sense of adventure and because they know that in most western societies it is strongly frowned on by adults. But what starts as an experiment turns into an addiction, and most then get hooked for life. The tobacco companies understand that very well, and they know how to exploit it for their own commercial advantage. Here is an extract from the speaking notes used by Philip Morris's vice-president for research and development at a company board meeting, which were revealed under disclosure rules at a United States court hearing. He said:
"A cigarette for the beginner is a symbolic act. I am no longer my mother's child. I'm tough, I am an adventurer, I'm not square. As the force of psychological symbolism subsides, the pharmacological effect"—
that is what your Lordships and I understand as addiction—
"takes over to sustain the habit".
In its report the Health Select Committee concluded that,
"advertising agencies have connived in promoting tobacco consumption, have shamelessly exploited smoking as an aspirational pursuit in ways which inevitably make it more attractive to children, and have attempted to use their creative talents to undermine government policy and evade regulation".
1670
The Select Committee also examined the voluntary agreements between the tobacco industry and the Government. It stated:
"Voluntary agreements have served the industry well and the public badly. Regulations have been seen by tobacco companies as hurdles to be overcome or side-stepped; legislation banning advertising as a challenge, a policy to be systematically undermined by whatever means possible".
Internal tobacco industry documents show that it really views these agreements as a public relations ploy. One company memo from 1991 states that,
"the ultimate means for determining the success",
of agreements to limit marketing aimed at young people, as,
"A reduction in legislation introduced and passed restricting or banning our sales and marketing activities;
"Passage of legislation favourable to the industry:
"Greater support from business, parent and teacher groups"
Achieving a reduction in smoking by young people was not described as a success criterion.
Voluntary agreements make the industry look responsible without it having to do anything which actually harms its ability to market cigarettes. In this context, we should look at a tobacco industry initiative which was published on 11th September. Coverage of it in the media was, of course, eclipsed by other events that day. On its website, British American Tobacco said that the company, Philip Morris, and Japan Tobacco had worked together,
"to develop new, globally consistent Marketing Standards for the responsible promotion and distribution of tobacco products world wide. They represent a 'raising of the bar' and establish a benchmark for the industry world wide".
It would be good to report that this represents a serious initiative aimed at curbing the number of deaths caused by tobacco smoking world-wide. But it is no such thing, as an astute tobacco stock analyst working for Credit Suisse First Boston in Wall Street has noticed. Her name is Bonnie Herzog. She wrote this analysis—which, again, can be found on the web—on 25th September:
"We have analyzed the 9-page agreement and believe that the multinationals' strategy is proactive and is a way to improve their image. These international marketing standards partly came as a result of increasing pressure from governments worldwide and anti-smoking activists. Also, by proactively setting new international tobacco marketing standards, the multinationals could be trying to counter a number of proposals that the WHO has been working on to curb the amount of cigarettes that are consumed on an international level.
"One would think that the elimination of certain marketing practices",
she continued,
"would effectively decrease advertising spending and hence increase margins, however we believe the modest amount the multinationals actually spend on these types of practices will be redirected into other types of marketing promotions i.e., point of sale activity".
So, according to Wall Street, the voluntary marketing code means it is business as usual for the tobacco multinationals.

1671
The shareholders need to be reassured that nothing will stop the relentless search for new customers, so as we make life harder for them in the West, the tobacco companies are after the markets in developing countries and eastern Europe.
What worries the international tobacco industry most is that governments will come together under the auspices of the WHO and introduce a global ban on tobacco advertising. The voluntary code is designed to derail the WHO convention and to mislead governments.
I hope that we can get an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that our Government will not fall for this. There is no evidence whatever that the measures proposed in the tobacco industry code will work, and plenty of evidence that the only way to deal with tobacco advertising is to ban it completely.
1.26 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I strongly support the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing it before the House as a Private Member's Bill. However, after Ministers in both Houses in the last Parliament demonstrated such strong support and made such impressive speeches for the banning of tobacco advertising, it is disappointing that it is not a government Bill. But I hope the Minister and the Government will support the Bill and ensure its passage through both Houses.
I declare an interest. I am associated with the charity Quit, which helps people to give up smoking.
I believe that controlling the advertising and promotion of tobacco products will have an impact on the consumption of tobacco, chiefly among the young and the disadvantaged. As has been said already, it is the single, most effective public health measure that the Government can introduce at this time. I hope that they will have the courage to do so.
No one can have any doubt—although some may deny it—that cigarette smoking has serious health effects. It is the single, biggest avoidable cause of premature death and disability in the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in a brilliant maiden speech, could have left no one in any doubt about the appalling misery that smoking-related diseases cause.
I have spoken previously in your Lordships' House on the effect that maternal cigarette smoking has on both the mother and, particularly, the baby. Cigarette smoking during pregnancy is far more common among young mothers. It increases the risk of premature births and births of low weight babies, both of which are associated with an increased incidence of development al and growth problems in later life. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, referred to other health effects in women caused by smoking. So recognition of the serious health effects of cigarette smoking is not at issue.
We should explore all possible means to reduce tobacco consumption. I believe that controlling the promotion of tobacco through advertising and other means, such as sponsorship, is a way of doing this.
1672
The public warning about the health risk of cigarette smoking has helped to reduce the level of smoking. The Government's efforts, which I applaud, further to reduce tobacco consumption through health education, smoking cessation programmes and making drugs such as Zyban available should also help. But spending by the Government on resources to reduce tobacco consumption is negligible compared to the large packets of money spent by the tobacco industry to promote its products.
Not only do we need to examine ways of helping people to stop smoking; it is important to address the issue of why they take it up—particularly the young. I accept that peer pressure is an important reason—but so is the sophisticated advertising associated with smoking. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and other speakers quoted the evidence for that.
Claims that advertising is targeted at adults and at those who already smoke in an attempt to get them to switch brands is in my view a "smokescreen"; it is possible to see through it. Logic tells me that if 300 people die from the habit each day and many hundreds more give it up, in order to survive, the industry must have new recruits. Those recruits are mainly the young and the vulnerable. The number of adults over a certain age who take up smoking for the first time in later life is very small. It is the young who must be targeted. Teenagers are also attracted by the adult nature of the advertising.
I am persuaded by good evidence that control of the advertising of tobacco products reduces consumption and the number of individuals taking up smoking. If there are noble Lords who are uncertain about the evidence, the burden of proof lies with them. I support the provision in the Bill relating to sport and other forms of sponsorship. I do not believe that lack of sponsorship will affect the promotion of sport. It has not happened in football; nor has it happened in countries where such advertising is forbidden. The Government could use part of the tobacco tax revenues to promote sport and a healthy lifestyle, as happens in Australia, with benefits.
I look forward to the opportunity that we shall have to debate the Bill in detail in Committee. I strongly support the Bill and urge the Government to do the same.
1.32 p.m.
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on her moving, impassioned and well delivered maiden speech. The noble Baroness's remarks were very relevant to the subject of our debate and we look forward to many further contributions from her.
Like many noble Lords, I was disappointed when the original Bill fell earlier this year. I was particularly sorry that the subject was not included in the gracious Speech. So I, too, must thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for sponsoring the Bill. We must do whatever we can to help him steer it through to Royal Assent in this Session. I press my noble friend the

1673
Minister to use his considerable influence to ensure that the Government offer the Bill the support that it deserves.
I have only once saved a person's life. It was in France. A mother had parked her baby's pushchair on the pavement while she looked in a shop window. The brake was not secure and the pram started careering downhill towards a busy road. There was no doubt that the pram would have ended up under a car. I ran after it, grabbed it and returned it to the mother. It was a great feeling—and no one ever said thank you.
Today, I and other noble Lords have a chance to save many more lives. Based on statistics from other countries, it is estimated that if we ban tobacco advertising the effect will be to save 3,000 or more lives every year. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, put in context that is the equivalent of the number who die on our roads each year. If the Bill becomes law, I suspect that we shall all feel good at having saved so many lives.
I want to talk about the advertising industry and some of the arguments advanced by the tobacco manufacturers. They tell us that they advertise simply to win market share over their competitors. But that position is disingenuous. It addresses only half the story. Advertising has two strategic functions. The first, it is true, is to gain market share. But the second is to grow the total market itself, and that is the aspect that concerns us here today.
We do not care whether young people smoke Marlboro Lite as opposed to Benson and Hedges. Our concern is that they do not smoke at all. Of course, the manufacturers will try hard to persuade confirmed smokers to switch brands. But brand switching is difficult to achieve; and it is a costly exercise, measured by advertising spend per smoker actually migrating from one brand to the other.
Much more cost-effective in terms of marketing spend is to persuade non-smokers to become smokers. And who are the most receptive non-smokers? Of course, it is young teenagers. "Get them while they're young and they're yours for life" could just as well be the tobacco industry's marketing mantra.
Each year, tobacco companies spend hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds on advertising world-wide. They are highly sophisticated global marketers of branded products. They research their market constantly and are well aware of its ever-changing opportunities. They channel their market investment into those areas that will yield them the greatest return. If one market gets too tough, they will try elsewhere.
In the United States the tobacco industry has been hounded. Noble Lords will be aware that there have been some very high profile legal cases, where the industry has been punitively punished. But when you play the global game, you can dodge and weave between markets. If you lose out in America, you can put more marketing into China, Brazil or the Czech Republic. You can give out free cigarettes to children in Indian villages, put out seductive advertisements,
1674
sponsor sports, or do whatever is necessary to get those virgin smokers. Smoking is portrayed as cool, and kids love cool.
There are those who advocate that the tobacco industry should continue to use self-regulation and codes as a method of regulation. I am no fan of voluntary controls. Somehow the concept of an industry or a profession regulating itself has always struck me as naïve. Who polices it? Usually it is the industry or the profession itself. What happens if you transgress? Usually it is a case of a slap on the wrist, combined with an arm round the shoulder and a reassuring wink. You cannot police yourself. The conflict of interest between maximising profits and conforming to a code is simply too great.
I ask noble Lords to imagine the following situation. You are a brand manager with British American Tobacco, or with RJR Nabisco. Your job is to increase sales, you have a target and you are expected to achieve results. You are, of course, aware of voluntary codes of practice, but far more important is your sales goal. So what do you do? It is tough, isn't it? But we can see the dilemma and the temptation. How much better it would be to have definitive legislation to remove all ambiguity.
Today, we shall try to do our bit to protect young people in this country and to make sure that the United Kingdom becomes a less attractive market for these killer products.
Perhaps I may add a final comment with respect to my own field of specialisation; namely, the Internet. As the Bill implies, it is very hard to make this legislation apply to traditional international publications that are sold in this country. Clearly, overseas publishers may not be subject to the same restrictions as we hope will apply in this country. If that is true of print and broadcasting media, then it is even more true when applied to the Internet.
The very nature of the Internet is its unfettered global reach. From our desks today, or from our mobile phones in the very near future, we shall all be able to access any publication in any country throughout the world. The tobacco companies know this, and they are already planning international websites specifically targeted at the young. Not surprisingly, they will use such media to advertise their products.
Although it is hard to police such activities—I know that this area will be accepted in the Bill—we must do our best to make sure that the Internet service providers are subject to the same restrictions as any other distributor. I say to the House: please do not listen to the whingeing and whining of the ISP industry. It, too, must play its part.
If enacted, the Bill will cost little to implement, but it will save many lives. In time, it will also save a huge amount of resource both in the workplace and in the health sector. I truly hope that your Lordships will give the Bill the support it deserves.
1.40 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, the selection commission for the "People's Peers" must be congratulated on having sent us a formidable speaker and someone whose contributions in this House cannot but be regarded seriously.
In having this Bill before us, a feeling of déjà vu is unavoidable. In March this year we had a full debate on this same Bill. I recollect that it was a good debate. It reflected the concerns and differences of view which exist in this House on tobacco advertising, promotion and the effects of a total ban.
At this point I must declare an interest as I am a member of the Lords and Commons Pipe and Cigar Smokers' Club. One of the matters we have to bear in mind is that, parallel with our discussions here this afternoon, a directive is in train in Europe.
I have concerns about the Bill, not least about the effect that it will have on consumption and the take-up of smoking. There is no academic, scientific or economic evidence that provides any acceptable degree of certainty as to the likely outcome of an advertising and sponsorship ban in this country. The truth of the matter is that the real world outcome of this Bill is just as likely to be increased tobacco consumption and take-up of smoking as it is to have a negative or zero effect. That is not a basis on which we should proceed with such a major measure.
It therefore remains something of a mystery to me why there has been no effort over the past five years to explore the possibilities that a voluntary agreement system offers to achieve tobacco policy objectives. We have just heard a tirade against the voluntary system. Let us look at that rather more closely. It is my understanding from press reports that the tobacco companies have made such suggestions but that they have been rejected. That prompts me to ask: what is the current status of those kinds of agreement? Recently a Department of Health spokesman was reported in the press to have said that they had lapsed. If that is the case, it must be something of a surprise. If they are not currently in force, how is tobacco advertising now regulated? No doubt the Minister may have something to say on that.
What we are effectively being asked now is to replace the voluntary agreement system, which has helped to deliver a reduction in tobacco consumption in this country of around 38 per cent up to 1997, with a Bill the effect of which is speculated by its promoters to produce a reduction of 2.5 per cent in the long tern. I believe quite frankly that the comparison of 38 per cent and 2.5 per cent is most telling as to the inappropriateness of the Bill. It was the Government who, in 1997, committed themselves to legislation which they have not yet delivered. I should have hoped that, in keeping with traditions of Liberalism, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and his friends would have opted first for the route offered by the voluntary agreements rather than steal the Government's clothes. The statistics are certainly on the side of that action.
1676
The year 1997 is significant in another respect in that it was the year in which the smuggling of tobacco began to take on alarming proportions. It was the first year in which the Chancellor imposed disproportionate increases in UK tobacco taxation. Those tax increases significantly increased the differentials between United Kingdom tobacco product prices and those applying in other member states and wider afield. As is well known, price is the most important single determinant of tobacco consumption. It is the availability of low-priced illicit tobacco products which has increased tobacco consumption since 1997 by over 3 per cent. Again, I ask your Lordships to consider that figure alongside the claim for this Bill that it will reduce tobacco consumption by 2.5 per cent in the long term.
The revenue effects of all this have been significant. For 2000, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise estimates that the revenue lost through tobacco smuggling was £3.8 billion (that is, £3,800 million) and puts the percentage of the cigarette market accounted for by smuggling at 22 per cent. It is reckoned that over 70 per cent of the market for hand-rolling tobacco is sourced by smuggling.
On the Government's own figures, the revenue loss to date of tobacco smuggling since 1997 is over £9 billion (that is, £9,000 million). Those are alarming figures. Customs estimates that without the anti-smuggling measures which it has put in place in the past couple of years, the illicit market penetration in respect of cigarettes could rise to 33 per cent. As it is, Customs aims to reduce the level by 1 per cent per annum to 20 per cent in 2003–04. I find that only a very modest target. Surely we need to see substantially more resources, whether in terms of equipment, manpower or both, being devoted to anti-tobacco smuggling measures.
I should also like to see the United Kingdom being more proactive in achieving a closer harmonisation of tobacco taxation among the member states of the European Union and in ensuring the speedy closer harmonisation by prospective new members of the Community, some of which are a significant source of smuggled products. Even more appropriate, however, would be a comprehensive review and cost benefit analysis of tax, anti-smuggling and other tobacco measures with reference to consumption and revenue. Those other measures should include the likely impact of this Bill on the market for tobacco products, for it removes the ability of a supplier to protect his brand against illicit imports by means of advertising.
I commend to your Lordships the recent report of the National Criminal Intelligence Service entitled, The Threat from Serious and Organised Crime to the UK, which states:
"Counterfeiting of cigarettes is an emerging issue. Previously it was thought to be too expensive to manufacture counterfeit cigarettes within the UK. However, large raw tobacco seizures at the frontier, and the discovery of a large counterfeit cigarette factory, have led Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to believe that there are probably other illicit factories in the UK producing counterfeit cigarettes. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise estimates that half the cigarettes from the Far East are counterfeit. They mainly arrive from China, but increasing numbers are arriving from areas with large hub ports such as Malaysia. Singapore and Vietnam".

1677
With this Bill in place, I can see no way in which a brand owner could possibly protect his property or control his operations. Whatever he might consider doing would be likely to be regarded as promoting his tobacco product, which is prohibited at every quarter in the Bill. That can only benefit the illicit traders, smugglers and counterfeiters.
The National Criminal Intelligence Service report highlights vividly the extent of the involvement of organised crime groups in tobacco smuggling and how many are also involved in drug trafficking. That smuggling connection is frightening. It leads right up to the trafficking of Afghan heroin—and we know where the balance of payments on that ends up.
Cannabis, which I understand is carcinogenic, is now to be reclassified as a class C drug. It needs to be controlled. At the moment, it is in the hands of traffickers and dealers. We need to get this one right.
The Bill will remove an important element of control of the tobacco market. Who is most likely to benefit? Tobacco smugglers and bootleggers, many of whom also deal in a cocktail of drugs.
Serious health risks are associated with smoking. It is therefore right that there should be strict regulation of the advertising and promotion of tobacco products. Whatever form regulation takes—it would be preferable if it was not legislation—it should be based on convincing evidence that it will reduce tobacco consumption and the take-up of smoking, particularly by young people.
In my view, the Bill is perverse, because it does not cater for smuggling. It is likely to have effects that could be totally unexpected or disbelieved by its promoters. I am particularly reminded of a memorable sentence in a letter written by the director of ASH to the Commissioner for the Internal Market in August last year and published on the ASH website. It was concerned with the Commissioner's critical comments on the action that UK Customs was taking with regard to certain duty-paid personal imports of tobacco and alcohol. The sentence reads:
"For many in Britain, the zealotry of single market enthusiasts is a matter of deep concern and distaste".
It occurs to me that it is the same zealotry of enthusiasm that has brought this Bill forward for the second time without fully investigating the circumstances and consequences of its provisions.
1.53 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on introducing the Bill, which I support. However, I hope to convince him that it does not go far enough. I also welcome my noble friend the Minister, who is batting at the crease for the second time on the Bill.
I, too, am a non-smoker. I find smoking thoroughly unpleasant and I would like it banned where people eat and in all public places. Indeed, I would like it banned in your Lordships' House. I disapprove of it not only because I find it unpleasant, but also for health
1678
reasons. The speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on 28th March and of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, today have surely convinced us all of the health hazards. The speeches of my noble friends Lord Faulkner and Lord Mitchell, together with the wonderful maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the way in which children and young people are attracted to smoking by glamorous sports sponsorship and how tobacco companies make smoking more socially acceptable, especially to young people, were disturbing. They were authoritative speeches, well researched, based on experience and independent of the tobacco companies. They presented the tobacco companies in rather a sinister light. I hope that my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues are keeping a close eye on such activities. Those speeches also convinced me that advertising, while having an effect on brand switching, also increases the consumption of tobacco.
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, said that the Bill sets out to ban advertising. I do not agree. Smoking is still a legal activity in this country. There is a right to smoke. The Bill is aimed at regulating the advertising and promotion of tobacco. I shall address the issue of regulation. I am concerned that banning some forms of advertising and not others means yet more regulation.
As I said in my speech on 28th March, as a country we are firmly in deregulation mode. The prevailing mood is that we should be cutting red tape, not adding to it. There is a Better Regulation Task Force to do that job. Each government department has its own Minister responsible for reducing regulation. I think that my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath is that Minister in the Department of Health. Every government department has a kind of Star Chamber to scrutinise all new regulations. The CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the chambers of commerce, the Engineering Employers' Federation and many others all complain that the increasing burden of red tape is damaging our ability to raise the performance of our economy and to compete in world markets.
In spite of that, Clauses 4 and 6 deal with regulating cigarette advertising and displays at shop entrances. Clause 8 deals with point of sale advertising. Clause 8(1) says that an offence has been committed,
"if the display does not comply with such requirements (if any) as may be specified by the appropriate Minister in regulations"
Three more subsections relate to regulations. Other clauses deal with regulating Internet service providers. Clause 11 regulates the extension of tobacco brands to other products. Banning some advertising but regulating others must mean more red tape. Would not a complete ban be far simpler? Be brave and ban it, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, put it.
Perhaps the Bill's promoters are trying to be evenhanded and reasonable. That is understandable, but misguided. They will get no thanks for it. Regulations resulting from the Bill will be thrown back at them and at the Government as proof of yet more red tape burdening British industry. They may think that they

1679
are being reasonable to the tobacco industry and helping tobacco manufacturers to stop counterfeiting, as noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, argued, but I have no doubt that the companies will be among the first to accuse the Government of adding to the burden of red tape on British business.
In addition, such detailed regulation will add to the burden and create yet more responsibility for our hard-working and fully extended trading standards officers. They will have the task of implementing and interpreting what will have to be detailed regulations. Do we really want to put those public servants to all that trouble and get no thanks for it in the end?
The argument for a complete ban may seem like an insider's argument. But here in your Lordships' House we are all insiders of one kind of another. As a business insider, I understand why there must be a complete ban rather than yet more regulation. A comprehensive ban on the advertising and promotion of tobacco will not only avoid the burden of regulation as I have described it; it will also reduce the dangers to health about which other noble Lords have spoken so eloquently.
2 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I join many other speakers this afternoon in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing back this important piece of legislation. I also join others in praise of the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. It was a deeply moving speech, and helpful to have the hard facts that she produced in her argument.
Her remarks reminded me of the young people—the 16 and 17 year-olds—whom I see most weeks. I was reminded of one in particular who had recently arrived from Boa Vista in Luanda, Angola. It is notorious as being one of the poorest areas in Luanda. This young man had made the voyage to this country and was staying in a hostel. I believe that we want the best for all such young people. We do not want them to suffer any more. We want them to make the best use of their lives and to fulfil their potential. I hope that, if the Bill goes forward, they will have a better chance of doing so.
I want to concentrate on the health of our children but, before doing so, I acknowledge the importance of the revenue produced by tobacco. Each year British American Tobacco produces £12 billion of tax revenue through different taxes. It employs 87,000 people world-wide, with 700 employed in London and 1,800 in Southampton and Darlington. Therefore, it makes an important contribution to our economy. There is also the issue of freedom of speech. We must think very carefully before seeking to legislate in a way that may harm this important industry. We must weigh carefully what we do.
The Department of Health says that smoking during pregnancy increases the possibility of miscarriage by one-third, and that it also increases the possibility of perinatal death or death soon after birth by one-third. A child born in such circumstances is
1680
three times more likely to be significantly underweight. Dr Doris Campbell of the University of Aberdeen—a gynaecologist with a special interest in substance use by mothers—points out that smoking during pregnancy results in smaller children who are born slightly more prematurely. She strongly endorses a ban on the promotion or advertising of tobacco.
Birth weight is important for two reasons. First, a low-weight baby is less robust. Labour is a challenging process and gives rise to the additional complications that I described earlier. Nicotine affects the supply of blood to the placenta. Therefore, in mothers who smoke, the placenta is smaller at the beginning of the pregnancy. If a mother stops smoking while she is pregnant, the outcome for the baby will be better, but it will still be in the region of 120 grams underweight. Therefore, the harm is done early on but can be made worse if the mother continues to smoke.
Twenty-seven per cent of mothers smoke. Professor Peter Fleming, a paediatrician of the University of Bristol, points out that the organs of a baby born to such a mother will be less developed than they would otherwise be. All the organs are affected but particularly so the brain. As a consequence, the child's development of visual ability is impaired. It is delayed and, sometimes, limited. A large amount of research carried out in the 1950s showed that the reading age of seven year-olds whose mothers smoked was one year behind that of other children. At the time of that research, the mothers who smoked tended to be wealthier—against the socio-economic trend.
Another point that has been made to me is that the growth lost by low-weight infants is not made up in later life. Genetically, a child may have in it the potential to be six feet tall, but if its mother smoked during pregnancy, it is likely to be shorter than six feet. Genetically, its IQ might be x, but if the mother has smoked during pregnancy, it will be slightly less than x. Therefore, serious and enduring harm is clone to the foetus.
This week, I spoke to an obstetrician who works in London. One of his current patients is a mother who smokes. She has given birth to a third seriously underweight and seriously premature child. All the doctors to whom I spoke were very concerned about this matter and were very much behind a ban on t he advertising and promotion of tobacco.
There is a particular problem in the developing world. In this country, if complications arise in relation to low-weight infants, they are assessed and, quite possibly, a Caesarean section will be carried out, thus saving the baby. In the developing world, that type of facility is far scarcer. Therefore, there is an increased likelihood of child fatality or child morbidity, with the infant being damaged at birth. Again, I remember visiting a hospital in Angola where the maternity department had five incubators. The matron said, "We really need 10, but we can afford only five".
My second concern is that the developing world should not face the same problems that we experienced. About 24 per cent of women in the

1681
developed world smoke, but only 7 per cent of women in the developing world do so. When tobacco companies went into South Korea, within one year the number of teenage girls who smoked had trebled. There are bans on tobacco advertising in Vietnam and Thailand. The World Health Organisation is working to produce a world convention controlling the sale and promotion of tobacco. ASH argues that a ban in this country will greatly reinvigorate the arguments, in terms of producing a world ban, and set a good example.
I strongly support the Bill. I realise that certain considerations have to be borne in mind—one must consider the impact on employment and companies' freedom to proceed with their business. On balance, however, the case is clear—we should have taken such action previously and we should proceed with it now.
I spend quite a bit of time with 16 and 17 year-olds. I started smoking at the age of 15. I inform noble Lords that young people need not mixed messages but clarity. The Bill is an important means of ensuring that the message that one should not take up smoking is clear.
2.9 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has had the wisdom and courage to introduce this important Bill. It was a pleasure to listen to the enlightened and powerful maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, whose expertise will be a great asset to the House. If I could say that in Welsh, I would!
I want to focus on young people and tobacco and direct my remarks mainly to health education. Young people are the addicts of the future. Most of them will wish that they had not started smoking and will want to give it up: they will find that difficult. Some will find that smoking adversely affects their finances and health, including their ability to enjoy pursuits such as active sport. There is evidence that health education and health promotion can work, but they have formidable enemies in terms of tobacco advertising.
I shall not burden noble Lords with statistics—many facts have already been mentioned. It is worth emphasising that there is a government target to reduce smoking among 11 to 15 year-olds from 13 per cent in 1996 to 9 per cent by 2010. Smoking rates in that age range fell from 13 per cent in 1996 to 9 per cent in 1999 but, worryingly, they have started rising again. One per cent of 11 year-olds smoke and an astonishing 23 per cent of 15 year-olds smoke. Girls are more likely to smoke than boys. That issue was substantially covered by my noble friend Lady Gale.
Some say, "Well, it is up to them. If that is the way that they want to spend their lives and their money, they should be allowed to get on with it". I cannot accept that argument. I think, and young people say, that they want positive guidance about their health and information strategies to help them to make decisions about their health. Tobacco advertising
1682
undermines that. Straightforward propaganda is aimed at young people, among others. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, the tobacco industry needs young smokers for its survival.
A statement from the Philip Morris "Tobacco Industry Youth Initiative" sums up the situation. It said:
"The ultimate means for determining the success of this program will be: 1) a reduction in legislation introduced and passed restricting or banning our sales and marketing activities 2) Passage of legislation favourable to the industry and 3) greater support from business, parent and teacher groups".
Such cynical and uncaring words astound me. How can we trust people who make such claims? I am sure that the majority of parents, even if they smoke, do not want their children to smoke.
I know many teachers who teach health education; I have taught it myself. We know that young people take risks. It is part of growing up. We know that they tend not to look at the long-term effects of their behaviour. They have information about smoking, alcohol, safe sex and so on. But health behaviour does not depend solely on information. It is about having the attitude and skills to avoid pressure and having the self-esteem to say, "No". Messages about tobacco use are insidious, subtle and difficult for young people to resist. This is where advertising comes in. The influence of teachers and parents is undermined by such messages. Positive help is undermined. We spend time and effort on promoting healthy schools, cities and people, which is then corroded by big money advertising from tobacco companies. Yet the tobacco industry says it carries out responsible marketing.
I have worked in developing countries where the tobacco industry wanted to put teaching materials into schools to give information about cigarettes, with the saying, "Don't smoke until you are 16." The company's logo was on the materials. Telling a 12 year-old child not to smoke until he or she is 16 is likely to encourage the first cigarette which leads to many more. Tobacco advertising is devious and aimed at selling cigarettes with the resultant impact on healthcare services. How can we trust people who cynically promote such aims?
The message, "Smoking Kills" on cigarette packs is meaningless to young people in the face of strong messages from other sources. Sponsored sporting events associate brand names with excitement and glamour and the brand name is visible throughout. This subjects young people to a barrage of persuasion that tobacco is more than acceptable—a good thing to be associated with, something that encourages self-esteem and popularity. There is good evidence that associating tobacco with non-tobacco events does have an impact on young people.
Banning advertising is important for the reduction of smoking among this group. As other noble Lords have said, it is nonsense to insinuate that advertising can target other groups without affecting young people. Such a ban, I believe, could discourage them from starting to smoke or discourage them from continuing. I hope that the Bill will be successful.
2.17 p.m.
Lord Rennard: My Lords, imagine a tragic accident. A plane crash and the loss of 300 lives. The next day, another accident, another plane crash and again the loss of 300 lives. The following day, another plane crash and another 300 lives lost. Then 300 lives lost the same way every day for weeks. Imagine the public reaction. Those lives lost would dominate our concerns. Parliament would be recalled and it would dominate every media outlet. Immediate action would be demanded.
Yet 300 lives are lost every day in Great Britain as a result of tobacco-related illnesses. This Bill will make some contribution to saving some of those lives; giving many people a healthier life and, to some, a more prosperous one. This Bill would save around 10 lives per day, perhaps more. The fact that it will help to save lives is incontrovertible.
It will reduce ill health and for some people it will remove a contributory factor to their poverty. Many of those addicted to tobacco are the poorest in society and are made significantly poorer as a result of this habit. The country is made poorer by their addiction because of the enormous costs to our health service as well as the economic and social consequences of related illnesses. There is a clear link between cot deaths and households where smoking tobacco is prevalent.
In a world where many parents worry about the dangers their children face, the most effective action parents could take is to allow their children to grow up in a smoke-free environment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in a most persuasive speech, spoke emotionally about how she had to tell an eight-year old girl that her mother was dying of a smoking-related illness. I was 16 when my mother died of a hypertensive heart disease to which smoking was probably a contributory factor. I had to explain to my younger brother what might happen to us, my father having died some years previously.
Tragically, my younger brother was already addicted to smoking tobacco. He took up the habit at school because he was attracted to the adult image he sought to acquire. Nicotine is highly addictive and he has been unable to break his habit in spite of serious damage to his own health. He is a chronic asthmatic. The aggravation to his asthma made him too ill to work. Unable to afford his mortgage, his house was repossessed. His habit is more expensive than he can afford and continues to have a bad effect on his health. Tobacco has been a disaster for him and his quality of life.
The tobacco companies say that advertising tobacco is not responsible for his addiction. But that is the same industry which denied for many decades that there was any connection at all between tobacco and lung cancer. It is an industry that denied that nicotine was addictive. It is an industry with a reputation for suppressing the facts and ignoring the medical and scientific evidence for as long as it can get away with it. It is an industry that knows it needs to target young
1684
people because 90 per cent of all smokers start before they are 20. It is an industry that exists to make as much profit as it can before half of its customers die prematurely as a result of smoking their product.
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, argued the tobacco industry case; that smoking, however harmful, is a legal activity and it should be able to promote it irrespective of the deaths and damage that it causes. But not everything that is legal should be encouraged, and advertising tobacco clearly encourages the smoking of cigarettes.
For many years it was not a legal requirement to wear a seat belt in a car. But would it have been right for advertisements to encourage people to "enjoy their legal freedom" not to wear a seat belt and put themselves and others at much greater risk of serious injury and death, with further consequences and costs for many people? Of course not; it would have been highly irresponsible.
The Government estimate for the number of lives saved by this measure is equal to the total number of road deaths in this country. How then could we fail to act to ensure that this Bill is carried? It is not about reducing choice; it is about not encouraging an obviously bad choice that has adverse effects not only on the individual, but also on many others.
The tobacco industry argues the case for freedom of speech. But we recognise these days that freedom of speech does not extend, for example, to inciting racial hatred or making a hoax call suggesting a bomb has been planted, or shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre and causing a dangerous stampede when there is no such danger.
Tobacco advertising promotes tobacco smoking. It suggests that it is socially acceptable, pleasurable and can even be associated with healthy activities and entertainment. As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones pointed out, 10 times as much money is now spent by the tobacco industry in this country peddling its product than is spent by the Government warning that it is highly addictive, life threatening and a major cause of ill health.
It is an absurd claim that while advertising increases the consumption of virtually every other product, it somehow does not work for tobacco. Advertising fashionable products to young people in particular creates a demand for a whole range of products, not just specific brands. Studies of advertising bans elsewhere show resultant falls in overall consumption. But they must be comprehensive, including sponsorship, which is merely another form of advertising.
The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, says that in his opinion the Bill may even increase tobacco consumption. If that were so, then surely the tobacco industry and its front organisations, such as Forest, would be arguing for this Bill if there was any prospect of it actually increasing tobacco consumption. The evidence of the introduction of comprehensive bans in other countries such as Norway, Finland, New Zealand and Canada, is that there have been considerable reductions in tobacco consumption as a

1685
result of the introduction of the bans, and by figures well in excess of our official government estimate of the likely effect of the introduction of this Bill.
Advertising of tobacco is essential to the continuation of widespread smoking in this country, as 300 people per day die from the habit and over 1,000 people per day give up the habit for good. That is why the advertising must be banned.
Advertising tobacco is particularly effective with children. It cannot be a coincidence that the BMA discovered that the most heavily-advertised brand is the most likely to be smoked by children. Sponsorship is just as insidious. Research quoted earlier in the debate, published in The Lancet, showed that boys are nearly twice as likely to become regular smokers if they are motor-racing fans. That cannot be a coincidence.
There are many terrible things in this world: natural disasters and those made by man. Sadly, there is nothing we can do about many of them. But smoking-related deaths and illnesses are terrible things about which we can do something, by supporting the Bill.
2.26 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, by introducing the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is doing the country a great service as well as helping the Government out of a hole, one which they dug for themselves by not including the Bill in this parliamentary Session. I do not suppose that the Lib Dems feel that rescuing the Government from difficulties is high on their priority list. However, in promoting the Bill the noble Lord has shown that public health has a high place on that priority list. For that he deserves congratulation. I am optimistic that my noble friend will respond favourably to the Bill and that it will be given government backing in another place.
The Department of Health has calculated that 3,000 lives per year will eventually be saved if the Bill becomes law. That figure is often quoted, and has been quoted in the debate. I think it worthwhile to explain how that figure is derived. In 1992 Clive Smee, a highly regarded medical statistician, undertook a thorough analysis of the effects of tobacco advertising legislation throughout the world and concluded that on balance a prohibition on advertising significantly reduces the prevalence of smoking. The figure we have today of a 2.5 per cent reduction was derived using Smee's data and methodology. The number of 3,000 deaths prevented per annum comes from applying that percentage to the total of 120,000 deaths annually which are due to smoking-related diseases.
In some countries Smee found that there was no detectable reduction in smoking—in some there was an increase—after an advertising ban. However, usually that was because there was no parallel programme to discourage smoking or to help smokers give up. In Norway, on the other hand, which has been referred to by a number of speakers, at the same time as the advertising ban there was a major health education blitz on smoking. A reduction of 7 per cent per annum was achieved. That included younger
1686
smokers, particularly young women who, as many speakers have pointed out, are normally a difficult group to persuade to give up or to protect from peer pressure to begin smoking.
However, even if it has not been possible to demonstrate a reduction in smoking, in my view there is a strong case for an advertising and promotion ban on common sense grounds and moral grounds. It is now almost exactly 50 years since Professor Sir Richard Doll published, with Sir Austin Bradford Hill, the famous paper giving the first clear evidence of the relation between smoking and cancer of the lung. Sir Richard tells the story of a recent conversation he had with a 15 year-old whom he was trying to dissuade from smoking. The boy said, "Of course smoking can't be as harmful as you say, otherwise the Government wouldn't allow cigarettes to be advertised".
It is Friday, and I rest my case. I hope that the Bill has a smooth and rapid passage through this House.
2.29 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, it has been a privilege for me to be in your Lordships' House this afternoon to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which was well-informed and moving. I know that I speak for all noble Lords in saying that we look forward to hearing her contributions on many future occasions.
As a number of noble Lords have already pointed out today, we are being asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, to all intents and purposes, is the government Bill which was before us some seven months ago. Therefore, I make no apology for the fact that some of my remarks and observations will have a ring of familiarity about them.
Before proceeding further, I should like to follow my noble friends Lord Oxfuird and Lord Skelmersdale in informing the House that I am a member of the Lords and Commons Pipe and Cigar Smokers' Club.
It is interesting to note that this Bill is not being introduced by the Government but as a Private Member's Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, who has confirmed that it is their official policy. In his press release of 11th July the noble Lord said that by doing so,
"We are clearly providing the effective opposition to an unambitious Labour Government".
I have a number of observations to make about that remark. First, it seems inappropriate because I have not discerned any change in the position of the Government on tobacco advertising, regrettable though I find that to be. Secondly, recent remarks by Ministers have steadfastly stood by the introduction of legislation when parliamentary time permits, and in this Session if possible. I find it hard to see how the noble Lord can claim his action in taking over the Government's Bill is that of an effective opposition.
We are all aware of the great pressures that now exist on parliamentary time. Perhaps the noble Lord will be persuaded that his Bill is premature when

1687
considered in the context of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, which I regard as highly relevant.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, acknowledged in his introduction and clear explanation of his Bill that there are dangers in the Bill concerning the Internet and e-commerce. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, may be putting the cart before the horse because we are awaiting the EC directive. I look forward to hearing what the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will have to say on this specific matter.
I turn to the extraordinary mixed message that I believe will be given out if this Bill proceeds to the statute book. On the one hand, we have a government intent on liberalising the use of cannabis by reclassifying it as a class C drug and, on the other hand, we will have this draconian and unique legislation, banning the advertising of tobacco products which it is legal to manufacture, import, sell, buy, use and enjoy. This hardly looks like joined-up government thinking.
The passage of this Bill would change radically the whole market environment for the products with which it is concerned. Thereby it would change the dynamics of the market without any certainty that it would achieve the objectives of reducing tobacco consumption or take up of the products, especially by young people. Its effect may well be to increase consumption and take up. I will return to that later.
In addition it would create a precedent to be followed in respect of other products at some time in the future. In the previous Parliament the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, with his tongue firmly in his cheek, demonstrated how readily this Bill could be used as a template for prohibiting other advertising by introducing legislation on liquor advertising and promotion. As we know, liquor can be at least as damaging to health as tobacco and more damaging in social terms.
The Bill, if passed, would prove beyond peradventure that we live in a nanny state, and in that context I agree wholeheartedly with everything said by my noble friend Lord Naseby. Furthermore, the Bill gives rise to extensive secondary legislation. It includes at least six regulation-making powers as well as Clause 7, the Henry VIII clause. These are wide-ranging powers and we shall need to look carefully at them at later stages of the Bill.
I conclude by reiterating what I said in this House some seven months ago. I believe that the Bill before us today is misconceived and also presents a dangerous precedent. Whatever one's views about smoking, I believe it unfair for an industry going about its lawful and legal business to be discriminated against in such a way. The voluntary agreements in place between the industry and government worked well and achieved a year-on-year reduction in consumption until, ironically, the recent draconian tax increases. They have had the perverse effect of increasing consumption since 1997. I believe that the reason for that was the
1688
rapid growth of a flourishing illegal billion-pound business, tobacco smuggling, referred to by my noble friend Lord Oxfuird.
That has led to a black market in which cigarettes are readily available at 50 per cent discount to the retail price. With all other avenues denied them, tobacco companies will have no option but to resort to a price war in an effort to retain market share. As I have already said, the effect of that will tend to be to drive consumption up. For those reasons, I believe that careful thought needs to be given to the Bill before we proceed much further and it will certainly require scrutiny in Committee.
2.36 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I, too, want to place on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for enabling us to debate the issue yet again. I also want to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on her brilliant and moving maiden speech.
I support the main sentiments of the Bill and seriously hope that this time the Bill will come to fruition. I spoke in debates on the previous Bill and today I want to concentrate totally on a theme I introduced previously; that is, the effect which the prolonged debate on tobacco advertising and promotion is having on those who work in the tobacco industry.
For the past four years, workers in the tobacco industry have had the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. It was in 1997 that the Government first proposed alterations to tobacco advertising and promotion. At that time, a number of Ministers said that action would be taken quickly. It was not. Instead, it was decided that a longer time was needed to consider the detailed effects of any actions taken. Eventually, the Bill was produced but, as we know, it fell because of the general election; and then it was not in the Queen's Speech.
The relief of those working in the industry was evident. It appeared that the Bill was not to be followed through after all—certainly not in this Session. Now it has been resurrected by the noble Lord; and the anxieties of the tobacco industry workforce have also been resurrected. Tobacco workers are not demons. They are a normal, nonmilitant workforce, many of whom, ironically, do not smoke and who, as parents, support actions to curb under-age smoking.
As we have heard, there are different views about whether or not the banning of advertisements would actually lead to a reduction in the number of smokers. Some have said that rather than advertisements, other means, such as peer-group pressure, are more persuasive, especially among the young. But as we have heard from many noble Lords, others argue that there would not be so much spent on advertisements if they were not effective and that the ban will reduce the number of those who smoke in the UK. If that is true, and I believe that it is, those working in the industry are right to voice their fears.

1689
There are currently between 10,000 and 11,000 workers working directly in the tobacco industry. Additionally, of course, there are all those who indirectly rely on the industry for work; for example, those who make the filter tips, as well as print workers and shopkeepers. Tobacco industry jobs tend to be concentrated in areas of the UK in which there is already high unemployment; for example, Derby, Nottingham, Peterlee, Bristol, Cardiff, Liverpool, Southampton, Northern Ireland—Belfast in particular—and Darlington. Manufacturing jobs have already been lost in those areas during recent decades. If tobacco jobs are also lost, there will be few alternatives for those made redundant, and the knock-on effect on the local economy will be evident.
What sort of jobs are we discussing? We are talking about higher paid, skilled jobs, thanks to the trade unions that organise in the tobacco sector. Here I declare an interest as a former national official of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union, which is one of the trade unions organising in the tobacco industry. The Tobacco Workers Union organised in the industry for almost 170 years—since 1834—and the industry is almost 100 per cent organised. Over the years, the workers have enjoyed good working terms and conditions.
Against such a background, it is little wonder that the workers and their representatives fear job losses. Of course, in an ideal world with full employment, no action would be needed to assist workers to change jobs, but our world is not ideal.
If the Bill is passed, what action can be taken to alleviate any detrimental effects on those working in the tobacco industry? Consideration must be given to alternative employment and diversification. I do not accept—as some employers in the tobacco industry have told me—that the tobacco industry,
"does not lend itself to diversification".
After all, factories are only bricks and mortar. If the Bill is passed, I hope that the Government will consider assistance to diversify, for the sake of all those in the areas where tobacco factories are located. Further, I hope that consideration will be given to assisting the retraining of workers who lose their jobs.
Above all, I hope that, via this Bill, a decision will be taken once and for all about tobacco advertising and promotion—sooner rather than later—so that we all know what the future holds for those working in the tobacco industry. To paraphrase, please, let us not forget the workers.
2.42 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I suppose that I should declare a technical non-financial interest in that I am a supporter of the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco, although I have not liaised with it at all about the Bill.
Yet again, I seem to have drawn the second shortest straw in that within the space of 18 hours I am again the penultimate speaker in a long debate. The many speakers today, together with the officers and the staff,
1690
all want to get away well before the Friday rush hour. Accordingly, it seems both inconsiderate and rather pointless to deploy all over again the arguments that I advanced on the Second Reading of the previous Bill seven and a half months ago—many of which have in any case been expressed by other speakers today.
However, one argument bears repetition, because it demonstrates the unintended and counter-productive consequences of the Bill. If tobacco manufacturers cannot compete on quality, presentation and, in relative terms, safety—competition that must be backed up by advertising to be effective—they will compete on price, which needs no advertising. Cheap—again, using the word in a relative sense—cigarettes are likely to contain coarse, higher tar tobacco, more loosely packed, and so burning hotter, and the filters are likely to be cruder and less effective. In a nutshell, they are likely to constitute a higher health risk than the better quality cigarettes that they will displace. In other words, rather than a health gain, there will be the opposite; while, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, so effectively pointed out, jobs in Britain will be lost. I think that answers the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon.
The question is: why have the Liberal Democrats introduced this Bill? The fact that it is a highly illiberal measure may be par for the course for the present-day Liberals, but why have they introduced it when clearly the Government have had second thoughts about doing so? That point was also raised by the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool.
Auberon Waugh used to point out that the phrase "protection of minors", which has been adduced in the debate, was designed to stop all argument in its tracks. The difficulty here is that the Liberal Democrats fully support the Home Secretary's decision to reclassify cannabis and in a sense de facto to decriminalise it. As a consequence, more young people will experiment with it, even though it is between four and 17 times more carcinogenic than tobacco, depending on which scientific survey one accepts. Surely, it would be better to decriminalise it completely, make it a government monopoly, tax it at least as heavily as, and probably a good deal more than, tobacco and impose a total ban on sales to those under 18.
Another significant inconsistency springs to mind. Unlike Labour Peers, the one Green Peer, the Bishops, Cross-Bench Peers and Conservative Peers, the Liberal Democrats voted unanimously against the compromise amendment, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill on 13th November 2000. That would have protected 16 and 17 year-old boys and girls from being sodomised, while permitting other less dangerous sexual behaviour, even though the noble Lord, Lord McColl, with his great medical expertise, informed the House that statistically people who were regularly sodomised were twice as likely to die prematurely as those who smoked 20 cigarettes a day.
Unlike every other party, I understand that the Liberal Democrats were not allowed a free vote on the matter, presumably on the grounds that to try to

1691
protect young people from serious harm to their long term health was inconsistent with liberalism. If that is so, are they not being more than a little inconsistent in promoting this illiberal Bill, whether or not, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, questioned, it violates the European Convention on Human Rights?
2.47 p.m.
Baroness; Jay of Paddington: My Lords, following the noble Lord, Lord Monson, perhaps I should say that I have drawn the shortest straw of all. However, from my perspective this is a rather good position to occupy. On my instant calculation, of the 20 Members of the House who have spoken so far I am the 15th genuinely to welcome the reintroduction of the Bill. I believe that that is a slightly different balance from that which existed at the Second Reading debate seven months ago. It underlines the enormous importance and potency of this particular topic. I am delighted that the subject is raised today because it is important that matters of great domestic interest and social policy should not slip down the political agenda at times of international crises. Although there is now enormous pressure on the business of the House and Parliament, it is important that these matters are still seen to be before us.
I have no intention in supporting the Bill and the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to embarrass either my noble friend Lord Hunt or the Government as a whole. To do so would in a sense embarrass myself. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, as Opposition spokesperson on health in this House in the early and mid-1990s and as Minister following the 1997 election, I vigorously promoted the policy to ban tobacco advertising, as did my noble friend Lady Hayman who has been in her place for most of the debate.
I have not been an active participant in the health debate on this issue since 1998, but this week I looked at both the speeches and Answers which my noble friend Lady Hayman and I gave over a period of five or six years in your Lordships' House. They were in almost exactly the same terms as the speech of my noble friend Lord Hunt at Second Reading of the original Bill in March of this year, and exactly the same as what perhaps can only be described as the cover version of that speech which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, gave earlier today. The Government's policy has not changed on the matter. They have been consistent throughout. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, that their position has been consistent. I am sure that it will remain so.
I was proud to be a member of the ministerial team at the Department of Health which produced the landmark White Paper—it was a landmark White Paper—entitled Smoking Kills. That White Paper fundamentally emphasised the basic point that any effective tobacco control programme has to be broadly based and broadly placed across the whole spectrum of interest. It must include education, tax policy and many of the support therapies mentioned today, ranging from hypnosis to nicotine replacement. However, it must also include an advertising ban.
1692
Therefore, the Bill represents what I suppose one would call just one leg, or perhaps even half a leg, of a comprehensive policy. It is an important part of that comprehensive strategy. No one has ever argued—I have certainly never heard it argued in this House—that banning advertising and promotion will be a panacea or a total solution to the smoking problem.
The tobacco companies—we have heard this referred to many times in the course of today's debate—protest that the effect of advertising is negligible and, in so far as it has an effect, only "helps" consumers to change or choose brands. My initial response to that assertion remains the same as it always has been—it is a point that has been made today—particularly in view of the quoted figure of £130 million a year being spent by the tobacco companies on advertising. My response is that if these successful commercial organisations do this in the knowledge that its effect is negligible in their understanding, then they are extremely misguided in their business decisions. It is quite extraordinary that they should be so profligate with their shareholders' money if they regard spending £130 million as a business failure.
Today I wanted to re-emphasise two things to which attention has been drawn by other speakers. They are important areas where I feel, and have felt for many years, that the evidence is clear that advertising is increasing the market for tobacco and therefore increasing the number of people who are putting their health at risk by starting to smoke.
If your Lordships will forgive me, I shall mention again the global problem and particularly the problem of the developing world. If one looks as the emerging markets beyond the United Kingdom, those are the ones where the tobacco manufacturers are ruthlessly seeking to exploit the changes. Obviously, that is beyond the scope of the Bill. However, it is worth reminding the House, as did the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and my noble friend Baroness Massey, of the scale of the problem.
Obviously, noble Lords have referred several times in their contributions to the fact that probably 120,000 people in this country die needlessly, or without necessity, from tobacco during the course of any year. We all know that among adults in this country, particularly informed and educated adults, there has been some small but, none the less, effective decline in smoking. However, if the tobacco companies are to survive they need to expand and to bring smokers into the market. They need to find what would be called in marketing terms "replacement customers". Here there is this enormous effort in the developing world to make sure that more adults join the market.
I was impressed by a recently published World Bank report. It emphasised the global, as opposed to the UK-based, nature of the problem. It said:
"Tobacco is expected to kill 10 million people worldwide by the third decade of the next century. More than 71) percent of these deaths will be in the developing world".
It pointed out:
"Tobacco will thus kill more people than malaria. maternal and childhood conditions, and tuberculosis combined".

1693
In the policy area it stated:
"Governments of most developing countries are unprepared to deal with increases in tobacco deaths, including the impact on health systems and health costs".
This means that tobacco is now the most strongly growing and only cause of death beyond things like those diseases which I have mentioned, which are coming more under control, except for HIV and AIDS. It is an extraordinary fact of the global health situation that HIV and AIDS and tobacco should be the most rapidly growing threat to the health of the global population.
Although it may seem tangential to the specific arguments on the Bill, I feel strongly that, if this legislation is passed and even though it is a measure directed only at the UK market, this country will be sending a strong message consistent with many of our development and anti-poverty programmes that we intend to take a lead in the worldwide battle against the human suffering of smoking-related deaths in the same way as we have addressed the issues of AIDS and HIV prevention.
At home, the emerging market that is most affected by advertising is, quite literally, that of children and young people. My noble friends Lady Massey and Lady Gale have detailed the problem in important ways. I do not think that it is necessary for me to go over the ground again, but one aspect which perhaps has not been mentioned but is worth emphasising is that in Britain we know that three out of four children under the age of five are aware of cigarettes and smoking, whether or not their parents smoke. I do not think that anyone can successfully argue that outside influences do not play a role in such early awareness.
A great deal of discussion has centred on smoking among teenagers, a point most movingly and impressively developed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in her maiden speech. As Minister for Women, I was always concerned about the particular influence of tobacco advertising on young girls. We know that, among that age group, smoking is often perceived as practically a social prop or even a fashion accessory. However, as has been mentioned, medical evidence shows that boys and girls in this age group—although unfortunately girls appear to be more susceptible—can readily become nicotine dependent. I understand that 72 per cent of those in the 11–16 age group who smoke regularly already report that they would find it difficult to give up the habit. We have a particular responsibility towards this age group to ensure that everything possible is done to use an effective leg of our tobacco control policy—that of banning advertising—to break the link between the promotion of cigarettes and the decisions of young people to start smoking.
I am well aware that the tobacco manufacturers have talked about offering voluntary self-denial through restricting their advertising aimed at young
1694
people. Several noble Lords have outlined the lack of success of policies of self-imposed restraint and voluntary codes. I must say that I too am entirely sceptical about this approach, based largely on my parental experience. A ban on smoking promotion which seeks to exclude one age group suggests almost an anti-marketing campaign which I should have thought would be likely to make susceptible teenagers even more excited. By its nature, they would wish to become involved in something exclusive rather than the other way around.
As I say, that is a somewhat anecdotal conclusion based on my personal experience. However, only yesterday I read the new, authoritative pronouncements from the World Health Organisation on voluntary advertising bans. In a completely uncompromising statement, the WHO states that tobacco company policies of self-regulation do not work. It says:
"Voluntary codes of advertising were first adopted—and found wanting—by the United States. Canada and [the] United Kingdom. WHO says no country has succeeded in designing regulations that eliminate children's exposure to tobacco advertising while allowing advertising aimed at adult smokers".
The statement concludes by saying that the WHO will be,
"calling on law-makers around the world to take action against advertising of tobacco and tobacco products".
As law makers in this country, we now have the opportunity to support the global effort which the WHO has again emphasised this week, and pass this Bill. My concluding hope and plea to my noble friend on the Front Bench is that, as the measure being promoted by the noble Lord, Clement-Jones, makes progress through Parliament, the Government will in effect repossess it and take steps, and actively take steps, to promote its passage.
3 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. From these Benches, we welcome the fact that there has been overwhelming support for the Bill. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on her wonderful maiden speech. For me, what she said completely epitomised what this is all about. She gave us much evidence from a wealth of academic research, not only of the enormous damage caused by smoking but of the likely benefits of banning advertising. Above and beyond that, she conveyed, very movingly, that this is no dry academic area. This is about people; this is about children.
We have heard already that 3,000 lives per year would be saved if tobacco advertising were banned. As my noble friend Lord Rennard pointed out, the brands that are most heavily advertised are the brands that children smoke most heavily. We know how susceptible they are to advertising—the right brand of trainers—do I not know it—the right clothes, the right brand of cigarettes.
Three thousand lives a year, as we have heard, is the equivalent of all road traffic casualties. It is also the equivalent of three large secondary schools. That

1695
means that for every week we delay, we condemn the equivalent of two classes of children each week to premature illness and death.
"For the sake of the children who will be tomorrow's victims of lung cancer, heart disease and other diseases, I commend the Bill",
said Yvette Cooper.
"We will act to protect children; we will act to reduce smoking; we will act to save lives",
said Alan Milburn. We agree.
Perhaps it is time that I declared an interest. My interest is that I have children aged eight, 10 and 12. My 10 year-old in particular watches smokers with very close interest. He cannot quite square their activity with what he hears—and perhaps knows—of their potential fate. But ask him for the brand names of cigarettes, and, quick as a flash, he rattles off all the most highly promoted brands. He is the child that I caught heading upstairs with a lettuce leaf wrapped in a piece of coloured paper-his own version of a cigarette—and, of course, a box of matches.
It will be difficult enough to prevent his experimentation, even without the insidious effect of advertising. It is deeply embedded in all his favourite sports.
It is to protect Joe and children like him that this Bill is being reintroduced. As we have heard, this was the Government's own, carefully considered, Bill, which had gone through all its stages in the other place.
It was Joe himself who pointed out to me last night, when he saw and approved of what I was doing, that it was Christopher Columbus who provided the first account of what would become a global habit. The Indians, Columbus reported—Joe is doing explorers at the moment—strolled along with,
"a firebrand in the hand and herbs, to drink the smoke thereof'.
So what questions should we be asking of this global habit? It took a great deal of struggle in the 20th-century to prove the harm that tobacco caused, long after the companies knew that fact. In the end, Sir Richard Doll, of course, finally, categorically, emphatically put paid to their arguments. It is striking to me that not a single speaker today has denied this. That is a significant change. We have heard of the damage that smoking causes from many speakers today, including, very cogently, from the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Addington and Lord Rennard.
There is enough incentive to take up the habit. As the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, put it, simply seeking to be cool and grown-up is enough of an incentive to many children. Just think of Kevin and Perry. We also now know, from studies at the Maudsley hospital and elsewhere, that for some children it may literally take no more than a couple of cigarettes for them to become addicted. Children absolutely know, or believe they know—like, so sadly, John Diamond at that age believed and knew—that they will not be affected. Old age, illness and death has nothing to do with the young, does it? So do we do our best to protect children? We surely do.
1696
What arguments have been set against the overwhelming feeling in this Chamber today that the Bill should progress? The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, argued that this was an inappropriately wide and complex area for a Private Member's Bill. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has never been one to shy away from challenges. But he is assisted by the fact that this is the Government's own Bill, unamended by us, having coming from another place. We welcome the support: that we have received from the Government Benches, including that of the former Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in a wide-ranging and powerful speech.
Secondly, there is the argument that the advent of the Internet makes matters too complex. But that should be set against the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, who has much experience in this area. He said that we must make sure that Internet service providers play their part. We must not, as he put it, listen to their whingeing and whining.
Thirdly, there are issues coming down the track from Europe and from the tobacco companies. Does that mean that we should take no action yet? But I see those secondary school classes falling two at a time each week that we delay. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, stated cogently why voluntary agreements are not the route to go down. As he pointed out, the Commons Health Select Committee concluded:
"Voluntary agreements have served the industry well and the public badly".
Fourthly, we have heard that the measure is too draconian; that it is too interventionist; that it interferes too much with a legitimate commercial activity. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, were among those who made that case. But again see those 3,000 kids a year who will die if no action is taken. My noble friend Lord Rennard put it most effectively: how should we view this if it were air crash after air crash, day after day? Society must indeed balance rights and responsibilities, liberties and justice, as the Human Rights Act makes extremely clear.
I noted, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that yesterday the World Health Organisation called upon legislators around the world to take action against the advertising of tobacco and tobacco products in order to protect the health of the young and the old, smokers and non-smokers alike. Perhaps this may be the first Parliament to respond to that call.
The call comes ahead of talks between 191 countries meeting in Geneva later this month to negotiate global rules for tobacco control. As Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, the director-general of the World Health Organisation, put it,
"tobacco addiction is a communicated disease—communicated through advertising, promotion and sponsorship".
The WHO warns that tobacco companies are embarking on a massive global public relations bid to woo governments away from negotiating strong agreements in this area. A World Bank/WHO study is

1697
very clear that interventions such as comprehensive bans on advertising and price increases are what actually make a difference.
On a global scale, in 1999 the WHO estimated that tobacco killed 4 million people a year. I remember Sir Richard Peto pointing out to me in Brighton this year that I billion people will die from tobacco use in this century if no action is taken. It is a startling figure.
In the 19th century, it was public health measures such as improvements in sanitation that made the difference in terms of the length and quality of people's lives. In the 20th century, though less marked, antibiotics and the introduction of other treatments made a difference. If there was one public health measure that we could take in this century that would make a difference to people's lives, it would be to reduce smoking and the disease, death, despair and devastation caused by smoking. The Bill is one measure in the right direction.
I welcome the fact that we have support from all sides of the House as we seek to place this measure on the statute book where it belongs.
3.10 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is little more than seven months since your Lordships debated this Bill—or rather a Bill identical to this one—at the tail end of the previous Parliament. I dare say that most, if not all, of us expected that we would be asked by the Government to consider it afresh in the event of a Labour victory at the general election. How wrong we were! I do not think anyone could have predicted that when this measure came before us a second time, it would not be as a government Bill. Indeed, I still find it extraordinary, even knowing as I do how fierce is the competition between departments for legislative time, that this Bill should not have been regarded by Ministers as being of high enough priority to warrant an early slot in the parliamentary programme. It was, after all, a manifesto commitment in 1997 as well as 2001. By failing to bring the Bill back, the Government have sent out some peculiar messages about their attitude to tobacco and tobacco advertising. We suddenly find ourselves wondering whether they were really quite so convinced as they once seemed by the arguments in favour of an advertising ban—arguments that were so eloquently deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on 28th March.
I am sure that the Minister will say that the Government are every bit as convinced about these issues as they were previously, but, unfortunately, that is not the message conveyed by their actions. While we are about it, there are other mixed messages emanating from Whitehall at the moment. What government, serious about the health risks of smoking, would, within a few weeks of dropping this Bill, announce a weakening of the legal sanctions for possession of cannabis—a substance, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that when smoked is even more carcinogenic than tobacco? What sort of government, having decided to increase total health
1698
spending by many billions, would actually cut the antismoking budget that they announced only three years ago at the time of their White Paper? Those are decidedly odd messages to send out and those are the reasons why the Bill before us today is a huge embarrassment to the Government. One cannot get away from that.
So it is with that preamble that I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on obliging the Government to listen to their own words being read back at them and to put into practice what they preached to us all so very recently. My own attitude to the Bill is simple; I am willing to be convinced by the arguments and by the facts. I approach them with a genuinely open mind and I certainly do not seek to oppose the Bill. Having said that, and having listened to the debate, I have to say that, thus far at least, the arguments in favour of the Bill are not as robust or secure as they would need to be for us on these Benches to give it our wholehearted support, much as some of us might wish to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has succinctly explained the reasons why he is committed to a ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship. I am grateful to him for that. As I said on an earlier occasion, the motives behind this Bill are entirely honourable. Tobacco is a unique product. It is the only legally marketable product which, even when used as the manufacturer intends, carries a high risk of death. I am not sure that I can think of any other product that can be classified in that way. Smoking kills large numbers of people every year. It is directly responsible for a large amount of ill health which imposes a heavy burden on the economy and the public purse. Unlike some noble Lords, I am prepared to sacrifice a measure of personal liberty to bring about a reduction in those deaths and burdens.
Successive governments have implemented a range of policies designed to deter people from smoking, especially young people. The anti-smoking strategy adopted by the previous Conservative government has been rather derided in the debate today, but it represented a significant step-change in government action. It imposed much tighter restrictions on tobacco companies, including advertising constraints, albeit by means of voluntary arrangements.
The premise of the Bill is that those voluntary arrangements are not working sufficiently well. The take-up of cigarettes by young people, particularly by teenage girls, is rising. Why? The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, believes that advertising has been one of the major causes. We learn from the briefing material circulated by ASH that cigarette advertisements portraying smoking as an adult activity to be aspired to are exactly the kind of imagery that appeals to the young. In other words, says ASH, it is no good just removing tobacco advertisements from the vicinity of schools and directing tobacco marketing towards adult consumers, because that strategy in itself makes cigarettes attractive to young people. Therefore, says ASH, the only way to stem the

1699
recruitment of new young smokers is to ban tobacco advertising. The Health Select Committee in the other place accepted that view.
I do not in the least dismiss the arguments so well expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in her superb maiden speech, but it is by no means clear from the available evidence that advertising per se has a great deal I o do with the rise in teenage smoking. For example, the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys pointed to a number of other much more important factors. It reported that the characteristics most likely to be found among children who smoke compared with those who do not are: being of female gender—girls smoke more than boys; having brothers or sisters who smoke; having parents who smoke; living with a single parent; not intending to stay in full-time education after six years; and having relatively few negative views about smoking. The influence of advertising on smoking uptake was found not to be significant.
It is always possible—I do not know—that those smokers who took part in that survey failed to appreciate the extent to which advertising influenced their behaviour, but it is interesting that such an authoritative survey did not corroborate the key element of the hypothesis. We are left with the nagging feeling that the apparently self-evident causal relationship between advertising and teenage smoking is more an article of faith than a matter of strict proof.
I do not necessarily mind articles of faith, but I am not sure that they are the best possible basis for making new law. I prefer hard numerical evidence. But even by the Government's own admission, hard numerical evidence is difficult to come by. When the Bill was before us previously, I told the Minister that at least we should build in a sunset clause so that we could see, after a number of years, whether the Bill had achieved the desired effect of reducing smoking prevalence. "Oh no'', came the answer, "with the best will in the world, it would be impossible to determine the effect of an advertising ban as distinct from the effect of other influences, which may be positive or negative". If that is so, we need to question whether any of the previous studies into these matters has been able to give us a reliable idea of what tobacco advertising, or the absence of it, actually achieves.
Many of the major research studies have been referred to today. Like it or not, the arguments from research in favour of a ban are by no means all one way. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned the Smee report. It is an important piece of work, but it has notable weaknesses. There is rather too much, "On the one hand this, but on the other hand that", in it. In 1996, the KPMG review came to the unequivocal conclusion that tobacco advertising bans do nothing to reduce tobacco consumption. When all is said and done, we fall back on the argument of theory, which is that if tobacco advertising increases cigarette consumption, as people believe that it must, the absence of advertising must necessarily reduce consumption.
1700
One argument above all casts doubt on that theory. That argument was articulated clearly by my noble friend Lord Liverpool. If we decide to prevent tobacco companies competing with one another by means of advertising, we shall force them to compete in the only other way open to them—on price. Competition by price is reckoned to be a far more powerful lever on consumption than tobacco advertising. If the average price of tobacco falls, then, as sure as night follows day, consumption will rise.
I return to the subject of influences on young people. From our own experience, we know that the two big drivers on young people to take up smoking are peer pressure and the availability of cigarettes. As my noble friend Lord Oxfuird emphasised, the availability of cheap, smuggled cigarettes has been far and away the biggest influence on smoking prevalence over the past three or four years.
Until 1997, successive Chancellors judged the level of tobacco duty just about right. But then, in 1997, Gordon Brown over-cooked it. Before he knew what was happening, the Chancellor found that the Treasury's yield from tobacco duty was getting smaller. That was not because fewer people were smoking but because the risk/reward ratio from bootlegging had become irresistible to criminals. The illicit importation of smuggled cigarettes has become a mass epidemic. We are now in a situation where nearly a quarter of all cigarettes smoked in the UK are imported illicitly. That is the reason why smoking prevalence has been rising. It is not due to a change in the advertising code, because there has not been a change.
To their credit, if belatedly, the Government now seem to be taking the problem of smuggling seriously, and Customs and Excise recently had some success in intercepting large consignments of bootlegged cigarettes. But the point that concerns me in the context of the debate is this: even supposing that the authorities were to achieve total success in eliminating cigarette smuggling, the effect of the Bill could be exactly analogous to the Chancellor's over-egging of tobacco duty. We shall see competition by price. The premium brands of cigarettes will lose market share to much cheaper brands, legitimately imported from abroad, and total consumption of tobacco will rise.
I have yet to hear anyone refute that argument convincingly. It is the main reason why I fear that the Bill, for all its good intentions, may serve to bring about exactly the opposite result to the one for which it aims. At best, as I said on the previous occasion, it is little better than window-dressing.
Perhaps I may end by picking up one or two of the more important points of detail that have been raised in the debate. I should like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, whether he is satisfied that there will be no conflict between this Bill and the European tobacco advertising directive, currently in draft. I should like to hear, in advance of our Committee stage, what his answer is to the concerns that have been raised about the reversal of the burden of proof for those accused of publishing, printing or

1701
distributing a tobacco advertisement. I should like to hear whether he is open to argument on Clause 5(5), which appears to introduce legal uncertainty for Internet service providers. I should also like to hear whether he is satisfied that the provisions in Clause 11 relating to brand-sharing are fair and, if so, why.
Those are only some of the issues that we shall wish to pick up in later stages. For now, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has my sympathy for being the man in the firing line on a Bill that is not of his own drafting and, what is more, for doing so without the support of officials. He is a brave man. I should not describe him as "frail"; and if anyone is up to it, he certainly is. In any event, I am not sure that we should be too sympathetic towards him because, after all, he has taken on the task entirely of his own volition. Nevertheless, I wish the noble Lord well in his endeavours to enlighten us all both today and, as our debates proceed, over the weeks ahead.
3.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I begin by remarking on the quality of the speeches that have been made—they have been of a good order. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on what I am sure all noble Lords agree was a splendid maiden speech.
I join the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in expressing my best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, whom I congratulate on his initiative. His mastery of drafting is most commendable, and I found his arguments wholly persuasive.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, began his introductory remarks by referring to the view of the Royal College of Physicians. It stated that:
"Smoking is now recognised as the single largest avoidable cause of premature death and disability in Britain".
As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, pointed out, it is striking that not one Member of this House argued with that proposition.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that no mixed messages are emanating from the Government. As my noble friend Lady Jay pointed out, we laid down, right from the start of this Government, a strong commitment to reduce smoking in this country. That is why we commissioned the White Paper, Smoking Kills, and set targets to reduce smoking. That is why we are the only country in the world to have established a national network of comprehensive smoking cessation services. That is why we have launched a comprehensive tobacco education campaign and a helpline. And that is why the UK is taking a leading role in negotiations towards the World Health Organisation's framework convention on tobacco control.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Jay, who said that the Government's action has sent a strong message internationally. That is particularly the case with regard to the problems that she specified relating to the developing world.
1702
The Government are committed to implementing a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising and promotion. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, set out some of the evidence that leads us to believe that such a ban is likely to lead to a fall in consumption and to save lives. There is clear evidence of a link between tobacco consumption and advertising. Public health will benefit from the comprehensive ban that is proposed in the Bill.
It is accepted that quantification of the effects of such a ban is not an exact science but we were right, when the Bill was first debated in your Lordships' House, to estimate that the provisions, if enacted, would lead to a reduction of about 2.5 per cent in smoking prevalence and, in the longer term, to a similar fall in tobacco-related deaths, which would save some 3,000 lives a year. The World Bank study, which showed a potential 6.7 per cent reduction in smoking prevalence, is powerful evidence. I noted the noble Earl's scepticism about the Smee report, but that report concluded that the preponderance of positive results indicates that advertising has a positive effect on consumption.
Several noble Lords discussed government legislation. During the final Session of the previous Parliament we introduced the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. That completed all of its stages in another place and was given a Second Reading in your Lordships' House. As we know, that Bill ran out of time.
My party's 2001 manifesto contained a pledge to reintroduce the Bill but we were unable to include it in the Queen's Speech. Inevitably, governments need to take difficult decisions about what is contained in their legislative programme. However, the manifesto pledge is for the lifetime of the Parliament. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it clear that Ministers would monitor any developments in the current parliamentary Session to seek the earliest opportunity to introduce the Bill. The fact that the Bill replicates the words of the government Bill that was introduced during the previous Parliament means that we support its aims and principles, and we wish it well.
My noble friend Lady Gale and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, raised several important matters and discussed the effect on babies, infants and young people. I agree with that. What is striking in the statistics is the variation in smoking among different social groups in our country. That is why our smoking cessation services have proved so successful. It is important to recognise that they are very much focused on parts of the country where smoking cessation can have a large impact on those variations. I particularly mention health action zones where we have placed emphasis on developing smoking cessation services. I also say to my noble friend Lady Massey in relation to initiatives taken alongside legislation on tobacco advertising that I agree we have to be proactive in relation to young children.
This week I launched five films produced by teenagers about smoking which will be shown in November on Trouble TV, a youth channel, and will

1703
then be made available to schools and other outlets such as cinemas. We need to build on that because nothing is more effective than young people talking to one another as opposed to adults talking down to young people.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Gale about the issue of under-age smokers and the lack of convictions. She will know that the Government have encouraged proof of age cards. In Essex, this has been very successful. We are also encouraging local authorities towards better and more consistent enforcement.
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, is not in his place but he raised the issue of making tobacco illegal. If the Food Standards Agency and Medicines Control Agency had existed at the time of Sir Walter Raleigh, tobacco use might indeed now be illegal. But we are where we are. It would not be practical to make it illegal when over 10 million British adults still smoke. Most wish to give up but cannot because of the product's addictive qualities.
I would point out to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that after the change in the government proposal, possession of cannabis will still be a criminal offence, as is required by international law.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to himself as being a pariah of society as a continuing smoker. That is not the intention of the Government. The answer to smoking is not to demonise smokers, but to educate them and provide the service and support to help them give up, if they wish to avail themselves of such support.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Minister tempts me. Does he not realise that there is a difference between intention and effect?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course. But I do not believe there is anything in the action the Government have taken which would demonise smoking. Our emphasis has been on providing health information to people who wish to receive it. If we look at the last full year of smoking cessation services, 62,000 people quit after four weeks. That shows that can be an important route to take, alongside other legislative actions.
My noble friend, Lord Haskel, thought we should go much further. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, may wish to respond to that. He is correct. I am a Minister concerned with better regulation. The regulations in the Bill provide a balanced and proportionate approach. That surely is what business requires.
On voluntary agreements, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in respect of the statement by the three largest tobacco companies, that voluntarily adopting worldwide standards that make it clear that tobacco advertisements should not be aimed at youth or suggest that smoking enhances sporting, social, sexual or professional success will be ineffective. Apart from the fact, already mentioned by a number of noble Lords, that young people are attracted to advertising not meant for them, it is not realistic to try to set up
1704
Chinese walls for under and over-18s. For instance, it was suggested that tobacco companies only use billboards not less than 100 metres from a school. But the fact is that teenagers go further afield than 100 metres from a school. There was also the proposal only to sponsor events where adults are likely to comprise more than 75 per cent of the audience. At a large event the remaining 25 per cent could contain several thousand young people. When we analyse the voluntary options before us, we realise that they are simply not tenable.
The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, raised the issue of alcohol. Tobacco is always dangerous; alcohol is only dangerous if it is misused. There is a fundamental difference between the way in which we treat tobacco and the way in which we treat alcohol.
I noted with interest the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in relation to the Internet. First, I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Mitchell to ensure consistency of approach; that is absolutely right. I understand the concerns of the Internet service providers. I have met them. The Government would look sympathetically at amendments which might be seen to deal with specific problems they encounter.
In relation to the technical standards directive, I am advised that, since the Bill covers advertising rather than technical specifications relating to goods, it is not notifiable in its entirety. However, where the Bill would affect specifications applicable to goods, such as the brand-sharing provisions, the Bill provides for regulations to be made which could be notified under the technical standards directive following due consultation. But that would be without affecting the timing of the introduction of other measures.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the question of freedom of speech. I am satisfied that Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights provides a right to freedom of speech. But it goes on to provide that that right may be circumscribed for the protection of health. It is on that basis that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention.
Smuggling was raised on a number of occasions in the debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised it specifically. Of course there may be some link between levels of duty and smuggling, but it is very much at the white van man end, which accounts for a comparatively small part of the total smuggled market. A substantial proportion of the cigarettes smuggled into the UK come from parts of the world where duty is negligible. Bringing UK tobacco rates closer to those of other EU countries would have little effect on those smugglers. Indeed, many EU states, such as Italy and Spain, with relatively low taxes, suffer significant tobacco smuggling, indicating that even low tax rates do not protect against smuggling from countries where duty rates are even lower. Indeed, the Canadian experience was that tax reduction had little net effect on smuggling and for that reason the Canadians returned the tax rates to their original levels.

1705
I noted with interest the comments of my noble friend Lady Gibson as to the impact on employment. Our policy is to bring about a reduction in the consumption of tobacco products. One would expect that that could have a knock-on effect on the numbers employed in the industry.
It is worth making the point that there has been a long-term fall in employment in the industry from 40,000 in 1980 to under 10,000 in 1998. That is at least as much due to automation as it is to falling demand. However, I recognise the concerns of my noble friend about the impact on tobacco trade employees. I listened with a great deal of interest to her remarks about diversification, alternative employment and retraining. I have a great deal of sympathy with such concerns.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the issue of reversal of the burden of proof. I have no doubt that he will wish to respond to that. However, perhaps I may say to the noble Earl that I have discovered at least 10 examples from the period of the last Conservative government where a reversal of the burden of proof was used in legislation.
This is a comprehensive Bill. Indeed, as our newest Nobel Laureate for Medicine, Sir Paul Nurse, said in a recent letter to the Secretary of State:
"Smoking is responsible for one-third of all cancer deaths and contributes to the health inequalities between rich and poor in the United Kingdom. Banning tobacco advertising can only have a positive impact on public health and would assist the Government in meeting its cancer plan targets".
The Government support the aims of the Bill and trust that the House will give it a fair passage.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we have had an excellent debate. I particularly enjoyed seeing the Minister manfully trying to defend the Government in their completely indefensible failure to bring forward a tobacco advertising and sponsorship Bill in this parliamentary Session. However, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken today in support of the Bill. We have had some magnificent speeches. Perhaps I may mention the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which was of rare quality. She went ably through the evidence for the link between smoking and ill health and the devastating effects of smoking. I was reassured by the fact that she was clearly as moved by the contents of her own speech as the rest of us.
Many positive and powerful reasons have been put forward by noble Lords today in support of the Bill. Those are, principally, the serious health effects of smoking; the need to discourage people, especially young people, from starting to smoke; the need for an advertising ban to be part of a comprehensive strategy to tackle smoking; and, importantly, as put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, the absolute need to send a strong international message to other countries and to be part of that movement which will have an effect world-wide.
1706
I was interested to hear the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in response to the Bill. I felt the embers of a slightly warmer approach to the Bill than perhaps there were on Second Reading of the government Bill. However, a number of arguments were put forward by your Lordships, particularly on the Conservative Benches, in opposition to the Bill. I shall briefly go through some of them.
The noble Lords, Lord Naseby and Lord Monson, effectively declared that this was a matter of freedom. As a long time civil libertarian, I have examined my conscience over the Bill. If I were not so mild-mannered I might resent the raising of this issue. No advertiser has unfettered freedom of speech. The existence of the British codes of advertising and sales promotion, administered by the ASA, recognise that. Furthermore, it is clear that Article 10 of the convention permits restrictions and limitations on the right of freedom of expression which pursue a legitimate aim and are proportionate. The protection of health is one such aim. The ban is proportionate. It will save at least 3,000 lives per year. It is consistent with the United Kingdom's international obligations to legislate in this area. Indeed, your Lordships will recall that the Bill was certified in its previous form as compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights last time around. I would be happy to remit it to the Human Rights Committee of both Houses if we really felt that there was an issue about whether it is compatible. As regards the matter of choice and freedom, my noble friend Lord Rennard dealt adequately with that matter.
What would have been very interesting is the argument of the tobacco industry that advertising does not increase consumption or encourage people to take up smoking, but it was barely mentioned today by opponents. The noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Mitchell, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and my noble friend Lady Northover made their views clear on that matter. It is interesting that the industry seems to have withdrawn from the field an argument that, frankly, none of us thought had any credence at all. I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, hit the nail on the head when she described it as extraordinary, adding that if that was the case we should accuse the tobacco companies of being profligate with their shareholders' money; and, by the way, I liked the original as well.
We had some very powerful speeches on the effect of advertising on young people. There is no doubt in the minds of those who support the Bill that advertising and sponsorship is about adding aspiration and street credibility to smoking. I do not think that that can be an issue.
As to the assessment of the evidence, the Health Select Committee concluded that advertising agencies have connived in promoting tobacco consumption, have shamelessly exploited smoking as an aspirational pursuit in ways that inevitably make it more attractive to children and have attempted to use their creative talents to undermine government policy and evade regulation. That underlines the need for flexibility and shows in particular why Clause 7 of the Bill is

1707
important. As many of your Lordships have mentioned, young people are extraordinarily aware of advertising.
The argument that manufacturers believe it is wrong to ban the advertising of a legal product had a longer trot today. The argument is that tobacco is a legal product and therefore it should be legal to advertise it. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, objected to comparisons with guns and pharmaceuticals. Along with tobacco, they are products which can be manufactured and sold legally subject to regulation. But they are also subject to advertising restrictions and not just restriction or regulation, but bans. There are restrictions also on advertising prescription drugs. The matter is on all fours in that respect. Moreover, as the noble Earl., Lord Howe, pointed out, tobacco is a unique product. It is the only consumer product which kills the user when used according to the manufacturer's instructions; so it should have a unique regulatory framework.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Would the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, agree that there is no ban on advertising legally held guns?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am not aware whether or not there is a ban on advertising legally held guns. Your Lordships will be aware that the analogy was placed both on pharmaceuticals and guns. There is an absolute ban on advertising pharmaceuticals subject to prescription.
I move on to the thin end of the wedge argument, which is closely allied to the legal product argument. The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, said this was a dangerous precedent and that it would be alcohol next. Not as far as I am concerned. I should rephrase that: not as far as many members of my party are concerned. We know alcohol can be harmful when it is abused. Tobacco is always harmful. That is the distinction between the two.
I mention the brand-stretching or brandsharing argument because in a sense that may be a legal activity which is being restricted as part of this Bill. There is no intention to ban perfectly lawful corporate names, but brand-stretching is potentially one of the major loopholes in the marketing array available to tobacco manufacturers. The restrictions must be adequate to make sure that it is not used as a surrogate for advertising and sponsorship. If brands are distinct they are unlikely to be caught by the regulations on brandsharing, and the test is whether or not they promote a tobacco product. I am sure that we shall have many happy hours in Committee debating Clause 11. It is certainly not our intention to permit proper corporate advertising where the promotion of tobacco is not involved.
A further argument advanced by the manufacturers is that there is no evidence that a ban on advertising will be effective. That was put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. I do not believe that I need go into great detail because the
1708
noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, put forward an abundance of evidence on the effectiveness of advertising. I am surprised that after a full debate lasting four hours, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is not persuaded by the available evidence. The figures from Norway, Finland, New Zealand and France, to name but four countries, clearly demonstrate the case and also the fact that one of our leading firms of accountants did not get it right when it put together its report. The key is the breaking of the link between glamour and smoking for the young. I believe that the ban will be effective.
The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, said that voluntary agreements were the way forward and that there was no need to change the present system. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, in their comments about the tobacco industry documents revealed by the House of Commons Select Committee, gave the lie to that. The praying in aid of the WHO statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and my noble friend Lady Northover was crucial. Such voluntary marketing agreements are business as usual and the companies would be allowed to continue their relentless search for new customers. We did not hear too much said about the ending of tobacco sports sponsorship damaging sport. However, my noble friend Lord Addington clearly demonstrated that that was not the case.
I move on to a novel argument which we did not hear to any great extent during the previous canter around the course; that is, the European directive. The draft directive deals with cross-border matters and it does so precisely because of the legal action taken in the European Court of Justice. We have to deal with our own domestic situation. It is not a matter of the time being unripe. It is great to have available the excuse that something else is going through some other forum. But that does not apply in this case. The legislation contemplated here will be totally complementary to the European directive when it is available. I am afraid that that is the situation.
We had an interesting red herring. I mention it because so many noble Lords who spoke of the European directive also spoke about the criminal status of cannabis. I fail to see the connection. In that case we are talking about, the criminal status in terms of possession but in this case we are not talking about the possession of cigarettes being a criminal offence. However, it may be that the noble Lord, Lord. Haskel, has designs on that because he made a powerful case for a more draconian Bill than the one I am arguing for. I am afraid that the connection of moving tobacco to a class C drug escapes me, as does the argument about ecstasy.
Some interesting points were made about the Internet. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made his attitude and that of the Government perfectly plain. I appreciate what he said. We are in a fast moving situation as regards e-commerce. We have the e-commerce directive and we also have many other instruments; for instance, the Brussels and the Rome II conventions. All will have an impact on the content, jurisdiction and so forth of e-commerce. And of course

1709
our Internet service providers are concerned about the categories into which they fall; whether they are considered to be a pure channel or whether they are publishers in those circumstances. Further discussions may need to be held, but the Bill's objective is clear. We must ensure that in trying to solve some e-commerce issues we do not create further loopholes for tobacco companies.
We had a trailer of the burden of proof argument from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. In response to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I point out that about 10 Acts of Parliament were passed by the previous Conservative government that provide a clear precedent for the reversal of the burden of proof. They include the Food Safety Act 1990, the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Children Act 1989, the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act 1990 and the Clean Air Act 1993. That is a fair catalogue of Acts reversing the burden of proof.
In a criminal prosecution, the prosecution must establish the guilt of the individual beyond reasonable doubt. That is a high standard of proof. That obligation means not only proving all the ingredients of the offence but negativing any defence. In effect, the defendant need only raise an arguable case for one of the defences—that he did not know—and the burden of proving the facts at issue is cast on the prosecution. In practice, if the defence can raise any doubt, when the totality of the evidence is considered, the court will not convict, as the prosecution will not have discharged its burden of proving the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. The wording of the defences in Clause 5 follows that used frequently in other criminal legislation, and therefore does not reverse the burden of proof.
The pricing argument was another interesting excursion. It involves what I would call the Gordon Brown factor. I can blame the Chancellor for many things, but the level of tobacco smuggling and consumption of tobacco cannot be laid at his door. Indeed, many of us support the action that the Chancellor has taken on tobacco duty during the past few years. Economists would have great difficulty demonstrating that the demand for tobacco products is as elastic as some noble Lords argued. The argument that lowering the price of tobacco will inevitably increase demand or create new entrants is by no means proven. The power of the brand and of aspiration is far higher. No one denies that smuggling is a major issue and that firm action should be taken on it, but that is not an argument against the benefit of the Bill.
1710
I turn to the sunset clause argument, which is that the evidence is so unclear that we ought to experiment a little in the Bill and include a sunset clause of three years, five years, or whatever. I agree with the weight of the argument in today's debate, which is that the burden of proof lies squarely on the Bill's opponents, in view of the achievable public health benefits. The evidence is that those benefits will accrue after some years. One uses a sunset clause only in the most extreme circumstances when there is considerable doubt about the benefits of a Bill.
Moving swiftly on to tobacco workers, I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, had to say. Of course, there has been an enormous level of anxiety. However, it would be disingenuous of me to pretend that the aim of the Bill is not a reduction in the volume of tobacco products being produced in this country—certainly for domestic consumption and, I would say, for international consumption. The companies involved are rich and powerful and can afford to ensure that their workers are properly protected and led into other avenues of employment. Of course, I endorse the need for adequate government regional policy and proper economic regeneration in the areas affected. I am sure that that is supported by all noble Lords on these Benches.
The reasons for taking up smoking may be multifactoral but, contrary to what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, we know that we can do something about advertising. It may be that we cannot do much about other factors which lead to the young taking up smoking. As the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, said, this Bill is doing our bit. As my noble friend Lord Rennard said, this is something that we can do and today we must grasp it.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made a magnificent case for a total ban, but I do not believe that in the current circumstances that would be proportionate. This Bill is not a witch hunt of smokers, the thin end of the wedge or draconian. The end certainly justifies the means. This Bill is an important step towards a key public health goal: the reduction of tobacco consumption and the death and disease which result from it.
I pay tribute to the work of all those organisations which have campaigned for the Bill, particularly Action on Smoking and Health. I very much hope that all your Lordships present, if not already persuaded, will in future give their strong support to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at two minutes past four o'clock.

  Ladbroke Grove Disaster: Crown Prosecution Service Advice to British Transport Police
  Ladbroke Grove Disaster: Crown Prosecution Service Advice to British Transport Police
  Afghanistan: UK Government's Policies to Assist Women
  Afghanistan: UK Government's Policies to Assist Women
  British Sign Language
  British Sign Language
  Green Travel Plans: Government Departments and Agencies
  Green Travel Plans: Government Departments and Agencies
  Grain Imports and EU Agrimonetary Compensation
  Grain Imports and EU Agrimonetary Compensation
  Rural White Paper: Implementation Plan
  Rural White Paper: Implementation Plan
  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation
  Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation
  Broadband Services in Rural Areas
  Broadband Services in Rural Areas
  Foetal Pain Relief: Guidelines on Use in Abortions
  Foetal Pain Relief: Guidelines on Use in Abortions
  Reproductive Cloning: Proposed Ban
  Reproductive Cloning: Proposed Ban